Ooops! Everyone re-do your costs for Global "Warming"

Next time you’re in an argument with someone who is totally convinced that global warming is a) man made and b) unprecedented, why not show them this brief video from Watts Up With That? Game over! (Hat tip: Plato Says)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...71/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DFbUVBYIPlI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DFbUVBYIPlI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Quote from Xspurt:

Climate change is 'natural not man-made'
Climate change is "natural and not man-made", according to a report that lists "100 reasons why" to back the theory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...1/Climate-change-is-natural-not-man-made.html
More...

Of all the nonsense published by deniers, this effort has reached the zenith of stupidity including such gems as:

"58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country. "

How this statement in anyway "disproves" AGW is left as an exercise to the reader. Please let us know how you manage to extract any reason from that one.

It is very hard to think of any valid reason for the Telegraph or Daily Express to publish such amateurish nonsense.

The whole list of 100 hundred can be found here. Have a good laugh.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
 
Dear Xpurt,

I think that the deal that Exxon did yesterday is a good proof of the problem that we are facing. How to deliver efficiently energy to the People. Energy which is easly stored, transported and used.

Carbonderivatives are the most usefull commodity to do this. It's even not arguable... ( they are part of the CarbonCycle, mineral+water = plants >death>carbon deposit> burned> back again :) )

However and everyone would agree, no one like to stay in the smoke of a fire... it's stink, impossible to breath, hard to see etc... It's made of burned dusts... it's dirty.

We need to do the switch from the fire energy to the electric energy... You know like the market who switched to the screen, remodeling the All industry... And I clearly think that like everyone else the CEO of Exxon and Co still like to breath fresh air when they have the time to go outside... Energy provider of today; Energy provider of tomorrow...

The problem is when the market isn't free... distortion starts to appear. New Idea can't reach the size they need to be sustainable. In fact old model of business could be inclined to use war tactics to stop the evolution of breaktrough who could make their model outdate. It's not the role of the gov to help to make the transition. Only to protect those who have idea against all what isn't acceptable in the market place.

Furthermore I think that the only sustainable solution is when the people will be themselves able to produce the energy they need. It's called energy independency. With this power the People will be able to really fullfill their dreams !

A free market who could make the tools for the People to produce their own clean energy...

Peace :)
 
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

...Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century...

...What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
 
Quote from Index piker:

Global warming threads belong in the religion forum for obvious reasons.
More...

Will you say that when it suddenly becomes a forum for global transaction taxes, cap and trade taxes and mountains of bureaucratic red tape all leading to wealth transfer and much higher unemployment

The taxation and compliance burdens on western economies are about to reap havoc with analysts appraisals.

And all based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
 
I posted the following on another of these stupid threads. This is not rocket science. If there was falsification of the data it would long ago have been detected and demonstrated. The whole business is a beat up and beyond stupid.

Two statistical studies find no evidence that the CRU data was falsified:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ive-assessment/

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of...s-falsify-data/

What is more, anybody with a fairly elementary knowledge of statistics can perform this analysis for themselves. Excel would be good enough.

There is even R source code (R is free open source statistics software package) here:

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of...ta/#comment-383
 
Quote from Xspurt:

Will you say that when it suddenly becomes a forum for global transaction taxes, cap and trade taxes and mountains of bureaucratic red tape all leading to wealth transfer and much higher unemployment

The taxation and compliance burdens on western economies are about to reap havoc with analysts appraisals.

And all based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
More...

+2

Great thread. Keep it up !
 
Quote from dcraig:

I posted the following on another of these stupid threads. This is not rocket science. If there was falsification of the data it would long ago have been detected and demonstrated. The whole business is a beat up and beyond stupid.

Two statistical studies find no evidence that the CRU data was falsified:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ive-assessment/

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of...s-falsify-data/

What is more, anybody with a fairly elementary knowledge of statistics can perform this analysis for themselves. Excel would be good enough.

There is even R source code (R is free open source statistics software package) here:

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of...ta/#comment-383
More...

I welcome your posts. They typify the closed minds of all those who deny there is any scientific debate, any possibility of two sides to the argument, that all intelligent investigation can only draw one conclusion, and that no forum or publicity should be available for those who have a different scientific opinion.

The reality is, as has been posted many times, there ARE two sides to the argument but only one that will welcome transparent debate. This is more complex than rocket science. We are guessing at what causes climate change and messing with the data to draw false conclusions.

When the Russians who provided the data are saying their own data is being picked and mixed to make the stats lie, and you want to run that nonesence through R and draw a "scientific" conclusion, it shows the how bankrupt your notion of science is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top