Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I am not trying to be condescending here, but really, either you should stay out of this debate, or you put a lot of effort in. A lot more effort.

No you are not trying, you are succeeding in being patronising.

Usual bullying tactics we have come to expect.

Pathetic. Is that the best you can do? Insulting people. Shame on you.

You still haven't answered my points above ^^^ about the consequences of GW. Why? Scared I might actually be able to prove you wrong?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

you're posting the exact news you posted a week ago, again.

No I'm not. One article was about the Himalaya data problem. The other was how the Chairman of IPCC used this get large grants and a Nobel Prize, potentially fraudulently.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

And the IPCC is even breaking its own rules on peer reviewed material in its report.

It cites WWF as a source to back many claims. Yet WWF is a lobbying body (not neutral) and does not conduct peer review:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

See also following link, turns out the source is, again WWF and the report written by a policy analyst and an eco-activist:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

[Kopite Girl 0]

What exactly constitutes a LOT of reading for you? And just curious, why do you think you are entitled to your two cents? Do you feel you are entitled to your two cents when you go to a hospital? And you follow it with four lines of pretty outlandish claims? Really, this isn't a high school exam question with a one line answer. Take one of the claims you have made out of the 4 or 5, come back with 5-10 sources and we can begin to have a discussion. As a scientist, I find your claim that you have read a LOT and that you are qualified to make these claims offensive. I am not trying to be condescending here, but really, either you should stay out of this debate, or you put a lot of effort in. A lot more effort.

You're entertaining, I'll give you that.

I'll reply to whatever and wherever to whomever I see fit. In the manner that I f*cking choose, and to whatever prat decides to bite me.

Like I stated earlier, I'm not the most intelligent person on this subject. I don't profess to be. But please forgive me if there was a sign saying 'Kopite Girl Must Not Reply To This Thread'

In fact. I see a sign invisible to others saying 'Cav, take a break from TF1 before you go completely nuts'

As a scientist, surely you should know better than to try not to appear condescending whilst looking that very same thing.

Dude. I've no issues with my lack of intelligence on this subject. I don't claim to be something I'm not but from what I've read - what I stated were three main facts. So there. I bit back at you. You want to play ball with me, lets see how far you get.

[mikathegreat2 2]

So who's pro-GW & anti-GW?? I'm completely lost!

[maure 1]

So who's pro-GW & anti-GW?? I'm completely lost!

Forum Fights: mikathegreat 0, what's-going-on 86

[maure 1]

No you are not trying, you are succeeding in being patronising.

Usual bullying tactics we have come to expect.

Pathetic. Is that the best you can do? Insulting people. Shame on you.

You still haven't answered my points above ^^^ about the consequences of GW. Why? Scared I might actually be able to prove you wrong?

You're entertaining, I'll give you that.

I'll reply to whatever and wherever to whomever I see fit. In the manner that I f*cking choose, and to whatever prat decides to bite me.

Like I stated earlier, I'm not the most intelligent person on this subject. I don't profess to be. But please forgive me if there was a sign saying 'Kopite Girl Must Not Reply To This Thread'

In fact. I see a sign invisible to others saying 'Cav, take a break from TF1 before you go completely nuts'

As a scientist, surely you should know better than to try not to appear condescending whilst looking that very same thing.

Dude. I've no issues with my lack of intelligence on this subject. I don't claim to be something I'm not but from what I've read - what I stated were three main facts. So there. I bit back at you. You want to play ball with me, lets see how far you get.

Both of you are well on track and with a dose of healthy humor. It will drive him nuts.

Amusing. I remember a time when Cavallino accused me of personally attacking others. He even started a thread about it... a thread to ban me yet not a personal attack against me. Hilarious? Oh yeah. It is not for nothing that I've been calling him contradiction man for a long time now.

[maure 1]

There are plenty of links in this thread to back her arguments and it's GW worshippers and whore scientists who pretend to answer the question with a one line answer to kid people.

After all the fraud exposed you should stop connecting Global Warming to science.

Good point.

Still, there is a good lesson in GW amid the bad science. It's a good experience for the young and otherwise naive. You know, like burning your fingers in order to understand the dangers of playing with fire. So, hopefully, the GW fiasco will immunize a fair bunch of people against this kind of madness, that is, the attitude that science can be treated as religion.

[cavallino 2]

You're entertaining, I'll give you that.

I'll reply to whatever and wherever to whomever I see fit. In the manner that I f*cking choose, and to whatever prat decides to bite me.

Like I stated earlier, I'm not the most intelligent person on this subject. I don't profess to be. But please forgive me if there was a sign saying 'Kopite Girl Must Not Reply To This Thread'

In fact. I see a sign invisible to others saying 'Cav, take a break from TF1 before you go completely nuts'

As a scientist, surely you should know better than to try not to appear condescending whilst looking that very same thing.

Dude. I've no issues with my lack of intelligence on this subject. I don't claim to be something I'm not but from what I've read - what I stated were three main facts. So there. I bit back at you. You want to play ball with me, lets see how far you get.

Steph Steph Steph, you can't make it so easy for people to push your buttons (and I know the irony - remember what I did after your first post on this forum all those years ago). And that isn't what I was trying to do, you just decided to take my post personally.

There is 'no intelligence on the subject' just intelligence per se and I did not say you are not an intelligent person - go back and read what I wrote if you don't believe me. Quite the opposite - it is because I think you are an intelligent person that I would expect better than that post from you. You don't see me asking maure to come back with a reasoned post for example, because I have no such expectation from him, I could deal with a person like maure in real life where they can't run away and I can probe away for some sign of humanity, but not online because it's too easy to escape. I expect better from you than from AleHop, who gives global warming the same importance that he gives to proving to everyone how good De La Rosa is because he is Spanish. I stand by my point, however caustically made. This isn't a debate about who drives a car around in circles faster, it is way way more important. And as an intelligent person, and someone I have respect for, I expect a more reasoned response from you. And I will call you out on that. I didn't even say you are wrong in your claims, but if you can't be bothered backing them up, they're meaningless.

PS: Please read what I wrote in isolation - if you are going to pay attention to whatever others in the thread are saying to inflame things then I am wasting my time.

[cavallino 2]

No I'm not. One article was about the Himalaya data problem. The other was how the Chairman of IPCC used this get large grants and a Nobel Prize, potentially fraudulently.

Ok I'll concede the point. It's not a discussion I am very interested in at the moment. Yes the IPCC screwed up big. Yes, the head of the IPCC is a petulant idiot, if anything I would think any 'pro-GW' scientist would be more p**sed than the antis to have him as their mouthpiece. And it is still completely ridiculous how anyone can pick out that one claim to attack all science that has been done that supports global warming. As I said before, peer reviewed work won't get away with the 2035 claim - that is why IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC WORK. That's what I said earlier. The science is sound. And I don't have time to get into discussing the probable consequences of global warming because of the constant attacks on the science of the underlying premise that the earth is warming.

[maure 1]

Fun, fun, fun.

[maure 1]

Contradiction man first posts:

I find your claim that you have read a LOT and that you are qualified to make these claims offensive.

Then he posts:

I didn't even say you are wrong in your claims, but if you can't be bothered backing them up, they're meaningless.

Because contradiction man can call your claims "offensive" and "meaningless" without being "offensive" and "meaningless" himself.

And, yes, contradiction man can do either and both, whichever, without providing the 5-10 "sources" he demands from you...

[maure 1]

And it is still completely ridiculous how anyone can pick out that one claim to attack all [my] science...

Something that contradiction man has never done... hilarious.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

There is 'no intelligence on the subject' just intelligence per se and I did not say you are not an intelligent person - go back and read what I wrote if you don't believe me. Quite the opposite - it is because I think you are an intelligent person that I would expect better than that post from you. You don't see me asking maure to come back with a reasoned post for example, because I have no such expectation from him, I could deal with a person like maure in real life where they can't run away and I can probe away for some sign of humanity, but not online because it's too easy to escape. I expect better from you than from AleHop, who gives global warming the same importance that he gives to proving to everyone how good De La Rosa is because he is Spanish. I stand by my point, however caustically made. This isn't a debate about who drives a car around in circles faster, it is way way more important. And as an intelligent person, and someone I have respect for, I expect a more reasoned response from you. And I will call you out on that. I didn't even say you are wrong in your claims, but if you can't be bothered backing them up, they're meaningless.

PS: Please read what I wrote in isolation - if you are going to pay attention to whatever others in the thread are saying to inflame things then I am wasting my time.

Oh, classic Cav. Those four comments emboldened above say it all really. Is this a personal mission to insult each TF1 member in turn??? Way to go!!!

Stop being so bloody patronising. You expect better from people?!!! WTF???

And yes please ignore me, Piotr and Maure because we are just numpties, below you who inconveniently annoy you with these discussions......

[maure 1]

And yes please ignore me, Piotr and Maure because we are just numpties, below you who inconveniently annoy you with these discussions......

This part of your post is evil so I'm encouraged to contribute.

Unfortunately, is the worst conceivable form of insult to Cav, namely, _it_is_not_about_you_Cav_.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Ok I'll concede the point. It's not a discussion I am very interested in at the moment. Yes the IPCC screwed up big. Yes, the head of the IPCC is a petulant idiot, if anything I would think any 'pro-GW' scientist would be more p**sed than the antis to have him as their mouthpiece. And it is still completely ridiculous how anyone can pick out that one claim to attack all science that has been done that supports global warming. As I said before, peer reviewed work won't get away with the 2035 claim - that is why IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC WORK. That's what I said earlier. The science is sound. And I don't have time to get into discussing the probable consequences of global warming because of the constant attacks on the science of the underlying premise that the earth is warming.

And why are you not interested?

Isn't the fact that one whole chapter is clearly based on hearsay and breaks all their rules on peer-review significant? Isn't it also significant that the Chairman of the IPCC has been using this very flaky research to justify millions of grant; oh and by the way the person who compiled it admitted he knows nothing about glaciers, has never been there, works for the Chairman and benefitted from the grants.....

I would say that is significant, especially given that this is supposed to be the peer-reviewed consensus review pulled together by the scientific community. Its either laziness or they are trying to stack the deck in their favour (or both). If the science is that strong it doesn't need that and to me demonstrates a more alarmist approach to reporting and a lack of rigour and balance. That, is significant esp. as the IPCC report is supposed to demonstrate the state of play and is being used as a call to action.

As for the science being sound - well you and I will have to disagree on that. I've already set a challenge around the impacts of GW that, to date no-one on this forum has responded to.

As for the underlying science - too many unanswered questions:

- Yamal data - cherry picking of data to fit desired conclusion

- Hockey stick - fiddled results mixing real and modelled data

- Source data questionable from many weather stations with "guessing" to fill gaps and urban heat island effect affecting readings

- Huge margins of error on impacts e.g. range of sea-level rise huge depending on who is looking at it

- NOAA/NASA tweaking of data - why if tweaking is being made to correct data for accuracy is there an overall increase of 0.5 degree when it should balance out to 0?

- Inaccurate claims e.g. Himalayan glaciers disappearing, increase in hurricane activity...

- Evidence of malpractice with data (CRU) - hiding, tweaking, destroying data; suppressing opposition

- What about the observed cooling in recent years not fitting models?

And so the list goes on...

Doesn't sound much like "good" science to me

[cavallino 2]

Oh, classic Cav. Those four comments emboldened above say it all really. Is this a personal mission to insult each TF1 member in turn??? Way to go!!!

Stop being so bloody patronising. You expect better from people?!!! WTF???

And yes please ignore me, Piotr and Maure because we are just numpties, below you who inconveniently annoy you with these discussions......

Respond to what I address to you instead of butting into my conversations with others. You actually want to judge me fairly, then look up the history I have with each of the people you mention. Otherwise, address my opinions, and what I address directly to you. Why do you have a preponderance to butt into other people's arguments? Steph has an issue with me, she will deal with it as she pleases - it's none of your damn business. maure I have dealt with, by deciding not to reply. Piotr I communicate with based on the post - when he makes a reasoned post I make a reasoned response. When he tells me he hates all Germans because of what happened before he or the person he is spewing hatred at was born, I call a spade a spade. And I will call a spade. He made an excellent post recently which I made the effort to reply to. I don't look at the poster name most of the time, I have avatars pictures signatures etc turned off anyway. It's not personal. I may be rude, abrasive, but I am honest. And I admit and apologise if I make a mistake, more than most people here bother. So get off your pedestal.

[maure 1]

I would venture, dear Grab, that what you posted does sound "sound" to any healthy mind and not just you.

But I just read in the Reg (or somewhere) that in approximately 20 or 30 years life extension and rejuvenation techniques will become widely available. Interestingly, the "approximately" is based on insufficient funds. That is, if sufficient funds were invested in this venture, it could be less time. Hmmm.... go blond and only eat sea kittens.

How much have the GW lobby scored to get their bad science in our face? Millions? Billions? Ok, it's the rule of capitalism, namely, only a few of the top guys have pocketed the big bucks and temporary kudos.

Note: Please bear in mind that any refusal or questioning of my posts must be accompanied by 5-10 "sources". On the meaning of "sources" ask Cavallino... or, alternatively, consider a "source" something that would make Cavallino happy. In other words, ask Cavallino and wait until the glaciers melt.... his happiness is far second to his woebegone ego.

[maure 1]

It's not personal.

False. It's all about you.

I may be rude, abrasive,...

... and modest.

...but I am honest.

False as well as hilarious.

And I admit and apologise if I make a mistake...

In your dreams... or rather those dreams not about you.

So get off your pedestal.

Because it's yours?

[maure 1]

maure I have dealt with, by deciding not to reply.

You mean you cowarded after I posted again on your infantile double standards and that the proof lies on you. Still, fearing me is only natural for the likes of you. You are my pray and I am your worst nightmare.

But that's alright. I'm having more fun now than before. And, besides, that you are afraid to respond does not mean that you don't read what I post... Might I suggest you ban me all together? Would this be in conflict with your need for attention?

I, for one, say "go ahead and post, delicate flower". Man, you are funny (to me and at your expense) and a perfect excuse to procrastinate on matters of more relevance.

With love (ok, not love but laughter), yours dearly (ok, neither yours nor dearly), Maure (ok, me).

[Kopite Girl 0]

Cav,

I don't have an issue with you. I happen to think that you're fully capable of being a genuine nice bloke. I won't make assumptions on your personality based on what goes on here. But if you want the honest truth, you can be a total twat at times.

If you remember when I first joined, you and I clashed. Big time. Well I think you know me well enough to realise that I'll take your view into consideration, and I actually think your bluntness is a quality. Its who you are. I'm the same and have been accused of arrogance a million times before.

Just expect it back. You can't get any fairer. Chris has said his piece, after all - I'm sure somewhere in life when you've seen the need you've defended your friends.

I have a question to you directly about this topic. Why have no satellites recorded a temperature change? I'm not trying to disprove GW, as said earlier - just merely trying to get the facts, which to me points toward no GW at the moment.

Convince me of your argument and I will return the favour with a detailed and accurate view of what I think.

Cheers mate

Steph

[Medilloni 6]

A general thinks about Global Warming, or Climate Change [AKA, you can't beat a good old change of title to make sure whatever you say is right? I'm beginning to think so.]

As a scientific numpty, the IPCC tells me: (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm)

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports

My bold. And the last bold is simply not true. The first bold.... how could they possibly use the glacier info in the first place, it goes against their statement? I can't trust a so called responsible scientific body if they are so incompetent.

On to the WWF. This in an activist organisation ffs, yet there are loads of references to them in their 2007 Nobel winning report - imo this is fundamentaly wrong - am I expected to pay towards a brighter future with influence from these twats? I don't think so. And Greenpaeace? wtf are they doing in there?...... As a 'scientific body' they've lost in the credibility stakes.

Also. Whether a person is educated or not (in others opinion) to comment on this, it's what we call freedom of speach. A scientist that won't understand they have something to sell is a bad scientist - without communicating intelligently to the masses, they will always appear, well, to be a 'denier'

There was more but work calls....

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Respond to what I address to you instead of butting into my conversations with others. You actually want to judge me fairly, then look up the history I have with each of the people you mention. Otherwise, address my opinions, and what I address directly to you. Why do you have a preponderance to butt into other people's arguments? Steph has an issue with me, she will deal with it as she pleases - it's none of your damn business. maure I have dealt with, by deciding not to reply. Piotr I communicate with based on the post - when he makes a reasoned post I make a reasoned response. When he tells me he hates all Germans because of what happened before he or the person he is spewing hatred at was born, I call a spade a spade. And I will call a spade. He made an excellent post recently which I made the effort to reply to. I don't look at the poster name most of the time, I have avatars pictures signatures etc turned off anyway. It's not personal. I may be rude, abrasive, but I am honest. And I admit and apologise if I make a mistake, more than most people here bother. So get off your pedestal.

Not interested in your history. Can I remind you its a public forum! Butting into your conversations???? I'm sorry Cav I did not realise you owned the Internet! I'll ask your permission before I use it next time? OK?

If you don't want people "butting in" suggest you send them e-mails, eh?

As Steph points out, she happens to be one of my friends and I didn't like your condescending manner to her or others one bit. Now being highly intelligent (which she is), Steph's more than capable of looking after herself. But still I have a right to say "Oy - out of order!" which you were. Freedom of Speech and all that - if I damn well want to reply I damn well will, so on your bike! You may see it as "being on a pedestal", I see it as having basic manners and respect.

Anyway back to the thread topic.

You want science, you want to talk more detail - OK

1) I refer you back to my posts around the issues of the IPCC-stated consequences of GW - thermogeddon and all that. 4 or 5 times I have asked you to engage on these, debate them from a scientific perspective. I am prepared to go all the way, back my points with science and references (I have done my research). So, come on, if you want to talk science, bring it on. Take each one and deconstruct my argument, which is that generally speaking all of IPCC's stated "consequences" with GW are not as horrific as they make out and that the worst that could happen is a mild sea-rise over 5 generations. Rebut please oh science man, if you can.

2) Comment please on the situation outlined in my last post re IPCC's lack of rigour. As a scientist, you should be appalled by the sloppiness of their report. Debate.

[cavallino 2]

Not interested in your history.

Then you are disingenuous and dishonest, don't pretend your motives are pure since you have no interest in knowing my side of the story, why I talk to people the way I do.

As Steph points out, she happens to be one of my friends and I didn't like your condescending manner to her or others one bit. Now being highly intelligent (which she is), Steph's more than capable of looking after herself. But still I have a right to say "Oy - out of order!" which you were. Freedom of Speech and all that - if I damn well want to reply I damn well will, so on your bike! You may see it as "being on a pedestal", I see it as having basic manners and respect.

A - She can look after herself, it's not like I am bullying a 14 year old who just discovered the internet and B - I did not personally insult her, I didn't call her names (a courtesy she doesn't extend to me, nor do I see you leaping in my defence there, apparently only certain people here deserve your protective chivalry) - I called her out on what I still maintain wasn't the best of posts.

So apparently your interest in basic manners and respect doesn't extend to when people direct abuse at me? And don't say 'you started it', you have no idea.

And you have nothing to say about what anyone might say to insult me, apparently you only jump in to defend people who agree with you on issues - you have no comment on what anyone's saying to me on the last page? So don't pretend you're some knight in shining armour, and no I am not going to indulge you and your attempts to set up a lynch mob. I was the only one left replying, congrats, you guys have the thread to yourself, have a love in.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Aw mate. I didn't call you a name. I said you can be. As I can.

Come on. Lets be fair and not step back ten years. We're not kids. I didn't flip out and my first reply was pure tongue-in-cheek. I'm a Cheeky bitch, I love the banter, you should know me by now. Come on. Be fair.