World may not be warming, say scientists

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
Um, duh!

It's about time this world-wide hoax and scam be put to rest.

Already trillions have been wasted, and the standard of living for millions of people lowered because of this fake "emergency."

For decades the radical arm of the green movement has been looking for a way to turn back the clock on industrialized society and this is the closest they have come.

AGW and ACC is dead.

World may not be warming, say scientists

Jonathan Leake
The Sunday Times

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
You and the other deniers will be brought up on blashphemy charges during these years of inquisition.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,214
3,626
126
All the real scientists (such as me) have been saying this for years (including on this forum). Climate change happens. The evidence that people are causing it is sparse and often tainted.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

First rule of a Troll, never read what you post. LOL
 
Feb 9, 2010
33
0
0
We should be thankful that global Warming believers have this information. Now maybe they'll stop this silliness that is damaging our Nation.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

First rule of a Troll, never read what you post. LOL

Um, OF COURSE she would say that. The difference is, her whole reputation and job rides on this. She's the counter point the author offered up.

No Trolling here. We just see more evidence of the same old scam going on. Even though the polar ice is INCREASING... Yeah, whatever. They keep spouting the same old tired crap that has been proven wrong item by item.

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

Whoops!
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,424
7,341
136
You know, even if the climate isn't being warmed by our actions, there are other good things about changing our relationship with the environment. We do affect the environment we live in. Pollution can cause all sorts of problems, like acid rain, smog, tainted water, etc...

Moving away from oil also has other benefits, as we can say FU to the ME. Diversification of our transportation fuels also has the benefit of not being stuck if one source should suddenly dry up (either because of economic pissing contests or difficulty in procuring more).

And cleaner energies, like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear, give the benefit of not creating so much air and water pollution - why shit on the places we live?

But I'm sure we'll all ignore the practical and go back to driving our Canyoneros and doing whatever the hell we want, because we can do whatever the hell we want, because we pay for our resources and there are no externalities that aren't immediately apparent to our behavior. Yeehah!

Edit:
To clarify, I'm not saying we should bankrupt ourselves in the process, but we should look at what we're doing and invest in new technologies.
 
Last edited:
Feb 9, 2010
33
0
0
And cleaner energies, like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear, give the benefit of not creating so much air and water pollution - why shit on the places we live?

When are we going to get started on an effective Nuclear program? The Greenies always place nuclear in the conversation but when it comes time to act, they block it.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,424
7,341
136
When are we going to get started on an effective Nuclear program? The Greenies always place nuclear in the conversation but when it comes time to act, they block it.

I think you're horribly misleading. You cannot group all environmentalists together as there are differing groups within the umbrella. Some of them are for it, some are for it but fall into the NIMBY category, and some are just ignorant about nuclear power and block it from the start, and a few crazies just want us to go back to living in caves.

IIRC, The Obama Administration just agreed to guarantee a few loans to build some new nuclear reactors, with more loan guarantees in the works. There was just a thread on it here.

Unfortunately, there are large hurdles to overcome with nuclear programs because of the wide-spread ignorance and NIMBY mentality. Lots of people for it, as long as it isn't located near them.
 
Feb 9, 2010
33
0
0
You cannot group all environmentalists together as there are differing groups within the umbrella.

That's a fair statement.

I don't consider people interested in the preservation of our natural resources as "Greenies". I consider them as normal people who see nature as ours to use. The extremists are the ones who block nuclear.

The real beauty of plentiful nuclear power is the possibility to produce a real effective replacement for oil.

Hydrogen.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,783
2
76
I think you're horribly misleading. You cannot group all environmentalists together as there are differing groups within the umbrella. Some of them are for it, some are for it but fall into the NIMBY category, and some are just ignorant about nuclear power and block it from the start, and a few crazies just want us to go back to living in caves.

IIRC, The Obama Administration just agreed to guarantee a few loans to build some new nuclear reactors, with more loan guarantees in the works. There was just a thread on it here.

Unfortunately, there are large hurdles to overcome with nuclear programs because of the wide-spread ignorance and NIMBY mentality. Lots of people for it, as long as it isn't located near them.


If it means cheaper, more plentiful, cleaner, and a move away from coal then sign me up and I'll put one in my back yard.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”
That's odd...didn't Phil Jones recently admit that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. Please get your story straight.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,424
7,341
136
If it means cheaper, more plentiful, cleaner, and a move away from coal then sign me up and I'll put one in my back yard.

I wouldn't necessarily want it in my literal backyard, but I wouldn't mind living within a few miles of one.

I wish they opened up Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant back in the 80s instead of spending $6 billion only to give way to idiot protesters who don't understand nuclear power and associate it with accidents (slash idiotic reactor designs and giant mistakes) like Chernobyl. Long Island might not have been in such a predicament for electricity like it is now.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Um, OF COURSE she would say that. The difference is, her whole reputation and job rides on this. She's the counter point the author offered up.

No Trolling here. We just see more evidence of the same old scam going on. Even though the polar ice is INCREASING... Yeah, whatever. They keep spouting the same old tired crap that has been proven wrong item by item.

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

Whoops!

In Winter, Polar ice (Northern hemesphere, melts in the Southern)increases, now does it fail to break up like did in the 1850's for three years in a row? No! Well guess we have a warmer climate now in our time of a cool Sun.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
That's odd...didn't Phil Jones recently admit that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. Please get your story straight.
Yes, but any good liar knows that when caught in a lie, just lie harder. That's why some scientists' favorite response is "This is even WORSE than we predicted before!". My take on this as always is things are changing. We don't know how much of that change is influenced by us or how positive/negative that change is. The rest is ignorance at best, deceit at worst.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,850
34,793
136
That's a fair statement.

I don't consider people interested in the preservation of our natural resources as "Greenies". I consider them as normal people who see nature as ours to use. The extremists are the ones who block nuclear.

The real beauty of plentiful nuclear power is the possibility to produce a real effective replacement for oil.

Hydrogen.

Presently I think it would be better to use excess power production from the large nuke plants to make hydrogen that can be burned on demand in load following and peaker plants, effectively freeing the grid from all fossil fuels.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Maybe its time to say even if a slightly growing number of scientists are questioning the idea of the existence of man made global warming, THEY ARE NOT CONCLUDING THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. It simply means they await more evidence.

But to some extent we can expect this only temporary doubt, for the past number of years, we have been experiencing a very low point in the number of sunspots. And since the number of sunspots correlates in a highly positive manner with net solar output, a large increase in sunspots in the near future may answer the debate to the total dismay of those in the denier camp.

But for now, with the low sunspot count, the earth is now seemingly cooling.

BUT FOR HOW LONG?
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Maybe its time to say even if a slightly growing number of scientists are questioning the idea of the existence of man made global warming, THEY ARE NOT CONCLUDING THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. It simply means they await more evidence.

But to some extent we can expect this only temporary doubt, for the past number of years, we have been experiencing a very low point in the number of sunspots. And since the number of sunspots correlates in a highly positive manner with net solar output, a large increase in sunspots in the near future may answer the debate to the total dismay of those in the denier camp.

But for now, with the low sunspot count, the earth is now seemingly cooling.

BUT FOR HOW LONG?


/facepalm
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Maybe its time to say even if a slightly growing number of scientists are questioning the idea of the existence of man made global warming, THEY ARE NOT CONCLUDING THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. It simply means they await more evidence.

But to some extent we can expect this only temporary doubt, for the past number of years, we have been experiencing a very low point in the number of sunspots. And since the number of sunspots correlates in a highly positive manner with net solar output, a large increase in sunspots in the near future may answer the debate to the total dismay of those in the denier camp.

But for now, with the low sunspot count, the earth is now seemingly cooling.

BUT FOR HOW LONG?

I'm not sure who is worse. Bush and the Republicans and their imaginary terrorists or Gore and the Democrats and their imaginary science. Frankly I wish you'd all die and leave the rest of us alone.
 
Feb 9, 2010
33
0
0
Presently I think it would be better to use excess power production from the large nuke plants to make hydrogen that can be burned on demand in load following and peaker plants, effectively freeing the grid from all fossil fuels.

I like that.

The goal should be to build enough nuclear power generation capacity to cheaply produce hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a better long term solution to the portable fuel issue than natural gas.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
I'm not sure who is worse. Bush and the Republicans and their imaginary terrorists or Gore and the Democrats and their imaginary science. Frankly I wish you'd all die and leave the rest of us alone.

ok that was pretty funny
 

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
Maybe its time to say even if a slightly growing number of scientists are questioning the idea of the existence of man made global warming, THEY ARE NOT CONCLUDING THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. It simply means they await more evidence.

But to some extent we can expect this only temporary doubt, for the past number of years, we have been experiencing a very low point in the number of sunspots. And since the number of sunspots correlates in a highly positive manner with net solar output, a large increase in sunspots in the near future may answer the debate to the total dismay of those in the denier camp.

But for now, with the low sunspot count, the earth is now seemingly cooling.

BUT FOR HOW LONG?

On the other hand, if sun spots remain low and the earth continues to cool for years, does this not lend to the fact that the science claiming man made global warming was flwed to say the least and that those scientists whom claimed all along that solar activety controled our climate and temps. were in fact correct?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |