Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Admiral Danger

Climategate U-turn as scientist admit

43 posts in this topic

Not really, you are just looking at the politics and not the science. Sat readings show warming trend too.

As do Anthony Watts weather stations that he thinks are good (as shown by NASA) which Mr Watts likes not to advertise.

Its all about politics and faith, not science.

Sorry, expand, but in science, there is still consensus.

Science is not a democratic process! I'm sur in the year 1400 the consensus would be the planet is flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all about politics and faith, not science.

Nope, there is plenty of science and the scale of evidence very much points to us having an effect on the planet.

Science is not a democratic process! I'm sur in the year 1400 the consensus would be the planet is flat.

I doubt it, although modern science didn't exist in 1400, it was very much known the Earth was a sphere because the ancient Greeks had shown it to so :P

You are right it is not a democracy and consensus isn't brought about by voting, it is brought about by evidence, something which I have presented plenty of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right it is not a democracy and consensus isn't brought about by voting, it is brought about by evidence, something which I have presented plenty of.

When has that ever mattered here...lol

Nice work, Matt. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, there is plenty of science and the scale of evidence very much points to us having an effect on the planet.

Matt this clearly is not the case, the IPCC even had to get some of 'science' from a "mountaineering" magazine?

You are right it is not a democracy and consensus isn't brought about by voting, it is brought about by evidence, something which I have presented plenty of.

Well maybe you might want to give some to the IPCC and CRU, they really could use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the IPCC already, they're not a good source at all. Listen to what the scientists in other areas are saying, since the IPCC is /political/. They're a joke and should never be listened to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt this clearly is not the case, the IPCC even had to get some of 'science' from a "mountaineering" magazine?

IPCC are a political body though mate, you must remember that, clearly they have some incompetent staff. Doesn't mean the world field is like that, it most certainly isn't.

Well maybe you might want to give some to the IPCC and CRU, they really could use it.

CRU have plenty of good data and work.

IPCC have used plenty of good data, but they have used some very bad stuff, most likely the product of laziness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRU have plenty of good data and work.

IPCC have used plenty of good data, but they have used some very bad stuff, most likely the product of laziness.

Matt I just don't understand how anyone could take what the IPCC seriously. how could you say only some stuff is good or bad and just say if you fooled me enough times why should I take anything they say seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt I just don't understand how anyone could take what the IPCC seriously. how could you say only some stuff is good or bad and just say if you fooled me enough times why should I take anything they say seriously.

Because their reports are a mixed bag, but you can at least look at the source material and make far out the quality from their. Most stuff is back from numerous papers, it is the stuff that is not backed from papers or referenced that needs to be treated with caution. But as I have always said, the papers are the best source of information you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the labs involved need to get some serious tech writers who know what they're doing, and start turning out mass-public reading level material that everyone can understand, directly, not through the political machine that is the IPCC. You've been complaining about the Mass Media getting the science wrong, Matt, but the scientific papers with their facts and figures are still too much for the average person to solidly get. Well trained tech writers are supposed to fix that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the labs involved need to get some serious tech writers who know what they're doing, and start turning out mass-public reading level material that everyone can understand, directly, not through the political machine that is the IPCC. You've been complaining about the Mass Media getting the science wrong, Matt, but the scientific papers with their facts and figures are still too much for the average person to solidly get. Well trained tech writers are supposed to fix that problem.

They are, but you would be amazed how many are sadly not well trained at all :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally think it would, the temperatures in those regions tend not to vary as much. But I will have a look around and see if I can find anything.

I personally believe we are going to see another ice age, I also believe that fossil fuels may have some type of impact. Well that said I do not have any hard data just my opinion.I do not know enough to debunk anyone or any group but wish I did! Buy beach front property in Missouri at a bargain today in years it will be worth a fortune!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe we are going to see another ice age, I also believe that fossil fuels may have some type of impact. Well that said I do not have any hard data just my opinion.I do not know enough to debunk anyone or any group but wish I did! Buy beach front property in Missouri at a bargain today in years it will be worth a fortune!!!

I don't think even the most dire predictions have stated Missouri to be the new East or West Coast. With the new information coming out every day, now they're talking about whaling, I believe, there are going to be 2 possible outcomes to this: 1.) They finally officially declare humans to have been a very bad evolution and the government pushes off of change cliff into something we've never even been before, Or 2.) We find out it's all bunk, and when all the firestorm dies down, every scientist to ever make claims on Global Warming is going to disappear for a while until everyone forgets that pair of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe we are going to see another ice age, I also believe that fossil fuels may have some type of impact. Well that said I do not have any hard data just my opinion.I do not know enough to debunk anyone or any group but wish I did! Buy beach front property in Missouri at a bargain today in years it will be worth a fortune!!!

The ice core graphs support your position, and the science has a very good account of why this might happen. Every time there is a rapid rise in CO2 levels and temperature it is quickly followed by an ice age. Ocean currents are the key to understanding this.

However the scientists are concerned that current emissions are going to be enough to overwhelm the trend and then all bets are off as to what might be the outcome.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If emissions are not enough to overwhelm the trend, though, would that buy us enough time to get our act together before hitting the point we're at now again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If emissions are not enough to overwhelm the trend, though, would that buy us enough time to get our act together before hitting the point we're at now again?

No, it just means we'll be reeeeeally cold, ice ages tend to hit quickly.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And HERE'S how the data is collected.

Again, sorry for FauxNews...

I'll happily accept another news source... or a solid debunking of this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And HERE'S how the data is collected.

Again, sorry for FauxNews...

I'll happily accept another news source... or a solid debunking of this one.

Yes, what is the problem with that? It is hardly a difficult task is it?

Watts can whinge about it all he likes, he is just crying to avoid having to talk about his data being the same as the other weather stations produced and the fact that it is similar to satellite readings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And HERE'S how the data is collected.

Again, sorry for FauxNews...

I'll happily accept another news source... or a solid debunking of this one.

The reason that this methodology is still used is because it is a tried and tested approach. It is the standard for all world wide weather stations (apart from the automated ones). It has proven itself very effective and the most accurate at recording data and trends. The volunteers are skilled in their technique and can be trusted to provide accurate data.

If someone comes up with a superior system it will be adopted.

As my instrumentation lecturer has told us "Just because it has a digital readout doesn't mean its trustworthy".

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.