Basically, I need to trust that most of the source data is available on the internet based on your statement (as the raw data from HADCRUT3 is toast, there is no way to prove your claim), but the comments in the source code providing the homogenization of the climate temperature data is too vague (written by an actual UEA developer based on the incoherence of the previous and current source code being relied on to provide these infallible datasets.) Just because you don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate doesn't diminish the efforts of others to do so.
Explain to me how it is that Thatcher's toyboy Lawson would say in a recent debate on the issue in Canada
Quote:
There has been no further global warming this century."
What it actually shows is that eight out of the 10 warmest years since records began have occurred since 2001.
Quote:
Lawson, of course, was deploying that tired old trick of cherry-picking his starting date. If you begin the series at 1998, you might indeed conclude that temperatures have fallen, since 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded. But if you begin with 1997 or 1999 or any other year in the 20th century, you discover that there has been plenty of global warming this century. That wasn't the most sophisticated ruse, was it?
Sure take a pill ..... as long as you guarantee me you'll accept the numbers for what they are and the subsequent analysis of them ... for what they are ... and the criticism of then for what they are.
Or .... we could take the numbers as they stand and like Lawson spin them.
What's the story? The data is false orrrrrrrrrrrrrr the data is ok if I can spin it?
My point is .... let's start talking about the lies and the misinformation being thrown out there. Do the lies and obvious misinformation work both ways? WHO DO YOU TRUST? Sure they do. In the next few days watch out for Bagor's exclusive "Plimergate" and the cruel shredding of HOZ's universe.
Temperature is increasingly at the mercy of the developing world.
The reason is that most future carbon emissions will not come from the currently industrialized world, but from the emerging economies, especially China. And China, which currently emits 30% more CO2 per year than the U.S., has not promised to cut actual emissions. It and other developing nations have promised only to cut their carbon "intensity," a technical term meaning emissions per unit of GDP.
Sounds good, but here's the catch: With 10% annual growth in China's economy, a 4% cut in intensity is actually a 6% annual increase in emissions. India and other developing countries have similar CO2 growth.
Every 10% cut in the U.S. is negated by one year of China's growth. By 2040 China could be the most economically dominant nation on earth. The West might be able to cajole it, but won't be able to impose sanctions on China. Temperature will be at the mercy of the newly powerful economies.
Fascinating stuff from the US and EU leadership. We're going to cripple our economies eventhought our sacrifices and effort will be completely futile. Way to go.
And in other news, EU is going to feed African dictators and war lords with more "green money"
The leaders of Britain and France say EU leaders will commit more than euro2 billion ($3 billion) a year to help poorer parts of the world combat global warming.
The money is meant as short-term help for poor countries, particularly in Africa, to start cutting emissions and shoring up against the effects of global warming. The European money is a bid to bolster international climate talks in Copenhagen aiming at a longer-term pact.
That's fantastic but why don't you suggest an alternative? Disgusting that you would have a problem with a financial incentive to help starving people on the grounds that ooohhhh, it's all going to the warlords.
Why don't you acknowledge that sure ... some of the money might be corruptly misdirected but the aim of it is to "help" poorer nations, and prevent death by starvation?
Can I question your syandards? Do you have a problems with your government giving handouts to farmers with zero production in your country ruined by 10+ years of drought? Why not let them rot.
Or can I take the same stance and sit back and laugh at Australia's ongoing desertification and drop to 40% of it's original annual wheat output. But sure, if you can't support yourselves I'll sit back and laugh when you rely on China's imports. Or would that be considered racist too?
How's the hosepipe ban going down there? Or as they say ........ Got water? Any end to that drought. It's only been ..... remind me how many years now?
Quote:
The NSW Government has committed more than $500 million in assistance measures since the drought began in 2002 and will continue to support farmers until the drought breaks.
Just simply explain to me why you would have no issues with your government throwing money at farmers in your country to help them combat warming yet you have a huge problem with governments of other countries trying to help people in Africa do the same?
I used to be a huge reductionist with a primarily liberal understanding of human nature. Hobbes' Leviathan and Dawkins' Selfish Gene were my two texts of choice.
Then I began getting more back into the classical stuff I enjoyed earlier in academics, along with some of the more skeptical critics of modernity. I was reading Plato's Symposium one night, his great work on human love, and one of the dialogue's characters, can't remember who, says something along the lines of human beings seek immortality through their children.
Socrates dismisses this point, insisting that there must be more to human existence than this animal behaviour. The entire purpose of Dawkins' career was summed up and dismissed in less than a paragraph by Plato.
I was completely blown away after reading this dialogue. My entire worldview was shattered. Moderns don't know poop. Sure the technology and medicine is great, but we know a lot less about ourselves then we think we do.
Plimer then challenged Monbiot to a debate, Monbiot accepted, Plimer stood down.
2 fellas debated last night on ABC Australia. And Monbiot wasn't having any deflecting at all going so far as calling HOZ's poster boy and Mr x1000 CO2 denialist Plimer a liar, fabricator and a fraud in order to antagonise him into ............ answering a question.
Plimer being unable to back up his oft repeated "facts", squirming, deflecting and rambling for 24 minutes despite being accused by a mere journalist to his face of being a scientific liar and a fraud regarding his ridiculous claims in his book that he loves to repeat and repeat and repeat .... to anyone gullible enough to believe him.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Just saw the new Simpsons and I got reminded of this thread when Homer said to Lisa when it was snowing out: "Hey look Lisa. Looks like I'll be shoveling 10 feet of global warming tomorrow."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The flying golden turd monster of the sky it appears. His celestial emanations are proven by scientific consensus to be responsible for 115% of all carbon emissions in our atmosphere.
It's actually the Super Volcano building up in Yellowstone Park
I've been on the sidelines for this debate and I know I'm not an expert in any way on this debate. Just wondering if people much smarter than me on this topic have any comments on this series of videos. It was posted on the Herald and looked really balanced view on the topic
Anyways, I posted more for discussion, and not to start any sort of post war
Well according to James Delingpole scientists in Russia aren't very impressed with how the CRU "tricked" the data. In his blog he writes:
"The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set. One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period."
Now James Delingpole isn't a scientist. He is a reporter; part of the great unwashed who should just blindly follow our scientific leaders. But Jimmy does provide links to real Russian scientists. Apparently some Russian scientists aren't making their careers off of the global warming scare. Russian scientists tend to write and report in Russian. There's something Photon forgot to mention when he said the data was there on the Internet for anyone to see.
But Jimmy does provide links to real Russian scientists.
Is that so? Care to point them out?
He provides a link to an economic analysis.
And here's how much credibility Molingpole has. His spectator article on Plimer's book.
Quote:
Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.
Quote:
All this is scientific fact
Quote:
Reading Plimer’s Heaven And Earth is at once an enlightening and terrifying experience. Enlightening because, after 500 pages of heavily annotated prose (the fruit of five years’ research), you are left in no doubt that man’s contribution to the thing they now call ‘climate change’ was, is and probably always will be negligible.
You're starting to behave really strangely in this debate Calgaryborn. All of a sudden you're posting links to support your position from journalists that champion the book of a man that has spent a significant deal of his life fighting creationists in and out of court.
But Jimmy does provide links to real Russian scientists. Apparently some Russian scientists aren't making their careers off of the global warming scare. Russian scientists tend to write and report in Russian.
It'll be interesting to see the response to this. I do find it enlightening though that you seem to pick and choose which scientists you believe based solely on whether they support the position you want to take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
There's something Photon forgot to mention when he said the data was there on the Internet for anyone to see.
Why would I mention it? Even if this had come out before I had said the data was available it still wouldn't have been relevant to the question of availability.
I'll step you through it. Most of the data the CRU used is available on the Internet for anyone to see. If the CRU hand picked data before hand that has no bearing on the issue of the data they used being available, it has a bearing on the issue of the data they used being a good representation.
Make sense? Try to keep things straight, comments relevant to what was previously posted make a lot more sense than irrelevant ones.
Incidentally I'm not sure why you phrased this the way you did, "photon forgot to mention"...
See I'm not ideologically driven with respect to my position about AGW. I have the ability to change my mind when new evidence comes to light. In fact I've actually done this a number of times with respect to many things, including AGW.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The developing world has teamed up with global warming activists in Copenhagen at the world climate conference. Together they are planning the big con. Key to the con is to play on the eco-guilt of the developed world, using it to scam cash from "rich countries" and transferring it to the developing world, all in the name of "ending climate change."
A leaked draft version of the agreement on the table at the Copenhagen climate conference reveals plans for a massive transfer of wealth out of Canada. This transfer will come in the form of new taxes and the establishment of a new world government body for climate change housed in the World Bank.
