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

Ps, I stand by my thinking regarding the cooling and it will cool for the next few decades.

Now you have put yourself in a spot. I expect you to ignore the question, but, when was the last peak in your mythical 60 years cycle?

If there was such a thing there is a maximum cooling period of 3 decades. I have previously posted the same as Dave 645 posted at #715. You must be able to give us at least the last two peaks otherwise you accept that it is just a myth. Ignoring the question yet again convinces me that you accept the myth.

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
 

Cowmangav

Member
Location
Ayrshire
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,
Efect ? Effect is to carry out something . Presumably you mean affect.

You ought to realise that gasses consisting of molecules of similar atoms eg oxygen which is O2 and nitrogen which is N2 do not absorb heat, and make up 98% or so of the earth's atmosphere.This is presumably the reason any heat penetrates to the earth's surface.

CO2 and water vapour H2O are comprised of different atoms and do absorb and re-emit heat , so what you are claiming is that doubling the part of the atmosphere that DOES
trap heat will have no implications !!

Life is only possible on earth because heat is trapped by the atmosphere, however increasing the amount of heat trapped is bound to be disruptive, when much of the earth is too hot for comfort as it is, and ice banks appear to regulate our climate.
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
I will use David attenborough ( who's milking it aswel ) talking to a ( climate expert ?) about global warming and they are walking along a chart.

Starts from 1800 because the temps are higher if you start before that date and makes their graph look bad and false!
Goes to 1900 and it's hotter, but the actual temp 1930s was miles higher than shown ( hottest over last 100 years ) and replaced, this gave them a gradual rise instead of a decade peak there.
Then after 1990s they go nuts into dreamworld ( totally false data because the 1930s was a higher temp than the highest temp over the last decade, fact! )
That peak in the 1930s should be above the 2000s, so where has it gone? This line is supposed to be origional data, 1930s peak missing?

Then follows the second line of data that is very close to what it actualy is ( this is where the real temp is and has been) this data was modelled pretty good but didn't agree with the conclusion they wanted, so out it went!

The next line is newly modelled data, made to fit the first hockey stick fraud,
If they had used the origional temp data ( without twisting the results after 1990s) their first model ( second line ) would of been dead on because it was done off origional measured data before being tapered with!

All the temp data on the end of that hockey stick is way out and also the whole of the 1930s has been altered lower to fit what they want, not the truth!

So there you have it, this recent steep rise in temp, out of all proportion is false, made up to fool you lot who are daft enough to believe it. The first modelled data couldn't match the hockey stick because it wasn't real, it was false data to start with!
Also you ones who believe in the hockey stick theory will be sticking with the prediction of higher temps, going upward and upward, cos we are still using carbon more than ever, your predictions will rise with the hockey stick graph, mine will go down from now on ( because it's not realy that hot anyway )

 
Last edited:
but the actual temp 1930s was miles higher than shown ( hottest over last 100 years )

Then after 1990s they go nuts into dreamworld ( totally false data because the 1930s was a higher temp than the highest temp over the last decade, fact! )

You recently called me a nut job because of my requests for you to give some evidence of your ridiculous statements, so here is yet another question that you cannot answer: What do you mean by saying that the 1930s were "miles higher" and the hottest over 100 years. How do you know that if the 1930s temperatures are not available to you. I have shown on several occasions that the 1930s temperatures are all still available. I have seen quite a lot of them, have you? Have you actually read the reports in the newspapers from the 1930s?

You have to realise (no I suppose you do not, but the rest of us do) that because the 1930s also recorded some minimums that still stand (USA data) the mean temperature was not as high as the 2000s.

What does your own temperature record of the 2000s tell you?

I am still waiting (a few months now) for you to show me that sea levels have risen at 6" a century for three centuries.
 
Last edited:
Yep I've seen the papers showing the high 1930s levels, that's where the NASA scientist trawled for the origional info, showing the falsehood.

You admit then that the original data is still there, so what are you complaining about? What falsehood? I keep asking you to tell me which figures are no longer available, or which ones have been changed, but you never answer the question because nothing has been altered. I say that all those recorded by weather stations at the time are still available for you, me and anybody else who wants to view them and you keep telling me they have been altered. Now you say you have seen the originals. Make up your mind one way or the other.

What was worthy of showing in that clip that is five years old? The graphs show that temperatures have in fact risen, despite the headline, and temperatures have risen even more since then. I keep asking, what did your own thermometer tell you over the last 15 years or so? You do not have one do you? So what does your nearest weather station tell you in the same time frame? What does it tell you about temperatures in the 1930s and 1990s? You do not know, because you have not checked.

Still waiting for your answers on sea levels and the mythical 60 years cycle, or have you given up on both of those?
 

Cowmangav

Member
Location
Ayrshire
In 10 years the length of the melting season in Greenland has increased by 2 weeks. No need to adjust temperature readings, no satellite readings of ice thickness. All that's needed is a calendar.
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
I will use David attenborough ( who's milking it aswel ) talking to a ( climate expert ?) about global warming and they are walking along a chart.

Starts from 1800 because the temps are higher if you start before that date and makes their graph look bad and false!
Goes to 1900 and it's hotter, but the actual temp 1930s was miles higher than shown ( hottest over last 100 years ) and replaced, this gave them a gradual rise instead of a decade peak there.
Then after 1990s they go nuts into dreamworld ( totally false data because the 1930s was a higher temp than the highest temp over the last decade, fact! )
That peak in the 1930s should be above the 2000s, so where has it gone? This line is supposed to be origional data, 1930s peak missing?

Then follows the second line of data that is very close to what it actualy is ( this is where the real temp is and has been) this data was modelled pretty good but didn't agree with the conclusion they wanted, so out it went!

The next line is newly modelled data, made to fit the first hockey stick fraud,
If they had used the origional temp data ( without twisting the results after 1990s) their first model ( second line ) would of been dead on because it was done off origional measured data before being tapered with!

All the temp data on the end of that hockey stick is way out and also the whole of the 1930s has been altered lower to fit what they want, not the truth!

So there you have it, this recent steep rise in temp, out of all proportion is false, made up to fool you lot who are daft enough to believe it. The first modelled data couldn't match the hockey stick because it wasn't real, it was false data to start with!
Also you ones who believe in the hockey stick theory will be sticking with the prediction of higher temps, going upward and upward, cos we are still using carbon more than ever, your predictions will rise with the hockey stick graph, mine will go down from now on ( because it's not realy that hot anyway )


What do you mean out it went.
Its not gone anywhere. They show it and explain why it diverges from the first graph.

All you are saying is you believe something else so you must be right and anything that doesnt match your preconceived ideas must be "fake" data, "tampered" figures, fraud, conspiracy etc.

Sorry, but anyone who rants on about fraud etc etc doesnt know how science works or alternatively they know their case is weak and are simply trying to cast doubt on the subject.
Now if someone came along and said I believe these scientists have got it wrong and came up with substantiated evidence to support their case it might be worth listening to and whats more they would be engaged with by climate scientists.
Believe me climate researchers do not live to prove AGW they merely want to study the climate and the atmosphere and their peer reviewed papers are on the whole available to read.
 
Last edited:

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
I think this guy ( knows more than us all put together ) and he thinks it's a pseudo science. All you questions are answered here.
For old mc Donald, the top of the peak was in the 1990s and we slowly getting cooler now, I've said it all before, given you all the evidence but you obviously don't look at it. Listen to it from one of the biggest brains we have.
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
I think this guy ( knows more than us all put together ) and he thinks it's a pseudo science. All you questions are answered here.
For old mc Donald, the top of the peak was in the 1990s and we slowly getting cooler now, I've said it all before, given you all the evidence but you obviously don't look at it. Listen to it from one of the biggest brains we have.

for balance

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

I look forward to a link to his peer reviewed papers on climate.
Please read the skepticalscience link and explain why their views on Giaever are wrong and whilst you are at it perhaps you could let us know if he has received funding by the fossil fuel industry
 
Last edited:

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
http://charts.animateddata.co.uk/uktemperaturelines/

This is utterly brilliant.
it jumps three years at a time though.

1934 has an average temp of 8.9 deg C
rest of 30s cooler
1947 " 9.4
1976 only 8.8 , but it was a cold spring.
1997 through to 2009 all average above 9.0 deg

1930s hottest decade my a***e.
Nice link....And that's just one country these are only part of the data set making up the global mean.
 
I think this guy ( knows more than us all put together ) and he thinks it's a pseudo science. All you questions are answered here.
For old mc Donald, the top of the peak was in the 1990s and we slowly getting cooler now, I've said it all before, given you all the evidence but you obviously don't look at it. Listen to it from one of the biggest brains we have.

No, he cannot know more than all of us put together. To be able to do that he needs a brain holding more knowledge than all of us put together. Who paid him to give the talk? How much?

His opening remarks that he is "not really terribly interested", "don't think about (global warming)" and spent "maybe half a day on Google" to learn about it, certainly showed throughout his talk. Climatology is not pseudo-science it is real science.

You say the peak temperature was in the late 1990s. I accept that, but we are most certainly not getting cooler now. I have asked many times before - find just one weather station that shows a reduction in temperatures year by year over the last 20 years. I am almost certain you cannot. We should be two-thirds of the way to the bottom of the trough according to your pseudo-science of a 60 years' cycle. How do you form the opinion that temperatures are falling? You must have some data that convinced you that this is so.

I have spent more hours than I should watching almost all of your video links, and nothing in any of them shows a reduction in temperatures over the last 20 years. They do not show a reduction because there is no data to show a reduction. I may not watch any more because I have found too many have no bearing on what is likely to happen. Most of them are several years old, and therefore outdated by more recent temperature records.

I know many posters will be somewhat fed up of me keep saying this, but anybody (from committed warmist to committed denier) with the slightest interest in temperatures, climate change, global warming, and, more importantly, their farming future, should have at the very least a max/min thermometer. Why are all you deniers so afraid to take your own daily measurements? I am yet to see anyone claim they have kept records for a few years and by their records demonstrate that temperatures are falling. There is a reason for this. Nobody is going to cheat of course, because there are weather stations not too far away from anybody in the UK. There is one 5kms from me, at least one more in Castelo Branco, and I think two if there is one at the ag college. They would be between 15 and 20kms away. I have not tried to access their records, but I am sure they are available.
 

Cowmangav

Member
Location
Ayrshire
I think this guy ( knows more than us all put together ) and he thinks it's a pseudo science. All you questions are answered here.
For old mc Donald, the top of the peak was in the 1990s and we slowly getting cooler now, I've said it all before, given you all the evidence but you obviously don't look at it. Listen to it from one of the biggest brains we have.
He quotes the coldest and warmest years in Greenland at five locations . Unfortunately since then two of the places he quotes had their warmest summers ever in 2016 , and Nuuk had its second warmest summer ever. I don't think things have stabilised.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 78 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.6%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.5%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 5 2.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top