Hi all, this is the biggest news event of the century, but I couldn't see any coverage here? Basically, top government funded climate scientists have been twisting their data to falsify global warming. Their private data was hacked a couple of days ago, and is now all over the internet, such as the quotes below...

 

“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=794).

 

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419).

 

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154).

 

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1048).

 

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544)

 

For further info, just google 'climategate' it's getting 100,000's of hits globally!

 

Main stream media and the biased BBC aren't saying anything yet, but this isn't going away. As things stand, "Act On CO2" is based on fraudulent data, and sinking fast!

they need to keep this "destroying earth" story up to find a way of retaining tax revenue when the oil runs dry, as trying to find a way of taxing wind and wave power is going to be very hard by its "free fuel" nature...thats why full effort has not been put into this type of fuel research as its very hard to tax the wind:x:;)

I have no doubt that our world climate is changing. We seem to have a wet or rainy season in UK now ?

 

Wont even go into the poor old Polar bear scenario etc.

 

I may be wrong and flame me if you want, but this world is constantly evolving, be it for the better or the worse ?

 

Alan........

Always been of the belief that the world climate has cycles these cycles do cause seasons to slip out of the expected norm, also causing changes to the expected rain, sun, wind, sea levels etc. then there is sun activity, we defo are not responsible for that one but it has a massive effect on our world with solar winds and more.

 

So given these cycles are a natural recurring events, first the govening bodies and private eneterprise are just milking it for what they can BUT the most import thing to consider is this, will the green measures that are been forced on us by the authorities and greedy private companies actually harm the natural cycle?? it might not be that man is killing the planet with climate change polution it just might be the green measures upsetting nature`s own blueprint for the worlds climate stability.

 

Jeff TT

^ Jeff for PM :bow: - when you clear your mind of all the bulls**t youre fed by the media, it actually makes so much sense (can you make Z's tax exempt when youre PM ;) )

Are we going to blame all of these on car CO2 emissions?

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes/

 

Weather extremes

 

National and UK weather records are shown in the tables below. Last updated 24 November 2008.

 

Highest daily temperature records:

England 38.5 °C 10 August 2003 Faversham (Kent)

Wales 35.2 °C 2 August 1990 Hawarden Bridge (Flintshire)

Scotland 32.9 °C 9 August 2003 Greycrook (Scottish Borders)

Northern Ireland 30.8 °C 30 June 1976 Knockarevan (County Fermanagh)

12 July 1983 Shaw's Bridge, Belfast (County Antrim)

 

Lowest daily temperature records:

Scotland -27.2 °C 11 February 1895 Braemar (Aberdeenshire)

10 January 1982 Braemar (Aberdeenshire)

30 December 1995 Altnaharra (Highland)

England -26.1°C 10 January 1982 Newport (Shropshire)

Wales -23.3 °C 21 January 1940 Rhayader (Powys)

Northern Ireland -17.5 °C 1 January 1979 Magherally (County Down)

 

Highest monthly sunshine records:

England 383.9 hours July 1911 Eastbourne (Sussex)

Wales 354.3 hours July 1955 Dale Fort (Pembrokeshire)

Scotland 329.1 hours May 1975 Tiree (Argyll & Bute)

Northern Ireland 298.0 hours June 1940 Mount Stewart (County Down)

 

Highest gust speed records (low-level sites):

Scotland 123 knots

(142 m.p.h.) 13 February 1989 Fraserburgh (Aberdeenshire)

Northern Ireland 108 Knots

(124 m.p.h.) 12 January 1974 Kilkeel (County Down)

Wales 108 knots

(124 m.p.h.) 28 October 1989 Rhoose (Vale of Glamorgan)

England

103 knots

(118 m.p.h.) 15 December 1979 Gwennap Head (Cornwall)

 

The highest gust speed from a high level site is 150 knots (173 m.p.h.) at Cairngorm Summit (1,245 metres AMSL) on 20 March 1986.

 

Highest 24-hour rainfall totals:

England 279 mm 18 July 1955 Martinstown (Dorset)

Scotland 238 mm 17 January 1974 Sloy Main Adit (Argyll & Bute)

Wales 211 mm 11 November 1929 Lluest Wen Reservoir (Mid Glamorgan)

Northern Ireland 159 mm 31 October 1968 Tollymore Forest (County Down)

 

Uk rainfall records for short durations:

Highest 5-minute total *32 mm 10 August 1893 Preston (Lancashire)

Highest 30-minute total 80 mm 6 June 1953 Eskdalemuir (Dumfries & Galloway)

Highest 60-minute total 92 mm 12 July 1901 Maidenhead (Berkshire)

Highest 90-minute total 117 mm 8 August 1967 Dunsop Valley (Lancashire)

Highest 120-minute total #193 mm 19 May 1989 Walshaw Dean Lodge (West Yorkshire)

Highest 120-minute total #155 mm 11 June 1956 Hewenden Reservoir (West Yorkshire)

Highest 155-minute total 169 mm 14 August 1975 Hampstead (Greater London)

Highest 180-minute total 178 mm 7 October 1960 Horncastle (Lincolnshire)

 

* Approximate value

#Reservations about Walshaw value, Hewenden value is next highest accepted value.

I never did belive it , just due to the fact that i thought the east coast , ie were i live (Great Yarmouth) was ment to be under water by 2010 and oh look its less than a month away and nothing has changed what so ever, and i see the sea every day and not forgetting im a lifeboat crew member

they also say things like "its the worst flooding since the 50's" (or something similar) so are they saying global warming was worse then or the same, cause there was a dam less cars then. the earth grows and evolves and we are noticing it, i do agree we could affect the way the earth does this but to pin it on us general public is beyond a joke.

they also say things like "its the worst flooding since the 50's" (or something similar) so are they saying global warming was worse then or the same, cause there was a dam less cars then. the earth grows and evolves and we are noticing it, i do agree we could affect the way the earth does this but to pin it on us general public is beyond a joke.

 

Random info alert :- humans have been on this planet for -- first ancestors that we now qualify as "early human", then the oldest evidence so far is about 1.8 million years

 

and in that time frame nothing has change that dramtic , ok the odd draght but they spring back normaly but yeah we anit to blame , the oversea contries of which i wont name as i dont want this to turn in to a polictics thread are pumping the most in to the planet not us, new building regs now state that you need one erg bulb in your home , what the feck is one bulb gonna do. and why do they still sell the other type when you can get 3 for a £1 in tescos. i fully understand that if everyone in the uk had one nrg bulb its could reduce wasted fuel but the majority of houses are old and its only new build that have to have the new reg's light bulbs. in my place so a specifc company can make more money they invented a 3 pin bulb in stead of the standed 2, whats the point in that, so everytime a bulb goes you need to phone up a company and they will sell you a 3 pin nrg bulb at a stupid price. so i replace the holder with a 2 pin feck them.

the chinese put 12million cars on the road last year......can i give up recycling now? :D

Sadly climate change is real. It'd be nice to believe it isn't and we don't have to do anything, but that's not the case.

 

1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR

Sceptic

Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have been expanding and using more energy. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from "proxy" indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors.

 

Counter

Warming is unequivocal. Ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with records from surface weather stations. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa, for example, use only rural stations to calculate trends. Research has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see more warming on calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

 

 

2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED

Sceptic

Since 1998 - more than a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no discernible warming.

 

Counter

The year 1998 was exceptionally warm because of a strong El Nino event, while 2008 was unusually cold because of La Nina conditions. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis (or a cold one to end with) is "cherry-picking". If you start in 1997 or 1999 you will see a sharp rise. Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005 (they use the same data but interpret it differently). According to the Met Office, the 10 warmest years in the modern record have all occurred since 1997.

 

3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST

Sceptic

The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Medieval Warm Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.

 

Counter

There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - for example, the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations; but none of those factors is significant today compared with greenhouse warming. Evidence for a Medieval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect." Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still. One recent analysis showed it is warmer now than at any time in the last 2,000 years.

 

4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE

Sceptic

Computer models are the main way of projecting future climate change. But despite decades of development they are unable to model all the processes involved; for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim of "you put garbage in, you get garbage out".

 

Counter

Models will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, they are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling are backed up by theoretical science or observations.

 

 

5. THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT

Sceptic

Computer models predict that the lower levels of the atmosphere, the troposphere, should be warming faster than the Earth's surface. Measurements show the opposite. So either the models are failing, or one set of measurements is flawed, or there are holes in our understanding of the science.

 

Counter

Interpretation of the satellite data has not always been straightforward - but it does not show the opposite of what computer models predict. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less fast. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded in 2007: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".

 

 

6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN

Sceptic

Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.

 

Counter

Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and a negative trend more recently), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

 

 

7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE

Sceptic

Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans.

 

Counter

This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, this time, CO2 is leading temperature. Furthermore, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from man-made emissions, and levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records. They may in fact be higher than at any time in the last three million years.

 

 

8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS

Sceptic

Before the era of satellite observation began in the 1970s, measurements were ad-hoc and haphazard. Hurricanes would be reported only if they hit land or shipping. The extent of Arctic ice was measured only during expeditions. The satellite record for these phenomena is too short to justify claims that hurricanes are becoming stronger or more frequent, or that there is anything exceptional about the apparent shrinkage in Arctic ice up to 2007.

 

Counter

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes that systematic collection of data in parts of the Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National Hurricane Center notes that "organised reconnaissance" for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions can still be drawn from it. And the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent - its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent, but more intense.

 

 

9. WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT

Sceptic

The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth's surface about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 98% of all warming. So changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations would have a relatively small impact. Water vapour concentrations are rising, but this does not necessarily increase warming - it depends how the water vapour is distributed.

 

Counter

The statement that water vapour is "98% of the greenhouse effect" is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.

 

 

10. PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE

Sceptic

The Kyoto Protocol has not reduced emissions of greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too low, applied only to certain countries, and have been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments that enthuse about the treaty and want a successor are not going to meet the reduction targets that they signed up to in Kyoto. Even if it is real, man-made climate change is just one problem among many facing the world's rich and poor alike. Governments and societies should respond proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special case. Poorer countries should not be forced to constrain their emissions and therefore their economic growth, as they will be under a Copenhagen treaty. Some economists believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, improve lives.

 

Counter

Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious, particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world. A Copenhagen treaty would not force emission constraints on the world's poorest countries - in fact, it will funnel money to them for technology and climate protection, helping clean growth. More affluent developing countries - including China - will have to constrain their emissions growth but they agreed to this at the 2007 Bali summit.

Hmmmm, just seen on the news there is a big meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, did they all fly over there? is that not enviromentally unfriendly? could they not have done it via email? is it not really a chance for a jolly at the tax payers expense, plenty of free food and drink, hope it all comes in recycleable containers !!

 

Bet they decide that there is a need to tax us more on enviromental issues and meet again in a years time for another jolly !!

Hmmmm, just seen on the news there is a big meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, did they all fly over there? is that not enviromentally unfriendly? could they not have done it via email? is it not really a chance for a jolly at the tax payers expense, plenty of free food and drink, hope it all comes in recycleable containers !!

 

Bet they decide that there is a need to tax us more on enviromental issues and meet again in a years time for another jolly !!

 

there is suppose to be 140 aeroplane journeys, taking the piss or what.

Edited December 7, 200916 yr by riobenson

Sadly climate change is real. It'd be nice to believe it isn't and we don't have to do anything, but that's not the case

.

 

Unless you're a scientist studying this for a living mate, I'm afraid I believe that no more than I would if Gordon Brown himself told me.

 

I don't mean to start a debate but depending what you read and where it was written or originated, there are enough arguements for and against climate change; so much so that you and I will probably never know the truth for sure. All we can do is form our own opinions.

 

I personally do not believe the threat is real; but that is just my opinion and it's as valid as yours or anyone elses! You are equally entitled to believe that climate change is real - however unless you are that scientist I referred to above, I doubt you can prove you're right any more or less than I can.......

 

Richard:)

very interesting series started last night on channel 4 Man on Earth presented by Tony Robinson, examining how our ancestors have handled violent climate change over the past 200,000 years and asks what we can learn from them. In this first show, it explains how a small group of our earliest African ancestors were rescued from extinction by global warming 130,000 years ago, as their barren habitat was transformed into a lush forest. :confused:

 

dan.;)

very interesting series started last night on channel 4 Man on Earth presented by Tony Robinson, examining how our ancestors have handled violent climate change over the past 200,000 years and asks what we can learn from them. In this first show, it explains how a small group of our earliest African ancestors were rescued from extinction by global warming 130,000 years ago, as their barren habitat was transformed into a lush forest. :confused:

 

dan.;)

 

 

yeah i saw that one....climate change cant be stopped its all part of living on this rock also its very misleading to highlight the theory of man made warming by saying lets stop climate change...something you cant stop so hence we'll always need more meetings taxes...bla..bla :D

yeah i saw that one....climate change cant be stopped its all part of living on this rock also its very misleading to highlight the theory of man made warming by saying lets stop climate change...something you cant stop so hence we'll always need more meetings taxes...bla..bla :D

 

yeah its worth a watch if some havent seen it, its strange how no one recognizes the fact that this planet has gone through some very serious climate changes a very long time ago that almost made us extinct!! and a long time before we were ever told it is a man made phenomenon!

 

dan.:mad:

Unless you're a scientist studying this for a living mate, I'm afraid I believe that no more than I would if Gordon Brown himself told me.

 

I don't mean to start a debate but depending what you read and where it was written or originated, there are enough arguements for and against climate change; so much so that you and I will probably never know the truth for sure. All we can do is form our own opinions.

 

I personally do not believe the threat is real; but that is just my opinion and it's as valid as yours or anyone elses! You are equally entitled to believe that climate change is real - however unless you are that scientist I referred to above, I doubt you can prove you're right any more or less than I can.......

 

Richard:)

 

I'm reasonably qualified / connected but no, I don't work in the field.

 

A mate (with a ecology PhD from Cambridge) told me about a study conducted when a dam was built in China.

 

They asked people in the area what risk they thought the new dam posed them.

 

People living a long way away thought the risk was small.

 

As they got nearer to the dam, people living there thought the risk increased. The nearer they got, the greater the people thought the risk was.

 

That was the case until they were right next to the dam. The people there said they believed there was no risk to them at all.

I dont think any person of sane mind can deny global warming exists. It does exist its been proved by every scientist and environmentalist whether they rely on government grants for their living or not.

 

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE!

 

Again, we all know that the Earth's natural resources are not inexhaustible. Oil companies have to invest billions from their massive profits to make sure they can find more reserves. FACT. Governments put up the price of oil for their own reasons and now tax us "in our own interest". Recycling is the duty of every person on the planet moreover REUSING should be the watchword. We only have so many places to store waste so lets make LESS waste. Water is expensive to provide so lets not use as much if we dont have to. Electricity requires us to burn the natural resources or trust in the nuclear industry(!!!) so lets not use as much when we dont have too. All these measures are plain common sense but will actually cost individuals LESS. Smaller water heating and food bills its gotta be good. However ,THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.

 

The issue here is whether we as a species are responsible for the warming of our planet. Many eminent scientists believe we are but equally many more believe we are not. These scientist are not given a platform WHY?. Of all the scientists involved in the making of the film AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH only the research which backed the filmmakers was shown,yet the names of hundreds of scientists who disagreed with the results are still on the credits as agreeing with it. These scientists are having to go through the courts to have their names removed.

On any subject i want to hear a balanced unbiased account of the facts this is not happening WHY?. Any scientist who works in a government research lab dare not speak out for fear of having his grant and therefore his livelyhood cut. Those that do are quickly marginalised and labelled mavericks or worse.

 

I want the government to give both sides of the debate equal credence,the BBC to give both sides equal coverage and i want schools to stop giving only one side in lessons to our children. If this were any other subject would we as a nation accept what we are being told without question???

 

Eminent scientists once thought the world was flat and those who said it was otherwise were ridiculed and ostracised . It was not that long ago!!!

I agree....

 

LOL... analogies don't actually prove anything..... but a very clever way of saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with it is blinded by their proximity.....

 

on the subject of qualifications... Shipman was a doctor.... someone is right but who?

 

"I think", that the climate is changing, and the proof is beyond argument.... However the question is "what responsibility does man have in this?" & "can he/we do anything about it?", this is where I am not convinced.....

The Met office would have us believe all kinds of stuff but they can't even predict the weather accurately enough over a week!!!.....

 

I agree it’s a good idea to conserve energy anyway and to look for better & more efficient methods of use…. As well as alternative forms of energy….

 

There is one thing for sure, the fuels we use now will NOT last for ever.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by Medallion Man

I dont think any sane person can say it does or does not exist!! there are credible arguments for both sides, things I do believe to be true though are that the people in charge of the world are not always telling the truth, it is in fact money that makes the world go round and the only things that are 100% are death and taxes.

basically climate change is just another word for TAX

Well we'll all get to find out. The consensus is a tipping point will be hit before 2050 IIRC.

Well we'll all get to find out. The consensus is a tipping point will be hit before 2050 IIRC.

 

Dam we will never know now !! we are not making it past 12/12/2012 :yinyang: people have been predicting doom since forever even the new millenium was the end of computers if I remember correctly :angel:

the whole argument that lots or many top scientists say its happening so it must be true is a fatal error, it supposes they are never wrong which elevates them to a level which simply doesnt exisit in human history or is backed up by very salient test..... lots of very sensible and sane people with clear information make the entirly wrong judgement if presented with that information in a different way, most famously a study i recall from some years back got thousands of people to call for the banning of water by calling it di-hydrogen oxide and saying it was used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and is a chemical agent that can kill in 3 minutes, i.e face down in 6 inches of it, its been done several times since and the results are always the same @ 99% sign a petition calling for a instant ban, its very easy to get top scientists to do the same thing with a different set of information on climate data they are built the same way as you and me dont you know :D

And how can our country, that is in serious debt, and we have already heard how our services will be cut in the future to help pay it off pledge £1.5 billion to third world countries to help ease the climate change !!! to me that makes no sense at all but then I dont believe the hype.