report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Political Chat
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-06-2011, 04:49 PM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

WE NEED to start executing the vermin caught lying about this issue. Just a bullet in the fucking brain. They got the news right before the Cancun conference and , as it is with ALL the info they don't like, they just shitcanned it. Filthy creatures.


Did UK Government Keep Cold Winter Warning Secret In Run-Up To UN Climate Conference?


The Global Warming Policy Foundation has called on the House of Commons Transport Select Committee to set up a parliamentary inquiry into the winter advice the Government received by the Met Office and the renewed failure of both the Government and local authorities to prepare the UK transport system for the third severe winter in a row.

In a letter to the Chair of the Transport Committee, Louise Ellman, MP, the GWPF stresses that "Lessons have to be learned well in advance of the start of next year's winter so that we are much better prepared if it is severe again."

In recent days, the Met Office has stated that it apparently warned the Cabinet Office in late October that the start of the winter would be exceptionally cold. It would appear that the extreme weather warning was kept secret from the public.

According to media reports, the Cabinet Office has been unwilling to confirm whether or not it failed to pass on the Met Office warning to local and road authorities, airports and water companies.

"Not only is the lack of Government preparedness a cause for concern, but we wonder whether there may be another reason for keeping the cold warning under wraps, a motive that the Met Office and the Cabinet Office may have shared: Not to undermine the then forthcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun," said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF director.



Also, yet ANOTHER court of law is going after these lying fucking animals:


Court Orders University to Surrender Global Warming Records

Skeptics of man-made global warming claim victory after legal battle sees a U.S. university forced to produce disputed "global warming" records.

The University of Virginia (U.Va.) had stalled since last year in handing over its record relating to accusations against a former academic employee implicated in Climategate affair of November 2009.

The researcher at the center of the underlying controversy is global warming doomsayer, Professor Michael Mann who now works at Penn. State University. Mann, a Lead Author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been under increased scrutiny since the climate fraud scandal hit the headlines over a year ago.

The latest story appears on the SPPI website which reports, “Court records reveal that counsel for the University has indicated instead that the Mann-related records do in fact exist, on a backup server. To avoid University delay or claims for huge search fees, today’s request specifically directs the school to search that server.”



.
__________________
________________

Make Your Heart As Big as Your Dreams
Is your future secured?
Do you have all the money you need?
Do you have a plan to achieve your financial goals?
Would you like to see one?
thinkdreamcreate@gmail.com
Think big. Dream big. Create a better world.


Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:14 PM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Hey, can we execute lying creationists who write factually incorrect articles in order to undermine science?

I mean, if its good for the goose ...

(I, unlike you, dont actually want anyone killed. Lol)



Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:29 PM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Hey, can we execute lying creationists who write factually incorrect articles in order to undermine science?

I mean, if its good for the goose ...

(I, unlike you, dont actually want anyone killed. Lol)
What's the inside scoop on that Met story? I'm starting to actually feel sorry for those guys. I read that story on another site, they seemed to think it was a pretty big deal in the UK. Apparently the Met even published a forcast with a 60-80 percent probability of a warmer than normal winter to the public while giving the government a completely different forcast! Holy crap, what is going on with those guys. LOL

Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:58 PM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
What's the inside scoop on that Met story? I'm starting to actually feel sorry for those guys. I read that story on another site, they seemed to think it was a pretty big deal in the UK. Apparently the Met even published a forcast with a 60-80 percent probability of a warmer than normal winter to the public while giving the government a completely different forcast! Holy crap, what is going on with those guys. LOL
Its a bizarre interpretation, demanding an inquiry into weather predictions, but not one unexpected of "The Global Warming Policy Foundation", lol. They are hardly neutral. Nigel Lawson demanded the sort of inquiry after the "climategate" emails.

The facts seem correct, partly, in that the MET gave a prediction of cold weather to the government in October, didnt release publicly until december. But the idea that Nigel Lawsons lot are claiming that it was about the climate conference is silly, and contradicted by the fact the MET stopped that kind of public forecast about a year ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-2175788.html
Quote:
The Met Office warned the Government that the start of this winter would be "exceptionally cold" but did not immediately inform the public.
It advised Cabinet Office planners in October that Britain was likely to be in for freezing conditions.

But it only issued a public alert a month before December's hugely disruptive snow storms after changing its policy on releasing seasonal forecasts.

The BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, said the Met Office did not publish its warning of bad weather because of the embarrassment caused by its mistaken prediction that the UK would bask in a "barbecue summer" in 2009.

He wrote in the Radio Times: "Why didn't the Met Office tell us that Greenland was about to swap weather with Godalming?

"The truth is it did suspect we were in for an exceptionally cold early winter, and told the Cabinet Office so in October. But we weren't let in on the secret.

"The reason? The Met Office no longer publishes its seasonal forecasts because of the ridicule it suffered for predicting a barbecue summer in 2009 - the summer that campers floated around in their tents."

The Met Office stopped issuing seasonal forecasts to the public in March last year, and now provides a rolling forecast for the next 30 days on its website.

A spokeswoman for the agency denied that it withheld the warning about this winter's freezing weather out of embarrassment over the "barbecue summer" forecast.

She said: "We did advise them (the Cabinet Office) that the start of winter would be exceptionally cold back in October.

"We withdrew from making public our forecasts for the season because the public said they didn't want them.
"We always said they're useful for other people - obviously that includes the Cabinet Office and contingency planners.

"We did research at the start of last year and the public said a monthly forecast was far more useful than seasonal forecasts."
And its true, this isnt an excuse made up after the fact, to cover for the climate summit. This has been discussed on UK tv for the last year, the fact the MET got their summer 2009 prediction wrong, and decided to stop that kind of forecast a year ago. All predated this winter.

So its a political spin by Nigel Lawson's lot on the story. Quelle surprise.

Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:12 AM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Its a bizarre interpretation, demanding an inquiry into weather predictions, but not one unexpected of "The Global Warming Policy Foundation", lol. They are hardly neutral. Nigel Lawson demanded the sort of inquiry after the "climategate" emails.

The facts seem correct, partly, in that the MET gave a prediction of cold weather to the government in October, didnt release publicly until december. But the idea that Nigel Lawsons lot are claiming that it was about the climate conference is silly, and contradicted by the fact the MET stopped that kind of public forecast about a year ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-2175788.html
And its true, this isnt an excuse made up after the fact, to cover for the climate summit. This has been discussed on UK tv for the last year, the fact the MET got their summer 2009 prediction wrong, and decided to stop that kind of forecast a year ago. All predated this winter.

So its a political spin by Nigel Lawson's lot on the story. Quelle surprise.
The climte conference thing is speculation for sure.

That's not what struck me as the big issue. Apparently the screen shot below proves the Met did release a long range forcast for public consumption that is 180 from what they told the government privately. How could they have science to support both?

But the fact that the UK government did not share this cold forcast with appropriate local govnerments so that proper planning could be made for a harsh winter is strange indeed.




Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:29 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
The climte conference thing is speculation for sure.

That's not what struck me as the big issue. Apparently the screen shot below proves the Met did release a long range forcast for public consumption that is 180 from what they told the government privately. How could they have science to support both?

But the fact that the UK government did not share this cold forcast with appropriate local govnerments so that proper planning could be made for a harsh winter is strange indeed.



I dont actually get what that graph is saying, to be honest.

The other impoirtant point is this speculation that the cabinet office - which is the PMs office effectively - didnt pass on this info to local govt, airports etc. Thats the crux of the claim then.

This appears to be some sort of unsubstantiated claim made by Nigel Lawson's group. I would suggest its nonsense. The MET office supplies info to the UK govt, to the Scottish Welsh and NI governments, Ive no doubt to industry too, airports etc.

Im not sure what evidence there is for the part of this report you are worried about, other than a claim by Nigel Lawsons group. This is all about them trying to link it to the climate conference, the real target.

I have to say this whole report is not something the UK media are even mentioning, at all, that I can see. Noone is being critical of the MET (more than usual whinging about weather, lol), some are critical of the Westminister govt for not being prepared, but Im not sure what they could have done really. We arent designed for sustained bad weather, that might change if we get it for a few years in a row, but a decision would need to be made across all parts of govt etc to spend money on it. Wont happen at the moment.

Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 01-07-2011, 09:11 AM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

The point is the hilarious, ongoing and utter incompetence of the MET office.

WHY they chose to fuck everyone by keeping info secret is a matter of speculation, but certainly they have EVERYTHING invested in the climate shakedown conferences. That is where the money gets stolen and redistributed, dontcha know. That is why they keep other info they 'don't like' secret before conferences, so it isn't as though they wouldn't do such a thing.

We already KNOW they would happily do such a thing.

So--choose one. Either their incompetence is so widely known and a subject matter of such derision they didn't dare release a prediction OR they simply lied in order to further the shakedown.



.
__________________
________________

Make Your Heart As Big as Your Dreams
Is your future secured?
Do you have all the money you need?
Do you have a plan to achieve your financial goals?
Would you like to see one?
thinkdreamcreate@gmail.com
Think big. Dream big. Create a better world.

Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 01-07-2011, 10:39 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
The point is the hilarious, ongoing and utter incompetence of the MET office.

WHY they chose to fuck everyone by keeping info secret is a matter of speculation, but certainly they have EVERYTHING invested in the climate shakedown conferences. That is where the money gets stolen and redistributed, dontcha know. That is why they keep other info they 'don't like' secret before conferences, so it isn't as though they wouldn't do such a thing.

We already KNOW they would happily do such a thing.

So--choose one. Either their incompetence is so widely known and a subject matter of such derision they didn't dare release a prediction OR they simply lied in order to further the shakedown.



.
Yes, yes, everyone who doesnt hold your political views is a liar. You're an idiot.

The MET office isnt even being accused of anything here - they changed what forecasts and predictions they routinely make because of the difficulties of making predictions way in advance, and criyticism they received. That change happened a year ago.

Its the UK govt who are being attacked here, for not being prepared, and possibly not letting other depts know the MET office thought it might be a cold winter again. Although I believe thats just Nigel Lawson's organisation making spurious claims.

Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:13 PM
$ick3nin.vend3tta's Avatar
$ick3nin.vend3tta $ick3nin.vend3tta is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 715
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
WE NEED to start executing the vermin caught lying about this issue. Just a bullet in the fucking brain. They got the news right before the Cancun conference and , as it is with ALL the info they don't like, they just shitcanned it. Filthy creatures.
It's been the coldest December since records began here in the UK. This winter is set to be the coldest in 300 years.

Many blame the BP oil spill (look into the science of that).


Last edited by $ick3nin.vend3tta : 01-07-2011 at 11:17 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 01-08-2011, 04:33 AM
DoubleP's Avatar
DoubleP DoubleP is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,468
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by $ick3nin.vend3tta View Post
It's been the coldest December since records began here in the UK. This winter is set to be the coldest in 300 years.

Many blame the BP oil spill (look into the science of that).

Damn Cheney!!! I knew it!!!
__________________
**********
"I have never understood why it is considered "greed" to keep the money you've earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money"

- Thomas Sowell
http://www.tsowell.com/

*********

Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 01-08-2011, 07:24 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Here is a great take down of a Denier article that you science deniers like to link to:

Quote:
Forbes’ rich list of nonsense
Filed under: Climate ScienceReporting on climate— group @ 6 January 2011
Guest commentary from Michael Tobis and Scott Mandia with input from Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth

While it is no longer surprising, it remains disheartening to see a blistering attack on climate science in the business press where thoughtful reviews of climate policy ought to be appearing. Of course, the underlying strategy is to pretend that no evidence that the climate is changing exists, so any effort to address climate change is a waste of resources.

A recent piece by Larry Bell in Forbes, entitled “Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts”, is a classic example.

Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.

The approach also works somewhat in print, if the references are sufficiently obscure and numerous. Ideally, someone will take the time to answer such an attack, but there is a fundamental asymmetry of forces at work. It is, in fact, easier to form an allegation than to track down a reasonable explanation of what it means and how it really fits in to the balance of evidence. Also, the skills required to reflect the science are deeper than the ones required to attack it; hence the defenders are outnumbered and outgunned. Still, sometimes an article is prominent enough that it merits a detailed response.

The slightly out of the ordinary thing about Bell’s piece is that he casts his attack not as an attack on science (his usual method) but on the media:

As 2010 draws to a close, do you remember hearing any good news from the mainstream media about climate? Like maybe a headline proclaiming ‘Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed’? Or ‘NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase: Alarmists Fear Climate Science Budgets in Peril’?” he begins.

But the remainder of the article is true to the form. Bell gallops through all the purported “good news” that the media ignored. The implication is that the media is complicit in overstating the climate change story.

But these aren’t the sorts of observations that most people generally receive from the media. Instead, they present sensational statements and dramatic images that leave lasting impressions of calving glaciers, drowning polar bears and all manner of other man-caused climate calamities.

Many intentionally target impressionable young minds and sensitive big hearts with messages of fear and guilt. Take, for example, a children’s book called The North Pole Was Here, authored by New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin. It warns kids that some day it may be “easier to sail than stand on the North Pole in summer.” Imagine such images through their visualization: How warm it must be to melt that pole way up north. Poor Santa! And Rudolph! Of course it’s mostly their parents’ fault because of the nasty CO2 they produce driving them to school in SUVs.

Lots of grown-ups are sensitive people with big hearts too. Don’t we all deserve more from the seemingly infinite media echo chamber of alarmism than those windy speculations, snow jobs and projections established on theoretical thin ice?

Whether the enemy is the “mercenary” scientific community, the “power hungry” liberal politicians or the “sensationalist” press matters little. What matters is to suggest the public has been manipulated, before starting the manipulation in earnest. The strategic point is to divert attention from what most scientifically informed people consider the key facts: the climate is changing as a result of human intervention. The longer we delay taking policy action, the more damage we will take and the more an effective policy will cost. It is conceivable and increasingly foreseeable that we will delay long enough that useful policy becomes infeasible and both human civilization and the biosphere will be permanently damaged.

The near-silence of the media on these matters is considered by many to be a key part of the problem. Yet, in this context, Bell suggests we are ignoring “the good news”.

Does he have a point? Is there really much of substance that qualifies as good news justifying his conclusion? The value of his piece depends crucially on how newsworthy his good news was, and how these items fit into the big picture.

We counted eleven assertions of fact in his gallop. Let’s look at each of them and place them in context. Bell especially emphasizes his first two points, so we examine them in detail (quotes from the article are bolded).

Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported

Bell’s first claim is not a confidence builder.

It’s possible that Bell is referencing a specific metric of hurricane activity (Accumulated Cyclone ******), but that does not give a full story, nor does it show ‘record lows’. According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ended Dec 31, was one of the busiest on record. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. 2010 was just behind 2004 and 2005 for earliest occurrence of a third category 4 hurricane.

It is true that none of the 12 hurricanes made landfall in the US (though tropical storm Hermine made landfall in US and hurricane Karl made land fall in Mexico but caused major flooding in Texas. But the climate system cares nothing for national borders. This may be just a lucky break . Looking in detail it is attributable to some other features of the prevailing winds last year.

What is certainly untrue is that there was “record low” cyclonic activity in the Atlantic!

What about elsewhere? A tie for the strongest eastern Pacific hurricane on record (Celia). A category 5 hurricane hitting the Philippines (Megi).

Did the press ignore this story? Even on this Bell’s leading point is dubious. But in the context of climate change, sea surface temperatures continue to increase and strong tropical cyclones continue their upward trend. So Bell leads off with a real clunker.

NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase

Bell’s second point, also from the lead paragraph:

According to two separate NASA studies, one conducted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the other by the Langley Research Center, the oceans now appear to be heading into another natural periodic cooling phase within a typical 55- to 70-year dipolar warm/cool pattern.

We traced this claim to an internet article by Justin Berk that says:

Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world’s oceans have been losing heat. …

Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, published his first report about the warming oceans. The article Correcting Ocean Cooling published on NASA’s Earth Observatory page this week discussed his and other results. Willis used data from 1993-2003 that showed the warm-up and followed the Global Warming Theory. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled. He was surprised, and called it a ‘speed bump’ on the way to global warming.

But the excellent article “Correcting Ocean Cooling” which Berk references (and to which Bell is implicitly referring) for this actually explains how Willis went back and found that his earlier report of cooling was erroneous!

So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. The February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is “burned into my memory.” He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on “ocean cooling” to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake.”

Berk is so happy to find the word “cooling” in an article that despite the title “Correcting Ocean Cooling” he doesn’t bother to read or understand the whole point of the article. It’s really a very compelling example of how superficial this kind of journalism is; Berk gets something backwards, Bell picks it up, and Forbes, no less, uses it to lead off an article (albeit an op-ed column).

What’s more, the NASA article itself is from 2008, so even if the press had reported it as news as Larry Bell suggests, it would not have been in 2010. But in fact, the news was that the previous evidence of cooling was erroneous. Bell’s second point is simply wrong as well.

Now that we have some sense of the quality of Bell’s research, we’ll go a little more quickly through most of the other points, saving for last a case where he might have a stronger point.

A special press conference called by IPCC spokesman Kevin Trenberth announced “Experts warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Christopher Landsea, a top U.S. expert on the subject, repeatedly notified the IPCC that no research had been conducted to support that claim–not in the Atlantic basin, or in any other basin.

This famous controversy occurred in 2004 and is not 2010 news. Nor was it ignored by the press. We doubt that Landsea went so far as to claim that “no research had been conducted to support that claim” but if he did he is certainly incorrect. This topic goes back at least to 1987 with a paper in Nature by Kerry Emanuel. Kevin Trenberth offers some salient points about the controversy from his point of view:

1.I was not an IPCC spokesperson and I was not advertised as such. Landsea claimed otherwise.
2.I did not call the press conference, it was called by Harvard university (Paul Epstein and Jim McCarthy), I participated.
3.There was a ton of research including my own on changes in the hydrological cycle that were pertinent but not specifically Tropical Storm based, as well as Kerry’s work.
4.Landsea did not notify IPCC once, let alone repeatedly. He called a press conference and resigned from IPCC but he was not even part of IPCC. He had been asked by me to write something as a contributing author. It was a horrible distortion of many facts.
A globally viewed December 2005 BBC feature alarmingly reported that two massive glaciers in eastern Greenland, Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim, were melting, with water “racing to the sea.” … Only 18 months later, and despite slightly warmer temperatures, the melting rate of both glaciers Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim not only slowed down and stopped, but actually reversed.

This again is not 2010 news since it happened in 2007. It is a fact that after a massive retreat from 1991 to 2005 Kangderlugssuaq regained a tiny fraction, less than a tenth, of that retreat by 2007. This may be of interest to glacier dynamicists, but its climatological importance is nil. Glaciers worldwide are in massive retreat. Indeed, Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier lost another 5.2 square km in 2009.

[The] ice cap has been accumulating snow growth at a rate of about 2.1 inches per year

The top of the ice caps are growing slightly as expected, since warmer air contains more moisture which will fall in those places as snow. The issue that the public ought to pay attention to is the much larger and accelerating melt at the edge of the ice sheet. This is not especially 2010 news, but in any case it is sleight of hand. The real action is the instability at the edges, which already dominates the accumulation in the interior and looks likely to overwhelm it.

The new sea level, which has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years.

Just wrong:


Figure showing the last 18 years of sea level rise derived from satellites and validated against tide gauges. (Update: longer records available here).



Next:

… if you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there ‘must’ be a focus on global warming.

There are many grants supported by the grant agencies. Some are very broad and some very narrow. While it is possible that some grants specify “global warming”, it is relatively unusual. Currently open climate calls in the US through NSF can be seen at here. The claim simply isn’t true.

The Indian Ocean, for example, was higher between 1900 and 1970 than it has been since.

This is at least a current topic. It probably is based in Patterns of Indian Ocean sea-level change in a warming climate, Han et al. Nature Geoscience 2010. They conclude that “sea level has decreased substantially in the south tropical Indian Ocean whereas it has increased elsewhere. This pattern is driven by changing surface winds associated with a combined invigoration of the Indian Ocean Hadley and Walker cells, patterns of atmospheric overturning circulation in the north–south and east–west direction, respectively, which is partly attributable to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

So yes, there are apparently parts of the Indian Ocean where sea level has declined. This just leaves more water to pile up elsewhere. In fact, it shows how powerful the forces of climate change already are, in order to be able to outweigh the generally rising ocean volume in a limited area. It is hard to see how this rises to a general interest topic or how it qualifies as “good news” though.

The Northwest Passage has certainly opened up before.

This is untrue in recorded history. The traversals prior to 2007 were in very specialized boats and often took years. In 2007 and 2010, genuine shipping lanes opened up for the first time. It was possibly open in the mid-Holocene about 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and was certainly open millions of years ago. But since the opening of the passage itself received far too little attention (in our opinion), it is hard to see what Bell is complaining about.

in February 2009 it was discovered that scientists had previously been underestimating the re-growth of Arctic sea ice by an area larger than the state of California (twice as large as New Zealand)

“Previously” is grossly misleading. This was an instrumental glitch that lasted a few weeks. And February 2009 was not in 2010 either.

… previous estimates of Greenland and West Antarctica ice melt rate losses may have been exaggerated by double.

We’ve saved this for last because here Bell has a fraction of a point; as far as we can tell the only thing he raises that is 1) current and 2) arguably of general interest and 3) arguably good news. The use of the word “exaggerated” however is malicious and unjustified.

There are a number of ways of estimating the large scale mass balance of the ice sheets. Prominent among them uses information from the GRACE satellite, which measures the gravitational field of the earth. By its nature, the resulting measures are very large scale. They are complemented by precise local measures of ice altitude, for example, which are precise but cannot give broad coverage. To estimate ice cap melting the GRACE results also have to be combined with an estimate of the post-glacial rebound from the last ice age (which is still affecting the mass distribution of the Earth’s crust). Observing a planet is tricky business.

A recent publication by Wu et al makes the claim that:

“these [previous] results were not properly corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment, the phenomenon that the Earth’s crust rebounds as a result of the melting of the massive ice caps from the last major Ice Age around 20,000 years ago. These movements of the Earth’s crust have to be incorporated in the calculations, since these vertical movements change the Earth’s mass distribution and therefore also have an influence on the gravitational field.”

There is some contention here. If it proves true, it is an example of science at its best; a sequence of corrections converging on objective truth. The original estimates would have been corrected, pretty much by a factor of two as Bell says.

So this is current, substantially good news, and possibly salient for a general audience. On the other hand it is only good news about bad news; the ice retreat may have been overestimated, but we are still talking about hundreds of billions of tons more ice melting than accumulating every year, and this rate still shows signs of accelerating.

In this case, it is worth noting that all the evidence is that the ice sheets are losing mass and that the loss is accelerating. The Wu et al paper would be simply a recalibration of the net loss. This is good news, but not great news, and is certainly no evidence at all that climate change is negligible.

Please notice how we are trapped in a polemical double bind here.

What the naysayers will do is celebrate every correction that makes matters look less dangerous and criticize every correction that makes matters look more dangerous. In the former case, the older measure will have been “exaggerated”, and “corrected” by some noble and courageous hero. In the latter case, the newer measure is treated as the “exaggeration”. Thus, every single change in the estimate of any quantity is treated as evidence of the grand conspiracy.

What should be celebrated as advances of truth are instead recast either as the bad scary science defeated by the good non-scary science or the other way around. This is especially evident in the clumsy way the Willis tale is told, wherein the casting is confused because one person takes both roles.

So what remains of the criticism Bell raises? Very little indeed! The only unreported good news is that ice cap melting might have been overestimated, though it is still large and probably accelerating. The other ten of his eleven points are essentially nonsensical. I am not being partisan or oppositional here. I examined every point with an open mind and came up with ten points that boil down to complete nonsense and the last one a bit heavy on the spin.

Ultimately, though, the criticism of the press is ludicrous. The naysayers ought to be thrilled at the lack of interest in climate change shown in the press, at least in North America. The longer we delay, the bigger the topic gets, and the more ridiculous the refusal of the press and policy sector to grapple with it becomes.

Yet widely respected publications like Forbes seem eager to promulgate great clouds of rhetorical ink to make the problem seem ever more trivial and distant. If there is good news of general interest, of course it should be reported. But Bell seems to want, instead, to invent it.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 01-08-2011, 09:33 AM
Spector567's Avatar
Spector567 Spector567 is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,232
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Kazza's article is long but worth the read.

Making accusations is easy, short and they are easily accepted by a disinterested or sympathetic audience.

Disproving these accusations takes longer, are rarely short since it requires 2x as much text and the disinterested would rather listen to and remember an easy explanation than a long boring one.

The public likes to over symplify things.

Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 01-08-2011, 04:14 PM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
I


I have to say this whole report is not something the UK media are even mentioning, at all, that I can see. Noone is being critical of the MET (more than usual whinging about weather, lol), some are critical of the Westminister....

LOL

Once AGAIN you have demonstrated your stunning lack of knowledge of the world you live in...or are you lying? Is it possible that you don't read ANY of the news in your region?



Metro.uk Met office Kept 'Big Freeze' Secret

The Sun.uk Met Office Kept Big Chill Secret

The Telegraph Met Office 'kept winter forecast secret from public'

The Daily Mail Online
Met Office knew big freeze was coming but hushed it up

The Guardian Met Office knew pre-Christmas freeze was coming but held off telling public

Daily Star.uk Met Office a Shower of Idiots

The Independent.uk Public warning of big freeze deliberately delayed to spare Met Office 'embarrassment'


It's like no one even NOTICED!! LOL

Just astounding.




.
__________________
________________

Make Your Heart As Big as Your Dreams
Is your future secured?
Do you have all the money you need?
Do you have a plan to achieve your financial goals?
Would you like to see one?
thinkdreamcreate@gmail.com
Think big. Dream big. Create a better world.

Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:11 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
LOL

Once AGAIN you have demonstrated your stunning lack of knowledge of the world you live in...or are you lying? Is it possible that you don't read ANY of the news in your region?



Metro.uk Met office Kept 'Big Freeze' Secret

The Sun.uk Met Office Kept Big Chill Secret

The Telegraph Met Office 'kept winter forecast secret from public'

The Daily Mail Online
Met Office knew big freeze was coming but hushed it up

The Guardian Met Office knew pre-Christmas freeze was coming but held off telling public

Daily Star.uk Met Office a Shower of Idiots

The Independent.uk Public warning of big freeze deliberately delayed to spare Met Office 'embarrassment'


It's like no one even NOTICED!! LOL

Just astounding.




.
Well, I hadnt seen any attacks on the MET at that point for sure. But ... I think one of those articles was the one I used above, lol, in my later post on the subject after looking into it. I hadnt seen it mentioned anywhere, until this thread, and hadnt seen (still havent) any tv reports about it.

In a later post I linked to and quoted from the independent article. Before you did. I was hardly pretending it wasnt mentioned once I had quoted and linked to the article! ROFL.

Along with a quote from the article I said: "The facts seem correct, partly, in that the MET gave a prediction of cold weather to the government in October, didnt release publicly until december. But the idea that Nigel Lawsons lot are claiming that it was about the climate conference is silly, and contradicted by the fact the MET stopped that kind of public forecast about a year ago."

Subtlety isnt your thing, is it.

But then, as we know, you are completely anti science and insane, so finding anything to try and attack the MET office is at least consistent. What was it you said earlier? "As we KNOW, scientists don't know dick about evolution."

ROFL!


Last edited by thistle : 01-09-2011 at 01:13 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 01-09-2011, 07:56 AM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Well, I hadnt seen any attacks on the MET at that point for sure. But ... I think one of those articles was the one I used above, lol, in my later post on the subject after looking into it. I hadnt seen it mentioned anywhere, until this thread, and hadnt seen (still havent) any tv reports about it.

In a later post I linked to and quoted from the independent article. Before you did. I was hardly pretending it wasnt mentioned once I had quoted and linked to the article! ROFL.

Along with a quote from the article I said: "The facts seem correct, partly, in that the MET gave a prediction of cold weather to the government in October, didnt release publicly until december. But the idea that Nigel Lawsons lot are claiming that it was about the climate conference is silly, and contradicted by the fact the MET stopped that kind of public forecast about a year ago."

Subtlety isnt your thing, is it.

But then, as we know, you are completely anti science and insane, so finding anything to try and attack the MET office is at least consistent. What was it you said earlier? "As we KNOW, scientists don't know dick about evolution."

ROFL!


WOW.


You said 'no one here really cares about this' and I showed you that EVERYONE cared about it.

Nothing else really happened there, only you demonstrating your remarkable lack of knowledge about the topic, followed by your basic lack of backbone, followed by your desperate reference to another topic...followed by 'LOL'

That was it--the other whining is just your typical inability to admit you didn't know shit.



Let's compare what they thought they knew about evolution 30 years ago with what they think they know today, then extrapolate to what they will think they know 30 years from today. That is how science works--you should get used to it.




.
__________________
________________

Make Your Heart As Big as Your Dreams
Is your future secured?
Do you have all the money you need?
Do you have a plan to achieve your financial goals?
Would you like to see one?
thinkdreamcreate@gmail.com
Think big. Dream big. Create a better world.

Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 01-09-2011, 08:31 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
Let's compare what they thought they knew about evolution 30 years ago with what they think they know today, then extrapolate to what they will think they know 30 years from today. That is how science works--you should get used to it.
Hmm. What exactly do you think scientists thought about evolution 30 years ago? (when I was in school, by the way). I'd love to know, since you brought it up, and think it somehow helps you.

I'll give you a hint - 30 years ago we had many fossils, but not as many as today. What do you think, have the last 30 years of fossils:

a) backed the thinking 30 years ago, or
b) conflicted with thinking 30 years ago?

Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 01-09-2011, 06:41 PM
cirussell cirussell is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,562
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Well, I hadnt seen any attacks on the MET at that point for sure. But ... I think one of those articles was the one I used above, lol, in my later post on the subject after looking into it. I hadnt seen it mentioned anywhere, until this thread, and hadnt seen (still havent) any tv reports about it.
Still nothing on the TV about this? I keep seeing more and more on it.

What in the world is going on at MET?
Are they secretly aligned with climate skeptics or are they really this incompetent?

The Met Office ‘secret’ prediction and the political implications

Posted on January 9, 2011 by Barry Woods
The UK Met Office

Guest Post by Barry Woods

Roger Harrabin, an environment analyst at the BBC, told the Radio Times:
“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office. How often does it get the weather right and wrong. And we don’t know how it compares with other, independent forecasters.
As the UK government, Heathrow airport particularly, were woefully under-prepared AGAIN this winter, the big budget UK taxpayer funded Met Office have finally moved from being a laughing stock, into surely a public enquiry by that ‘secret’ statement. In the time of recession, big budget organisations like the Met Office have to be seen to be performing, not acting in the public’s eyes as a global warming campaigning lobby group.
Therefore New Scientists optimism is misplaced by the Met Office story alone, because this time politicians have been publically embarrassed by it.


In the Sunday Telegraph today, Christopher Booker calls the Met Office to account:
” First it was a national joke. Then its professional failings became a national disaster. Now, the dishonesty of its attempts to fight off a barrage of criticism has become a real national scandal. I am talking yet again of that sad organisation the UK Met Office, as it now defends its bizarre record with claims as embarrassingly absurd as any which can ever have been made by highly-paid government officials.” – Christopher Booker
Anybody in the age of the internet can now check on anything a public body or advocate has said, the politicians and journalists are only slowly becoming aware of this in my opinion. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publically written to the Transport Secretary callling for an enquiry, on the board of the GWPF there are respected politicians and scientists, this issue will be he heard and discussed privately in the corridoors of power.
For one particlar politician to have moved publically even as far he goes in the following, demonstrates that the political ‘game has changed’ permanently.

Before the Copenhagen Conference (Cop 15) – Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London (formerly the Conservative Member of Parliament for Henley on Thames – my local town), wrote dismissively of the climategate emailsin the Telegraph;
“That is why the polls show such an amazingly obstinate public refusal to accept the reality of global warming. That is why there is still a market for thermoscepticism of all kinds. That is why people seize on a few stray emails from the University of East Anglia which seem – wrongly – to undermine the scientific case.” – Boris Johnson
At the time Boris was fully behind the Labour Prime Minister, who went off to Copenhagen, stating ’50 Days to Save the Planet’, and spoke about ‘Flat-earthers’, ‘anti-science climate deniars’. The Minsiter of State for the Department of ****** And Climate Change, ED Milliband (now the Labour Party leader, in opposition) apparently thinking calling CAGW sceptics ‘sabatouers’ was appropriateat the time all UK political parties were convinced that environmental ‘climate change’ policies were a vote winner, a UK General Election was possibly weeks, at most a few weeks away.
This year, we have a new government in the UK after 13 years of AGW consensus, a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, Boris is still mayor of London, and this week, he writes glowingly about Piers Corbyn (Weather Action) out predicting the Met Office. Piers is a total CAGW sceptic, behind the recent Climate Fools day – House of Commons meeting. For Boris Johnson to write publically positively about Piers nad criticisning the government funded, Met Office, demonstrates how much things have chnaged. Boris Johnson, despite his slightly buffonish comical genial image is nobodied fool, surving prominently as a consrvative politican for so long is eveidence of that alone.

Telegraph: The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
“Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.
“….It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well – touch wood – when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.”
“….So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”?
“…Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.”
Boris Johnson went on to say that man made co2 is still a cause of global warming, according to an overwhelming majority of scientists, James Delingpole of the Telegraph summarises Boris’ current dilemma more eloquently than I in his blog.
“So what sounds like a fervent declaration of faith in the Warmist creed may on closer examination be a perfectly innocuous statement of the bleeding obvious cunningly calculated to appease all Boris’s rentseeking chums in the City who stand to make a fortune from the Great Carbon Scam and would be most displeased if the Mayor of London were to show signs of wobbling.
Yet wobbling is, of course, exactly what Boris is doing. Or rather – remember, this is the man so ambitious he makes Alexander The Great look like Olive from On The Buses – he is slyly repositioning himself to take advantage of the inevitable collapse of public faith in the Great Anthropogenic Global Warming Ponzi Scheme.” – James Delingpole
If the politicians think trouble is ahead, they back the winners, not only has the Met Office predictions of mild winter been wrong three winters in the row, thay have be SEEN to be wrong, there was plenty of mainstream press coverage before the harsh winters that other forecaster were predicting a severe winter. Following the last years mild winter prediction by the Met Office, there was even BBC coverage debating whether their very expensive super computer had a ‘warm bias’ which was wildly reported in the mainstream media in the UK

BBC – A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met office – Paul Hudson
Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?
The Met Office is an interconnected part of the UK climate Science establishment. in thye Uk we have not just had a cold wintewr but the second coldest December on record, and the coldest winter on record. and the UK records actually mean somethin (not 30 years satellite) the Central England Temperature dataset, goes back to the 1660′s. again this is now in the mainstream media with headlines including ‘mini ice age’ and ‘coldest winter in 300 years’ read by millions of members of the general public
BBC – December 2010 Update – Second Coldest since 1659 – Paul Hudson

Their are Two possibilities now.
1.) If the Met office are telling the truth.
Then the government failed to prepare or warn public bodies about what is now the SECOND coldest December in the UK since records began. London Heathrow was publically embarrased and closed for days as it could not handle a few iches of snow, it had only invested £500,000 in de-icing equipment and the government apparently stepped into help ensure fresh suplies reached the airport. The lack of readiness for the snow will have had an effect on the UK economyNo doubt all this negative publicity shown by the media around the world, billions of pound inthe economy nad possibly risking future billions of foriegn inwards investment, as London appers to be as organised as a undeveloped nation. I imagine some corporations, passengers, airline might want to sue.
Their is even, also some suspicion that if this was the case, it was kept quiet because predictions of the coldest winter in the UK for decades would be a bit awkward for the ****** and Climate Chnage Secretary of State flying off to the man made global warming, climate chnage, global climate disruption, future climate breakdown Cop 15 Cancun conference.
2.) If the Met Office are NOT telling the truth
If the Met Office are shall we say, spinning a line, to make out they are nort useless at predicting the weather, then I imagine even the dimmist politiciand and non questioining joyurnalists might start asking what exactly is the Met Office for.

Bishop Hill and other blogs report that Freedom of Information request are being sent off for these ‘ so called secret’ Met Office predictions made to the government. After all it must be true the BBC’s Roger Harrabin reported it? I wonder if the BBC have thought to send any FOI requests in themselves, just to check the facts of this story. After all the BBC just renewed a 5 year contract woth the Met Office to provide all the weather forecasting for the BBC. The BBC surely doesn’t want to look as if it is being lax in the investigative journalism? Or, if only to check that the service provided to the BBC by the Met Office is competant and can be trusted, it is taxpayers money paying for this service.
“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office.” – BBC Roger Harrabin
New Scientist is optimistic about the New Year, let uss all be optimistic about whatever the New Year brings, even if it is the start of a decade or two of cooling or even another of a little ice age, forewarned is to be prepared.

Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:13 PM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: U.K. Climate Scum LIED About Cold Winter

Yeah, cos "wattsupwiththat.com" is british tv.

What you have is the met office making predictions, and getting them wrong. Wow, this is news?

Then they get a lot of shit a year+ ago because they got it wrong. Again, wow, its a prediction, of course they are going to get it wrong a lot of the time.

They then abandoned those predictions, a year ago.

They informed the government they thought it was going to be a cold winter a few months ago - this is their more accurate short term predictions, much much more accurate than the long terms ones.

The winter was the worst and most disruptive on record. You think they predicted THAT? Of course not. They will have predicted it was going to be cold, maybe like last year.

The reason there was so much disruption is because we - South of UK especially - are not used to this kind of weather. To be able to handle it would require huge investment, not worthwhile as long as such cold winters are 1 in 100 year occurrences. Note - its mild, wet, windy again. Normal weather.

The main plus out of all this has been for people trying to use the climate change issue for political gain. Wattsupwiththat?


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Climate Scum STUNNED By Glaciers...Yet Again pwrone Political Chat 5 02-28-2012 11:37 PM
Climate Scum Adjust on the Fly! pwrone Political Chat 10 10-11-2011 10:46 PM
Va. Demonrats Protecting Climate Scum pwrone Political Chat 14 01-20-2011 11:18 PM
Climate Scum in Action pwrone Political Chat 3 10-04-2010 10:07 AM
Climate Scum/ Other Perspectives pwrone Political Chat 20 12-18-2009 01:15 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.