• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Climate change is not caused by solar output

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Old Greg
    Aw - you've spoiled my fun now.
    Sorry chief. (Have to apologise, you're about my only ally on here, far as I can tell.)

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by dang65
      Sorry chief. (Have to apologise, you're about my only ally on here, far as I can tell.)
      Mrs OG is a research scientist (in a discipline unrelated to climate change) and I've got plent of friends who are research scientists (again in unrelated disciplines) so I've got a healthy respect for science and scientists. If they are overwhelmingly saying that human nature is very likely causing climate change, I accept that. It could be wrong, because science doesn't always deal in certainties. But it's a pretty big gamble to assume it's wrong. The problem is that because it's not certain, there is something to cling to for those that would rather ignore it.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Old Greg
        Mrs OG is a research scientist (in a discipline unrelated to climate change) and I've got plent of friends who are research scientists (again in unrelated disciplines) so I've got a healthy respect for science and scientists. If they are overwhelmingly saying that human nature is very likely causing climate change, I accept that. It could be wrong, because science doesn't always deal in certainties. But it's a pretty big gamble to assume it's wrong. The problem is that because it's not certain, there is something to cling to for those that would rather ignore it.
        I am sceptical, not that it is happening, but why it is happening.
        From what I have read the IGCC or what ever they are called used existing reports as the basis for their research, they basically sifted through all the stuff they coudl find and tried to organise it into evidence.
        They then published their findings.
        All they have published is supporting evidence, soem of it with a bias towards to start with, they have yet to publish the stuff they dismissd and why.
        I am not qualified to give the above advice!

        The original point and click interface by
        Smith and Wesson.

        Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
          I am sceptical, not that it is happening, but why it is happening.
          From what I have read the IGCC or what ever they are called used existing reports as the basis for their research, they basically sifted through all the stuff they coudl find and tried to organise it into evidence.
          They then published their findings.
          All they have published is supporting evidence, soem of it with a bias towards to start with, they have yet to publish the stuff they dismissd and why.

          just about sums up my position - do a poll
          (\__/)
          (>'.'<)
          ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
            I am sceptical, not that it is happening, but why it is happening.
            From what I have read the IGCC or what ever they are called used existing reports as the basis for their research, they basically sifted through all the stuff they coudl find and tried to organise it into evidence.
            They then published their findings.
            All they have published is supporting evidence, soem of it with a bias towards to start with, they have yet to publish the stuff they dismissd and why.
            There's a lot of disinformation about and it's clear IMO that someone is acting in bad faith. The question is who. The thing that would seem odd to me is that so many leading scientists would go along with this conspiracy (for want of a better word), knowing that actually the evidence is against it, which is what some people are suggesting (not sure if it's your view as well).

            Anyway, here's a nice selection of Australian scientists' reaction to the broacasting in Oz of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which has now been comprehensively debunked.
            http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php
            Badscience.net is good on this as well (although my browser struggles for some reason).

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Old Greg
              There's a lot of disinformation about and it's clear IMO that someone is acting in bad faith. The question is who. The thing that would seem odd to me is that so many leading scientists would go along with this conspiracy
              Why not? How hard would it be to fool a few of the willing in to believing global warming is man made? After all, it has morphed in to a religion where those who disagree are being hounded and forced out of their positions.

              Then again, if Hitler managed to fool an entire nation a few years ago how hard would it be to fool a few do gooders in to believing the global warming myth is real?

              Mailman

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Old Greg
                Anyway, here's a nice selection of Australian scientists' reaction to the broacasting in Oz of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which has now been comprehensively debunked.
                The problem I have with this type of input is that although they describe the GGWS as being selective, they seem to say so simply because it has not selected their particular agenda. All of the guys assembled in this critique are in positions that would be largely superfluous if man is not the major contributor, so they have a vested interest in pushing that line. Many of these guys would have been involved around 30 years ago when the next big Ice Age was being put forward as inevitable by the "majority of leading scientists", another phenomenon that failed to materialise. I am not saying we should get too complacent but I am just not convinced by their "science" yet.
                “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by shaunbhoy
                  The problem I have with this type of input is that although they describe the GGWS as being selective, they seem to say so simply because it has not selected their particular agenda.
                  Have to disagree - there are very specific criticisms about fabricated data. See below - full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

                  Now even a climate sceptic whose dissenting views were used by the film- makers to bolster their claims about the "lies" and "swindles" of global warming has accused the documentary of promulgating falsehoods.

                  Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.

                  Dr Friiss-Christensen said that a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years had been doctored. The documentary used the graph to pour scorn on the idea that the global warming in recent decades is the result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century.

                  However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period.

                  "We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," Dr Friis-Christensen said.

                  "Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming," he said.

                  Dr Friis-Christensen, a physicist, believes that solar cycles play an important role in climate change and that not enough effort has gone into addressing the theory. The fabricated data did not, he said, make any difference to the overall view he takes but he is still critical of the way the film handled the scientific evidence. Asked by The Independent whether the documentary was scientifically accurate, Dr Friiss-Christensen said: " No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate."

                  The C4 programme also used out-of-date solar cycle data relating to the past 30 or 40 years which made it appear as if temperatures and solar activity were rising together when in fact solar activity has levelled off for the past few decades. "After 1985 we don't see any rise or shortening of the solar cycles compared to what we saw in the temperature [record]," Dr Friiss-Christensen said.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    I find it interesting how much knowledge these climatologists have. The NASA scientists publish some results after many years of research, and within days with a bit of clicking on the internet, the climatologists have "debunked" it. What particularly amazes me is their expertise in a wide area of fields including Astrophysics, Biology, Geophysics, Physics and so on.
                    I'm alright Jack

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by BlasterBates
                      I find it interesting how much knowledge these climatologists have. The NASA scientists publish some results after many years of research, and within days with a bit of clicking on the internet, the climatologists have "debunked" it. What particularly amazes me is their expertise in a wide area of fields including Astrophysics, Biology, Geophysics, Physics and so on.
                      When was this - what clicking on the internet did climatologists do?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X