KopTalk



Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#582104 - 14/10/17 08:02 AM Re: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm [Re: TiredReds]
EMP Offline
1st Team Squad

Registered: 05/04/12
Posts: 8263
Loc: Eire
freedom caucus news lol.. freedom from senses

Top

Advertisements

#582122 - 14/10/17 02:20 PM Re: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm [Re: Pickles]
redordead13 Offline
1st Team Squad

Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 6911
Loc: Atlanta, Georgia
After reading the article, I'm not really convinced with its claim. They're only able to talk about a 16 year period, and this is something that's been going on for coming on hundreds of years.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-1252-7_8

Top

#582132 - 14/10/17 03:03 PM Re: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm [Re: TiredReds]
lumba Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 19/03/09
Posts: 20064
Loc: Limbo
Originally Posted By TiredReds
Originally Posted By Pickles
The second study, by Hodgkins et al, published in the Journal of Hydrology, concerns flooding in North America and Europe.

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216941730478X#%21

What it shows is that, contrary to the claims often made by climate alarmists, there has been NO increase in flooding due to “global warming” or “climate change.”

Flooding events, it shows, have more to do with chance than any noticeable long term trend. It finds no link between flooding and “global warming.”

Abstract

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.

A few take-home points from these studies.

One, they explode – yet again – the myth that there is a consensus among scientists about catastrophic man-made climate change. In fact, as I reported earlier this year, there are dozens of papers produced every year by reputable, honest scientists which call into question the great man-made climate change scare.

Two, the alarmists hate it when you point this out. After my Breitbart piece Global Warming is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017, an alarmist website published a supposed expert rebuttal by leading climate scientists. The problem was, of course, that all the “experts” involved were members of the alarmist cabal who pal-review one another’s papers and who ruthlessly shut out of the debate any scientists who dare to disagree with them.

Three, the alarmists know the jig is up and have done for some time. But in the interests of damage limitation they’re trying to drip out their corrections (aka admissions of error) slowly – and on their terms – rather than allow any hated skeptics (like yours truly) the chance to crow.

This is what happened after that bombshell paper released in Nature Geoscience last month by leading climate alarmists including Oxford University’s Myles Allen. Buried beneath its misleading and dull abstract was an extraordinary admission: that their computer models had wildly overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming.

Which in turn means, of course, that the entire AGW scare (which relies above all else on those computer models) is bunk and that really – “Big Mac meal with Coke, 5 chicken select, curry dip and two large teas, thanks Myles” – it’s about time these taxpayer-funded Chicken Littles did something useful with their lives for a change.

But when journalists pointed this out, the alarmists responded by attacking the journalists, supposedly for having misrepresented their paper. Yeah right. Look guys, if a dodgy company – say Enron Inc – releases its annual report with a summary that says: “Good news. Our profits are up again and our prospects are better than ever” but on closer examination of the company accounts this turns out to be drivel, it is not the job of journalists to report that rosy executive summary, however much Enron/Global Warming Inc might prefer it.

Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.

And that’s just the scientists.

The parasitic industry profiting from all that junk-science nonsense the alarmists keep pumping into the ether is even worse.

Just one brief example. The other week, the British press was chock full of stories about this incredible advance which had been made in the offshore wind turbine industry whereby costs had fallen so markedly that suddenly those sea-based bat-chomping, bird-slicing, whale-killing eco-crucifixes were more competitive than ever before. There was barely a newspaper that didn’t fall for this “good news” propaganda story.

The story had been heavily promoted by a number of vested interests: a “coalition of companies and civil society organisations” (including Dong Energy, GE, ScottishPower Renewables, Siemens Gamesa, SSE, Vattenfall, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and WWF.”

Look at that list and marvel and the range and influence and financial muscle of those co-conspirators. Mighty, global NGOs and vast industrial conglomerates with a combined income running into the many billions. Environmentalism is not some gentle, bunny-hugging Mom and Pop operation. It’s a ginormous, many tentacled, spectacularly greedy and corrupt Green Blob.

And guess what? That story – repeated unquestioningly by the MSM, crowed about by the BBC – was horse [oops]. Actually, it was worse than that: it was fox [oops], which – as anyone who has smelt it will know – is an altogether more noisome, pungent, vile substance.

Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has reported these liars to the Advertising Standards Authority.

And Paul Homewood has done the numbers and worked out that actually, far from being a bargain, this is yet another massive taxpayer rip off.

Never forget this next time you hear anyone bleating about Trump doing something sensible like pulling out of the Paris climate accord or scrapping the Clean Power Plan. The global warming scare is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It cannot be killed off soon enough.

(by James Delingpole - 10 OCT 2017)


And who did the study? Some lobby groups funded by those in the fossil fuel industry? Do you know that less than 50 years ago lobby groups claimed that cigarette was not harmful? You probably still think so.
Cigarettes are harmful??
_________________________
That job interview was going so well until I realized I was fukked up on acid in the middle of a cornfield naked and talking to a scarecrow.

Top

#582141 - 14/10/17 03:39 PM Re: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm [Re: lumba]
TiredReds Online   content
1st Team Regular

Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 15424
Originally Posted By lumba
Originally Posted By TiredReds
Originally Posted By Pickles
The second study, by Hodgkins et al, published in the Journal of Hydrology, concerns flooding in North America and Europe.

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216941730478X#%21

What it shows is that, contrary to the claims often made by climate alarmists, there has been NO increase in flooding due to “global warming” or “climate change.”

Flooding events, it shows, have more to do with chance than any noticeable long term trend. It finds no link between flooding and “global warming.”

Abstract

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.

A few take-home points from these studies.

One, they explode – yet again – the myth that there is a consensus among scientists about catastrophic man-made climate change. In fact, as I reported earlier this year, there are dozens of papers produced every year by reputable, honest scientists which call into question the great man-made climate change scare.

Two, the alarmists hate it when you point this out. After my Breitbart piece Global Warming is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017, an alarmist website published a supposed expert rebuttal by leading climate scientists. The problem was, of course, that all the “experts” involved were members of the alarmist cabal who pal-review one another’s papers and who ruthlessly shut out of the debate any scientists who dare to disagree with them.

Three, the alarmists know the jig is up and have done for some time. But in the interests of damage limitation they’re trying to drip out their corrections (aka admissions of error) slowly – and on their terms – rather than allow any hated skeptics (like yours truly) the chance to crow.

This is what happened after that bombshell paper released in Nature Geoscience last month by leading climate alarmists including Oxford University’s Myles Allen. Buried beneath its misleading and dull abstract was an extraordinary admission: that their computer models had wildly overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming.

Which in turn means, of course, that the entire AGW scare (which relies above all else on those computer models) is bunk and that really – “Big Mac meal with Coke, 5 chicken select, curry dip and two large teas, thanks Myles” – it’s about time these taxpayer-funded Chicken Littles did something useful with their lives for a change.

But when journalists pointed this out, the alarmists responded by attacking the journalists, supposedly for having misrepresented their paper. Yeah right. Look guys, if a dodgy company – say Enron Inc – releases its annual report with a summary that says: “Good news. Our profits are up again and our prospects are better than ever” but on closer examination of the company accounts this turns out to be drivel, it is not the job of journalists to report that rosy executive summary, however much Enron/Global Warming Inc might prefer it.

Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.

And that’s just the scientists.

The parasitic industry profiting from all that junk-science nonsense the alarmists keep pumping into the ether is even worse.

Just one brief example. The other week, the British press was chock full of stories about this incredible advance which had been made in the offshore wind turbine industry whereby costs had fallen so markedly that suddenly those sea-based bat-chomping, bird-slicing, whale-killing eco-crucifixes were more competitive than ever before. There was barely a newspaper that didn’t fall for this “good news” propaganda story.

The story had been heavily promoted by a number of vested interests: a “coalition of companies and civil society organisations” (including Dong Energy, GE, ScottishPower Renewables, Siemens Gamesa, SSE, Vattenfall, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and WWF.”

Look at that list and marvel and the range and influence and financial muscle of those co-conspirators. Mighty, global NGOs and vast industrial conglomerates with a combined income running into the many billions. Environmentalism is not some gentle, bunny-hugging Mom and Pop operation. It’s a ginormous, many tentacled, spectacularly greedy and corrupt Green Blob.

And guess what? That story – repeated unquestioningly by the MSM, crowed about by the BBC – was horse [oops]. Actually, it was worse than that: it was fox [oops], which – as anyone who has smelt it will know – is an altogether more noisome, pungent, vile substance.

Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has reported these liars to the Advertising Standards Authority.

And Paul Homewood has done the numbers and worked out that actually, far from being a bargain, this is yet another massive taxpayer rip off.

Never forget this next time you hear anyone bleating about Trump doing something sensible like pulling out of the Paris climate accord or scrapping the Clean Power Plan. The global warming scare is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It cannot be killed off soon enough.

(by James Delingpole - 10 OCT 2017)


And who did the study? Some lobby groups funded by those in the fossil fuel industry? Do you know that less than 50 years ago lobby groups claimed that cigarette was not harmful? You probably still think so.
Cigarettes are harmful??


Ask the redneckpickles

Top

#582190 - 14/10/17 09:41 PM Re: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm [Re: TiredReds]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 1628
Originally Posted By TiredReds
[/quote]Ask the redneckpickles


nah, ask the England hater - sid VISHious!

Top

#582199 - 15/10/17 04:28 AM Re: Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm [Re: Pickles]
TiredReds Online   content
1st Team Regular

Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 15424
Originally Posted By Pickles
Originally Posted By TiredReds
Ask the redneckpickles


nah, ask the England hater - sid VISHious! [/quote]

I don't hate England but idiots, from wherever they are.

Top

Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3

Shout Box


Advertisements

Latest From KopTalk

Top Posters (30 Days)
sixtiesred 257
Growler 249
wilkij1975 244
TiredReds 169
lumba 126
Stanley Park 96
ecnirp98 95
Hercules/AF 58 93
Liverotto 74
Barr 74
Chris2402 73
TopBanana 64
Mr Bojangles 64
Shaggydog 60
Pickles 53
van Gogh 52
TheKopProphet 48
chesterville 48
Derek 35
klopp4kop 30