Australian expert Ian Simmonds on Climate Change

And who said that? Once again you cherry pick one sentence. Being extra warm in Spitzbergen certainly wasn't the only fact in the artical and even then it was only a related observation to the main content of the article.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, history provides us with enough factual evidence to suggest that we cannot trust or rely on our paid elected representatives, or many businesses to act with the same moral and ethical convictions that the citizens want. Therefore, I believe its time for individual citizens to make personal choices and decisions for themselves regarding what is in "their" best interest, instead of waiting from businesses and politicians to be our role models - sometimes "we" the citizens have to be the role models ourselves, and lead the way to a new and better society.

Our private property has been power & energy self-sustainable for over two years using solar and domestic wind generators. We have never used one amp from the grid, and put power back into the grid. Both our businesses are at 88% self-sustainable power & energy efficiency using the same two methods as our private residence, and we are hoping in April 2015, both businesses will be at 100% peak self-sustainable efficiency. We are using three domestic wind generators at each business, and only using 1/4 of our roof space in solar panels to achieve these results.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that if every domestic house generated their own free power, they would be saving themselves heaps of money, and helping to save our planet from an environmental catastrophe. It also doesn't take a genius to understand that the majority of businesses have enough roof space to generate their own free power and energy using solar panels, which would save them money and also help our environment.

The revolution for change has to start somewhere, and its in the citizens power to make the change if they want it. Its up to the individuals to chose whether they want that new out-door setting or big screen TV; or do they want to invest that money into having free power, save money, and help their environment.

We cannot expect ex-solicitor politicians to be our role models or to show us the way anymore, they are only concerned about themselves, and only concerned how their actions as our paid representatives will financially effect them when they retire. It always been about "them" never about us the citizens, and if we don't wake up and start doing things for ourselves, then we are going to revert to being a dominated slave species again, living on a big blue garbage tip.

 

You really need to read to the end of your source, and not just stop at the bit that fits your narrative. The newspaper clipping wasn't peer reviewed, and later more accurate data puts it into proper context.

 

But, but but don't you know that one temperature anomaly somewhere in the world disproves global warming.........

And if that does not work pretend that your opponent made the error instead of you, A strategy that fools no one

 

More interestingly where in that article does it support your contention

 

Would you believe a research article on a new drug where the only research was that paid for and supported by the company that is selling the drug?

 

Irrelevant. The facts are the facts. You can believe a bureaucrat or you can believe the people on the ground. Your choice.

 

I did read it to the end. I didn't see any peer reviewed "more accurate data" in the article or link at the end.

 

What contention?

'In connection with Dr. Hoel's report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.'

But hey, it was only 'local' in 1922, just like the warming that allowed the Vikings to colonise Greenland was 'local'. We have to remember that ANY ice melting today is global and evidence of agw!

 

I would be skeptical of the methodology and results of the research but would not reject it out of hand, it may be perfectly ligitimate. Not like the way you believe without question anything said or written by any agw priest and reject out of hand anything that may cast even the slightest doubt on the agw church doctrine. And when the prophecies of the agw priests turn out blatantly wrong, well, you just put it from your mind.

 

People believe what they want to believe, the main issue is do you believe those who want to make money, or shouldn't you be alarmed by the findings of the same?
Regards

 

It is no more evidence of AGW than the current non warming or the cooling from the 40's to the 70's. BTW, the alleged CO2 AGW warming, according to the science, is supposed to have started in the 50's when CO2 levels rose above the Holocene average. You wonder what the true believers think about the cooling or no warming that was supposed to be warming?

 

If the facts are the facts you cannot claim that the overwhelming amount of research supporting AGW is irrelevant

But then the latest research on conspiracy ideation suggests that those who believe in conspiracies will often believe contradictory statements as long as they can wind them into a belief system that supports their world view

- - - Updated - - -

Nup = reject lots of stuff if it is poor research - just have not seen a GOOD research paper proving AGW is not happening

- - - Updated - - -

ONE repeat ONE anomalous weather incident in ONE spot on the entire globe does not an AGW theory disprove

Okay it is obvious we need to visit mathematical concept of "average" once again

So 100 + 100. + 100 +10 + 100 = 10 or 82???

Because it appears you are suggesting that one anomalous weather pattern dictates global average

 

I never said that research is irrelevant but you must understand that most of it is opinion not backed up by observational science. That is why so many of the 'predictions' have failed.

 

Sorry but on what are you basing that opinion? Even Poptech's list has more than "observational science" - especially those papers he has included which support AGW

 

Why should I be alarmed? Most if not all pharmasuticals in use today were developed by drug companies for the purpose of profit.

 

Can't prove a negative. Haven't seen any good research paper proving agw is happening. A lot of theory and 'models' but little compelling evidence that agw is having any measurable effect on the climate.

So why does the same anomalous weather event today prove or support the agw doctrine?

 

Actually they were not - a large number of original medications were developed by universities and independent research foundations and THEN sold on to the pharmaceutical companies. All research that has been funded by a pharmaceutical company must have that funding declared as part of the research paper and it is considered "biased" research and more suspect, Even with that there is a looooooong list of medications taken off the market because side effects were suppressed by the parent pharmaceutical company

Vioxx was one example of that

 

They do not - and no one has claimed they have that is why we post TRENDS that are compiled from lots and lots of observations over the ENTIRE WORLD

 

And those trends are not in accord with the predictions of doom based on computer modeling.

 

They are in accord with the "confidence intervals" within those models

 

Whose 'confidence intervals'? The IPCC? Since their confidence level went up even though observational science is in opposition to the models, what are they confident of? Since they come to that decision in secret with no transparent process, what does it actually mean?

 

May I suggest Googling the term "Confidence Interval and climate change" because even a nurse like me understands more than your statement is displaying

 

Yes, so far major FAIL. Observational science is either wrong to climate models are. Which would you pick?

 

Yes, I have seen the graphs of these 'trends' and what is immediately apparent is the time and data ranges, even the data itself, have been carefully manipulated to give the most dramatic result. Always in favour of agw of course!