Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

#1    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,005 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:50 PM

From the article;


Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.

But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.

Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the ‘next ice age’, now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot
The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.
The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.
A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.
At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.


http://countdowntoze...rong-all-along/

Edited by OverSword, 19 March 2013 - 03:51 PM.


#2    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,437 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:09 PM

No doubt some crazy Professor will come up with a different theory,to try and make a name for himself.

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#3    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    a paid-up member of the “tin foil hat brigade”

  • Member
  • 24,438 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:18 PM

That can't be right. Global Climate Change is the greatest catastrophe facing Planet Earth, and it's all our fault. These people must be in the pay of the Republicans. I should disregard them and only listen to those who tell us that Blobal Climate Change is real and irrevocable, and it's all our fault.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#4    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,819 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:27 PM

Global Warming Policy Foundation:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]


Useless reference - just wiki it.

Piers Forster - cannot find this quote: http://www.see.leeds...e-change-group/

As for Prof. Judith Curry... it seems that she is just relying on "Blogging".. http://curry.eas.gat...ding_trust.html

As always Oversword, your references pan out as has - been, sidelined, scientists (or even someone like Lawson) as being true "Bringers Of The Knowledge". You fail every time you try this, because on UM you are faced with people that do not have the Attention Span of a Goldfish


#5    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    a paid-up member of the “tin foil hat brigade”

  • Member
  • 24,438 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:47 PM

So this is all lies then? The information shown is not true? That's the trouble with this interminable Global Climate Change industry; everyone has their pet experts to say what they want them to say. One Expert says something, and then another flatly contradicts it. so is this not actually true and it is a lie? What is true? Who can we trust to tell us what is true? never mind trying to discredit anybody who doesn't say what you believe; If someone is a "has-been" or "sidelined", does that mean that they're lying?

Edited by Lord Vetinari, 19 March 2013 - 04:50 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#6    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,195 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:58 PM

Which IPCC report did you get the chart from?

The date of the projection needs to be the same as the date of the temperature track.  Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#7    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,005 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 19 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

As always Oversword, your references pan out as has - been, sidelined, scientists (or even someone like Lawson) as being true "Bringers Of The Knowledge". You fail every time you try this, because on UM you are faced with people that do not have the Attention Span of a Goldfish

As always eh?  Well you know me, always making outrageous claims about climate change right?

Please note, aside from posting an article my comment was "From the article"

Quick "Q:" Keithisco, did you bother to read the article pointed to in the link for once or did you not get much past the graphics, as per usual?


#8    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,140 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:14 PM

You do realize that climate models are not the basis of AGW theory.
Climate models are a way of anticipating what might happen given the known physical relationship between CO2 and the accumulation of energy within the system.

The basic fact is that there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and as a consequence energy is measurably continuing to accumulate in the global system. That is causing climate change and that is what models are attempting to predict the outcome of.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#9    Helen of Annoy

Helen of Annoy

    devil's aunt

  • Member
  • 21,746 posts
  • Joined:21 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Croatia/Sucamore Beach

  • Where there's a will
    there's a way.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:22 PM

Carbon taxes are too tempting idea to let it go just because the reality doesn't fit the predictions. But I hope they'll at least cancel ideas of putting this or that in the atmosphere to reverse the global warming effect...
Because even if it was real (personally, I’m sure climate is more complex than CO2 factor only, but that’s just me) the worst possible “solution” would be experimenting with crap in the atmosphere.
Not that there are no experiments with weather manipulation, and maybe that should be carbon, or even better, moron taxed.

Posted Image

The 5 millionth post was Junior Chubb's fault :D
Donnie Darko did nothing, but I had to mention him too.

#10    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,005 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:25 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 19 March 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You do realize that climate models are not the basis of AGW theory.
Climate models are a way of anticipating what might happen given the known physical relationship between CO2 and the accumulation of energy within the system.

The basic fact is that there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and as a consequence energy is measurably continuing to accumulate in the global system. That is causing climate change and that is what models are attempting to predict the outcome of.

Br Cornelius
Thanks Br.  I'm not a climate change denyer, more of a sh** stirer.  That said, to reclarify my POV on AGW, I'm not convinced that humanity is the driving force of climate change.  I also believe that we should and are persuing more and better environmentally friendly ways of doing everything, from recycling to better cleaner ways of generating energy.  Humanity has heard the call and are responding.  Not as rapidly as some would wish but I believe we are not in  danger of dying due to inaction.


#11    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,195 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:19 PM

View PostOverSword, on 19 March 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Please note, aside from posting an article my comment was "From the article"
I could not find the source of that chart in the link you posted, but it appears to be based on one of the IPCC's publications from the early 90s.  Those early attempts were notorously inaccurate and that was obvious twelve years ago.  How about bringing the "debate" up to date by posting something more current, like for example, a simulation that uses data from, say 2010?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#12    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,005 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:39 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 19 March 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

I could not find the source of that chart in the link you posted, but it appears to be based on one of the IPCC's publications from the early 90s.  Those early attempts were notorously inaccurate and that was obvious twelve years ago.  How about bringing the "debate" up to date by posting something more current, like for example, a simulation that uses data from, say 2010?
Doug
Feel free to post that 2010 data if it pleases you Doug. I'm not the author of the article so I don't know where it came from.  In case you missed where I said my only comment when I posted was "from the article"

Edited by OverSword, 19 March 2013 - 07:40 PM.


#13    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:41 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 19 March 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You do realize that climate models are not the basis of AGW theory.
climate models are the only basis for dangerous AGW.

"there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere"
satellite measurements showing increase in Outgoing Longwave Radiation (the radiation that co2 is said to be trapping).
if co2 was trapping OLR then the measurements would be trending down.

Posted Image


#14    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:44 PM

i'm pretty sure the graph is from the leaked forthcoming ippc report, or at the least it looks like it matches it.


#15    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 19 March 2013 - 11:10 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 19 March 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

i'm pretty sure the graph is from the leaked forthcoming ippc report, or at the least it looks like it matches it.

Unlikely. I'm pretty sure any report they're about to release will have more up to date data than c.2005 as the diagram shows. Good try though.

As said, climate models aren't the basis, nor is addition of CO2 the thought to be the only, or even main, cause. What most people fail to grasp is, it's not amounts that are important. We are destroying sinks to create sources. That leads to an increase. Possibly a gradual one but a long term one.

Leaving all that aside. All the diagram in the OP shows is that actual temperature data is within the 95% confidence interval for the climate predictions (and, therefore, statistically 'correct'). And people are using this to suggest the prediction is wrong. Interesting...

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users