Global Temperatures Plummeting

[Ruffneck]

another chart... a sea ice one

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

give it 6months and that is going to +5%.. then we'll see if they still think its going down...

exactly , by reading the graph i see it is maybe 0.3% below the long term average

if everyone really did believe in global warming and rising sea levels they why are coastal properties still so expensive? won't they be underwater in 20 years?

[Pick It Down]

So do you believe that there thousands of climate scientists deliberately and knowingly falsifiying their results in order to protect their jobs?

No. Look at my post again. Only a few bad apples (like there are in any group of people) have distorted the science. The rest find it easier to go along with the mob, than be ostracised by the community and lose their job.

[Pick It Down]

another chart... a sea ice one

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

give it 6months and that is going to +5%.. then we'll see if they still think its going down...

Meanwhile

[Ruffneck]

so even during the freak year of 1998 southern sea ice was stable?

whats the original source for that graph?

[Daveylad]

So do you believe that there thousands of climate scientists deliberately and knowingly falsifiying their results in order to protect their jobs?

Month CET Anomaly notes

January 6.6 2.8

February 5.4 1.7

March 6.1 0.4

April 7.9 0.1

May 13.4 2.2

June 13.9 -0.2

July 16.2 0.2

August 16.2 0.4

September 13.5 -0.1

October 9.7 -0.9

November 7.0 0.5

December 3.5 -1.1

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR

2003 4.5 3.9 7.5 9.6 12.1 16.1 17.6 18.3 14.3 9.2 8.1 4.8 10.50

2004 5.2 5.4 6.5 9.4 12.1 15.3 15.8 17.6 14.9 10.5 7.7 5.4 10.48

2005 6.0 4.3 7.2 8.9 11.4 15.5 16.9 16.2 15.2 13.1 6.2 4.4 10.44

2006 4.3 3.7 4.9 8.6 12.3 15.9 19.7 16.1 16.8 13.0 8.1 6.5 10.82

2007 7.0 5.8 7.2 11.2 11.9 15.1 15.2 15.4 13.8 10.9 7.3 4.9 10.48

2008 6.6 5.4 6.1 7.9 13.4 13.9 16.2 16.2 13.5 9.7 7.0 3.5 9.96

2009 3.0 4.1 7.0

(Hadley Cell official stats - data collected from 1659)

Doesn't look like a warming trend to me!

Never underestimate the power of research funding, tats can be manipulated in many ways. Many climate scientists are not associated with 'global warming' and many others have had selected results reported for political reasons without consent, despite referrences.

The climate picture is complex and not clear cut. Some of the lies have a depth and complexity mired in international politics, population and trade economics that are dificult to pin down, so view all headlines with sceptiscism. Personally I stick to empirical facts alone and having studied climate science I am not convinced either way.

Irrespective of this, we are in an interglacial period so enjoy any warming trend while you can - man made or not, and beware of the tax implication behind flaky science espoused by dodgy politicians.

[Scunnered]

No. Look at my post again. Only a few bad apples (like there are in any group of people) have distorted the science. The rest find it easier to go along with the mob, than be ostracised by the community and lose their job.

But I still don't understand this. If only a few of them are bad, then the majority must be OK; but then it appears that this majority go along with the majority in case they're ostracised by the majority.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Let's assume that the whole climate change thing is in fact a sham. Now if you're a scientist studying this subject then there appear to be several options: (a ) you recognise that it's a sham, and stand up and blow the whistle; (b ) you recognise that it's a sham but go along with it in order to keep your job, presumably deliberately producing false results in order to do so; (c ) you're taken in by it, and continue to work in the field while producing results that perpetuate the fraud, presumably somehow fooling yourself that the false results of your research are in fact true. Now the number of people in category (a ) seems to be relatively small: I get the impression that majority of climate scientists aren't 'dissenters'. You can find plenty of people with scientific credentials on the web who are anti-man-made-global-warming, but these usually turn out to be retired professors of some subject like engineering at some college in rural Washington state that you've never heard of. OK, I'm exaggerating, but my point is that the majority of practising climate scientists don't appear to be sceptics (or not in public anyway). This means that most of them fall into categories (b ) and (c ): they're either liars or fools. Now this may be the case, but I find it difficult to see how an entire scientific discipline could have ended up in such a state so quickly. People don't appear to feel the same way about chemists or physicists or geologists or biologists, so how is it that the climate people have managed to become so corrupt?

Edit: damn those smileys: (a),(,©,(d),...

[Guest redwine]

But I still don't understand this. If only a few of them are bad, then the majority must be OK; but then it appears that this majority go along with the majority in case they're ostracised by the majority.

Edit: damn those smileys: (a),(,�,(d),...

a good example of modern day total disrespect for the earths ressouces is "dubai"

golf courses in the desert

indoor ski slopes

they built a desert island next to a desert

they didnt have the intelligence to use solar panels to exploit the energy of the sun

despite the warning of global warming making money was more important than climate change

i think that dubai was a total mockery of the scientific and ecologist movement

it is always difficult to fight propoganda especially where theres lots of money making going on

[Daveylad]

But I still don't understand this. If only a few of them are bad, then the majority must be OK; but then it appears that this majority go along with the majority in case they're ostracised by the majority.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Let's assume that the whole climate change thing is in fact a sham. Now if you're a scientist studying this subject then there appear to be several options: (a ) you recognise that it's a sham, and stand up and blow the whistle; (b ) you recognise that it's a sham but go along with it in order to keep your job, presumably deliberately producing false results in order to do so; (c ) you're taken in by it, and continue to work in the field while producing results that perpetuate the fraud, presumably somehow fooling yourself that the false results of your research are in fact true. Now the number of people in category (a ) seems to be relatively small: I get the impression that majority of climate scientists aren't 'dissenters'. You can find plenty of people with scientific credentials on the web who are anti-man-made-global-warming, but these usually turn out to be retired professors of some subject like engineering at some college in rural Washington state that you've never heard of. OK, I'm exaggerating, but my point is that the majority of practising climate scientists don't appear to be sceptics (or not in public anyway). This means that most of them fall into categories (b ) and (c ): they're either liars or fools. Now this may be the case, but I find it difficult to see how an entire scientific discipline could have ended up in such a state so quickly. People don't appear to feel the same way about chemists or physicists or geologists or biologists, so how is it that the climate people have managed to become so corrupt?

Edit: damn those smileys: (a),(,?,(d),...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I indicated in my post it is not black and white nor a, b, c or d. It is grey, and like most things in life there are extremities of opinion. Climate science, unlike geological tectonic plate movement or indeed genetic drif is not fully understood. The models used require massive computers which in turn need human data input (which is open to error). The data input is also not the full picture as there are subtle cycles within this (i. The Milankovitch climate paradigm, procession and La nina etc...) and the projected outcomes are often speculative .

The problem with the whole debate is it is not debated scientifically by academics - but by the tabloids and policy makers who inturn have an agenda and therefore box opinion.

Don't look at the debate and then for an answer. Look at the evidence and form your own thoughts to then debate.

Erimus

[Scunnered]

As I indicated in my post it is not black and white nor a, b, c or d

I was specifically replying to Pick It Down's earlier statement that

Notice they'll be long gone by the time their ineffectual policies are shown to have been based on a lie.

This is a despicable period in the history of science - scientists using their power over the naive and thick to drive policy through fraudulent science.

That's a pretty black-and-white statement, and I'm trying to pin him (or her) down on exactly what he thinks is going on. He's pretty clear that there's fraud going on, and I want to find out who's doing it and how widespread it is.

[Daveylad]

I was specifically replying to Pick It Down's earlier statement that

That's a pretty black-and-white statement, and I'm trying to pin him (or her) down on exactly what he thinks is going on. He's pretty clear that there's fraud going on, and I want to find out who's doing it and how widespread it is.

Sorry scunnered. On y' go lad....

[Pick It Down]

I was specifically replying to Pick It Down's earlier statement that

That's a pretty black-and-white statement, and I'm trying to pin him (or her) down on exactly what he thinks is going on. He's pretty clear that there's fraud going on, and I want to find out who's doing it and how widespread it is.

1) The quest to Get Rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period. This was a stated intention in the mid90s, at which point the MWP was universally accepted to be much warmer than present days. A few years later, cue the fraudulent Hockey Stick. Read the Wegman Report or Climate Audit for more info.

2) Jim Hansen's continual "cooling of the past" in his GISS temperature series. Adjustments are made regularly to historic temperatures (from the network of sensors) to cool them, in order to make the present appear warmer. The present never changes, the past gets cooler.

3) The underplaying of UHI and microsite effects on monitoring stations - www.surfacestations.org has documented how a large percentage are near artificial heat sources such as car parks, asphalt or BBQs (yes, exactly).

4) The refusal of the Hadley Centre to release information under Freedom of Information requests.

5) Steig et al paper which recently argued that the Antarctic was warming - it isn't, and sea ice is growing there (see graph above)

It's only by digging into the issues that you get a full appreciation of the climate change fraud and this is just an intro. You'll have to do your own research to see what you think.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

I'm an expert on the history of science and how it operates. Wanna discuss Kuhn and Feyerabend?

I wouldn't dare argue with an expert. I am a mere patent clerk.

[Scunnered]

It's only by digging into the issues that you get a full appreciation of the climate change fraud and this is just an intro. You'll have to do your own research to see what you think.

I also forgot to ask why they're doing this.

[Pick It Down]

I also forgot to ask why they're doing this.

I'm not a mindreader.

I would guess the initial advancers of the theory did actually believe in it, as I have previously said the evidence (while circumstantial) did back up the CO2 theory in the 80s and 90s. Now they have too much invested in it they can't change course.

[Bardon]

I also forgot to ask why they're doing this.

Most people want a clean, green environment so Big Green exploits that by inventing all sorts of farfetched threats to the environment. They are the banking cartels and their cronies. Their motive is social control, keeping the third world underdeveloped, eugenics and maintaining their monopoly over the economic system.

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." "The First Global Revolution" published by the "Club of Rome"

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. —Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

[Bardon]

I wouldn't dare argue with an expert. I am a mere patent clerk.

[erranta]

I wouldn't dare argue with an expert. I am a mere patent clerk.

A palpable 'patent' clerk!

Talkin about 'dino_saurs - are they still dotted around the pond?

[erranta]

I wouldn't dare argue with an expert. I am a mere patent clerk.

Dubble post

[Scunnered]

Most people want a clean, green environment so Big Green exploits that by inventing all sorts of farfetched threats to the environment. They are the banking cartels and their cronies. Their motive is social control, keeping the third world underdeveloped, eugenics and maintaining their monopoly over the economic system.

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." "The First Global Revolution" published by the "Club of Rome"

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. —Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Pick It Down almost had me convinced, but you've just blown it completely. I just don't go for conspiracy theories, and the suggestion that there are shadowy organisations that have somehow managed to suborn almost the entire scientific establishment just seems ludicrous. There are far more obvious candidates for perpetrators of a conspiracy, namely the oil and motor companies who have excellent reasons to wish to discredit climate change science. I don't even find that theory very convincing (these people have plenty of direct access to politicians in order to lobby them, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to get public opinion behind them as well), but it seems a lot more likely than the opposite view.

How are these people supposed to operate? Are they handing out big wads of cash to scientists to persuade them to produce fake results? Are they secretly influencing politicians? Is it all done by propaganda in the media? Are their supporters aware of what's going on, or are they unwitting dupes?

I still don't understand how an entire scientific discipline is supposed to have become corrupt. Are they doing it on purpose, or are they just deluded? How come all these people on the internet can spot that the science is wrong, but the practitioners themselves haven't noticed?

[Bardon]

I just don't go for conspiracy theories, and the suggestion that there are shadowy organisations that have somehow managed to suborn almost the entire scientific establishment just seems ludicrous.

What else would these organizations be in existence about ?

I don’t know why you think things like the old money, pressure organizations, politically minded elite trying to influence outcomes are either shadowy or ludicrous or even a conspiracy theory.

Why do you need to turn perfectly normal happenings in the world into a conspiracy theory cant you accept that organizations go about things to meet their objectives. It doesn't have to be any more mysterious than that. I wonder what organizations did before conspiracy theories were invented.

Anyway I don’t really need to convince you off something, just not interested in that really and I don’t expect you to convince me of anything either.

[kara gee]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/uah-...gain-near-zero/

Usually scientific theory adjusts itself when new facts come in. Global warming theory seems to be the exception - whatever new contrary data is discovered, the theory never changes. Too much VI to change it.

Oh, this data is by Dr. Roy Spencer. Just so happens that the very same Dr. Roy Spencer is also heavily involved with these organisations:

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station (recieved $95,000 from Exxonmobil since 1998)

Heartland Institute (has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.)

George C. Marshall Institute (received $840,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998)

So I guess Dr Spencer has no VI there then.

[erranta]

Pick It Down almost had me convinced, but you've just blown it completely. I just don't go for conspiracy theories, and the suggestion that there are shadowy organisations that have somehow managed to suborn almost the entire scientific establishment just seems ludicrous. There are far more obvious candidates for perpetrators of a conspiracy, namely the oil and motor companies who have excellent reasons to wish to discredit climate change science. I don't even find that theory very convincing (these people have plenty of direct access to politicians in order to lobby them, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to get public opinion behind them as well), but it seems a lot more likely than the opposite view.

How are these people supposed to operate? Are they handing out big wads of cash to scientists to persuade them to produce fake results? Are they secretly influencing politicians? Is it all done by propaganda in the media? Are their supporters aware of what's going on, or are they unwitting dupes?

I still don't understand how an entire scientific discipline is supposed to have become corrupt. Are they doing it on purpose, or are they just deluded? How come all these people on the internet can spot that the science is wrong, but the practitioners themselves haven't noticed?

Only those who ask questions about their everyday 'reality' and what is fed to them thru various media, will uncover the frauds "hidden in plain sight"

[PopGun]

If and when I hear a significant number of credible, qualified climatologists throwing serious doubt on the theory of human-induced climate change then, and only then, will I take it seriously. If instead I just see ignorant, vested-interest, politicians, businessmen and random people posting on bulletin boards trying to throw doubt on it then I will ignore them. The world's scientists are not involved in some grand conspiracy to fool the world's public. Science simply does not work like that.

Science is one of the few areas where an "argument from authority" is actually worth something. This only applies if the authority in question is collective. That is: if an overwhelming majority of the scientists in any particular field all agree on something then we have a pretty damned good reason to believe it is true. If a significant majority of non-scientists are denying it, especially if it is something like this where it is in their vested interests to deny it, then we have a pretty damned good reason to ignore those people.

Scientists, unlike laymen, have some skin in the game - they have a great deal to lose if they get it wrong because their future credibility depends on not getting it wrong. People like the person who started this thread have absolutely nothing to lose by getting it wrong and quite a lot to gain by fooling themselves, since to do so absolves them of any moral responsiblity to do anything about the problem.

There is no difference here between climate change, the population problem or peak oil. In all three cases there are large numbers of people who will jump on any excuse to claim the science is wrong, because each of them is a highly inconvenient truth. They aren't remotely interested in getting to the truth of the matter. All they are interested in is trying to find ways to justify believing whatever it suits them to believe.

Trust me, I'm a scientist!

[Ruffneck]

Oh, this data is by Dr. Roy Spencer. Just so happens that the very same Dr. Roy Spencer is also heavily involved with these organisations:

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station (recieved $95,000 from Exxonmobil since 1998)

Heartland Institute (has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.)

George C. Marshall Institute (received $840,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998)

So I guess Dr Spencer has no VI there then.

didnt expect him to work for nothing did you?

don't act like the ones who agree with warming don't get grants either

[MrPin]

"Forecasters predict that temperatures could rise by 3C to 4C, making the West Country ideal for growing crops such as grapes, sweetcorn and sunflowers."

What forecasters? Where did they publish?

"Scotland and the north of England could also benefit with average winter temperatures rising by up to 2.6C."

Would be nice!

What odds would Ladbrokes give me on this?

/i]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow - that is a shock. Would never have guessed this was Government sponsored before I read it....NOT !!

It's an appalling article which unfortunately lumps serious environmental science together with astrology, and tealeaf reading!

I just cannot believe the media's "absolute mania" with a colourless gas (you know which one!) which feeds plants anyway!

Every news article seems to include a mention of "dangerous climate change", and those leaflets in Tesco,

with the big black footprint on them, designed to scare children, were just creepy, and probably printed to sell new light bulbs!

Reminds me of the "stranger danger" mania, and Brass Eye's brilliant spoof!

Like "privatisation" was the answer to every economic ill, 20 years ago, "carbon trading" will now solve everything?

I think not!

I don't think 0.5 degrees temperature change will make much difference to anyone, but these threads go on and on.