Shady Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I highly recommend this, it's very interesting and informative. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.... ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. Link Edited February 10, 2012 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Shady... haven't you been bit enough by British Tabloids... and David Rose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Shady... haven't you been bit enough by British Tabloids... and David Rose? So instead of confronting the actual data released by EAU, you instead focus on the so-called british tabloids etc. Not suprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Temperatures also dipped in the middle of the 20th century. That doesn't mean the trend is reversing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Temperatures also dipped in the middle of the 20th century. That doesn't mean the trend is reversing. no, not at all - this isn't even a question of dips or trend reversals. Rather, it's the continuing saga of a journalist (not a scientist, not even a journalist with a scientific background) predisposed to ply his personal denier beliefs. until your response I hadn't intended to give this Shady nonsense any consideration. Again, written by one David Rose - a nefarious, ne'er-do-well from a British tabloid noted for regularly publishing tripe. If you haven't followed many of the climate change threads closely, you wouldn't be familiar with many similar efforts by Shady - Rose was/is one of his regular go-to-tabloid guys whenever he feels a need to pump his personal CC/AGW denial. in any case, if you actually read the Rose tabloid "article", you will find it devoid of who/what is actually making the claim concerning the British Met Office data release... in fact, the article is devoid of any real substance or detail. Even if one didn't look at the actual Met Office data, anytime the year 1997/1998 is flagged, one is immediately alerted to the cherry-picking best, given the effective anomaly that 97/98 was in terms of being one of the warmest years on record. But, of course, the article found a home as it's been spun hundreds of times across the blogging denialsphere. What you will realize from the following official Met Office response to that article, is that the claim has been made entirely by the "journalist", David Rose, himself... and he purposely ignores the Met Office responses to his own inquiries of them. Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997. For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below: A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data. “The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections. “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” (note: HadCRUT3 is the global historical surface temperature anomalies dataset within the grouping of Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man. I appreciate you hold disdain for accuracy and truth, particularly when it squashes your denialist leanings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man. I think it's a question of believing in politics vs science. The skewed reporting is done either for political points, or possibly to get readership from people who already believe in the thesis. Either way, it's bad reporting. Why wouldn't they publish the MET office response ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 No, it's about certain activist types who get so carried away by this one issue. It drains the life out of people and they become bitter tree clingers. Not that this has happended to Waldo. Yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man. No, it's about certain activist types who get so carried away by this one issue. It drains the life out of people and they become bitter tree clingers. Not that this has happended to Waldo. Yet. not that I give a rats-patooey on anything you have to say... nice to read your walk-back! by the by, any reason you refused to answer Michael's question: "Why wouldn't they publish the MET office response" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Because his question had nothing to do with the issue I raised. Michael needed to be corrected about where my comment took him. Although I admit I hadn't seen it before he raised it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Because his question had nothing to do with the issue I raised. Michael needed to be corrected about where my comment took him. Although I admit I hadn't seen it before he raised it. so, you "corrected" Michael over his emphasizing politics vs. science and why the referenced British tabloid skewed reporting was done... you "corrected" him, hey? Of course, your "correction" didn't have a thing to say about Michael's actual comment - did it? and was your reference to my "religion and worshiping", also one of your, "corrections"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Well, in so much as I am hoping you don't become a bitter tree clinger, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Well, in so much as I am hoping you don't become a bitter tree clinger, yes. hope away... and why do you accept this example of skewed reporting? You ignored Michael's original question to you in that regard, you ignored my pointing out you ignored Michael's question, and you ignored my direct challenge to you on it. What is it about this type of skewed reporting that you're so prepared to blindly accept it? Does it suit your own particular, as you describe, "religion and worship"? Does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Waldo's issue shouldn't be with any journalists in this case, but others... ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Waldo's issue shouldn't be with any journalists in this case, but others... ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. yes - and if you knew anything beyond your British tabloid cut/paste linkarama farce, you would know who Svensmark is, what his failed positions concerning the sun's influence are, that he/his papers/position have no standing within the greater scientific community. I eagerly await you bringing forward Svensmark positions... and supporting them. but hey now... have you nothing to add in terms of the official Met Office response to "journalist" David Rose's claims? Any particular reason you blindly accept the unsubstantiated tripe writings from British tabloids and in particular, a journalist... a journalist... one David Rose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 No, it's about certain activist types who get so carried away by this one issue. It drains the life out of people and they become bitter tree clingers. Not that this has happended to Waldo. Yet. What does this even mean? Because someone that understands the science refutes the completely ignorant and biased article that was posted, he's "carried away" and a "bitter tree clinger"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 No, it's about certain activist types who get so carried away by this one issue. It drains the life out of people and they become bitter tree clingers. Not that this has happended to Waldo. Yet. Ok, but Waldo didn't even bring it up - the thread was started by Shady. Carried away is one thing, but this was a response on someone else's thread so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 yes - and if you knew anything beyond your British tabloid cut/paste linkarama farce, you would know who Svensmark is, what his failed positions concerning the sun's influence are, that he/his papers/position have no standing within the greater scientific community. I eagerly await you bringing forward Svensmark positions... and supporting them. Do yourself a favour though and be sure to delineate between crackpots and real scientists. Svendmark's theories may not have been proven, and may in fact have failed but he is a real scientist. I applaud the fact that we're talking about real scientists here. Celebrate the small victories, Waldo, it will make you a happier person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Ok, but Waldo didn't even bring it up - the thread was started by Shady. Carried away is one thing, but this was a response on someone else's thread so.... I am not refering to a single issue in the debate over Global Warming. I am refering to people who allow the GW movement to completely monopolize their lives, thoughts, and forum comments. Perhaps I confused you when I didn't better define my earlier use of the phrase, "one issue". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I am not refering to a single issue in the debate over Global Warming. I am refering to people who allow the GW movement to completely monopolize their lives, thoughts, and forum comments. Perhaps I confused you when I didn't better define my earlier use of the phrase, "one issue". I see. Well, I worry about Waldo's happiness too. It's mighty Christian of you to do so. I suspect he'll find his own way through the fog of life, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Do yourself a favour though and be sure to delineate between crackpots and real scientists.Waldo will never do that. The propoganda strategy of global warming zealots required that they demean and vilify all who dispute their canon. Look at Lomborg - he accepts the IPCC science completely but thinks it makes no economic sense to engage in large scale carbon mitigation schemes. Yet he was hauled in front the "Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty" because be dared to raised extremely reasonable questions about the IPCC agenda. The Catholic church has been replace by national scientific bodies. Edited January 30, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Waldo will never do that. The propoganda strategy of global warming zealots required that they demean and vilify all who dispute their canon. We should all have two goals: to advocate and discuss from our point of view on the topic AND to encourage positive and factual debate about the issues so as to reduce the noise around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Fact, there is a market to trade carbon credits, which allows the polluters to keep on polluting, as long as they pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Do yourself a favour though and be sure to delineate between crackpots and real scientists. Waldo will never do that. The propoganda strategy of global warming zealots required that they demean and vilify all who dispute their canon. Look at Lomborg - he accepts the IPCC science completely but thinks it makes no economic sense to engage in large scale carbon mitigation schemes. Yet he was hauled in front the "Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty" because be dared to raised extremely reasonable questions about the IPCC agenda. The Catholic church has been replace by national scientific bodies. and I will flood you with the, as you say, "propaganda strategies" of fake skeptics... care to dance? of course, you fail to mention Lomborg isn't a scientist - has no background in climate science... is a poli-sci guy. Of course, you fail to mention Lomborg's famously miraculous and convenient shift from renowned "skeptic" to (supposedly) accepting the science that supports CC/AGW... a conversion that seemed to coincide with his last major book selling tour. Of course, you fail to acknowledge that Lomborg is one of your favoured delay/inaction guys; i.e., Climate Science Concern Trolls who falsely project acceptance in the science in favour of advocating "do nothing" actions - "doing nothing". Yes, your kind of guy. If you'd like we could have a real detailed exploration of Lomborg's past - many have paved the way in examining and cataloging his nonsense... I mean, bloody hell; there are websites dedicated to identifying his errors. but don't feel too bad about Lomborg recently losing his funding... I expect the Koch brothers or GWPF will step-up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.