Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

retep,

 

how did you manage to miss the paragraphs immediately after the one you quoted?

 

 

 

 

 

What I am struggling to understand is how you have managed to come to that conclusion based on the evidence in terms of references you have presented, which would appear to be making the opposite claim?

 

Do you really think the Willis paper (which only deals with the top 300m) indicates anything other than problems with interpreting the Argo data or variability, as you would expect of the upper ocean? subsequent research on the full 2000m that can be measured corresponds with what the other indicators of ocean warming (sea level rise, satellite measurements etc) all say a consistent and worrying rate of warming.

 

What part of,

Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans,

don't you understand.

 

Perhaps you should look it up on wiki.

[Wildcat]

What part of,

Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans,

don't you understand.

 

Perhaps you should look it up on wiki.

 

Which part of:

 

Other analyses of the Argo data show ocean warming (Levitus 2009, Leuliette 2009, Cazenave 2009)

 

do you fail to grasp?

[retep]

Which part of:

 

 

 

do you fail to grasp?

 

The question is which, or whose, research do you believe, the first says no warming, the second is looking for something the first didn't find and putting their own twist on it.

Because it fits your agenda you accept the second.

[Wildcat]

The question is which, or whose, research do you believe, the first says no warming, the second is looking for something the first didn't find and putting their own twist on it.

Because it fits your agenda you accept the second.

 

No I accept the second, third and fourth analysis of the data because they are studies of more than just the top 300 metres of the ocean, because they are consistent with one another and because they are consistent with alternative indicators of ocean warming involving satellites and sea level rise.

 

The one you chose to believe doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence..... the only conclusion can be that your fixation with it is down to wanting it to be true inspite of the evidence.

[retep]

No I accept the second, third and fourth analysis of the data because they are studies of more than just the top 300 metres of the ocean, because they are consistent with one another and because they are consistent with alternative indicators of ocean warming involving satellites and sea level rise.

 

The one you chose to believe doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence..... the only conclusion can be that your fixation with it is down to wanting it to be true inspite of the evidence.

 

No matter how you try wiki, you won't get a size twelve foot into a size six boot, twisting the data to suit helps no one.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/ocean-heat-content-adjustments-follow-up-and-more-missing-heat/

[Wildcat]

No matter how you try wiki, you won't get a size twelve foot into a size six boot, twisting the data to suit helps no one.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/ocean-heat-content-adjustments-follow-up-and-more-missing-heat/

 

If you want to look at twisting data you have certainly found a good example in Watts and Loehle...

 

I have given plenty of references on this thread of Watts publishing information he knows to be false. His surfacestations project, for example which has been recently used to show that the USA temperature stations he has identified show not as he claims an over estimation of temperature rises but an underestimation.

 

His response? Ignore it and try to censor those on youtube hightlighing his hypocrisy...

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#watts

 

As for Loehle.... well you might want to take a look at this open letter...

 

http://strangeweather.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/an-open-letter-to-craig-loehle/

 

another example of many that are easily found:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/

 

...so Loehle indulges in hypocritical criticisms jumps to conclusions the data doesn't warrant and basically engages in pseudo-science...

 

 

As you say, twisting the science helps no one.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Wildcat

[SUPERTYKE]

Whats up with you turkeys rattling endlessly on about Climate Change and the accompanying reasons why it just aint happening. And then come your ridiculous reasons why governments are just using it to scare us; and rip us off; then comes the weighting of your non-existant 'evidence' that you so laboriously present by trawling through all media in search of articles that support your feeble case.

 

Just rip your heads out of the sand and take a look around. You behave like frightened children trying to convince yourselves that ghosts don't exist - you'll find out, one way or the other, what's happening to the climate if you manage to live through the next twenty years.

[Wildcat]

I don't think they are bovvered.

 

[SUPERTYKE]

I don't think they are bovvered.

 

 

The Dynamics of Denial eh Wildcat? They should find it interesting reading if they can bear to read anything that rings of the truth!

[convert]

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

 

 

Source http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

 

So, is it time to scrap all the plant food (CO2) taxes, and take control of the utility companies, before we all freeze to death because we can't afford to heat our homes?

 

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.

As NASA notes:

 

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

 

 

For those of you who would scoff at the register, here's a link to National Geographic.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/

 

So while the 'climate scientists' continue to fudge datasets to fit their agenda, and retain their research grants, ole mother nature turns down the wicj on the REAL driver of our global temperature.