If you can't win a debate by fair means....

[Digit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html

Roy.

[Digit]

Take a look at this from the above....

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

Roll up ladies and gentlemen, get your own personalised graph here! Graphs to suit all ages, don't like that one madam? Never mind we've plenty of others for you to chose from!

Jesus wept!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201110 ... QFOG1.html

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

C'mon, Dig. He double-crossed the people who put up the money. Surely you don't think those scumbags are going to take that lying down? What's a little character assassination by rich corporations these days!

[Digit]

No Min, he showed proper scientific independence, that's not XX, but it does not explain his rush to publish that means the peer review is no longer valid nor this.....

]However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.


However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. then why is that statement not reflected in his graph?

this might not be ‘statistically significant’ Then what is?

It simply is not reasonable to consider that those two graphs can both be correct, one isn't!
He claims that this research was triggered by 'climate gate', which also stated that global warming had ceased in the 90s, the E-Mail stated 'we can not explain that and it is a tragedy that we can not!'
So now two independent studies have shown that GW ceased in the 90s, what caused the row with 'climate gate' here was that despite that admission the Climate Research Unit continued to public state that 'man made global warming is proved and continues,' a straight lie!
He states a period of 13 yrs, the CRU stated 15 yrs, now Min it does not take Sherlock Holmes to demonstrate that that the CRU continued with their message that the end is nigh long after they knew that that was not so!
IE, they lied! and the only reason that I can attribute that fact to was to continue receiving public funds! That's fraud in the normal world!
When these people stop polishing their results I will begin to accept what they say, if you have a strong case lieing is not required.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

All I know is I'm living it.

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/ar ... 02411.html

Summer 2011 was the hottest on record and October certainly hasn't strayed too far from the same pattern. High pressure has been locked and loaded over the Southwest keeping us dry and very warm as we move through Fall. Today marks the 17th day above 90 degrees in Phoenix and we should have perhaps one more before we cool down into the 80s.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/ar ... z1cOvP7gs1

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

The chart included above shows drought conditions in what are traditionally some of the most humid areas of the country. Not showing up on that chart, of course, are the repeated storms which hammered the north and north east this summer....my kids were living through those...where it is usually dry.

Climate change is most certainly occurring and GW is part of that. How much is natural and how much is man made is debatable but we can't do anything about the natural portion of the equation, anyway.

[Digit]

To quote a frequent response Min, one hot/cold year is weather not climate, which is why I queried 13 yrs not being statistically significant. If 13 yrs isn't, how long is?
Whilst you have had a record hot weather we have had the coldest summer for years with autumn/fall being warmer than the summer, last winter was the coldest here for 40 yrs. As is shown on the second graph BTW.
To be honest Min for this debate I care not whether GW is on or off, man made or natural either. My concern is that certain scientists, having found that their hobby horse has died keep offering the corpse as living proof that they are correct, it's dishonest!
I am reminded of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

o quote a frequent response Min, one hot/cold year is weather not climate,

But it isn't just one hot/cold year. I've mentioned before a lake near where I grew up. When I was a kid I was ice skating on that lake for hockey games in December, January and February.

My son, who is a far better skater than I, has never been able to skate on it. It simply never gets cold enough for a long enough stretch of time to freeze solidly anymore. That's observable change in the course of one lifetime. Did I take careful temperature notes to write a scientific paper? No. But my skates never got wet, either.

[Digit]

Absolutely Min! Same here, my son has only ever seen one heavy snow fall in 30 yrs, but as I keep saying, it is not that that is my point. I am objecting to people like the CRU stating one thing in private than subsequently lying to the public, as indicated by the thread title.
I have no problem what so ever with global warming nor with changes in weather patterns, as repeated graphs have demonstrated these occurr with near clockwork frequency.
The fact that your lake hasn't frozen, and my son has not experience much snow, has no bearing on whether GW has ceased or not. If it peaked, and remained at about that peak, both GW and GW has ceased would be correct statements, would they not?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

So here is more on the subject.

GW is causing climate change, though.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201111 ... 45600.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - For a world already weary of weather catastrophes, the latest warning from top climate scientists paints a grim future: More floods, more heat waves, more droughts and greater costs to deal with them.

A draft summary of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press says the extremes caused by global warming could eventually grow so severe that some locations become "increasingly marginal as places to live."

The report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change marks a change in climate science, from focusing on subtle shifts in average temperatures to concentrating on the harder-to-analyze freak events that grab headlines, hurt economies and kill people.

[Digit]

At that point Min we diverge, you see, from the BEST report that started this debate Dr Curry fully accepts that the world's temp has risen by one degree since the 50s. Again I have no problem with that!
But she insists that the evidence, backed by the CRU, Nasa etc that GW ceased in the 90s.
BUT, CO2 has continued to rise!
The warming through the 50s must have caused climate change, I think it impossible that GW can take place without change in weather patterns, but man's activities are clearly a lot smaller part in the GW than some would have us believe.

Roy.

[Digit]

Another example I posted elsewhere under the heading of 'New Maths?'.....

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 9g&cad=rja

George Monbiot of the Guradian rants about the 'Scientific illiterates' and how they are being conned by the 'deniers', it is not one sided methinks.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

As long as we are re-stating old points I will re-state one of mine.

Human activity is the ONLY part of GW that we can impact. We can do a darn thing about orbital variations or whatever but we can make an effort to stop pumping shit into the atmosphere.

The lives we save will be our own. Planet Earth won't care one way or another. It will go on its merry way long after we're gone until the sun blots it out a couple of billion years from now.


By then, I won't care.

[Digit]

Min, I wasn't on about CO2, take a look at the maths then tell me if you'd buy a used car off of these people.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

With what I know about math it wouldn't make much difference.

It was never my strong suit.

[Digit]

Firstly Min, the link I posted assumes for the debate a life of 20 yrs for a turbine then proceeds to state that the said turbine effectively 'repays' the energy consumed in its production in 6.8 months. Okay?
It then states that from then on its account is in the 'black' to the tune of 35 times the energy consumed. Still with me?
Now 35 times 6.8 months is a just under 20 yrs, that's mathematicians maths not saleman's maths BTW.
Thus the statement wishes me to believe that this turbine is operating at its rated capacity 24/7 with no breakdowns, no maintenance time and wind blowing at sufficient velocity all that time.
I have a simle question Min, where is this turbine?
At 30% output, average here in Wales, the link's 6.8 months then becomes 20.4 monthsthis is without factoring any down time. According to the industry each turbine receives one routine maintenance visist per annum, I can find no figures for breakdowns nor how many of the routine maintenance checks results in additional maintenance time.
Then of course the link's writers bend their 'facts' a little further.
The energy they receive in manufacture is not 100% of that which is generated at source. Allowing that turbines are frequently miles from their customers you have to factor in transmission and voltage conversion losses, between 6 and 10%, thus their 6.8 months is now 2 years.
Not a bad return actually Min, so why do they need to tell such blatant lies to push their product?

Roy.