Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

reply to post by Zyril

Do you still think that we can continue to pollute the air we breath, and keep using cars and planes with high emissions of carbondioxide and so on? I mean, you may think that the global warming isn't because of man, but seriously, you don't really believe that we are NOT making a change with all the emissions coming from man?

I sympathize with your argument Zyril , I honestly do. You are absolutely correct in saying that we must stop polluting the atmosphere and the oceans and destroying our forests which are a natural sink for C02.

This thread is not about pollution and neither is the AGW scam for that matter.

If these people where serious they would be doing something about sulfur in the atmosphere or mercury or PCB's the list goes on.

What they are trying to do is to blame the whole shebam onto C02 which is a natural part of our atmosphere and is essential to life itself.

We don't individually pollute with these deadly toxins because we don't produce it as part of our life cycle, therefor we cannot be individually taxed for this pollution.

C02 on the other hand is something we can't help but emit because we eat and breath. Can't you see that we are being used as the fall guys so that a new carbon economy can be introduced at the expense of everyone.

Remember, the kind of human that makes the smallest carbon foot print is a dead one, and even that is debatable.

reply to post by kennyb72


Yes, I see it. And I think you mention some very good and important points.

In the end, people just have to open their eyes and think before deciding who to blindly trust.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by cushycrux

How can you post the fact that it's getting colder since 1995, while we have records after records in years average temperature on the globe?! How can you lie about things you can fell with your own body? Idiot!

Perhaps you would like to take the time to go and read my post and the link it refers to before you get so hot under the collar, It's no wonder you think it's getting warmer.

By the way the bee's have been dying out because of a parasite, NOT global warming!


[edit on 14-2-2010 by kennyb72]

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Nasa statistics of global temp for the past 100+ years in case anyone is interested in simple facts.

"Global warming" is a lie and always has been. The email links prove it in black and white.

Any data, NASA's or otherwise, that purports to support the global warming fallacy is intentionally skewed.

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by cushycrux

 

How can you post the fact that it's getting colder since 1995, while we have records after records in years average temperature on the globe?! How can you lie about things you can fell with your own body? Idiot!

Perhaps you would like to take the time to go and read my post and the link it refers to before you get so hot under the collar, It's no wonder you think it's getting warmer.

By the way the bee's have been dying out because of a parasite, NOT global warming!


[edit on 14-2-2010 by kennyb72]

Are you 100% sure?

www.scribd.com...

www.ctv.ca...

and about the climate?

Originally posted by kennyb72
Well this is quite a turn around, It seems odd that it is being reported by the MSM

The Daily Mail have been publishing BS articles on climate science for weeks. From David Rose and his magical Quick Quotes Quill to pure distortion of the NSDIC.

Here, it looks like the Daily Mail have taken a rather interesting angle on Phil Jones' words to the BBC.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Positive trend. That is, increasing temperatures since 1995. But doesn't quite reach statistical significance.

For the Daily Mail, this suddenly morphs into no global warming since 1995, lol. Statistics is all about extracting signal from noise - noisier data needs more sampling.

Or for deniers, the aim is to just simply obscure the signal with as much noise as possible.

reply to post by kennyb72


Right. Why is it that AGW proponents are so convinced that climate realists are:

1) Denying that the climate is getting warmer?

2) Wanting to pollute as much as they can?

3) Don't give toss about the environment?

NONE of the above are true. The only beef that climate realists have is with regard to the CAUSE of global warming/climate change.

I do not wish to be offensive but it seems to me that the people with a modicum of intelligence have sussed the scam and others are being blindly led by the nose.

The statement by one poster that NASAs graph shows the facts is just plainly derisible. NASA are no more capable of promulgating the truth than any other organisation that stands to benefit from AGW, or indeed any that stands to benefit from there not being AGW.

PS Melatonin: Auntie Beeb is a MAJOR AGW Supporter.

[edit on 14/2/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by cushycrux


I can't argue with you about the Electrosmog aspect of bee's dying out although I have read on a number of occasions that a mite is responsible for hive collapses.

It could well be that the excess of electromagnetic radiation is responsible for their demise. This still has nothing to to with AGW.

As you haven't read the Headline that this thread is about, briefly it states that one of the chief scientists that provide data to the IPCC admits that their has been no global warming since 1995.

reply to post by MMPI2


And the dinosaurs died in the Flood

Some people believe what they want to believe, because the truth hurts.

since UPCC made there choise to meassure the temps from year 1750 (wich was known as the Maunders period ore mini ice age)...its obious the temps could only rice from that age...
very smart imput of them...a real win win situation....

maunders period was from approx. 1700 till 1780... even the thames was frozen then up to the northsea....

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ressiv]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ressiv]

Originally posted by kennyb72

As you haven't read the Headline that this thread is about, briefly it states that one of the chief scientists that provide data to the IPCC admits that their has been no global warming since 1995.

And you you delve deeper than a tabloid headline you'll see he said nothing of the sort!

Do people really believe everything they read in the papers without question? Or only the bits they want to believe?


Edit: worth noting that this is the same newspaper that mislead the public over the MMR vacination causing autism - their allegations now proven wholly false.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by melatonin


Once they factor in the average global temperature of this winter in the northern hemisphere into their model,(even that word sounds synthetic doesn't it) I am sure the noise will become less chaotic in favor of stable temperatures.

reply to post by kennyb72


Know what? No more comments....



because it can not be what should not be? Have nice Sunday..

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by MMPI2

 

And the dinosaurs died in the Flood

Some people believe what they want to believe, because the truth hurts.

And now we mix facts with fairy tales as a retort?

As I said, climate realists do not deny GW, just the major part of AGW.

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by jdub297

 

You obviously haven't heard that the production of bio-fuels is the deliberate policy to reduce food supplies which in turn will bring about famine to achieve the goal of de-population.

That is one of my biggest concerns with the Bio-Fuel push. I don't care what the need may be You don't burn food. There are too many people just scraping by on a marginally subsistence existence to support waste on the scale that would be required.

Bio-fuel can be an option with HEMP as it provides more fuel per given acre of it's nearest rival: and that is per crop...in some areas you can harvest 3x a year.

I am a firm believer that our current methods of doing things are having an effect on the world, but that belief is simply that dumping billions of tons of toxins into the water and air cannot be a good idea.

Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by kennyb72

 

Know what? No more comments....

because it can not be what should not be? Have nice Sunday..

And this proves what?

reply to post by Essan


That's it for me, I never intended to get into an argument over this, I just posted a headline from a national newspaper. Go argue with them.

I'm off to bed........ that's if I can sleep, it's so bloody hot here. Oh ..... just remembered that's because I have the central heating on full bore

From your source:

the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

...colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.


Read more: dailymail

So. The planet's climate is changing, the weather everywhere is nuts, and weather extremes are becoming the norm.

Whatever the cause, our entire civilization - and our food supply - depends on a climate that's shifting dramatically and might change radically.

Acknowledgment and a bit of preparation would be wise, don't you think?

Originally posted by kennyb72
Once they factor in the average global temperature of this winter in the northern hemisphere into their model,(even that word sounds synthetic doesn't it) I am sure the noise will become less chaotic in favor of stable temperatures.

lol. You do know that this last January was the warmest for a long time?

Here’s the UAH lower tropospheric temperature anomaly map for January, 2010. As can be seen, Northern Hemispheric land, on a whole, is not as cold as many of us thought (click on image for larger version). Below-normal areas were restricted to parts of Russia and China, most of Europe, and the southeastern United States. Most of Canada and Greenland were well above normal.

...

Since January 2010 was the third-warmest month in the 32-year satellite record, it might be of interest to compare the above patterns with the warmest month of record, April, 1998, which was an El Nino year, too

www.drroyspencer.com...

Even the SST data is uber high for January. And the above is from Roy Spencer - a septic.

This coming year will likely be the warmest on record. Bottle of Red on it if you want.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by melatonin]