Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause

[Guest]

How the hell can people believe anything from these groups, don't you think the IPCC should have looked at the data? insted they fought it till they looked bad,"The e-mails are not really that worrying outside of some personal level unprofessionalism" deleting e-mails, just adding tree rings, making up numbers and doing anything they can to hide it from the public and doing anything they can to point science into one direction "unprofessionalism" maybe a bunch of jokers is a better word?

PLEASE

There has been no fraud in East Anglia. The data sets have been adjusted to match known data of con-current periods. This is what the emails are about and unfortunately they use a lower form or discourse than would be expected in a published paper. The were attempts to block papers, this is the unprofessional bit - but not entirely unexpected in a competitive field.

Lets face it you are a conservative materialist (possibly religious to boot) who cannot accept there is anything wrong with your lifestyle - and this is the position you are arguing from. Not a good basis to discuss scientific data really.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 12, 2010 by Guest

[Mattshark]

I think the sources I give are more reliable then newscientist.com I never said there was evidence that the entire solar system was warming.

You can think that, however, it simply isn't the case. New Scientist is a respected science magazine and has more respectability that Nat. Geo., it is the UK equivalent of Scientific American.

Then how can you imply solar cause if we are not seeing warming across the system?

[Professor Buzzkill]

Mattshark,

I read the paper you posted about the "Myth" of warming on pluto and mars. Yet it clearly states that both these planets are warming and that we cannot explain it (there are some theories) however they say that it has absolutly nothing to do with warming on earth. Right, way to rule out the sun without any evidence, just because of the preconcieved notion that earth warming is man made.

Edited January 12, 2010 by GlenBoy22

[Mattshark]

I don't think this is the worst of global warming in the History of Earth.

Many animals have survived these changes.

Well it is not as bad as the Permian extinction event which had a 10°c warming which was the biggest mass extinction event in history.

[Guest]

I don't think this is the worst of global warming in the History of Earth.

Many animals have survived these changes.

Are you unaware of the current mass extinction ?

Are you aware that past mass extinctions have also been mapped to climate events.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 12, 2010 by Guest

[Mattshark]

I read the paper you posted about the "Myth" of warming on pluto and mars. Yet it clearly states that both these planets are warming and that we cannot explain it (there are some theories) however they say that it has absolutly nothing to do with warming on earth. Right, way to rule out the sun without any evidence, just because of the preconcieved notion that earth warming is man made.

Did you read the paper I posted about the sun not being a major factor. I will post it again for you.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

That is why we do not imply solar activity, also you would expect that to effect the whole system, it doesn't. Just because we do not know a cause doesn't mean we cannot rule out other.

Also, that is an article, not a paper.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Mattshark

[Caesar]

Not really, that is all it is, there results are corroborated around the world, I doubt you read the paper, but you should.

To me it shows a strong bias in its research.

I'll read it only after you read the Bible

[Mattshark]

To me it shows a strong bias in its research.

I'll read it only after you read the Bible

The only bias here is you, the data is freely available if you want to analysis it and I posted a lot of scientific literature which you have not addressed, please don't pretend you have made any sort of salient point.

[Caesar]

You can think that, however, it simply isn't the case. New Scientist is a respected science magazine and has more respectability that Nat. Geo., it is the UK equivalent of Scientific American.

Then how can you imply solar cause if we are not seeing warming across the system?

Didn't Greg Egan make a plea to the public about its "sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" I look at that source and Wikipedia confirmed what my hunch was.

Source

[Guest]

To me it shows a strong bias in its research.

I'll read it only after you read the Bible

So you are putting up unknowable faith against empirically derived data. I think you just shot yourself out of the water and proved that there is no arguing with you.

Br Cornelius

[Mr.United_Nations]

i said history not current.

[Caesar]

The only bias here is you, the data is freely available if you want to analysis it and I posted a lot of scientific literature which you have not addressed, please don't pretend you have made any sort of salient point.

I have posted my opinion that the sun is the source for most of our climate change alonge with other source that also suggest that. why would I want to look at scientific literature if it doesn't even add the sun in its equation?

[Caesar]

So you are putting up unknowable faith against empirically derived data. I think you just shot yourself out of the water and proved that there is no arguing with you.

Br Cornelius

Its all faith in my opinion, thats what the whole point of that post was.

[Mattshark]

Didn't Greg Egan make a plea to the public about its "sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" I look at that source and Wikipedia confirmed what my hunch was.

Source

Yes, in physics he mentions specifically, he states that most of it is actually good.

[Mattshark]

Its all faith in my opinion, thats what the whole point of that post was.

You are in no position to make that claim though as you refuse to read the published papers in top level journals that I have posted. You dismiss with out cause rendering any claim about them by yourself as pointless.

You opinion doesn't stand up to the data and unless you actually bother to address it you can't make a worthwhile argument.

[ShaunZero]

Good posts, Matt. However, I think this is purely subjective: "Michelle that is utter tripe, scientists if they are wrong will admit it.". Some people find it hard to admit they're wrong, scientists aren't exempt from this. They'll be found out alot easier due to peer review, but that doesn't mean they have to "admit" it rather than just let it be.

[Mattshark]

I have posted my opinion that the sun is the source for most of our climate change alonge with other source that also suggest that. why would I want to look at scientific literature if it doesn't even add the sun in its equation?

I specifically posted a paper about the sun, twice.

[Mattshark]

Good posts, Matt. However, I think this is purely subjective: "Michelle that is utter tripe, scientists if they are wrong will admit it.". Some people find it hard to admit they're wrong, scientists aren't exempt from this. They'll be found out alot easier due to peer review, but that doesn't mean they have to "admit" it rather than just let it be.

Cheers.

Admittedly that can be true of some individuals, but I feel she was tarring the whole scientific community with that brush, which is unfair.

[Caesar]

Yes, in physics he mentions specifically, he states that most of it is actually good.

LOL 70%

[Caesar]

I specifically posted a paper about the sun, twice.

Its not that hard to see what your opinion is on the suns impact on climate change in this discussion is it?

[Mattshark]

LOL 70%

Yes, he specifically mentions the problem is with physics too, and bare in mind that this was also 3 years ago.

Its not that hard to see what your opinion is on the suns impact on climate change in this discussion is it?

No, it is what evidence that I have presented says. Please do not think your opinion is on the same level as the evidence I have presented, it isn't.

[Brianq]

I think this whole conversation is pointless....one cold snap and people start thinking that global warming has ended and we are now in a cooling period.....The topic of global warming didnt get started because of a few hot days one summer 40 years ago.....Global warming only became a seriouse issue after many years of rising temperatures around the world....Just last summer thousands of people across europe were dying because of heat waves,,,,and now a few weeks of below normal temperatures has people saying global warming is over.....I think we need to see what happens over the next few years before we can say either way that global cooling is really happening.

[J.B.]

This particular conversation simply gives one more outlet for the science vs faith argument which Global Warming theory generates. The scientists use their tools, but allow politics to get in the way of professionalism and completely damage their credibility with the opposition by creating a necessity in their lives for them to be right. The opposition wants to maintain the status quo, and uses the loop holes the scientists left them in their behavior to negate any truth there may be in the scientific claims being presented.

[ninjadude]

Its all faith in my opinion, thats what the whole point of that post was.

but see in science a theory is not an opinion or guess or hypothesis.

[J.B.]

No, it isn't. The public must always question and be suspicious of the methods used by scientists, because there are certain ones you can trust and certain ones you cannot. The ones you can trust are the ones who look at people trying to pay them for a specific answer, and say, "Buzz off, the answer is what it is, the facts of the matter won't be faked." The ones you can't would take a check and fake their results, which isn;t science at all, just being a yes-person. The arguments here are over whether the climate change scientists claiming we're causing this are yes-people or real scientists. They were rather silly when they created a panel based solely on the idea that AGW is real, regardless of their opinion of the matter.