Unusual weather in UK (1 Viewer)

[Minto]

There you go:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

That might help regarding some of the terminology.

I think any implication that the BBC is conspiring here is wide of the mark to be honest. They just report quotes from Scientists and Politicians on this subject. They aren't setting the agenda. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

The BBC might not be setting the agenda but they certainly push it along. just simple things like not having the sceptical view point. When questioned on this they said they had had a meeting and it was decided that as the science was settled there was no need to give airtime.
Who attended this meeting, full of climate scientists? no just the usual rent seeking greens.
The BBC isn't what it was or indeed what it should be, just my opinion of course

 

[Minto]

Mild in Netherlands and Germany, with an influx of long-awaited northern twitches: Snowy and Hawk Owls, Parrot and Two-barred Crossbills.

Interestingly, many people believed that warming climate in recent decades made many northern vagrants much more scarce in C Europe compared to the previous decades/centuries. Now they all happened during rather mild winter.



Interesting how the official doublespeak evolves, isn't it? Long ago it was "greenhouse effect". After no warming occured for 15 years, BBC quietly changed "global warming" into "climate change". So first an "unbearably warm" climate, then just "warmer" climate and now "any change" in climate...

In German media it went even further into "Klimaschutz" or "climate protection". So nothing needs to happen to climate at all, but Germans need to pay lots of subsidies to "protect" it just in case...

Same here Jurek, it's all about control and taking your cash. look at all the fuss when IPCC brought out their reports, the last one barely reported on... the chickens have come home to roost for these fraudsters

 

[Minto]

Big call!
Paul

Paul lets face it nearly all the predictions made about global warming have failed to materialise, including the warming( or did they find it deep in the sea somewhere. Lets face it it's too complex for anyone to accurately predict what's going on, especially if you tie one hand behind your back with a preconceived conclusion before you start your studies

 

[Minto]

They write that it the Chicago ZOO even a polar bear had to stay in.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/winter-weather/index.html?eref=edition

Unfortunately the polar bear more than any other creature has been used by the Greens to further the scam, like the photo shopped stranded bear on ice, conveniently ignoring the fact that they'd give Michael Phelps a swim for his money

 

[jpoyner]

Paul lets face it nearly all the predictions made about global warming have failed to materialise, including the warming( or did they find it deep in the sea somewhere. Lets face it it's too complex for anyone to accurately predict what's going on, especially if you tie one hand behind your back with a preconceived conclusion before you start your studies

There are so many variables we still don't really understand, ie Solar input and sun cycles that they are generally just left out of any models on climate change. We can barely predict the weather further out than 36 hours let alone decades even with all our climate modelling. Couple that with any unpredictable event such as a large volcanic eruption and the guess work just gets harder. "Climate change" does however get you a fair bit of research funding and gives governments a great excuse to divert attention from all the other environmental disasters they are creating!

 

[pppppvvvv]

The BBC might not be setting the agenda but they certainly push it along. just simple things like not having the sceptical view point. When questioned on this they said they had had a meeting and it was decided that as the science was settled there was no need to give airtime.
Who attended this meeting, full of climate scientists? no just the usual rent seeking greens.
The BBC isn't what it was or indeed what it should be, just my opinion of course

I've found a few pages of coverage of the sceptical viewpoint in just a couple of minutes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm

Plus a Radio 4 programme about scepticism in science.

If it is a minority viewpoint, then the coverage will be less than the mainstream view, but I struggle to see evidence of bias in the reporting.
I think if a coherent argument was made that climate change was none existent, then it would be sensational enough to warrant quite a bit of airtime. Do you find the coverage of the sceptic viewpoint is better from other news organisations?

Then I found this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/28/bbc-coverage-favouring-climate-change-sceptics

I need a lie down I think!! Best wishes all

 

[Minto]

I've found a few pages of coverage of the sceptical viewpoint in just a couple of minutes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm

Plus a Radio 4 programme about scepticism in science.

If it is a minority viewpoint, then the coverage will be less than the mainstream view, but I struggle to see evidence of bias in the reporting.
I think if a coherent argument was made that climate change was none existent, then it would be sensational enough to warrant quite a bit of airtime. Do you find the coverage of the sceptic viewpoint is better from other news organisations?

Then I found this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/28/bbc-coverage-favouring-climate-change-sceptics

I need a lie down I think!! Best wishes all

Did you bother checking the dates on the BBC links.
When ever climate change is discussed on BBC news etc there is no alternative view, either that or I'm missing something and my ears tend to ***** up when its mentioned.
I wouldn't agree that it is a minority view point, as reality fails to match computer model predictions more and more people are waking up to the fact we are being conned. Please don't tell me that you think wind turbines work or are the answer.
Lets face it none of us mere mortals know what's going on , but then again neither do the likes of Mann, schmidt etc, all i know it's costing all of us a packet due to government measures designed to tackle it, whatever it is... at least they won't be using the old drought card for a bit, apologies to anyone directly effected by water

Enjoy your lie down

 

[locustella]

Warm and rainy winter in Europe and heavy frosts in Northa America are two elements of the same puzzle:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...07/ac-elam-polar-vortex.cnn.html?eref=edition

I have noticed in Warsaw streets flocks of starlings Sturnus vulgaris - december 19th two flocks, total about 70, later few birds, and today one flock of 45 birds.
Starling typically is very rare in winter. Something can happen to them if frosts come. Last year February 2nd a flock of about 7 or 14 starlings (perhaps the same seen twice) looked like surprised by frost, birds seemed be scared. These observations are very accidental, not regular.

 

[jurek]

I think any implication that the BBC is conspiring here is wide of the mark to be honest. They just report quotes from Scientists and Politicians on this subject. They aren't setting the agenda. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Agreed that BBC is mostly badly reporting others (due to the misguided activism, plus a fair bit of pure commercial sensationalism). I still feel BBC and others need to be objective first.

All terms "greenhouse effect", "global warming" and "climate change" may be old, but I feel the frequency of using them changed. Just my observation from the press.

I also noticed that the media are much quieter about climate in the last few months, after IPCC published that no further warming occured during the last 15 years.

 

[Minto]

There are so many variables we still don't really understand, ie Solar input and sun cycles that they are generally just left out of any models on climate change. We can barely predict the weather further out than 36 hours let alone decades even with all our climate modelling. Couple that with any unpredictable event such as a large volcanic eruption and the guess work just gets harder. "Climate change" does however get you a fair bit of research funding and gives governments a great excuse to divert attention from all the other environmental disasters they are creating![/QUOT

As you say, so many variables. Yet they conveniently pin the blame on something that can can be measured and taxed.
Don't get me wrong, recent weather has been extreme, but I remember about ten years ago turning over my garden in shorts and vest( I'm not kidding either) so really we haven't a clue what's coming next.
there is definitely an agenda going on because their efforts to combat it , wind farms, shutting down coal fired power stations are going to cause us serious problems with supplying enough electricity for the country, yet even as I write near by 400 ft turbines are being erected, as another set stands idle, too windy.
don't get me started on all the shit our government in Wales gets up to in the environment

 

[MJB]

I've found a few pages of coverage of the sceptical viewpoint in just a couple of minutes..

I need a lie down I think!! Best wishes all

Peter,
It's fair to say that the media haven't covered climate science at all well, mostly because they have dispensed with science-qualified journalists - that phenomenon is widespread in other aspects of expertise within the media, especially on science technical aspects, although there are a few journalists with some expertise reporting on gadgets! This 'dumbing down' trend is also occurring within the BBC, although it's still better than most other media.

Much science (eg physics, molecular biology, analyses of complex systems) is now beyond everyday experience, to the extent that Arthur C Clarke's 3rd law comes into play: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It is inevitable that when ordinary people find highly complex circumstances very difficult to grasp that there is a reaction that 'it can't be right'. It's not helped at all by relentless ad hominem attacks on detailed reports distilled from complex analyses (and not just in climate science - it also happens in anthropology and biology).

However, in ornithological research, it's interesting to note how eagerly many birders are to want the results of molecular research to validate splits!

Returning to the theme of several posters, I'll try to provide some context:

In order to believe that global warming/climate change (both terms that have been widely used since the 1970s: see http://www.desmogblog.com/it-global-warming-or-climate-change) is a hoax/fraud one has to believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy between nearly all scientific disciplines and nearly all scientists in organisations and institutes worldwide. Moreover, all the data collected over the last 100 years from temperatures, sea levels, ice cores, geology, and the like would have to have been doctored from the start as well, to construct a huge global hoax from a plan beginning in the early 1900s finally to come to fruition today.
How that might seem logical is beyond me, but I would welcome any published and peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary (and that would certainly merit a Nobel Prize in short order).

One extreme weather event does not prove the existence of Global Warming, nor would a season of such events in any single part of the globe. However, a continued occurrences of extreme droughts, extreme rains, extreme tornadoes, extreme snowstorms and blizzards and extreme heat and cold snaps would comprise an undoubted trend; such a trend is predicted by climate science to occur.

Now, I can post numerous links to concise and articulate comments by scientists, but to keep thing short, here's a summary of responses to points that have been raised many times, some in this thread: http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/.

Here's a well-presented set of visual representations on Arctic ice: https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume.

One of several debunking summaries of the 'no warming in 16 years' meme; http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm.
MJB

 

[Minto]

So you actually believe the science is settled, I could put links up to sites with the opposite view to yours but does anyone know. There is no consensus , if you want the research cash just be a believer... the rest of us just pick up the tab via our energy bills

 

[JTweedie]

The people who "believe" in climate change are also having to pay extra for energy bills - do you think it's only climate skeptics that are being charged extra? Aspects of the science aren't settled - that's the nature of science, but the general over-arching ideas are settled, and this comes from the evidence in ice cores etc that have already been alluded to.

The people leading the anti-climate change lobby are generally people with vested interests, including the energy companies who are scared stiff about people changing to renewables or nuclear and people who are economically and politically opposed to the very idea of climate change because that would mean a change to our behaviour. It's an ideology, rather than backed up by evidence.

 

[John Cantelo]

In order to believe that global warming/climate change (both terms that have been widely used since the 1970s: see http://www.desmogblog.com/it-global-warming-or-climate-change) is a hoax/fraud one has to believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy between nearly all scientific disciplines and nearly all scientists in organisations and institutes worldwide. Moreover, all the data collected over the last 100 years from temperatures, sea levels, ice cores, geology, and the like would have to have been doctored from the start as well, to construct a huge global hoax from a plan beginning in the early 1900s finally to come to fruition today.
How that might seem logical is beyond me, but I would welcome any published and peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary (and that would certainly merit a Nobel Prize in short order).

One extreme weather event does not prove the existence of Global Warming, nor would a season of such events in any single part of the globe. However, a continued occurrences of extreme droughts, extreme rains, extreme tornadoes, extreme snowstorms and blizzards and extreme heat and cold snaps would comprise an undoubted trend; such a trend is predicted by climate science to occur.

Now, I can post numerous links to concise and articulate comments by scientists, but to keep thing short, here's a summary of responses to points that have been raised many times, some in this thread: http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/.

Here's a well-presented set of visual representations on Arctic ice: https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume.

One of several debunking summaries of the 'no warming in 16 years' meme; http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm.
MJB

Well said, Mike.

It's interesting to note the parallels between the modus operandi (and even personnel) of those who spent decades trying to deny that tobacco caused cancer and the activities of the cheer leaders who deny climate change is happening (see http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/)

 

[pppppvvvv]

Did you bother checking the dates on the BBC links.

2009.. If they didn't want to publicise this viewpoint, then you can be pretty sure they wouldn't have left these articles online for all to see for 4 years.

Plus, if they have people complaining of lack of coverage, and the guardian complaining of excessive coverage of the same topic, then that's a pretty good balance, especially for such an emotive subject.

 

[John Cantelo]

So you actually believe the science is settled, I could put links up to sites with the opposite view to yours but does anyone know. There is no consensus , if you want the research cash just be a believer... the rest of us just pick up the tab via our energy bills

You may well be able to post a list of sites with opposing views, but my reading of such sources, on both sides, convinces me that the pro-change sites have a firmer basis in science and are supported by the overwhelming bulk of climate scientists.

To dismiss the clear consensus by claiming that it's a result of a bias in available research funds is unconvincing. Those behind climate change denial are hardly short of funds themselves, but it seems to me, perhaps tellingly, that they are more keen on funding PR than hard science.

Besides, some of the most convincing data that points towards climate change comes from research not directly related to climate change and thus free of the need to prove adherence to any orthodoxy. It would also be a remarkable conspiracy that produced data for its cause, as is the case for changes in flowering of plants, insect distribution, etc., even before the theory was articulated.

 

[Minto]

You may well be able to post a list of sites with opposing views, but my reading of such sources, on both sides, convinces me that the pro-change sites have a firmer basis in science and are supported by the overwhelming bulk of climate scientists.

To dismiss the clear consensus by claiming that it's a result of a bias in available research funds is unconvincing. Those behind climate change denial are hardly short of funds themselves, but it seems to me, perhaps tellingly, that they are more keen on funding PR than hard science.

Besides, some of the most convincing data that points towards climate change comes from research not directly related to climate change and thus free of the need to prove adherence to any orthodoxy. It would also be a remarkable conspiracy that produced data for its cause, as is the case for changes in flowering of plants, insect distribution, etc., even before the theory was articulated.

There certainly was a period where we had milder winters and early flowering and breeding with birds, but that stopped with a bang for a couple of winters indeed last year it was well into may before things got going around this way , plants or birds.

The weather is all over the place , that's the truth , no one knows exactly what's going on . As soon as one theory is produced , nature hits us with something else.
they can't even predict the weather weeks ahead yet you expect people to believe these doomesday scenarios, you carry on .I still believe the earth is flat and you can fall of the edge
Even if it's true , what are your views on how our money is being spent trying to combat the problem, wind farms good or bad?
What would your views be if due to our commitments to cut emmissions the lights are out because we shut down coal fired power stations.
now is not the time to cripple our economy or people in these desperate times we can't afford to be world leaders when China , India and indeed Germany are building away.
It just seems to me that as reality never followed what was predicted by their computor models now every extreme weather event is due to climate change , you can't have it all ways. The planets going the other way so get your fur coat

 

[JTweedie]

You need to appreciate that when we talk about climate change, we're talking about global climate measured over long periods. Not weather restricted to the UK or even western Europe over a couple of years.

 

[Minto]

You need to appreciate that when we talk about climate change, we're talking about global climate measured over long periods. Not weather restricted to the UK or even western Europe over a couple of years.

I do appreciate that ,you mean like the antarctic where the ships stuck and canada and america where your liable to get a set of brass balls, yeah I do appreciate this alleged warming is world wide.
So what anyway , if it warms up it ain't going to be to the extremes the eco nuts reckon, the planet has a long history of warming and cooling , way before we got here.
I wouldn't mind the warming and the plants love the extra gas

 

[JTweedie]

re. the Antarctic ship getting stuck, the sea ice there was "the result of a 2010 collision between an enormous berg known as B09B and the Mertz Glacier Tongue. As a result of this clash, B09B lodged itself on the seabed of Commonwealth Bay, changing the circulation of the area dramatically."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ntarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney