|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 15:07:25 GMT
See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 5, 2010 15:16:03 GMT
then that contradicts the theory. Does it? How? In what way does falling temperatures disprove the theory? I have never read anything that predicts that temperatures will only go in one direction (upwards) year on year. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of someone with credibility on the subject who has predicted only an upward trend? Surely you are not suggesting that someone has suggested that every other influence on the climate has remained the same since a given time? Everyone agrees that lots of things influence the climate, not just ‘the greenhouse effect’ nor is carbon dioxide the only greenhouse gas. In fact, everything I have read suggests that temperatures will continue to vary, year on year, although the longer term trend will push upward. That fits exactly with the theory and fits exactly with the observations. So where is the contradiction? Another straw man argument, fret I’m afraid. If you are going to attack the theory at least have the common decency to represent the theory correctly.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 5, 2010 15:21:42 GMT
See what I mean? Cherry picked figures. Try and set your starting position 30 years ago rather than the hottest year in the last 15 years. See? When we look at the wider picture we get a clearer idea of the trend.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 15:26:27 GMT
Cherry picked like realclimate's half models LOL
For someone who claims to be pro-science, you appear to appreciate the square root of naff all about it.
You have the data and yet you still conclude that black is white.
The hypothetico-deductive method assumes that properly formed theories arise as generalizations from observable data that they are intended to explain. What you claim flies in the face of this. In short you are merely wasting everybody's time.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 5, 2010 15:49:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 5, 2010 15:51:42 GMT
You have the data and yet you still conclude that black is white. Highly selective data based on a date specifically chosen to show a short (ten year) downward trend! Draw the same graph from 1995, 1996 and it shows an upward trend. If you start from the highest point in the graph then the only way is down! Christ, everyone knows that! 1998 was an exceptionally warm year; that is clearly not in dispute. A number of factors (not all AGW related) culminated in producing that high point. Since then, those factors have ebbed away, but the long term trend is still up. The last decade (2000-2010) was reportedly the warmest decade ever recorded. Eventually, 1998 will be surpassed as the warmest years on record and the deniers will move the goalpost to the new record.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 15:56:38 GMT
Anna Mi scusi, adesso sto parlando qui sulla communita Europea.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 6, 2010 5:41:39 GMT
Anna Mi scusi, adesso sto parlando qui sulla communita Europea. Molto Grazie! Tutto buono!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 9:21:28 GMT
Appointment of 'ghost' MEPs will require ratification by all 27 member states
European Voice reports that the European Parliament has not yet issued an opinion on how to select the 18 additional 'ghost' MEPs introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. MEPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee will choose an MEP to draft an opinion on 8 February. The increase in the number of MEPs can only be made by convening an inter-governmental conference of all 27 EU governments, as it entails changing the Lisbon Treaty. But MEPs are threatening to call a new European Convention, a forum that could open up other areas of the Treaty for negotiation, if France goes ahead with its plan to appoint its two new MEPs from the National Assembly. UK Liberal MEP Andrew Duff has warned that such a move fails to respect the principle that MEPs are directly elected from lists for the Parliament, rather than being appointed by governments.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 9:23:33 GMT
58 think-tanks to receive €6.7 million in EU subsidies
The European Commission will this year pay €6.7 million in subsidies to 58 think-tanks and NGOs which have "an openly pro-integration position", reports EUobserver. The top 10 recipients include the European Movement International, €430,000 and Friends of Europe, €192,000. Only one recipient of funding is critical of the EU institutions - Statewatch, which gets 39% of its budget from the Commission.
Think-tanks including the European Policy Centre, the Centre for European Policy Studies (Ceps) and Notre Europe, who claim to have objectivity all receive EU funding. Notre Europe's Funding Officer Jennifer Hoff is quoted saying, "We are really trying to diversify our funding because we do get criticised for this."
Open Europe's Pieter Cleppe is quoted arguing: "They [the EU] are setting up their own committees claiming that these are independent think tanks when, in fact, they are cheerleaders for the EU. They do not question the EU to the extent they would if they were not being funded by it. That's the whole point of the grants."
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 9:26:53 GMT
MEPs vote to give themselves more cash;
Tim King: The EP has more money than it knows what to do with
The European Parliament's budgets committee voted yesterday to increase MEPs' monthly allowances for assistants by €1,500 and to hire 150 extra staff which they claim are needed to help them deal with the new powers they have gained with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The move will cost European taxpayers an additional €13.3 million, and increase the Parliament's budget to €1.6 billion this year. The committee could not agree on where to make compensatory savings in other areas of the Parliament's spending. The increase was opposed only by MEPs from the far-left European United Left (EUL) group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. Miguel Portas, a Portuguese EUL MEP, is quoted saying that increasing the allowance by €1,500 is "absurd".
In a comment piece, the Editor of the European Voice, Tim King, argues, "For 40 years, a near-secret agreement has governed how the three main institutions of the European Union divide up administrative spending...
|
|