• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

We've got researchers from Stanford university saying you're wrong about renewables being scaleable. We've got the IMF saying you're wrong about fossil fuels being unsubsidised. We've got every major scientific institution in the world saying your stance on AGW is wrong.

But apparently that doesnt matter because of a blog that you discovered that backs up your view.
 
Visage said:
We've got researchers from Stanford university saying you're wrong about renewables being scaleable. We've got the IMF saying you're wrong about fossil fuels being unsubsidised. We've got every major scientific institution in the world saying your stance on AGW is wrong.

But apparently that doesnt matter because of a blog that you discovered that backs up your view.
Click to expand...

So you deny that globally there is a wholesale commitment to coal and gas as an electricity supply? This includes states like Germany not just developing countries like China and India. Like I said show me something that says that isn't happening.
All Paul Homewood and plenty of others have done is point out the reality.
 
machin05 said:
Everytime wiki has been used in this thread, the articles have their sources listed at the bottom.
Click to expand...

For years Wikipedia had a gate keeper called William Connolly on this subject.
Surely anything published is open to scrutiny?
 
Visage said:
Who scrutinises the blogs you cite?
Click to expand...

Anyone who cares to. Don't you find fact checking important in all aspects of life, I certainly do in my work.
I see the pant wetters at the Independent can't be bothered to point out that an El Nino is a natural event likely followed by a La Nina.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-2015-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html

They could have perhaps found better references than the discredited James Hansen and Phil Jones. Independent my arse.
 
Right. SO the blogs you cite suffer from the same problems of self-selecting scrutinisation that you claim makes Wikipedia unsuitable as a source.

So why the double standard?
 
El Nino and La Nina are hardly cyclical. They can last for years at a time.

They're only related to one another insofar as when you're not in one, you're in the other.
 
Alan USA said:
El Nino and La Nina are hardly cyclical. They can last for years at a time.

They're only related to one another insofar as when you're not in one, you're in the other.
Click to expand...

Look at the RSS/UAH satallite datasets. They both show the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) prominantly, the anti-phase La Nina always follows, it is a natural phenomenon whatever you post.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Look at the RSS/UAH satallite datasets. They both show the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) prominantly, the anti-phase La Nina always follows, it is a natural phenomenon whatever you post.
Click to expand...

You just backed my point up. El Nino is followed by La Nina because those are the two options to choose from.

In the same way, people with more birthdays live longer.
 
Visage said:
Right. SO the blogs you cite suffer from the same problems of self-selecting scrutinisation that you claim makes Wikipedia unsuitable as a source.

So why the double standard?
Click to expand...

I've clearly stated that all published sources by whatever media should be open to scrutiny.
 
Alan USA said:
You just backed my point up. El Nino is followed by La Nina because those are the two options to choose from.

In the same way, people with more birthdays live longer.
Click to expand...

So you should wait a couple of years before jumping up and down about the current ENSO.
The current 18 year pause is fully inclusive of ENSO in that period.
 
Also, the pause isnt a pause at all. Its a statistical aberration. Ever wonder why its always 1998 (or possibly a year either side) thats chosen as the start point?

Its because that year there was a very strong El Nino - global temperatues spiked taht year. Then, over subsequent years, the effect died away, and temperatures stayed fairly stable - a long term trend (AGW) was masked by a short term trend (post El Nino temperature drop).

http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

See - 1998 was *huge*. What you're doing is the equivalent of going to a beach after high tide has passed and gone 'Look! the sea level isnt rising! Its falling! AGW is bunk! Drinks all round!'....
 
I always read this thread with great interest, though to be honest most of it is far too clever for me.

Anyway may I ask a question. Why when there is global warming has the Arctic sea ice increased over the last three years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top