Hang on, this supposed climate science?

Weren't they the ones who told us that by 2015 the Mediterranean coast would be desert, and the south coast of the UK would be the Med climate?:cuckoo:

And twenty years before, weren't they the ones telling us the next ice age was coming and only 1/3 of the world's population could hope to survive it?:cuckoo::cuckoo:

THOSE climate "scientists"?????????????

:lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1::hjtwofing

You carry on howling at the moon. The rest of the world will get on with what needs to be done.

And when no more smoke emerges from chimneys, we're all driving electric cars and renewable energy rules, will global warming kick into reverse? I rather doubt it, and what do we blame then?

Climate change scientists will always use "selective" data. They'll discount any data that does not suit their agenda.
I have never once heard a climate change scientist mention anything about the Milankovitch cycles.
Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian astrophysicist came up with a mathematical formula to predict climate change based on the orbital variations of the earth around the sun. This is the real cause of climate change.
Lets face it, we know the planets atmosphere has undergone massive changes long before humans were a factor. What excuse do the climate change scientists have for that?

Oh dear God!

Rarely do you read a post so riddled with misunderstanding and just blatant nonsense as this.

The very fact that a lot of Climate Change theory is based (in part) on Milankovitch's work makes your ham-fisted attempts at explaining what's wrong with AGW science look pretty daft.

It just beggars belief the bull-crap some people unthinkingly regurgitate.

If you don't believe it, fair enough, that your choice, but PLEASE, come up with an alternative that's even modestly credible.

No proper response from martin, yet again.LOL :D

I struggle to believe that there are people that think mans activities on this planet over the last 150yrs are not having an effect on the environment we live in.

Surely any reduction in pollution anywhere on the planet... regardless of what is happening elsewhere is a good thing... it has to start somewhere.

I do like how the developed world has moved pollution... oops I mean production to the undeveloped nations though... as if we're doing them a favour ... then we blame them for all the "Evils" in this world... tut tut indeed. :lol1:

Of course reduction in POLLUTION is desirable.

But that's not what the climate "scientists" have been banging on about.

That they will now start to do so is inevitable......

Cough...


Whereas YOUR posts are always SOOO full of facts?

"No, no, no it isnt!"
"No, no, no it won't!"
No, no, no it doesn't".

Etc etc ad infinitum.
Screek.........


No self awareness

lol, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is !!

what you have described is an "observation" - well done, this is step one in the scientific process

but in itself it tells you very little about the world around you / us (swimming pools excepted)

it is simply an "observation" - I do this - I get this result - whoopi doo

AGW, like plate tectonics, like evolution, is a scientific theory (please look at my previous link to learn what a scientific "theory" is)

all scientific theories begin with an "observation" - like say - ooh I don't know, what about the fact that one property of C02 is that it blocks infra red radiation in a certain wavelength - hence traps heat - which is testable in a lab


now you have an "observation" - you can build a scientific "theory" based on an hypothesis (please please look it up these terms, they have a very specific meaning - in SCIENCE )

an "hypothesis" often start with a question

" what would happen if you had a build up of a heat trapping gas such as C02 in the atmosphere, I think it would result in a warmer world"

the above is what in science is called a "hypothesis" - this is the beginning of a scientific theory (please please look up what a scientific theory is)

a good rule of thumb and what I suggest you do Ali b - and every other budding scientist does, is when you don't understand or question science, ask your self three easy questions

1. Either - Research scientists are all incompetent
2. Research scientists are all in on a conspiracy to deceive you
   
3. Research scientist know something you don’t (and it is probably this)

re Milankovitch cycles (the earth's tilt and wobble) - all climate scientist know about these, but they work on 10's of thousands of years - climate scientist (apart from paleo climatologists) are interested in the last 150 years

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html

"Changes in the Earth's orbit brought about by astronomical variations have a strong impact on Earth’s climate. They serve as the pacemaker for the glacial-interglacial cycles over the Quaternary (roughly the last two and a half million years of Earth's history), and provide a strong framework for understanding the evolution of the climate even over the Holocene (the last 10,000 years, beginiing near the termination of the last glacial period). Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to explain the full range of Quaternary climate change, which also requires greenhouse gas and albedo variations, but they are a primary forcing that must be accounted for."

what is of interest to most climate scientist is the rapid rise in the earths average temp (last 30 years) and this is in stark contrast to he reduction in TSR (total solar irradiance) over the same period - WOW the sun, over the last 30years, is weaker, but the earth av temp is getting hotter, the ice caps melting - whatever could be the cause !!!!!!!!!!!!

please see point 3 above

Ah...finally, you get my point.
Well done Martin, it's only taken you FIVE YEARS of posting refutements with no substance.:hjtwofing

I'm still awaiting some substance from you on this subject.

Thus far all you've offered is conspiracy, cynicism and insults

I have posted no insults. Only pointed out that YOUR mode of arguing is simply to refute, usually with an insult tagged on.

I've asked you and others whether the "climate scientists" were the same ones as made the preposterous claims in the late 70's and the 90's were the same ones making prposterous claims now.
So far, no response. I'll take that as a "Yes" then, shall I?

:D

I think you're confusing the front page of the Daily Express with what the scientist actually said.


I'd love to know what you've actually got to counter the science on this subject? What is it that you know that the scientific community doesn't?


BTW ':hjtwofing' is an insult, and not something I'd ever direct at someone on here

Oh dear. Is that a tear I see?
:hjtwofing is not an isult, it's telling you to go swivel:D

I didn't read the Express then and don't now. Perhaps you do, being as how you seem to know what it says, and said 40 years ago? :D

I saw the "scientists" interviewed on TV, BBC news, Local News etc etc. Even Panorama got in on it. NOT just saying it, INTERVIEWING the guys that somehow, know what's going to happen in twenty years, despite not being able to tell us accurately what will happen in twenty days:D Except they got it wrong...again, and again, and again....

Come ON Martin....keep up, please.

Dodged the question again

If it makes you feel any better I'll answer your question, no the ones making preposterous claims in the late 70's probably aren't the same as those now (as they're probably getting on a bit). Now it's possible the ones from the 90's were although they again could be getting on a bit and may well have changed careers, your guess is as good as mine. :thumb:

So from the same group, then? So called scientists?

Wrong in the 70's, wrong in the 90's, but somehow...against all the odds...to be believed now?

So does your problem only cover climatologists or does it extend to science as a subject matter?

Only climatologists. So called "scientists".

Are you aware that man-made climate change is taught in schools as fact? And that NO alternatives are allowed to be taught, on pain of dismissal?

Even crackpot bible theories get an airing, in other subjects, like creationism. hell, even the plum-pudding theory of atoms has to be brought into it......in order to be fair...but no mention of ANY alternative to man-made climate change is alllowed.

Strike you as even slightly weird?

Firstly you have to have an alternative to teach. You're being very slippery on this old boy.

As we already know, Brexiteers hate 'experts'

All these scientists keep telling us that a temp rise of only 1 - 2 degrees will be disasterous for animals, however the temperature here can change by 15-20 degrees overnight, and as much as 60 degrees in a matter of months, but I don't recall ever having to swerve round millions of dead animals on my way to work.

probably got used to

its the animal humans that live 5' above sea level that is more of a worry


( unless your names Donald )

Not at all, Martin, and I suspect you know it.

What of the "It's always happened, climate changes, it's what it does" argument?

What of the "Climate is changing, yes, but it's NOT man made" argument?

What of the "It's down to the sun's cycles" argument?

NONE of those allowed to be mentioned.

Yet we can mention the Plum-pudding theory, Creationism etc etc.

I have NEVER seen a theory so protected in law. Something stinks about it.

Experts? Well your lot on that had a field day didn't they?

What happened to the emergency budget? The £3000 it would cost everyone? the FLOOD of companies moving abroad if we voted out?

Ho ho, talk about shooting yourself in the foot trying to be clever?

1. The fact that the climate 'always changes' isn't a theory it's a fact and an intrinsic part of the overall climate change theory. Are you seriously saying here that climate scientist don't realise the earth's climate changes in cycles? Is that your argument here?


2. Well you'd need to put something in place of Co2 to explain it then, just saying 'it's not man made' isn't even a theory let alone an argument.


3. Sun cycles - as above, already very well understood, and has added much to our understanding of climate change. Once again you'd have to assume that this is new news to the scientific community, to believe your rationale.


4. I have no idea what plum pudding theory is, I've never come across it. As far as creationism is concerned, yes I guess that might be 'mentioned' in RE. It's not really the same thing as teaching something in science though is it?

You are (deliberately?) missing the point.

The ONLY thing that is taught in schools, BY LAW, is that climate change is man made.

What part of that don't you understand?

How do you teach 'climate change is not man-made; but we have nothing to back that statement up'?

I am no expert and really have no idea or really care for that matter but surely the planet warming up is also melting permafrost and so on which is releasing methane and other gasses trapped for millions of years due to decaying plants and dinosaurs which is also escalating the issue so not all of this problem is man made.