ChatterBank0 min ago
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Two points spring to mind:
1) He doesn't actually present any evidence
2) He claims that scientists who say that climate change exists and is man-made are in it for the money and supported by governments and big business who can benefit from it. He forgets to mention that what he's actually doing is selling weather forecasts (he's in it for the money), and that the most vociferous "anti-climate-change" arguments tend to come from organisations which are supported and financed, either directly, or at one or more remove, by big business (BP, Shell, et al).
1) He doesn't actually present any evidence
2) He claims that scientists who say that climate change exists and is man-made are in it for the money and supported by governments and big business who can benefit from it. He forgets to mention that what he's actually doing is selling weather forecasts (he's in it for the money), and that the most vociferous "anti-climate-change" arguments tend to come from organisations which are supported and financed, either directly, or at one or more remove, by big business (BP, Shell, et al).
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The whole Climate Change theory (that man-made CO2 is the primary forcing agent for warming) is utter bunk. The whole Climate Change charade is about money and nothing more. People are making billions of dollars on ridiculous carbon trading schemes and other related nonsense. And it's not even based on measured, empirical science – it's based on computer models which attempt to model the Earth's entire climate (which is practically impossible given its inherent chaotic nature) based on inaccurate surface temperature readings from woefully inadequate, poorly sited and badly maintained Stevenson boxes (they can't use Satellite data as it shows that there has been no warming – so they must use the ground-based, 'Urban Heat Island Effect' skewed data).
When you get Professors such as Harold Lewis who is (or rather, was) Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigning because he considers that that institution has been corrupted and debased by vast amounts of money that would abruptly stop if the University was anything other than a strong vocal supporter of the anthropogenic climate change theory, then any reasonable person would ask themselves why he holds that opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
http://blogs.telegrap...seen-in-my-long-life/
And as an addendum, before certain people start to talk about 'trusting our great institutions such as the Royal Society', I would suggest that the
The whole Climate Change theory (that man-made CO2 is the primary forcing agent for warming) is utter bunk. The whole Climate Change charade is about money and nothing more. People are making billions of dollars on ridiculous carbon trading schemes and other related nonsense. And it's not even based on measured, empirical science – it's based on computer models which attempt to model the Earth's entire climate (which is practically impossible given its inherent chaotic nature) based on inaccurate surface temperature readings from woefully inadequate, poorly sited and badly maintained Stevenson boxes (they can't use Satellite data as it shows that there has been no warming – so they must use the ground-based, 'Urban Heat Island Effect' skewed data).
When you get Professors such as Harold Lewis who is (or rather, was) Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigning because he considers that that institution has been corrupted and debased by vast amounts of money that would abruptly stop if the University was anything other than a strong vocal supporter of the anthropogenic climate change theory, then any reasonable person would ask themselves why he holds that opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
http://blogs.telegrap...seen-in-my-long-life/
And as an addendum, before certain people start to talk about 'trusting our great institutions such as the Royal Society', I would suggest that the
Impossible to tell. I cannot find any predition of the Russian heatwave issued by weatheraction.com BEFORE the event occured (he boasts about predicting it on the video).
He sells forecasts as a business, so he is unlikely to publicise them for free. Which is a problem, because when an extreme weather event occurs and he claims to have predicted it, we only have his word for that.
He sells forecasts as a business, so he is unlikely to publicise them for free. Which is a problem, because when an extreme weather event occurs and he claims to have predicted it, we only have his word for that.
"but is he accurate?"
Well according to Wikipedia,he not only refuses to publish details of his methodology, but his predictions for January 2008 (-17 deg in the Midlands, and average temps around freezing) were wildly wrong: "The final CET for January 2008 ended up over 3degC above the standard reference average making the predictions for a cold Jan very poor. In fact it ended up being one of the warmest Januaries since records began."
What's more (also according to Wikipedia), he tends to ban reporters who are critical of his work, from quoting him.
His behaviour seems more like that of inventors of "perpetual motion" machines than that of a scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
Well according to Wikipedia,he not only refuses to publish details of his methodology, but his predictions for January 2008 (-17 deg in the Midlands, and average temps around freezing) were wildly wrong: "The final CET for January 2008 ended up over 3degC above the standard reference average making the predictions for a cold Jan very poor. In fact it ended up being one of the warmest Januaries since records began."
What's more (also according to Wikipedia), he tends to ban reporters who are critical of his work, from quoting him.
His behaviour seems more like that of inventors of "perpetual motion" machines than that of a scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
It never fails to amaze me how selective skeptics are with their evidence.
Birdie goes on about urban heat islands skewing the climate data.
This is despite the warming being confirmed by satellite observations which obviously are not affected by this.
It is incredible that so many people - especially in this country seem so determined to reject the views of experts that they simply don't *want* to believe.
They can't reconsile this and end up in the ridiculous position that there must be an international conspiracy of the world's top scientists to lie to the entire world in order to gain extra funding.
You'd need a smaller group of conspirators to fake the moon landings
Birdie goes on about urban heat islands skewing the climate data.
This is despite the warming being confirmed by satellite observations which obviously are not affected by this.
It is incredible that so many people - especially in this country seem so determined to reject the views of experts that they simply don't *want* to believe.
They can't reconsile this and end up in the ridiculous position that there must be an international conspiracy of the world's top scientists to lie to the entire world in order to gain extra funding.
You'd need a smaller group of conspirators to fake the moon landings
Jake-the-peg - “... the warming being confirmed by satellite observations which obviously are not affected by this [the Urban Heat Island Effect]”.
It never ceases to amaze me how people such as yourself never bother to avail themselves of actual facts – they just trot out the same out propaganda provided to them by a gullible, compliant mainstream media who love a good disaster story.
I find it quite amusing Jake, that when arguing the case for believing in anthropogenic climate change you never actually bother to discuss the facts. You always appeal to authority: 'well, such and such says it's true so it must be true'. In the past I have posted many verifiable facts and relevant questions that you've simply ignored. One such fact / question which I've posted before is this one...
It never ceases to amaze me how people such as yourself never bother to avail themselves of actual facts – they just trot out the same out propaganda provided to them by a gullible, compliant mainstream media who love a good disaster story.
I find it quite amusing Jake, that when arguing the case for believing in anthropogenic climate change you never actually bother to discuss the facts. You always appeal to authority: 'well, such and such says it's true so it must be true'. In the past I have posted many verifiable facts and relevant questions that you've simply ignored. One such fact / question which I've posted before is this one...
Continued...
“Between AD 1000 to AD1500 has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.”
Why do you think the above happened Jake? CO2 perhaps? Or some other mechanism?
And then, to cap it all, you mention the moon landing and the fact that some people think they're faked. This is a deliberate attempt to imply that if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change then you must believe that the moon landings were faked and are therefore, an illogical fool. It's a pathetic non sequitur but par for the course from the climate change fraternity.
“Between AD 1000 to AD1500 has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.”
Why do you think the above happened Jake? CO2 perhaps? Or some other mechanism?
And then, to cap it all, you mention the moon landing and the fact that some people think they're faked. This is a deliberate attempt to imply that if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change then you must believe that the moon landings were faked and are therefore, an illogical fool. It's a pathetic non sequitur but par for the course from the climate change fraternity.
I tend to feel the that the problem with natural climate change wherein people aren't responsible and it's cyclical etc for scientists is that there has to be a mechanism, a process.
In science things don't just happen, they don't just occur, as if by magic (because that whiffs a little bit like religion to them), so the scientist will ask if climate change is a natural phenoma, what is the catalyst?
Personally I don't know, I find the advocates on both sides tend to offer equally compelling arguments, well not entirely true, I saw a debate a few months ago were the climate change believers got absolutely annihilated.
In science things don't just happen, they don't just occur, as if by magic (because that whiffs a little bit like religion to them), so the scientist will ask if climate change is a natural phenoma, what is the catalyst?
Personally I don't know, I find the advocates on both sides tend to offer equally compelling arguments, well not entirely true, I saw a debate a few months ago were the climate change believers got absolutely annihilated.
nearly 40 years since i first heard of "man made climate change", and still no convincing proof...... both sides of the argument seem to be able to get so called"top Experts" who i have never heard of, to argue their side, but am pretty convinced that if it is man made, then after 40 years you would think they could produce the evidence . The earth is heating up and wither man was here or not it would still be heating up.... then cooling down as it has done several times before and most likely will again and again....................
Found an interesting link regarding the accuracy (or rather the inaccuracy) of certain satellite data...
http://stevenjohnhibb...arming-data-doubtful/
http://stevenjohnhibb...arming-data-doubtful/
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.