Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
deeen said:
PRTVR said:
This popped up on my wife's Facebook page from a friend in Canada,
Thanks for that, will be useful for people who have been brainwashed at school!
ks that is CC. Based on that, what value are future predictions? They've got it all wrong in the past!! You're not rolling your eye's Durbster, you have them firmly shut!!durbster said:
deeen said:
PRTVR said:
This popped up on my wife's Facebook page from a friend in Canada,
Thanks for that, will be useful for people who have been brainwashed at school!If evidence-based education was the order of the day, Gore's quackumentary would be off the menu and few pupils would leave school 'believing' that agw has even an ounce of credibility.
Given that gigo models are not evidence, being programmed with an assumption of the effect they are meant to demonstrate, and given that there's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data, also that ice/bears/weather isn't evidence either (no causality) then what evidence-based input would agw have exactly?
The approach atm is all about spin and smoke and mirrors and maybe and could and might and gigo models and ice/bears etc with no causality in sight. Pathetic really but sustained by political patronage and oodles of faith it goes on and on and on. There's a thought - it could go in RE lessons.
They say X, X is wrong, rinse and repeat N times.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong... kids would quickly get the message.
Given that gigo models are not evidence, being programmed with an assumption of the effect they are meant to demonstrate, and given that there's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data, also that ice/bears/weather isn't evidence either (no causality) then what evidence-based input would agw have exactly?
The approach atm is all about spin and smoke and mirrors and maybe and could and might and gigo models and ice/bears etc with no causality in sight. Pathetic really but sustained by political patronage and oodles of faith it goes on and on and on. There's a thought - it could go in RE lessons.
PRTVR said:
The problem is it is not evidence based, there is speculation in bucketfuls, probably, most likely and a lot more words that implies they know what they are talking about but do not, the cartoon shows when they step outside that train of thought and give predictions how wrong they are.
Which consitutes evidence of course (the cartoon).They say X, X is wrong, rinse and repeat N times.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong... kids would quickly get the message.
PRTVR said:
The problem is it is not evidence based, there is speculation in bucketfuls, probably, most likely and a lot more words that implies they know what they are talking about
But that speculation is almost exclusively on internet forums among people who don't really know much about the topic. How can you justify that as a basis to change the curriculum? You could make exactly the same point about what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11.PRTVR said:
...the cartoon shows when they step outside that train of thought and give predictions how wrong they are.
Except all the predictions in that cartoon are gross misrepresentations of the truth. 
turbobloke said:
If evidence-based education was the order of the day, Gore's quackumentary would be off the menu and few pupils would leave school 'believing' that agw has even an ounce of credibility.
That would be Gore's "quackumentary" that was put through the British legal system and deemed to be acceptable to show in schools (with a few conditions)?Evidence that has been tested by one of the most robust legal systems in the world is inadequate to PH. Tough crowd.
durbster said:
Except all the predictions in that cartoon are gross misrepresentations of the truth.
Ho Ho HoThe cartoon hardly goes far emough in reality, not that agw disciples are familiar with reality.
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
We had just 96 months to save world, said Prince Charles in 2011, only to be contradicting that other climate expert, Gordon Brown, who stated that we had fewer than 50 days to save the planet back in 2009, so what the farquhar are we all doing here given that the planet still needs saving by a carbon extravaganza beanfeast every year?!
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns. As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
Wadhams again: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020. Don't holf your breath.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
And finally Esther, yes finally Cyril - something for those who like to do a bit of slething in terms of attribution...
"A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
“By 2010 global temperatures will have increased by 5 degrees C”
“By 2010 there will be 50 million climate refugees in the world”
"New York City will be underwater by 2015"
This lot ^^ should definitely be on the school curriculum. The climate boondoggle would end within a generation.
turbobloke said:
Ho Ho Ho
The cartoon hardly goes far emough in reality, not that agw disciples are familiar with reality.
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
We had just 96 months to save world, said Prince Charles in 2011, only to be contradicting that other climate expert, Gordon Brown, who stated that we had fewer than 50 days to save the planet back in 2009, so what the farquhar are we all doing here given that the planet still needs saving by a carbon extravaganza beanfeast every year?!
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns. As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
Wadhams again: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020. Don't holf your breath.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
And finally Esther, yes finally Cyril - something for those who like to do a bit of slething in terms of attribution...
"A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
“By 2010 global temperatures will have increased by 5 degrees C”
“By 2010 there will be 50 million climate refugees in the world”
"New York City will be underwater by 2015"
This lot ^^ should definitely be on the school curriculum. The climate boondoggle would end within a generation.
Ah, this old tactic: throw out a mass of unsourced and mixed up declarations out so that nobody will be arsed to verify them. The cartoon hardly goes far emough in reality, not that agw disciples are familiar with reality.
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
We had just 96 months to save world, said Prince Charles in 2011, only to be contradicting that other climate expert, Gordon Brown, who stated that we had fewer than 50 days to save the planet back in 2009, so what the farquhar are we all doing here given that the planet still needs saving by a carbon extravaganza beanfeast every year?!
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns. As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
Wadhams again: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020. Don't holf your breath.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
And finally Esther, yes finally Cyril - something for those who like to do a bit of slething in terms of attribution...
"A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
“By 2010 global temperatures will have increased by 5 degrees C”
“By 2010 there will be 50 million climate refugees in the world”
"New York City will be underwater by 2015"
This lot ^^ should definitely be on the school curriculum. The climate boondoggle would end within a generation.
I see we've got statements from the well known scientist Prince Charles in there, a vague statement made in US congress, some predictions from the early days of the field, and all sorts of other assorted nonsense. Well done.
If anyone can be arsed looking for the needles of truth in the haystack, there are three simple questions:
Who made the statements and on what basis?
What was the declared level of confidence in the prediction?
Were they representative of the scientific understanding of the time?
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Ho Ho Ho
The cartoon hardly goes far emough in reality, not that agw disciples are familiar with reality.
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
We had just 96 months to save world, said Prince Charles in 2011, only to be contradicting that other climate expert, Gordon Brown, who stated that we had fewer than 50 days to save the planet back in 2009, so what the farquhar are we all doing here given that the planet still needs saving by a carbon extravaganza beanfeast every year?!
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns. As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
Wadhams again: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020. Don't holf your breath.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
And finally Esther, yes finally Cyril - something for those who like to do a bit of slething in terms of attribution...
"A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
“By 2010 global temperatures will have increased by 5 degrees C”
“By 2010 there will be 50 million climate refugees in the world”
"New York City will be underwater by 2015"
This lot ^^ should definitely be on the school curriculum. The climate boondoggle would end within a generation.
Ah, this old tactic: throw out a mass of unsourced and mixed up declarations out so that nobody will be arsed to verify them. The cartoon hardly goes far emough in reality, not that agw disciples are familiar with reality.
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
We had just 96 months to save world, said Prince Charles in 2011, only to be contradicting that other climate expert, Gordon Brown, who stated that we had fewer than 50 days to save the planet back in 2009, so what the farquhar are we all doing here given that the planet still needs saving by a carbon extravaganza beanfeast every year?!
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns. As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
Wadhams again: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020. Don't holf your breath.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
And finally Esther, yes finally Cyril - something for those who like to do a bit of slething in terms of attribution...
"A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
“By 2010 global temperatures will have increased by 5 degrees C”
“By 2010 there will be 50 million climate refugees in the world”
"New York City will be underwater by 2015"
This lot ^^ should definitely be on the school curriculum. The climate boondoggle would end within a generation.
I see we've got statements from the well known scientist Prince Charles in there, a vague statement made in US congress, some predictions from the early days of the field, and all sorts of other assorted nonsense. Well done.
If anyone can be arsed looking for the needles of truth in the haystack, there are three simple questions:
Who made the statements and on what basis?
What was the declared level of confidence in the prediction?
Were they representative of the scientific understanding of the time?
durbster said:
I see we've got statements from the well known scientist Prince Charles in there, a vague statement made in US congress, some predictions from the early days of the field, and all sorts of other assorted nonsense. Well done.
Can we have your opinion of that other scientist Al Gore.You know the one who's views are so correct they are forced on school children
Vanity projects to the fore.
This time Hull. I wonder if Presclot was some part of the motivation for it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-385470...
As part of Hull's special year of recognition someone decided that it would be a good idea to make a wind turbine blade into an Art Installation in the centre of the city. Well, they have got their shiny new Siemens factory making that sort of thing so why not eh?
Let's make it a huge variety used for off-shore devices. Something really impressive.
And so a significant transportation and engineering project is devised to enable the movement of this thing into the city centre thought narrow streets. 50 or so items of "street furniture" had to be removed to facilitate this activity. Does that seem a bit excessive?
Well, maybe not if it was for a whole year (but even then .. hmm.)
However this "Installation" is for just a few weeks. It ends on 18th March according to the report. So 10 weeks.
I wonder if the City Council has been sensible enough to leave the 50 items of street furniture in storage until the thing has been removed once more? Hopefully the stuff temporarily replacing the removed "furniture" and the safety tape around it will not make the city look too tatty for all the visitors who turn up to look at the turbine blade.
I wonder who is paying for all of this. Siemens?
This time Hull. I wonder if Presclot was some part of the motivation for it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-385470...
As part of Hull's special year of recognition someone decided that it would be a good idea to make a wind turbine blade into an Art Installation in the centre of the city. Well, they have got their shiny new Siemens factory making that sort of thing so why not eh?
Let's make it a huge variety used for off-shore devices. Something really impressive.
And so a significant transportation and engineering project is devised to enable the movement of this thing into the city centre thought narrow streets. 50 or so items of "street furniture" had to be removed to facilitate this activity. Does that seem a bit excessive?
Well, maybe not if it was for a whole year (but even then .. hmm.)
However this "Installation" is for just a few weeks. It ends on 18th March according to the report. So 10 weeks.
I wonder if the City Council has been sensible enough to leave the 50 items of street furniture in storage until the thing has been removed once more? Hopefully the stuff temporarily replacing the removed "furniture" and the safety tape around it will not make the city look too tatty for all the visitors who turn up to look at the turbine blade.
I wonder who is paying for all of this. Siemens?
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
The problem is it is not evidence based, there is speculation in bucketfuls, probably, most likely and a lot more words that implies they know what they are talking about
But that speculation is almost exclusively on internet forums among people who don't really know much about the topic. How can you justify that as a basis to change the curriculum? You could make exactly the same point about what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11.PRTVR said:
...the cartoon shows when they step outside that train of thought and give predictions how wrong they are.
Except all the predictions in that cartoon are gross misrepresentations of the truth. What are your thoughts on Judith Curry as mentioned on Friday, indicator hat the only way to maintain a post in climate research is to tow the line, do you think that makes for good science ?
I am at a loss when you are on about the WTC, terrorists flew planes Ito the tower's unless you believe different.
Are you saying that the cartoon is totally wrong ? Would you like to expand on this, my recollection appears different to yours.
Despite politically/gravy train motivated hype, The Pause is still going strong.
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/01/despite-ne...
"Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said there was no discernible warming since 2000 in its 2013 report."
That was clearly a red rag to Obama, Holdren and Karl - so we got less accurate and more heat-contaminated engine intakes swapped in for more accurate and less heat-contaminated buoys, and other desperate tomfoolery.
Fortunately for the planet Obama and Holdren will soon be gone, Trump found a tipping point.
See also the 'believer junk' debunk from Dr Whitehouse of GWPF.
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/01/despite-ne...
"Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said there was no discernible warming since 2000 in its 2013 report."
That was clearly a red rag to Obama, Holdren and Karl - so we got less accurate and more heat-contaminated engine intakes swapped in for more accurate and less heat-contaminated buoys, and other desperate tomfoolery.
Fortunately for the planet Obama and Holdren will soon be gone, Trump found a tipping point.
See also the 'believer junk' debunk from Dr Whitehouse of GWPF.
Two satellite datasets agree, The Pause lives on: ‘No warming for the last 18 years’
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.co...
I would add that not a lot of people know that, but many do
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.co...
I would add that not a lot of people know that, but many do
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
If evidence-based education was the order of the day, Gore's quackumentary would be off the menu and few pupils would leave school 'believing' that agw has even an ounce of credibility.
That would be Gore's "quackumentary" that was put through the British legal system and deemed to be acceptable to show in schools (with a few conditions)?Evidence that has been tested by one of the most robust legal systems in the world is inadequate to PH. Tough crowd.
Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?
More to the point, as an interpretation of the result that almost stands alongside Friends of the Earth's apparent claim that their fracking claims advert could not have been wrong because the case against them was "dropped".
Spinning the facts seems to be as endemic these days as politicians being economical with "the truth" and everyone attempting to get to the trough where the public purse is served up at feeding times. Our legal eagles often appear to be at the head of the queue at feeding time. Robust, used in a different sense, might be quite appropriate in that context.
robinessex said:
I have the BIG question. Did any of the predictions happen ? Answer, NO!!
You're absolutely right! They've got everything wrong!**apart from the predicted continuous warming, changes in plants, changes to animal migration patterns, melting of permafrost, melting of glaciers, polar ice, arctic amplification, ocean acidification, coral reef damage, sea-level rises... etc.
voyds9 said:
Can we have your opinion of that other scientist Al Gore.
You know the one who's views are so correct they are forced on school children
I've no interest or opinion in Al Gore but, as above, after being tested by British law, his documentary was deemed to be (mostly) correct according to the evidence available, and therefore can be shown in schools. You know the one who's views are so correct they are forced on school children
Do you have a better test that a topic must pass before being taught?
LongQ said:
What on earth is that comment about durbster?
Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?
No, nobody said the British legal system was infallible. What it is, is a system entirely based on around the strength of evidence, and scientific evidence where possible. It is as objective a way to test something as we have available. Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?
But we already know that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. There are some on here that could be sat three metres under the Atlantic and still manage to post a graph stating the sea-levels aren't changing.
You're a real conundrum LQ. Every single time you're presented with solid, subjective evidence that challenges your view, you start looking for some insanely complex reason why it - and not you - must be wrong. I don't know if there's a name for the exact opposite of Occam's razor, but that's what you're doing (when it suits...).
Edit: It's interesting you raised the FOTE thing because I thought the British legal system was in on the conspiracy?
durbster said:
robinessex said:
I have the BIG question. Did any of the predictions happen ? Answer, NO!!
You're absolutely right! They've got everything wrong!**apart from the predicted continuous warming, changes in plants, changes to animal migration patterns, melting of permafrost, melting of glaciers, polar ice, arctic amplification, ocean acidification, coral reef damage, sea-level rises... etc.
voyds9 said:
Can we have your opinion of that other scientist Al Gore.
You know the one who's views are so correct they are forced on school children
I've no interest or opinion in Al Gore but, as above, after being tested by British law, his documentary was deemed to be (mostly) correct according to the evidence available, and therefore can be shown in schools. You know the one who's views are so correct they are forced on school children
Do you have a better test that a topic must pass before being taught?
what changes in plants were predicted . you need to be specific here .
animal migration patterns, again you need to be specific. animal migration patterns have varied throughout history according to prevalent conditions of the time. if you are seriously suggesting you believe nature has been in some sort of stasis for thousands of years i have a second hand forth road bridge to sell you.
melting of permafrost. in order for biological matter to become perma frozen it had to have been warmer in the region the permafrost exists for the biological matter to grow in the first place. what if any , are the problems melting permafrost will cause ? think carefully, very carefully about mentioning methane as there has been some significant discoveries around this in recent times.
melting of glaciers , generally accepted as a good thing. the alternative where glaciers keep growing is usually referred to as an ice age. glaciers grow and retreat, it is what they do. at the moment some are retreating some are growing,we should be thankful that they are not all growing. i would doubt the most ardent warmist would be happy should we enter another ice age any time soon.
arctic ice levels vary in line with the atlantic multi decadal oscillation . if you have any doubt regarding this put your money where your mouth is . the true believers are willing to do this. i have a £1000 bet running on arctic sea ice levels out to 2022 as we speak.
arctic amplification was an unphysical nonsense when it was first mooted, my thoughts on the topic have not changed. i would appreciate it if you could explain to me how it is supposed to work though.
ocean acidification . the notion we can measure the ph of the oceans is about as fanciful as thinking we know their heat content to the nearest zettajoule. i would ask you to investigate just the diurnal ph level cycle to get even a small grasp of just how much bollocvks some marine biologists talk in relation to this subject.
coral reef damage . due to what ? again you need to be specific. i really am hoping you cite the great barrier reef. again much work has been done in this area in recent times so is suspect you do not know what you think you know on the subject.
sea level rise . like global temperatures a particular rate of change was forecast. apparently the rate of rise has not changed and remains around 3 mm per year. this is another area i have doubts about claimed measurement accuracy as physical tide guages used in some of the longest running datasets even show drops in some cases.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff