i believe in climate change, but, i don't believe in global warming. i believe it's a scam that gets billions of dollars out of people each year. i do believe the earth may be getting warmer but i believe the earth is constantly changing and green house gases from the human race are not the main reason for this.
plus do you think they have our best intensions at heart, do you think they the global elit- people in power really care about the planet. do you think the doubling of food prices around the world killing millions of people through disantry etc through a diversion of crop production to bio fuels?do you think that all the land based weather stations data is true and no comprimised due to urban encroachment, there are loads of pictures showing compremised recorders, next to buildings,incinerators
1. I think a low carbon economy doesn't have to be a disaster. There are many ways to reduce emmissions, and a carbon tax in lieu of some other taxes could encourage these.
e.g. have a look at this:
/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
2. Poorly sited weather stations actually show a COOLING bias!
Ref:
ww w1.ncdc.n oaa.g ov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf (remove spaces from link)
lets say that we are on the road to a global warming-climate change catastrophe no him glaciers in 30 years 50 % less farm production in africa, raising sea levels(al gore owns seaside property purchased recently) then how is cap and trade going to suppres co2 emisions they wont even give tax breaks for renewable energy sources yet they are going to stop big corps from producing co2 do you think they have the right plan to control co2 emmisions
BBC:Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling? (Why this Q)
Jones: No. (ah!) This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Let me translate that obfuscation by Jones "The trend this time is negative" means it has been cooling since 2002. Thanks to of course to the BBC he was able to bury that lead and some may have missed it.
Another myth. Here's Jones's answer to the question
Q: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
A: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level...
Go to the BBC website & read the interview. Don't parrot second hand headlines from the Daily Mail.
I did. He also admitted that there has been no warming at all since 2002 and that it has in fact been cooling (although gaain statistically insignificant) It could be positive looking back to 1995 and negative looking back to 2002.
@Sigifrith , You can pick out little bits of the larger trend and make up a story. e.g. Warming also 'stopped' between 1977-85, and again between 1987-96. (But each of these pauses was followed by a steep rise).
If you look at the NASA data as opposed to the CRU data, the rise from 1995-09 was highly significant (p<0.01). Even using the CRU data, 1995-09 was a significant rise at the p=0.1 level. That means that the probability that the rise from 95-09 was due to random fluctuations is <10%.
@cristop5 But claiming that this decade or the last were the warmest of the modern period is meaningless if the begining of the modern period was in the depths of the little ice age.
Your vid title and where you stopped the Inhoff clip iimplies you are claiming that it is warming now, when it's not. At least not right now.
"Near-zero & even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations.."
BUT "..simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.."
I have yet to hear a denier say WHAT they think has caused the LONG TERM warming trend to just 'stop'. If (unlike 77-85 & 87-96) the temp falls I'll rethink. But I see no reason why it should.
"I have yet to hear a denier say WHAT they think has caused the LONG TERM warming trend to just 'stop'."
Ah, the "denier" slur. The funny thing is, I don't deny that we have seen long term warming over the past 150 years or so. I just don't buy the asseretion that it is unusual, anthropogenic, and cause for alarm.
Frankly, it is not for me to explain why it stopped, but rather the alarmists to explain why reality suddenly diverged from their dire predictions.
Of course, rather than rise to that perhaps impossible challenge it appears to me that those who have been making those predictions, chose rather to conspire to "hide the decline."
When it really comes down to it, the climate models are essential a giant hypothesis, or an amalgamation of hypotheses. When reality diverges so dramaitcally from their models, it shows that at least some hypothesis of theirs is incorrect.
1. The "hide the decline" line did not refer to hiding declining temperatures. /watch?v=rqQ8vvSwGH0
2. "divergence" If your talking about a lack of recent warming, I've addressed this already.
3. Modeling is about finding the configuration of variables that best explains the temperature record. The explanatory power of models can be tested and judged against that record.
In my 2nd comment here I gave a link to an article discussing one such model. Why not read it?
IT'S A CARBON TAX SCAM..WE'VE HAD CLIMATE CHANGE FOR 5 BILLION YEARS......WAKE UP PEOPLE
MrJacktemplar 6 months ago
i believe in climate change, but, i don't believe in global warming. i believe it's a scam that gets billions of dollars out of people each year. i do believe the earth may be getting warmer but i believe the earth is constantly changing and green house gases from the human race are not the main reason for this.
tboneal83 1 year ago
@tboneal83 "i don't believe in global warming" "i do believe the earth may be getting warmer"
It is definitely warming, did you watch the above video? If you have MS Excel why not see for yourself using these videos as a guide:
1. CRU database watch?v=OS44qirIOcU
2. NASA database watch?v=8Q97zVngPGU
3. UAH satellite data watch?v=I3q3zs0EVDU
If you want to know why 98% of climatologists believe in AGW: /watch?v=5Pjbykd2ywU
/user/potholer54#p/u/35/52KLGqDSAjo
/user/potholer54#p/u/33/PoSVoxwYrKI
cristop5 1 year ago
.car parks, jet runways and i am sure the list goes on can you debunk that please
dnjaamin 2 years ago
plus do you think they have our best intensions at heart, do you think they the global elit- people in power really care about the planet. do you think the doubling of food prices around the world killing millions of people through disantry etc through a diversion of crop production to bio fuels?do you think that all the land based weather stations data is true and no comprimised due to urban encroachment, there are loads of pictures showing compremised recorders, next to buildings,incinerators
dnjaamin 2 years ago
@dnjaamin That's a lot of questions in one.
1. I think a low carbon economy doesn't have to be a disaster. There are many ways to reduce emmissions, and a carbon tax in lieu of some other taxes could encourage these.
e.g. have a look at this:
/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
2. Poorly sited weather stations actually show a COOLING bias!
Ref:
ww w1.ncdc.n oaa.g ov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf (remove spaces from link)
cristop5 2 years ago
cristop5
can i ask you a ?
lets say that we are on the road to a global warming-climate change catastrophe no him glaciers in 30 years 50 % less farm production in africa, raising sea levels(al gore owns seaside property purchased recently) then how is cap and trade going to suppres co2 emisions they wont even give tax breaks for renewable energy sources yet they are going to stop big corps from producing co2 do you think they have the right plan to control co2 emmisions
dnjaamin 2 years ago
BBC:Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling? (Why this Q)
Jones: No. (ah!) This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Let me translate that obfuscation by Jones "The trend this time is negative" means it has been cooling since 2002. Thanks to of course to the BBC he was able to bury that lead and some may have missed it.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
Oops...looks like Phil Jones has finally admited that it has been cooling since 2002.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
Another myth. Here's Jones's answer to the question
Q: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
A: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level...
Go to the BBC website & read the interview. Don't parrot second hand headlines from the Daily Mail.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5
I did. He also admitted that there has been no warming at all since 2002 and that it has in fact been cooling (although gaain statistically insignificant) It could be positive looking back to 1995 and negative looking back to 2002.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
@Sigifrith , You can pick out little bits of the larger trend and make up a story. e.g. Warming also 'stopped' between 1977-85, and again between 1987-96. (But each of these pauses was followed by a steep rise).
If you look at the NASA data as opposed to the CRU data, the rise from 1995-09 was highly significant (p<0.01). Even using the CRU data, 1995-09 was a significant rise at the p=0.1 level. That means that the probability that the rise from 95-09 was due to random fluctuations is <10%.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5 But claiming that this decade or the last were the warmest of the modern period is meaningless if the begining of the modern period was in the depths of the little ice age.
Your vid title and where you stopped the Inhoff clip iimplies you are claiming that it is warming now, when it's not. At least not right now.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
Sigifrith Read: /w ww.metoffice.g ov.u k/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf (remove spaces)
"Near-zero & even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations.."
BUT "..simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.."
I have yet to hear a denier say WHAT they think has caused the LONG TERM warming trend to just 'stop'. If (unlike 77-85 & 87-96) the temp falls I'll rethink. But I see no reason why it should.
cristop5 2 years ago
"I have yet to hear a denier say WHAT they think has caused the LONG TERM warming trend to just 'stop'."
Ah, the "denier" slur. The funny thing is, I don't deny that we have seen long term warming over the past 150 years or so. I just don't buy the asseretion that it is unusual, anthropogenic, and cause for alarm.
Frankly, it is not for me to explain why it stopped, but rather the alarmists to explain why reality suddenly diverged from their dire predictions.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
Of course, rather than rise to that perhaps impossible challenge it appears to me that those who have been making those predictions, chose rather to conspire to "hide the decline."
When it really comes down to it, the climate models are essential a giant hypothesis, or an amalgamation of hypotheses. When reality diverges so dramaitcally from their models, it shows that at least some hypothesis of theirs is incorrect.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
@Sigifrith
1. The "hide the decline" line did not refer to hiding declining temperatures. /watch?v=rqQ8vvSwGH0
2. "divergence" If your talking about a lack of recent warming, I've addressed this already.
3. Modeling is about finding the configuration of variables that best explains the temperature record. The explanatory power of models can be tested and judged against that record.
In my 2nd comment here I gave a link to an article discussing one such model. Why not read it?
cristop5 2 years ago