The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[Cowabunga]

Presumably the flowers and trees that are coming into bloom weeks earlier in the spring than they used to, and the grass that has extended its growing season have read all the fraudulent data, and jumped the gun. If only they had paid attention to the true and unadulterated readings , they would still be blooming as late as they used to.
Perhaps they have an agenda too, or are applying for funds. Shheeeech.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ng-season-uk-one-month-longer-1990-met-office

We have early seasons and we have late seasons. No doubt if we have a late season next year [or even this year, the 1947 snow didn't manifest until March iirc] you will claim that it is down to 'regional weather variability' or 'extreme weather events' caused by climate change.

 

[bovrill]

Seasons are without a doubt later here than they were 20 years ago. I was cutting first cut silage in April in the mid 90s, and harvest regularly was well underway in July. You could often add a month to that in recent years. At the time there was lots of talk of how global warming was advancing the seasons, but they're definitely retarded now!

 

[linga]

But it has of course. It has obliterated the generally accepted [by previous generations] cooling period from the 1930's to the late 1970's and replaced it with a warming trend that was never there in the raw data or any interpretation of it until relatively recently.

I can make up all kinds of excuses for changing my raw data for the taxman or the farm assurance or for the bank or for the advancement or promotion of my business, but at the end of the day it is still 'tampering' at best and 'fraud' at worse. The justification for changing data, including the conclusions made from that data, to match the conclusion that some elements 'want', is no less dodgy.

The data hasn't been changed it's been corrected.
Raw data has to have corrections applied

 

[turbo]

The data hasn't been changed it's been corrected.
Raw data has to have corrections applied

Yes to make it fit with what you want it to say

 

[Dave645]

Yes to make it fit with what you want it to say

This is exactly what, the people that are denying that climate change exists, they want to create doubt, they claim it's changed to meet an agenda the scientist say it's to correct for recordings methods or time of day, enviormental changes....the net result has little or no net effect on the globle mean but they seed doubt that climate change even exists....
If anyone has an agenda it's the people calling out the data changes even when they know there is most likely a genuine reason to do so.

I personaly think you don't need the temperature data to see the effects, or the under lying trend.
I do think the suns activity effects earths temperatures but the trend is still up. In the low activity times the sun has the Earth fails to cool as much as needed to balance the increased activity times, despite them being in balance. As in we see as much high activity as low.

 

[Osca]

The data hasn't been changed it's been corrected.
Raw data has to have corrections applied

Data is data. It isn't up for discussion - it is just what has been recorded, so it should not be changed.

In using data, of course you are going to balance this and allow for that - but these adjustments should be transparent - altering or ignoring the underlying collected factual information and using adjusted and estimated figures as if they were original data is - just as Cowbunga says - tampering at best, fraud at worst. And I think it has happened in this case.

 

[Cowmangav]

We have early seasons and we have late seasons. No doubt if we have a late season next year [or even this year, the 1947 snow didn't manifest until March iirc] you will claim that it is down to 'regional weather variability' or 'extreme weather events' caused by climate change.

Nah.
Those are Met Office figures averaged across many seasons, and compared to a 30 year base.

In the USA the growing season has extended by 2 weeks in the time of a single human generation.

 

[Cowmangav]

Listening to the World Service through last night, they were discussing several , record low areas of Arctic ice that have occurred in the present winter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sb8c6

 

[Old McDonald]

But it has of course. It has obliterated the generally accepted [by previous generations] cooling period from the 1930's to the late 1970's and replaced it with a warming trend that was never there in the raw data or any interpretation of it until relatively recently.

Why do you say that? I have posted links that showthe original data, that you are wrong and that it is still available. What do you want to see that is not still available?

 

[banjo]

Good old fashioned data

 

[banjo]

Some need a trip back to school regarding how heat works when heating up other objects, it's a science basic. this university professor explains it all and how his first hard experience in his field was when he was asked to define the temp of a planet. I know many won't listen, but I have, as I listen to all the vids I put up. Simple science shows the scam!
Some disregard science basics, I don't.

 

[Cowmangav]

Good old fashioned data

Hmmm. Good old fashioned dung more like.
2013 video, and he says warming ended in 1998.
2014,2015, and 2016 were all record warm years.

He says global warming causes CO2 rises, and not the other way round.He says global warming stopped in 1998. He agrees CO levels are continuing to rise . We know they have now exceeded 400 ppm at times. The graph of CO2 levels is a very consistent upward slope, with the annual seasonal fluctuations imposed on it. There don't seem to have been any reversals , that might match the actual temperature fluctuations.

 

[Directdebit]

For me there is no argument about climate change,it's real but,it's a natural cycle not man made like they would have us believe.
Just a way for the elites to make more money off the working class.

 

[Cowabunga]

For me there is no argument about climate change,it's real but,it's a natural cycle not man made like they would have us believe.
Just a way for the elites to make more money off the working class.

But how do you know that? How can you possibly say "there is no argument" ? Of course there patently is argument about nearly all aspects of it.

 

[Dave645]

Some need a trip back to school regarding how heat works when heating up other objects, it's a science basic. this university professor explains it all and how his first hard experience in his field was when he was asked to define the temp of a planet. I know many won't listen, but I have, as I listen to all the vids I put up. Simple science shows the scam!
Some disregard science basics, I don't.

Some are not so self deluding that they think they have all the answers, I cannot say I have watched it all as it's not a good watch it's hard to here the questions, my summing up of him comes from very near the end where he is asked about renewables, it speaks volumes about his personal stance and agenda. He even disbelieved in acid rain and the fact coal fired power stations should have had to control there emissions.....he thinks that was just a waste of money, for a scientist he has some very one sided views.....he sees no benefit in protecting our environment, or making changes away from fossil fuels.
I can see why you like him, and why I don't.
I think we have to change and there is no one single reason why we need to do that, we have climate change we can all see temperatures are rising. We have different beliefs over if it will self correct or not , but please bear in mind we are already trying to correct things we are actively trying to reduce our co2 emissions, hopefully we will start to see some effect from that. Next is we need to ween off fossil fuels at some point we will run out or they will get so expensive we just cannot afford them, any reduction in our use will extend there availability, so it's all good, if we reduce our use by 10% it will extend there life.
So doing what's best for us also does what's best for the planet.
It's win win. If you don't know what that is, it's to reduce our fossil fuels use, it makes no difference if you belive that co2 is effecting a change or not, there are other reasons to stop relying on them. Apart from there pollution, and co2 emmisions. Who wouldn't want to live in a pollution free world.
So where you belive in it's natural global warming or not we still need to let the third world use coal, that means we need to double down to offset it, even if it's just for pollution not co2. I personaly think it's complacent to do nothing when we truly have no way of telling where the trend for climate change is going to fully stop, once it's clear it has, we can sit back and relax, but until then, we should not be. I would rather walk down the road at a steady pace than have to sprint to catch up. If your wrong and we have done nothing to stop mans co2 effecting global temperatures, and we see the warming trend pass your 60 year cycle then even you will start to panic. The next 10 years are going to be interesting. If 1998 was the peak then we are 19 years down the 60 years cycle (60 years peak to peak) which is well down from the peak we you should have seen some fall off by now if it was just that at play. I don't think just one thing explains our climate. But another 10 years will see us in your predicted low before we start to ramping back up again so if you don't get a noticeable drop in temperatures in the next 10 years, and I mean drop as it has to offset the peak coming, if your right. Then you need to start believing that we are seeing a non natural trend....

 

[banjo]

Professor Dennis was one of the people who investigated acid rain, they all concluded that the amount couldn't be measured and it was false, that's why we hear no more about it.
Regarding acid in the sea, he also investigated sea animals dying in a lake in Japan due to ( acidic water ) the conclusion was there had been a huge storm that stirred up the sediment on the lake bed and alowed settled chemicals to swirl I into the water, thus killing the animals, not acid rain!

His first bit about basic measurement of the earths temp is the key, it's the first law of radiation, the heating object will heat the other until they meet an equilibrium and stay at that temp as long as it stays the same temp ( the sun ) or until the heating object cools or the heated object gets too hot, basic stuff.
Now we all agree that the sun is hotter than earth, so that is the source of the problem, because the earth isn't hotter than the sun!
Ps, I stand by my thinking regarding the cooling and it will cool for the next few decades.

 

[Directdebit]

But how do you know that? How can you possibly say "there is no argument" ? Of course there patently is argument about nearly all aspects of it.

Well because millions of years ago the earth was full of dinosaurs,they are bigger than cows so must of produced more co2 and methane!

 

[Cowmangav]

The academic in the first video says that the sea is warming , and releasing its CO2 to the atmosphere.
AAAAArrrgghhhh. We know how much carbon we are burning a year , and if all that stayed in the atmosphere, we would by now be at 550-600 ppm CO2. Instead because the earth is 70% by surface area , ocean, about half the CO2 is being absorbed by the sea ( for the time being). So 30-50% of our carbon emissions are going into the sea, not coming out of the ocean into our atmosphere as he claims. Perverse.

 

[Cowabunga]

Professor Dennis was one of the people who investigated acid rain, they all concluded that the amount couldn't be measured and it was false, that's why we hear no more about it.
Regarding acid in the sea, he also investigated sea animals dying in a lake in Japan due to ( acidic water ) the conclusion was there had been a huge storm that stirred up the sediment on the lake bed and alowed settled chemicals to swirl I into the water, thus killing the animals, not acid rain!

His first bit about basic measurement of the earths temp is the key, it's the first law of radiation, the heating object will heat the other until they meet an equilibrium and stay at that temp as long as it stays the same temp ( the sun ) or until the heating object cools or the heated object gets too hot, basic stuff.
Now we all agree that the sun is hotter than earth, so that is the source of the problem, because the earth isn't hotter than the sun!
Ps, I stand by my thinking regarding the cooling and it will cool for the next few decades.

Acid rain was a very real issue until near the end of last Century. The compulsory introduction of ultra low sulphur fuel almost eliminated it as an issue at a stroke.

Not sure how you are so sure that the earth will cool for the next few decades, notwithstanding your previous explanations. We shall see. Hope it doesn't cool too much or we shall have something to really whinge about.

Well because millions of years ago the earth was full of dinosaurs,they are bigger than cows so must of produced more co2 and methane!

Don't you think that there were probably a heck of a lot less of them and that plants and trees were far bigger and more resplendent, hence the coal and oil deposits that actually locked the high carbon dioxide levels in to carbon deposits which we now burn?
It certainly looks like life of all kinds developed rapidly and plants grew especially well during those high CO2 periods.

 

[banjo]

I will put this up again just to show you all what your arguing about, short vid, it's ridiculous say such a small amount is going to efect anything,