Global Cooling for the next 20 years starts now!

[anonymous-user]

All the pro MMGW reports in the media and science journals are dismissed as government led propaganda but anything in the Daily Mail that supports members views in a car forum must be fact.

[turbobloke]

It's good, if not even better and maybe bestest to notice that those articles, published in whatever newsapaper(s), are also consitent with the data and with sound science.

Which is what intelligent people with secure judgement on any forum will support, and this one is no different.

If other articles are published in the same newspaper(s) that are less worthy of a positive view, then I would trust those same intelligent individuals to make a sound judgement there also.

You seem to be suggesting that everything in any given newspaper(s) coverage must be either totally correct or totally incorrect. That doesn't make sense, so you can't be suggesting it

[turbobloke]

Can't help but think there should be a fox on that.

[turbobloke]

Speaking of foxes on ice - and to clarify:

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00414/D...

[G_T]

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

You effectively have two choices.

1) Believe the majority of the experts in related fields. They say it is getting warmer.

2) Believe the minority of experts in related fields, and the majority of the public, and believe it is getting colder.

Personally, and although it is social suicide, I tend to go with the expert view. Afterall if 8/10 doctors say you have cancer would you refuse treatment on the premise of that you wanted to believe the other two? Although, before I'm slandered, I should point out that neither view point necessarily reflects the truth of the matter.

The decision is made easier for me as I know from experience that any "science" published by the Daily Mail is consistently tripe.

[Diderot]

G_T said:

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

You effectively have two choices.

1) Believe the majority of the experts in related fields. They say it is getting warmer.

2) Believe the minority of experts in related fields, and the majority of the public, and believe it is getting colder.

Personally, and although it is social suicide, I tend to go with the expert view. Afterall if 8/10 doctors say you have cancer would you refuse treatment on the premise of that you wanted to believe the other two? Although, before I'm slandered, I should point out that neither view point necessarily reflects the truth of the matter.

The decision is made easier for me as I know from experience that any "science" published by the Daily Mail is consistently tripe.

There is no truth in the matter since the last time I looked Humans didn't have the gene that enabled them to predict the future - even with the assistance of crystal balls or manipulated and fraudulent data.

What I simply cannot understand is that you seemingly choose to ignore the vast weight of evidence provided in the leaked emails from the so-called experts you seem to place great faith in, which proves that in order to foist the myth on the public they have had to sex up the data. What does that tell you G_T?

[turbobloke]

G_T said:

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

You effectively have two choices.

1) Believe the majority of the experts in related fields. They say it is getting warmer.

2) Believe the minority of experts in related fields, and the majority of the public, and believe it is getting colder.

Appeal to authority in there again - weak stuff.

And you missed one or two alternatives out, crucially.

3) Believe the data which says that it's getting colder, or shows a 'lack of warming' as IPCC's Trenberth put it, describing the lack of agw explanation for this as a 'travesty'.

4) be mindful of the fact that the surface data claiming warming is only able to do so after 'processing' since the raw data from many parts of the world (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) shows no warming for over 100 years.

5) No audit of station data and metadata is yet possible as CRU has still not released full station data, temperature data and associated metadata and may not be in a position to do so (there are conflicting accounts of whether data has been destroyed or not).

6) Even within the mythical warming scenario of surface data, there is an exaggeration of ~100% purely due to GDP and related LULC changes as found by McKitrick and Michaels (2007).

Quite some omissions there.

[G_T]

Diderot said:

G_T said:

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

You effectively have two choices.

1) Believe the majority of the experts in related fields. They say it is getting warmer.

2) Believe the minority of experts in related fields, and the majority of the public, and believe it is getting colder.

Personally, and although it is social suicide, I tend to go with the expert view. Afterall if 8/10 doctors say you have cancer would you refuse treatment on the premise of that you wanted to believe the other two? Although, before I'm slandered, I should point out that neither view point necessarily reflects the truth of the matter.

The decision is made easier for me as I know from experience that any "science" published by the Daily Mail is consistently tripe.

There is no truth in the matter since the last time I looked Humans didn't have the gene that enabled them to predict the future - even with the assistance of crystal balls or manipulated and fraudulent data.

What I simply cannot understand is that you seemingly choose to ignore the vast weight of evidence provided in the leaked emails from the so-called experts you seem to place great faith in, which proves that in order to foist the myth on the public they have had to sex up the data. What does that tell you G_T?

I agree we cannot know everything. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that we can't use what we do know to make general informed conclusions about what the future held. For example I foresaw the impending shooting down of my post based on experience didn't I?

Also the "vast array of evidence" you speak of is (1) Not proof of guilt until independant adjudication has deemed it to be and (2) only a small part of the evidence portfolio. So it is infact neither a proven point nor is it significant even if corruption is upheld. I'm afraid the scientific method simply is not so flimsy.

Even if you prematurely right off the CRU's findings the conclusion would remain the same.

[G_T]

turbobloke said:

G_T said:

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

You effectively have two choices.

1) Believe the majority of the experts in related fields. They say it is getting warmer.

2) Believe the minority of experts in related fields, and the majority of the public, and believe it is getting colder.

Appeal to authority in there again - weak stuff.

And you missed one or two alternatives out, crucially.

3) Believe the data which says that it's getting colder, or shows a 'lack of warming' as IPCC's Trenberth put it, describing the lack of agw explanation for this as a 'travesty'.

4) be mindful of the fact that the surface data claiming warming is only able to do so after 'processing' since the raw data from many parts of the world (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) shows no warming for over 100 years.

5) No audit of station data and metadata is yet possible as CRU has still not released full station data, temperature data and associated metadata and may not be in a position to do so (there are conflicting accounts of whether data has been destroyed or not).

6) Even within the mythical warming scenario of surface data, there is an exaggeration of ~100% purely due to GDP and related LULC changes as found by McKitrick and Michaels (2007).

Quite some omissions there.

Well I suspect the vast majority of people rely on authority to tell them how to interpret the data and science. Particularly given the complexities of climate. I also pointed out that this was the case TurboBloke so come on if you're going to criticise my point at least stick to the bits are genuinely under dispute. I know you're more than capable. My point was simply that if you are going to rely on authority to give you an answer you'd do well to at least go with the authority itself rather than rely on DailyMail pseudo-scientists.

In response to your specific points;

3) The IPCC sites the temperature as warming on numerous occasions. Or are you honestly implying that the IPCC has never said the global climate appears to be getting warmer?

4) Even if massively flawed, which I do not agree it is, the suface data does not collective tell the story of warming does it? Even the trophosphere, ocean temperatures and anthropolgical data all echo the same.

5) If the audit is not completed, or cannot be completed, then they are innocent until proven otherwise. However I would agree their data should be written off as a precautionary measure if they cannot prove their innocence in this instance. As you well know though tubs, as per point 4 their data only is a small part of the evidence portfolio. The CRU's data was supported by at least two other independent sources if memory serves.

6) I couldn't comment on the specific projections regarding temperature increase. I would imagine it is incredibly difficult to do so and such projections could easily be wildly inaccurate. However it does not negate the point that the majority of the informed believe the temperature will increase which contests the daily mail article and the title of this thread.

[F i F]

More party line stuff from G_T, a viewpoint to which he is, of course entitled.

But a rolling reminder of a question never addressed is

Nothing to hide, nothing should have required deletion to prevent release under FoIA? Or?

:rattles handcuffs:

[turbobloke]

G_T said:

turbobloke said:

G_T said:

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

You effectively have two choices.

1) Believe the majority of the experts in related fields. They say it is getting warmer.

2) Believe the minority of experts in related fields, and the majority of the public, and believe it is getting colder.

Appeal to authority in there again - weak stuff.

And you missed one or two alternatives out, crucially.

3) Believe the data which says that it's getting colder, or shows a 'lack of warming' as IPCC's Trenberth put it, describing the lack of agw explanation for this as a 'travesty'.

4) be mindful of the fact that the surface data claiming warming is only able to do so after 'processing' since the raw data from many parts of the world (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) shows no warming for over 100 years.

5) No audit of station data and metadata is yet possible as CRU has still not released full station data, temperature data and associated metadata and may not be in a position to do so (there are conflicting accounts of whether data has been destroyed or not).

6) Even within the mythical warming scenario of surface data, there is an exaggeration of ~100% purely due to GDP and related LULC changes as found by McKitrick and Michaels (2007).

Quite some omissions there.

Well I suspect the vast majority of people rely on authority to tell them how to interpret the data and science. Particularly given the complexities of climate. I also pointed out that this was the case TurboBloke so come on if you're going to criticise my point at least stick to the bits are genuinely under dispute.

I did exactly that.

Also, people following what they see / perceive as 'authority' is an essential part of the problem. As I also indicated.

[Buzz word]

subwayandoreos said:

WTF?
global warming
global cooling
scientists, if your so clever and know everything.
MAKE YOUR F*****G MIND UP IF IM GOING TO FREEZE OR BURN TO DEATH!

One thing is for sure, you will be taxed to death.

[G_T]

F i F said:

More party line stuff from G_T, a viewpoint to which he is, of course entitled.

But a rolling reminder of a question never addressed is

Nothing to hide, nothing should have required deletion to prevent release under FoIA? Or?

:rattles handcuffs:

You keep asking that question and I, and to the best of my knowledge all the MMGW theorists here, give the same answer.

If any corruption is proven, they should be punished to the full extent of the law and their work descredited. But even if this is the case it does no less than make a small dent in the case for global warming, I daresay it would require no less than a quick change to the reference list in the IPCC report.

I totally agree the whole thing needs a good going over. I also, unlike some on my side of the fence, believe the emails are highly suspect. But rightly or wrongly so we still need proof.

[F i F]

G_T said:

Well I suspect the vast majority of people rely on authority to tell them how to interpret the data and science.

Well even the people notionally in authority rely on others to tell them how to interpret.

Haven't you noticed how even Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband now prefaces every statement with "I'm not a climate scientist I just act on the advice"

Which is political spin for, "If it all goes tits up, my arse is covered, and I will drop the advisers in the soup pronto."

So my advice is to be be careful, and stick to proveable facts.

And the fact is...

[Tangent Police]

Regardless of whether it's the meds spouting st (as they often do) or the climate chaps, there are 2 things to look at. Data and Methodology.

This tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the results. Any analysis of the above in the correct way will concentrate on the above and avoid any fallacies of argument.

Listening to the findings of medical research often gets me shouting at the paper or the telly. "Vegetarian diets reduce the chances of prostate cancer by 78.7654%" HOW THE fk DID YOU CONSTRUCT A TEST FOR THAT AND RULE OUT EXTRANEOUS FACTORS???? GRRRRRRR!

Answer, they didn't and in lots of cases, despite the superduper credibility of the experts, their science is basically st.

The bottom line is with AGW, a lot of people thought the world was going to freeze and then somewhere along the line decided it was going to get hotter. So they got some grants and then started working on a model. It didn't work and some of them went off to study all sorts of different factors of this hugely complex phenomena, in order to verify their hypothesis. (The world is getting hotter due to humans). So, the models don't work, so some of them fudge their data and ignore other data (which even Y7 kids know is naughty) and still their hypotheis isn't proven. So, we have various media campaigns and people investing a lot of money, because THE THEORY IS RIGHT, WE ARE SO SURE, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE DATA TO SHOW.

Unlike medical science, we aren't looking for patterns in a few people (say hundreds), we're looking at masses and masses of data in a hugely complicated system. This is virtually imposssible to predict what will happen. However, what should be directly visible is a human signal in global temperature data.

Why are we not concerned about the lack of this signal?
Why was the solar influence ignored to the extent that it has been?

They are looking for something that appears to be so insignificant, it's hiding. Clearly, after such a monumental assault on the atmosphere, we should see this loud and clear.

Instead, we have these people fudging their hypothesis to validate their paying processes.

It most certainly isn't worth changing the world for.

Perhaps it might be an idea to focus on other forms of environmental protection, rather than a problem that appears not to exist. I wonder if other conservation matters have suffered at the hands of this "religion".

Anyone with half a decent education in the processes of science can see that these people are acting in a very odd manner and the rhetoric we hear on the TV is not correlated to reality.

However, the best case scenario is that sea levels will rise by 76.765865cm by 2050 and we need to act now, get on with the job, etc.

Don't worry, as I eat beetroot twice a week, I am likely to develop cancer of the nipples in the next 3 years.... the medics say so.

[F i F]

Guam said:

Actually Tangent there is research that shows if you chop your testicles off you can reduce the swelling of a swollen Prostrate and thus reduce your risk of cancer, as all men will probably have an enlarged prostate if they live long enough how many of us are lining up to become eunochs

Cheers

Thought that operation was proposed by H Harmann as part of the Nu Labour response to Call me Dave's promise to recognise the state of marriage.

[Tangent Police]

Guam said:

Actually Tangent there is research that shows if you chop your testicles off you can reduce the swelling of a swollen Prostrate and thus reduce your risk of cancer, as all men will probably have an enlarged prostate if they live long enough how many of us are lining up to become eunochs


Cheers

I thought regular and furious wking kept prostate cancer at bay.

There is more logic in that than cutting your nads off. Perhaps the survey the meds took involved the 3 people that cut their nads off.

Sample size is everything.

[kerplunk]

hairykrishna said:

deeps said:

hairykrishna said:

We should have a bet. I'd be willing to wager a tenner that 2010 has a higher average global temperature than 2009. Possibly we could 'double or nothing' at the end of the year. I say UAH satellite data should be the guide.

What do you base your confidence on Hairy? Current El Nino? But I'll accept the tenner bet with the condition of a double double or quits for 2011, so if I lose 2010 but win 2011 you owe me a tenner. If you win 2010 and 2011 I owe you 30. Ok?

Sounds good to me. I'll bookmark this thread and we can revive it in a year!

ooh a bet! january off to a flier looking very warm...

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh...

[croyde]

Tangent Police said:

I thought regular and furious wking kept prostate cancer at bay.

There is more logic in that than cutting your nads off. Perhaps the survey the meds took involved the 3 people that cut their nads off.

Sample size is everything.

Thanks

Best excuse to keep choking the chicken, I've heard in years.

[Tangent Police]

kerplunk said:

hairykrishna said:

deeps said:

hairykrishna said:

We should have a bet. I'd be willing to wager a tenner that 2010 has a higher average global temperature than 2009. Possibly we could 'double or nothing' at the end of the year. I say UAH satellite data should be the guide.

What do you base your confidence on Hairy? Current El Nino? But I'll accept the tenner bet with the condition of a double double or quits for 2011, so if I lose 2010 but win 2011 you owe me a tenner. If you win 2010 and 2011 I owe you 30. Ok?

Sounds good to me. I'll bookmark this thread and we can revive it in a year!

ooh a bet! january off to a flier looking very warm...

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh...

So what? This is fk all significance or relevance to ground temps...