Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Berberis]

Since 2010 isn't over yet I don't have any figures; unlike you and the rest of the pro AGW camp who have already made up theirs

 

2010 looks to be below the mean average temperature for the UK. December will need to have a mean of +2 degrees above the average temperature to make the mean annual temperature 0.0

 

In fact over the last 5 years the mean average anomaly in temperature year by year has only been:

 

2009: +0.6

2008: +0.5

2007: +1.0

2006: +1.1

2005: +0.8

 

So these so called experts predicting that "more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860" are wrong as at present the mean annual anomaly temperate for the whole of the UK is running at -0.2 without factoring in Decembers mean temperature anomaly.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Berberis

[Wildcat]

Wiki, I have posted scientific evidence on many occasions. The fact that you choose not to believe it, is your problem not mine.

 

I have provided links to discreditations of hockey sticks, SST anomolies, etc, etc.

 

Not one of which was in the slightest bit credible.

 

It has been shown that the advocates of man made(up) global warming have vested interests in the 'science' confirming their agenda.

 

Only in so far as we all have a vested interest in dealing with it sooner rather than later because the longer we leave it the most costly it will be.

 

The IPCC is a case in point, they have lied and supplied misinformation based upon anecdotal reports of climbers for goodness sake. A more discredited organisation couldn't be found, except maybe FIFA.

 

False.

 

You just seem to provide circular links to pro climate change websites. To be honest I'm of the opinion that the general public will make their own minds up; they're fed up of all the greenwash you post on here.

 

You're always trying to rubbish wattsupwiththat; the weblogs award winner in 2008 for THE best science blog.

 

I'd suggest that the pretty poor conferences in copenhagen and cancun suggest that the majority of the world is fed up with AGW.

 

Watts publishes absurd nonsense without any regard for the truth.

 

 

Weblogs awards are a popularity contest, not something that establishes credibility.

[spinac]

2010 looks to be below the mean average temperature for the UK.

 

Wrong debate fella. This one's about global warming.

[Wildcat]

It looks like the Register has come to a subtly different conclusion than the researcher.

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html

 

Odd how the Register consistently twists and distorts global warming stories isn't it?

 

There is a more detailed rebuttal of this fabricated myth.....

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/15/potholer-on-the-newest-crock/

 

If the IPCC had done anything like this Convert and others would be frothing and saying it is proof of the absurd global conspiracy their argument is based upon, but for some reason the obvious double standard of ignoring the fact that their views aren't based on any credible sources escapes them.

[Berberis]

Wrong debate fella. This one's about global warming.

 

Is the UK not part of the globe then? Well that's news to me but I do get your point

 

The UK is not separate form the global mean temperature and what with the cold at the start of the year in the northern hemisphere coupled with the even earlier cold swing this year, I suspect the Met offices prediction may be off.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Berberis

[Wildcat]

Is the UK not part of the globe then? Well that's news to me but I do get your point

 

The UK is not separate form the global mean temperature and what with the cold at the start of the year in the northern hemisphere coupled with the even earlier cold swing this year, I suspect the Met offices prediction may be off.

 

NASA has already declared 2010 the hottest year on record (despite a La Nina - moderate cooling effect in the Pacific).

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html

 

Not sure how you are managing to credibly predict from UK temperatures, to Northern Hemisphere and then global.... but quite clearly your reasoning must be wrong since your conclusion is.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Wildcat

[Frumius]

NASA has already declared 2010 the hottest year ever..

 

The hottest year "ever". Since when ? There have been many many times in earths multibillion year history when it has been warmer. Isn't the question really related to what is causing climate change? It seems the science is a little more equivocal on that point.....and there are many vested interests (a mult billion pound industry) in promoting the idea of manmade global warming. I would have thought that you, wildcat, above all others would have been sceptical about this. After all it is the poor who will pay the extra taxes, the higher fuel bills etc to fund uks futile efforts to reduce global warming. Meanwhile the Chinese and Indians will continue to build coal fired power stations weekly and dwarf any efforts made in the uk.

[Wildcat]

The hottest year "ever". Since when ? There have been many many times in earths multibillion year history when it has been warmer. Isn't the question really related to what is causing climate change? It seems the science is a little more equivocal on that point.....and there are many vested interests (a mult billion pound industry) in promoting the idea of manmade global warming. I would have thought that you, wildcat, above all others would have been sceptical about this. After all it is the poor who will pay the extra taxes, the higher fuel bills etc to fund uks futile efforts to reduce global warming. Meanwhile the Chinese and Indians will continue to build coal fired power stations weekly and dwarf any efforts made in the uk.

 

You were quick I changed ever to 'on record' only a minute or so later, when I realised someone would pick up on that.

 

As to the cause. No the science isn't equivocal, I wish it was, but it isn't. There is some scientific debate over scale and on the fine detail of how the various feedback loops interact. But in general the cause is established and the extent sufficient that it is clear we have to act now, or suffer far worse consequences and costs later.

 

Here is what James Hansen, NASA's lead atmospheric scientist has to say...

[Frumius]

You were quick I changed ever to 'on record' only a minute or so later, when I realised someone would pick up on that.

 

As to the cause. No the science isn't equivocal, I wish it was, but it isn't. There is some scientific debate over scale and on the fine detail of how the various feedback loops interact. But in general the cause is established and the extent sufficient that it is clear we have to act now, or suffer far worse consequences and costs later.

 

Here is what James Hansen, NASA's lead atmospheric scientist has to say...

 

I think when you say you "wish it was" , you reflect the views of much of the climate change lobby. I understand why certain scientists "wish it was" and certain other people whose livelihoods depend on the existence of manmade global warming. But for folks like you and me, who have very little to gain or lose either way, surely the existence of debate or doubt is a reason for optimism? Surely you would abhor the way that the vested interests seem to try and supress debate. Seem to try to humble the doubters with vitriol and name calling.

[Wildcat]

I think when you say you "wish it was" , you reflect the views of much of the climate change lobby. I understand why certain scientists "wish it was" and certain other people whose livelihoods depend on the existence of manmade global warming. But for folks like you and me, who have very little to gain or lose either way, surely the existence of debate or doubt is a reason for optimism? Surely you would abhor the way that the vested interests seem to try and supress debate. Seem to try to humble the doubters with vitriol and name calling.

 

People like you and me have plenty to lose. Our futures depend upon the decisions we make now.

 

And yes I do abhor the way vested interests try to suppress debate with name calling and deceptions. That is precisely why the anti-global warming, right wing echo chambers are such a danger to us and our democracy.

 

Take a look at this and the links for a case study in precisely the sort of behaviour you are criticising....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-tries-to-censor-John-Abraham.html

Edited December 16, 2010 by Wildcat