On 4 Feb, 18:05, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then, rather
than ranting. Then someone who counts might believe you and yours. You
can refer to whatever politically inspired thing that you wish, but
until temperatures begin to decrease, very few scientists will believe
as you do - about Joe *******i's forecasting prowess, or GW.

Just present some evidence of global cooling having started next time
you post, or research Joe B's track record yourself and show us that
his past forecasting success demonstrates that really is a LRF guru.
If you believe in what you do so strongly that you feel the need to
constantly tell us your views are correct, that's *all* you have to do
to convince. That's surely very easy?

Look, I am not a scientist - never pretended to be, nor have a said
that the planet hasn't warmed - of course it has, we're only just
exiting the last glaciation. What I AM saying, is that any warming
has not been due to man's influence, particularly in relation to the
demon carbon dioxide. I believe that other chaotic factors are at
work driving the climate, not least the effect of the sun. I also
believe that the current lack of solar activity may well prove to be
the commencement of another minimum, which will result in planetary
cooling, and this process has probably already started. I don't need
to provide evidence, because it's all around. I'm old enough to
appreciate subtle changes, and I can glean all I need to know from the
internet, as can you, and the message which comes stridently across to
me is that almost everything so far published by those organs and
"authorities" who would have us believe otherwise, is corrupted with
fake data, extracts from magazines and dodgy modeling, to serve some
other purpose than pure science. I find the independently published
science that I'VE seen far more convincing than anything to the
contrary, and judging by the increasingly adverse publicity, and the
attempts to defend themselves, the IPCC and others are merely serving
to compound their felonies. Even the Guardian is wavering!

So I don't need to justify either myself, or my beliefs - suffice it
to say, the pendulum is swinging, and you and your ilk will eventually
become the minority shouting in the wilderness. You only have to look
at how things have shifted over less than twelve months to realise
that opinion is fast reversing. If you consider that a rant, well,
sorry, but accusations appear to be your only remaining defence. I
can take it, it's like water off a duck's back to me, but it'll take
more than you to shake my long-held beliefs - maybe it is you that
needs to provide evidence, because so far most of the warmist's
arguments are dissolving like ice in a kiln.

CK

On Feb 4, 5:49*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 4 Feb, 18:05, Dawlish wrote:





On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then, rather
than ranting. Then someone who counts might believe you and yours. You
can refer to whatever politically inspired thing that you wish, but
until temperatures begin to decrease, very few scientists will believe
as you do - about Joe *******i's forecasting prowess, or GW.

Just present some evidence of global cooling having started next time
you post, or research Joe B's track record yourself and show us that
his past forecasting success demonstrates that really is a LRF guru.
If you believe in what you do so strongly that you feel the need to
constantly tell us your views are correct, that's *all* you have to do
to convince. That's surely very easy?

Look, I am not a scientist - never pretended to be, nor have a said
that the planet hasn't warmed - of course it has, we're only just
exiting the last glaciation. *What I AM saying, is that any warming
has not been due to man's influence, particularly in relation to the
demon carbon dioxide. *I believe that other chaotic factors are at
work driving the climate, not least the effect of the sun. *I also
believe that the current lack of solar activity may well prove to be
the commencement of another minimum, which will result in planetary
cooling, and this process has probably already started. *I don't need
to provide evidence, because it's all around. *I'm old enough to
appreciate subtle changes, and I can glean all I need to know from the
internet, as can you, and the message which comes stridently across to
me is that almost everything so far published by those organs and
"authorities" who would have us believe otherwise, is corrupted with
fake data, extracts from magazines and dodgy modeling, to serve some
other purpose than pure science. *I find the independently published
science that I'VE seen far more convincing than anything to the
contrary, and judging by the increasingly adverse publicity, and the
attempts to defend themselves, the IPCC and others are merely serving
to compound their felonies. *Even the Guardian is wavering!

So I don't need to justify either myself, or my beliefs - suffice it
to say, the pendulum is swinging, and you and your ilk will eventually
become the minority shouting in the wilderness. *You only have to look
at how things have shifted over less than twelve months to realise
that opinion is fast reversing. *If you consider that a rant, well,
sorry, but accusations appear to be your only remaining defence. *I
can take it, it's like water off a duck's back to me, but it'll take
more than you to shake my long-held beliefs - maybe it is you that
needs to provide evidence, because so far most of the warmist's
arguments are dissolving like ice in a kiln.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it's another rant, with no evidence for cooling whatsoever.
That's all you and yours have to do Natsman; show us it's cooling, or
not surprisingly the sensible and overwhelming scientific majority
won't think it is. I don't think I could provide you with more
evidence of continued warming and the lack of cooling. Read what I
posted. You, on the other hand, as always, have provided precisely no
facts whatsoever.

I've shown you clear evidence of continued warming and if it's not
cooling now during an extended solar minimum and a negative PDO (and
it didn't even cool when these two were combined with a La Nina a year
ago)........what's the likely cause of the warmth? Most scientists
think the most likely cause is CO2, because they look at all this
evidence, weigh it up and come to their own conclusions. You and a few
others come to different conclusions, but goodness knows how in the
face of all this.

Dawlish wrote:

On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then


The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...


--
Brian Wakem

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

On Feb 4, 4:49 pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then


The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.


No it shows that tree growth has slowed down. That can be due to colder
temperatures, but also drier weather or an increase in pests or something
else.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in
the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?


Yes that is a problem.

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...


It's so sad that money is involved in the science with people even betting
on outcomes :-(

Will
--

On Feb 4, 6:16*pm, Brian Wakem wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then

The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. *Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? *Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

If Hadley have "hidden the decline" Brian, then so have GISS, NASA,
RSS and UAH, as all these series corroborate the fact that
temperatures have risen - and the latter global temperature data
source is run by a GW sceptic, Roy Spencer. Would he really have
become embroiled in this enormous conspiracy? As a result, the only
conclusion that can be drawn is that the 5 temperature series *are* to
be believed - or one high profile sceptic must have been lying along
with all the other scientists involved in the compilation of the
global temperature series. The conspiracy theory that the temperature
series have been massaged just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

On Feb 4, 6:16*pm, Brian Wakem wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then

The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. *Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? *Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

I think you are repeating climate Audit percieved wisdom with the tree
ring data Brian and it's important to challenge misconceptions like
this. It is Briffa's research for the CRU that I think you are
referring to (2008). This was Briffa's own response to the
misrepresentation of his data, written in September of last year:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/

Please note, especially, the last sentence, in which Briffa clearly
says that the conclusions from his research most certainly was not
what you posted ("The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have
shows temperatures decreasing since the 60s"). :

"We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's
analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal
but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology
production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this
issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's
preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of
unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th
century."

K.R. Briffa
30 Sept 2009

i.e. the tree ring data that Hadley's CRU have shows nothing else but
that temperatures have *risen*. not fallen, in the last decades of the
20th century.

On 4 Feb, 20:04, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:16*pm, Brian Wakem wrote:





Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then

The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. *Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? *Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

I think you are repeating climate Audit percieved wisdom with the tree
ring data Brian and it's important to challenge misconceptions like
this. It is Briffa's research for the CRU that I think you are
referring to (2008). This was Briffa's own response to the
misrepresentation of his data, written in September of last year:

*http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/

Please note, especially, the last sentence, in which Briffa clearly
says that the conclusions from his research most certainly was not
what you posted ("The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have
shows temperatures decreasing since the 60s"). :

"We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's
analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal
but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology
production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this
issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's
preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of
unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th
century."

K.R. Briffa
30 Sept 2009

i.e. the tree ring data that Hadley's CRU have shows nothing else but
that temperatures have *risen*. not fallen, in the last decades of the
20th century.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dawlish, old son, you're on to a loser, I'm afraid. I would just sit
tight for a while, and see what happens, if I were you.
The whole damned lot of them are corrupt, and only interested in their
own dogma. We all know it's a scam, we all know we're not going to
hell on a handcart, and we all know that a cooling world is less
preferable to a warming one, and if the powers that be take the wrong
course (which they apparently are), the resulting economic disaster
which results from trying to fix things wot aint broke, will be solely
down to them (and you).

CK

CK

On Feb 4, 7:22*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 4 Feb, 20:04, Dawlish wrote:





On Feb 4, 6:16*pm, Brian Wakem wrote:

Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. *Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? *Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then

The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. *Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? *Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

I think you are repeating climate Audit percieved wisdom with the tree
ring data Brian and it's important to challenge misconceptions like
this. It is Briffa's research for the CRU that I think you are
referring to (2008). This was Briffa's own response to the
misrepresentation of his data, written in September of last year:

*http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/

Please note, especially, the last sentence, in which Briffa clearly
says that the conclusions from his research most certainly was not
what you posted ("The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have
shows temperatures decreasing since the 60s"). :

"We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's
analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal
but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology
production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this
issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's
preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of
unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th
century."

K.R. Briffa
30 Sept 2009

i.e. the tree ring data that Hadley's CRU have shows nothing else but
that temperatures have *risen*. not fallen, in the last decades of the
20th century.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dawlish, old son, you're on to a loser, I'm afraid. *I would just sit
tight for a while, and see what happens, if I were you.
The whole damned lot of them are corrupt, and only interested in their
own dogma. *We all know it's a scam, we all know we're not going to
hell on a handcart, and we all know that a cooling world is less
preferable to a warming one, and if the powers that be take the wrong
course (which they apparently are), the resulting economic disaster
which results from trying to fix things wot aint broke, will be solely
down to them (and you).

CK

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's quite a rant even for you. Now where's that evidence of cooling
that I'd asked you for? To his great credit, Brian at least tried to
provide some. You simply cannot. The *only* measure of global warming
are global temperatures. You'd like it to be measured in all sorts of
ways, mainly political and wholly unrelated to temperatures, but it
can't be. I'll repeat for you: global warming is measured by global
temperatures alone and by nothing else. Simple really.

So; all you have to do to convince is to provide evidence of JB's
forecasting prowess over time (the thread title), or evidence of
global cooling - or you could just go on ignoring the facts and
continue to rant about al the things that you don't like, but which
have nothing to do with GW, as GW is about temperatures; not politics.
I wonder which of those you will do?

all, dont waste your breath.

joe b = meteorologist

dawlish = armchair wannabe betting weather forecaster.



nuff said.

Natsman wrote:
On 4 Feb, 18:05, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:49 pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.
And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...
CK
Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then, rather
than ranting. Then someone who counts might believe you and yours. You
can refer to whatever politically inspired thing that you wish, but
until temperatures begin to decrease, very few scientists will believe
as you do - about Joe *******i's forecasting prowess, or GW.

Just present some evidence of global cooling having started next time
you post, or research Joe B's track record yourself and show us that
his past forecasting success demonstrates that really is a LRF guru.
If you believe in what you do so strongly that you feel the need to
constantly tell us your views are correct, that's *all* you have to do
to convince. That's surely very easy?

Look, I am not a scientist - never pretended to be, nor have a said
that the planet hasn't warmed - of course it has, we're only just
exiting the last glaciation. What I AM saying, is that any warming
has not been due to man's influence, particularly in relation to the
demon carbon dioxide. I believe that other chaotic factors are at
work driving the climate, not least the effect of the sun. I also
believe that the current lack of solar activity may well prove to be
the commencement of another minimum, which will result in planetary
cooling, and this process has probably already started. I don't need
to provide evidence, because it's all around. I'm old enough to
appreciate subtle changes, and I can glean all I need to know from the
internet, as can you, and the message which comes stridently across to
me is that almost everything so far published by those organs and
"authorities" who would have us believe otherwise, is corrupted with
fake data, extracts from magazines and dodgy modeling, to serve some
other purpose than pure science. I find the independently published
science that I'VE seen far more convincing than anything to the
contrary, and judging by the increasingly adverse publicity, and the
attempts to defend themselves, the IPCC and others are merely serving
to compound their felonies. Even the Guardian is wavering!

So I don't need to justify either myself, or my beliefs - suffice it
to say, the pendulum is swinging, and you and your ilk will eventually
become the minority shouting in the wilderness. You only have to look
at how things have shifted over less than twelve months to realise
that opinion is fast reversing. If you consider that a rant, well,
sorry, but accusations appear to be your only remaining defence. I
can take it, it's like water off a duck's back to me, but it'll take
more than you to shake my long-held beliefs - maybe it is you that
needs to provide evidence, because so far most of the warmist's
arguments are dissolving like ice in a kiln.

CK

On Thursday 04 Feb 2010 18:16, Brian Wakem scribbled:

Dawlish wrote:

On Feb 4, 4:49 pm, Natsman wrote:

Not a rant, comrade, just telling it like it is.

And just for good measure I note with interest, and I confess, a
degree of satisfaction, that India are pulling out of the IPCC. Could
this be the thin end of the wedge, I wonder? Who knows...

CK

Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then


The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

Tree ring data doesn't just depend on temperature, rainfall is also
important. I had a few doubts back in the 60s when I heard about tree-ring
width depended just on temperature but thought these guys must know more
than me. Seems now that someone reckons that if you get a really hot, dry
summer, the trees don't grow very much. Who'd 'a' tho't it?


I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in
the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...



So did someone from the Climate Centre go up to the Arctic with a large
blowtorch in 2007 and melt the ice? It's not only temperature records that
show the Earth has warmed.

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