The worst attempt to justify Global Warming... Ever

Considering the British Broadcasting Corporation is required to offer unbiased reporting on all matters, they do seem to have an unhealthy appetite for 'global warming'. Have a look at this link...

Global warming lull down to China's coal growth

Now, it's becoming apparent that not only has the global warming trend paused for the last 10 years, but it is now dropping! Really? Actually? Jeez, and there I thought the record breaking 3 feet of snow in urban UK was a two-off fluke.

It seems to me that the Global Warming Jihadists will try anything to prove that it is real. Heavy snow in the UK two years running? -25 degrees? Well, Mister Taxpayer, it's the polar ice caps melting. Or the coal in China. Or the global thermohaline circulation being interrupted. Pick one. Just keep paying more taxes to offset your carbon footprint and we will all be fine.

But whatever you do, Mister Taxpayer, please don't mention the sun. If everybody finds out that our single source of heat is cooler, then figures out that makes the planet cooler, we're toast.

But the toasting would be caused by contrails from our polluted skies reflecting sunlight off ice particles in the stratosphere that were created by BRIC economies releasing fine particles following the western world having the tenacity to move manual labour production away from our home countries due to cheaper costs.


We must all flog ourselves, then tax ourselves for punishment!

The BBC is a properganda tool thats why everyone in the UK is force to pay for the service by law wether they want it or not. Its almost entirely run by the Old boys network / Old Etonians . Its also used by the goverment / MI6 to spy on other countries.

They have to do something, the cooling cycle has become to strong to dismiss.

Of course you have thousands of real scientists across the world who are deeply concerned we could be approaching another little ice age or full ice age because of the suns major slumber and volcanic activity increases potentially approaching super volcanic eruption timings.

No matter what happens, don't expect real science to ever be spoken by the MSM.

I don't care if it's snowing in August, it'll still be blamed on us.

Hmm who do I trust, a random person on a conspiracy website or the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences? Random person or well respected peer reviewed journal? Wow that's a toughy! Err... oh it's just too hard!

I have never believed that us humans are causing global warming ever since that university leaked emails showing how the scientists were hyping up global warming.

Also reports from ice core samples, clearly shows there have been global warming and cooling events in the past.

We were not around then so we blame dinosaurs ?
(tongue in cheek) Did they get taxed to death ?

The BBC is undoubtedly a propaganda tool for government, and each successive government comes along and whips it into its desired mould.

What really annoys me about the BBC is that it is ENTIRELY pro-global warming. There has been a very quiet propaganda shift to 'climate change', which covers more bases as it can take into account 'isolated pockets of cooling offsetting the overall warming trend'.

Yes, isolated pockets of cooling like The entire northern hemisphere.

We have to ask ourselves why this is being pushed so much. Why are the masses buying into this incredibly feeble argument? In 100 years the BRIC countries will all have carbon capture technologies, then all pollution will be eradicated. In the mean-time, the west will be covered in gigantic wind farms.

How does THAT affect the earth? You can't take energy from a system without paying a price.

Ups And Downs

According to the IPCC, global average temperatures have continued to rise, even since 1998.

Yet the study cited here reportedly claims otherwise (I wasn't able to find it on the PNAS website).

Which is correct?

Originally posted by Mike_A
Hmm who do I trust, a random person on a conspiracy website or the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences? Random person or well respected peer reviewed journal? Wow that's a toughy! Err... oh it's just too hard!

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Did they set out from the beginning looking into every fact objectively, or did they amend a current flawed model to make it fit their overall theory that global warming must be happening? It seems from the BBC article that they did the former, according to their mindset.

I have a question for you...

What grades did the scientists who carried out the study achieve in their Bachelors Degree, remembering you sometimes only require a 40-50% pass? How were they socially and scientifically conditioned at University? What would be the implications to their career if they set out with a mindset to disprove global warming, keeping in mind that their salary depends upon it?

Okay, that's 3 questions.

reply to post by Majic


And herein lies the issue. The pro-warming community is now at odds with itself. The earth has taken theory after theory and said 'i will do what I want'.

reply to post by Mike_A


Peer reviewed by others that just happen to have the same govt or similar funding..
Peer reviewed means allowing all to review not just those on your side of the fence.
AGW believers are like scientologists... Simple minded folk desperate for comfort and warmth and assurance that being a believer will afford them good sleep and cuddles from puppies..

reply to post by diddy1234


As far as I can read up on, we're currently in an inter-glacial period. Effectively, neither at the extremes of hot or cold. The last full-on ice age was, what, 15,000 years ago? That's like yesterday in earth terms. So really we are just continuing on the path we were on anyway.

To hottificationing. Which isn't ever goin to be a word.

reply to post by boyg2004


Well I don’t know the classification of his undergraduate degree but I know that he has a Phd from Pennsylvania so he must have produced some reputable original research; I think it’s unlikely someone achieving 40% would be in his position. Plus his research was published in a peer reviewed journal and scrutinised by a number of other highly qualified experts.

But I’m referring to the general consensus among the scientific community that supports global warming. I’m not against criticising the theory, if another expert in the field says this research is flawed then I’d listen but, and I mean no offense, I just think it unlikely that you are qualified to make that judgement.

Nor do I think the BBC is in that position either so taking an arbitrary contrary stance to this would be counterproductive.

reply to post by Buzzlighthead

Peer reviewed by others that just happen to have the same govt or similar funding..

Everyone in the scientific community depends on funding from pro global warming groups? Can you prove this?

Peer reviewed means allowing all to review not just those on your side of the fence.

No it means being reviewed by their peers, i.e. people with similar qualifications and experience. Not some bloke on the internet.

AGW believers are like scientologists... Simple minded folk desperate for comfort and warmth and assurance that being a believer will afford them good sleep and cuddles from puppies..

Again, says some bloke on the internet while most scientists disagree. I can’t be sure but I’d bet that you are not qualified to judge this research, I’m not either; given that I have a choice between believing the scientific consensus or you. I can’t see much reason to believe you.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by boyg2004

 

Well I don’t know the classification of his undergraduate degree but I know that he has a Phd from Pennsylvania so he must have produced some reputable original research; I think it’s unlikely someone achieving 40% would be in his position. Plus his research was published in a peer reviewed journal and scrutinised by a number of other highly qualified experts.

But I’m referring to the general consensus among the scientific community that supports global warming. I’m not against criticising the theory, if another expert in the field says this research is flawed then I’d listen but, and I mean no offense, I just think it unlikely that you are qualified to make that judgement.

Nor do I think the BBC is in that position either so taking an arbitrary contrary stance to this would be counterproductive.

Honestly, no offense taken at all.

I look with interest at your Occums Razor profile picture. So, in that mindset, let me put this to you...

What is most likely? That humans have pumped enough gasses and particulates into the atmosphere in an eight year period as described by the BBC that would have a significant enough effect to halt climate change entirely, or that the sun simply cooled down?

Or how about our arrogance in believing we can defeat the giga-Tera-PETA-watts of the suns output by building some wind farms to counteract it?

reply to post by boyg2004


I have to go to work. It's 14 degrees and raining in July. Go Scotland!!!

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
The BBC is a properganda tool thats why everyone in the UK is force to pay for the service by law wether they want it or not. Its almost entirely run by the Old boys network / Old Etonians . Its also used by the goverment / MI6 to spy on other countries.

edit on 5-7-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

We may be forced to pay for it.. But nobody forces us to watch it..

reply to post by Mike_A


In the late 70's and early 80's there were many peer reviewed papers that said the world was getting colder and we were about to go into an ice age. Either way it just goes to prove that so called experts can be wrong.

@Misterlondon - thats true , its unfortunate that so many people in this country regard it as an absolute authority on world affairs. It makes me mad when i see what news is reported here on ATS and then see that the BBC doesnt even give most of it a mention. It becomes totaly clear they they are following an agenda esspecialy when they fill up their reporting time with rediculous news items like 'following a ballet dancer' or 'The politics of pubic hair in sexualised modern society'

Quite an astonishing article. I remember that the BBC and most other MSM publishers took the view, that global temperature is still rising. Allegedly 2010 was among the 3 warmest years on record. Also there is more or less a crusade against coal power stations. Air pollution is one concern, but their contribution towards global warming is also always mentioned.

The rising trend of the temperature curve during the industrial revolution has been ascribed to the usage of fossil fuels, particularly coal. At that time there was no efficient method to filtrate the coal fumes. So sulphate aerosol particles must also have been released into the atmosphere. All this seem to contradict Kaufmanns findings.

I don't know and can't even guess in which direction the global temperature goes. But I am quite certain that is not so easy to make a reasonable estimation about the effect regional emissions might have on the average global temperature.

I don't mind it getting warmer.

In fact id like it warmer, I could hang my clothes out at night and be dry by the morning.

How convenient.

Also the warmer it gets the better MPG I get out of my Diesel 'green' car.

hmm, the BBC are not exactly un-biased in this case, from the daily express feb 2010:

link

Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted.

bbc pensions are invested in green 'technology'.

reply to post by boyg2004

What is most likely?

I don’t think it’s simple enough to say things like what is most likely. It’s not something that a person without specialist knowledge can intuit.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

In the late 70's and early 80's there were many peer reviewed papers that said the world was getting colder and we were about to go into an ice age. Either way it just goes to prove that so called experts can be wrong.

I don’t disagree, I just don’t think laypeople can declare them to be wrong.

We don’t use this line of reasoning in other fields, we don’t call a BBC report on the latest CERN findings propaganda or we don’t look at quantum physics and say “that’s not likely”.