|
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: MMGW became AGW became CC, and now the blame is going to be put on Methane.
Er, right. Your first three are terminology, the last one is actually a substance. See the difference? And 'AGW' tends to be a term used by deniers, so it's scarcely fair to include that in some part of this conspiracy.
Methane's always been a significant portion of climate change, which is why we use the term 'greenhouse gases' and 'CO2 equivalent'.
My point is that the changing terminology is utilised to alter perspective, influence the 'hearts and minds' - hate that phrase. I believe that there has been a deliberate softening of approach and terminology..perhaps I do have a tinfoil hat afterall. :-)
---------------------------------------------
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: whereas I believe in 'climate change', I firmly don't believe it's anything to do with man...
If I were you I'd get to grips with a little basic physics first. Knowing what you're talking about can really do a lot to validate your opinion. There is no explanation for the rapid warming of the last century except natural processes combined with the effects of human carbon emissions as described by the IPCC.This may have something to do with why over 99% of climatologists have the temerity to disagree with you.
Mind you, you've told us before it's 'unproven' whether CO2 has an effect on global temperatures, even though it can be demonstrated with stuff you find in a kitchen in a way that's understandable to primary school children. Here's one we made earlier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
And talking of things you've told us before...
jshell wrote: 96% of Greenhouse gasses are water vapour
4% of GHC's are CO2
4% of CO2 is man-made
You were patiently walked through this one earlier. You're embarrassing yourself now.
Really? How do you explain the MWP, because even the CRU saw it as a real problem to deal with and tried to down-play it. There's a searchable facility for all of the e-mails at:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
The Mediaeval Warming Period has always been a problem for AGW, as it shows long periods that were warmer than today, but where's the man made greenhouse gases? And, as for 99% of climatologists disagreeing, I don't think that's a real number - though you've cited it before - and others have remained quiet, let's be honest they're not going to get much funding if the break from the pack, are they? The emails linked to show how dissenting voices have been crushed, peer-review circumvented etc, etc. 'Peer Review' has no validity here now, the CRU emails show how they've fucked Peer Review out of the park! What about this guy, he's a leading climatologist: Dr Wallace Broecker. Here's his site and it's amazing how his 'science on CO2 effects differs from the 'pack: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Perhaps you'll just dismiss him as a crank, but there are others and their voices are beginning to be heard...
The embarrassment is waning...just a little, but all the same.
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: At least the delegates at Copenhagen had a small 'carbon footprint', oh wait, they all went by air or personal jet and limo. Hypocritical cnuts! 15,000 of them, wasn't it? And now they're planning the same fucking long-haul shindig somewhere more exotic next year. Not in my name.
And, recent curvey suggests 90% of the carbon trading through Denmark has been fraudulent.
I understand it was actually about 30,000 people initially accredited for the talks (the centre held 15,000). Many of these were from carbon-conscious organisations who did travel by land. But yes, a great many who could have chose not to and I totally agree with you that they're hypocritical scumpigs.
And as for carbon trading, I don't know the details of the Danish thing, but the whole industry's a fucking scam, a device for permitting high-emitters to carry on, make loads of money and keep the poor of the world impoverished. Bullshit from start to finish.
And neither of those things in any way undoes the science of climate change.
Many other things do though, not least of all the 'Harry Readme.txt' files. Have you seen them? http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html This shows Harry (a CRU programmer, no less) trying to replicate the data sets, and failing badly. One wee quote from Harry on his odyssey:
"The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)
ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."
This is most telling, but you have to read the whole site, and if you've got time search out the whole script. Basically Harry says that it's all a pile of shite, he can't make it work, much of it is 'fabricated' and doesn't tie-in with anything else.
The Science is settled then??
Merrick wrote: jshell"]the IPCC saying that there's no AGW is like Turkeys voting for Christmas, they'd soon be out of a job if they did.[/quote]
You misunderstand the way the IPCC works and indeed what it is. It compiles and collates the work of many thousands of scientists from around the world. They would still be working in their respective fields, climate change or no. There would still be climatologists, forest ecologists, oceanographers, etc. [/quote]
Au contraire, I think I'm starting to see JUST how the IPCC works. I think that many others are too! See my thoughts on the IPCC above.
Merrick wrote: For evidence of this being a vast conspiracy involving the pre-eminent scientific bodies of dozens of nations and hundreds of thousands of scientists, you're going to have to find better sources than the Speak Your Brains of comments on the BBC news site.
There are many sources out there now and they're growing. At last count, 'climategate' registered 11,400,000 hits on Google. It's no longer the fringe, loony and conspiracy sites that were trying to break out, it's now the mainsream media with more reports than ever. Not the BBC, of course, but they are directly implicated through Richard Black who's name is even mentioned as a sort of 'co-conspirator' in the CRU e-mails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt Here and other places they talk of using Richard Black to prevent any anti-MMGW articles appearing on the BBC. Doesn't that break the BBC's charter of impartiality? I think it does, and so does the flood of complaints now heading the BBC's way...
Even the 'Mail' is printing dissenting articles, that bastion of MMGW...
Oh, and as for the temperature rising, even the BBC have to admit that it hasn't for the last 11 years: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
Thee'll be an excuse somewhere, no doubt... :-)
|
