Yuku free message boards

Starviking wrote:

---

Nightwatch2 wrote:

---

right you are Kell. They will just change to another manufactured crisis and this one will quietly slip away. But the most recent ploy has been to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change - and ignore the greenhouse gas predictions.

Well, I don't know how I missed this one! Climate Change is a ploy? Well considering we've had:

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

...it's been a very successful ploy!!

Starviking


(Speaking of logic Nightwatch - how could you have set yourself up for that one?)

Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.

"Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds," he told BBC News.

"He predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."

-------------------

and further comments covering past propaganda stunts by the BBC to disprove the solar link;
-------------------------------

Comments by Piers Corbyn

Refutation of BBC & Prof Lockwood's dishonest claims - Astro-scientists say 'Global warmers have played their last card; Lockwood's paper is a two legged stool".

Further to recent attention being drawn to the BBC's link ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm ) of July 2007 which claims to 'disprove' the idea that solar activity drives climate please see comment below made at the time. I think that the BBC link and the related paper by Prof Lockwood is one of the most dishonest pieces of pseudo-science (next to Al Gore's movie) put about in the last 50 years and marks one of the lowest points in the CO2 Global Warming brainwashing enterprise.

The BBC steadfastly refuse to publish anything which refutes their baseless claims, and you may be interested to know that the BBC 'report' on Lockwood's findings appeared at the same time as his paper and had therefore clearly been drawn up in advance as propaganda and NOT a 'report' in the normal (?!) sense of investgating both sides of a subject and reporting fairly. I did appear on News24 and Radio 5 at the time but those comments and also comments by Nigel Calder on BBC around the same time were just to establish pseudo-balance and are not included in the BBC link above which is devoid of comment, gives no opportunity to comment and for which the BBC have refused to allow fair comment.

The key point is (copied from below):

"Attempts to test influences of solar activity on Earth in detail shorter than 22 years without considering the magnetic links prove nothing. This however is what Prof Lockwood does. Obviously since temperatures driven by solar activity follow a 22yr (colar magnetic) cycle and the measures of solar activity used by Prof Lockwood follow an 11year cycle they must move in opposite directions half the time. Professor Lockwood's 'finding' of a period of 'oppositely directed trends' is just one such period. In fact Lockwood's finding confirms the general hypothesis of the solar charged particle based theory! The theories he actually tests are something else - involving only 11yr cycles - and amount to 'straw men' to be knocked down. The cosmic ray theory is one of these. Although its originators did excellent experiemnts which showed that charged particles do have weather and climate effects extra solar cosmic rays as such have no significant weather or climate impact.

NOTES on the matter in a handout at Institute Of Physics 7th June 2007 from Piers Corbyn

The Equations of Climate Change
I: Solar activity and Sun-earth magnetic links
Consequences:

1. Solar particles and world temperatures correlate closely on all time scales longer than 22years. OBSERVED

2. Double sunspot (22 year) cycle is main signal in world temperatures OBSERVED

3. Main switch turning ice ages on and off is driven by precession and obliquity of Earth's spin axis => eg approx 5×26,000 = 130,000yrs since last non-ice age ('interglacial) OBSERVED (NOT primarily radiation related which are different periods)

Weather Action Weather & Climate forecasts {Forecasts issued early Jan 2007}

2007 will be a year of extremes & contrasts - between and within months. Such periods of extremes and contrasts happen around alternate solar activity minimums which come approx every 22 yrs (near the Odd cycle to Even cycle sunspot minimum)

2007 UK / England Temperatures will not be highest on record. Bets anyone?

2007 World Temperatures will not be the highest on record. Bets anyone?

In the 7yrs up to 2013 World average Temperature in any year will not exceed the 1998 peak levels (95% confidence). Bets?
-----------------------

"Actually, I try and read the scientific papers. For future reference what is "the book on the subject"? "
the book is "The Chilling Stars" by Dr Svensmark

"As for conspiracy theory hysterics, in post 30 in this thread didn't you say:

This is a Scientific Scandal supporting a Political and Legislative Fraud funded by a linked Financial Swindle that could end up being a fait acompli in short order.

yes I did. That is not a "conspiracy theory" in the same sense as the usual, such as NORAD conducted 9/11 or Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was coming. That is an observation of actions being taken by politicians, phony scientists and financial swindlers which is actually pretty well documented. I do not, however, hold to the idea that this is a massive conspiracy of the all the players involved. They are all too stupid for that. It is a loose collection of environmentalist whacko nut jobs, corrupt politicians, bought scientists who have sold their integrity to the whacko lobbies, and opportunistic financial swindlers who see an opportunity to steal money. There are elements of "conspiracy" just as there are in any political movement, but most of us call that a "plan". I call this all a plan. Conspiracy Theories are different in that the proponents have to fabricate significant portions and accuse the alleged participants of actions based on fantasy without evidence. The actions of the AGW proponents are well documented by themselves and published for all to read.

"So Nightwatch - what do you think of the Forbush Decrease that I provided the link to? Now I am assuming, of course, that you read it. You would read a post fully before commenting on it - wouldn't you? That would be logical... "

absolutely. The Forbush Decrease is not something that I disagree with or would attempt to refute. But it refers to the short term change that occurs following a CME, not the longer term changes referred to in Dr Svensmark'a work and absolutely does not contradict it. It is, however, what Sloan depends on and is why I, and I supect Kell, say that Sloan has utterly failed to either understand Dr Svensmark's work and therefore failed to refute it. A pretty spectacular failure to link that to Dr Svensmark'a theory.

and yes, I absolutely understand who authored the study and who wrote the article. One would presume that the reporter would at least check his article with the guys he is reporting on in such a case. But that would presume Journalistic Ethics and Competence on the part of the reporter or Scientific Accuracy and Integrity on the part of the reported - both of which have been clearly demonstrated as completly lacking. Not surprising with respect to the BBC.

and, as I've said, lets see what the actual reporting stations come up with. Declining temperatures for the last year and if you discount the variations caused by the El Nino's and subsequent La Nina's - the longer term trend since 1998 has been a steady decline.