Global Climate Change Science News

[Seth]

They were Seth.

Not like him to get desperate in an argument. Or maybe it is? Unfortunately I'm not great on politics so I used to have to trust that he had a clue what he was talking about. Now all of that is in severe doubt for me. I nearly feel like brushing up on politics just to find out how much shite he was really talking.

Nearly. The subject bores me too much.

Ah well, I tried to pry open your mind, didn't I?

[cronus]

http://www.weatheraction.com/

Seth is right.

[Seth]

Yup. Here's how it works when they fiddle the data:

ushcn1920-2013.gif (38.16 KiB) Viewed 2683 times

[Animavore]

http://www.weatheraction.com/

Seth is right.

Who the fuck made this cheap-ass, unprofessional website? It hurts my eyes.

Oh, wait.

Yes, it was fun. We laughed at those “barbecue summer” and “hurricane, what hurricane?” gags. But it was time to seek amusement elsewhere. And so, after just 93 years together, the BBC has parted ways with the Met Office, rejecting its bid for the next five-year contract to supply TV, radio and website weather bulletins, and started seeing other forecasters.

The shortlisted contenders were, apparently, Meteogroup, founded in the Netherlands; and MetraWeather, the international arm of New Zealand’s national weather forecaster. But did people really want such establishment candidates?

Cometh the hour, cometh the brothers. While Jeremy runs Labour, couldn’t older brother Piers Corbyn tell us what the weather was doing?

True, Piers and his WeatherAction forecasting company lacked the Met Office’s snazzy new £97m super-computer. But they had a computer, (standard variety), and an office – near London Bridge, with space for “two or three people”.

And they had style.

Tired of the green crap? Read Piers’ WeatherAction website: “Man-made climate change is delusional nonsense…”

Forget “a low over Iceland”. Try WeatherAction’s: “Flare blasts shock waves in Solar wind heralding [possible extreme] weather…”

Exciting, no? Piers creates long-range weather forecasts by analysing how the solar wind – a rush of particles from the sun – affects the Gulf Stream. So would the sage of solar flares submit a late bid? “It could happen,” Mr Corbyn said. “We’re discussing it tomorrow.”

continued: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 77395.html

[Ian]

What are you saying, that people who aren't very objective are being fooled by an unprofessional website that tells them what they want to hear? Say it ain't so.

[Seth]

What are you saying, that people who aren't very objective are being fooled by an unprofessional website that tells them what they want to hear? Say it ain't so.

Gotta love your circumstantial ad hominem insults.

[Ian]

What are you saying, that people who aren't very objective are being fooled by an unprofessional website that tells them what they want to hear? Say it ain't so.

Gotta love your circumstantial ad hominem insults.

How's this for circumstantial?

[Seth]

What are you saying, that people who aren't very objective are being fooled by an unprofessional website that tells them what they want to hear? Say it ain't so.

Gotta love your circumstantial ad hominem insults.

How's this for circumstantial?

I must respectfully decline, but I'll be happy to kick your ass...

[Animavore]

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

Exxon's Richard Werthamer (right) and Edward Garvey (left) are aboard the company's Esso Atlantic tanker working on a project to measure the carbon dioxide levels in the ocean and atmosphere. The project ran from 1979 to 1982. (Credit: Richard Werthamer)

At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

Full article: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092 ... al-warming

Hopefully we'll see these assholes sued like the tobacco industry before them. No way the tax-payer should front the cost for the damage they've done.

[mistermack]

Still, Black estimated quick action was needed. "Present thinking," he wrote in the 1978 summary, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

[Seth]

Hopefully we'll see these assholes sued like the tobacco industry before them. No way the tax-payer should front the cost for the damage they've done.

Er, they didn't do any damage at all, they just extracted the oil, it was the "tax-payers" who put it in their cars and heaters and burned it, thereby producing CO2, so why shouldn't the taxpayers bear the burden? The oil industry just responds to demand from the public. If the public doesn't want "harm" done by burning fossil fuels, the the public should fucking well stop using them.

But they don't, because they value the benefits that fossil fuels offer them more than they believe the lying sacks of shit at the IPCC and NOAA.

So, if anything bad happens, the fact is that the public did it to themselves and ought to pay the piper.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Hopefully we'll see these assholes sued like the tobacco industry before them. No way the tax-payer should front the cost for the damage they've done.

Er, they didn't do any damage at all, they just extracted the oil, it was the "tax-payers" who put it in their cars and heaters and burned it, thereby producing CO2, so why shouldn't the taxpayers bear the burden? The oil industry just responds to demand from the public. If the public doesn't want "harm" done by burning fossil fuels, the the public should fucking well stop using them.

But they don't, because they value the benefits that fossil fuels offer them more than they believe the lying sacks of shit at the IPCC and NOAA.

So, if anything bad happens, the fact is that the public did it to themselves and ought to pay the piper.

Sounds like socialism to me. So much for the free market solution.

[Seth]

Hopefully we'll see these assholes sued like the tobacco industry before them. No way the tax-payer should front the cost for the damage they've done.

Er, they didn't do any damage at all, they just extracted the oil, it was the "tax-payers" who put it in their cars and heaters and burned it, thereby producing CO2, so why shouldn't the taxpayers bear the burden? The oil industry just responds to demand from the public. If the public doesn't want "harm" done by burning fossil fuels, the the public should fucking well stop using them.

But they don't, because they value the benefits that fossil fuels offer them more than they believe the lying sacks of shit at the IPCC and NOAA.

So, if anything bad happens, the fact is that the public did it to themselves and ought to pay the piper.

Sounds like socialism to me. So much for the free market solution.

Nah, it's just consequences.

[Animavore]

Here's part two of that damning report.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092 ... s-business

Why are we paying billions in subsidies to these corrupt, lying assholes? Money that would be better spent on developing green energies and repairing damages caused by climate change?

[mistermack]

Here's part two of that damning report.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092 ... s-business

Why are we paying billions in subsidies to these corrupt, lying assholes? Money that would be better spent on developing green energies and repairing damages caused by climate change?

Are you? More fool you.
I don't pay them any subsidies.