Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

[Met Watch]

Trot out the debunked hockey stick if you really must. It simply shows how you are grasping at straws and FAKED science to match your fake agenda.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

The Rise and Fall of the Hockey Stick Graph

Eee but fortunately we have icecaps to melt yet. Aah but, if they do, we will warm up even faster. Oooh, but they are melting...

Yep as they have done for millenia... unfortunately they come back... like the Sahara wasn't always desert... things change... mountains rise... continents drift... get used to it... You may think you are powerful but it's in your head... like Canute.

I suggest you read these two bits discussing the hockey stick. The warming we have been experiencing is still unprecedented.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?
Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.

 

[Oxymoron]

I suggest you read these two bits discussing the hockey stick. The warming we have been experiencing is still unprecedented.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Sorry Plane but there is obvious manipulation of statistics going on and why should the latest lot be any more reliable than the original Hockey Stick travesty of the truth. Crying wolf is not a good policy. Statistics are regularly rigged and yes, they can be rigged the other way as well but the fact is, the climate change alarmists keep getting caught out rigging it their way. Why should anyone fall for further manipulation only to find out they have done it again but in a different way. Also there is a clear 'economic' and 'political' policy as evidenced by the quotes I posted earlier which makes it easy for people to skew data with virtual impunity, as evidenced.

It comes down to 'who to believe' and I know who I believe and it is not the falsifying data, climate alarmists with an agenda.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
[EX]When you apply a statistical manipulation to a set of data it is important to make sure that what you doing is not actually distorting the data so much that you are really just creating something new, spurious and false in the numbers. One way to do this is to take the statistical manipulation in question and apply it to several examples of random numbers (sometimes this is called a Red Noise test). To simplify, you use random numbers as input data, then apply the statistical technique you are testing to the random numbers then if the techniques are sound you should get a set of random numbers coming out the other end of the calculations. There should be no false shape imparted to the random noise by the statistical techniques themselves, if what you get out is random numbers then this would prove that the techniques you were testing were not adding anything artificial to the numbers. This is what McIntyre and McKitrick did using the techniques that Mann had used in the Hockey Stick paper. And the results were staggering. What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann's techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann's claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.

Here are some examples. Below are eight graphs. Seven were made by processing random numbers using Mann's techniques. The eighth is the actual Hockey Stick chart from Mann's paper. See if you can spot which is which.


McIntyre and McKitrick submitted a letter to Nature about the serious flaws they had uncovered in the methodology used in the Hockey Stick paper. After a long (8-month) reviewing process Nature notified them that they would not publish it. They concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give McIntyre and McKitrick, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers!

[/EX]

 

[Oxymoron]

This is how 'warming' is affecting the U.K but we call it 'weather' and are quite used to it being 'changeable'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cold-weather-crisis-hits-farmers-8562648.html

Britain will be forced to become a net importer of wheat for the first time in a decade this year, after the recent bitter weather devastated crops.

A disastrous 12-month cycle of poor weather has ruined harvests across the UK, costing farmers an estimated £500m, the chief economist of the National Farmers Union (NFU) warned.
The conditions mean Britain – traditionally a significant net exporter of wheat – will have to boost imports by more than a million tonnes.

 

[Cairenn]

Global CLIMATE change is the problem, Warming is ONLY one part of it.

The only reason why the UK and northern Europe are not frozen much of the year is the warm Gulf Stream, that has to pass by Greenland.

One story that some folks tried to use to promote global warming was the melting of ice across most of Greenland for a few days last summer. I recently heard that the cause of that was low clouds, that acted like a blanket and held the day time heating in. So clouds, something most think will reduce warming caused it in a local area.

Where there more clouds because of more warming? More questions.

Man is making the NORMAL climate change worse. We have millions of folks that will suffer negative effects from it. If we want to slow it down enough that we do not HAVE make radical shifts in our lifestyles, then we MUST start NOW to slow it.

 

[Oxymoron]

Global CLIMATE change is the problem, Warming is ONLY one part of it.

The only reason why the UK and northern Europe are not frozen much of the year is the warm Gulf Stream, that has to pass by Greenland.

One story that some folks tried to use to promote global warming was the melting of ice across most of Greenland for a few days last summer. I recently heard that the cause of that was low clouds, that acted like a blanket and held the day time heating in. So clouds, something most think will reduce warming caused it in a local area.

Where there more clouds because of more warming? More questions.

Man is making the NORMAL climate change worse. We have millions of folks that will suffer negative effects from it. If we want to slow it down enough that we do not HAVE make radical shifts in our lifestyles, then we MUST start NOW to slow it.

So what are you suggesting, specifically? I would like to see it like the Medieval Warm Period in the U.K with vineyards growing easily. If it happens it happens, if not then tough luck. The world has always had hot and cold climates, they just move around, a bit like land erosion in one place feeds land formation in another.

This 'Global Warming' that had to be rebranded as 'Climate Change' because the former was so patently ridiculous is all about politics and agenda and the figures are manipulated as needed.

 

[MikeC]

I am quite amazed that you can think that a site that uses random graphs to as part of a "proof" the hockey stick to be wrong while at the same time it complains about statistical manipulation.

You have also emphasized Nature not publishing McIntyre and McKitrick as if it were important - you seem to be suggesting by this that is was an attempt to silence this paper or some similar action. However Nature is a journal that seeks to make science accessible to all, and one of the roles of their subediting process is to:

edit the language for maximum clarity and precision for those in other disciplines. Special care is given to papers whose authors' native language is not English, and special attention is given to summary paragraphs.

- so it is entirely appropriate that an overly complicated article might not be published.

Also it seems that in fact they decided themselves not to have their shortened version published - instead having the full version published in another journal - Energy & Environment:

McIntyre drafted an article before they first met on 19 September 2003, and they then worked together intensively on an extensive re-write. McKitrick suggested submitting the paper to Nature, but after drafting a short version to fit the word limit they submitted the full paper to Energy & Environment on 2 October. After review, resubmission on 14 October and further corrections, the paper was published on the web on 27 October 2003, only three and a half weeks after its first submission.

- wiki article

The wiki article notes that Energy & Environment does not have a standard peer review, and one of the links notes that in fact the peer review that was done lasted no longer than 3 1/2 weeks (look for "Timing of M&M in E&E").

This suggests that Nature did not have 8 months to review the article - there is only 6 weeks or so between the start and end of this process - 19 September to 27 October 2003.

What's more since McIntyre only received the information from Mann in late April 2003 (as per wiki link above), and the paper was published in late October of that same year there was only 6 months available!

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Sorry Plane but there is obvious manipulation of statistics going on and why should the latest lot be any more reliable than the original Hockey Stick travesty of the truth. Crying wolf is not a good policy. Statistics are regularly rigged and yes, they can be rigged the other way as well but the fact is, the climate change alarmists keep getting caught out rigging it their way. Why should anyone fall for further manipulation only to find out they have done it again but in a different way. Also there is a clear 'economic' and 'political' policy as evidenced by the quotes I posted earlier which makes it easy for people to skew data with virtual impunity, as evidenced.

It comes down to 'who to believe' and I know who I believe and it is not the falsifying data, climate alarmists with an agenda.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
[EX]When you apply a statistical manipulation to a set of data it is important to make sure that what you doing is not actually distorting the data so much that you are really just creating something new, spurious and false in the numbers. One way to do this is to take the statistical manipulation in question and apply it to several examples of random numbers (sometimes this is called a Red Noise test). To simplify, you use random numbers as input data, then apply the statistical technique you are testing to the random numbers then if the techniques are sound you should get a set of random numbers coming out the other end of the calculations. There should be no false shape imparted to the random noise by the statistical techniques themselves, if what you get out is random numbers then this would prove that the techniques you were testing were not adding anything artificial to the numbers. This is what McIntyre and McKitrick did using the techniques that Mann had used in the Hockey Stick paper. And the results were staggering. What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann's techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann's claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.

Here are some examples. Below are eight graphs. Seven were made by processing random numbers using Mann's techniques. The eighth is the actual Hockey Stick chart from Mann's paper. See if you can spot which is which.


McIntyre and McKitrick submitted a letter to Nature about the serious flaws they had uncovered in the methodology used in the Hockey Stick paper. After a long (8-month) reviewing process Nature notified them that they would not publish it. They concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give McIntyre and McKitrick, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers!

[/EX]

Amazing. A site specifically set up to deny climate change misunderstands or willfully manipulates data confirmed by a number of independent sources. Who is 'a sceptical mind'? What are his/her credentials?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/419764.article

 

[Oxymoron]

Amazing. A site specifically set up to deny climate change misunderstands or willfully manipulates data confirmed by a number of independent sources. Who is 'a sceptical mind'? What are his/her credentials?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/419764.article

I don't think he needs 'credentials' to have a Website does he/she? Perhaps Mick would like to confirm this? He/she is simply citing and commenting on published works, as are you and I. In this instance it is Mann vs McIntyre and McKitrick.

This is my kind of logic... What doesn't make sense to you about it?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/409454.article

Is belief in global-warming science another example of the "madness of crowds"? That strange but powerful social phenomenon, first described by Charles Mackay in 1841, turns a widely shared prejudice into an irresistible "authority". Could it indeed represent the final triumph of irrationality? After all, how rational is it to pass laws banning one kind of light bulb (and insisting on their replacement by ones filled with poisonous mercury vapour) in order to "save electricity", while ploughing money into schemes to run cars on ... electricity? How rational is it to pay the Russians once for fossil fuels, and a second time for permission (via carbon credits) to burn them (see box page 36)? And how rational is it to suppose that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere take between 200 and 1,000 years to be felt, but that solutions can take effect almost instantaneously?

 

[Jazzy]

By "fossil fuel use" I am referring to the Industrial Revolution brought about by fossil coal-burning steam power generators used in factories throughout Europe since the early nineteenth century.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weat...1-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm

"how rational is it to pass laws banning one kind of light bulb (and insisting on their replacement by ones filled with poisonous mercury vapour) in order to "save electricity", while ploughing money into schemes to run cars on ... electricity? How rational is it to pay the Russians once for fossil fuels, and a second time for permission (via carbon credits) to burn them (see box page 36)? And how rational is it to suppose that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere take between 200 and 1,000 years to be felt, but that solutions can take effect almost instantaneously?"

Their high efficiency makes for huge savings in energy generated.

Electric propulsion localizes pollution. If localized, it can be cleaned. In the long-term it will dominate land use.

IMO it isn't sensible not to return production levies straight to the customer.

Not rational at all. The effects of CO2 on the atmosphere are instantaneous. The effects on the climate system take time because of the thermal mass of the oceans.

The effects of solutions on the atmosphere are also instantaneous. The effects on the climate system also take time because of the thermal mass of the oceans.

 

[Oxymoron]

View attachment 2191

Who says 'incomplete data' and 'complete data', YOU... ? Data is data and is never complete if new data is still coming in. Get with the programme.

Certainly your misleading link is not the commentator, as it merely links to an article about some alleged plagiarism. Duh?

As Jay Overpeck, an IPCC participant said in his email to Professor Deming, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period".

That is what is all about get rid of the Medieval Warm Period by any means.

But clarify this. The Climatologists have been alarming about Global Warming, since before the 70's.... What was the claim even based on if even in 1990, they still couldn't show a graph with higher temperature than the Medieval Warm People/Period.

 

[Oxymoron]

I am quite amazed that you can think that a site that uses random graphs to as part of a "proof" the hockey stick to be wrong while at the same time it complains about statistical manipulation.

LOL... They are demonstrating that the 'Hockey Stick' is produced by any old random data and is DESIGNED to show a hockey stick alarmist and false warming NO MATTER WHAT THE DATA IS.

 

[Mick West]

LOL... They are demonstrating that the 'Hockey Stick' is produced by any old random data and is DESIGNED to show a hockey stick alarmist and false warming NO MATTER WHAT THE DATA IS.

It's vastly more complex that that. But the bottom line is that there IS statistically significant warming, everyone agrees to this now, even the climate change deniers have stopped denying that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[13]​[14]​ The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[15]​ Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.

 

[lee h oswald]

Irrespective of tossers like Gore, Blair et al attempting to make a buck from a perceived 'opportunity' via carbon credit and all that nonsense, it does not change the reality of the situation. Likewise, the denialist and corporate shill, David Rose, has been at it for years; lying, cherry-picking and generally obfuscating the truth of the issue - and all with the help of the clueless, proto-fascist, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday 'newspapers'.

There is barely concealed panic among climatologists at the current state of inaction. We are heading for a 4-6 celcius, or 10F, rise over the next 50-60 years and it's already well under way. US, 2012 - severe drought over large areas, hottest on record, crop failures (and food price hikes) and unreplenishable aquifer draining going on right now; Australia - 2012 hottest on record, they had to adjust their weather charts (just four months ago) to add some more degrees at the hot end; of the wettest five years on record in the UK, four have taken place since 2000 - more crops affected, steeper food prices result, and on and on....
Sooner or later - and in timescale measured by the cosmic clock, very soon indeed - Mam Gaia is going to kick hom sap back to the mesolithic, which is just about where we belong, given our idiotic handling of this dire threat. There's going to be refugees by the billions, starvation, war and disease; the map will be re-drawn with a fair bit less dry land and a fair bit more ocean and all we have to do is nothing.

Watch this truly staggering video (only a few mins) to get a handle on the scale and speed of the problem, it's happening right now

​

Chancer profiteers like Gore and Blair - and every corrupted corporation (which is all of them), the ones most directly responsible for this state of affairs, need to be ignored and marginalized; they need to have the power taken from them and we need a real plan to do our best to mitigate what is coming up fast.

 

[Cairenn]

I thought it was corporations like 'big oil' , 'big coal, and the car companies that are 'funding' the climate change 'deniers'.

There is preponderance of evidence pointing to a rapid change in the global climate. More rapid than any of the historic ones. A reasoning person might ask, WHY ? What is different at this time? The answer is the MAN and his industries and farms.

 

[Jazzy]

Whoah there, boy. You're deputized.

 

[Jazzy]

Who says 'incomplete data' and 'complete data', YOU... ? Data is data and is never complete if new data is still coming in. Get with the programme.

Certainly your misleading link is not the commentator, as it merely links to an article about some alleged plagiarism. Duh?

As Jay Overpeck, an IPCC participant said in his email to Professor Deming, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period".

That is what is all about get rid of the Medieval Warm Period by any means.

But clarify this. The Climatologists have been alarming about Global Warming, since before the 70's.... What was the claim even based on if even in 1990, they still couldn't show a graph with higher temperature than the Medieval Warm People/Period.

Science always accepts new data.

Handsome is.

As it was a local effect, and not the world average.

On the certain understanding that rising atmospheric CO2 levels generated rising atmospheric temperatures.

 

[lee h oswald]

Logic

​

 

[Mick West]

Logic

​

Not wonderful logic though, assumes there must be a global depression if action is taken, but conveniently no depression if the action was needed. Really both of "yes" outcomes would be the same, and really there's no need for a global depression to be part of it.

The rest of the argument still holds though. And there's another aspect of it:

 

[lee h oswald]

Not wonderful logic though, assumes there must be a global depression if action is taken, but conveniently no depression if the action was needed. Really both of "yes" outcomes would be the same, and really there's no need for a global depression to be part of it.

He doesn't 'assume there must be', he qualifies very clearly just before filling in the first box

Now, for the purposes of contrast, let's take this to the extreme

he says. Then he says the same of the other worst case from the other column.

And anyway, it's a few years older now, the film - and the population is 7 billion; the US is a drenched-in-debt, dying war economy in the beginning of its own inexorable slide into ex-empire status. Desperately fighting proxy wars all over (and losing), and desperate to cling to what it can for as long as it can - not just by wasting US taxpayers' money, but by putting the whole country into a debt that can never be paid off. So permanent war and a few very rich people from it. Nice. That's the wonderful logic of the US* 'establishment'/gangsters-in-charge. Do you think they might stop murdering little brown people and stealing their stuff long enough to give this thing a thought?

* And the UK, no favour here.

Anyone who hasn't seen Prof Al Barlett's brilliant lecture on energy, population and arithmetic, which is kind of a tangent to this discussion, should do themselves a favour and watch

​

Seems an eloquent exposition of the psychopathy of capital and its keepers

 

[Mick West]

He doesn't 'assume there must be', he qualifies very clearly just before filling in the first box

Now, for the purposes of contrast, let's take this to the extreme

he says. Then he says the same of the other worst case from the other column.

Right, but he does not put "global depression" in the box below, instead he puts a smilie face. Since this is "what is the worst that could happen", then the boxes should be the same, but with an additional "phew!" in the bottom box.

 

[Joe]

Its all a hoax . Climate change , Agenda 21 , Common core , Gun ban treaty . Its all the New World order crap . ​

 

[Met Watch]

Its all a hoax . Climate change , Agenda 21 , Common core , Gun ban treaty . Its all the New World order crap . ​

Joe, please pick out a segment of that video that you want us to address. You're Gish Galloping, and I'm not going to write a full dissertation on the bunk found in that 30 minute video.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

I thought it was corporations like 'big oil' , 'big coal, and the car companies that are 'funding' the climate change 'deniers'.

There is preponderance of evidence pointing to a rapid change in the global climate. More rapid than any of the historic ones. A reasoning person might ask, WHY ? What is different at this time? The answer is the MAN and his industries and farms.

I provided links earlier in the thread that show who has been funding the denial.

 

[Oxymoron]

These poor bears What will happen to them? Will you adopt one?

Please, please think before you put on your central heating... how much more responsible it would be to simply cover up with blankets and a woolly hat.

Do you really need to drive to the supermarket? Why not catch a bus or better yet walk or cycle. With the money you save, you too can save a cute bear.

​

 

[Joe]

Joe, please pick out a segment of that video that you want us to address. You're Gish Galloping, and I'm not going to write a full dissertation on the bunk found in that 30 minute video.

You can skip through the video . This guy was a t Rio in 1992 it was all about using a crisis to push a agenda . Global warming , agenda 21 NWO . Debunk any of it you werent there he was . Maurice Strong is a criminal .

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

You can skip through the video . This guy was a t Rio in 1992 it was all about using a crisis to push a agenda . Global warming , agenda 21 NWO . Debunk any of it you werent there he was . Maurice Strong is a criminal .

Agenda 21? 'sigh'

 

[Joe]

Agenda 21? 'sigh'

??? Helsinki ? you say Agenda 21 is not happening and being implemented ? I see it everywhere .

 

[lee h oswald]

So on the one hand we have the crazy climatologists.....


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...and-present-danger-to-civilization/?mobile=nc


Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: "Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization"

In his new paper, he joins the climate hawks and the legion of uncharacteristically blunt scientists. He explains something that is really understood only by those who read the scientific literature and/or talk to the leading climatologists — we are in big, big trouble:

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

​

So, not only is Earth's temperature rising, but the rate of this change is accelerating. This means that our future may not be a steady, gradual change in the world's climate, but an abrupt and devastating deterioration from which we cannot recover.

One way that rapid climate change can occur is through positive feedback. In the physical sciences, positive feedback means that an event has an effect which, in turn, produces more of the initial event. The best way to understand this phenomenon as it relates to climate change is through some very plausible examples:

Higher global temperatures mean dryer forests in some areas, which means more forest fires, which means more CO2 and ash in the air, which raises global temperature, which means more forest fires, which means."¦
Higher global temperatures mean melting ice, which exposes darker areas (dirt, rock, water) that reflect less solar energy than ice, which means higher global temperatures, which means more melting ice, which means"¦
Higher global temperatures mean tundra permafrost melts, releasing CO2 and methane from rotted organic material, which means higher global temperature, which means more permafrost melting, which means."¦

Positive feedback increases the rate of change. Eventually a tipping point may be reached, after which it could be impossible to restore normal conditions.

Like any scientist who has endeavored to inform the public on this issue, he has run into the disinformation campaign:

Clearly mitigation is our best option, but so far most societies around the world, including the United States and the other largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have done little more than talk about the importance of mitigation. Many Americans do not even accept the reality of global warming. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars on a disinformation campaign to delude the public about the threat, and the campaign has been amazingly successful. (This effort is reminiscent of the tobacco industry's effort to convince Americans that smoking poses no serious health hazards.)​

They're all just imagining it.

Joe, did you know that the UN (back in the nineties) created a genetic hybrid between dog and chimpanzee? They spliced the genes in their secret laboratories and used the monkey for its opposable thumbs and the dogs for their thick coats and loyalty. Once they had it perfected they bred thousands of them and trained them to use blowtorches. With special harnesses to hold spare cannisters of gas and all the training complete, they began parachuting these teams of special forces chimpanmuttleys onto glaciers all around the world - where, guess what? Yes, they used their blowtorches to melt the glacial surfaces down to create the illusion of that other thing.
What the chimpanmuttley wasn't told, though, was that this was essentially a suicide mission - after they'd been dropped off (at night, obviously) there was no way of getting them out again without attracting too much attention. Many of them froze to death - even more drowned as a result of their inability to know when to stop with the blowtorching - there were never taught that. Shocking and cruel.

On the other hand, never mind all those climate science idiots - listen to a real expert:

Rush Limbaugh Touts 13-Year-Old Who 'Proved' Global Warming Is A Hoax

Another nutter playing 'spot the arctic ice'. [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]Ken Dunton, Professor of Marine Sciences at the University of Texas, Austin, talks about what the disappearing ice means for humans and animals in the "new" Arctic.
[/FONT][/FONT]


​




​

 

[Joe]

So on the one hand we have the crazy climatologists.....


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...and-present-danger-to-civilization/?mobile=nc


Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: "Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization"

In his new paper, he joins the climate hawks and the legion of uncharacteristically blunt scientists. He explains something that is really understood only by those who read the scientific literature and/or talk to the leading climatologists — we are in big, big trouble:

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

​

So, not only is Earth's temperature rising, but the rate of this change is accelerating. This means that our future may not be a steady, gradual change in the world's climate, but an abrupt and devastating deterioration from which we cannot recover.

One way that rapid climate change can occur is through positive feedback. In the physical sciences, positive feedback means that an event has an effect which, in turn, produces more of the initial event. The best way to understand this phenomenon as it relates to climate change is through some very plausible examples:

Higher global temperatures mean dryer forests in some areas, which means more forest fires, which means more CO2 and ash in the air, which raises global temperature, which means more forest fires, which means."¦
Higher global temperatures mean melting ice, which exposes darker areas (dirt, rock, water) that reflect less solar energy than ice, which means higher global temperatures, which means more melting ice, which means"¦
Higher global temperatures mean tundra permafrost melts, releasing CO2 and methane from rotted organic material, which means higher global temperature, which means more permafrost melting, which means."¦

Positive feedback increases the rate of change. Eventually a tipping point may be reached, after which it could be impossible to restore normal conditions.

Like any scientist who has endeavored to inform the public on this issue, he has run into the disinformation campaign:

Clearly mitigation is our best option, but so far most societies around the world, including the United States and the other largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have done little more than talk about the importance of mitigation. Many Americans do not even accept the reality of global warming. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars on a disinformation campaign to delude the public about the threat, and the campaign has been amazingly successful. (This effort is reminiscent of the tobacco industry's effort to convince Americans that smoking poses no serious health hazards.)​

They're all just imagining it.

Joe, did you know that the UN (back in the nineties) created a genetic hybrid between dog and chimpanzee? They spliced the genes in their secret laboratories and used the monkey for its opposable thumbs and the dogs for their thick coats and loyalty. Once they had it perfected they bred thousands of them and trained them to use blowtorches. With special harnesses to hold spare cannisters of gas and all the training complete, they began parachuting these teams of special forces chimpanmuttleys onto glaciers all around the world - where, guess what? Yes, they used their blowtorches to melt the glacial surfaces down to create the illusion of that other thing.
What the chimpanmuttley wasn't told, though, was that this was essentially a suicide mission - after they'd been dropped off (at night, obviously) there was no way of getting them out again without attracting too much attention. Many of them froze to death - even more drowned as a result of their inability to know when to stop with the blowtorching - there were never taught that. Shocking and cruel.

On the other hand, never mind all those climate science idiots - listen to a real expert:

Rush Limbaugh Touts 13-Year-Old Who 'Proved' Global Warming Is A Hoax

Another nutter playing 'spot the arctic ice'. Ken Dunton, Professor of Marine Sciences at the University of Texas, Austin, talks about what the disappearing ice means for humans and animals in the "new" Arctic.



​




​

Ill take Rush over anything Thinkprogress (Soros ) says . Global warming is a Conspiracy Hoax .

 

[Joe]

Your last Video the new arctic AUSTIN, Texas — A team of Arctic researchers led by the University of Texas Marine Science Institute's Ken Dunton will embark on a comprehensive study of the Hanna Shoal ecosystem in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast with a $5.6 million grant from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE).

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

??? Helsinki ? you say Agenda 21 is not happening and being implemented ? I see it everywhere .

What's my current location got to do with anything? Would my contributions to this site be any more valid if I was living in Ireland, GB, the US, South Africa, Holland or Catalonia?

I never said Agenda 21 is not happening. My sigh was because I'm growing tired of hearing that a harmless and voluntary set of ambitions is actually something to fear. Mick set up a thread specifically to deal with A21, and did (as usual) a commendable job of putting the facts forward.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Ill take Rush over anything Thinkprogress (Soros ) says . Global warming is a Conspiracy Hoax .

Ah, a Rush Limbaugh fan. It all makes sense now. I think I'll cease from this moment onward to engage you on any level.

*chimpanmuttleys* class!

 

[lee h oswald]

​

 

[Cairenn]

Quite frankly, taking Rush's opinion on science, makes as much sense as asking Charlie Sheen for advice on medical issues, or Dennis Rodman for advice on international diplomacy. Rush is an ENTERTAINER, that is all. I bet he laughs his head off at folks that believe the nonsense he puts out.

 

[Met Watch]

Quite frankly, taking Rush's opinion on science, makes as much sense as asking Charlie Sheen for advice on medical issues, or Dennis Rodman for advice on international diplomacy. Rush is an ENTERTAINER, that is all. I bet he laughs his head off at folks that believe the nonsense he puts out.

Nah, I just think he actually believes the crap he puts out and believes it because...well, heck, HE'S the one who said it, so it must be true!

 

[Joe]

What's my current location got to do with anything? Would my contributions to this site be any more valid if I was living in Ireland, GB, the US, South Africa, Holland or Catalonia?

I never said Agenda 21 is not happening. My sigh was because I'm growing tired of hearing that a harmless and voluntary set of ambitions is actually something to fear. Mick set up a thread specifically to deal with A21, and did (as usual) a commendable job of putting the facts forward.

European Socialist is what your country is . You people love being controlled by government probably drive crappy little cars and live in tiny little houses . Maybe Agenda 21 is harmless to your country that produces what ?? Keep your nanny state Ill keep my Freeedom .

 

[Joe]

Charlton Heston on Global Climate Change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY[/video]

 

[Joe]

Quite frankly, taking Rush's opinion on science, makes as much sense as asking Charlie Sheen for advice on medical issues, or Dennis Rodman for advice on international diplomacy. Rush is an ENTERTAINER, that is all. I bet he laughs his head off at folks that believe the nonsense he puts out.

or taking the advice of some scientist that getting payed to lie to push a Agenda ?????

 

[Cairenn]

Why do you think that scientists are being payed to 'push a lie"? Science is not a field that folks that desire a lot of money go into. Over all it is a poorly paid field, for the effort.

Do you have some evidence that they are being paid off? If not, then why are saying that they are?

 

[Joe]

Why do you think that scientists are being payed to 'push a lie"? Science is not a field that folks that desire a lot of money go into. Over all it is a poorly paid field, for the effort.

Do you have some evidence that they are being paid off? If not, then why are saying that they are?

I said some not all . Like politicians there are many that I believe are lying . Its called money and people will lie . They have to feed themselves as well dont they ?