Ooops!

[Oddquine]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Now maybe we can stop building windmills in every empty space!

[Alrock]

Well, that's good news then.... It means that these windmills might just make a noticeable dent in Global Warming. So, with that encouraging news we'd better get building some more.

[Oddquine]

Well, that's good news then.... It means that these windmills might just make a noticeable dent in Global Warming. So, with that encouraging news we'd better get building some more.

I was expecting something like that from Rheg!

If they have overestimated effects......it gives us longer to come up with more sensible ways of reducing emissions than sticking windmills...though I'm not holding my breath given the efficiency of the "wind farm equals easy money" energy lobby.

[Rheghead]

I don't understand. The Daily Mail is usually right when it comes to science, they have many climate scientists convincingly saying that the IPCC have got it wrong. 0.2C per decage is now 0.05C per decade. How could the IPCC get it so wrong?

Does anyone have a graph which would allow us to see the general trend in global temperature rise?

Oddquine, can you use your brilliant googling skills to get us a graph of the rise in global temperatures over the last 100 years or so?

[Alrock]

Here's a graph....

[Oddquine]

I don't understand. The Daily Mail is usually right when it comes to science, they have many climate scientists convincingly saying that the IPCC have got it wrong. 0.2C per decage is now 0.05C per decade. How could the IPCC get it so wrong?

Does anyone have a graph which would allow us to see the general trend in global temperature rise?

Oddquine, can you use your brilliant googling skills to get us a graph of the rise in global temperatures over the last 100 years or so?

There are graphy things in the link. Nobody is saying they got the theory wrong......they are saying they either input the wrong figures in the wrong place into the computer model......or misinterpreted the results.....so it is going to take a lot longer to happen.....which is why I hoped that we might stop throwing up windmills all over the joint and come up with something more useful instead.

Not a fan of the Daily Fail, myself, having been reading it during the Independence debate so far (though don't pay money for it)......and they do talk a lot of keech 99% of the time, but on the very odd occasion they do get nearly close to facts. Seen a fair bit on the same lines on other forums re the increase in the Arctic Sea Ice and the faster melting of in Greenland and Antarctica..and arguments as to the believability of the Daily Fail.

However, I would assume that all those who believe a word printed on the pages of the Daily Fail re the impossibility of anything Scotland says about Independence, will equally impliicitly believe all they say about Global worming/cooling or whatever.

[Rheghead]

There are graphy things in the link. Nobody is saying they got the theory wrong......they are saying they either input the wrong figures in the wrong place into the computer model......or misinterpreted the results.....so it is going to take a lot longer to happen.....which is why I hoped that we might stop throwing up windmills all over the joint and come up with something more useful instead.

Not a fan of the Daily Fail, myself, having been reading it during the Independence debate so far (though don't pay money for it)......and they do talk a lot of keech 99% of the time, but on the very odd occasion they do get nearly close to facts. Seen a fair bit on the same lines on other forums re the increase in the Arctic Sea Ice and the faster melting of in Greenland and Antarctica..and arguments as to the believability of the Daily Fail.

However, I would assume that all those who believe a word printed on the pages of the Daily Fail re the impossibility of anything Scotland says about Independence, will equally impliicitly believe all they say about Global worming/cooling or whatever.

But the graphs on the DM don't cover the bigger picture do they? From 1940 to 1970 there was a net decrease in temperature, there is no attempt to disguise this, is there?

By selecting a small portion of the graph, the DM is effectively cherry picking.

[Oddquine]

But the graphs on the DM don't cover the bigger picture do they? From 1940 to 1970 there was a net decrease in temperature, there is no attempt to disguise this, is there?

By selecting a small portion of the graph, the DM is effectively cherry picking.

But that is what the Daily Fail does...hadn't you ever noticed......because I have. I assume that the veracity of their article will be confirmed (or not) later this month when the IPCC report is published.

Seems to me kinda pointless to produce an article like that if they knew it was all a lie and the truth was going to be reported in the rest of the MSM in a few days (though it could be their interpretation of the info that is questionable)...but have to say that the fact of lying has never stopped them before...because they know that enough folk will read it...and believe it, and promulgate it.....regardless if the truth turns up in a broadsheet tomorrow......so job done as far as the Daily Fail is concerned.

I'm not overly bothered if they are right or not, tbh......because my personal carbon footprint is a lot smaller than most....and regardless of warming or cooling...I'm of the opinion that we should be cutting our reliance on finite fossil fuels so our great great grandchildren don't end up living, towards the end of this century, as if they were back in pre-industrial times due to our selfishness and greed.

The fact, if it is a fact, that it is not going to happen as fast as we have been being told for the last 15 years will give us a chance, as I said, to do something more useful to ameliorate the effect than erecting pointless windmills.....like maybe only letting folk have one car which hasn't to be a 4x4.or putting a jumper on top of the t-shirt and turning down the heating a notch.

[Rheghead]

Seems to me kinda pointless to produce an article like that if they knew it was all a lie and the truth was going to be reported in the rest of the MSM in a few days (though it could be their interpretation of the info that is questionable)...but have to say that the fact of lying has never stopped them before...because they know that enough folk will read it...and believe it, and promulgate it.....regardless if the truth turns up in a broadsheet tomorrow......so job done as far as the Daily Fail is concerned.

But that is precisely the point isn't it? They aren't interested in truth but they'd rather tell a fib in order to push their editorial bias. The credulity of the human race knows no bounds if the subject being discussed creates controversy, especially if the subject is concerning climate change and anti-wind farm propaganda.

A lie will go twice around the world before the truth gets its socks and shoes on.

[Rheghead]

I'm not overly bothered if they are right or not, tbh......because my personal carbon footprint is a lot smaller than most....and regardless of warming or cooling...I'm of the opinion that we should be cutting our reliance on finite fossil fuels so our great great grandchildren don't end up living, towards the end of this century, as if they were back in pre-industrial times due to our selfishness and greed.

The fact, if it is a fact, that it is not going to happen as fast as we have been being told for the last 15 years will give us a chance, as I said, to do something more useful to ameliorate the effect than erecting pointless windmills.....like maybe only letting folk have one car which hasn't to be a 4x4.or putting a jumper on top of the t-shirt and turning down the heating a notch.

The fact is, if wind farms are not allowed to be developed then confidence in the wider renewable energy market will fall and we will not get the larger reductions in carbon that is predicted.

[Neil Howie]

UPDATE: Despite Doubling Down, Climate Change Article Still Very Misleading

article posted here in response to Mail on Sunday, and to the Daily Mail's "masterful use of distraction".

And remember, this type of nonsense does have an impact. It gets picked up all over the media, who in many cases parrot this type of thing without doing even the most minimal amount of investigation … and of course there are other venues that repeat it because denial is what they do. I’ve already seen this in other newspapers, blogs, and of course on Twitter.

[Oddquine]

But that is precisely the point isn't it? They aren't interested in truth but they'd rather tell a fib in order to push their editorial bias. The credulity of the human race knows no bounds if the subject being discussed creates controversy, especially if the subject is concerning climate change and anti-wind farm propaganda.

A lie will go twice around the world before the truth gets its socks and shoes on.

Rheg......however they truncate the graphs....what they are reporting is, seemingly, the fact that either the information input to produce the graphs from when they started looking into it was wrong, if the graphs were computer produced...or the information on which they based the graphs was misinterpreted if they were hand drawn. I'm not saying they are right or wrong.....just reporting what the Daily Fail is saying. If they cocked up for whatever reason...why would another few decades backwards of a graph illustrate anything different?

But welcome to the world of we pro-independents in Scotland who absolutely know that A lie will go twice around the world before the truth gets its socks and shoes on.