The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Arguing against the irrational > Comments

Arguing against the irrational : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 21/1/2010

The vast majority of people, including every national government in the world, accepts the scientific explanation for global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
To quote Bob Dylan in Forever Young

'The winds of change are chill'

Hah now how prophetic was that and I bet he knew a thing or too about climatic changes!
Posted by keith, Saturday, 23 January 2010 4:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Part 1]
To ‘Agnostic’ and others if opposition to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is evidence of a closed mind; then so be it. Mercifully it is not yet a crime to question the veracity of the IPCC.

Some observations from JR Dunn -American Thinker. Nov 29, 2009
1. A “glitch” in the NASA /GISS team lead by James Hansen has caused them to admit, that Steve McIntyre was correct, by a whisker the year 1934 was warmer then 1998.

2. Arctic ice melts and reforms regularly.

3. Polar bear numbers are increasing over last 40 years (estimates from 17-19,000 to the current number of 22-27,000).

4. What happened to the infamous Hocket stick Graph?

5. What about data manipulation as stated by Prof Phil Jones? [climategate]

6. What about denying data to other workers as Hansen, Jones etc have done from time to time?

7. What think you of the ethics in applying pressure to journal editors not to print articles critical of AGW? [climategate].

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…

Vincent Grey – [The Global Warming Scam April 2008- Lavoisier site].

Grey argues the impossibility of measuring the average temperature of the earth. There is no exact meaning according to Grey of Surface Air Temperature (SAT). Stevenson screens are placed about 5ft off the ground, there location is haphazard. Over time locations move, change or retain their names, may be surrounded by structures which cause a “heat island” and so on. Nor are recordings made according to a rigid protocol.

The number or weather stations world wide peaked in the Northern Hemisphere from about 6000 in 1950 to around 2500 in the year 2000. The Southern Hemisphere numbers follow the same trend, but are even fewer.

I suggest this is due to the superior accuracy of satellite measurements and radio balloons. This means we have at our disposal only about 30 years of reliable data- too small a time window to draw valid conclusions. IPCC bases its claims on the SAT measurements from the UK Hadley Centre. A flawed data set that extends back in time to 1850.

[Continued]
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 23 January 2010 5:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Part 2]

A word about Lavoisier site, yes it is supported by the fossil fuel industry. If you claim this means it is biased in one direction. I will argue that environmental advocacy groups are even more strongly biased in the other direction.

It is also known that the funding for pro global warming research is orders of magnitude greater then that awarded to sceptical scientists.

An example of the flow of money:
“Billionaire George Soros, generally considered a “progressive,” seems to understand both politics and climate change. He put his money where is mouth is and pledged to donate 1 billion dollars to clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change. He will form and fund a new climate policy initiative, with $10 million a year for 10 years.” Shelly T, on October 12th, 2009. [http://www.civilianism.com/futurism/?p=3119]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Some other matters.

1. The extreme variability in predicted sea level increases by various authorities; suggest to me, that the predictions are guesses only.

2. Measurement of Ocean temperature is now regarded as all important [see Carter et al response to Minister Wong]. The trouble is that reliable measurements from the Argos system have only been available since mid 2003.

3. Our best data from satellites and Argo says that both air and oceans have not warmed for at least 5 years. [David Evans 14 July 2009].

“As we know
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.”
………………..

“But there are also unknown unknowns
The ones we don’t know
WE don’t know.” [From Donald Rumsfeld].
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 23 January 2010 6:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A CLIMATE SCANDAL UPDATE:

Climate gate claimed that the Climate Research Unit at the University of Anglia manipulated data. It now seems that American data sets for Air Surface Temperature (AST) are equally suspect.

The organisations involved are:

NASA_GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NCDC National Climate Data Center.

Briefly although satellite temperatures have been available since 1978 most analysis of global temperature is still based on land measurement of “surface air temperature (SAT).

By 1990 NOAA had reduced its data set based on 6000 thermometers around the globe to 1500. In USA peak number was 1850 in 1963 as low as 136 in year 2007.

Stations at higher latitudes and or elevation were scraped from the data series in favour of more urban locales at lower latitude and elevation. [Obvious source of bias].

“What’s up with that (WUWT) editor Anthony Watts has calculated that by “adjustment of raw data” 0.5F or almost one half of the 1.2F so called warming is due to manipulation of raw data.

Question for the “true believers in global warming: Are you not a little offended by this blatant massage of data? Do you not feel that data has been hopelessly compromised by station drop out?

Or are you of the opinion it is too early to make a definitive conclusion on these issues?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

For an Australian contribution:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Smoking+Gun+at+Darwin+Zero
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 24 January 2010 5:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus,
I'll answer your question in the other thread in 19 hours. You'll understand my squeamishness about partaking in this, er ... little think tank Mr Pope's got buzzing along.
Thanks though for drawing my attention to the quote of the week from examinator: “The deniers may well win the battle but we'll lose the war”
Excellent, Examinator, very droll! To the victors the spoils eh! :-)
Posted by Mitchell, Sunday, 24 January 2010 7:38:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the article Mike. Not that you will convince those that will accept any argument unscrutinised from the denialist voices and can't see a warming trend in graphs like <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/"> these</a>. But, yes, ultimately mainstream Australia will accept the considered views of people who actually study climate over people who consider a hot spike (eg 1998) in a multidecade warming trend proof of cooling. And who do so without mention of ENSO; they wouldn't want a well known natural variation to upset their arguments that it's all natural variation, thus there is no correcting for El Nino, which would make their apparent cooling disappear - and no intellectual honesty.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 24 January 2010 9:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy