Climate Change Experts Predict Mild Winter

[ccc]

And? None of that bears the slightest resemblance to the rhetoric that 6538 attributes (in the form of direct quotations) to whoever it is that he's railing against:

Let me repeat: he implies that this comes from climate scientists. It doesn't. He's just made it up. It's a stupid circular argument: you fabricate stuff, claim it comes from your enemies, then use it to condemn them.

He says 'they'. He would have to confirm who 'they ' are in reference too.

Yes it is not in the form of direct quotes the same as what he was saying. However the jist of it is similar. Especially the stuff on 'morale' outrage by the Scottish Church.

That is very much 'We are in this all together'. Or at least we 'should' be in this all together.

This is just one day on that particular BBC site. And we have 4 stories. About moral indignation. Needing to come up with some sort of agreement. Etc...

Whilst not exactly backing up exactly quote for quote what 6538 states. I do think it backs up his general point.

[athe]

And Fluffy for your enjoyment. From just back in August. BBC. So here you have it - in black and white. Good enough example for you ?

Hot weather in Russia 'partly blamed on climate change'

Hot weather

"Global climate change is partly to blame for the abnormally hot and dry weather in Moscow, cloaked in a haze of smoke from wildfires, say researchers. "

So what your saying, is that the russians had unusual hot weather over the summer, even though the sun was, at that time, (and still) unusually cold?

[fluffy666]

I know it because they do it all the time. You want us to point to examples of TV stories showing something to do with the weather that tells the public it is (Or could be) down to climate change ? Are you for real ?!

Yes.

This is just the front page of the BBC Science & Environment page today.

UK renewables under fire

"The last 10 years have been a lost decade for renewables. Labour's tragic legacy is that we are 25th out of 27 EU member states on renewables. We have been playing as amateurs when we should have been in the Premiership."

Those words are a quote from Chris Huhne. Are you saying that for the BBC to quote a politician directly is proof of bias??

Or quoting the president of the Royal Society on scientific matters.

I really don't understand, what is your point? Reality has a bias?

[fluffy666]

Russia

Fluffy - you will now need to apologise to Ruffneck. You are wrong. He is right. It is there in black and white. He did not 'simply make something up'. The facts are there for all to see.

Wales is not Russia, last I checked.

And this is NOT, as implied, some BBC op-ed or opinion piece. It's the BBC reporting scientific research, which in this case has reached the shocking conclusion that the summer temperatures in Russia - breaking records over a huge area by a large margin - may be partially the result of global warming.

I suppose in skeptic land, unless the media has a rolling banner headline saying 'GLOBAL WARMING ALL WRONG ALL SCIENTISTS POOPY HEADS' , then it's clearly biased?

[6538]

But yet again you're just making this up. You say "Listen to the rhetoric they use" and then write down lots of stuff that you've just invented. Most of it's just rubbish that nobody has ever actually said.

Maybe not those exact words and, as I said, someone can probably put it better than me. Look at what the proposed "answers" to the problem put forward by the hard-core global wramists are though. Less personal freedom (less choice in what vehicle you drive, how much and how far you travel), everyone has to change their lifestyle "for the greater good". We have to sufer massively higher levels of taxation when, in reality, throwing money at the problem won't solve it. Imean, how can it possibly help to increase road tax on certain vehicles (expensive ones to begin with) to a grand a year when that's a pretty insignificant amount to the people buying them? If the vehicles are causing damage then why not just ban them outright?

We have a bunch of gormless politicans who constantly jet off about the world on "climate change" conferences, seemingly in the face of their own adivice. Can't they just video conference it?

Climate change is about revenue raising and exercising a certain level of control over the populous and not a great deal more.

[6538]

And? None of that bears the slightest resemblance to the rhetoric that 6538 attributes (in the form of direct quotations) to whoever it is that he's railing against:

Let me repeat: he implies that this comes from climate scientists. It doesn't. He's just made it up. It's a stupid circular argument: you fabricate stuff, claim it comes from your enemies, then use it to condemn them.

Fair enough, I probably shouldn't have put them in quotations, I was paraphrasing. We all know what point I'm trying to make though.

[libspero]

Wales is not Russia, last I checked.

And this is NOT, as implied, some BBC op-ed or opinion piece. It's the BBC reporting scientific research, which in this case has reached the shocking conclusion that the summer temperatures in Russia - breaking records over a huge area by a large margin - may be partially the result of global warming.

If you take the statement literally they are also saying there may not be any link what so ever either

Ultimately no one knows for certain yet exactly what our impact is, or will be.. other than that we are changing the chemistry of our environment enough that there is the potential that we are screwing it up royally.

On a fundamental level I would be in favour of less consumerism, more recycling, less consumption of un-sustainable fuels etc etc. Are we really going to do anything about it?

When we had the economic crash the government encouraged everybody to go out and buy new cars, buy new tat.. our economy depends on this and our populations demand it.

China might start trapping carbon out of all of their coal fired power stations.. I'm not sure if I really think they will though. The only way it can work is if we end up with 100% green energy.

Eventually we will get there anyway as the cost of non-renewable fuel rises over the centuries making green sources more attractive. Whether it will be too late to reverse any long term damage at that point (if any) is anyone's guess.

[fluffy666]

Maybe not those exact words and, as I said, someone can probably put it better than me. Look at what the proposed "answers" to the problem put forward by the hard-core global wramists are though. Less personal freedom (less choice in what vehicle you drive, how much and how far you travel), everyone has to change their lifestyle "for the greater good". We have to sufer massively higher levels of taxation when, in reality, throwing money at the problem won't solve it. Imean, how can it possibly help to increase road tax on certain vehicles (expensive ones to begin with) to a grand a year when that's a pretty insignificant amount to the people buying them? If the vehicles are causing damage then why not just ban them outright?

We have a bunch of gormless politicans who constantly jet off about the world on "climate change" conferences, seemingly in the face of their own adivice. Can't they just video conference it?

Climate change is about revenue raising and exercising a certain level of control over the populous and not a great deal more.

This is the logical fallacy known as the 'appeal to consequences'..

For example:

'House prices are not going to fall, because if they fell then all of the assets backing the banking system would collapse in value and the system would crash'

[erranta]

Wales is not Russia, last I checked.

And this is NOT, as implied, some BBC op-ed or opinion piece. It's the BBC reporting scientific research, which in this case has reached the shocking conclusion that the summer temperatures in Russia - breaking records over a huge area by a large margin - may be partially the result of global warming.

I suppose in skeptic land, unless the media has a rolling banner headline saying 'GLOBAL WARMING ALL WRONG ALL SCIENTISTS POOPY HEADS' , then it's clearly biased?

Look you fekk head

Your posts are full of shit

You mention "Scientific research"

Their conclusion is

"may be partially the result of global warming"

It's a stab in the dark and Not a proven Scientific FACT - you misleading git!

Stop shooting yourself in the foot - it's painful to read.

[fluffy666]

Look you fekk head Your posts are full of shit

You mention "Scientific research"

Their conclusion is

"may be partially the result of global warming"

It's a stab in the dark and Not a proven Scientific FACT - you misleading git!

Stop shooting yourself in the foot - it's painful to read.

Well, if you'd been educated past the age of 11 you'd notice that certainty is the province of idiots.

[6538]

Yes.

Those words are a quote from Chris Huhne. Are you saying that for the BBC to quote a politician directly is proof of bias??

Or quoting the president of the Royal Society on scientific matters.

I really don't understand, what is your point? Reality has a bias?

It's not just the fact that the beeb quoted him, it's the nature of the quote its self. he said;

"The last 10 years have been a lost decade for renewables. Labour's tragic legacy is that we are 25th out of 27 EU member states on renewables. We have been playing as amateurs when we should have been in the Premiership."

He's saying that we should be generating a lot more energy from renewables and that it's "tragic" that we are almost last in this respect. We are, according to him "amateurs". The fact that he's saying this tells us that he thinks that it is a given that we should have many, many more renewable energy projects going on and that their existence for good is beyond any question and that it is also a given that we should be leading Europe in this respect. It's all part of the global warming, climate change mantra.

This of course ignores the fact that renewable energy sources are, generally speaking, highly inefficient and usually don't work all the time - ie; when there no wind or on a cludy day, etc. Even if we were at the top of the list then how much energy does he honestly think we are going to derive from renewables? A tiny percentage of our overall consumption is the answer so, really, what's the point? There is not point but it's part of the doctrine so he, and other warmists, will say this sort of sh1t.

Renewable energy IS GOOD BECAUSE WE SAY SO.

[ccc]

Wales is not Russia, last I checked.

And this is NOT, as implied, some BBC op-ed or opinion piece. It's the BBC reporting scientific research, which in this case has reached the shocking conclusion that the summer temperatures in Russia - breaking records over a huge area by a large margin - may be partially the result of global warming.

I suppose in skeptic land, unless the media has a rolling banner headline saying 'GLOBAL WARMING ALL WRONG ALL SCIENTISTS POOPY HEADS' , then it's clearly biased?

That is a really really really lame attempt to simply avoid saying - 'Perhaps I was wrong'.

You were wrong. You know it. I know it. Everyone else reading this knows it. As Erranta says below - it is painful to read.

Look you fekk head

Your posts are full of shit

You mention "Scientific research"

Their conclusion is

"may be partially the result of global warming"

It's a stab in the dark and Not a proven Scientific FACT - you misleading git!

Stop shooting yourself in the foot - it's painful to read.

[fluffy666]

It's not just the fact that the beeb quoted him, it's the nature of the quote its self. he said;

"The last 10 years have been a lost decade for renewables. Labour's tragic legacy is that we are 25th out of 27 EU member states on renewables. We have been playing as amateurs when we should have been in the Premiership."

He's saying that we should be generating a lot more energy from renewables and that it's "tragic" that we are almost last in this respect. We are, according to him "amateurs". The fact that he's saying this tells us that he thinks that it is a given that we should have many, many more renewable energy projects going on and that their existence for good is beyond any question and that it is also a given that we should be leading Europe in this respect. It's all part of the global warming, climate change mantra.

This of course ignores the fact that renewable energy sources are, generally speaking, highly inefficient and usually don't work all the time - ie; when there no wind or on a cludy day, etc. Even if we were at the top of the list then how much energy does he honestly think we are going to derive from renewables? A tiny percentage of our overall consumption is the answer so, really, what's the point? There is not point but it's part of the doctrine so he, and other warmists, will say this sort of sh1t.

Renewable energy IS GOOD BECAUSE WE SAY SO.

But you are looking at the words of a politician.

And renewable energy is not global warming. Most renewable energy schemes arrear to be pretty ineffective at preventing carbon emissions; this is hard to dispute.

BUT; if you say 'Global warming is wrong because renewable energy is useless', you are again making a basic error of logic.

[erranta]

Well, if you'd been educated past the age of 11 you'd notice that certainty is the province of idiots.

Don't mention the words "Glowbal Warming" then mixed in with Uncertain, Unproven "Scientific research" - whatever that is!

A biased 'conclusion' a 7 yr old could come to & 'make up'

[erranta]

He says 'they'. He would have to confirm who 'they ' are in reference too.

Yes it is not in the form of direct quotes the same as what he was saying. However the jist of it is similar. Especially the stuff on 'morale' outrage by the Scottish Church.

That is very much 'We are in this all together'. Or at least we 'should' be in this all together.

This is just one day on that particular BBC site. And we have 4 stories. About moral indignation. Needing to come up with some sort of agreement. Etc...

Whilst not exactly backing up exactly quote for quote what 6538 states. I do think it backs up his general point.

Most Scottish Ministers are Masons - 'nuff said!

[fluffy666]

That is a really really really lame attempt to simply avoid saying - 'Perhaps I was wrong'.

You were wrong. You know it. I know it. Everyone else reading this knows it. As Erranta says below - it is painful to read.

I wasn't wrong. You should perhaps learn basic reading comprehension?

Unless you think that every time the BBC quotes anybody, that is the same as the BBC expressing full agreement with that person.

[ccc]

I wasn't wrong. You should perhaps learn basic reading comprehension?

Unless you think that every time the BBC quotes anybody, that is the same as the BBC expressing full agreement with that person.

What ?! This is just getting silly.

Anyone can go and see what was written for themselves. You really are not doing yourselves any favours here. Just adding yourself to the long list of ' I can never ever admit I am wrong ever on the internet ever, ever, I just can't , ever, oh no, not ever, on the internet ever' group.

One such group I would hate to be a member of. Enjoy and ley us know how old Hamish is getting along. He is a member of this group too.

[fluffy666]

What ?! This is just getting silly.

Anyone can go and see what was written for themselves. You really are not doing yourselves any favours here. Just adding yourself to the long list of ' I can never ever admit I am wrong ever on the internet ever, ever, I just can't , ever, oh no, not ever, on the internet ever' group.

One such group I would hate to be a member of. Enjoy and ley us know how old Hamish is getting along. He is a member of this group too.

Strange, given you bizzare commitment to the idea that the BBC blamed the Russian heatwave on global warming.

Here is the quote from the thread that you think is correct:

If Wales was having it's hottest summer ever the BBC et al would be attributing that to global warming or climate change or global climate disruption or whatever it is they are calling it this week.

Note: not Scientists attributing the heatwave, the BBC. Even accepting the slight confusion you have between Wales and Russia - which is significant given the relative sizes, I believe that the BBC is allowed to report scientific findings, especially when accompanied by caveats.

You are wrong. Admit it.

[ccc]

Strange, given you bizzare commitment to the idea that the BBC blamed the Russian heatwave on global warming.

Here is the quote from the thread that you think is correct:

If Wales was having it's hottest summer ever the BBC et al would be attributing that to global warming or climate change or global climate disruption or whatever it is they are calling it this week.

Note: not Scientists attributing the heatwave, the BBC. Even accepting the slight confusion you have between Wales and Russia - which is significant given the relative sizes, I believe that the BBC is allowed to report scientific findings, especially when accompanied by caveats.

You are wrong. Admit it.

You do realise that the BBC is supposed to be impartial in all news ? You do realise that if this was the case we would all hear a huge amount more on the BBC about those who think 'global warming' is a lot of propoganda ? As there are a hell of a lot of people out there who believe this.

So I am sorry but you sitting under the 'They are just reporting it is not them saying it so it is not them making the claim' umbrella does not stick.

We all know the score in this one and I truly believe you do too.

Answer me this - do you think the BBC are impartial when it comes to any other news they are supposed to be impartial about ? Oh lets say - just off the top of my head - how about house prices ?

And if so are you perfectly happy about their biased views on this subject based on the chat of whatever mortgage advisor or estate agent 'expert' they happen to have in the studio on the day ? And are you perfectly happy that they fail to mention, nearly all of the time, that falling house prices are in fact good for the vast majority in this country ?

Or do you just read all their guff about house prices fed tot hem from the CML, Ray Boulger etc... and sit back and think 'Ah thats ok its just them reporting on the scientific research of house price inflation' ?

Do you not get angry that they fail to mention that the perfectly reasonable stats about average house prices rising are skewed by the type of housing being sold ? Does this not bother you as they are simply reporting on one particular house prices study and not informing the public of the other side of the debate ?

The BBC is biased when reporting on hosue prices and it is biased when reporting on climate change. Anybody who ever watches it knows this. I believe you know this too.

Now whether this makes anything they are saying right or wrong is another debate altogether. I honestly do not know if MMGW exists or not. I have made this clear numerous times before. What does bother me is a supposed impartial organisation like the BBC pretending that it is a fact - and pummeling the general public into submission.

They are baised, and this shouldn't affect whether your debate has any merit or not. You should be bale to admit they are biased whilst still carrying on your discussions about climate change.

[Rapid Descent]

And Fluffy for your enjoyment. From just back in August. BBC. So here you have it - in black and white. Good enough example for you ?

Hot weather in Russia 'partly blamed on climate change'

Hot weather

"Global climate change is partly to blame for the abnormally hot and dry weather in Moscow, cloaked in a haze of smoke from wildfires, say researchers. "

The remarkable thing about this BBC article is that, at around the same time, most respected researchers were at pains to point out that the Russian fires could not be pinned on climate change. From NOAA:

The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region (Figure 11), a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988). A high index value for blocking days is not a necessary condition for high July surface temperature over western Russia—the warm summers of 1981, 1999, 2001, and 2002 did not experience an unusual number of blocking days.

So we see that the BBC pushes a minority viewpoint and gives no balance whatsoever. Utter hypocrisy, given their insistence that every sceptic be balanced with a warmer, and that sceptics do not qualify for balanced airtime due to their minority view. Of course, if the text is a minority viewpoint and carries alarm, suddenly that principle becomes rather less important.

And fluffy, I'm still waiting for my lecture on how LTP works from the expert. I would have thought from your extensive experience and knowledge on the subject you would have just rattled something off to put me down. Need a bit more thinking time?

[ccc]

The remarkable thing about this BBC article is that, at around the same time, most respected researchers were at pains to point out that the Russian fires could not be pinned on climate change. From NOAA:

So we see that the BBC pushes a minority viewpoint and gives no balance whatsoever. Utter hypocrisy, given their insistence that every sceptic be balanced with a warmer, and that sceptics do not qualify for balanced airtime due to their minority view. Of course, if the text is a minority viewpoint and carries alarm, suddenly that principle becomes rather less important.

And fluffy, I'm still waiting for my lecture on how LTP works from the expert. I would have thought from your extensive experience and knowledge on the subject you would have just rattled something off to put me down. Need a bit more thinking time?

Yes. Give people a balanced viewpoint, and this goes for house prices too - adn let them make their own mind up about it. When the BBC clearly take the side of one particular view ? They lose all credibility in that particular subject IMO.

The thing about this that does interest me a lot is what else are they completely biased about ? I happen to know a little about climate and house prices so can spot their unbalanced viewpoint. However what else that I know very little about am I sucking up as fact when it is in fact just a one sided story ? Just makes me very suspicious of any news I hear.

Anyway - so what happens if these colder winters get into a bit of a rut and the solar minimums have a longer lasting effect ?

Will we see similar chat that we heard about the financial crisis from the MSM ? "Nobody saw it coming".

[fluffy666]

You do realise that the BBC is supposed to be impartial in all news ? You do realise that if this was the case we would all hear a huge amount more on the BBC about those who think 'global warming' is a lot of propoganda ? As there are a hell of a lot of people out there who believe this.

So, whenever they report some scientific research that mentions global warming, they should also quote someone who has done no scientific research, has no evidence and knows little if anything about climatology, to say it's all rubbish?

Sorry, no. There is no coherent 'skeptic' case. Nothing but propaganda. Smoke, mirrors, shell games, false claims, sham journals, whatever. The BBC should no more report that than it should report creationism alongside all stories involving biology - bearing in mind that a lot of people subscribe to one form of creationism or another. What would it even report?

So I am sorry but you sitting under the 'They are just reporting it is not them saying it so it is not them making the claim' umbrella does not stick.

We all know the score in this one and I truly believe you do too.

No, I don't 'know the score', I just think that you are upset that the BBC does not pander to your personal, uninformed prejudice in this matter.

Now whether this makes anything they are saying right or wrong is another debate altogether. I honestly do not know if MMGW exists or not. I have made this clear numerous times before. What does bother me is a supposed impartial organisation like the BBC pretending that it is a fact - and pummeling the general public into submission.

The fact you don't know if it exists or not is down to your own willful (and fairly determined, since I've repeatedly given you the means to educate yourself before) ignorance. Somehow this becomes bias at the BBC. Sorry, dosen't work, any more than the BBC reporting on the LHC is clearly 'pummeling people into believing quantum theory'

They are baised, and this shouldn't affect whether your debate has any merit or not. You should be bale to admit they are biased whilst still carrying on your discussions about climate change.

So we've gone from a specific example to a blanket accusation of bias.. for which you, yet again, have precisely zero evidence?

Here's a question I'd like to see your answer to:

How would you tell if they were merely reporting a fairly conservative version of scientific reality?

[fluffy666]

And fluffy, I'm still waiting for my lecture on how LTP works from the expert. I would have thought from your extensive experience and knowledge on the subject you would have just rattled something off to put me down. Need a bit more thinking time?

Still waiting for you to give a physical reason to apply it to the system in question. Won't hold my breath.

[Riedquat]

Still waiting for you to give a physical reason to apply it to the system in question. Won't hold my breath.

No need to get personal with each other, particularly since (having admittedly only very casually skimmed through most of the posts) Rapid Descent appears to be arguing from a scientific point of view instead of merely trying to find reasons to discredit scientists and evidence, which is something far too many sceptics are guilty of. I thought for once we were seeing a rational discussion of the subject between the two of you, something missing badly almost every time "climate" is mentioned.

Anyway, here's looking forward to being able to get some skiing in soon.

[winkie]

What happened to global warming....more like global cooling.

I know it is still hot in some places.....how I love our seasons....you couldn't wish for anything better...always something great to look forward to.