|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
http://skepticalscience.net/
While I personally do not believe in AGW myself...posting debunked claims only hurts our side. |
That "skeptical science" website is just a clone of realclimate.org, i.e. complete propaganda through and through. I'd believe what the Daily Mail prints over what those charlatans have to say any day of the week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I have no doubt that they are propaganda for the AGW fog machine...it is the Met Office themselves who deny they ever said any such thing. They even deny that they were contacted by the author at all or even spoke to him
| Quote: |
| Bottom line: On October 13, 2012, the Daily Mail posted an article crediting the UK Met Office with saying that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article went viral this week. One day later, however, the UK Met Office disavowed the Daily Mail article, saying it did not say global warming had stopped and was not contacted by the article�s author. |
http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago
Since the Met Office itself is one of the biggest pushers of the AGW theory I have to say their version of what happened sounds far more likely.
I mean what sounds more believable...advocates for the AGW theory saying that global warming is happening or saying that it's not happening?
Besides which the author of that piece in the Daily Mail sounds like an AGW proponent himself.
| Quote: |
| "So let�s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ I'm confused. Where in the DM article did it say that the author had contacted the Met Office? How is that even relevant since they admit that they released the HadCRUT4 data?
Anyway, I'm assuming that a major newspaper like the DM could not get away with a total fabrication (since it could be grounds for a lawsuit); therefore I'm assuming the Met Office did indeed quietly that data as reported, which shows that the world stopped warming. And as long as that is indeed the case, that's all that really matters. The views of the Met Office (or whether they were in contact with that author) seem pretty immaterial next to the actual data in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
^ I'm confused. Where in the DM article did it say that the author had contacted the Met Office? How is that even relevant since they admit that they released the HadCRUT4 data?
Anyway, I'm assuming that a major newspaper like the DM could not get away with a total fabrication (since it could be grounds for a lawsuit); therefore I'm assuming the Met Office did indeed quietly that data as reported, which shows that the world stopped warming. And as long as that is indeed the case, that's all that really matters. The views of the Met Office (or whether they were in contact with that author) seem pretty immaterial next to the actual data in question. |
(bolding mine)
The bolded part is EXACTLY what the Met Office contests though.
| Quote: |
| This chart accompanied the October 13, 2012 Daily Mail article. It supposedly shows that global warming stopped 16 years ago, and it was supposedly released by the UK Met Office. The UT Met Office said on October 14, however, that it did not release this chart or say that global warming had stopped. |
So it's not even their chart to begin with...or so they say.
Believe me I'd like nothing better than to see the Met Office wind up with egg on their collective faces on this one...but since it should be fairly easy enough to verify where the chart came from...there's not much point in lying about it.
As regards your first paragraph (second sentence)...
From the DM article
| Quote: |
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: �Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.�
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was �unlikely�. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 � that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record � he made no comment. |
It's not clear whether he is quoting what a spokesman said to SOMEONE ELSE or to him. I think the Met Office is just clarifying this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| ^Anyway, I'm assuming that a major newspaper like the DM could not get away with a total fabrication (since it could be grounds for a lawsuit); . |
Ahem...Fox News? Wikileaks? Jayson Blair? 
As some of the above cases show mainstream media (including major newspapers) publish fabrications in part or whole depending on what the powers-that-be want you to hear.
While it didn't work out so well for Mr. Blair it seems to be a strong selling point for Fox News.
And this trend to publish a common story true or false has been exposed countless times by Wikleaks...no need to re-invent the wheel here.
And the Daily Mail HAS done this at least once before
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/06/how-i-sued-daily-mail-and-won
I guess this story is a wait and see issue...let's see whether the reporter or the Met Office blinks first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if the issue here is who released the data, I still don't really see how it changes anything... If the Met Office didn't release it then fair enough (the DM should be called out), but regardless it seems the data has in fact been released nevertheless.
See here to download the official data that was discussed in the DM article. Whether or not the data matches up with what the DM discussed, I haven't taken the time confirm myself... But presumably if the data showed that warming hadn't stopped, then the Met Office and others would have pounced all over it. Instead they seem to be obfuscating the issue by merely denying having released it (even though the data is publicly available for anyone to download)... The relevant point is not who released it, but whether the data actually shows that warming stopped, which neither the Met Office or anyone else seems to be denying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:34 pm Post subject: RE: Warming conspiracy exposed |
|
|
| Thread resurrection. Conspiracies never die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
