 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chris
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 23
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Neil, I did not say Greenland was ice-free during the LIG but rather likely during the Pliocene; the point of my analogy to the Pliocene was to show that temp. and CO2 levels were slightly higher than today (~3 degrees warmer and ~400 ppm) yet I could not correlate trends of every effect of the pliocene with modern-day trends, just as you cannot connect modern-day trends with the LIG.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US is seeing it's first major effect of Climate Change. An area of upland has lost almost all it's natural vegetation:-
"A look across the canyon shows, he says, "that about 80 percent of the pines are dead, and that's because it's getting hotter."
This is gradual change creeping up the mountainside like a rising tide. The farther up the mountain, the fewer trees there are alive.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12126474
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There is also an abundance of evidence here of the changes brought on by the increasing temperature. In particular the milder winters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Worst heatwaves in Europe happening as well at the moment.
46 oC in SE Europe - the hottest for 100 years!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/se...p;id=RTGAM.20070724.wheatwave0724
[url]http://www.pww.org/article/view/11390/[url]
And the US is suffering the same.
First 6 months of the year, gave a world average temperature the same as the 1998 high.
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
A book by Mark Lynas entitled "Six Degrees: A Future on a Hotter Planet" is a good one for understanding future impacts of climate change at the global and regional levels. It dedicated one chapter to a global increase of each degree change(1 chapter for 1 degree, 1 chapter for 2 degrees, etc) and goes into detail about what will happen in various parts of the globe. It is well written and very informative and is backed almost entirely by the scientific literature.
This is on other impacts from the IPCC's WG2: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Scregor is still insisting that predictions that 2007 will be warmer than 1998 may come true, which, after this summer will require a very scorchio Christmas.
2 developments which will be very bad news for those who make their living, plus air fares, from going round propagandising governement approved scare stories.
1 | Quote: | The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action ... the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. |
But if that was a hit here is a killer
2 We have been assured here & elsewhere that 1998 was the warmest year for thousands or even the last few hundred thousand years indeed the whole catastrophic warming case hinges on that claim. We have also ben assured that the alarmists had cleared up all the "systemic errors" Stephen McIntyre had found for them & nothing like that could ever happen again.
| Quote: | Steve McIntyre, the Canadian statistician who helped to expose massive holes in Michael Mann's hockey stick methodology, looked into it. After some poking around, he began to suspect that the GISS data base had a year 2000 bug in one of their data adjustments.
One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments, which I discussed here. One of the purposes of Watt's project is to help educate climate scientists that many of the adjustments they make to the data back in the office does not necessarily represent the true condition of the temperature stations. In particular, GISS adjustments imply instrument sitings are in more natural settings than they were in say 1905, an outrageous assumption on its face that is totally in conflict to the condition of the stations in Watt's data base. Basically, surface temperature measurements have a low signal to noise ratio, and climate scientists have been overly casual about how they try to tease out the signal.
Anyway, McIntyre suspected that one of these adjustments had a bug, and had had this bug for years. Unfortunately, it was hard to prove. Why? Well, that highlights one of the great travesties of climate science. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug.
Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939
|
Doubtless both of these, but particularly the latter, will get absolutely massive coverage on the BBC & the rest of the media, at least equal to all the claims they have given airtime to saying "global warming is more serious than previously believed" because a couple of researchers have said something .... at least they will if the media are ever in some way to be trusted.http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | So Scregor is still insisting that predictions that 2007 will be warmer than 1998 may come true, which, after this summer will require a very scorchio Christmas. |
It should be interesting. Certainly most of the globe seems to have had there hottest summers ever. Some areas haven't, due to the SOO. Still only time will tell really on this one.
Next, I have no interest in the inconvient truth. As I have said a lot of times, I only base my research on primary source information. I have also never seen it, as I have no interest to.
If you want to question a specific point in relation to the science I will be happy to.
| Quote: |
But if that was a hit here is a killer
|
Well it wasn't a hit or anything, I think all those topics have been demonstrated by multiple references in this thread before. Politicians are not whom I base my science on.
| Quote: |
2 We have been assured here & elsewhere that 1998 was the warmest year for thousands or even the last few hundred thousand years indeed the whole catastrophic warming case hinges on that claim. |
Actually no it doesn't. It is based on the trend. I seem to remember SLG describing in length to you on this exact subject.
Either way 1998 was globally the warmest temperature on record. The post below descibes US temperatures. Which are well documented, and I have seen that exact same trend published 5 years ago. What I found ammusing however, is that in your graph, the 1934 temperature has the same as the 1998 temperature. The graphs I have seen previous to this give a higher temperature for the US. Also the temperature is sourced to an unknown website, either way I took the data, and played in Genstat with it, with the simple analysis I have here, it all matches the GW trend.
| Quote: | | a year 2000 bug in one of their data adjustments. |
Although the arguement is over 1998 data....
| Quote: | | One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments, which I discussed here. |
Of course raw data goes through analysis. All raw data goes through data analysis.
| Quote: | | climate scientists have been overly casual about how they try to tease out the signal. |
What is your suggestion then?
| Quote: | | Anyway, McIntyre suspected that one of these adjustments had a bug, and had had this bug for years. Unfortunately, it was hard to prove. Why? Well, that highlights one of the great travesties of climate science. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug. |
This is only in the US. It does not apply to any other country. Freedom of information etc. is very good in Europe.
| Quote: | And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 |
As already stated the data in the article actually gives the same reading for 1934 and 1998.
Despite this the big mistake here, is comparing the Mann graph, which was for global observations, to only US observations. This can not be done.
The met office data (Hadley cell) for example is a different model. Looking at there predictions for the UK and world. Still demonstrate the trends.
So i continue....
James Hansen research with the corrections for the world temperatures is reviewed here:-
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/
And well. The nail in this coffin:-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
"The effect on global temperature (Figure 2 at bottom right) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable. (View as large GIF.) "
Infact it confirms what I was saying above:-
"Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty."
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah & if we know that the previous fake US data was exactly in line with the world data & that the defence to proven alarmist fakery is that they are just naturally subject to making an unlimited number of "systemic errors" all in an alarmist direction & we know that the US had the best level of recording of any sizeable area in the world across the century then why should anybody expect that the non-US data isn't also full of "systemic errors", it has after all, as you point out "gone through analysis". Thus all your little graphs are just coloured crap.
Quite obviously in the one case where it has been properly checked, rather than the government & their paid dogs merely screaming "consensus" there is no warming trend, let alone the promised catastrophe.
The warming scare is thus proven to be merely a government hobgoblin put around by PR whores, some of whom pass as journalists & a relatively few of whom claim to be scientists.
Oh yes - & your chum Hansen used to be selling the Global Ice Age lie.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Screegor
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 77
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You do spout a lot of slanderous rubbish based on no evidence.
Did you actually read your own article? That was data based from Hansen.
Secondly, did you read my post, and my links?
I think you will find they perfectly explain your post.
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Liar. I accept your claim that I have produced no links or quotes on my 9th Oct post as representing the very highest standard of honersty of which a lying whore like you is capable. I ask you to apologise for it since it is a libel (slander is verbal).
Yes. I refer you to my remark about Hansen previously having been an ice age alarmist.
Yes.
No.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1270
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey s**t for brains, libel and slander are English legal concepts. Under Scots Law there's only defamation which covers both written and spoken deliberate untruths. Oh, and there is that small matter of intent; there is no defamation if there was no intent to defame.
Lawyers, eh, what are they like?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neil, do you actually hope to achieve anything here? You are on record as holding the opinion that GW is a myth, invented by liars, whores (!?), fraudsters etc. You don't have any respect for the scientists who take any line in opposition to the one you believe in (yet are unable to back up). You equally have no respect for anyone on this forum who takes a line in opposition to your own. You seem to want to argue a point with Screegor without doing him the courtesy of even reading his posts properly and reading the links and papers he references.
So, again, what are you trying to achieve apart from insulting people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have proved that catastrophic warming is a myth, & that you are a lying fascist whore. Consequently I can have no respect for you.
As you would have mentioned had you been honest I entered this discussion specificly expressing my respect for SLG, though that has diminished.
As you would also have mentioned had you been remotely honest & since you have now gone off trying to justify anything in terms of the science but merely objecting to lack of respect, the rudest person here has been H*ol*b*nd*r who has never at any time even attempted to to debate rationally, presumably being incapable of doing so & has limited himself to gratuitous rudeness.
I, on the other hand, have never said anything to which, on the basis of facts proven, anybody could reasonably take any exception you corrupt lying fascist whore.
If you, or indeed anybody else, feel they have any actual facts to present which woul justify spending £400 million a day on fighting this hobgoblin please do so. In 7 pages you & your friends have failed to present anything which satisfies the standard of evidence any reasonable person, let alone any scientist, would require.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | I have proved that catastrophic warming is a myth, & that you are a lying fascist whore. Consequently I can have no respect for you. |
Well I fail to be convinced. You have come up with some evidence to contradicts the evidence that supports the _theory_ of global warming. Screegor, as far as I can see has answered all your points. Now you can continue to try and debate the issue, or you can leave it hoping that anyone reading will see the truth in what you say, or you can call people lying fascist whores. I don't think that does anything for the debate and smacks of a sore loser.
| Neil wrote: | | As you would have mentioned had you been honest I entered this discussion specificly expressing my respect for SLG, though that has diminished. |
Yes you did. You have lost that respect because I don't agree with you on this issue. Hardly a mature approach now, is it?
| Neil wrote: | | As you would also have mentioned had you been remotely honest & since you have now gone off trying to justify anything in terms of the science but merely objecting to lack of respect, the rudest person here has been H*ol*b*nd*r who has never at any time even attempted to to debate rationally, presumably being incapable of doing so & has limited himself to gratuitous rudeness. |
Well yes, I don't think Holebender's contributions in this thread have helped much. But at the end of the day, he's not really been involved in the debate. I can also sympathise with his frustration on reading your posts.
My objection above was not focussed on the lack of respect. I was trying to point out that it is you who had stopped arguing on a scientific basis and have resorted to trying to smear those who provide the evidence to refute your points.
| Neil wrote: | | I, on the other hand, have never said anything to which, on the basis of facts proven, anybody could reasonably take any exception you corrupt lying fascist whore. |
Haha, you don't see how I could take exception to you calling me a 'corrupt lying fascist whore'?
| Neil wrote: | | If you, or indeed anybody else, feel they have any actual facts to present which woul justify spending £400 million a day on fighting this hobgoblin please do so. |
I asked you some months ago to give me some details on what this £400 million/day is being spent on and to show me how much the Scottish or UK governments are spending on this 'hobgoblin'. You still haven't done this.
| Neil wrote: | | In 7 pages you & your friends have failed to present anything which satisfies the standard of evidence any reasonable person, let alone any scientist, would require. |
Haha, are you trying to claim that you are a reasonable person? The fact of the matter is that the _theories_ promoted by Screegor are accepted by the wider scientific community as the best theories to explain the observed phenomenon. Of course they have been errors in research, and these have been dealt with, with the conclusions remaining the same. Of course there are competing theories and dissenting voices, these are listened to and add to the debate. The fact remains that in the scientific community, there _is_ a consensus.
If you want, you can keep posting that Screegot or Chris haven't provided any evidence to back up their assertions, but anyone reading the thread will know differently.
I imagine that due to the manner that you have conducted this debate, almost noone apart from those of us posting here have bothered to continue to read this thread. Congratulations, that is certainly one way to try and keep people ignorant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I imagine that due to the manner that you have conducted this debate, almost noone apart from those of us posting here have bothered to continue to read this thread. Congratulations, that is certainly one way to try and keep people ignorant.
|
If you had looked you would see that this thread has nearly 2,700 hits which far exceeds any other current topic not kept at the head of the page by the moderator.
The rest of your points are equally counterfactual.
PS I previously pointed out to what purported to be a different poster from SLG (I believe it was Screegor) that the habit of writing "HaHa" made you look ridiculous. I think I see why the SLG persona has been willing to personally verify Screegor's self alleged scientific qualifications & unwilling to disagree with anything the alleged "scientist" Screegor said, even when he said that the factual accuracy of warming claims was unimportant so long as the were useful for "raising awareness" - something no real scientist could say.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | | Quote: | I imagine that due to the manner that you have conducted this debate, almost noone apart from those of us posting here have bothered to continue to read this thread. Congratulations, that is certainly one way to try and keep people ignorant.
|
If you had looked you would see that this thread has nearly 2,700 hits which far exceeds any other current topic not kept at the head of the page by the moderator. |
That's great, I hadn't realised that. I'm quite sure that those reading this thread with minds slightly more open than your own will be able to see the quality of arguement on either side.
| Neil wrote: | | The rest of your points are equally counterfactual. |
Eh... if you say so. 
| Neil wrote: | | PS I previously pointed out to what purported to be a different poster from SLG (I believe it was Screegor) that the habit of writing "HaHa" made you look ridiculous. I think I see why the SLG persona has been willing to personally verify Screegor's self alleged scientific qualifications & unwilling to disagree with anything the alleged "scientist" Screegor said, even when he said that the factual accuracy of warming claims was unimportant so long as the were useful for "raising awareness" - something no real scientist could say. |
Hmmm, I think you'll find that "haha" is used regularly on the internet as an alternative to lol. Again, I think it will be pretty obvious to anyone reading that we are very different people. I'm flattered that you think I am capable of arguing on this topic as knowledgably as Screegor though.
Again though, can I ask that you cease insulting, and now trying to discredit, other posters and concentrate on the discussion at hand. I repeat, I don't think that does anything for the debate and smacks of you being a sore loser. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This just received via CCNet so even if the MSM were going to report it the blogsphere wopuld have it first.
| Quote: | Daniel A Klein*, Mandeep J Gupta*, Philip Cooper**, Arne FR Jansson**.
*Department of Climatology, University of Arizona;
**Department of Atmospheric Physics, Göteborgs Universitet (University of Gothenburg, Sweden.)
Received: 18 February 2007 / Accepted: 9th August 2007 / Published online: 3rd November 2007
Abstract
It is now well-established that rising global temperatures are largely the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The "consensus" position attributes the increase in atmospheric CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuels by industrial processes. This is the mechanism which underpins the theory of manmade global warming.
Our data demonstrate that those who subscribe to the consensus theory have overlooked the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions. While a small part of the rise in emissions is attributable to industrial activity, it is greatly outweighed (by >300 times) by rising volumes of CO2 produced by saprotrophic eubacteria living in the sediments of the continental shelves fringing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Moreover, the bacterial emissions, unlike industrial CO2, precisely match the fluctuations in global temperature over the past 140 years. If under ocean bacteria are producing 300 times more CO2 than us then clearly our effect cannot dominant or even important |
.
Less importantly, since it is merely politics not science, are these remarks.
| Quote: | It was not our intention in researching this issue to disprove manmade global warming theory. We have received no funds, directly or indirectly, from fossil fuel companies and have no personal interest in the outcome of the debate. We simply noticed an anomaly in the figures used by those who accept the "consensus" position on climate change and sought to investigate it. But the findings presented in this paper could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory or to the thousands of climate scientists who have overlooked - sometimes, we fear, deliberately - the anomaly. We have found a near-perfect match between the levels of carbon dioxide produced by benthic eubacteria and recent global temperature records. By contrast we note what must be obvious to all those who have studied the figures with an open mind: a very poor match between carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels and recent global temperature records......
These findings place us in a difficult position. We feel an obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity and to prevent a terrible mistake - with extremely costly implications - from being made by the world's governments. But we recognise that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments for which we work.
We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish. |
In fullhttp://www.geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not much impressed by the fossil-fuel model of Global Warming either. It bears an uneasy resemblance to traditional fin-de-siecle apocalyptic anxiety.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
UPDATE I put up the above article last night. It is a hoax. Indeed according to desmoblog
"Hat's off (we think) to UK writer and consultant David Thorpe, the apparent creator for the impressive web-based spoof - a definitive bit of climate change denial as reported in The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies.
Although the "journal" lists two volumes and some very tempting content*, the only research paper on the website is titled: "Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?" The paper reports that rising volumes of CO2 are actually caused "by saprotrophic eubacteria living in the sediments of the continental shelves fringing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."
Unfortunately, this wonderful news is attributed to a group of scientists who can't be found, working at a series of institutions or departments that don't exist."
Well Mr Thorpe I think the chance of this being mentioned by the BBC has just increased massively - they haven't reported the fact of 1998 being found no longer to be the warmest year on record, but I would not be surprised to find them willing to report a hoax. There was a similar incident when "environmentalists" sent a signature to the 17,000 strong Oregon Petition of scientists denying catastrophic warming, in the name of Dr Geri Halliwell. Elsewhere I said that all that that proved is that the Oregon scientists weren't followers of the Spice Girls & that warming alarmists had no compunctions about fakery - neither of which reflect worse on the victims of the hoax than the perpetrators.
This is a much more subtle hoax but the point still stands. The speed of the reaction to their successful hoax is interesting. I would hope that more responsible alarmists, if that is not a contradiction in terms, will advise Mr Thorpe, assuming he is indeed the author, that this is not how science is done.
On the other hand they didn't object to the hoaxed "facts" in Mr Gore's film, which he may be about to assure us were also deliberate http://www.desmogblog.com/spoof-w...obal-warming-death-were-you-duped
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil, I hope you have learnt something yourself having been taken in by this hoax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
