the_purplecow (Jan 7 2010, 11:46 AM) said: > original post
Once again Wanda, I refuse to believe that you are as stupid as you pretend to be.
Even the most retarded of scientific morons knows that average temperatures are rising globally, that doesn't mean that it won't get cold sometimes. Weather you see, is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends.
But you know that, you're just doing that weird thing of pretending you don't understand a very simple concept because it doesn't tie in with your prejudices. Just like they do on FOX News.
As the man said, "reality has a known Liberal bias."
However, it is not cold everywhere in the world. North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all seen temperatures above normal – in many places by more than 5 °C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10 °C.
n the UK, 2009 as a whole was the 14th-warmest on record (since 1914). This above-average temperature trend was reflected globally, with 2009 being the fifth-warmest year on the global record (since 1850).
The current cold weather in the UK is part of the normal regional variations that take place in the winter season. It doesn’t tell us anything about climate change, which has to be looked at in a global context and over longer periods of time.
the_purplecow (Jan 7 2010, 03:52 PM) said: > original post
I think we are all agreed that Stephen Colbert is an American. So no, not in the European sense.
the_purplecow (Jan 7 2010, 04:09 PM) said: > original post
Couldn’t have put it better myself…
See any conflict of interest in getting an "objective" view from a governmental agency? Sheesh - talk about missing the obvious.
the_purplecow (Jan 7 2010, 10:46 PM) said: > original post
No you don't, you're a conservative.
the_purplecow (Jan 7 2010, 10:49 PM) said: > original post
The Met Office isn't a governmental agency, Mrs. Thatcher privatized them more than 25 years ago.
Therefore there is no conflict of interest.
Sheesh, talk about missing the obvious.
the_purplecow (Jan 8 2010, 11:16 AM) said: > original post
How does any organization operate commercially successfully over time if it is deliberately falsifying it's results?
the_purplecow (Jan 8 2010, 12:16 PM) said: > original post
Yes exactly, the key words are 'operating', 'commercial' and 'basis'. It is a trading fund of the defense ministry, but it is not a government department and it is required to make a profit.
How does any organization operate commercially successfully over time if it is deliberately falsifying it's results?
What would the ministry of defense's interest be in inventing non-existing global warming?
Why? To increase their research funding!?! You have to believe that governments (including politically Conservative administrations) have pressurized the climatologists to tell lies so they can tax people!
mrfook (Jan 8 2010, 12:24 PM) said: > original post
By getting huge sums of money from government and/or multinationals for coming up with figures that support any crock of BS they want the masses to beleive.
the_purplecow (Jan 8 2010, 11:16 AM) said: > original post
What would the ministry of defense's interest be in inventing non-existing global warming?
wanda_2005 (Jan 8 2010, 11:44 AM) said: > original post
Yes. :lol:
Because the government, of which the MoD is one department, will be able to raise tons of tax revenue via carbon taxes.
He mentions it in this BBC interview where it is asserted that he makes more than the Prime Minister and that the Met had not forecasted the cold and snow until it had already arrived.
Early indications are that it's looking like temperatures will be near or above average," Hammond said, before warning: "But there's still a one in seven chance of a cold winter – with temperatures below average.
If you are interested in science, please note that 2009 had the lowest sunspot activity in decades.
And for the right price you could get an advertising agency to sell or promote anything you want...the gestapo or the brtitsh national party...
the_purplecow (Jan 8 2010, 07:23 PM) said: > original post
Surely even you Wanda, with your ever more tenuous grip on reality must know that this is a crackpot theory. If they wanted to raise taxes they would raise taxes, they wouldn't need to ask every scientist in an entire field of science to lie for them.
That's not true, they said that there would be a 1 in 5 chance of a colder than usual winter in the UK. They did then go on to forcast this cold snap on December 15. That just means that the weather is a complicated chaotic issue, so forecasting weather is still a challenge. Once more, let me reiterate, weather and climate are two separate issues.
So what?
Predicting temperatures and climate change years into the future is easier and more accurate than predicting the weather a week in advance?
Okay.
wanda_2005 (Jan 8 2010, 08:28 PM) said: > original post
Predicting temperatures and climate change years into the future is easier and more accurate than predicting the weather a week in advance?
Okay.
the_purplecow (Jan 8 2010, 09:52 PM) said: > original post
Yes, correct.
The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is the basis of all science. Detecting patterns and distinguishing between signal and noise. Therefore it's much easier to determine long-term trends such as global warming than it is to determine short term events where the signal to noise ratios are so low.
wildrosecountry (Jan 8 2010, 11:40 PM) said: > original post
Wanda, temperatures in Nederland use to be much lower then they are now (< -10 C). Now they are -3 to -5 C, not really cold even by Dutch Standards. Problem is they are not prepared for the snow that stays on the ground.
Obviously you slept over Physics classess (if you took physics).
wanda_2005 (Jan 9 2010, 10:21 AM) said: > original post
If the theory predicts something and that something does not happen, then some adjustments or even a new theory is needed. If you continue to hang to the theory despite a lack of predictive power, then you have accepted it as dogma rather than through scientific validation.
It seems that short term weather fluctuations e.g. this winter storm are accounted for as expected variability, but events like the heat wave in 2003 and hurricane Katrina are solid, irrefutable evidence of GW.
From the BBC interview, James Hirst agrees that the "noughties" did not show a temperature increase.
From the BBC interview, James Hirst agrees that the "noughties" did not show a temperature increase.
Its latest climate statement said the past 10 years were the hottest decade since records began.
Last year - Australia's second-hottest - produced record-breaking heatwaves that saw temperatures soar to 46.4C in Melbourne and forced Adelaide to endure eight consecutive days above 35C.
If the theory predicts something and that something does not happen, then some adjustments or even a new theory is needed. If you continue to hang to the theory despite a lack of predictive power, then you have accepted it as dogma rather than through scientific validation.
This is true. Science is limited by scientists. Scientists can fall into the act of not doing science per se but instead are found worshiping at the altar of scientism.
the_purplecow (Jan 10 2010, 06:18 PM) said: > original post
Reality, the human experience, continues to support the Climatologists, and simply does not support rationality-dodgers such as yourself. You need to let go of your political dogma and admit that the real world needs another explanation.
