shhh! jonnowales, or they'll put you in a corner with us.|
Reply #381. Jun 26 11, 9:49 AM
Re reply #371 – daver852|
Wow, I’m impressed daver, that is a really good link, I can’t argue with your source this time. You’re obviously learning. Unfortunately you’re conclusions based on that link I can argue with. First of all the minimum extent for the Arctic ice cap didn’t occur in 2004 but in 2007 and 2011 is lower than 2007 at the moment. The minimum extent for May (average) occurred in 2004. Secondly, the ice extent for May average 2011 is less than 2010, only if you look specifically at May 31st is 2010 less than 2011. Thirdly, cherry picking and comparing pairs of very specific dates does not tell you anything about any trend that might be occurring and you are essentially making exactly the same error as you did with your “1998” claim. Fourthly the graph “Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent May 1979 – 2011” on the link you provided clearly shows a more or less linear trend, contrary to your claim. As for the Antarctic, as I have pointed out in the previous post, ice mass is decreasing, despite sea ice extent growth and mass is more accurate than extent and that also gives a more linear trend as a result. So essentially the link you provided only supports what I’ve said.
Reply #382. Jun 28 11, 4:56 AM
Re reply #367 – satguru|
Skeptical Science use their superior knowledge of science? I can’t argue with that, they certainly do. Was that meant to be a criticism? It must be frustrating for you when all those inconvenient scientific facts and evidence keep on proving you wrong.
Re reply #368 – satguru
Few problems I have with this coral reef claim.
1 It seems that in order to get this 2% decline figure they have somewhat blindly measured the total area of the coral reefs. This tells you nothing about the health of the coral on the reef. It’s a bit like measuring the area of a farmer’s fields to work out how much crop damage he has suffered after a drought!
2 The 40% figure didn’t apply just to man made climate change but assumed increases in all factors including pollution, over-fishing and mining.
3 The prediction was made with the caveat “unless urgent management action is implemented”. No doubt action has been taken over the last 10 years to reduce the harm caused by man and therefore mitigate that 40% figure.
4 When the correct method to measure coral cover is used it shows significant decline.
Reply #383. Jun 28 11, 4:59 AM
"...I could find similar problems with every one of those claims, but I have better things to do with my time,,,"|
Isn't that a bit like sticking your tongue out at the big boys, and running away?
Reply #385. Jun 28 11, 5:40 AM
No Lesley, I think showing that 4 claims all from one website are really awful is more than enough to show that the entire website is awful. And those I dealt with were all highlighted by satguru, not me.|
Reply #386. Jun 28 11, 8:27 AM
Doctored claims is a good start. By admitting it happens you would be hard pressed not to agree it has to on both sides, and even if not I can offer many examples. That muddies the water altogether and means no one is playing fair. How we are expected to sort the wheat from the chaff without advanced relevant degrees is virtually impossible, so rely on them to sort it out for us.|
But Skeptical Science is somewhere I have spent many unhappy hours ploughing through, and their sole function is to kill every single piece of data on the other side at any cost. But it's fine to try and dismiss all the material here, some I agree is going to be rough as I'm not qualified to sort out the clunkers, but others who are have already endorsed many of the others, and for every single one you knock down I can provide ten more. It's so easy as you're dabbling in an area which is untouched by previous scientific attention and as I said, equivalent to reproducing a human brain on a computer, both as it is and how it will be for a complete lifetime. That sadly is complete nonsense.
Back to the debunkings, I would not dare to try and analyse the merits, as not qualified, but stacking the evidence I have collected the wide gaping holes, and dirty tricks used to mislead innocent people by the official side are quite enough as a whole to make individual examples smaller than the big picture. Pick little holes as much as you like but the bottom line cannot change. I've taken into account the errors on both sides and once they cancel each other out the weight of your case still vanishes as basically no more than an out of control assumption which has had 20 years' worth of desperate money and time thrown at it to try and justify the intitial alarmist claims. Many extremely powerful and important people are going to look extremely stupid, and far worse dishonest if this blows. Trust in authority will totally collapse and as a result if the truth ever does come out all the power and money they've built up over the last 20 years will all disappear, and many are also likely to have to justify their claims in court. You can see the pressure to keep a united front in this light.
Reply #387. Jun 28 11, 9:02 AM
And rather than repeat myself and look for more I have a long list of similarly adjusted graphs linked on the forums. If you can honestly say every one of those is wrong I'd suspect more a case of wishful thinking than analysis. I'm not sure how you dismissed the previous ones but the whole point is that whatever you've managed to do to them the graphs on the forums have come from coastguards and universities. They are pretty well immune to the sort of games I've mentioned already if part of a long term study which has carried on since before the IPCC got involved.|
Therefore we have perfectly valid and flat sea and land measurements, totally at odds with your hockey sticks and rocket launches, and then the new versions which the media are given magically develop them. If you can still say that's kosher than I'd like to know how and why.
Reply #388. Jun 28 11, 9:24 AM
It is impossible to believe the nonsense the Warmists are putting out there. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that all of the data they used to gather support for their theory was doctored. They remind me of Aristotelian astronomers trying to refute Copernicus, with their epicycles and whatnot. When the facts don't agree with theory, just make the theory conform to any possible result. Hence the shift from "global warming" to "climate change." Anyone who believes this nonsense should have his/her head examined. It is fools like these that cause most of the world's problems. I can now trade in my frequent flyer miles for "carbon offsets." When future generations look back upon these times, they will (rightly) conclude that, collectively, we are the stupidest and most degenerate civilization since 5th century Rome. No art, no poetry, no architecture, and a populace given to the idolization of the cheap, crass and tawdry in both the arts and sciences. All a reasonable person can do is paraphrase Galileo's "Eppur si muove" to "it's still colder" and hope for the best. When people lose the ability to think rationally and draw reasonable conclusions from plain facts, it does not bode well for our civilization.|
Reply #389. Jun 28 11, 8:51 PM
You sound like you're talking into a mirror daver. I direct the same thing you are posting to yourself in just another guise.|
Reply #390. Jun 29 11, 8:54 AM
Absolutely not. I see it as a sci-fi type alien virus, and some have been infected and cured (I believed it originally as I assumed it was just a scientific curiosity, and noticed a few years later nothing they'd claimed was actually happening, did a few checks and was as easy as catching a shoplifter on video) while the others see everything through Algore flavoured lenses. A bit like Timothy Leary but on a really bad trip man.|
But the only problem we really have is that of time. The delays involved (quite deliberately) which have been built in to make sure by the time the last man has inspected the final figures means those wishing to profit in many ways I've mentioned ages ago will have done so and unless they go the way of Bernie Madoff (as I believe they all should) will have taken the money and run. As it will take decades or so to get the truth of this known for certain, unless an authority decides to put on a major investigation and catches hands right in the cookie jar this argument could simply simmer on till I'm in someone's care. But just because it may take so long left to its own devices does not mean a tenuous theory has not overshadowed a whole generation even though not a thing can be demonstrated (beyond not just reasonable doubt but now not even a balance of probabilities) the power of suggestion is just too strong for most.
Reply #391. Jun 29 11, 5:28 PM
What a marvellous piece of fiction parading as news! Now if you or anyone else is actually going to accept such material as genuine no wonder we are in such deep manure.|
A judge is suddenly qualified to make a decision which has both stumped the majority of the world's scientists, plus is a relatively easy measurement of polar bear populations which in no way needs to be examined in a court of law, except for reasons unknown to me the figure varies depending who's doing the counting which ought to be tested in court.
I will work my way through the piece to walk the walk. The polar bear population is claimed by those who ought to know, ie official estimates (it's pretty hard to get to most of the places they live) and local reports. The local reports have shown many areas to have major problems of overpopulation with bears coming into populated areas to plunder the bins etc. Meanwhile of course there's a thriving business in dead polar bears, and that is increasing (being from London I can only guess what they are used for besides fur coats, but clearly lucrative) so any control on their populations has a much more direct cause we all know about.
One by one the case appears to pick its data extremely selectively. As polar bears are only at the north pole (9% of the world's ice) which has been shrinking slightly (except that was since the last small ice age 22,000 years ago so need to cast your summons a lot further to catch those responsible) the overall world ice did indeed decline a whole 2% in 2007 and has now all but recovered, and the 91% of ice down south is doing very well.
Of course climate change is far better served through history than imagination via a complex bad trip on a computer. Not only did the Romans report in great detail the climate back then so we know what happened to Europe at least when it was a lot warmer (and better off as a result) polar bears miraculously survived spikes before every single ice age of around 6-8C in a century, as they have for millions of years. History has the answer, polar bears are not extinct after there was no polar ice at all! Did the judge miss this (of course, he had to, grounds for appeal).
The case gets shakier by the paragraph. Then the ultimate drop in integrity is entered. The crystal ball. 'The 25,000 current population could be reduced to 15,000 due to the results of global warming'. That's accepted in court? I'd disbar the judge for that one. If my aunt had... etc. That's evidence? Who's evidence exactly? God's? You can reliably predict the movement of the stars and planets, and can't even think of much else. And in order to even allow that shtick to be allowed as admissible it would require man made global warming itself to be tried on a balance of probabilities, which has not happened. One guess depended on another, and if the first has not been tested and passed then the second cannot be used, that's the law of evidence (I'm not qualified in science, but law is another thing).
Now one vital sentence you skated over or missed entirely is this:
"That means that while the bear has healthy populations now ..."
Hold on, a court of law has just said "There is not a decline in polar bear numbers".
That means according to said judge and the authority of his court, Greenpeace, Al Gore and the others are wrong, and with the facts at his fingertips means they had access to the same facts and, well I can only conclude they said the opposite, which is clearly dishonest. Big big big oops! In fact that is going straight to my little group after I've written this as it's pretty amazing for something like that to unintentionally slip out while their minds were on something else. If a skeptic claimed that (even if they'd gone on the ice and counted every single one with a witness) they'd be struck down, but this is from the activists! Pure gold!
The sea ice figures are then quoted. Now I am very familiar with the genuine decline they mention, but notice how they didn't say how much. It's 2%, or at least (as everyone agrees) it was at it's lowest in 2007. Except the Antarctic is growing and as it's all one planet it's only accurate to use world and not local figures, which is definitely on no more a decline than after any other ice age, it's always warming or freezing as climate is cyclical. Then another guy with a wire to God him/herself: "The Arctic will be ice free by 2030". Please check the last 10 times this prediction was made, and you'll find the previous deadline was 2010 and guess what. Who remembers that now besides a few hard core adherents to the facts? Every time they guess, get it wrong and just keep doing it- as they get away with it. Again, that was not valuable evidence as any decent lawyer would simply have presented all the previous guesses on polar ice to demonstrate they haven't a clue.
Polar bears can swim hundreds of miles and equally able to live with or without ice, these are the sort of arcane facts I've been forced to discover to destroy such incredible wastes of court, yours and my time, as this is simple biology and nothing to do with climate politics.
So the conclusion is that if this is a good or typical example of the sort of material you believe demonstrates your case I'd say it is typical, of no more than bad science, huge errors and way worst of all speculation which cannot be proved or tested in court and should never have been allowed. And it does represent every other report I've read on it but taking it through a court where the standards are meant to be way way higher than colleague reviewed should have opened it up to a genuine legal analysis and not simply an opportunity for widespread media propaganda. I'm still flabbergasted such untested and unverified material was even allowed to be considered, let alone left unchallenged, but pleased at least it has presented a full view of what arrant fiction passes for news material.
Reply #393. Jul 01 11, 6:22 PM
An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off from Greenland's Peterman glacier and will bump into Newfoundland and Labrador in two years time if it continues on the same course. Moreover, sea levels are rising. And you guts still maintain there's no global warming? I hope none of you live anywhere near a coastline. I know I'm grateful that I live right in the middle of North America, thousands of kilonetres from oceans. |
Reply #394. Jul 21 11, 9:58 AM
Aaargh! That should be "and you GUYS still maintain...."|
Reply #395. Jul 21 11, 9:59 AM
Give it up Cymruambyth. Satguru will just astound you and me with paragraph upon paragraph of information. He will let us know why these things happen with 'cold' precision.|
Reply #397. Jul 21 11, 10:52 AM
Oh ya, I forgot about his sidekick.|
Reply #398. Jul 21 11, 10:53 AM
Ah! Christopher Booker,of The Daily Telegraph. This is the venerable publication that also boasts Boris Johnson among it's regular columnists.
Reply #399. Jul 21 11, 11:19 AM
I wasn't familiar with those gentlemen REDVIKING57. I did a little reading on both and they seem quite bellicose in their respective niches. I was actually referring to our other friend in this long standing debate. But you knew that. ;^)|
Reply #400. Jul 21 11, 11:54 AM
Legal / Conditions of Use