truman Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Its Booker messing about, I can't find the data. Why just point to a single weather station, its Booker and his agenda, very poor journalism. The data is shown in the other graph labelled "raw data" ---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 20:11 ---------- Have a look at this. http://rs2img.memecdn.com/Proof-of-global-warming_o_96195.jpg That's it then....indisputable truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikes10 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Lovely pictures from GISS ..The "doctored" graph in my post above is from GISS...why is this graph so different from the raw data it's produced from? Monbiot has his own agenda... Your post is from the Sunday Telegraph and its a graph, I want to see the actual data ( the numbers ), please supply a link to where it is on the GISS site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Your post is from the Sunday Telegraph and its a graph, I want to see the actual data ( the numbers ), please supply a link to where it is on the GISS site. You need to do your own search because you obviously won't trust anything I put up here..it's not difficult to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikes10 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 You need to do your own search because you obviously won't trust anything I put up here..it's not difficult to find. All I am asking for is for you to provide a link to the original raw data on the GISS site so that everyone reading this topic can see the original data, surely you can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 All I am asking for is for you to provide a link to the original raw data on the GISS site so that everyone reading this topic can see the original data, surely you can do that. Go and look for yourself, you seem to have found the data that you believe in OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) All I am asking for is for you to provide a link to the original raw data on the GISS site so that everyone reading this topic can see the original data, surely you can do that. As I said if you find it yourself you'll believe it...are you saying it doesn't exist? Edited January 28, 2015 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 As I said if you find it yourself you'll believe it...are you saying it doesn't exist? Hasn't it been found yet! I bet it's with the heat that's been missing for the past 20 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Hasn't it been found yet! I bet it's with the heat that's been missing for the past 20 years... Wonder if the Pope is holding it back with prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I have serious doubts about climate change. I don't doubt the CO2 global warming effect, but that's not climate change. Climate change starts from CO2 global warming and then adds lots of positive feedback effects, runs them all through a computer model, and comes out with a much greater warming effect than that produced by simple global warming. I'm not a climatologist, but I am a well qualified professional scientist. My doubts are founded in 3 key areas. 1. Scientific method: There have been consensus warming predictions for well over 20 years now. They've been quite a way out, but rather than questioning the theory the experts stick with the theory and hope that the data will change to match. 2. Cherry-picking: I know both sides of the debate are guilty of this, but professional scientists should not really be choosing their statistical methods based on what conclusion they'd like to get. 3. Dogma: Why is anybody even suggesting that there's no room for doubt? That's not how science works. We're supposed to question everything. I've nothing to gain professionally or financially either way. Surely something this important should be open for debate. Edit - For "climate change" read "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" since this seems to be causing some confusion. Edited July 7, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 This could be an Inconvenient thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now