Global temperatures in freefall

[DimPrawn]

Okay. Using only small words....

1. Numbers come from Satlite. Satlite shiny thing in sky (look up - blue thing). Satlite go up in 1979, no can tell about 1970's.

2. 1980s warmer than 1970s. 1990s warmer than 1980s. 2000s warmer than 1990s. 2010 equal warmest year. Get it? This might help



3. Numbers go up. Numbers go down. This weather. Next week we look at trends, averages and anomalies.

1. 1979 is in the 1970's
2. Your graph is bulltulip, using fiddled data
3. It's the old "weather" argument again eh?

I suppose if you keep the same old tired mantra thick people like sasguru will slowly absorb it as truth.

[RichardCranium]

I'm so out of touch I hadn't seen that.

Consider yourself touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm so out of touch I hadn't seen that.

Coincidentally, I've noticed a correlation between the fortunes of Manchester United and global warming. It warmed a bit as Man Utd won trophies in the fifties and sixties, cooled among predictions of a new ice age as they were relegated in the seventies, and then warmed again as Ferguson weaved his magic.

My theory is that the warming is due to all the billions of Man Utd fans around the world releasing energy in celebration when Man Utd win games. Obviously none of them live in Manchester itself, which is why it's always cold and wet there.

Irrefutable.

We have to be clear about this. I have NO evidence that mankind is not warming the planet. Everything they say may well be true, but I want them to prove it to me. I am sceptical, and that is a fine and noble place to be.

As soon as they start to call me a denier, akin to to a holocaust denier, too stupid to understand the science, too stupid to understand the statistics, not competent to form an opinion, it starts to get a bit annoying.
As soon as they say the science is settled, there is a concensus, hand over your money, hand over your rights, hand over your right to think freely, it starts to get a bit annoying
As soon as they start to explain their position in simplistic terms, with hokey data (because we wouldnt understand the 'corrections') , it starts to get a bit annoying
As soon as they refer to the authority of the 'peer-review', which they have done so much to undermine and discredit with their dodgy practices, it starts to get a bit annoying


and they still dont get it.

[RichardCranium]

Everything they say may well be true, but I want them to prove it to me. I am sceptical

So what you want is the raw data, unmodified, so you can draw your own conclusions based on facts.

Hard luck 'cos you're not going to get it.

It is far more important that the message is made "palatable", "easy to understand", "approachable", "on message", "appropriate for the audience", "compliant with previous messages", "consistent". It needs to be "drip fed", "dumbed down", "released gently", "simplified".

Your "expectations" need to be "managed".

This requires a communications strategy, and a plan.

And the facts to be presented must be made to conform to that plan, so that you will be "on boarded". So the facts must be changed to conform to the required "message".

You want the truth, EO? Apparently you and the rest of us are "not ready for the truth".

Or some such bollocks.

It's like the drink driving stats, the safe alcohol limit stats and the seatbelt stats. Made up numbers to support a political ambition. It's all just a Heap of Wank™.

The truth is not out there. The truth is immaterial.

[d000hg]

Did you draw the red line on with felt-tip?

[Doggy Styles]

Consider yourself touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Ah, I know about Him!

All hail Pastafaria!

[Doggy Styles]

We have to be clear about this. I have NO evidence that mankind is not warming the planet. Everything they say may well be true, but I want them to prove it to me. I am sceptical, and that is a fine and noble place to be.

As soon as they start to call me a denier, akin to to a holocaust denier, too stupid to understand the science, too stupid to understand the statistics, not competent to form an opinion, it starts to get a bit annoying.
As soon as they say the science is settled, there is a concensus, hand over your money, hand over your rights, hand over your right to think freely, it starts to get a bit annoying
As soon as they start to explain their position in simple words, with hokey data (because we wouldnt understand the 'corrections') , it starts to get a bit annoying
As soon as they refer to the authority of the 'peer-review', which they have done so much to undermine and discredit with their dodgy practices, it starts to get a bit annoying


and they still dont get it.

You don't go with the Man Utd theory then.

[d000hg]

We have to be clear about this. I have NO evidence that mankind is not warming the planet. Everything they say may well be true, but I want them to prove it to me. I am sceptical, and that is a fine and noble place to be.

As soon as they start to call me a denier, akin to to a holocaust denier, too stupid to understand the science, too stupid to understand the statistics, not competent to form an opinion, it starts to get a bit annoying.
As soon as they say the science is settled, there is a concensus, hand over your money, hand over your rights, hand over your right to think freely, it starts to get a bit annoying
As soon as they start to explain their position in simple words, with hokey data (because we wouldnt understand the 'corrections') , it starts to get a bit annoying
As soon as they refer to the authority of the 'peer-review', which they have done so much to undermine and discredit with their dodgy practices, it starts to get a bit annoying

I generally agree with you, but not that bit. Science should be explainable in simple terms otherwise only the experts in any field can understand it... Feynman was a huge advocate of making science understandable to the layman, I don't know if I'm misattributing to him the quote "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it".

[EternalOptimist]

I generally agree with you, but not that bit. Science should be explainable in simple terms otherwise only the experts in any field can understand it... Feynman was a huge advocate of making science understandable to the layman, I don't know if I'm misattributing to him the quote "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it".

'fighting global warming is like fighting Hitler' - Al Gore

if you can find the science in that, you win a mars bar

[d000hg]

We'd lose without the Americans?