Search results

Another mistake by the cry-wolf crowd?... I never woulda thunk it.

How predictable. In true fanatical style, you unilaterally declare that "the debate is over" Ironically, it is this action that pulls the rug out from under the greenies perceived position every time.

No organization is perfect? Then I guess that East Anglia is the perfect poster child for that sentiment considering the frauds detailed in the leaked emails (and not denied I might add) misrepresentation and the exit of the disgraced head of the department. Top it all off by the loss of...

Avro. You're upset that I used the word little - as statistical significance - in responding to your quote. I was being generous. "quite close" in stats-speak is like almost getting laid.. It don't count. The "tricks" referred to relate to the deliberate engineering of climate models to yield...

When the data was lost is irrelevant. Seeing how East Anglia officials are clearly not fit to manage the data, certainly it is unfathomable to expect those same incompetents to develop any complex theories or models. Thanks for the link from Richard Alley.. I won't bother to watch it as I've...

Accurate statements?.. I guess that leaves out the entire body of knowledge from East Anglia and therefore much of the foundation of your argument. Wrong, this point was about Monbiot parroting the IPCC/UN's trademark talking points and cliche sentiments. Those elements were the brain-child...

Funny - that is exactly what Jones et al have done and will be proven of.

This is what was submitted in your post: "Prof Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995-2009. This trend (0.12 per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." As far as the comment being "quite close" - what exactly does that mean...

You mean IF he is exonorated... That is if he will be invited back.

You are right: the word "little" was never used... I was being generous - the actual term was no statistical significance (meaning an absolute absence) was the term. While you intepret his position as still supportive, I see it as waning and in question. It was not to long ago that there was...

2 questions arise from this. If the 15 year average had little statistical significance, then why publish/adverise that there is an immediate crisis? Considering that Jones has been aising the alarm on behalf of the IPCC for many years, why has he and his group not analyzed the long-term to...

That is possibly the most succinct and accurate description of this entire issue. Hopefully it might provoke some thought in the minds of those that refuse to see the big picture.

That prediction is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. First-off, exactly what is considered erratic weather? I can't imagine that there is any possibility of stasis in terms of the weather patterns (taking the long view) and just because we are seeing the weather patterns migrate, that...

You sure an interesting case. It seems that you prefer to a highly selective perspective that serves to suit a very narrow view. Point 1 As far as Monbiot being older than the IPCC.. I have old hockey jerseys older than the IPCC - What's your point? Monbiot's debate on the videos in question...

My comment is directed to the ice masses in the ocean. However, if you really want to perform an accounting-style analysis; let's not forget that the land-based ice was at one point "free floating" in the system. It had to get deposited there at some point. This being the case, one could make...

the entire mass of ice (above and below the water line) will affect the system. The weight of the ice above the water line exerts pressure that affects the entire system.

I think that the hysteria of melting ice in the arctic/antarctic seas does not reflect the notion that when water freezes, it expands and will displace a greater volume as a solid than it does as a liquid. Adding more liquid into the system is offset by the loss of the solid that will also...

Had you bothered to listen to the discussion, you'd understand that it doesn't take a crystal ball to determine where Monbiot developed his ideas. He parroted the faulty and fraudulent rhetoric issued by the IPCC and UN verbatim. It's not my responsibility to prove a negative (in this case)...

Here's a hint for you.. The zoologist in question IS the journalist in question. George Monbiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Clear now? So who's doing the scamming then? Nature or is it the aliens? Clear now?

That implication is entirely your assumption. Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. As far as the globe warming is concerned, the issue here relates to whether it is humanity that is the major cause or a part of a natural cycle. I thought that this was evident.