Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 1
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 1 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Do you think this news will have any impact on public opinion? Will it do anything to sway the worrying numbers of people who think that man-made global warming is some kind of government conspiracy?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 2
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 5:10:53 AM
Condiering the BBC is an indirectly government funded media outlet anyway I think a lot of people take most of their commentary with a pinch of salt to begin with really as its not much more than a PR arm for each successive government

Infact the people who benefit the most from AGW if it is a myth collectively own somewhere in the region of 95% of the planets media anyway. And anything that is independant tends to get severely negative press from the other 95% of the media (hardly surprising) so "if" just assuming for a moment it is just a complete myth, we live in a vaccuum of objectivity where the mainstream media is far from unbiased nor impartial an d is owned by the same people who pump billions around the globe into governmental campaign funds and research grants

So still just taking the hypothesis for a moment that it is purely a myth, how exactly do you suggest someone trying to put the truth forward would get funding for research, media and scientific publication and could combat critical commentary from the other 95% of the worlds media and governments that would stand to lose billions in taxation and quite possibly would face jailtime for fraud if they DID manage to convince people it was all untrue?

Basically it would be impossible, IS impossible
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 7:01:43 AM
So you're asking whether someone trying to put forward the suggestion that AGW is a myth would be able to get funding? This from the article:

"Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming"

So, anti-AGW proponents helped fund this research, but oops! It concluded what climate scientists already thought to be true. Looks their plan backfired to me.

As to your criticism of the BBC as a source of information, it's completely irrelevant as they were simply reporting on some scientific research having nothing to do with the BBC or the government. If you prefer other sources for the same news story, try the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article3201750.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051723/New-analysis-1-6-billion-weather
-records-concludes-world-IS-warming.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21074-sceptical-climate-scientists-concede-
earth-has-warmed.html
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/global-warming-real-best-efforts
-trump-climate-sceptics
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/climate-change
http://www.economist.com/node/21533360
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/another-climate
-denial-argument_b_1021171.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/10/climate-skep
tic-woops-the-majority-is-right-on-global-warming.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-
confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/skeptic-talking-point-melts-away-as-a
n-inconvenient-physicist-confirms-warming/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 7:36:26 AM
From the very first, there have been people working AGAINST letting science determine what is and isn't going on.

Those forces are backed by lots of moneyed interests, who's goals are NOT what is best for the people, or of the society they are a part of. Their only VERY narrow interest, is in the short term difficulties to making profits, that concerns about Global warming might present to them.

They linked up with POLITICAL groups, who are concerned ONLY with opposing ANYTHING that their foes support, regardless in that case, what is or isn't right or wrong.

This has had the result, that from the very beginning, that instead of our being able to address ANY concerns directly, we've all been channeled into petty, unsupported comments back and forth.

At this point, I suspect that even if God himself appeared in the heavens, and took one side or the other in this, that the clamor from BOTH sides would continue unabated. The politicians in the U.S. in particular, chose long ago to purposely work to confuse EVERY issue, so that they can manipulate it into getting them elected, regardless of the facts.

So no, I'm sorry to say that this, or ANY new report, no matter whether it is well-founded and accurate or not, will not help the situation.

It's like a classic courtroom drama on TV, where the lawyers work, NOT to find the truth, but to confuse the case as thoroughly as possible, in order to prevent ANY rational decision from being made, for or against.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 5
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 8:09:46 AM
This particular study was funded by global warming deniers who wanted to prove that it's all a big hoax.

But they had to hire actual scientists to do the work, and it doesn't matter how you parse the data, it all comes out the same.

I'm a bit cynical about the effects of this study on debate myself.
 Bloke_up_North
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 6
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 2:31:33 PM
If everyone is using the same data it's hardly surprising that they get the same results. Perhaps a climbing scale just reflects the increased accuracy in modern methods.
 DartmouthRunner
Joined: 3/5/2009
Msg: 7
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 3:23:05 PM

If everyone is using the same data it's hardly surprising that they get the same results.


Not really, their initial hypothesis was that the climate scientists were skewing the results, which is not hard to do with statistics. Getting different outcomes from the same data set is quite easy, it all depends on what model you are using to test the hypothesis.

Thus, these guys were using a model that they believed was essentially fake and proved it's accuracy and the accuracy of their results.
 Bloke_up_North
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 8
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 4:00:51 PM
So you expect to get different results using the same data?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 9
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 5:32:40 PM
The data they used was temperature readings for the most part. And stuff like tidal readings. You know, the stuff that is collected at airports and things.

In order to maintain the delusion that global warming is not happening, you now need to include every low level part time reader of tide markers/full time fisherman and everybody who reads a thermometer in your world wide conspiracy.

The data is pretty damn simple. And pretty clear what it says if you care to read it.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 10
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/22/2011 6:36:01 PM

I pay a licence fee - that is indeed quite indirect government funding


Thats kind of the point though, you HAVE to pay it, by order of the government.

So the BBC is funded by viewers by an act of law which was considered for being scrapped a few years ago when the BBC stopped reporting some aspects of the news in a way the government was happy with

Its also why part of the transmission agreement with sky and cable ensures they HAVE to transmit at BBC channels with any and all subscription packages and with free to view packages meaning youre still legally obliged to buy a licence

Try asking sky or cable if you can have their channels, the free TV channels and nothing at all from the BBC and see how far you get

So yes, when you have to pay for reception due to a parliamentary decree thats indirect funding from the government and isnt any different to the government actually charging you a "BBC tax" then using that to run it except that you have to pay it directly to the BBC



As for the study, its not actually as compelling as I expected tbh

Firstly its not "independant" research, the lab that did the research also does a lot of climate research for the IPCC so theyre far from impartial

It also says and I quote

"Muller conceded that the study's remit did not extend to questions about how much warming has been influenced by human activity"

"The IPCC's most recent assessment maintains that humans are "very likely" responsible for recent global warming"

"In total, around one third of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling since the 1950s but the remaining two thirds showed warming, according to the study"


The thing is that anti AGW scientists arent claiming the planet isnt warming, its just the rate and the cause of the warming thats being disagreed with. So this isnt anywhere near as significant as its being made to seem

It was still research carried out by a pro AGW lab, they still had to adjust the data and the additional data sources also have the same mix of urban and non urban sites as the origional data, so its pretty much guaranteed to get the same results

What IS lacking however, is complete data sets that exclude ALL urban sites and ONLY list non urban remote sites. So that theres no urban heat island influences and practically no human influence at all

And when you compare West points complete data set to that of NY you see what I reckon that would show because new york state and new york the city is plastered with towns where the entire data set shows decreases or flat lines in temperature, whereas the urban measurements show HUGE increases going right back to 1826 when records began

But those towns not only share the same climate, but the same weather systems too

All they dont share however is dense populations and lots of industry


As for the research being funded by the Kock brothers, it wasnt. it was funding by a collection of organisations one of which they make donations to. But they also have a rapidly growing ethanol business which I notice hasnt got a mention, so they stand to win either way whether its through fuel prices continuing to increase or by the use of renewable fuel increasing as well as their profits from selling carbon credits

You will struggle to find any billionaire or even millionaire who isnt making money from both sides of the coin, so theyre not in any true sense "sceptics". Infact they probably stand to make more money by just prolonging the arguement rather than having either side "win" in a definitive manner

Infact until any of this stuff can be "proven" rather than just theorised theres not strictly speaking a "sceptic" or a "denier" just groups of scientists with different "theories"

It just so happens that the side of the arguement that conveniently makes billions available in extra taxes, allows the globe to stop development projects in the third world, create new multi billion dollar virtual marketplaces trading carbon credits, creates new multibillion dollar government funded "green schemes" most of which dont actually end up even being viable btw is supported by governments and therefore gets presented as though it IS fact by the media

The same media thats owned by many of the same people claimed to be anti AGW to begin with, but also the same people making billions from pro AGW scare mongering too

So where their real interests lie isnt with either side of the arguement at all, its with both and probably more acurately with niether.

Give it about 20 years and my bet is we will be back to what we had in the 80s, and we will be being told theres the risk of an imminent ice age due to CO2, and that will be the new cash cow. And the same stats once ammended will probably "prove" that just as "conclusively" I bet, once ammended for acuracy of course
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 11
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 9:34:42 AM
Please do follow the money on the skeptics motivations and benefits for their funders.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/04/inside-kochs-climate-denial-machine
No amount of honest science will ever be enough for deniers.
They are still going on with the mythology of "most scientists" in the 70s believed in global cooling.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/climate-change-deniers-abandon-befuddled-warmist-physicist-who-came-around-on-global-warming.php?ref=fpa
“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 12
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 4:51:29 PM

Using that argument can i assume that car insurance industry is funded by indirect government taxation because legislation means I have to pay it if I have a car ?


As the point youre addressing was that the BBC was an indirectly government funded media source unless you can show how car insurance companies are also media sources I really cant see the point youre trying to make

But just to clear it up

Does the government say you HAVE to pay money towards

1) Any ITV channel?
2) Any CH4 channel?
3) Any CH5 channel?
4) Any independant radio station?
5) Any other independan TV station?

Nope, thats ONLY true for the BBC. and as I said, due to parliamentary conditions of sky and cables license to transmit they HAVE to include BBC programming, so even if you decided to not buy anything with a tuner, took down your ariel so you would only have sky or cable TV you wont, under ANY circumstances be sold a package that doesnt include BBC channels

So unless you choose to ONLY own a monitor and a DVD player with no tuner and only ever watch DVDs or just never watch anything you are legally bound to pay for the BBC even if you never in your entire life watched a single second of BBC programming, Because thats the "law" plain and simple

So yeah, the BBCs funding is indirectly guaranteed by the government through the judicial system making it an "indirectly government funded media outlet" as I claimed from the start

Its really not a complicated thing to grasp at all


They are all physicists except for one mike - why would they research AGW


As posted on the other thread

"Richard Muller

Specialises in earth sciences, particulates, extinction patterns and ice ages
as well as dabbling in solar physics too

Robert Rohde (in his own words)

I am the founder of this site. I am also a PhD student at UC Berkeley in the
Physics Department. My undergraduate training was in physics and mathematics,
so naturally I would go to graduate school in physics; however, I soon discovered that
I found greater personal enjoyment in the Earth sciences and climate change. Hence, despite
my affiliation, most of my actual research efforts and interests have directed towards
applying physical understanding to those fields of study

Don Groom

Another particle physicist and earth sciences physicist



Infact a better question is why WOULDNT they be physicists?


The effects of particulates in the atmosphere overlaps in several areas with aspects of
particle physics to begin with

Climate sciences is an area featuring many scientists listed as "physicists"


And infact if you look at the list of scientists who are the "concensus" claimed by the IPCC you will
see that huge numbers of them are also physicists

This link actually quotes some of the 1000 or so origional IPCC "concensus" of scientists who have since
asked to be removed from the list of supporting voices and/or have spoken out about what a sham the IPCC
actually is

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

You will notice many many "physicists" in the list of quotes


Physicists also feature heavily in the modelling aspects of climatology, as well as data and statistical
analysis


Infact what exactly is "Earth sciences"?

Heres the definition

"Earth science is the scientific study of our planet, the Earth. It encompasses all sciences which focus on the Earth, and uses
physics, geology, geography, meteorology, mathematics, chemistry and biology"

Did you notice the word "physics" in there?

Earth sciences encorporates pretty much the entire scope of climatology, and both earth sciences and climatology employs a huge amount of various disciplines of physics

Infact lets not stop there, ever heard of "Enviromental physics"? Another multiple disciplined specialisation that involves "physicists" working on enviromental and climate research (climatology)


Although it should also be noted that one of the areas of criticism for the IPCC is that they have a tendency to not include many solar physicists in their research


Their first paper and collective claims only actually featured input from one solar physicist infact, who was already known to be a pro AGW supporter

But as the IPCC quite clearly and frequently claims that the sun itself plays no significant role in the warming or cooling of the planet thats hardly surprising I guess


So still kind of struggling to see why the appearance of "physicists" is such a big deal or surprise? Enviromental modelling is something that relies very heavily on physicists to create the interactions between various aspects in the models and define how they theorise things would be likely to interact

Its "physics" basically

Even the atmosphere and climate are actually governed by the laws of physics you realise?

Sorry if that was a bit of a shock, but kind of obvious really




LOL a complete set that excludes data, nice idea. Rather ironically you accuse them of manipulating data one of the manipulations is to remove the effect of UHI you seem so concerned about.


Admittedly I probably could have worded that better, but I would bet you did infact know exactly what I meant

A graph showing the complete data sets (since records began) but ONLY for rural areas, IE nothing at all from ANY urban areas no matter how sparsely "urbanised" they are

That would still be thousands upon thousands of weather stations, but only ones that arent directly influenced at all my cities, industry and man himself

If as claimed the entire "climate" was warming, that would (or should) still show the same trend, because if areas that there arent any people didnt show warming that by itself would kind of show that the complete sets of data are showing mankinds urban heat generation rather than anything "climactc" in nature

It would also remove the need for GISS and the IPCC to hockeystick data and also remove the need for most forms of manipulation leaving the raw data to be viewed "as is"

The data I mentioned I was sure I've already posted on this thread, but either way here it is again

Mgill NV -1
Guthries OK -.5
Boulder CO -.5
Trueman MO -2.1
Greenville SC -1.5
Ann arbour MI -1
Syracuse NY -1.5
Albany NY -1
Oswego NY -1
Westpoint NY -.5

Thats the raw unaltered data from the USCHN datasets as used by GISS and the IPCC and is the result of using the entire dataset from when records began

Newyork itself (the city) had an overall rise of almost 6 degrees in the same time period despite not being geographically very far from several of those listed (also unedited raw and complete USCHN data set)

The largest warming in many of those areas (excluding NYC) actually happened in the 1930s rather than recently btw, so I am guessing they had a bit of a heatwave around then

As for warming coming out of an ice age, in planetary terms 200 years is a blink of an eye

In the same way we have cold weather in the winter, warmer weather in the summer and odd hot and cold days throughout the year why would you expect the long term climate to follow nothing but steady lines up and down?

Considering that in the middle ages we had a VERY hot period, far hotter than we are seeing now, then more recently a very cold few decades where the Thames itself was frozen so solidly they held markets on it show clearly that even when a climate is "warming" it can and will still have quite sharp, and sometimes decades long warmer and cooler periods along the way

The same kind of cycles also feature in most 10 year periods, 50 year periods, 100 year periods and so on for practically any legnth of time you care to look at, even on a weekly basis areas have quite commonly hot and cold days in the same week

So the idea that not only weather, but global climate also follows a very sporadic path is pretty much self evident througout recorded history and just in the last 500-100o years we have had periods that have been hotter than now and much colder on average. Yet no planet wide extinction of all life on earth surprisingly enough

Nor did the 10 year "tipping point" predicted by the IPCC in 1989 actually arrive surprisingly enough
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 13
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 5:56:58 PM
There's a book you should read called The Canon by Natalie Angier. It's a science primer.

Anyway, you should know that aberrations are the norm in any statistical group. If all readings went up in lockstep, that would be the indicator that you should be suspicious. Just like if you throw a coin 100 times, there will almost certainly be at least one string of at least 7 heads or tails in a row.

The science behind global warming is indisputable. There are powerful interests playing on your naivete.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 14
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 6:15:24 PM
Conveniently forgetting of course, that we are the only species that have emerged, capable and willing to, release millions of years of stored carbon via exosomatic means, greed, waste and wonton destruction for fun. We are and anomally, a twist off the evolutionary and interdependent past. Could have been space spores, a bonk on the head by various religious zealots, but the point remains that we alone, of all recorded and accountable species to date, fart not only our own, but the farts of millions of generations past as we pass through.

http://dieoff.org/page129.htm
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 6:24:08 PM

If as claimed the entire "climate" was warming, that would (or should) still show the same trend, because if areas that there arent any people didnt show warming that by itself would kind of show that the complete sets of data are showing mankinds urban heat generation rather than anything "climactc" in nature.

All you are doing, which is the same thing you were doing in the other thread, is cherry picking a tiny sub-set of localised data and extrapolating it onto a global map.

But glaciers don't tend to be in urban areas, and there are no 'centres of population' at the ice caps.


Using your method one could examine an isolated dead patch of grass to 'prove', as one stands foolishly in waist high grass, that grass doesn't grow.


In the same way we have cold weather in the winter, warmer weather in the summer and odd hot and cold days throughout the year why would you expect the long term climate to follow nothing but steady lines up and down?

Climate science doesn't dispute long term global climate cycles. That line of argument is just a straw man.

What has got everyones attention is the acceleration of the change and the deviation of the rate from expected 'normal', ie; historical, correlators.


But as the IPCC quite clearly and frequently claims that the sun itself plays no significant role in the warming or cooling of the planet thats hardly surprising I guess.

Neat distortion, but that isn't quite the whole truth.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 16
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 7:04:54 PM
"So, anti-AGW proponents helped fund this research, but oops! It concluded what climate scientists already thought to be true. Looks their plan backfired to me."

You could also take it to mean that the source of funding doesn't direct the results of research. Incidentally, the study only confirmed that global warming is happening, something that the bulk of AGW skeptics already agreed with.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 17
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 7:25:14 PM
"The science behind global warming is indisputable. "

Actually the effect on the climate of the oceans, clouds, glaciers, and aerosols are all poorly understood and modeled. Climate sensitivity is something theoretically very uncertain and hard to measure. So there's plenty that can be disputed.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 18
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/23/2011 9:18:38 PM
HalftimeDad said:


In order to maintain the delusion that global warming is not happening, you now need to include every low level part time reader of tide markers/full time fisherman and everybody who reads a thermometer in your world wide conspiracy.

The data is pretty damn simple. And pretty clear what it says if you care to read it.


And pretty damn meaningless - unless you are prepared to discuss the data collection methodology - i.e., how many measuring stations were excluded, and why. You should be able to explain why between 600 and 800 measuring stations in central and northern Russia were excluded (including Siberia), and why the same thing occurred in China.

You should also be able to explain why so many urban measuring stations, which should have been excluded due to their placement on or near asphalt, were included in the so-called "data," even though by the IPCC's own standards, they should have been excluded. Otherwise, you are just repeating what you've been told to believe.

Here's just one article (there are many, for those who care to look) showing dishonest IPCC tactics:


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

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

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

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/


Earthpuppy said:


Please do follow the money on the skeptics motivations and benefits for their funders.


Of course. But, let's not be fools and hypocrites. Follow the money on BOTH sides of the issue. You alarmists act like you think Jesus himself is funding the pro-global warming machine.

Actually, it's the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, the Heinz Endowments, and other globalist foundations, who have outspent the Kochs' and their brand of scum by billions.

Of course, you can just keep repeating the one per-centers' global warming mantra if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And it IS the one per-center's who are pushing the global warming scam, as has been evident since 1972, when the ultra-globalist Club of Rome (founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller's estate in Bellagio, Italy), published its thoroughly discredited screed "The Limits of Growth." If you remember, we were to run out of oil by 1990, chaos was to ensue, governments were to fall, etc.

One truth that DID come out of "The Limits of Growth" was that the elite realized that the end of the oil economy was approaching, and they would no longer be able to rely on oil money to fund their globalization plans. They made it clear that a new funding model would be necessary.

In 1993, in "The First Global Revolution," also published by the Club of Rome, they maintained, among other things, that sovereign, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." Al-Qaeda and global warming come immediately to mind.

Here, in short, directly from "The First Global Revolution" itself, is the conclusion of the Club of Rome:


The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.


HalftimeDad said:


The science behind global warming is indisputable.


Not even remotely so. It's a scam.


There are powerful interests playing on your naivete.


The are far more powerful interests playing on yours.

lyingcheat said:


What has got everyones attention is the acceleration of the change and the deviation of the rate from expected 'normal', ie; historical, correlators.


Of course - that's what happens when you use deliberately skewed data.

RPL
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 19
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/24/2011 12:17:00 AM

Of course. But, let's not be fools and hypocrites. Follow the money on BOTH sides of the issue.

Funny you should say that ^^^ after quoting information regarding the Russian IEA weighing in to the 'climategate' affair. Russia, of course, derives a lot of income from oil and gas and has a history of 'requiring' science to conform to ideological mandate.
Besides, the 'climategate' thing dates from 2009 and has been rendered a non-event by subsequent studies - including the one referred to in the OP, which was partly funded by "sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.".



In 1993, in "The First Global Revolution," also published by the Club of Rome, they maintained, among other things, that sovereign, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." Al-Qaeda and global warming come immediately to mind.

Here, in short, directly from "The First Global Revolution" itself, is the conclusion of the Club of Rome:

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Selective quoting and prejudicial juxtaposition of formerly separate phrases and paragraphs can be used to pervert any message.
We might quote mine J.S.Mills' 'On Liberty' to express the opinion that a "free press... is not.... essential... and dissenters should... be... taken... out... and... shot", and then attribute the sentiment to J.S.Mill, but to what purpose?

For anyone interested in context, and therefore the real meaning of the passages referred to above, see 'The First Global Revolution, Chapter 5, 'The Vacuum', pp68-75. http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution_text.pdf
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 20
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/24/2011 10:55:41 AM

Incidentally, the study only confirmed that global warming is happening, something that the bulk of AGW skeptics already agreed with.

This claim is based upon what, exactly?

Every thread on the subject here alone goes against this specious claim.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 21
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/24/2011 1:46:43 PM
Many IPCC scientists have requested to be removed from the study because their area of expertise on the matter has been ignored, but their names remain on the study as if they agree with its conclusions. Some scientists have had to actually file court documents to have their names removed from the study. Below are many examples of the faulty science used in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

The great global warming swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 22
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/24/2011 2:39:35 PM

Of course. But, let's not be fools and hypocrites. Follow the money on BOTH sides of the issue.


lyingcheat said:


Funny you should say that ^^^ after quoting information regarding the Russian IEA weighing in to the 'climategate' affair. Russia, of course, derives a lot of income from oil and gas and has a history of 'requiring' science to conform to ideological mandate.


I noticed that you ignored the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, the Heinz Endowments, and other globalist foundations, the actual funders of the global warming scam. Funny you should do that^^^.

Russia was not "weighing in" on any dispute. They were merely reporting the FACT (which you did not dispute) that 600 to 800 weather stations were excluded from the study, and that most of these stations were in colder parts of Russia, and had more thorough data. In other words, the data were blatantly cherry-picked, and are intentionally misleading.

BTW, intimating that we should not take the Russian report seriously because, well, they're Russians, is a rather weak, and obviously fallacious, position to take.

lyingcheat said:


Besides, the 'climategate' thing dates from 2009 and has been rendered a non-event by subsequent studies - including the one referred to in the OP, which was partly funded by "sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change."


Could you have more thoroughly missed the point? The clause you italicized indicates not. Let me make it easy for you. The data are skewed. Both Jesus Christ and Satan himself would arrive at the same conclusion based on the biased data set presented.

lyingcheat said:


Selective quoting and prejudicial juxtaposition of formerly separate phrases and paragraphs can be used to pervert any message.


How VERY DISHONEST of you. You know perfectly well that that is not what was done. Mis-characterizing my post to score cheap "debate" points is rather chickensh1t, isn't it... and to what purpose? I forgot the ellipsis before the word "All" - my error. But the complete, single paragraph, as shown below with the elided portion in parentheses, in no way changes the meaning of the quoted portion I posted above.


The common enemy of humanity is man

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. (In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.) All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.


The phrase "confronted by everyone together" is rather coy, don't you think? What the Club of Rome is calling for, openly and proudly, is global governance. They have been doing so since 1972. To quote Mikhail Gorbachev (member of the Club of Rome): "The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."

lyingcheat, I have read many of your posts, especially in the Science and Religion forums. You have usually been logically sound and accurate in your assessments. So... what happened? Why resort to blatantly dishonest characterizations and fallacious argument? Why be angry with me? It's not my fault you fell for their scam.

The "science" of global warming is no science at all. It is a scam being pushed by the one per-centers in order to establish an authoritative, global government.

Why do I say that the "science of global warming is no science at all? It's simple, really. The entire "global warming" scam is based on the ludic fallacy, i.e., the belief that the results of random, non-regulated occurrences can be captured by a statistic.

Persons operating under this fallacy fail to recognize unknown unknowns (and with global warming "science," even known unknowns). The so-called science of global warming has no credibility whatsoever in predicting the probability of future events. It is no science at all - it is quackery, disguised as science, to serve an agenda. Again, sorry you fell for it.

RPL
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 23
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/24/2011 4:14:12 PM
Theyre both

Climatology and earth sciences are both MULTI disciplined fields, including physicists, biologists, chemists and various other "ists"

Earth sciences is practically the same thing as Climatology, as theyre both focused on the natural cycles of the enviroment, its drivers, influencing factors etc etc

It would infact have been ludicrous for non climatological physicists to have worked on the report as it would have been a topic outside of their field of expertise, so you might as well have just used welders or doctors instead

IF someone is actively doing research into "climate" then whatever area of science they work in they are infact by the nature of what theyre doing working in "climatology" hence climatologists too in definitive terms

The "dispute" was you saying they werent "climatologists" because they were physicists

Fact is TONS of "climatologists" are infact phsyicists, its an area of climatology, the two are NOT mutually exclusive
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 3:08:06 AM

Of course. But, let's not be fools and hypocrites. Follow the money on BOTH sides of the issue.

Funny you should say that ^^^ after quoting information regarding the Russian IEA weighing in to the 'climategate' affair. Russia, of course, derives a lot of income from oil and gas and has a history of 'requiring' science to conform to ideological mandate.


I noticed that you ignored the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, the Heinz Endowments, and other globalist foundations, the actual funders of the global warming scam. Funny you should do that^^^.

Not funny at all really, since I haven't put any emphasis at all, in any of the posts I've made, on 'the money trail'.
All I was doing, bearing in mind that you had raised the issue of a 'money trail', was pointing out that you'd missed some clues.


BTW, intimating that we should not take the Russian report seriously because, well, they're Russians, is a rather weak, and obviously fallacious, position to take.

That may be so, but, as I said, all I was doing was exactly the same thing as you were. Remember that you'd already brought various interest groups into one side of the equation, alleging they stand to gain financially and that therefore their interest in global warming is not only not scientific, but should perhaps be regarded sceptically. But you hadn't appeared to notice that groups on the other side of the debate can also have such motives ascribed to them, and that likewise therefore their motives may also be suspect.


Selective quoting and prejudicial juxtaposition of formerly separate phrases and paragraphs can be used to pervert any message.


How VERY DISHONEST of you. You know perfectly well that that is not what was done. Mis-characterizing my post to score cheap "debate" points is rather chickensh1t, isn't it... and to what purpose? I forgot the ellipsis before the word "All" - my error. But the complete, single paragraph, as shown below with the elided portion in parentheses, in no way changes the meaning of the quoted portion I posted above.


The common enemy of humanity is man
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. (In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.) All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

tsk tsk No need to take umbrage. Especially since I didn't 'mis-characterise'. The above wasn't the only quote from "The First Global Revolution" you had in your post. Note that I actually quoted the two consecutive paragraphs I was referring to in full.
Here they are again -
In 1993, in "The First Global Revolution," also published by the Club of Rome, they maintained, among other things, that sovereign, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." Al-Qaeda and global warming come immediately to mind.

Here, in short, directly from "The First Global Revolution" itself, is the conclusion of the Club of Rome:

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The juxtaposition of the bolded phrase above, minus its original context, with a (shortened) paragraph that appears much later in the chapter implies something that isn't, in fact, being said, or implied, in the original.

But there's no need to take my word for it. Or yours.
That's why I posted a link to the original text and pointed to the relevant pages...
'The First Global Revolution, Chapter 5, 'The Vacuum', pp68-75. http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution_text.pdf


The phrase "confronted by everyone together" is rather coy, don't you think? What the Club of Rome is calling for, openly and proudly, is global governance. They have been doing so since 1972. To quote Mikhail Gorbachev (member of the Club of Rome): "The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."

I'm no apologist for 'The Club of Rome', and I don't really know much about them. I do think the name is unfortunate though, recalling all the conspiracy theories that have been floating about for years involving various 'secret societies' like the Masons, and the 'Illuminati' and their alleged connection to an allegedly ancient secret group called the 'Club of Rome' which is apparently fond of using mystical symbolism and is bent on world domination.


The "science" of global warming is no science at all. It is a scam being pushed by the one per-centers in order to establish an authoritative, global government.

Speaking of not-science, here's a few links to sites that share your suspicions regarding the motives of the 'Club of Rome' and their ambitions regarding 'global government'...

The Club of Rome is a conspiratorial umbrella organization, a marriage between Anglo-American financiers and the old Black Nobility families of Europe, particularly the so-called "nobility" of London, Venice and Genoa. The key to the successful control of the world is their ability to create and manage savage economic recessions and eventual depressions. The Committee of 300 looks to social convulsions on a global scale, followed by depressions, as a softening-up technique for bigger things to come, as its principal method of creating masses of people all over the world who will become its "welfare" recipients of the future.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/club_of_rome.htm



In so many ways, the House of Windsor encapsulates almost every element of this story. They are of a Black Nobility bloodline who are knowingly working to the Brotherhood Agenda and when you look behind the facade what you find is very dark indeed. The Windsors are the highest profile reptilian family on the planet and they operate at the heart of the global manipulation.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret18.htm



The question of precisely what fires the will of the wealthy supranational elites seeking to manipulate and control world events, has not escaped the attention of serious students of conspiracies and cover-ups. The late American Professor Revilo P. Oliver, a confirmed atheist, was forced to conclude: "A theory that a conspiracy has been working consciously for many centuries is not very plausible unless one attributes to them a religious unity. That is tantamount to regarding them as Satanists engaged in the worship and service of supernatural evil.
The directors of the conspiracy must see or otherwise directly perceive manifestations which convince them of the existence and power of Lucifer. And since subtle conspirators must be very shrewd men, not likely to be deceived by auto-suggestion, hypnosis, or drugs, we should have to conclude that they probably are in contact with a force of pure evil."
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secretsocietyindex.htm



Watcher Website Global Government NWO Freemason New World Order Secret Society Mind Control UFO NASA Masonic Conspiracy Resources Pokemon Mind Control
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/conspir.html



Club of Rome - This Think Tank, which is one of the world's most dangerous secret societies, has everything to do with our future, which means THEIR future and our imprisonment.
http://www.illuminati-news.com/secret-societies.htm



In Carthage, the Canaanites called themselves Punics. Rome attacked Carthage in full force, beginning in 264BC and completed their task after killing or enslaving every Carthaginian, by sowing the land to salt so that nothing could ever grow there again. The Edomites descended from Esau later intermarried with the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Chazars - who are the present occupants of Israel. These Canaanites eventually adopted the name "Sepharvaim" for deceptive purposes. They later became known as Venetians, and by marrying into European royalty and arsitocracy, the "black nobility." The Venetians today control the Federal Reserve system in the US.

In 1948 George H.W. Bush graduated from Yale University and the Skull and Bones. He is a distant cousin of the Queen of England, part of the Black Nobility which traces its power back 5,000 years.

Various groups combined under the name of socialism to bring about the downfall of several Italian governments since the Club of Rome was established in 1968. Among these are the Black Nobility of Venice and Genoa, P2 Masonry and the Red Brigades, all working for the same goals. Police investigators in Rome working on the Red Brigades-Aldo Moro case came across the names of several very prominent Italian families working closely with this terrorist group. The police also discovered evidence that in at least a dozen cases, these powerful and prominent families had allowed their homes and/or property to be used as safe houses for Red Brigades cells.

Richard Gardner was sent to Rome on a special assignment. Gardner married into one of the oldest Black Nobility families of Venice, thus providing the Venetian aristocracy a direct line to the White House. The late Averill Harriman was another of the committee's direct links with the Kremlin and the White House, a position inherited by Kissinger after Harriman's death.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/black.htm

Gosh, looks like we're all up shit creek hey?


Why do I say that the "science of global warming is no science at all? It's simple, really. The entire "global warming" scam is based on the ludic fallacy, i.e., the belief that the results of random, non-regulated occurrences can be captured by a statistic.

Persons operating under this fallacy fail to recognize unknown unknowns (and with global warming "science," even known unknowns). The so-called science of global warming has no credibility whatsoever in predicting the probability of future events. It is no science at all - it is quackery, disguised as science, to serve an agenda. Again, sorry you fell for it.

Yes, silly me for being so gullible. Instead of reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming I obviously should have been reading the scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 25
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 7:27:09 AM
I doubt it would make any difference anymore. The public have little time for confusing messages.

Most people can't read the original studies, or don't have the time, or don't want to spend their life reading hundreds of studies. They thus gain their understanding by the reputation of the speakers, and check that reputation by indications of lying. One of the big indications of lying, is changing your mind, saying one thing, and then saying another. Once you do that, then those who can and will read all the studies, can still be persuaded by the studies. Those who cannot or will not, cannot.

RE Msg: 12 by Earthpuppy:
They are still going on with the mythology of "most scientists" in the 70s believed in global cooling.
That was in my lifetime. Saying that the Earth was cooling, and then a few decades on, saying that the Earth is warming, is confusing enough to make a lot of people distrust anything that the speaker has to say on the subject.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures