http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU...layer_embedded

Bill

in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Climate change, not global warming. actually it is warming but what happens
is that the extremes get more extreme as the added energy in the system has
to do more work as it were, its all down to Entropy.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , Bob Martin
escribió:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

It wasn't entirely a serious question.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


It wasn't entirely a serious question.

On 22/03/13 08:28, Brian Gaff wrote:
Climate change, not global warming. actually it is warming but what happens
is that the extremes get more extreme as the added energy in the system has
to do more work as it were, its all down to Entropy.
Brian


actually it did warm, for some reason as yet unknown, but its stopped,
and this weather is the excess heat 'boiling off' as the climate cools
again.


It's very similar as far as can be told to the sequence of events that
preceded the 'little ice age' of the 17th-20th century


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 22/03/13 10:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


this is not a US based newsgroup.


It wasn't entirely a serious question.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 22/03/2013 10:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.

ITYM 15 years of the climate not doing what the computer models say it
should do if the theory were correct.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 22/03/13 01:45, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

those who are curious may find the jetstream forecast site of interest.
March it seems will be going out like a lion..

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...etstream;sess=

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.

Not disputing that.

Last summer, which sort of escaped the UK, was unusually hot in other
parts of Europe.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/03/13 14:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.

Not disputing that.

Last summer, which sort of escaped the UK, was unusually hot in other
parts of Europe.

This winter, Europe is catching it worse than wot we are..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 14:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.

Not disputing that.

Last summer, which sort of escaped the UK, was unusually hot in other
parts of Europe.

This winter, Europe is catching it worse than wot we are..

Indeed. All that shows is 'Global Warming' was a term coined by the meja.
Climate change covers it better.

--
*Modulation in all things *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mar 22, 11:02*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 22/03/13 08:28, Brian Gaff wrote:

Climate change, not global warming. actually it is warming but what happens
is that the extremes get more extreme as the added energy in the system has
to do more work *as it were, *its all down to Entropy.
* Brian

actually it did warm, for some reason as yet unknown, but its stopped,
and this weather is the excess heat 'boiling off' as the climate cools
again.

It's very similar as far as can be told to the sequence of events that
preceded the 'little ice age' of the 17th-20th century

So you mean the 1970s predictions of an imminent ice age may be
correct after all :-)

MBQ

On 22/03/2013 15:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 14:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.

Not disputing that.

Last summer, which sort of escaped the UK, was unusually hot in other
parts of Europe.

This winter, Europe is catching it worse than wot we are..

Indeed. All that shows is 'Global Warming' was a term coined by the meja.
Climate change covers it better.

The global average temperature cam still go up even if some regions end
up colder. We could if we are very unlucky end up with the sort of cold
winter weather appropriate to our high latitude if the Atlantic
conveyor/Gulf stream ever stalls or shuts down.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 22/03/13 15:50, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:02 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 22/03/13 08:28, Brian Gaff wrote:

Climate change, not global warming. actually it is warming but what happens
is that the extremes get more extreme as the added energy in the system has
to do more work as it were, its all down to Entropy.
Brian

actually it did warm, for some reason as yet unknown, but its stopped,
and this weather is the excess heat 'boiling off' as the climate cools
again.

It's very similar as far as can be told to the sequence of events that
preceded the 'little ice age' of the 17th-20th century

So you mean the 1970s predictions of an imminent ice age may be
correct after all :-)


of course - almost anything *could* be correct, including that
everything will come to an abrupt end in 15 nanoseconds.

Now there is one piece of social science research that really needs
doing. The frequency of occurrence of the words 'could' and 'might' in
articles about climate change compared with their average frequency in
other media articles.

I wonder if I could get a grant...

MBQ



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 22/03/2013 10:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


While you base your views on second hand erroneous data and duff
computer models which are slowly being proved wrong as those of us that
understand science have been saying for years.

Mike Tomlinson writes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

They've been suggesting that the rise in temperatures will cause
weather to be more extreme.
Certainly the melting of all that Arctic ice (which they could hardly
be mistaken about) is going to dump huge volumes of very cold, nearly
fresh water into the Atlantic.
Difficult to predict the result, but it could well cause weather
extremes.



--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
@ O n e t e l
. c o m

On 22/03/2013 16:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


of course - almost anything *could* be correct, including that
everything will come to an abrupt end in 15 nanoseconds.

Now there is one piece of social science research that really needs
doing. The frequency of occurrence of the words 'could' and 'might' in
articles about climate change compared with their average frequency in
other media articles.

I wonder if I could get a grant...


I suppose you might!

Quite a nice software project.

On 22/03/2013 16:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:47:45 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 14:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.

Not disputing that.

Last summer, which sort of escaped the UK, was unusually hot in other
parts of Europe.

This winter, Europe is catching it worse than wot we are..

Indeed. All that shows is 'Global Warming' was a term coined by the
meja. Climate change covers it better.

But it's a linguistic sleight of hand. I have no problem accepting that
climate can change - it's done it many times within recorded history. I
even have no problem accepting that climate *is* changing. However I
don't really think I have ever seen any proof that it's changing
*because* of human activities. And I am heartily sick of (mainly) non-
scientists who try and say "if you don't believe in climate change, you
haven't understood the facts" - that is foot-through-TV rage-inducing.

APPLAUSE

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 22/03/13 20:54, Windmill wrote:
Mike Tomlinson writes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

They've been suggesting that the rise in temperatures will cause
weather to be more extreme.
Certainly the melting of all that Arctic ice (which they could hardly
be mistaken about) is going to dump huge volumes of very cold, nearly
fresh water into the Atlantic.

the only problem is the arctic has in fact frozen right back up to
approximately normal and looks like it may well be MORE ice than last year.

Difficult to predict the result, but it could well cause weather
extremes.

Anything could cause anything when you know feck all about it. And
that's not personal: that's a reflections on the climate change camp in
general.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


What global warming ... ? ;-)

Arfa

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


You won't find a lot of sympathy for warmist leanings on here ...

Arfa




It wasn't entirely a serious question.

En el artículo , Arfa Daily
escribió:

What global warming ... ? ;-)

Exactly :-) Glad someone 'got it'.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 22/03/2013 2:45 p.m., Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?


If it makes you feel any better, we've been having a fantastic summer in
NZ. Almost three months of uninterrupted sun. Not good for the farmers
though.

On 23/03/2013 01:02, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Arfa Daily
escribió:

What global warming ... ? ;-)

Exactly :-) Glad someone 'got it'.


I thought that the present cold snap is precisely the sort of thing
forecast by the climate change camp? It's global warming, but that does
not mean this country will be warmer.

in 1214550 20130322 161032 Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:47:45 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 14:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/13 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Is the UK the 'globe'?

well it is part of it, at least.

Not disputing that.

Last summer, which sort of escaped the UK, was unusually hot in other
parts of Europe.

This winter, Europe is catching it worse than wot we are..

Indeed. All that shows is 'Global Warming' was a term coined by the
meja. Climate change covers it better.

But it's a linguistic sleight of hand. I have no problem accepting that
climate can change - it's done it many times within recorded history. I
even have no problem accepting that climate *is* changing. However I
don't really think I have ever seen any proof that it's changing
*because* of human activities. And I am heartily sick of (mainly) non-
scientists who try and say "if you don't believe in climate change, you
haven't understood the facts" - that is foot-through-TV rage-inducing.

"(mainly) non-scientists"
Really??

in 1214593 20130322 191138 "dennis@home" wrote:
On 22/03/2013 10:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


While you base your views on second hand erroneous data and duff
computer models which are slowly being proved wrong as those of us that
understand science have been saying for years.

Another internet expert.

On 23/03/13 07:52, GB wrote:
On 23/03/2013 01:02, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Arfa Daily
escribió:

What global warming ... ? ;-)

Exactly :-) Glad someone 'got it'.


I thought that the present cold snap is precisely the sort of thing
forecast by the climate change camp? It's global warming, but that does
not mean this country will be warmer.



Since the climate change camp have on occasion forecasted almost
everything possible, that's no great surprise.

Saying 'God is fickle, anything could happen' is not science.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 23/03/13 08:22, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214550 20130322 161032 Jethro_uk wrote:


But it's a linguistic sleight of hand. I have no problem accepting that
climate can change - it's done it many times within recorded history. I
even have no problem accepting that climate *is* changing. However I
don't really think I have ever seen any proof that it's changing
*because* of human activities. And I am heartily sick of (mainly) non-
scientists who try and say "if you don't believe in climate change, you
haven't understood the facts" - that is foot-through-TV rage-inducing.

"(mainly) non-scientists"
Really??

yes. Or at least non engineers, mathematicians and physicists, those
being the people who understand mathematical modelling most.

Now listen to what a *real* physicist has to say..


"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years €” one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about todays temperatures! Seriously. Not one human being on
the planet would look at that complete record €” or even the complete
record of temperatures during the Holocene, or the Pliestocene €” and
stab down their finger at the present and go €œOh no!€�. Quite the
contrary. It isnt the warmest. It isnt close to the warmest. It isnt
the warmest in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. It isnt warming the
fastest. It isnt doing anything that can be resolved from the natural
statistical variation of the data. Indeed, now that Manns utterly
fallacious hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with
the LIA* and MWP** restored, it isnt even remarkable in the last
thousand years!

Furthermore, examination of this record over the last 5 million years
reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends 80
to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that cover
the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate zone.
We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which
humans emerged all the way from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern
civilization. The Earths climate is manifestly, empirically bistable,
with a warm phase and cold phase, and the cold phase is both more likely
and more stable. As a physicist who has extensively studied bistable
open systems, this empirical result clearly visible in the data has
profound implications. The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in
the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling from the
Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant on the
scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are nowhere
near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000 years ended
a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with the Maunder
minimum in solar activity.

There is absolutely no evidence in this historical record of a third
stable warm phase that might be associated with a €œtipping point€� and
hence €œcatastrophe€� (in the specific mathematical sense of catastrophe,
a first order phase transition to a new stable phase). It has been far
warmer in the past without tipping into this phase. If anything, we are
geologically approaching the point where the Earth is likely to tip the
other way, into the phase that we know is there €” the cold phase. A cold
phase transition, which the historical record indicates can occur quite
rapidly with large secular temperature changes on a decadal time scale,
would truly be a catastrophe. Even if €œcatastrophic€� AGW is correct and
we do warm another 3 C over the next century, if it stabilized the Earth
in warm phase and prevented or delayed the Earths transition into cold
phase it would be worth it because the cold phase transition would kill
billions of people, quite rapidly, as crops failed throughout the
temperate breadbasket of the world.

Now let us try to analyze the modern era bearing in mind the evidence of
an utterly unremarkable present. To begin with, we need a model that
predicts the swings of glaciation and interglacials. Lacking this, we
cannot predict the temperature that we should have outside for any given
baseline concentration of CO_2, nor can we resolve variations in this
baseline due to things other than CO_2 from that due to CO_2. We dont
have any such thing. We dont have anything close to this. We cannot
predict, or explain after the fact, the huge (by comparison with the
present) secular variations in temperature observed over the last 20,000
years, let alone the last 5 million or 25 million or billion. We do not
understand the forces that set the baseline €œthermostat€� for the Earth
before any modulation due to anthropogenic CO_2, and hence we have no
idea if those forces are naturally warming or cooling the Earth as a
trend that has to be accounted for before assigning the €œanthropogenic€�
component of any warming.

This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not
understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just
love to tell stories) but there arent any particularly successful
theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories
(none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly
well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One
part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and
chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all
of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one
tried to actually write €œthe€� partial differential equation for the
global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes
equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms €” if one can
actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S
equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in
mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand!
Global Climate Models are childrens toys in comparison to the actual
underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers
setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively
available.

The truth of this is revealed in the lack of skill in the GCMs. They
utterly failed to predict the last 13 or 14 years of flat to descending
global temperatures, for example, although naturally one can go back and
tweak parameters and make them fit it now, after the fact. And every
year that passes without significant warming should be rigorously
lowering the climate sensitivity and projected AGW, making the
probability of the €œC€� increasingingly remote.

These are all (in my opinion) good reasons to be skeptical of the often
egregious claims of CAGW. Another reason is the exact opposite of the
reason you used €œdenier€� in your article. The actual scientific question
has long since been co-opted by the social and political one. The real
reason you used the term is revealed even in your response €” we all
€œshould€� be doing this and that whether or not there is a real risk of
€œcatastrophe€�. In particular, we €œshould€� be using less fossil fuel,
working to preserve the environment, and so on.

The problem with this €œend justifies the means€� argument €” where the
means involved is the abhorrent use of a pejorative descriptor to
devalue the arguers of alternative points of view rather than their
arguments at the political and social level €” is that it is as close to
absolute evil in social and public discourse as it is possible to get. I
strongly suggest that you read Feynmans rather famous €œCargo Cult€� talk:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

In particular, I quote:

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and
astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of
this work were. €œWell,€� I said, €œthere arent any.€� He said, €œYes, but
then we wont get support for more research of this kind.€� I think
thats kind of dishonest. If youre representing yourself as a
scientist, then you should explain to the layman what youre doing€“and
if they dont want to support you under those circumstances, then thats
their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If youve made up your mind to
test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always
decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish
results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must
publish both kinds of results.

I say thats also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling
a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in
some other state. If you dont publish such a result, it seems to me
youre not giving scientific advice. Youre being used. If your answer
happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians
like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the
other way, they dont publish it at all. Thats not giving scientific
advice.

Time for a bit of soul-searching, Dr. Bain. Have you come even close to
living up to the standards laid out by Richard Feynman? Is this sort of
honesty apparent anywhere in the global climate debate? Did the €œHockey
Team€� embrace this sort of honesty in the infamous Climategate emails?
Do the IPCC reports ever seem to present the counter arguments, or do
they carefully avoid showing pictures of the 20,000 year thermal record,
preferring instead Manns hockey stick because it increases the alarmism
(and hence political impact of the report)? Does the term €œdenier€� have
any place in any scientific paper ever published given Feynmans rather
simple criterion for scientific honesty?

And finally, how dare you presume to make choices for me, for my
relatives, for my friends, for all of the people of the world, but
concealing information from them so that they make a choice to allocate
resources the way you think they should be allocated, just like the
dishonest astronomer of his example. Yes, the price of honesty might be
that people dont choose to support your work. Tough. It is their money,
and their choice!

Sadly, it is all too likely that this is precisely what is at stake in
climate research. If there is no threat of catastrophe €” and as I said,
prior to the hockey stick nobody had the slightest bit of luck
convincing anyone that the sky was falling because global climate today
is geologically unremarkable in every single way except that we happen
to be living in it instead of analyzing it in a geological record €” then
there is little incentive to fund the enormous amount of work being done
on climate science. There is even less incentive to spend trillions of
dollars of other peoples money (and some of our own) to ameliorate a
€œthreat€� that might well be pure moonshine, quite possibly ignoring an
even greater threat of movement in the exact opposite direction to the
one the IPCC anticipates.

Why am I a skeptic? Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance
in addressing this supremely difficult problem, while at the same time
as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its benefits against
draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that
global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time scale.

For shame. "

Robert G Brown

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/2...f-denier-term/

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 23/03/13 08:23, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214593 20130322 191138 "dennis@home" wrote:
On 22/03/2013 10:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


While you base your views on second hand erroneous data and duff
computer models which are slowly being proved wrong as those of us that
understand science have been saying for years.

Another internet expert.

Some of us who have taken the trouble to drill through the PR and
bull**** to the actual equations used to 'predict' global warming...

...and found them so grossly simplified and full of unproven and in many
cases unprovable assumptions, might claim at least to be more expert
than the average Guardian/BBC journalist, yes.

But how would you tell?

"They told us there were WMD in Iraq. We paid for a war with no purpose.
Someone got richer, but it wasn't us.

They told us no more boom and bust. So we bought houses. Then the
housing market crashed and we had to prop up the banks. Someone got
richer, but it wasn't us.

They told us there would be no more winter. We paid for windmills and
solar panels. Someone got richer. But it wasn't us.

Go figure"

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Gib Bogle" wrote in message ...

On 22/03/2013 2:45 p.m., Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?


If it makes you feel any better, we've been having a fantastic summer in
NZ. Almost three months of uninterrupted sun. Not good for the farmers
though.

If you want to feel really smug, you can have our drought from last year.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message ...

in 1214593 20130322 191138 "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 22/03/2013 10:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1214371 20130322 091719 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el art�culo , Bob Martin
escribi�:
in 1214320 20130322 014520 Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

Are you serious?

Think that was a *whoosh* ...

Nope, reasonable question to someone who *appears* to base his
skepticism
on one day's weather in a very tiny part of the globe.
You wouldn't be the first - many septics seem to be guilty of it.


While you base your views on second hand erroneous data and duff
computer models which are slowly being proved wrong as those of us that
understand science have been saying for years.

Another internet expert.

And you're better informed, how?

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

There's forest fires in Australia. What happened to this ****ing
global cooling then?

JGH

On 22/03/2013 01:45, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817

So what happened to this ****ing global warming then?

It got rebranded as 'climate change'....

--
David

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:08:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

the only problem is the arctic has in fact frozen right back up to
approximately normal and looks like it may well be MORE ice than last
year.

Just ice area or area *and* thickness? It's ice volume that is important
not simple ice area.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 23/03/2013 01:02, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Arfa Daily
escribió:

What global warming ... ? ;-)

Exactly :-) Glad someone 'got it'.


I thought that the present cold snap is precisely the sort of thing
forecast by the climate change camp? It's global warming, but that does
not mean this country will be warmer.

But the UK - or rather just certain parts of it - is the centre of the
universe for some.

It probably passed them by that some parts of the UK didn't have the same
high rainfall last year as most.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

En el artículo
oups.com, jgharston escribió:

There's forest fires in Australia. What happened to this ****ing
global cooling then?

Tsk. Try and keep up. Fires followed by extensive flooding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/vide...ng-evacuation-
new-south-wales-video

Dunno what they're moaning about, they wanted the fires put out, didn't
they?

[:-) for the humour-impaired in this thread]

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")