Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[reece]

This is way off track Billy, but I read that we (the solar system), is traveling through an ion cloud at the moment (like for the next few 10,000 years or so) and the cloud is about 6000 degrees C. The solar wind keeps it outside the solar system. But talk about warming things up... So interstellar travel is grounded for a while.

Yep, any significant metor or comet impact would make things pretty unpleasant in a hurry, just ask the dinosaurs. Even if it landed in the deepest part of the Atlantic it could result in a 5km high wave.

If we wanted to find out if a potentially deadly object was going to collide with us in the future, who would we turn to? The biggest and most respected scientific organizations in the world, or a handful of scientists from unrelated fields who have questionable backgrounds?

Well, that depends. Are the people in option 1 part of a conspiracy involving hundreds of scientists, governments of major nations, and the mass media? Are making Al Gore richer and destroying the economy of the U.S part of their goals? Are their tactics on par with the Nazis? If so, I would have to go with option B.

 

[Happycamper]

Reece! Your back! And welcome to my house

Vtac: You need to show me how your claim is falsifiable first i'm afraid. As I've already illustrated models are not falsifiable. Even when observations differ to the model the models still remain unfalsafiable because they are 'a possibility'.

Anyway what actually is your claim, you've not said yet. Try to be specific. It didn't appear in that copy and paste you got from whatever website.

 

[Happycamper]

THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL



Glacier melt claims were 'speculation'
Monday January 18,2010
By Anil Dawar Have your say(45)
FRESH doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.


The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were speculation and not backed up by research.

It was also revealed that the IPCCs controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as the worlds top climate scientist, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.

Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to 10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development.

Dr Pachauri denies any conflict of interest arising from his various roles.

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry.

Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.


SEARCH UK NEWS for:

The IPCC was set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. It issued the glacier warning in a benchmark report in 2007 that was allegedly based on the latest research into global warming.

The scientists behind the report now admit they relied on a news story published in the New Scientist journal in 1999. The article was based on a short telephone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, then based in Delhi, who has since said his views were speculation.

The New Scientist report was picked up by the WWF and included in a 2005 paper.

It then became a key source for the IPCC which went further in suggesting the melting of the glaciers was very likely.

Yesterday, Professor Murari Lal who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said: If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.

Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly.

Before the weakness in the IPCCs research was exposed, Dr Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as voodoo science.

The revelations are the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus on climate change.

It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal in November last year when leaked emails from the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit appeared to show scientists fiddling the figures to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.

The scandal prompted critics to suggest that many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research.

Last month, the Daily Express published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man made.

 

[Happycamper]

Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to 10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development

See Pachauri Piehands

 

[Happycamper]

Copenhagen climate change summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared

Last updated at 10:12 AM on 11th December 2009
Comments (85) Add to My Stories Natural scientist Peter Taylor is afraid we are not preparing for a global cool-down that could be part of a long-term cycle
In his provocative book Chill, he warns that the world is cooling not warming and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age...


Like a magician who fools themselves but not audience, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) lobby have identified the wrong problem and the wrong solution.

Global cooling threatens disaster for humanity in the developed and developing world alike, yet the media and the scientific consensus ignores this peril.

The Climategate controversy revolves around whether warming has been real and why it has not persisted but it misses the point.

Cycles are involved, not short-term trends, and many respected scientists, especially those in Russia and China, think that a cooling cycle is coming.

The AGW brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.

Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers and among UK and EU politicians its even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...st-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html#ixzz0dH8GAZhR

 

[Durden]

See Pachauri Piehands

http://www.google.com/search?q=Pach...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Whatever your vaping, I want some.

 

[Happycamper]

Piehands....ok so i am the one coining the term. Yes! you all heard it here first. But I dont have to explain the meaning behind piehands?

 

[stickstones]

Nice find there, camper. This part cracks me up, though:

"the world is cooling not warming and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age..."

We ARE entering an ice age, and there is nothing we can do about it. We're about 10,000 years away from the peak of it.

 

[Happycamper]

Vtac: Didnt have time to fully respond to your post until now:

James Hansen, he's a running joke these days.

Really? Please explain.

Someone who is getting themselves arrested at environmental protests, and is now appearing in court as a defence for vandalism should be removed from his position at NASA. He has appeared in court as defence , to say it is ok to cause criminal damage if it's for a green cause.
SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SCEPTICAL AND NOT POLITICAL.

Thanks to him, GISS as a dataset is no longer impartial. We have potential bias from the gatekeeper of the data that cant be separated from the data

Just to point out (as you pointed out with one of your links regarding a mistake in the data Christy made) Hanson on behalf of NASA has made mistakes on at least the same scale, if not bigger.

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or jump in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASAs Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide [McIntyre ]with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

[McIntyre] notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an oversight that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/compet...ute-sues-nasa-in-wake-of-climategate-scandal/

The CEI look to be in the process of suing NASA. It's the same old story, data has been withheld. If there is nothing to hide, why do they have such a problem letting other organisations have access to it? It's the same thing in the UK and the emails clearly show the lengths (some) scientists have gone to preventing other people from seeing data paid for by our taxes.

So much for NASA's credibility. A lot of people on this thread seem to hold NASA as this icon of truth....Watch this space because the shit is about to hit the fan.

The other point to make is not all my scientists are linked back to oil companies.

Name one.

John Christy does not recieve money from oil companies.

First page google results:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/
"I don't see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere."

Did you notice that the website was Greenpeace? You do understand the importance of not taking what they say at face value, as they are a politically campaigning organisation. You do understand that right?

Now, he is not receiving money and I believe him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1TCM-zprCc (3.17 in this recent video)

Looks like (Pachauri) a pretty intelligent fellow to me, Nobel Prize and all, but that's beside the point. The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.

Listen, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. As far as I'm concerned it means nothing, its shit.

incase you missed before:

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were speculation and not backed up by research

Wouldn't his working for an oil company in the past mean that if anything he's contradicting his bias? I don't understand your logic here. No google results for "Pachauri Piehands"

Hey, look up the controversy surrounding how he got to his position; it seems it was with the help of Exxon Mobil, he backstabbed his way to the top. And now he has his fingers in all the pies.


off topic:
(I actually agree with you on lack of anyone doing anything about NEO's and technology to deflect a collision with Earth)

 

[stickstones]

I don't think there are many open minds on this thread. vtac's question of 'what would credible eveidence look like to you' is refreshing and appropriate. Without that question we don't even know if this conversation is worth having...if no one is willing to be open to a change of mind, then why bother?

Camper has spent a lot of time and energy finding and posting what appear to be some credible stories that throw doubt on the whole global warming push.

My question to anyone listening...probably just reece, rayski and vtac...is what would credible evidence against the global warming claims look like to you?

 

[Happycamper]

I have a few things that i require to have my claim falsified.

For me the 12-15 year chart is going to have to get back in global warming mode for a start.

I need satifactory explanation with proof why temperatures are not rising with co2 levels now, and why they did not in the 40's onwards. (I know thats how long is a piece of string which probably makes it unfasifiable)

Also I would need final final 100% proof that the warmer periods in the last 10,000 years did not happen.

Sea levels are going to have to start doing something as well.

The removal of the IPCC, Hanson, and Al Gore, and suddenly everything is looking a lot more credible.

Now Vtac: Please answer my questions (But you can leave the title because i like it)

 

[stickstones]

thanks camper...now, are your requirements even possible? I'm not being sarcastic here or anything, because I don't have an opinion one way or the other as to whether they are possible. But in your opinion, with those requirements, does anyone really have a shot at convincing you otherwise?

I have the same questions for anyone else here willing to take the falsifiable test.

 

[Happycamper]

The other one i was thinking of would be if I spoke to the Annunaki in 2012 then they could give me a yes or no, but thought that might be a bit of a longshot.

My question to anyone listening...probably just reece, rayski and vtac...is what would credible evidence against the global warming claims look like to you?

This thread does get a lot of views though imo.

 

[Purple-Days]

I have an open mind, I am not 100% sure that other factors are not involved. But, I believe we are contributing to the rise in temps. It just doesn't make sense to keep pumping crap into the air we breathe.

Here is another recent article.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30070
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

 

[Happycamper]

I have an open mind, I am not 100% sure that other factors are not involved. But, I believe we are contributing to the rise in temps. It just doesn't make sense to keep pumping crap into the air we breathe.

Here is another recent article.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30070
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

NASA aka Hanson announced 2007 'by mistake' as the warmest year, so to be honest, i'll wait until dust settles. And knowing that he is there controlling the data I have a big problem with. So NASA means little proof to me atm.

 

[Durden]

Also I would need final final 100% proof that the warmer periods in the last 10,000 years did not happen.

Without having to address anything else you've said, this alone makes your claim technically unfalsifiable. See Vtacs earlier long post about consensus being impossible in reality; any claim about the previous temperature of the earth beyond human measurement is based on models and subjective evaluation of secondary or worse data sources.

So NASA means little proof to me

Did you notice that the website was Greenpeace? You do understand the importance of not taking what they say at face value, as they are a politically campaigning organisation. You do understand that right?

You rarely give any references for the things you say (or pull them out of thin air like the piehands thing) including labeling your opinions as fact, and then completely dismiss information conflicting with your belief because you don't like its source. This was also clearly addressed in Vtacs post which you largely ignored or didn't understand.

Did you notice how this huge double standard makes your argument pointless? You do understand it's clear you have a personal political agenda and are not open to actually discuss anything. You do understand that right?

 

[Happycamper]

I sometimes dont give references, because if you type in any search engine a line of the quoted text you will probably find it.

The only personal opinion that I stated as a fact is the Piehands thing, everything else has come from a source. Some of my sources have been better than others, but we live and learn. It was a joke, but obviously not to your standards.

And no, my argument is not pointless, if it was Copenhagen would have had a completely different outcome. You do understand that right?

Edit: Any way Vtacs post was his claim was falsifiable, how was mine. Well, it was a copy and paste from another site as far as i could tell. Which is no problem, but what is his claim, how is his claim falsifiable? Not just using a copy and paste to pose a question to me which he won't or can't answer. There isn't just one claim fits all, and I am not denying global warming has happened, or that we have put quite a lot of co2 into the air and it may be contributing.

 

[Durden]

I'll probably find it? Way to shift the burden of proof off of yourself. I can copy and paste more of this thread to show how you state opinions as fact like I already did, but I'll take the easy road like you are and let people search themselves.

Vtacs argument is falsifiable because as he outlined there is a set of information that if real and presented would be adequate to change his opinion. It is stated very clearly in what he posted. Therefore the conversations is worth having because there is a point. You're claims are NOT falsifiable because it is theoretically impossible to satisfy even one of the several requirements you have given as necessary to prove the point to you. Therefore having a conversation with you is pointless because it is theoretically impossible to satisfy your conditions.

And trying to throw out what Vtac posted because you think it's "copy and pasted" based on your opinion goes back to what I said earlier about double standards. Half of what you've posted is copy and pasted so by your logic no one should have to read or respond to any of it. If you want to know what Vtac said go re read the post, it's very clear. Maybe you should read it a few times and respond directly to the entire post if you want people to take this conversation seriously.


Are you in college studying this? I know I went kind of crazy after spending 2 years doing stat research on genocide and political violence. It drove me crazy while I struggled with the reality of the situation and my belief at the time that humans are evil, and while I still find it digusting, I am now much more aware of the nuances of human behavior that can lead to such situations without the neccessity of direction or intention by the individual. So while you see a giant conspiracy in the oversimplification process, I see an attempt to communicate complex policy to an uninterested, uninformed, and uneducated population that is the vast majority of this planet.

Almost Edit (had to login again to post):

Also I would need final final 100% proof that the warmer periods in the last 10,000 years did not happen.

You claiming this as fundamental makes your argument pointless. Can you think of a way in which this could actually occur? Until you respond directly to Vtac's post, and hopefully shift your position into the realm of reality and not theoretical impossibilities, this whole thing is just meaningless beyond a way for you to preach the truth of your beliefs to us ignorant masses.

 

[rayski]

From The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Mediahttp://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/:

A San Diego TV stations mid-January one-hour broadcast reporting that two key federal climate research centers deliberately manipulated temperature data appears to have been based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the key climatology network used in calculating global temperatures.

The broadcast accusations appear to have resulted from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and methods used in calculating global temperatures.

After examining the evidence, there seems little indication that either the discontinuities in recent records from many GHCN stations or the adjustments made to the raw data have any substantive effects on global temperature trends. The accusations by DAleo and Smith aired as part of the KUSI The Other Side broadcast seem to be mostly unfounded, and certainly do not justify the seriousness of their allegations.

Creating global temperature records is no simple task, and the process might not always be pretty. But there is no evidence of major methodological problems that would compromise the validity of the records, and certainly no evidence of deliberate manipulation.

Nice try Happycamper.

 

[lwien]

Ooops. 'Scuse me. Was just lookin' for my gimble and walked into the wrong room.

Carry on...............

 

[Happycamper]

Rayski, be careful you might get attacked for not putting your link in for the reference.
Oh no, of course you won't be, carry on no problem :/

Ok Durden, I have read your latest post and take your critique on board.

The thing is if Vtac is going to throw me a question like that, it seems a cop out to take someone elses argument and just copy and paste it. I'm not saying anything against copy and paste normally, but I would not pose someone a question like that taken from someone elses work. I could be posting a whole host of stuff like that taken directly from Lord Monckton (he's very good at stuff like that) but i'm not.

Some of the things on my list are possible. I'm still thinking about it.

Missed this:

Without having to address anything else you've said, this alone makes your claim technically unfalsifiable. See Vtacs earlier long post about consensus being impossible in reality; any claim about the previous temperature of the earth beyond human measurement is based on models and subjective evaluation of secondary or worse data sources.

So this debunks the hockey stick diagram then as its unfalsifiable. I'll fire off an email to Pachauri Piehands and let him know

In terms of the accusation of stating things i'm making up as facts? Where? I'm not allowed to add my commentary to posts? (But even my commentary is not based on things i've just pulled out of thin air).

For example on the previous page I say in my commentary, The unelected head of the IPCC is making millions'. It is very clear that is my commentary and I provide a link to a respected newspaper in the UK; it's not out of a trashy mag. The article (after describing his many business interests) goes on to state ''One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars''.

He actually was not elected by me or my country, instead he was internally/self promoted/self elected within the IPCC.

Or was it about the Artic temperatures in the 30's? Well they did have a 'heatwave' that lasted a few years in the late 30's which actually is still near todays temperatures. However Rayski corrected me, which I accepted I was wrong and I realised 2008 was supposed to be hotter. But I accepted I was wrong and made a mistake.

Is that an example you have a problem with?

Stickstones asked me a while ago to make it clearer which bits were my text, and which were quoted, which I have done. It was not intentional to make my posts confusing.

Your previous post is all in your opinion. You don't state anywhere this, someone reading it might not realize it is your opinion as much as my commentary in my posts. I can't spoon-feed people my posts.

 

[Happycamper]

BBC might not renew contract again with the MET office and is in talks with another organisation.

The rumpus comes as the BBC considers dropping the Met Office forecasts after almost 90 years. The contract runs out in April and the broadcaster has been in talks with the New Zealand forecasters, Metra.

Again, accuracy is the issue, with the Met Office coming under severe criticism over the prediction of a barbeque summer last July. The UK suffered a washout. And its forecast of a mild winter attracted derision as temperatures plunged to as low as -22C in parts of Britain

Met Office computer accused of warm bias by BBC weatherman By Mail On Sunday Reporter

A BBC weather forecaster has suggested that the Met Offices super-computer has a warm bias which has stopped it predicting bitterly cold spells like the one we have just endured

http://icecap.us/

 

[Happycamper]

Ah I've just remembered one thing I did comment on that (ages ago) I got wrong, it was about Gores film getting banned in UK schools. At the time I thought it had, but have since found out it can only be shown if the inaccuracies are clearly pointed out to the children. 60 pages of A4 paper explained what the teacher had to point out. (Monckton says it was 77 pages)

The Department for Children, Schools and Families' guidance now available to schools is a 60-page document that goes through the film segment by segment, pointing out where Gore's assertions "do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion," and where further input from teachers will be needed.

Teachers are told to bear in mind that the documentary "promotes partisan political views," and to be careful that they themselves do not promote those views.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=18667

 

[stickstones]

^^^
What a crock of shit. First burden the schools with propoganda to show, then burden the teachers with a 60+ page document to clean up the mess of the propoganda. Doesn't surprise me in the least that someone tried to feed this to school children. As a parent of three, I am constantly checking in with my kids to see what they are pushing them in school. I remember all the anti-drug stuff they pushed when I was a kid.

 

[Durden]

So this debunks the hockey stick diagram then as its unfalsifiable. I'll fire off an email to Pachauri Piehands and let him know

You seem to be confused as to what falsifiability means, and I wont address anything else in this thread until you actually do relay understanding and address the issue of the falsifiability of your assertions.

Wikipedia: Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

What I said was unfalsifiable was:

Also I would need final final 100% proof that the warmer periods in the last 10,000 years did not happen.

That is your assertion which you stated, the absurdity of which makes any conversation about information and facts with you pointless since the burden of proof is placed outside the realm of reality. If that's just my opinion and you can figure out how to prove that statement then I welcome you to try. A lot of scientists would be extremely happy if you could.
Where has this type of assertion been applied to the hockey stick graph? The numerous attempts to verify the data by other individuals outside the project is in itself proof of falsifiability; if evidence of systematic and widespread manipulation of data that proved to significantly alter the overall findings and trends was verified by various scientific organizations then the graph would be proven wrong.
Are your expectations for the hockey stick graph as realistic? What would it take to prove the hockey stick diagram is right in principle based on your standards?

It is not possible to have final final 100% proof in anything, and I don't believe that was a standard ever set forth by the people seriously discussing climate issues. Science is based on probabilities and averages, normal curves, confidence intervals, etc, and all that fun stuff has nothing to do with absolutes. That's why there are so few scientific laws and so many scientific theories.

You keep dodging the main issue of falsifiability in favor of cherry picking details to fight over, but the point is that the details are irrelevant to discuss with you unless your expectations for the conversation as a whole are grounded in scientific reality.