|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
The Sky Really Is Falling international |
environment |
other press
 Thursday June 02, 2011 12:41 by Chris Hedges
 Those who concede that the planet is warming but insist we can learn to live with it are perhaps more dangerous than the buffoons who decide to shut their eyes. The Earth has already begun to react to our hubris. Freak weather unleashed deadly tornados in Joplin, Mo., and Tuscaloosa, Ala. It has triggered wildfires that have engulfed large tracts in California, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas. It has brought severe droughts to the Southwest, parts of China and the Amazon. It has caused massive flooding along the Mississippi as well as in Australia, New Zealand, China and Pakistan. It is killing off the fish stocks in the oceans and obliterating the polar ice caps.  We are currently not accepting any more comments on this article. printable version
with comments
   We are currently not accepting any more comments on this article. |
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (51 of 51)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
WHAT "rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming" are you talking about?
THERE IS NO "rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming".
In fact there has been no descernable statistically significant warming over the last 16 years, and has in fact been a decile in temperature over the last 10 years
Don't take my word for it - here's a graph of the temperature trend from Climate Research Unit in the UK (the CRU of CLimateGate fame) - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001....trend
Temperature Decline - trend for the last 10 years
WTF calls himself a" Real Scientist" and publishes a local graph.
Climate change is slow and real.
you OBVIOUSLY don't know what you are talking about, Student . . .anyone that took the time to actually click on the source-link provided could plainly see that the temperature data set used to produce the graph of Temperature decline posted above come from the HADCRUT3 set of GLOBAL mean temperature.
Since GLOBAL is the opposite of local it should be obvious to anyone that the person posting above hasn't even bothered to take the time to examine the graph before they fired off their totally incorrect 'rebuttal'
Make up your mind:
"The rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming, . . ."
vs.
"Climate change is slow . . . . ."
Which is it?
It can't be both
"Make up your mind:
"The rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming, . . ."
vs.
"Climate change is slow . . . . ."
Which is it?
It can't be both"
These are two statements from two different individuals. They can both be right if they are not referring to the same dataset, or computer model results.
Computer models of climate are really currently just guessing using the false authority of numbers for cover. Modelling complex processes without all the pieces of the puzzle and also allowing for *cough* chaos *cough* is really just a bit of a scam that looks authoritive. When a mathematical equation is "ill conditioned" as weather equations often are then you get "the butterfly effect".
digital / mathematical modelling of weather is inherently not reliable. Ask laplace!.
However the temperature records raw data may be worth examining as would the raw co2 records from ice cores. If we could that is. give humanity access to the raw data asap. Let humanity access the raw data if it's truly as serious as you say.
This is why there is such debate over this matter. There is insufficient access to the raw data. There is no clear access to source code from the climate models to see what mathematical "massaging" has been done on the data in the code. We have it all "interpreted" for us by the high priests and their opaque computer code that is not freely examinable.
Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me as it currently stands. Now if we had full access to all the holy raw data and methodology and the sacred source code was all open sourced without a need to go through a priest with a vested interest then we might have some more trust in all this.
without transparent verification channels, and a clear statement of exactly how particular "facts" were arrived at with every public statement on the matter, all this is just shadowplay by vested interests. Scientists with grants on one side, oil companies on the other, and governments who want extra taxes and want to keep us all in a constant state of fear all the time so we are all frightened, suggestible and malleable are stoking it for all its worth.
Even if CC statements are all true, the individual driving a few miles less each year will not save us. Not while wasteful companies continue to routinely burn off whole gasfields with barely a murmur in the media. Or creating charcoal for industry out of rain forests for profit. One law for us, another for oil companies / foresters/big business. Those are the real climate criminals if what is being stated is really true.
"To err is human but to really fuck things up you need a computer"
These are two statements from two different individuals. They can both be right if they are not referring to the same dataset, or computer model results.
the person that made the second statement : "Climate change is slow . . . . ." ONLY takes issue with the refutation of the first statement - and seems to have no problem with the original statement "The rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming, . . ."
Chris Hedges, and the person that posted the this article of his, seems to think that we are experiencing "rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming, . . ."" which is complete nonsense, and the graph provided proves it to be so.
Not only did the poster of the statement "Climate change is slow . . . . ." completely misunderstand the graph posted, but they also seemed to have no issue with the original statement by Chris hedges, even though it is complete nonsense
This is a frequent occurrence with people that promote these theories: they will support anything which they feel helps their case, no matter how nonsensical, and immediately attack anyone that points out how nonsensical the point that they are supporting is.
'Student of . . ' obviously didn't even bother to carry out the most cursory examination of the graph before posting his/her incorrect 'rebutta'l - he/she claimed that the graph posted was 'local' and obviously thought that the graph was a graph of temperature at the location mentioned, when in fact the graph used the CRU DATA-SET of GLOBAL mean temperatures
The CRU is one of the major repositories of Temperature data from around the world. 'Student of . . ' doesn't even know that much about the subject, yet feels the need to attempt to immediately (and very clumsily) dismiss the graph, in an attempt to discredit the words of the person that posted it. Obviously, in this instance at least, 'Student' is not interested in ANY data which contradicts any point made in favour of a belief in Global Warming, irrespective of the source of that data
Even Romney admits it. How long will the deniers last out?
Romney says humans cause climate change
NEW HAMPSHIRE – Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy yesterday by saying he believes humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.
'I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told about 200 people at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.
“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
The former Massachusetts governor fielded questions on topics ranging from the debt ceiling to abortion on his first official day of campaigning for 2012 Republican primary nomination. He is among the top Republican contenders to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0604/122....html
Once again the climate skeptics have been uncovered as cheats. Why research information when you can just make it up or copy bits from here and there?
*****************************************
Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming. The study, which appeared in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, was headed by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Its analysis was an outgrowth of a controversial congressional report that Wegman headed in 2006. The "Wegman Report" suggested climate scientists colluded in their studies and questioned whether global warming was real. The report has since become a touchstone among climate change naysayers.
The journal publisher's legal team "has decided to retract the study," said CSDA journal editor Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California, following complaints of plagiarism. A November review by three plagiarism experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA Today also concluded that portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-climate-plagiarism.html
so rather than address the scientific data which shows that shows that temperatures are doing the exact opposite of what Chris Hedges, and most of the other Global Warming believers claims they are, Speranza decided to post off-topic distractions from the matter under discussion.
the first post is some politician stating a BELIEF
The second post is nothing but a cheap attempt to try and smear all that would correctly question Hedges false and alarmist statement as 'cheats' "Once again the climate skeptics have been uncovered as cheats"- -this despite the fact that the graph uses ONLY data put out by the Climate Research Unit, one of the major repositories of Temperature data from around the world?
who is the 'denier' here?
Who is it that is denying the Temperature record?
You are like a fundamentalist worshipping one graph. Other scientific eveidence disagrees with your graph. You do not answer that. Nor do you address the fact that one of the reports most quoted by the deniers has been shown to be a hodge podge of cut & pastes from wikipedia etc.
Another interesting article.
**********************************
Record Emissions Of Carbon Dioxide: The Bells Are Ringing For Humanity
By Dr. Peter Custers
The alarm bells this time are not being rang by climate scientists or by environmental activists. They are rang by none other than the International Energy Agency (I.E.A.), the institution set up in the 1970s to defend the interests of Western oil consuming nations. On May 30 last, the I.E.A. issued a press release that sent shock waves through the Western world. According to the release, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have reached their highest level ever in 2010
http://www.countercurrents.org/custers030611.htm
CRU do not believe that the world is cooling. best to go to their site to find out what they think.
Hemispheric and global averages graph
Initial statement that opened this conversation.
"rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming"
The graph proves that statement to be false - but you'd rather ignore that, and change the time-frame.
ok
so since we can choose any timeframe we like, lets examine the notions that a) the rise in temperature is 'unprecedented' and B) The actual recorded temperatures we are seeing are themselves in some way 'unprecedented'. these two ideas are frequently put forward by global Warming hysterics like yourself.
The graph proves both of those statements to be completely false- were are in fact in a cold period and getting warmer overall - that's what happens with the climate, it fluctuates between cold and warm periods, and irrespective of any action we as humans did or did not take, no matter what we do it the climate would still fluctuate between cold and warm
ONLY 9.099 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than 2010
"Other scientific eveidence disagrees with your graph"
no it does not - you posted a graph over a different timeframe. Not the same thing at all
"You are like a fundamentalist worshipping one graph."
Still can't prevent yourself from trying to denigrate others I see
- the graph contradicts the statement by Hedges - you are still ignoring that, as I knew you would. Rather than admit that Hedges is wrong you just attack anyone that points out how wrong he is. So it obviously doesn't matter one bit ot you whether or not the statements made by people are wrong or not - only that they either help promote your theories of global warming, or they do not. Little concepts such as 'complete inaccuracy' don't seem to bother you as long as the person being inaccurate is promoting your GlobalWarming theories
"Nor do you address the fact that one of the reports most quoted by the deniers has been shown to be a hodge podge of cut & pastes from wikipedia etc."
Why would I bother, since it has nothing to do with Hedges statement, and since I made no reference to any such paper, [that was YOU, just in case you're confused] what the hell would I be doing wasting my time dealing with your strawman arguments?
"one of the reports most quoted by the deniers "
and yet funnily enough no one here but YOU made reference to it. Curious that, eh? you try to make it sound as if this report is some sort of bible for skeptics, yet you are the only one here referring to it, in what appears to be a sly attempt at 'guilt by association'. tsk tsk,
and since 'guilt by association' appears to be one of your favourite past-times. . . . . .
James Hansen is one of the scientists most respected by people that like to make Alarmist and hysterical statements about 'Catastrophic Global Warming' . . . . mainly because James Hanson himself makes many alarmist and hysterical statements about 'Catastrophic Global Warming'
Hanson is on record as claiming that 2010 was the warmest year on record.
Hanson has claimed that it was warmer by +0.01 degrees, than any other year. The fact that 0.01 degrees is less than the error margin of many of the instruments used to measure temperature doesn't bother Mr Hanson one little bit, as I'm sure it would not bother the majority of people that like to make alarmist and hysterical statements about 'Catastrophic Global Warming' .
His claim has been spread wide in the press but many scientists not in the pay of the IPCC do not agree him. Hansen is well know for making exaggerated and unprovable claims of catastrophic global warming. The following document debunks his 'Warmest Year' rubbish, using the same data which he manipulated to generate his hysterical and alarmist claim.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers...r.pdf
Link to PDF of this peer-reviewed scientific study : http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileNam...=3447
"The graph proves both of those statements to be completely false"
It does not. You are putting an interpretation on the data. Where was it originally posted? I don't mean on a deniers site. If it was on the CRU or other site klets have the link with the original commentary.
You originally claimed the CRU supported your thesis. That has been shown to be a lie.
The original graph clearly states that it's timeframe is from 2001 to 2011 - a 10 year time frame - this is clearly stated in the the graph itself and in text posted with it- how you missed it is curious since it IS clearly stated
YOU posted a graph from the CRU with a 150 year timeframe and said that that graph contradicts the original graph.
150 years is NOT EQUAL to 10 years, sorry to break that harsh truth to you, but nonetheless it happens to be a fact. How you could claim that a graph of 150 yrs of data is the same as a graph of 10 yrs of data is a mystery
Yet, despite your mixing of timeframes, examination of your CRU graph, within the timeframe 2001-2011 CLEARLY shows that the CRU graph supports the original graph, within the timeframe under discussion, the 10 years from 2001 to 2011. The timeframe in question is approx the last 3% of graphed data shown in the graph you posted.
I have not put any interpretation on the data - I have merely posted a graph of the data. It is curious that you would claim I have, since anyone can plainly see from the graph that I have not - all I have done is state clearly what the graph data shows fro the time-period 2001 to 2011, that the temperature in that time has trended downward.
The graph CLEARLY shows the DOWNWARD TREND of temperature between 2001 and 2011.
If you have problems seeing this CLEARLY graphed DOWNWARD TREND of Temperature, using the CRU data set of GLOBAL MEAN Temperature, then perhaps a visit to the optician is in order.
"The timeframe in question is approx the last 3% of graphed data shown in the graph you posted. "
should read
The timeframe in question is approx the last 6% of graphed data shown in the graph you posted.
The CRU site, where I got my graph does not agree with your graph. The CRU believe that world temperature is rising. If your graph is on the CRU site then post a link to it so that we can read the commentary on the graph. You claimed your info was provided by the CRU. Now prove it.
since you OBVIOUSLY do not/can not understand the data and the graphs and even the very concept of time-frames and their importance, should you really be commenting?
More interesting info.
Global warming over the next 40 years will cut through Arctic transportation networks like a double-edged sword, limiting access in certain areas and vastly increasing it in others, a new UCLA study predicts.
"As sea ice continues to melt, accessibility by sea will increase, but the viability of an important network of roads that depend on freezing temperatures is threatened by a warming climate," said Scott Stephenson, a UCLA graduate student in geography and the study's lead author...
The findings appear in the June issue of the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Nature Climate Change.
"Popular perception holds that climate warming will mean an opening up of the Arctic, but our study shows that this is only partly so," said co-author Laurence C. Smith, a UCLA professor of geography and author of "The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization's Northern Future" (Dutton Books, 2010). "Rising maritime access for ships will be severely countered by falling vehicular access on land."
By 2020, the Tibbitt–Contwoyto winter road, popularized in the History Channel reality television series "Ice Road Truckers," is projected to lose 17 percent of its eight- to 10-week operating season.
By 2050, three of the four major shipping routes will be fully accessible from July to September to Type A vessels, the study predicts
You claimed that your graph was supplied by the CRU. That is not the case. It is on the site of a denier. If the graph is on the CRU site then please supply a link to it so that it can be analysed in context.
One thing is clear: you lied about the CRU supporting your thesis of global cooling.
"Why would I bother, since it has nothing to do with Hedges statement, and since I made no reference to any such paper, [that was YOU, just in case you're confused] what the hell would I be doing wasting my time dealing with your strawman arguments?
"one of the reports most quoted by the deniers "
and yet funnily enough no one here but YOU made reference to it. Curious that, eh? you try to make it sound as if this report is some sort of bible for skeptics, yet you are the only one here referring to it, in what appears to be a sly attempt at 'guilt by association'. tsk tsk,"
If you bothered to read the article that started off this discussion then you would have noticed that its about the exposure of Hedges report as a cut & paste hodge podge. Thats what we are discussing here. Its what the thread is about. Perhaps you are on the wrong thread.
Now you've got me confused. Hedges wrote the article which started this thread but not the article on the plagiarised report.
"If you bothered to read the article that started off this discussion"
Oh I did . . . and it looks a 100% certainty that YOU did not.
"you would have noticed that its about the exposure of Hedges report"
Oh no it isn't - it's about an article that journalist Chris Hedges wrote that states, quite wrongly IMHO, that we are experiencing "rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming" - if you had read Hedges' article you would know that, but apparently you didn't. My guess is you just dropped in and saw that someone dared disagree with your almost-religious-devotion to the theory that Global Warming is caused by CO2, , and you reacted without bothering to read anything posted or bothering to pay anything but the most cursory attention to what has been going on in his thread.
"its about the exposure of Hedges report as a cut & paste hodge podge"
there's no such thing as the 'Hedges Report' - there IS such a thing as the 'Wegman report' - and you were the person that first mentioned it when you posted a link to an article about it. You even posted the words 'Wegman Report' in BOLD - -and now you can't even get it's name right. My guess is that you didn't even bother to fully read the article you posted, just copy & pasted the first thing you found on the net that you thought might help discredit anyone that dares question the almost-religious-devotion to the theory that Global Warming is caused by CO2, displayed by people like you whenever the subject is mentioned.
Highly ironic that you describe the Wegman Report as a 'cut&paste hodge-podge' , given that it is also a pretty good description of your own contributions to this thread, such as they are.
"Thats what we are discussing here" - NO, I'm afraid it is not what is being discussed here at all because the is no "Hedges report", it's called the 'Wegman Report' and YOU are the only one discussing the 'Wegman Report' and doing so fairly ineptly since you can't even get it's name correct. Other than your reference to it being called 'a strawman', no one but yourself has posted anything concerning it.
"Its what the thread is about" - once again, no it is not.
"Perhaps you are on the wrong thread." - Well yes, if we WERE discussing the non-existent 'Hedges Report' you refer to, or even the 'Wegman Report' to give it it's proper title, I certainly would be on the wrong thread, . . . . but we're not, . . . . I'd say if anyone's on the wrong thread here it would appear to be you.
"You claimed that your graph was supplied by the CRU."
No I didn't - @ Fri Jun 03, 2011 21:01, using the name 'hahaha' I CLEARLY stated that "t the temperature data set used to produce the graph of Temperature decline posted above come from the HADCRUT3 set of GLOBAL mean temperature. "
If you had bothered to read the full thread in a manner that actually allowed you to actually absorb what has been posted here you would have noticed that.
"If the graph is on the CRU site then please supply a link to it so that it can be analysed in context." -
This is some notion that YOU have constructed out of thin-air - no one said that the graph came direct from the CRU-website, again this is probably a result of your not reading things properly. YOUR inability, or tendency, to mis-interpret pretty much everything said here is seriously damaging what little credibility you may have ever possessed.
It has been clearly stated, as plainly as possible, several times, that the graph was produced using the HADCRUT3 dataset, supplied by the CRU.
"you lied about the CRU supporting your thesis of global cooling."
One thing is clear - the amount of mistakes, mis-interpretations and pure-inventions on display in the last few posts of yours, make you look like you really don't have much of a clue about anything concerning this subject and are capable only of producing a 'cut&paste hodge-podge', an astoundingly inadequate attempt to provide 'evidence' in support of your almost-religious-devotion to the theory that Global Warming is caused by CO2
In light of that, any false accusations you hurl at anyone, in a rather desperate attempt to distract from your own glaring short-comings, should be treated with the derision they so richly deserve.
SInce YOU have claimed that the graphs posted, showing temp decline for the time-period 2001-2011, are a misrepresentation of CRU data, you'll certainly have no problem proving it then, if your [rather silly and very desperate-looking] accusation is true
HERE is a link where you can find the HADCRUT3 data set - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow -
funnily enough YOU are the one that originally posted that link to the page where one can download the Datasets, so you could have compared the sets to the graph provided and already provided the 'proof' of your [rather silly and very desperate-looking] accusation at the same time as you made it, but I suppose, going on the level of attention you have displayed so far, you probably didn't pay any real attention to what that page contained.
Here - http://www.woodfortrees.org/software - is a link to a page where one could, if one so desired, download the source cod used to produce the graphs posted - you are certainly welcome, if you are capable,to audit the source-code and provide examples of where the code is so flawed that it produces incorrect graphs form the HADCRUT3 data set.
Instructions are very helpfully provided by the developer, who states:
This would be a fairly reliable proof of your [rather silly and very desperate-looking] accusation, were you able to produce such examples (with explanations, obviously)
Remember 2010? THAT is the year that James Hansen, one of the scientists most respected by people that like to make Alarmist and hysterical statements about 'Catastrophic Global Warming', claims was the warmest year on record.
Well, HERE - ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenlan...0.txt - is a link to the GISP2 Ice Core Temperature data used to produce the other graph posted, the 10,500 year temperature graph which as anyone can see clearly, shows that ONLY 9099 of the last 10,500 years were warmer than 2010.
Now you have everything you need to provide proof, if it exists, that your [rather ridiculous and very desperate-looking] accusation is true, and I look forward to seeing the results of your investigation -
"Now you've got me confused.
I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone reading this that no one but yourself is responsible for you being confused. Trying to blame someone else for the mistakes, mis-interpretations and pure-inventions you have posted here seems a little silly, given that the confusion you are very obviously experiencing is completely of your own making
curiously the person posting as "Student of the Atmosphere" @ Thu Jun 02, 2011 20:11 shows an almost identical disregard for attention-to-detail when s/he described the graph of GLOBAL mean temperates from 2001-to-2011, as a "local graph".
Just a thought but . . . . . . Perhaps you two should team-up and work on this together?
ceist leat.
'..the scientific data which shows..temperatures are doing the exact opposite of ...most of the Global Warming believers claims(sic) they are...'.(back there on the 4th ).
Seems, to my unscientific eye, you are claiming temperatures are FALLING.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming the icecaps are EXPANDING??If so, how come we are being misinformed by the mainstream media to the effect that the NW Passage is opening up and BP and the Russian Oiligarchs are rolling out their Arctic drilling rigs?And those reports about Canadian roads over the tundra breaking up because of subterranean warming, they lies too?
I'm one of them awkward idiots dont swallow stats and graphs without a shot of salt.
Oh, and those reports of ocean acidification and species collapse, is that just Walt Disney running a pilot?
RSVP.
Most of your contribution was a rant about a mistake that I had already admitted to. Nil Points.
But yes, follow your link and at the bottom of the page you get another link:
Climatic Research Unit : Information sheets
1: Global Temperature Record.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.
The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.
This time series is compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century. The warmth or coldness of individual years is strongly influenced by whether there was an El Nińo or a La Nińa event occurring in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (see Information Sheet 12).
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated:
'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns'
Stop misrepresenting the CRU. You're not even fooling yourself.
"Seems, to my unscientific eye, you are claiming temperatures are FALLING."
As any at least semi-literate individual can plainly see, I'm just posting data-graphs from the CRU, one of the major repositories of official Temperature data from around the world, which show temp decline for the past 10 years.
I'm just pointing out you what the data actually shows. If you have problems with what the data actually shows you should probably either take it up with the CRU, question the validity of the temp data etc., as some here already have very ineptly attempted to do, or just consider what the data actually shows. The choice is yours.
"Correct me if I'm wrong,"
well, on this subject, you usually are, and I usually do, so business as usual then?
"but are you claiming the icecaps are EXPANDING??"
a 'strawman argument' if ever I saw one, since in this thread I have made no reference to icecaps, at all, at all
None, nada, ziltch. . . . . (You are of course free to provide the quote from this thread where I made any reference to icecaps, if you can)
"how come we are being misinformed by the mainstream media"
This would be the very same Mainstream media that were full to the brim of reports misinforming us of Saddam's nukes, Al Qaida's danger to the West, or
the need to bailout crooked banks with taxpayers money etc etc, right?
There are many theories as to why the Mainstream media so often manages to misinform people.
However, a discussion of the MSM seems a little off-topic to me right now, and I'm loath to do anything which might result in my becoming the target of accusations, however baseless, of attempting to derail the thread by diverting from the subject matter of AGW-hysteria into a discussion of the MSM and their lying ways.
Sufficient for now to point out that theories concerning the MSM and it's propensity to misinform, run the gamut from just 'plain old laziness of editors and Journalists', all the way to 'nefarious Rothschild/New World Order/One World Gov't shenanigans'. Take your pick from any of them, whichever suits your particular brand of political persuasion is fine by me, Opie. You don't need my permission for that you know.
"I'm one of them awkward idiots"
Well, yes, . . . I won't argue with you on that point. As anyone that drops in here from time to time can plainly see, there you'll be, every single day, posting away. Predictable as the tides and the dawn.
"I'm one of them awkward idiots [that?] dont [sic] swallow stats and graphs without a shot of salt. "
I really don't care whether you spit or swallow, Opie. Though I will point out that salt is usually not very helpful to the swallowing process. Perhaps you might consider something like honey next time? Just a suggestion, mind.
If you have an issue with the CRU, one of the major repositories of official Temperature data from around the world, and it's sets of Temperature data, you should probably take it up with them. I just provided the graph produced from their freely available data-set.
"Oh, and those reports of ocean acidification and species collapse, is that just Walt Disney running a pilot?"
Well I've yet, in this thread, to say anything about 'acidification' of Oceans or acidification of anything else for that matter. I guess this is just another of your silly attempts at thread-derailment by creating silly 'straw-man arguments'.
I will point out though, that 'ocean acidification' is, IMHO, a silly made-up term designed by AGW hysterics to scare the innocent and the gullible.
I will also point out that the oceans are not 'acidifying', Some of them MAY be experiencing slight changes in Alkalinity, I don't really know as I haven't yet looked to deeply at the theories and the data as yet, and would guess that neither have you, so unlike you I'm not going to just pontificate on some subject I know little about.
But one thing I'm fairly confident in stating is that they are not 'acidifying', Opie.
If you understood the true meanings of the words Acid and Alkali, when used in this context, in reference to the Ocean, you'd understand why it's such a silly meaningless term.
Something is either 'Acidic' or it is 'Alkaline', or it may even be 'PH-neutral'. but it is NOT 'partly Acidic' and 'partly Alkaline' (or even partly 'PH-neutral').
If that something became 'less alkaline' that does not mean it becomes 'more Acidic'.
Bearing that in mind, one might then begin to wonder why certain AGW hysterics, and the MSM of course, have decided to describe it in such a terrifying fashion.
Or in your case , Opie, one may not [my guess is 'not']
@Speranza - yeah . . . whatever - instead of offering 'appeals to authority' and the usual copy&paste hodge-podge that seems to be preferred method of 'debate', you could just examine the data for yourself and provide proof that the graphs posted are inaccurate, since you now have access to the datasets produced by the CRU, used to produce the graphs.
But of course, as I guessed, you couldn't be bothered. Fair enough, I didn't expect anything different, given your behaviour so far
I never made any statements regarding the POSITION of the CRU - I have confined myself to commenting only on the graphs and datasets produced by the CRU - and as anyone can plainly see the graphs and dataset shown that from 2001 to 2011 the temperature has shown a Downward TREND overall for that period.
You STILL fail to understand such basic statistical terms such as 'TREND' , but given the confusion you've shown so far no one really should be surprised that you struggle to comprehend the significance of the term 'TREND' in relation to climate.
YOU claimed that the original graph was a misrepresentation of the contents of the temperature dataset, for that period. Yet despite being provided with the actual CRUT3 dataset you have STILL failed to show where, when and HOW the dataset has been inaccurately graphed.
YOU have in fact completely ignored the supplied CRU dataset, despite making ridiculous claims that is being somehow misrepresented. The only way for you to prove your ridiculous and untrue claim that the dataset is being incorrectly graphed would be to examine the contents of the dataset provided to you, and show how the data points have been changed or incorrectly graphed - this you have consistently failed to do
It seems you prefer to rely on INTERPRETATIONS of the data rather than examine the dataset itself - so I can only conclude that you'd much rather have someone else give you their INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA rather than examine it yourself. So again it is obvious that you prefer that someone else do your thinking for you.
You want someone else to do your thinking for you, fine I suppose you are entitled to that, but what you are not entitled to do is petulantly demand that just because you have failed to choose to think for yourself that everyone else must also decided not to think for themselves. You complete failure to examine the dataset is typical of the religious-like devotion of the AGW-hysterics the world over - you are nothing but mindless religious worshipers at the altar of AGW, unable to form a coherent understanding of the subject you claim to be devoted to, unwilling to examine any and all data which casts doubt on your religious-like beliefs, so you just decide to allow the CRU to do your thinking for you, in much the same way hard-core Catholics allow the Vatican to do their thinking for them in matters of morality
You misrepresented the data set. You pointed to the CRU data to back up your contention. It does not having the meaning which you claim. The latest data I posted from the CRU (from alink you provided) shows that the CRU believe the Earth is undergoing warming.
You are not fooling anyone here,
THe indictators mentioned below are expressed on graphs. I realise there is only one graph which me will asccept but I 'm posting this for Indy readers in general. You may access the info at the url at the bottom of the page. More info at< http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/index.html
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
How do we know the world has warmed?
The 11 indicators shown below have been compiled by the Met Office Hadley Centre for this purpose. They draw on the work of over 100 scientists from more than 20 institutions and provide, in one place, a holistic view of our climate from the depths of the oceans to the high atmosphere. Each indicator is expected to be strongly correlated with surface temperatures and for each one, multiple analyses are shown. Multiple analyses indicate which features of the series are not sensitive to the exact choice of analysis method and might be considered robust features of the climate.
In the long-term, seven of the indicators are rising and four are declining. Each of the indicators is consistent with the land surface temperature records and shows long-term warming.
The indicators were published in the BAMS State of the Climate 2009 report. If you use these images please acknowledge the source as the Met Office Hadley Centre and reference:
Kennedy J.J., P.W. Thorne, T.C. Peterson, R.A. Ruedy, P.A. Stott, D.E. Parker, S.A. Good , H.A. Titchner, and K.M. Willett, 2010: How do we know the world has warmed? [in .State of the Climate in 2009.]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91 (6), S26-S27.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindi....html
"You misrepresented the data set."
No I didn't - you have yet to show where or how the DATA in the DATASET has been inaccurately graphed despite being requested to do so several times now.
"You pointed to the CRU data to back up your contention."
I certainly did, and it certainly does - the data contained in the HADCRUT3 dataset definitely does back up the graph postedfor the time period 2001-2011. but you wouldn't know whether or not it does because, despite being provided with the dataset in question and the source-code used to produce the graphs, you have not bothered to attempt to use either the datset or the source-code or both to either confirm or to falsify the graph posted.
I stated that the CRU dataset was used to produce the graph and even gave you the link to the datasets so you could check for yourself - but you refused to do so, preferring instead to cut&paste a hodge-podge of interpretations of the data rather than address the data itself.
I also pointed to the fact that the 150 yr CRU temp graph YOU posted shows the EXACT SAME temperature decline for the time period 2001-2011. And it clearly does, irrespective of any protestations to the contrary on your part. Your inability to see or understand this is quite hilarious.
It does not having the meaning which you claim.
I made no statements as to it's 'meaning' - I merely posted an accurate graph of the data for the time-period 2001-2011. I then stated in precise and simple english what that graph of the HADCRUT3 data set CLEARLY shows for the time period 2001-2011. It CLEARLY shows a DOWNWARD TREND in temp for that specific time-period.
You claimed it was not an accurate graph, but have since consistently refused to show where and how it is an inaccurate visual representation of the data in the HADCRUT3 dataset, despite having access to the exact same datasets used to produce the graph.
"The latest data I posted from the CRU (from alink you provided) shows that the CRU believe the Earth is undergoing warming."
You posted an INTERPRETATION of the data, and still don't seem to understand the difference between an INTERPRETATION and a REPRESENTATION. Your inability to understand this difference is quite hilarious.
[ Response to hidden comment removed by moderator. it is still readable in page source ]
You are attempting sophistry but you lack the intelligence to carry it off. You present one graph in isolation and claim that proves your point. You have no understanding of how data sets are combined to arrive at a conclusion. I have now posted a link to 11 diiferent indicators which combined show a an upward trend in global temperatures. I dont think any rational person would believe that your one graph trumps that.
You guys have access to the same figures as everyone else. You couuld just check the figures provided to confirm or deny that in the time period 2001 - 2011 there is evidence of a declining trend in temperature, for the time period 2001-2011. The fact that neither of you have bothered tells it's own story.
It's not 'one graph in isolation' - it a graph of one of the major Temperature datasets containing recorded temperature measurement - and it clearly shows a declining trend in temperature Global Mean temperatures for the time period 2001-2011. The dataset is a combination of land and sea temperature compiled by the CRU, and a global mean is then produced.
You lot simply claiming that it isn't true doesn't make it so. No matter how many pathetic insults you post here, no matter how much bullshit you post, no matter how loudly, nor how often you childishly scream abuse it still won't change the fact that the HADCRUT3 dataset shows a declining trend in temperature over the time-period 2001-2011.
All you jokers have to do to prove me wrong is to extract the data from the freely available dataset which proves that the graph I posted is incorrect. And yet for some reason you still refuse to do that very simple task.
This is curious since it, if you were successful it would end any dispute over these figures right now - and yet for some reason, you two stalwarts of the 'scientific method' refuse to do this simple task. A skeptical person might begin to wonder at such stubborn refusal to perform such a simple, and very basic, task
[ response to hidden post removed by moderator and title edited. Its all still visible in source of page. Please try to stick to the discussion and less of the ad hominem fellas ok?. It might be best to agree on exactly which dataset you are all discussng then graph it between ye once and for all and discuss the result. that should sort the matter. no need for abuse. ]
Speranza @Sat Jun 04, 2011 21:42 posted a graph he claimed came direct from the CRU website.
he later, on numerous occasions, went on to say that his graph completely contradicted the graph I posted - and that therefore the graph I posted must be inaccurate. He also used one or two other choice-phrases to describe the graph I posted, but we'll ignore those for the moment.
Despite my explaining to him numerous times that over the specified time period (2001-2011) the two graphs actually were in complete agreement he continued to insist that it was not the case. It's as if he has no idea what is meant by the phrase "over the specified time period"
So I have taken the liberty of enlarging the graph Speranza posted as 'evidence' to 'refute' the simple-to-understand graph posted earlier by me, in order to clearly show that, despite Speranza's loud, and in some instances down-right rude, protestations to the contrary, the two graphs are in agreement concerning the declining trend in temp data over the specified time period
CRU graph, from CRU website, clearly showing temp trend declining, 2001-2011
You are deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of those graphs.
The CRU have shown with the 11 indicators I mention above that the combined data sets show that the global temperature is rising.
You're not fooling anyone. I wonder what your real agenda is?
Shell would be quite happy with your disinformation. I wonder if they are getting your work for free?
No one graph can give you an overview of what is happening to the gobal climate. The CRU do not issue reports based on one graph, they do not make up their mind based on one set of data.
The CRU have concluded that the global temperature is rising. They have based this on eleven indicators. Four of these suggest a drop in temperature, seven indicate a rise in temperature. The combination of these indicators have led the CRU to conclude that global temperature is rising. You can access this information and lots of graphs at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindi....html
Go there, look at the info, make your own mind up.
At this link http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/index.html you may access the following:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
IMPORTANT CLIMATE INDICATORS
Global Average Temperatures
How do we know the world has warmed?
UK climate and weather statistics
MARINE DATASETS
HadISST - Globally complete sea-ice and sea-surface temperature
HadSST2 - Uninterpolated sea-surface temperature
MOHMAT - Uninterpolated night marine air temperature
EN3 - ENSEMBLES: quality controlled in situ ocean temperature and salinity profiles
HadGOA - Global subsurface ocean analysis of temperature
HadDTR - A climatology of the diurnal temperature range of the Sea Surface
PRESSURE DATA
HadSLP2 - Monthly gridded sea-level pressures
EMSLP - Daily gridded sea-level pressures
UPPER AIR DATA
HadAT - Gridded free-atmosphere temperatures from radiosondes
QUARC - Quantifying Uncertainty in Adjusted Radiosonde Climate records
DAILY DATA/EXTREME INDICES
HadGHCND - Gridded land daily temperatures
HadEX - Indices of climate extremes
MarineClimatology.net (forum) (wiki) .
Links to all of the above and much more are available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/index.html
Go there and make your own mind up.
Your constant repetition of your false claim of 'misrepresentation' is amusing, as it indicates your complete inability to show HOW the data from the time-period in question has been misrepresented.
You have access to the freely available dataset, you have access to the source-code used to produce the original graph, you also have the enlarged graph posted just above which CLEARLY shows that the graph I posted and the graph you posted are in total agreement concerning the declining trend in temperature for the time period in question.
Yet even with all that you are still completely unable to demonstrate HOW, concerning the time-period under discussion (2001-2011) I am misrepresenting the data in the dataset.
All that would be required to prove me wrong would be to re-graph the data for that time period and compare it to the graph I posted. Yet for some strange reason you are astoundingly reluctant to perform this very minor task.
Simply drone-like repeation of your mantra over and over again won't make it magically just come true, Speranza.
"Shell would be quite happy with your disinformation. I wonder if they are getting your work for free?"
Oh well done - superbly lame attempt at misdirection - a strawman and ad hom all rolled into one - I take it you have some sort of proof to back up your shell-related false accusation? Or is it just another in a long line of attempt by you and certain other, more pettily vindictive and rather splenetic individuals, to rather lamely smear anyone that might dare question your new secular religion of Global Warmoing hysteria?
Possibly it's just you hope that by simply constantly repeating this false accusation in the same manner as your patently false claim of 'misrepresentation' of data from the dataset, that it too will magically just come true?
Sounds suspiciously like what Catholics and others of a religious bent do when they pray to their G*d(s) . . . . . . which is not surprising really given that your devotion to these 'CO2=AGW' theories has a distinctly religious-like quality
You are the one who is repeating the same disinformation in an attempt to drown out the truth.
As I have pointed out 3 times the CRU used 11 indicators, four showed a drop in temperature, seven showed a rise. It is the combination of the 11 indicators show that global temperature is rising. That answers your point but you dont really want an answer, no matter what response is given to you you will keep referring to your favourite graph. You have been to the 11 indicators link and you know that your questions about the graph are answered there.
I can only suggest to indy readers that they go to the links and make up their own minds.
A graph plucked out of context proves nothing.
And yes you do serve the interests of Shell. They are quite happy to have people like you around. I really wonder about you as the the info at the 11 indicators link clearly answers your points about the graphs. Therefore I can only assume that you are happy to spread disinformation.
let me sum it up for you - I posted the graph - I told you what it represented - the HADCRUT3 dataset for the period 2001-2011
YOU claimed I was misrepresenting the data from that data-set.
You claimed a number of times that I was lying about what the graph represented, and that the graph I posted did not represent what I said it represented
You then posted a graph from the CRU of a different time-frame and loudly claimed that your graph contradicted mine
I pointed out precisely where and how it actually CONFIRMED what I had posted.
I even gave you a percentage ('the last 6%') to help narrow it down so that anyone could simply examine the portion of your graph and clearly see that the two graphs corresponded exactly
I even later posted an enlarged version of YOUR graph so that even a blind fool could see that they corresponded
Yet for some reason you continued with your by now obviously false accusation.
So I provided you with the link for the actual data-set direct from the CRU website.
I also provided you with the source-code used to produce the graph I posted.
I told you that all one had to do to prove that the graph I posted was incorrect would be to examine the data, for the time period in question, in the dataset provided
For some mysterious reason, rather than use the CRU dataset and source-code to prove me wrong, you completely ignored the CRU source-data and code in favour of simply continuously claiming that I was lying and that the graph I posted to was a misrepresentation
The CRU do not issue reports based on one graph
the HADCRUT3 dataset is not 'one graph' - from the Met office Hadley Center Website
Hence the name: HAD CRU T3
your attempts to pass the HADCRUT3 dataset off as some inconsequential dataset are a joke.
It's one of the most referred-to datasets in the world of Climate Science - Media and NGO's such as Greenpeace, the UN, various Gov't around the world, and even the IPCC itself constantly use it as a reference source.
as the blurb said, it's made-up of a combination of other less-comprehensive data-sets, and is considered to be one of the major sources of Global MEAN temperature data in the world. When you hear someone refer to 'Global Mean temperature' the HADCRUT3 series is often the very source where they are getting their figures from.
You simply claiming that it's just 'one graph' (in fact a dataset, not a graph - the graph is a
Visual REPRESENTATION of the dataset) , just like all the other datasets, is laughable, and a completely erroneous representation of it's significance in the world of Climate Studies.
"The CRU have concluded that the global temperature is rising. They have based this on eleven indicators. Four of these suggest a drop in temperature, seven indicate a rise in temperature."
Even the CRU admits that the 'indicators' mentioned are not all in agreement. The CRU's 'conclusion' is an 'interpretation' of data from what even they admit are conflicting sources. It is not some sort of 'Gospel truth', no matter how much you want it to be. Neither is the HADCRUT3 dataset for that matter, but IT IS where a lot of people, the CRU included, source the data for many of their Climate-related reports from.
And few if any of them have bothered to point out the downward trend, clearly shown in that dataset, over the last 10 years.
Few, if any, have bothered to point out that according to the dataset of Global Mean Temp that they so frequent quote figures from there has been no discernible statistically significant warming over the last 16 years
A sensible, rational and open-minded person would at least be open to the possibility that:
given the chaotic (i.e: very hard to predict, some would say 'impossible' given the number of variables) nature of the Earths climate,
given that 'Climate studies' is a very young 'science' and therefore as yet improperly understood,
given that many of the predictions made so far using the Computerised Climate Models have often turned out to be completely wrong,
given that the models themselves are inadequate as they do not model all the variables,
given that it is unlikely we even know all, or even most, of the variables that should be included in the Computerised Models,
then some, if not all, of what the CRU has to say on the matter may well be completely wrong.
But given your religious-like devotion to the theories of AGW-hysterics, and given your clear determination to completely deny what the data shows for the period 2001-2011, it appears unlikely that you'll ever be included in any such group consisting of the open-minded.
And yes you do serve the interests of Shell. They are quite happy to have people like you around. I really wonder about you as the the info at the 11 indicators link clearly answers your points about the graphs. Therefore I can only assume that you are happy to spread disinformation.
when you're reduced to posting false accusations, Speranza, it weakens any case you may have ever had. Simply attempting to smear those that disagree is the mark of a pathetic fool - you obviously can't substantiate your accusation of misrepresentation by referring to the dataset, (otherwise you would have done so by now) because I already know that the dataset completely confirms what I have posted in graph-form, so you simply are reduced to pathetic smear-tactics in a lame and futile attempt to discredit
You're like the religiously-deranged of old that screamed 'Devil-worshiper' at anyone that dared question the collective hypnotism favoured by the Church of Rome and other Christian zombies
you sure are good at the vitriolic abuse and patronising dismissal of all who challenge your monocular fixation on your chosen data set.
Any chance when you have vented your spleen you respond to that original query(preferably using my user name rather than attempting more of the above, if you are capable)as to whether you are maintaining the temperatures are FALLING?
I am quite happy to accept your post that the data indicates a temperature fall(as does the June weather), but there are indications this is something less than the full picture, and that the reports of polar and glacier retreat contradicts this data set.
Once again, are you denying this? I think if you return to your offhand dismissal you might find you have failed to actually address the point.
RSVP(preferrably sans personal rancour and abuse). This is a PUBLIC forum so requests to butt out(however forcefully couched) are non kosher.
I will point out again, since it has been deleted, that rejection of contradictory EVIDENCE is decidedly unscientific. I shouldn't have to remind someone as learned as yourself that the ' lies, damn lies and statistics ' health warning remains valid and in general use.
Or is contradictory EVIDENCE a no-go area for your graphic analysis?
If so, just say so, and leave the denegration to the kindergartners. Ta.
The denier is not interested in the truth. He thinks that by plucking a graph out of context he proves a point.
Go here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/index.html and you will find the full CRU data.
plucking a graph out of context
there's nothing 'out of context' about that graph - Hedges said "The rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming"
I proved that the official GISP Greenland data set shows that there was nothing especially 'rapid' nor anything particularly 'terrifying' about any Global Warming experienced so far, since the GISP data set shows many such changes over the past few thousand years. You appear to have missed that one too, in your head-strong rush to defend the the new religion of AGW
That dataset clearly shows that many of these changes were greater than anything we have experienced over the past 400 years, since the end of the little ice-age. - BTW - It's called Little Ice age for a reason - its was quite cold and has been getting warmer since - exactly what one would expect after the end of something with the words 'Ice' and 'Age' in it's name, n'est-ce pas?
No anthropogenic CO2 emissions were required to explain earlier temperature rises, and none are required now -
and I also proved that there certainly is no ' acceleration ' since, for the period 2001-2011 even a blind fool could see, from the graph posted, the very clear declining trend in temperature, - THAT is pretty close to being the OPPOSITE of 'acceleration'
Even your fellow AGW-Devotee, Opie, has accepted that what I have said is correct : that for the time period 2001-2011, the official data set of Global Mean Temp, one of the most important and widely used data sets, clearly shows a declining trend and thus shows that both you and Hedges are incorrect and are indulging in nothing more than AGW hysterical scaremongering - you posted absolutely nothing that contradicts that assertion regarding temp trend for the period under discussion. Absolutely nothing.
Your complete inability to admit that you were wrong on a point that you spent a lot of time attempting to defend is getting kinda childish at this point
You were not able to substantiate your claim that the data set was misrepresented so you just attempted, rather unsuccessfully, to move the goal posts
At the CRU site it quite clearly states that thir conclusion is based on a combination of eleven indicators. They clearly admit that four of these indicators suggest that the Earth is cooling. However the other seven indicators show that the the Earth is warming.
It is the combination of the 11 data sets which lead CRU to conclude that the Earth is ungergoing warming.
One graph or even one data set alone will not give an overview of the Climate situation.
You are now just repeating yourself. This is the sixth time that I have posted information which answers your points about the graphs.
How many more times are you going to repeat the same attempts at disinfomation and misrepresentation. You are wasting the time of the Indy readers and wasting bandwidth by repeating lies which have been answered repeatedly.
' Even your fellow AGW devotee....'???
I ASKED A QUESTION.
You still fail to reply.
I hold no brief for or against either side. I retain an open mind on the issue. Your abusive comments and distortions indicate insecurity in regards to your graphs and evidence. Dishonesty and personal sneering do NOT constitute science. Nor do imputing views NOT held or expressed.
These PROPAGANDIST methods incline me to believe, whatever the case for or against AGW, your evidence is untrustworthy.
Troll on.
more of the 'what SCIENCE is!!!OneOnE1" from Opie
Opie you're not some slick prosecuting lawyer playing to the jury, or some big shot detective in some hot new TV show, so stop acting like one, mKay?
"I ASKED A QUESTION." - All-Caps, eh? Wow you're really annoyed if you're pulling out the 'All-caps method of debate'
you did ask a question, I considered it to be either just a silly attempt at a strawman, something you do a lot btw IMHO, OR a possibly genuine question but a really clueless one. So I just ignored it as a waste of time either way.
Judging by the use of ALL-CAPS I now see that you really are annoyed I never answered it, and it really was a genuine, if clueless, question.
So I'll answer it for you as best I can: -My Graph is a true representation of the dataset from the CRU, during the period 2001-2011 and if either you or speranza had proof it wasn't then one of you would have posted it by now.
So the temp trend has declined - irrespective of whether you or Speranza loudly deny it, over and over and over again - according to figures from sourced from the CRU, a source which you have never doubted before until I used those figures to prove that declining trend, over the time period in question
So just because the temp has shown a declining trend for the last 10 years in no way means that the ice that is melting will somehow magically immediately start to refreeze again.
( I bolded that so people like Speranza - who very obviously doesn't really read and absorb what is written, and just skims the text for something he CAN understand, and then runs off and grabs the first thing he finds on the net that tells him different, without reading or absorbing THAT either btw, will notice it )
The melting ice is a pretty small percentage of the Global total of ice btw, even when one counts the cumulative-total melt over decades.
I note that you only referred to the glacier and polar ice and said nothing about the Antarctic ice - which is a good sign, IMHO, because it actually means you really learned something from the last time we had a conversation about Ice, on this site.
So for the moment I'll accept that you now MAY have LESS of a closed mind on these things than when we first argued over this subject quite some time ago.
However I also note that though you've made remarks such 'lies damn lies and statistics' concerning some of the CRU supplied figures I have referred to, you have never once made them concerning any figures put forward by a supporter of the AGW nonsense - not once - ever - even when they too produce figures from the CRU
In all the time I've seen you comment on this subject, which is quite a lot of comments, btw., you have never once attacked any AGW devotee - ever.
Never once cast doubt on anything they say, never once queried some of their more truly outlandish claims, and there have been many - so you'll have to accept because of that, I view your statement that "I hold no brief for or against either side. I retain an open mind on the issue." with a fairly high degree of skepticism.
However that being said, it appears that you now accept that the Polar, Greenland and Glacial ice make up just a relatively small percentage of the worlds ice, LESS than 9%, and that the bulk of the worlds ice, the Eastern Antarctic, is in fact increasing in mass
There is also new evidence to suggest that, though the coastal area in Greenland is losing Ice mass, the central inland areas a gaining slightly.
If you accept those few statements regarding Ice - which you should because they are a fairly accurate and up-to-date description of the current knowledge regarding Ice melt, but whether you will or not is up to you [I'm gonna guess 'not' again, because you are nothing if not completely predictable] - then it should be pretty clear that there is a pretty strong campaign, by certain AGW Scientists, the media, NGO's such as Greenpeace, and various Govt's and Politicians, to muddy the waters concerning the true picture regarding Ice melt.
Many of those people appear to be strongly pushing the idea that some sort of catastrophic global-wide Ice melt is going to swamp us all.
This is pure nonsense - even the IPCC admitted in 2007 that it would take a minimum of 10,000 years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt, at currently in-vogue projected melt-rates - note they said a 'Minimum', so that is obviously a worst case scenario, and in truth they think it would most likely probably take a good deal longer.
"Your abusive comments and distortions indicate insecurity in regards to your graphs and evidence"
If you say so Opie - but it really looks like you're just projecting your own emotions onto your opponent
"Dishonesty and personal sneering do NOT constitute science"
I agree and I think both you and Speranza should stop doing it. It's unbecoming, chaps, for such noble and clearly expert practitioners of the 'scientific method (!!!ONEone1), such as yourselves, to stoop to such base tactics, and so often too
"Nor do imputing views NOT held or expressed."
I agree - for the sake of brevity: see my comments about 'dishonesty and personal sneering' above
"These PROPAGANDIST methods incline me to believe, whatever the case for or against AGW, your evidence is untrustworthy."/
to be honest Opie, at this stage I don't really care what you think - you've shown yourself to have a fairly closed mind on this so I actually expect you to reject it - that's half the fun, watching you scramble to try to provide spurious reasons for rejecting it - for example Speranza has used CRU figures to reject CRU figures , saying the ones I chose are meaningless, that the ones I chose are the 'Baaaaad' CRU figures whereas the ones he chose are the 'Good' CRU figures - which I think is hilarious and just shows how confused and irrational he really is. He doesn't even seem to realise that this may cause others to doubt the CRU itself - which to be honest I'd be, like, Totally, in favour of.
Whereas you Opie have said, about the seemingly 'Baaad' CRU figures I showed you, that there are 'lies damn lies and statistics' - while at the same time completely accepting without question all the similar ''lies damn lies and statistics' ' presented by Speranza, or any other AGW-flunky who ever posted any AGW-related crap.
You seem to have forgotten that both sets of figures are produced by the same organisation, and that using that phrase you are so fond of - ''lies damn lies and statistics' - in a fairly lame attempt, IMHO, to cast doubt on my set of CRU-figures, also casts doubt on Speranza's set of CRU-figures
That neither of you, even after all this, seem to understand the meaning of the term 'declining Temperature trend' is the real icing on the cake though.
Speranza seems to equate it with meaning that there has never been any Global Warming anywhere ever - while you seem to think that it means that the Ice will just magically un-melt just because the temperature trend declined somewhat
You two really are a source of endless AGW-related chuckles
SO now that I've answered your silly question about ice, maybe you'll stop showing your complete cluelessness on this subject by repeatedly and loudly asking clueless questions while at the same time arguing against everything posted that calls into question the hysterical AGW group-think . . . . but I doubt it, judging by past behaviour
It's not the arguing I mind, or even the cluelessness, it's that you only ever argue against one set of opinions while at the same time loudly proclaiming your objectivity - and THAT, Opie, is just plain dishonest
If you are going to reply claiming that you are objective then please DO try and include as evidence just one, just one Opie, example where you questioned or queried, in this thread, anything said by any devotee of the new religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming - I doubt you'll even for a moment consider doing this, but just in case, thanks in advance -
your's sincerely
me
that the greater benefit is restriction of carbon output,
I never said it was - as usual that's just something you made up out of thin air - reading what I wrote it should be obvious to any thinking person that I see the new Carbon Markets as just a money-making scam, and for that the Carbon-marketers need the help of the AGW alarmist CO2 demonisers to keep demonising
What exactly is it about simple questions that frightens you into such tendentious and dismissive condescension?
Calling the question a 'strawman' is scientific in the extreme. Most conducive to rational and democratic discussion.
Please excuse the lack of capitals. You've intimidated me into whispering and cringing(that is the intention, I take it).
BULLY for you.