HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

http://meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...20091218b.html

*Sorry, forgot: "global conspiracy"; "the measurements were wrong";
"the data has been tampered with"; the scientists are all mad
etc..............

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On 23 Dec, 17:53, Dawlish wrote:
It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

http://meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...20091218b.html

*Sorry, forgot: "global conspiracy"; "the measurements were wrong";
"the data has been tampered with"; the scientists are all mad
etc..............

You'll have to do better than that - time will tell, as it is Met
Office, HADCRUT &c are already "suspect" in the veracity of the
figures (and forecasts) they provide.
The Global conspiracy is real, many of the measurements ARE wrong,
much of the data HAS been tampered with, and the scientists aren't ALL
mad - just those who have an axe to grind for one alarmist, political
reason or another.

No matter how much you bluster, Dawlish, all is not as it should be
with our illustrious public-funded, (but dubious) "scientific"
organisations, so I'll continue to take ALL that they say or publish
with a pinch of salt, and remain a healthy sceptic rather than believe
unquestioningly all that I'm told. Manbearpig. Oh, and don't forget
to get your kiddies to see the nice propaganda cartoons sponsored by
Build-a-Bear. Long may the brainwashing continue.

CK

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On Dec 23, 5:32*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 17:53, Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

http://meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...20091218b.html

*Sorry, forgot: "global conspiracy"; "the measurements were wrong";
"the data has been tampered with"; the scientists are all mad
etc..............

You'll have to do better than that - time will tell, as it is Met
Office, HADCRUT &c are already "suspect" in the veracity of the
figures (and forecasts) they provide.
The Global conspiracy is real, many of the measurements ARE wrong,
much of the data HAS been tampered with, and the scientists aren't ALL
mad - just those who have an axe to grind for one alarmist, political
reason or another.

No matter how much you bluster, Dawlish, all is not as it should be
with our illustrious public-funded, (but dubious) "scientific"
organisations, so I'll continue to take ALL that they say or publish
with a pinch of salt, and remain a healthy sceptic rather than believe
unquestioningly all that I'm told. *Manbearpig. *Oh, and don't forget
to get your kiddies to see the nice propaganda cartoons sponsored by
Build-a-Bear. *Long may the brainwashing continue.

CK

Why should I need to do better? I'm on the same side as the vast
majority of climate scientists, almost every every world leader and
most of the world's youth. By gainsaying me, you gainsay all those.
Are we all wrong?

Many of those people are sceptical, to some degree, but they
understand probablilities. The probability is that CO2 is driving GW
and as such, there needs to be global action to reduce CO2 emissions.
The great thing is that in doing so, pollution will be reduced too and
we'll have a greener planet with a much more environmentally aware
generation taking over. That really is win-win. You stay in your
denialist minority Natsman; at least you always all believe what each
other says; GW doesn't exist - even though none of you can put your
finger on what is actually causing what you believe in. That cause
differs from denialist to denialist and some of you don't even think
you have to find any cause.

I suppose the ECMWF are yet another part of the conspiracy - which,
incredibly, you really do believe is real! Did the Americans not land
on the moon and is Elvis still alive too? *))

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.


--
Brian Wakem

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On 23 Dec, 19:14, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 23, 5:32*pm, Natsman wrote:





On 23 Dec, 17:53, Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

http://meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...20091218b.html

*Sorry, forgot: "global conspiracy"; "the measurements were wrong";
"the data has been tampered with"; the scientists are all mad
etc..............

You'll have to do better than that - time will tell, as it is Met
Office, HADCRUT &c are already "suspect" in the veracity of the
figures (and forecasts) they provide.
The Global conspiracy is real, many of the measurements ARE wrong,
much of the data HAS been tampered with, and the scientists aren't ALL
mad - just those who have an axe to grind for one alarmist, political
reason or another.

No matter how much you bluster, Dawlish, all is not as it should be
with our illustrious public-funded, (but dubious) "scientific"
organisations, so I'll continue to take ALL that they say or publish
with a pinch of salt, and remain a healthy sceptic rather than believe
unquestioningly all that I'm told. *Manbearpig. *Oh, and don't forget
to get your kiddies to see the nice propaganda cartoons sponsored by
Build-a-Bear. *Long may the brainwashing continue.

CK

Why should I need to do better? I'm on the same side as the vast
majority of climate scientists, almost every every world leader and
most of the world's youth. By gainsaying me, you gainsay all those.
Are we all wrong?

Many of those people are sceptical, to some degree, but they
understand probablilities. The probability is that CO2 is driving GW
and as such, there needs to be global action to reduce CO2 emissions.
The great thing is that in doing so, pollution will be reduced too and
we'll have a greener planet with a much more environmentally aware
generation taking over. That really is win-win. You stay in your
denialist minority Natsman; at least you always all believe what each
other says; GW doesn't exist - even though none of you can put your
finger on what is actually causing what you believe in. That cause
differs from denialist to denialist and some of you don't even think
you have to find any cause.

I suppose the ECMWF are yet another part of the conspiracy - which,
incredibly, you really do believe is real! Did the Americans not land
on the moon and is Elvis still alive too? **))- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Dawlish, for goodness sake -

"...Are we all wrong?..."

It would appear that there may be a good chance of that.

"...The probability is that CO2 is driving GW
...."

The probability is that the sun is driving climate change, be it
cooling OR warming, and that the carbon dioxide controversy is a red
herring, and a flash in the pan.

"...Denialist mionority..."?

I don't think so, and the number of sceptics are increasing daily,
including the general public, who don't really know, but who are
beginning to see the scam for what it really is.

But you carry on, matey, the reality is that beliefs are rapidly
changing, and because of the attention which has been drawn to it, the
"science" is now under the microscope, and is being sussed for what it
really is - plain co0nvenient (and invented) "consensus", and not
settled at all.

Dream on, Dawlish, I'll stay in THIS camp, for the sake of safety,
peace of mind and reality.

CK

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Dawlish wrote:

The probability is that CO2 is driving GW and as such,
there needs to be global action to reduce CO2 emissions.

No. The premise is questionable, and given the premise, the
conclusion does not follow from it.



--
Sleepalot

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On Dec 23, 7:59*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 19:14, Dawlish wrote:





On Dec 23, 5:32*pm, Natsman wrote:

On 23 Dec, 17:53, Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

http://meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...20091218b.html

*Sorry, forgot: "global conspiracy"; "the measurements were wrong";
"the data has been tampered with"; the scientists are all mad
etc..............

You'll have to do better than that - time will tell, as it is Met
Office, HADCRUT &c are already "suspect" in the veracity of the
figures (and forecasts) they provide.
The Global conspiracy is real, many of the measurements ARE wrong,
much of the data HAS been tampered with, and the scientists aren't ALL
mad - just those who have an axe to grind for one alarmist, political
reason or another.

No matter how much you bluster, Dawlish, all is not as it should be
with our illustrious public-funded, (but dubious) "scientific"
organisations, so I'll continue to take ALL that they say or publish
with a pinch of salt, and remain a healthy sceptic rather than believe
unquestioningly all that I'm told. *Manbearpig. *Oh, and don't forget
to get your kiddies to see the nice propaganda cartoons sponsored by
Build-a-Bear. *Long may the brainwashing continue.

CK

Why should I need to do better? I'm on the same side as the vast
majority of climate scientists, almost every every world leader and
most of the world's youth. By gainsaying me, you gainsay all those.
Are we all wrong?

Many of those people are sceptical, to some degree, but they
understand probablilities. The probability is that CO2 is driving GW
and as such, there needs to be global action to reduce CO2 emissions.
The great thing is that in doing so, pollution will be reduced too and
we'll have a greener planet with a much more environmentally aware
generation taking over. That really is win-win. You stay in your
denialist minority Natsman; at least you always all believe what each
other says; GW doesn't exist - even though none of you can put your
finger on what is actually causing what you believe in. That cause
differs from denialist to denialist and some of you don't even think
you have to find any cause.

I suppose the ECMWF are yet another part of the conspiracy - which,
incredibly, you really do believe is real! Did the Americans not land
on the moon and is Elvis still alive too? **))- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Dawlish, for goodness sake -

"...Are we all wrong?..."

It would appear that there may be a good chance of that.

"...The probability is that CO2 is driving GW
..."

The probability is that the sun is driving climate change, be it
cooling OR warming, and that the carbon dioxide controversy is a red
herring, and a flash in the pan.

"...Denialist mionority..."?

I don't think so, and the number of sceptics are increasing daily,
including the general public, who don't really know, but who are
beginning to see the scam for what it really is.

But you carry on, matey, the reality is that beliefs are rapidly
changing, and because of the attention which has been drawn to it, the
"science" is now under the microscope, and is being sussed for what it
really is - plain co0nvenient (and invented) "consensus", and not
settled at all.

Dream on, Dawlish, I'll stay in THIS camp, for the sake of safety,
peace of mind and reality.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The science that increasing CO2 will warm the atmosphere is well
proven and well accepted. No good attacking me, it's just your own
desperation to find an outlet for so few agreeing with you. I know
that any denialist trying to attack me over GW is vainly trying to
attack almost the whole of the scientific climate community. They are
also almost always as old as me, or older. The young just don't
believe what you do and they can see the sense of leaving a better
world to their children already. If Copenhagen showed us anything, it
showed us that the political acceptance of the probability of GW being
caused by increasing CO2 is almost universal.

The problem is not whether we should tackle it, but how?

The "premise" is accepted by almost everyone with any scientific
knowledge and those with real power sleepalot. You've got ask yourself
why? Natsman says there is a good chance of almost everyone being
wrong. In the face of that overwhelming majority, I would think that
there's a far better chance of almost everyone being right and the
odds are very much in favour of them being right. That's a far more
secure basis on which to bae scepticism, rather than some highly odd
conspiracy theory and the fact that everyone is probably wrong!

From your writings, Natsman, it is apparent that fact really nags, but
I can't solve that for you. Every post you have made from France
throughout this cold spell contains a reference to GW. You can't write
about the weather without making a link to GW, which is really odd, as
Correze is pretty small on a global scale (pretty though, it must be a
lovely area in which to live). I think it clouds your life. As Col
says, to counter this denialist nonsense is absolutely necessary.

Back to the thread title and the first link: the Hadley cetre and the
ECMWF, the two major climate modelling agencies in Europe, say that
the warming we've experienced so far is real and has probably been
underestimated. If the cause isn't CO2, deniers, what is it? Why is
the world so warm?

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.


--
Brian Wakem

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On Dec 24, 8:33*am, Brian Wakem wrote:
Col wrote:

"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?

It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.

--
Brian Wakem

5 sets of data Brian, from 5 different sources, one (UAH satellite
data) which is produced on a monthly basis from a scientist who is a
hardline sceptic (Roy Spencer); all manipulated? As all 5 data
sources correlate very well statistically over the last 30 years,
you've surely got to admit that the warming trend shown clearly in all
5 measures is highly unlikely to be wrong? That's what convinces the
scientists and politicians - as it convinces me that GW is a reality.

The cause is a little less certain, but 1/10 (90%; IPCC odds) says to
me that CO2 is the driver. Others would go 100%, but I'm not fully
convinced yet. However, if this moderate El Nino produces more any
more monthly record warmth over the next year, as the Hadley Centre
has predicted (FWIW, I think the same) I'd go 1/20. At either of those
odds, a bookie would have closed the book.

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?


Here's my temperature chart for the last 20 years. It's been manipulated
but so what?

http://www.asx.com.au/research/images/downtrend.gif



--
Brian Wakem

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 24, 8:33*am, Brian Wakem wrote:
Col wrote:

"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?

It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.

--
Brian Wakem

5 sets of data Brian, from 5 different sources, one (UAH satellite
data) which is produced on a monthly basis from a scientist who is a
hardline sceptic (Roy Spencer); all manipulated? As all 5 data
sources correlate very well statistically over the last 30 years,
you've surely got to admit that the warming trend shown clearly in all
5 measures is highly unlikely to be wrong? That's what convinces the
scientists and politicians - as it convinces me that GW is a reality.

The cause is a little less certain, but 1/10 (90%; IPCC odds) says to
me that CO2 is the driver. Others would go 100%, but I'm not fully
convinced yet. However, if this moderate El Nino produces more any
more monthly record warmth over the next year, as the Hadley Centre
has predicted (FWIW, I think the same) I'd go 1/20. At either of those
odds, a bookie would have closed the book.


You sound like a religious nutcase Dawlish. You wont even consider you
might be wrong.


--
Brian Wakem

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Brian Wakem wrote:

Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?


Here's my temperature chart for the last 20 years. It's been manipulated
but so what?

http://www.asx.com.au/research/images/downtrend.gif




There's honest manipulation of the sort that has to be done to take account
of different instruments and changes of station location, etc. These have
been going on for ages and are the sort to which I was referring. Then there
is lying, as per your example.



--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:45:16 +0000, Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?


Here's my temperature chart for the last 20 years. It's been manipulated
but so what?

http://www.asx.com.au/research/images/downtrend.gif




There's honest manipulation of the sort that has to be done to take account
of different instruments and changes of station location, etc. These have
been going on for ages and are the sort to which I was referring. Then there
is lying, as per your example.

When I worked in the gas industry temperature data sets had to be
manipulated to produce a consistent series over about 80 years. This is
necessary as there is a defined level of security of supply that needs to
be met. The main reason for this is that the recording stations move
around. It is certainly not lying, its just doing the ebst you can with
imperfect data.


Alan Gardiner
Chiswell Green, St Albans
101m ASL
24/12/2009 19:07:45