The Forum > Article Comments > A royal commission into climate alarmism > Comments
A royal commission into climate alarmism : Comments
By Rod McGarvie, published 8/12/2015When will scientists review the underlying assumptions and biases on which their climate change theories and models rely?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Page 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- ...
- 27
- 28
- 29
-
- All
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 2:22:04 PM
| |
Max
So what? Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 17 December 2015 9:07:02 PM
| |
Jardine
Here is something you don't need to worry about as well. The article is about the anomalous floods in Cumbria in December 2015, they had already had a 1 in 100 year event in 2009. Earlier in 2015, South Carolina had been hit by huge floods, said to be the sixth 1 in 1,000 year event by a meteorologist to happen in SE USA since 2010. http://www.skepticalscience.com/december-2015-uk-floods.html Posted by ant, Friday, 18 December 2015 7:08:15 AM
| |
Max Green, about the Milankovitch cycles.
From memory is there not a number of smaller cold cycle every 6000 years, between the really deep cold cycles at something like the 50,000 years you mentioned ? Again from memory we are due to start entering the last minor cycle before the next major 50k yr cycle ? It was suggested that we burn as much fossil fuel as possible, hi! Posted by Bazz, Friday, 18 December 2015 8:21:05 AM
| |
ant
So what? Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 10:37:42 PM
| |
Jardine stated..."So what?"
Try working it out mathematically, Jardine. Six, 1 in 1,000 year statistical events happening since 2010 is absolutely extraordinary. Remember a warm atmosphere carrys more water vapour than a cool one. Posted by ant, Thursday, 24 December 2015 6:04:45 AM
|
1. The majority of 1970’s peer-reviewed papers actually predicted warming, not cooling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
2. Climate science had already leaked out into the mainstream culture, and the video above also contains classic sciences from the 1958 Bell Telephone company Science Hour which detailed rising sea levels and classic old animation of a glass bottom boat skimming over the drowned buildings of Miami. There’s even a scene from the 1970’s Sci-Fi thriller, Soylent Green, in which they bemoan global warming and the effects on the economy.
3. The same sheeple who just rattle off “They predicted an ice age!” don’t even know what *causes* an ice age. Do *you* know what causes an ice age? The scientists tell us that (apart from super-volcanoes or a nuclear winter) the main natural cause is ‘wobbles’ in the Earth’s orbit and tilt which changes the direction of incoming sunlight. According to these Milankovitch cycles, we’re not even due for an ice age for 50,000 years! “No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_and_future_conditions
4. The majority of the hype was from the media, not the scientists.
"However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-
Those who predicted cooling overestimated global dimming, and underestimated global warming. They now admit they were wrong.