|
Met office lies
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/
January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative… “Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero. Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the bunker with their hands high and “fess up”. Patronisingly fobbing off the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them. Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to explain Britain’s Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing since 1951? The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal, part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government, state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens. 2010 should be the year when all that ends. It is time for Zero Tolerance of AGW fraudsters and their political masters. It is time to say: Green taxes? We won’t pay them. Nor will we vote for or permit to remain in office any politician or party that supports the AGW fraud. This year is one of those rare occasions when we have an opportunity to punish and control our political masters – provided Britons have the will to break with the two-party system. Due to the rise of smaller parties – itself the consequence of the misgovernment of the Lab/Lib/Con consensus – it is a buyer’s market. The rule of thumb should be: any party that supports the global warming scam is ineligible for our votes. It doesn’t matter how ingrained one’s loyalty may once have been to one of the “major” parties, the time has come to impose the popular will on politicians who have learned, since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, that by forming an anti-democratic consensus they can dictate to the public. The coming general election is going to be an intelligence test. If people realise that voting for the slightly less objectionable choice gets them nowhere, that by holding out for what they really want they can actually obtain it, then we may be able to liberate ourselves from the tree-hugging New/Blue Labour consensus. If we fail to rise to that challenge we shall forfeit the right to complain about five more years of PC oppression. That is the answer: Zero Tolerance of “Green” agendas. |
Met office lies
Dead Paul wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/ January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative… “Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero. Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the bunker with their hands high and “fess up”. Patronisingly fobbing off the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them. Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to explain Britain’s Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing since 1951? The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal, part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government, state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens. 2010 should be the year when all that ends. It is time for Zero Tolerance of AGW fraudsters and their political masters. It is time to say: Green taxes? We won’t pay them. Nor will we vote for or permit to remain in office any politician or party that supports the AGW fraud. This year is one of those rare occasions when we have an opportunity to punish and control our political masters – provided Britons have the will to break with the two-party system. Due to the rise of smaller parties – itself the consequence of the misgovernment of the Lab/Lib/Con consensus – it is a buyer’s market. The rule of thumb should be: any party that supports the global warming scam is ineligible for our votes. It doesn’t matter how ingrained one’s loyalty may once have been to one of the “major” parties, the time has come to impose the popular will on politicians who have learned, since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, that by forming an anti-democratic consensus they can dictate to the public. The coming general election is going to be an intelligence test. If people realise that voting for the slightly less objectionable choice gets them nowhere, that by holding out for what they really want they can actually obtain it, then we may be able to liberate ourselves from the tree-hugging New/Blue Labour consensus. If we fail to rise to that challenge we shall forfeit the right to complain about five more years of PC oppression. That is the answer: Zero Tolerance of “Green” agendas. Very refreshing to finally read this in the mainstream media. |
Met office lies
"Dead Paul" wrote in message ... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/ January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative… “Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero. BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) Here's sobering link to the plight of Peruvian Indians - who are suffering badly from increasingly long and bitter winters. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...rs-winter-cold The suffering of their children is airily ascribed to the Indian's own 'micro climate', which has produced freezing temperatures in a rapidly warming world. I can foresee 'microclimate' becoming the explanation of choice when the Warmist's are confronted by growing evidence that things are getting colder, not hotter. This snow, for example, is just down to the UK's microclimate..... |
Met office lies
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:25:37 +0000, Dead Paul wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/ January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative… “Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. Meh, all this does is reaffirm the old saying that Britain has weather, not climate. |
Met office lies
Dead Paul wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/ Fred wrote: Very refreshing to finally read this in the mainstream media. Yeah, that's about what I would expect from "the mainstream media", and the Telegraph in particular: don't know the difference between climate and weather. |
Met office lies
On 8 Jan, 02:16, abelard wrote:
here's my own background page on the dendroclimatology....http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php but i'll just work to understand enough to be able to assess the * * *factor analysis... Once again a valueless link I'm afraid. Messy, almost unreadable page which contains no reference to source. whatever it is, it ain't science. Don't give up the day job! |
Met office lies
On 7 Jan, 21:55, Fred wrote:
Dead Paul wrote: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...6/climate-scie... January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative Climate science is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the exceptionally mild winter that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero. Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the bunker with their hands high and fess up. Patronisingly fobbing off the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them. Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to explain Britains Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of 25C? Is it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing since 1951? The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal, part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government, state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens. 2010 should be the year when all that ends. It is time for Zero Tolerance of AGW fraudsters and their political masters. It is time to say: Green taxes? We wont pay them. Nor will we vote for or permit to remain in office any politician or party that supports the AGW fraud. This year is one of those rare occasions when we have an opportunity to punish and control our political masters provided Britons have the will to break with the two-party system. Due to the rise of smaller parties itself the consequence of the misgovernment of the Lab/Lib/Con consensus it is a buyers market.. The rule of thumb should be: any party that supports the global warming scam is ineligible for our votes. It doesnt matter how ingrained ones loyalty may once have been to one of the major parties, the time has come to impose the popular will on politicians who have learned, since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, that by forming an anti-democratic consensus they can dictate to the public. The coming general election is going to be an intelligence test. If people realise that voting for the slightly less objectionable choice gets them nowhere, that by holding out for what they really want they can actually obtain it, then we may be able to liberate ourselves from the tree-hugging New/Blue Labour consensus. If we fail to rise to that challenge we shall forfeit the right to complain about five more years of PC oppression. That is the answer: Zero Tolerance of Green agendas. Very refreshing to finally read this in the mainstream media. Yes you can carry on with your polluting now with a clear conscience, until the next warm spell. BTW, check this out, particularly the maps. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm Doug. |
Met office lies
abelard wrote: i'm not greatly interested in 'weather'.... and it's running me into stuff like the amo i've just put this by to read 'soon' :- http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...nddrought.html That relates to weather effects as the oscillation frequency is too high for 30-year climate effects. "Arctic Oscillation Sometimes called the northern hemisphere annular mode, this is the year-to-year variability pf weather patterns at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere" "The two phases of the Arctic Oscillation: Left– Warm Phase; Right– Cold Phase. Notice that storms come ashore in Europe at different latitudes in the two phases. This strongly influences European weather, especially in winter. " (Graph): The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is related to weather over north America "Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest." The word 'climate' desn't appear 'til near the end, and then it's in an oblique reference to something else. here's my own background page on the dendroclimatology.... http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php but i'll just work to understand enough to be able to assess the factor analysis... One shudders to think what primary colours it might be written in. -- from Kim Bolton |
Met office lies
On 8 Jan, 09:08, Kim Bolton wrote:
abelard wrote: i'm not greatly interested in 'weather'.... and it's running me into stuff like the amo i've just put this by to read 'soon' :- http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...oceananddrough... That relates to weather effects as the oscillation frequency is too high for 30-year climate effects. "Arctic Oscillation Sometimes called the northern hemisphere annular mode, this is the year-to-year variability pf weather patterns at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere" "The two phases of the Arctic Oscillation: Left Warm Phase; Right Cold Phase. Notice that storms come ashore in Europe at different latitudes in the two phases. This strongly influences European weather, especially in winter. " (Graph): The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is related to weather over north America "Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest." The word 'climate' desn't appear 'til near the end, and then it's in an oblique reference to something else. here's my own background page on the dendroclimatology.... http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php but i'll just work to understand enough to be able to assess the * * factor analysis... One shudders to think what primary colours it might be written in. -- from Kim Bolton Did anybody see this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8443687.stm "John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter. Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's." Oh how he wriggles.... |
Met office lies
Dead Paul wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/ January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative… “Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero. Another drooling right wing nut who cannot tell the difference between weather and climate spouting off in the Torygraph. I guess the Telegraph knows their target market of senile halfwits only too well. The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern. Global warming means the *global* average gets higher. It does not mean that everywhere gets slightly warmer by the same amount. We could very well be losers. UK climate is abnormally warm for its high latitude. Were it not for the UK maritime influence on climate Birmingham and Manchester would expect to have weather like Edmonton in Canada which is at a roughly similar latitude. And that is basically what we end up with when the wind blows directly off the cold NE continental land mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton Most gardeners are already well aware of climate change, at least if they keep records of when things come into flower. Regards, Martin Brown |
Met office lies
"broadssailor" wrote in message ... On 8 Jan, 09:08, Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: i'm not greatly interested in 'weather'.... and it's running me into stuff like the amo i've just put this by to read 'soon' :- http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...oceananddrough... That relates to weather effects as the oscillation frequency is too high for 30-year climate effects. "Arctic Oscillation Sometimes called the northern hemisphere annular mode, this is the year-to-year variability pf weather patterns at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere" "The two phases of the Arctic Oscillation: Left Warm Phase; Right Cold Phase. Notice that storms come ashore in Europe at different latitudes in the two phases. This strongly influences European weather, especially in winter. " (Graph): The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is related to weather over north America "Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest." The word 'climate' desn't appear 'til near the end, and then it's in an oblique reference to something else. here's my own background page on the dendroclimatology.... http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php but i'll just work to understand enough to be able to assess the factor analysis... One shudders to think what primary colours it might be written in. -- from Kim Bolton Did anybody see this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8443687.stm "John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter. Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's." That would be the same prime minister who as chancellor, told us that the current bust couldn't happen because he was so shit hot, and told us as PM that we were better placed to recover from it when it happened, and that we would come out of recession before other countries, again because he was so wonderful, yes? Steve |
Met office lies
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 02:14:45 -0800 (PST), broadssailor wrote:
On 8 Jan, 09:08, Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: i'm not greatly interested in 'weather'.... and it's running me into stuff like the amo i've just put this by to read 'soon' :- http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...oceananddrough... That relates to weather effects as the oscillation frequency is too high for 30-year climate effects. "Arctic Oscillation Sometimes called the northern hemisphere annular mode, this is the year-to-year variability pf weather patterns at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere" "The two phases of the Arctic Oscillation: Left– Warm Phase; Right– Cold Phase. Notice that storms come ashore in Europe at different latitudes in the two phases. This strongly influences European weather, especially in winter. " (Graph): The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is related to weather over north America "Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest." The word 'climate' desn't appear 'til near the end, and then it's in an oblique reference to something else. here's my own background page on the dendroclimatology.... http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php but i'll just work to understand enough to be able to assess the * * factor analysis... One shudders to think what primary colours it might be written in. -- from Kim Bolton Did anybody see this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8443687.stm "John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter. Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's." Oh how he wriggles.... Hardly surprising: he's merely a manager, not a forecaster. I would expect his bonus was paid after he met (or exceeded) soem management targets, such as cost savings, delivering some major projects or the like. Not how good his employees were at guessing what sort of weather we were going to get - everyone knows that any forecast for more than 3 days ahead is pretty close to random chance, and always will be. This sounds like a cheap shot. |
Met office lies
On Jan 8, 11:14*am, broadssailor wrote:
On 8 Jan, 09:08, Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: i'm not greatly interested in 'weather'.... and it's running me into stuff like the amo i've just put this by to read 'soon' :- http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...oceananddrough.... That relates to weather effects as the oscillation frequency is too high for 30-year climate effects. "Arctic Oscillation Sometimes called the northern hemisphere annular mode, this is the year-to-year variability pf weather patterns at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere" "The two phases of the Arctic Oscillation: Left Warm Phase; Right Cold Phase. Notice that storms come ashore in Europe at different latitudes in the two phases. This strongly influences European weather, especially in winter. " (Graph): The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is related to weather over north America "Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest." The word 'climate' desn't appear 'til near the end, and then it's in an oblique reference to something else. here's my own background page on the dendroclimatology.... http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php but i'll just work to understand enough to be able to assess the * * factor analysis... One shudders to think what primary colours it might be written in. -- from Kim Bolton Did anybody see this?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8443687.stm "John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter. Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's." Oh how he wriggles.... You can see how dry his throat was. :-) |
Met office lies
"broadssailor" wrote in message ... Did anybody see this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8443687.stm Yes I did. "John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter. Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's." Oh how he wriggles.... ....and made himself look a right pratt!!! -- -- https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/ |
Met office lies
"pete" wrote in message ... Hardly surprising: he's merely a manager, not a forecaster. I would expect his bonus was paid after he met (or exceeded) soem management targets, such as cost savings, delivering some major projects or the like. Not how good his employees were at guessing what sort of weather we were going to get - everyone knows that any forecast for more than 3 days ahead is pretty close to random chance, and always will be. This sounds like a cheap shot. Then they ought not send in a 'mere' manager to present a forecaster's pov. -- -- https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/ |
Met office lies
On 8 Jan, 12:06, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:58:33 GMT, pete wrote: Hardly surprising: he's merely a manager, not a forecaster. I would expect his bonus was paid after he met (or exceeded) soem management targets, such as cost savings, delivering some major projects or the like. Not how good his employees were at guessing what sort of weather we were going to get - everyone knows that any forecast for more than 3 days ahead is pretty close to random chance, and always will be. This sounds like a cheap shot. 1)do you have a link to his 'qualifications? http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...t/profile.html "John Hirst is chief executive of the Met Office. Hirst spent 19 years with ICI and was chief executive of two of their global businesses. He holds a degree in economics from Leeds University." |
Met office lies
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:31:40 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote: The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern. 'the day after tomorrow' scenario. (or Saturday as it would be known as today) -- |
Met office lies
"abelard" wrote in message ... while they keep interviewing people like him, it is hardly surprising the public can't follow... It's a myth that the public can't follow. They follow perfectly well. It's all part of the game. A BBC reporter comes on the 10pm news to explain that there's a difference between climate and weather, leading listeners to imagine that some people didn't know that. It's a question of fraudulently controlling the terms of the debate. Why, I've even noticed there are people on usenet who do it too! They get the teasing they deserve, though they may not be aware it's happening. |
Met office lies
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather happenings. So weather and climate are one and the same. Strangely, the BBC guy espouting this shit won't respond to emails asking him to clarify. I'd cheerfully burn alive any of these "the planet is warming up, can I have more of my Govt grant" ****ers. |
Met office lies
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather happenings. So weather and climate are one and the same. OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast (there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down) on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue - yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on. Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not. Hopefully the point has been understood now .... |
Met office lies
Mike wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:31:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern. 'the day after tomorrow' scenario. (or Saturday as it would be known as today) -- |
Met office lies
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. I chuckled when he said this.... does the planet work on 30-year cycles? |
Met office lies
Martin Brown wrote: Dead Paul wrote: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/ January 6th, 2010 Gerald Warner: Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative… “Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero. Another drooling right wing nut who cannot tell the difference between weather and climate spouting off in the Torygraph. I guess the Telegraph knows their target market of senile halfwits only too well. The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern. Nope. What we have at the moment is called variability of the weather. You wont see anything like this again in the next 10 year. The normal weather at this latitude is cyclonic, not anticyclonic; but it happens, it has happened before. Global warming means the *global* average gets higher. It does not mean that everywhere gets slightly warmer by the same amount. We could very well be losers. UK climate is abnormally warm for its high latitude. Equally well: Low freezing temperatures does not indicate Global Warming. Were it not for the UK maritime influence on climate Birmingham and Manchester would expect to have weather like Edmonton in Canada which is at a roughly similar latitude. And that is basically what we end up with when the wind blows directly off the cold NE continental land mass. "when..." , obviously , but not forever, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton Most gardeners are already well aware of climate change, at least if they keep records of when things come into flower. This statement just contradicts something you said before... |
Met office lies
On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather happenings. So weather and climate are one and the same. OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast (there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down) on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. * Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue - yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on.. Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not. Hopefully the point has been understood now .... I think we all understand trends Pete! Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html |
Met office lies
broadssailor wrote: On 9 Jan, 01:36, abelard wrote: Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html you're being connedhttp://www.abelard.org/sums/teaching_number_arithmetic_mathematics_un... -- web site atwww.abelard.org Do you have URLs (or at least reference to a source) for all on that page? Without it, it is no more than opinion.... A week or two I asked abelard, following Copenhagen, if there was such thing published as graph showing CO2 levels on one axis, and Global Temperatures on the other. This simply must exist as it is the fundamental support for the AGW position. He replied that it's in IPCC3, and gave me a link to that document. Not the specific reference I was after, but the whole document. It later transpired that a counter-Copenhagen letter written by Monckton makes it clear that no such graph has been published by any of the AGW supporters, although Monckton then uses IPCC data to show that full implementation of Copenhagen, at a cost of trillions, will save 0.02 degC of global warming. A couple of things spring from this. Abelard does not understand what he has read, having failed to grasp that the claimed key point of IPCC3 isn't there. He is clearly unfamiliar with scientific works, or he would be aware that it is the norm to give journal, volume, date, paper title, page, and author(s) as the reference to a particular claim. He needs to do this in order to make the links to items in his badly-coloured web site accessible, as a matter of urgency. At present it is no better than saying 'I published a paper in The journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, look it up', and expecting the enquirer to do all the work. On the other had, such a slapdash procedure could be used to disguise the unusable and irrelevant that has otherwise been advanced as authoritative and analytical. At a glance, it is possible from the two graphs 'offered ' as 'evidence' on the offending page to guess with short odds at a trend line. Neither would be encouraging to a climate change alarmist. You really must revise your web pages to give them more value (REFERENCE!) ,and preferably re format to something other than the crasss primary colours which would be attractive to my 7yo grandson and his friends but not appropriate for something intended to be treated seriously (? - or have I missed the point :-)? ) by a wider audience. Failing that, stop wasting your, and for that matter everybody's time with your self seeking posts. I've tried putting such things to abelard in the past, but his only response is essentially name-calling. -- from Kim Bolton |
Met office lies
broadssailor wrote:
On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather happenings. So weather and climate are one and the same. OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast (there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down) on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue - yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on. Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not. Hopefully the point has been understood now .... I think we all understand trends Pete! Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html That is a classic "How to lie with statistics graph". By starting their graph with a first point in 1998 that is the most extreme high global temperature seen in recent history the long term rising trend can be completely disguised by only looking at the last decade of data. And if you choose your points carefully then the best fit line can indeed be made to look like it is cooling *relative* to the one exceptionally warm year at the start. US "Dittohead Science" is a pack of lies carefully constructed to confuse the general public into ignoring the scientific evidence. Sadly it is working all too well and climate scientists are not explaining things in a way that the public can comprehend. There is a negative cyclical influence at the moment on the downside of a small warming peak that occurs roughly every 60 years. You can see it in the published data. It made the warming in 1990-2000 larger than was due to AGW alone and it is presently hiding the continuing rising trend. Similar peaks can be seen at 1940 and 1880 see for example: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif And for just the Atlanic MDO component http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation Regards, Martin Brown |
Met office lies
On 9 Jan, 12:13, Martin Brown
wrote: broadssailor wrote: On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather happenings. So weather and climate are one and the same. OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast (there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down) on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. * Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue - yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on. Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not. Hopefully the point has been understood now .... I think we all understand trends Pete! Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html That is a classic "How to lie with statistics graph". By starting their graph with a first point in 1998 that is the most extreme high global temperature seen in recent history the long term rising trend can be completely disguised by only looking at the last decade of data. And if you choose your points carefully then the best fit line can indeed be made to look like it is cooling *relative* to the one exceptionally warm year at the start. US "Dittohead Science" is a pack of lies carefully constructed to confuse the general public into ignoring the scientific evidence. Sadly it is working all too well and climate scientists are not explaining things in a way that the public can comprehend. There is a negative cyclical influence at the moment on the downside of a small warming peak that occurs roughly every 60 years. You can see it in the published data. It made the warming in 1990-2000 larger than was due to AGW alone and it is presently hiding the continuing rising trend. Similar peaks can be seen at 1940 and 1880 see for example: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif And for just the Atlanic MDO component http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation Regards, Martin Brown The UEA and Wiki - that's the best you can come up with. Ha! Yes, lengthen the time line, by all means, but don't forget to include the Medieval warm period AND the mini ice age which followed. THEN tell me what the trend is! |
Met office lies
On 9 Jan, 12:13, abelard wrote:
i won't give you my own links as is would just waste my time,,, rest of your habitual drivel binned No more than I would expect as a response..... rest of your habitual self centered drivel binned! |
Met office lies
abelard wrote: On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:27:21 +0000, Kim Bolton wrote: broadssailor wrote: On 9 Jan, 01:36, abelard wrote: Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html you're being connedhttp://www.abelard.org/sums/teaching_number_arithmetic_mathematics_un... Do you have URLs (or at least reference to a source) for all on that page? Without it, it is no more than opinion.... A week or two I asked abelard, following Copenhagen, if there was such thing published as graph showing CO2 levels on one axis, and Global Temperatures on the other. This simply must exist as it is the fundamental support for the AGW position. i doubt you did ask that...but who cares both graphs are widely available....they both have a time axis...you could compare them with ease if you knew how.... i won't give you my own links as is would just waste my time,,, Your links aren't worth the name, for the reasons I mentioned and which you have snipped. rest of your habitual drivel binned I take it then that you're a master of drivel. -- from Kim Bolton |
Met office lies
abelard wrote: it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering any of the questions i posed for you ....says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him. ROFL -- from Kim Bolton |
Met office lies
In message , abelard
writes On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:36:44 +0000, Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering any of the questions i posed for you ...says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him. ROFL you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions.. your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i have recently posted.... then followed by some immature and meaningless comments What does one call a verbose troll? -- Gopher .... I know my place! |
Met office lies
In message , abelard
writes On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:25:55 +0000, Gopher wrote: In message , abelard writes On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:36:44 +0000, Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering any of the questions i posed for you ...says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him. ROFL you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions.. your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i have recently posted.... then followed by some immature and meaningless comments What does one call a verbose troll? a redundant bolt-on? bit like an appendix.... no apparent use...may cause a pain... :-)) -- Gopher .... I know my place! |
Met office lies
abelard wrote: On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:36:44 +0000, Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering any of the questions i posed for you ...says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him. ROFL you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions.. I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data. I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to understand it, or the science to apply it. Your only reply was an ad hominem. your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i have recently posted.... But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative. then followed by some immature and meaningless comments Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste, and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3". The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data. -- from Kim Bolton |
Met office lies
Kim Bolton wrote in
: The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data. Which Russians in particular? |
Met office lies
harikeo wrote in :
wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. I chuckled when he said this.... does the planet work on 30-year cycles? It doesn't - 30 years is the period generally considered neccessary to give a statistically significant result. See here for a good discussion - http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/ |
Met office lies
abelard wrote in
: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:47:21 GMT, Andrew Adams wrote: Kim Bolton wrote in m: The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data. Which Russians in particular? lysenko? Ha ha, yes it might as well have been. |
Met office lies
Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions.. I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data. I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to understand it, or the science to apply it. Your only reply was an ad hominem. your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i have recently posted.... But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative. then followed by some immature and meaningless comments Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste, and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3". The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data. FYI http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....09/12/iea1.pdf Data link: http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php HTH -- from Kim Bolton |
Met office lies
Andrew Adams wrote:
harikeo wrote in : wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad" wrote: BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs. The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still remains ;) It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because we got the same here in Bristol. Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate. Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years observations. I chuckled when he said this.... does the planet work on 30-year cycles? It doesn't - 30 years is the period generally considered neccessary to give a statistically significant result. See here for a good discussion - http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/ Wooosh |
Met office lies
Kim Bolton wrote:
Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions.. I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data. I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to understand it, or the science to apply it. Your only reply was an ad hominem. your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i have recently posted.... But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative. then followed by some immature and meaningless comments Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste, and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3". The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data. FYI http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....09/12/iea1.pdf Data link: http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php HTH But check this too: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...=Google+Reader James -- James Hammerton, http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/ http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/ |
Met office lies
James Hammerton wrote: Kim Bolton wrote: Kim Bolton wrote: abelard wrote: you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions.. I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data. I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to understand it, or the science to apply it. Your only reply was an ad hominem. your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i have recently posted.... But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative. then followed by some immature and meaningless comments Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste, and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3". The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data. FYI http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....09/12/iea1.pdf Data link: http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php HTH But check this too: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...=Google+Reader James Fascinating. I look forward to abelard's analysis of the topic, rather than his cut-and-paste. -- from Kim Bolton |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter