Climategate: Prof Watson and Singer Debate

[1000frolly]

I laughed so loud with that idiot Watson's reply to the questions about what should we do about the climategate emails.

He said " We should investigate - THE HACKERS and prosecute them" !

Its incredible isn't it? They just don't get it do they?

[1000frolly]

Sea levels rising? No, falling. Globe warming? No, cooling. Glaciers melting? No, expanding. Models correct? No. Reduction of rain forests due to AGW? Not happening. Polar bears disappearing? No, Populations are increasing. Greenland melting? Not happening. Antarctica melting? Nope, ice mass is increasing; ice flows increasing, too. And so it goes. If you list every dire prediction made by alarmists like Hansen & Gore and their time frames, you will find that they have been right zero times.

[vmgqie]

i tell you why global warming is b.s. el nina weather pattern has been going on for the last three years meaning the ocean is cooling if global warming was true it would be el nino weather pattern because the ocean would be warming so blow it out your arse alarmist cockheads

[zzebowa]

Even if all the warming (0.7 degrees C) is due to the 40% CO2 we have added then at least we have proof tjhat positive feedbacks arent dont exist. (Theoretical increase is 1 degree for 100%, the effect of course being non linear)

[DJUNIT001]

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

[TheGamanic]

@DJUNIT001 One person's view is not very good when 97% of climatologists say otherwise

[fudgedogbannana]

Non GOVERNMENTAL group of scientists, now your talking.

[ncdave4life]

Two different surveys of professional meteorologists (one published by the AMS, and the other from George Mason University) found that most do NOT think human activity is responsible for global warming.

"Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports. ..."

[TheGamanic]

@ncdave4life Meteorologists do not deal with climate though, which is the issue at hand. So you are just making an appeal to false authority, sorry

[ncdave4life]

@TheGamanic , @TheGamanic, actually meteorologists are uniquely qualified to distinguish between climate and mere weather -- something that a lot of so-called "climate scientists" seem to find particularly challenging.

[ncdave4life]

Even before Climategate, scientists were very divided. Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in early 2007, and even back then there was no consensus. They found:

"97% agree that 'global average temperatures have increased' during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure."

[ncdave4life]

Obviously, 52% is no "concensus," and now, since Climategate has revealed that leading climate alarmists were fudging the data to bolster their case, and blackballing skeptics to stifle dissent, support for the IPCC's misplaced alarmism has surely slipped even more.

[TheGamanic]

@ncdave4life Was this the poll for STATS? I'm just looking at the Wikipedia article which seems to be referring to the same study, and it says that only 5% believed that human activity doesn't contribute to global warming. It seems to be the same study, conducted in the same year with 489 scientists from the American Meteorological and Geophysical Union.

[TheGamanic]

@ncdave4life But they aren't experts on climate, unlike climate scientists. That's my point

[ncdave4life]

@TheGamanic, the problem with so-called "climate scientists" is that most of them have a personal stake in alarmism. If the politicians stopped worrying about AGW, their grants would dry up and, their reputations would be tarnished, their life's work would be wasted, and, in many cases, they'd even lose their jobs. So they can't be impartial.

Contrast meteorologists, who are especially well equiped to discern the difference between climate and weather, but have no personal stake to bias them.

[TheGamanic]

@ncdave4life cont. You can level the exact same claim at climate deniers, since they have very frequently been shown to have been paid copious amounts by Big Oil. Nor does the fact that some might have preconceptions about climate change invalidate their work since it is vetted by other scientists with different views. Instead of attacking the data, you conspiracy theorists have to attack the scientists.

[TheGamanic]

@ncdave4life cont. The only reason why you attack climate scientists is that you don't agree with their conclusion; you are however willing to hear any skeptic. Stop calling everything a conspiracy and come down to the real world where not everything is trying to knife you in the back

[ncdave4life]

No, @TheGamanic, I criticize dishonest CAGW pseudo-science because I undertook a detailed examination of sealevel myself. What I found was that Hanson et al are lying.

Do you know how they come up with their claimed acceleration in rate of sea level rise? By something akin to Mike's Nature trick: they splice together graphs from DIFFERENT locations: coastal tide station numbers until ~1994, switching to mid-ocean satellite numbers from then on.

Alone, BOTH actually show deceleration.



[ncdave4life]

@TheGamanic, have you heard of NC-20? (Organization of the twenty NC coastal counties.) Go to their web site, click on "Sea Level Rise," and then view the document entitled Critique_of_NC_2010_SLR_AR.pdf (or just google for the document name.) I wrote it. I promise that if you read it you'll learn a lot.

Two even better (and much broader in scope) resources are Burt Rutan's report & the U.S. Senate EPW Minority Report. Google for "Burt Rutan on Climate" and "EPW Minority Report."

[raidon04]

97% of climate scientists believe in the consensus that is AGW. A huge conspiracy? or just ignorant, selfish dismissal?

[MikkkkyB]

Australia's MET can't even tell us what the weather is going to be like next week (let alone years out!). This week was meant to be 38C but now that we're here its 24C!

[radoa1]

Mikkky - there is weather and then there is climate. Get it???Please grab an education and stop repeating these tired old nonsense.

[MikkkkyB]

Yes you are right actually; my fault. I do have an education for your info and am currently completing a Doctorate in Political Science; if that has taught me one thing, it is that I notice more politics than science in the CLIMATE scare.

[radoa1]

Mikky - if what you say is true you would have noticed the disconnect in how our so called "leaders" talk about climate change being the most serious threat and challenge of our time and the actual policies they intend to introduce to tackle it. A complete 180 degree turnaround, would you say??

[MikkkkyB]

yeah totally agree; in Australia, our PM said it was SO important yet what his ETS ("cap n trade") proposed would've made no difference as Oz emits 1.04% of global emissions. Yet now they're not so interested anymore; you are right: A complete one eighty! Either the price on business is too high that everyone goes bust or too low that it makes no difference whatsoever. What I am saying is that policy should be informed by science yet science has been tainted (for good or bad??????)

[radoa1]

Mikky - agreed. But the same can be said for every western govt. Its not a question of bad science, the science is clear. 350ppm or less to avoid dangerous climate change. It the political will that's missing why is not??

cont.

[killintymm]

are you being by al gore ? how is the science clear? is mit professor richard lyndsen an idiot who has proved that there is no AGW.

[radoa1]

There are those that say that there are many credible scientists who refute the AGW theory. But the fact is only a tiny handful do. The vast majority of climate scientists believe, based on an overwhelming amount of factual evidence, that human-induced climate change is reality.

cont

[killintymm]

just a handful of people ? do you have 31,000 fingers in your hand dude ? thats the number of scientists who refute and fled a case against al gore.

[radoa1]

killint - same shit killin. The so called list has be shown to be a complete joke. Is this 31,000 climatologist currently researching and publishing papers in this field of science???

[killintymm]

the IPCC has been shown to be a joke , my friend,. please wake up.

[TheGamanic]

@killintymm There are around 500,000 scientists in America alone. 31,000 signed this. That means that at most 6.2% of scientists. However the only ones' opinion you really care about are the climatologists, atmospheric physicists etc who publish a lot of papers in peer review journal. They constituted around 0.001% of all those who signed it

[radoa1]

Tackling climate change with the required radical action to avert climate chaos represents a very real threat to elite interests in the corporate, financial, media, government and military sectors.

cont

[RL36D]

you AGW zealots really like to own the comment section of these videos don't you?

you know what? if supporting the AGW agenda meant all the loving hippie s**t you describe i'd support it. what it really means is greedy idiots playing god. that's the part that scares me, every single initiative they've come up with to 'save the world' has been disasters:

-ethanol;

-cfl bulbs;

-designating CO2 toxic;

-this latest: dumping iron in the oceans

if you believe scientists don't lie, one word: monsanto

[radoa1]

RL36 - I really dont know what you are on about or the connection in what I am saying. Which environmental group is advocating what you suggests??

[radoa1]

It means, for example, taking away power from the fossil-fuel corporations, and giving it to local communities which could then run their own renewable energy schemes. It means supporting local food production for local consumption, rather than being force-fed products from an agribusiness industry (which treats animals cruelly) combined with a small number of giant supermarkets which enjoy a virtual monopoly.

cont

[radoa1]

It means questioning the mantra of endless economic growth and rampant mass consumption. It means massive interlocked movements at grassroots level to reclaim the power that governments and_ corporate institutions (including the IMF, World Bank, etc.) have stolen from them. It means questioning the very notion of the pursuit of happiness through accumulating material things.

cont

[radoa1]

You can be pessimistic, or optimistic, about the prospects of any of that being achieved rapidly enough. (And if we don't at least try, you can guarantee none of it will happen

[judomagyar]

Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.

[yiqiebygairui]

yeh? Well I know Global warming is a scam and "Big Oil" isn't giving me any money!

[TheGamanic]

@yiqiebygairui You don't need to be paid by Big Oil to hear and recycle their lies...

[fleppie75]

one is payed by the gouverment and one isn't, can you guess who is who?

[radoa1]

fleppie - one is paid by Big Oil the other is not, can you guess who is who?

[MikkkkyB]

"Big Oil" want climatechange to be real! (don't you get it?) Under agreements such as Copenhagen, one world govt will be able to say which industries can work where....somehow I don't see minor, independent petrol stations winning here and it it a great excuse for the BP's, Shell's, Caltex's to get exclusivity. Plus, Big oil are going to get HUGE concessions in a mea culpa from govt...sorry my friend but that thing you call "Big Oil" is the biggest winner!

[radoa1]

MIKKKY - as usual makes no sense at all, Big oil is spending fuck all on renewable energy compared to new and existing fossil fuel ventures. Business as usual must be preserved at all cost. No lie is too big for Big Oil as there is too much to lose.