 |
 |
Is this really the place for the tin foil hatters to congregate ? > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:50:23 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Climate change is not related to CO2 > To: [log in to unmask] > > Pushing the limit on AllStats rules (sorry moderator), the following is > concise and to the point. You will note that it is a precis from Analytic > Bridge, which I think gives it some clout. > > For those who have access to the internet, the link at the end of this > letter completely disproves the association between the observed climate > change and emitted carbon. This is from reputable, published scientists. > Interesting, at a time when a group of scientists have been found to be > fudging the data because they did not fit. > > For those who do not have access to the net, or are just happy to read on, I > will summarise key facts taken from the site. > 1. If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult > life. > 2. July 2007 US Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a > glacier meltdown found that Greenland has been warming since the > 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been > colder than the period between 1881-1955. > 3. Also, Greenland has cooled since the 1940s, with 1941 being the > warmest year on record. > 4. Vikings farmed this land during the mediaeval Warm Period. > 5. 70% of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the > 1880's, while 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. > 6. The observed changes in weather are within natural variation (albeit > somewhat extreme). > > To echo a recent Leicester Mercury editorial, how and why should so many > governments > have got it wrong ? This is the real question, not "Does CO2 cause climate > change ?" > > Martin Holt > > http://www.analyticbridge.com/main/search/search?q=climate+change > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Kane" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:50 PM > Subject: Re: Analysis of temperature on Earth > > > > Hi, > > > > This is not my area of expertise, but if you look at the very informative > > graphs provided, there does seem to be a trend - specifically - before > > 1995 the global temperatures are lower, and after 1995 they seem to be > > higher. With the amount of random noise, if you imagine where the > > extrapolated line would head to, it would seem that you would need to > > consider forecasting out to 50-100 years to see a clear difference between > > current temperatures. > > > > Interesting... > > > > Kevin Kane > > CEO, PHASTAR > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anatoly Zhigljavsky" <[log in to unmask]> > > To: <[log in to unmask]> > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:45 AM > > Subject: Analysis of temperature on Earth > > > > > >> Dear allstat fellows, > >> > >> I though some of you might be interested in what I have done after I got > >> tired of listening about Global Warming and ClimatGate. > >> > >> I decided to check the data myself. The result is the following website: > >> > >> http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/subsites/zhigljavskyaa/climatechange/ > >> > >> > >> I did not find any signs of the Global Warming! > >> > >> Sorry, the statistical part in my short report is poor (this report is > >> not > >> for professional statisticians!) > >> > >> Any comments? > >> > >> Anatoly Zhigljavsky, Professor > >> Chair in Statistics > >> School of Mathematics > >> Cardiff University > >> CF24 4AG > >> Cardiff, UK > >> > >> Tel. +44(0)2029875076 > > _________________________________________________________________ Got more than one Hotmail account? Save time by linking them together http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394591/direct/01/