View Article & Comments

I see the BBC is still taking its usual impartial view on the subject!

"I see the BBC is still taking its usual impartial view on the subject!"
That's because in the real world, at a scientific level, there is no debate about Global Warming. Giving in to Fossil Fuel pressure groups and pretending there is another side of the argument worth listening to would be extremely prejudiced.

Ted, what a load of rubbish! Global temperatures have halted for 16 years. There is not a shred of evidence that burning fossil fuels changes climate.

Climate change?? yes, climate always does and has changed- naturally. Which it is still doing.

Climate Realist
16 years ago it was 1996. Show me one set of records, entirely your own choice, but show me any official record whatsoever which shows that global temperatures have "halted" since 1996. Go on try it!

The problem is this "no warming for 16 years" is a blatant lie. Pure and simple; A Lie. The "skeptic" camp sow seeds of doubt about global warming by repeating this lie and many others, over and over again because repetition makes it true. You have to be very gullible to believe anything a so called "skeptic" tells you.

Comment edited by ted rising (Twitter) on Wednesday November 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM EST

Ted

What your saying is that if someone said 15 years they would be correct but since they have said 16 years they are wrong

You are missing one big fact, there is nearly a 10% increase in CO2 without any effect of temperature change.

If I then try and do the sum of 1 part of CO2 for MAN MADE CO2 change, it is then a question of what change is it I'm looking for to see 1/62,000 of the very small temperature change in 16 years for MAN?

I assume you will be signing up for the "green" tariff come the Energy Bill changes then Ted - just to show your commitment to the cause of course.

What your saying is that if someone said 15 years they would be correct but since they have said 16 years they are wrong
What I'm saying is that global warming hasn't stopped. You, and your ilk, know jolly well that the 97 to 98 El Nino event was an anomalous warm period and yet you keep coming up with graphs showing "no warming" since then. It's dishonest. Then to repeatedly say "16" years knowing that it's not true - that too is dishonest.

I'm sure a lot of you do this "skeptical" nonsense for all the "right" reasons and somehow feel your not doing anything wrong, maybe you're like Chris Mortimer who simply wants to ignore the damage greenhouse emissions make, in order to help the Energy Companies continue making profits. However, I would politely like to point out that the "skeptic's" world is a nasty, dishonest place where mudslinging, death threats, invasion of privacy and comparing scientists to pedophiles is all fair game.

You're helping nasty entities like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They still haven't forgiven Rachel Carson for pointing out the dangers of the pesticide DDT. Her scientific research then led to this dangerous chemical being, quite rightly, banned in most countries. However the chemical companies lost some money, so they joined the CEI to bad-mouth her. Even though she has been dead for some time now, they don't see any moral issues with publishing a nasty little website called http://rachelwaswrong.org/. The website accuses the Late Ms Carson of causing "millions of people around the world [to] suffer the painful and often deadly effects of malaria". It's a lie, of course; DDT has never been banned for use against malaria, and she was just a scientist doing her job. And yes, the CEI are "skeptics" on Global Warming too.
I'm just saying, you are on the wrong side. Your children and your grandchildren will one day want to know why.

"That's because in the real world, at a scientific level, there is no debate about Global Warming. Giving in to Fossil Fuel pressure groups and pretending there is another side of the argument worth listening to would be extremely prejudiced"

Not only is that statement a complete load of crap!, it is in itself an extremely prejudiced argument. Even Einstein noted that "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" in otherwords there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific world

Ted

Now go back in time and show me the adjustment that was made for ALL El-Nino events.

What your saying is that each time there has been an El-Nino event you have compensated for it in the 30 average.

The trouble is no such compensation has been made, you in effect have used it to show how much warming there has been, and now there is a graph to show how little warming there has been just after this event your wanting it to be included!

As I said before if someone says there has been NO warming for 15 years then they are correct!

It won't be long when they CAN state its 16 years another year and it will be 17 and so on, at what point is it when we CAN say there has been NO warming?

I have said that the Ocean currents are warmer at the poles at the moment and the "Tropical" areas are cooler as a result of this. You can find this out yourself as El-Nino has gone away this year and as a result the warm warters have gone poleward. There is NO WARMING going on, apart from inside a computer model

Even Einstein noted that "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"

This is true, but... do the BBC have to be impartial when they mention Eistein's theory of relativity? Do the BBC have to give an counter argument to every well established theory? Say the big Bang Theory or Newton's Theory of Gravity?

"Now go back in time and show me the adjustment that was made for ALL El-Nino events"

Here you are. http://i48.tinypic.com/2ymu8vq.jpg As you can see; global warming has not stopped!!

Since when did a change in temperature mean a change in climate?

Assuming that the EEA report highlighted by the BBC is based on sound evidence I fail to see why they can say with authority that there are clear signals that the climate has changed. It clearly has not.

The last time I looked out the window the prevailing climate in the UK is exactly the same as it was yesterday, last week, last year, last decade, last century, i.e. the UK and northern Europe are in a temperate zone with a temperate climate influenced heavily by the SW prevailing weather systems and the north sea.

Most of the report seems to be based on assumption of what might happen and guessing at calculate the cost.

It comes as no surprise that this report comes out ahead of next week's UN climate conference.

We should only start to get worried if the UK and northern Europe starts to resemble northern Africa or the arctic.

If the UK starts to resembled the Mediterranean climate I think you will find most people in the UK would be very happy.

"This is true, but... do the BBC have to be impartial when they mention Eistein's theory of relativity? Do the BBC have to give an counter argument to every well established theory? Say the big Bang Theory or Newton's Theory of Gravity?"

If you are seriously trying to suggest that the theory of climate science is on the same scientific footing as that of say gravity, then you clearly have a lot to learn! We are talking about the modelling of chaotic systems and yet you would claim that there is no uncertainty in the modelling and as such the "scientific community" are 100% convinced of these models?

If this is what you believe, then so be it,I wish you well, however should you ever venture outside this limited perspective, you might just find a whole new world awaits, though from some of your previous comments on this forum, I very much doubt you would be prepared to open your mind to other possibilities

Ted

Each and everyone of us has to come to terms with something at some stage, your data display, like others you have shown me in the past, covers just 30 years of data!

Are you saying that this 30 year term of data supports your views?

If it does then is says a lot about why you and other just like you have got so wrapped up in the "man made" climate change belief system.

Our climate has changed many times in the past and it will change many times in the future.

30 YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO USE FOR ANY CLIMATE TREND.

Please go back to the people who have "brainwashed" you into this belief system and ask them for more data to support these adjustments, they wont be able to do that as what has happed in the past 30 years does not fit the same way over the past 300+ years.

"maybe you're like Chris Mortimer who simply wants to ignore the damage greenhouse emissions make, in order to help the Energy Companies continue making profits"

No Ted , I totally refute your warmist point of view and have seen no convincing evidence that even comes close to backing up your cAGW Theory of Elevation.

I am also not against companies making a profit for the services they provide as I live in the real world, however, I strongly resent "hidden" taxes being applied by governements that cost me and my family in excess of £125 per annum, especially when these are based on a global fraud of massive proportions perpetrated by you and your ilk.

If you have the time, think on the following blog entry posted by Roger Dewhurst on the Watts Up With That website yesterday.

1. Climate shroundwavers and sceptics alike, are engaged in a
totally futile argument over questionable data, questionable models and questionable interpretation all revolving around ‘data’ collected over a mere 1/ 10^8 of the history of this planet, and influenced by short termpolitical perspective.
For god’s sake consider how this planet formed 4,500 million years ago, how the crust and mantle differenciated from the metallic core, how primitive forms of life permitted the formation of an atmosphere containing oxygen, how volcanoes in the process of a
differentiating crust fed the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, how after plants populated this planet the carbon in carbon dioxide was deposited in vast deposits of coal, limestone, chalk, oil and gas.
From the beginning volcanic activity has contributed carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a gradually decreasing rate. The rate has changed at times because volcanic activity has waxed and waned. The vast forests of carboniferous times soaked up the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and plants have continued to remove it from the atmosphere since then.
The carbon from the atmosphere has been converted, by plants, to peat and coal on land and to limestone, chalk, oil and gas in the oceans and oceanic sediments. That process continues today.

The tenor of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has, irregularly, declined to the point where it is now sub-optimal for the growth of most plants. This has happened because, on average, the rate of deposition of carbon in soils and marine sediments has overtaken the rate of emission of carbon dioxide from volcanic sources both on land and in the oceans.
Many things have influenced climate throughout the history of this planet, among them are the output of the sun, the orbit of this planet around the sun, the positions of the land masses on the surface of the planet which determine the location and strength of the oceanic currents which transfer heat from equatorial to polar regions, and changes and reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. Of all these matters we have much less than total understanding and over none of them do we have any control whatsoever. Nevertheless we are beset with idiots knowing next to nothing, obsessed with the number of angels able to dance on the head of a pin and insisting that we, puny creatures that we are, are about to destroy the planet by burning a trivial proportion of the coal, oil and gas reserves stored in the earth’s crust, thus returning to the atmosphere that which came from it.
I apologise if the text is badly formatted but it makes you think doesn't it.