$4 Million for Climate Change research

I know MC but I still try - not for them but for those who are semi-decided. Those who still have an open mind - and for every answer on this board there are 10 "lurkers" who read but do not post - google DOES drag up a lot of these discussions

 

The only ones with open minds are those scientists that do not have to bow to the current political consensus. The only ones with closed minds are those that believe the political consensus.

 

Get a grip, who are you talking too? You quote me but I've posted no chart.... and why do you think I'm a denialist, is it because I don't follow your blind narrow line of argument?

 

Because you are denying that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and given the sheer volume of research supporting that is actually a BIG wad of information to ignore

 

I haven't looked into it besides my interest in earth science. One thing you have to understand is we are getting a lot of data now which simply has no real historical reference and that which is related is usually measured and recorded very differently. I just don't like bad science, and hate the emotional tantrums by unionists to bully for political effect. If you do not believe there is a ton of bad science going on in prompting it, then your deluding yourself.

 

Another one of your unreferenced graphs showing 'old' data? You claimed earlier that 'old' data was not acceptable.

 

You didn't answer the question, what changes in our climate are you talking about?

 

Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure ...

 

Indeed I was following this stuff before Al Gore decided to make some money and fame from it, I'd already seen data such as this;



from; ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/keigwin1996/

Being derived from sediment carbondating in the Paleoclimatology field. So I got to see the scaremongering of Al Gore and the climate changers from day 1, with all the bad data and ignorant clowns dancing around. As I happen to be an environmentalist I support any efforts to reduce pollution, but I hate liars and cheats who then go and take it too far such as crippling industry unnecessarily and character assassinations.

Wrong, check out http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

 

Further to my last, I just noticed this nice graph showing solar activity cycles seems to point to a direct association between solar activity and our temperatures.

You'll note the Little Ice Age happens at a low point in the solar activity cycle, and starts to rise again.



Now it would be more likely that the Sun would be driving temperature change here, then the other way around, so it would be VERY difficult nigh impossible for science to prove human global warming from observation data given the massive amount of variables at work.

I guess we need more data on solar activity cycles backwards in time but that is impossible......

Remembering we are still below the 3000 year average for sea surface temperatures, perhaps this pollution limiting money should more realistically be funneled into dealing with the inevitable solar activity driven warming instead? I mean, if you actually care about the vulnerable people - it might be better for humanity to use science properly and accurately measure the rate of change and impact on vulnerable people and create actual solutions.

Otherwise if you prefer to prop up scientists and politicians careers by spreading misinformation and making the richer rich by creating a new industry bubble because it suits your party political agendas, then carry on but don't lie to yourselves that it is indeed 'you' who the disease in 'the system'.

NB: applies to only those which it applies

It hurts to write this because I'm an environmentalist and would love to see less pollution, but 'human climate change' could very well be a political sham making a fool of as many people as possible so a group of people can make more money. I should also note, I'm not up to date with the latest data, so if any data I've posted is wrong then please feel free to correct!!!

 

AT and AM,
are you actually believing what your are saying?
I just thought I double check, just in case.....
Regards

 

Not only did they smell it, they wiped it like a dirty bum!

 

Well, if sheer volume is the only proof you need, then you must be a Christian.

 

As I said a few posts back my only interest is in the science - not the politics but its hard to ignore bad science. I'm using NASA and NOAA data, if you have an argument against my post perhaps put it up against that hey?

 

You are using their data but disputing their conclusions - is that right?

 

NOAA has data that shows cooling for the last 10 years using a new system that needs no adjustment. Why does other NOAA data that is massively adjusted show warming?

 

Because you have to maintain the doctrine of agw! Do you realise how many $millions in salaries are dependent on keeping the fear of agw going.

 

We all know that it wouldn't take long for an intelligent person given enough money and time to create any scenario they like using graphs and computer generated models. The scientific problem with gaining accurate data from computer modelling, is "WHO" is putting in the data to create the model, and "WHAT" data is being put in.

Given enough time & money, I could create a very realistic computer model that supports MY scientific theory that the world will end in 10 years time, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Scientific computer modelling, is nothing more, than an modern take on old fashioned clairvoyance. Scientists should be ashamed of themselves for trying to flog off this witchcraft of computer modelling as scientific fact and evidence. Maybe its time more scientist went out and got their hands dirty again, instead of sitting in labs relying on computers to do their work.

 

I love the way they 'adjust' the actual data to fit with their theories.....

 

No. The NASA and NOAA data supports my conclusions.

 

Don't tell me you have swallowed the old let's make a claim with no evidence trick have you?

When claims like this are make ALWAYS ask for the evidence because if it seems too good to be true (yes it is all a conspiracy yay!) then it usually is

- - - Updated - - -

Then why was there a 'pause' for so long? If they were adjusting temperatures to fit theories surely they would make a nice smooth year by year transition that would fool everyone?

- - - Updated - - -

Really I did not have you twigged as a proponent of AGW

- - - Updated - - -

Then why did they not do a better job and show smooth graphs with no 'pause'?

 

I'm not. It helps if you read my posts, which it appears you didn't?

 

so, tell me again how you have come to the conclusion that climate change is not happening whilst using NOAA as a resource for your conclusions because the two are pretty incompatible since NOAA and NASA both are very firm about the role of man in climate change

 

You can read my posts in this thread if you like, it would save me repeating myself.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407552&p=1065037626#post1065037626
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407552&p=1065039645#post1065039645
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407552&p=1065098407#post1065098407

 

You have and they have adjusted the surface temperature set to be cooler in the past and warmer in the present almost yearly. That is the dataset that is being used for the political push.

Then there is this by Graham Lloyd from the Australian, unfortunately behind a paywall:

The BOM still has not addressed many of the specific concerns and are being accused of not enough transparency.