Climate Change Debate

[leedswolf]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/envir...ts/greenhouse-gas-emissions---2013/index.html

 

[machin05]

A city in Texas has just banned bans on fracking.

 

[visage]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/

Climate change deniers also believe in fairies.

 

[visage]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33006179

Uh oh...

 

[leedswolf]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds?CMP=fb_gu

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

NOAA cherry picking the temperature series it prefers. It would rather take unreliable ocean going vessel measurements rather than the purpose built Argo buoy measurements, inference of land based temperatures for arctic ocean temperatures. Even then it makes little difference.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/credibility-lost

There is a dozen other rebutals of the NOAA paper elsewhere. Note all well referenced, desperation my friends.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/

Climate change deniers also believe in fairies.

Climate changes just not the way you imagine.

 

[visage]

Its pretty funny to see an article entitled 'credibity lost' that then includes an image lifted directly from a Daily Mail news article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

[Alan]

NOAA cherry picking the temperature series it prefers. It would rather take unreliable ocean going vessel measurements rather than the purpose built Argo buoy measurements, inference of land based temperatures for arctic ocean temperatures. Even then it makes little difference.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/credibility-lost

There is a dozen other rebutals of the NOAA paper elsewhere. Note all well referenced, desperation my friends.

And these well researched, well referenced rebuttals would be...?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Its pretty funny to see an article entitled 'credibity lost' that then includes an image lifted directly from a Daily Mail news article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Just because it is not your prefered newspaper does not make it wrong. Please comment on the substantive.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

And these well researched, well referenced rebuttals would be...?

There is a good list here:

https://twitter.com/ClimateRealists

 

[Alan]

Oh FFS, Hazel, most of the things linked there are blogs or source blogs.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Oh FFS, Hazel, most of the things linked there are blogs or source blogs.

Which link to commentary by the likes of Lindzen, Spencer, Curry etc. The NOAA paper is desperation.

 

[visage]

Who needs peer review when you have twitter....

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Who needs peer review when you have twitter....

I know you disaprove but Twitter is a useful linking vehicle.
Again, please address the substantive. The NOAA paper is a blatant fiddle, no?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

More on Drax. David Rose raises some real issues although he has a problem comprehending units of energy (told him so).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3113908/How-world-s-biggest-green-power-plant-actually-INCREASING-greenhouse-gas-emissions-Britain-s-energy-bill.html#comments

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Who needs peer review when you have twitter....

You really meant pal review, cooking the books is fair game for scrutiny. Exagerated claims are a recipe for losing the debate, I think that is true in most situations.

 

[Alan]

"Pal review"? You don't really know anything about academic research, do you?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

"Pal review"? You don't really know anything about academic research, do you?

Loads actually. I'm involved in some. Please try harder.

 

[Alan]

You do yourself no justice by suggesting research gets approved because you're "pals" with someone.