Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Are you trying to explain to me the paper that I posted and had already read and fully understood?

No, just reinforcing it was supporting the consensus of Climate Change - you’re not the only one reading the comments.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you for that, Hugh. The point I was making was that the original algorithm used would have produced a spike, whatever figures you put into the formula. It was either a deliberate manipulation or a crass mistake, but either way, it proves that no-one should stand back from questioning scientific conclusions. They are human to, and can deceive and they can make mistakes.

Hugh's quote doesn't support your point though. It talks about refinements based upon more extensive data available now that was not available then.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

By 'open minded' I meant that I don't accept everything at face value. And what I said was that there is not a proven link between carbon emissions and warming because the atmosphere absorbs so little carbon.

Incidentally, the reason scientists are not trying to have an open debate about this is because they are shouted down and threatened.

Anyway, it is clear you are just sucking it all in so you won't want to consider anything which is contrary to the establishment view, so 'nuff said.

'Sucking it all in", "establishment view" .. really?

Let me put it this way: if you are right, the case is not proven and so we should delay until the doubters are convinced, we would arrive at the point where it is too late. Is this a prudent strategy?

Maybe we should proceed on a basis of caution and assume the case for climate change has been provisionally proven and attempt to slow down or reverse the effects. What is the worst that can happen, a cleaner planet?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

By 'open minded' I meant that I don't accept everything at face value. And what I said was that there is not a proven link between carbon emissions and warming because the atmosphere absorbs so little carbon.

Incidentally, the reason scientists are not trying to have an open debate about this is because they are shouted down and threatened.

Anyway, it is clear you are just sucking it all in so you won't want to consider anything which is contrary to the establishment view, so 'nuff said.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------


But the question you have omitted relates to the amount of carbon emissions the atmosphere absorbs.

I am more concerned with the impact of that on our oceans, which is where most of it goes.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Hugh's quote doesn't support your point though. It talks about refinements based upon more extensive data available now that was not available then.

I was talking about the apparent deception of the scientists who produced the original hockey stick graph that
initially led me to question what we were being told.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

'Sucking it all in", "establishment view" .. really?

Let me put it this way: if you are right, the case is not proven and so we should delay until the doubters are convinced, we would arrive at the point where it is too late. Is this a prudent strategy?

Maybe we should proceed on a basis of caution and assume the case for climate change has been provisionally proven and attempt to slow down or reverse the effects. What is the worst that can happen, a cleaner planet?

Why so argumentative? I was simply challenging the view that carbon emissions were the cause of any global warming and whether temperatures were being adjusted to take into account legitimate matters or were being manipulated.

I don't recall saying we should not be doing anything and in fact I have welcomed any attempt to clean up the atmosphere.

[pip08456]

Clearly, from 2001 the UN IPCC and many policy makers took a hugely bold step in buying into Michael Mann’s re-writing of the historical temperature record. Mann had been a totally unknown scientist at that time and had only received his PhD in 1998 (and in somewhat odd circumstances). Was consensus climate science altered to fit a political agenda? Let’s examine the key issues so that readers may make a more informed judgement as to culpability.

https://principia-scientific.org/sho...climate-fraud/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by pip08456

https://principia-scientific.org/sho...climate-fraud/

They certainly did a hatchet job on him!!

Originally Posted by pip08456

https://principia-scientific.org/sho...climate-fraud/

The organisation who state that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and don’t believe vaccinations are a major contributor to health improvements.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...limate-change/

A recent article in Principia Scientific International summarizes 20 recent studies showing that solar activity correlates with long term trends in climate change. This is an excellent example of how misinformation campaigns meant to sow doubt and confusion work.

First, we need to consider the source. PSI is not a scientific organization or publication, it is a propaganda front group trying to appear as a scientific organization. This is very common – giving an organization a neutral sounding scientific name that does not reflect its true agenda.

PSI claims, completely contrary to the scientific consensus, that CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas. They actually argue that it causes no warming at all, and in fact may have a cooling effect on the environment. They further argue that wind turbines cause illness, a claim that is demonstrably false.

To put their scientific credibility into perspective, they also maintain that:

Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

They claim vaccines don’t even work and are just full of “toxins” – what we call, “The toxin gambit.”

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The organisation who state that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and don’t believe vaccinations are a major contributor to health improvements.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...limate-change/

Why does all this loony garbage originate from the same country?

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Climate Change denial organisation PSI are based and registered in the U.K.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Climate Change denial organisation PSI are based and registered in the U.K.

Lol ! We're getting more Americanised by the day...

Anti-vaccination is an increasing trend as well after it had died down a bit after the MMR stuff....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The organisation who state that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and don’t believe vaccinations are a major contributor to health improvements.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...limate-change/

Lol, why do people fall for such organisations' nonsense?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I was talking about the apparent deception of the scientists who produced the original hockey stick graph that
initially led me to question what we were being told.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------



Why so argumentative? I was simply challenging the view that carbon emissions were the cause of any global warming and whether temperatures were being adjusted to take into account legitimate matters or were being manipulated.

I don't recall saying we should not be doing anything and in fact I have welcomed any attempt to clean up the atmosphere.

But why are you challenging the scientific consensus? If it is not on the basis of "knowing you are right" then it must be on the basis of verified peer reviewed evidence, correct? If the latter then please share ..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

But why are you challenging the scientific consensus? If it is not on the basis of "knowing you are right" then it must be on the basis of verified peer reviewed evidence, correct? If the latter then please share ..

Even the 'scientific consensus' admits it cannot prove the link! Why can you not understand the difference between carbon emissions and the absorption of carbon into the atmosphere?