Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Oct 15
17:37
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
Lets see - climate change - this means the climate is changing. Yep. I agree in that it's not a static system. It has never stood still. When has two winters ever been the same? Or two summers.
We are currently at the back end of an ice age. Most of Britain twenty thousand years ago was under three feet of ice.
Mankind has only been able to flourish because the earth has been warming. It let the ice receed and left the land free to grow crops.
Now some boffins have decided they need the ice?
the sun - that glowing atomic furnace in the sky has a 22 year cycle - coincidently the dustbowl in California also has a twenty two year cycle. There was theories that the stock market also kept to this twenty two year cycle. The bbc HORIZON programme screened in 1976 predicted a two degree rise in temperature within fifty years attributing the temperature rise to solar activity.
So all we have to do to change what the sun is doing is ignore pollution from big corporations and sort out our household rubbish into six different coloured bins.
who gets my broken glass jars anyway?
We are currently at the back end of an ice age. Most of Britain twenty thousand years ago was under three feet of ice.
Mankind has only been able to flourish because the earth has been warming. It let the ice receed and left the land free to grow crops.
Now some boffins have decided they need the ice?
the sun - that glowing atomic furnace in the sky has a 22 year cycle - coincidently the dustbowl in California also has a twenty two year cycle. There was theories that the stock market also kept to this twenty two year cycle. The bbc HORIZON programme screened in 1976 predicted a two degree rise in temperature within fifty years attributing the temperature rise to solar activity.
So all we have to do to change what the sun is doing is ignore pollution from big corporations and sort out our household rubbish into six different coloured bins.
who gets my broken glass jars anyway?
Show More
erm...I think you might find it was rather more than 3 feet of ice.
Man made climate change is a bigger myth than the Easter Bunny.
Climate, by its very nature changes. Must have been a lot of CFC gasses to explain the ice age.
Boffins tampered and deliberately mis-interpreted data to prove a theory. What a surprise. Now most respectable scientists agree it's basically hogwash. However, we still are brow beaten to believe and behave as though it's gospel!
Climate, by its very nature changes. Must have been a lot of CFC gasses to explain the ice age.
Boffins tampered and deliberately mis-interpreted data to prove a theory. What a surprise. Now most respectable scientists agree it's basically hogwash. However, we still are brow beaten to believe and behave as though it's gospel!
Now most respectable scientists agree it's basically hogwash.
From where did you obtain that information Charwell? I would like to know.
From where did you obtain that information Charwell? I would like to know.
Thank you Mr. Anderson
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
I think 97% could be construed as "most" don't you think?
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
I think 97% could be construed as "most" don't you think?
“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
That's from the IPCC in 2007.
That's from the IPCC in 2007.
I found this on the IPCC website Bongo
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
I would refer you to
SPM 1. Observed Changes and their Causes
SPM 1.2 Causes of climate change
While I agree that Earth's climate appears to be a long term self-regulating system, the relatively short term costs of the disruption being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases could be catastrophic for human survival and probably many other life forms too.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
I would refer you to
SPM 1. Observed Changes and their Causes
SPM 1.2 Causes of climate change
While I agree that Earth's climate appears to be a long term self-regulating system, the relatively short term costs of the disruption being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases could be catastrophic for human survival and probably many other life forms too.
Then we should be able to measure or estimate a measure for these short-term costs, and assign a value to them, and as the Stern review and others have said, assign a carbon-tax that collects the value of those costs.
Ah, a problem - how to measure those short-term costs using existing data ( not the guessed future stuff ). How about the cost of the increase in 'extreme weather events' , or the cost to world food production and war down to 'increased desertification'? Because these things are supposed to have already happened and be measurable. "Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts" as it says in SPM1 - Observed Changes and their Causes, which is written in the PAST tense.
So if you believe the IPCC, Nordhaus, Stern and many others who advocate a carbon tax, there is enough cost of climate change that has already happened we can already measure what that carbon tax should be.
Ah, a problem - how to measure those short-term costs using existing data ( not the guessed future stuff ). How about the cost of the increase in 'extreme weather events' , or the cost to world food production and war down to 'increased desertification'? Because these things are supposed to have already happened and be measurable. "Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts" as it says in SPM1 - Observed Changes and their Causes, which is written in the PAST tense.
So if you believe the IPCC, Nordhaus, Stern and many others who advocate a carbon tax, there is enough cost of climate change that has already happened we can already measure what that carbon tax should be.
Who are you going to tax Bongo? China? India? USA? Would it do any good if feasible?
Should desertification accelerate as predicted, how will you control the surge of migration which would make the Syrian crisis look like nothing?
If there is no food in the shops, how will you maintain the veneer of civilisation?
If acidification of the oceans causes fish stocks to crash how will coastal communities feed themselves?
These things might not happen in the next decade, so that's all right then. Carry on as normal.
Should desertification accelerate as predicted, how will you control the surge of migration which would make the Syrian crisis look like nothing?
If there is no food in the shops, how will you maintain the veneer of civilisation?
If acidification of the oceans causes fish stocks to crash how will coastal communities feed themselves?
These things might not happen in the next decade, so that's all right then. Carry on as normal.
like most of this ridiculous religion, the ludicrous 97 percent lie has been completely debunked.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
the problem isn't so much that it's a political scam targeting the gullible and foolish, but the damage it does to actual science and to valid environmentalism.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
the problem isn't so much that it's a political scam targeting the gullible and foolish, but the damage it does to actual science and to valid environmentalism.
what amazes me is the amount of people who seem to have such strong opinions on something they know next to absolutely f*ck all about, just because they experience weather. it's like people having strong opinions on the possible mechanism of action of paracetamol, with absolutely no education in even basic pharmacology, but because they take the odd pill now and again, they think they're qualified to weigh in with their opinion.
worse still, their arguments are never appropriately weighted in terms of the impact of their being wrong.
worse still, their arguments are never appropriately weighted in terms of the impact of their being wrong.
With something as important as this, a false negative has much greater consequences than a false positive. The debates on climate change remind me somewhat of the controversy over smoking and cancer a few decades ago where there were vested interests on both sides cherry picking data and generating their own.
With something as important as this, a false negative has much greater consequences than a false positive.
like a cult that professes unless you self flagellate yourself to death you will suffer eternal fires of hell. similarly your using the argument of "why take a risk?"
The debates on climate change remind me somewhat of the controversy over smoking and cancer a few decades ago where there were vested interests on both sides cherry picking data and generating their own.
the problem with this attempt at equivalence is that everyone knew smoking was bad for you, hence terms like "cancer sticks" or "nails in the coffin" used commonly by smokers. it was almost universally accepted smoking would shorten your life and harm your lungs, the only groups professing otherwise were scientific "studies" and "surveys" carried out by medical professionals and so called scientists.
the other great myth is that it was big tobacco and advertising that forced people to smoke, the reality it was industries like film, music and the arts that glamourised and popularised smoking.
like a cult that professes unless you self flagellate yourself to death you will suffer eternal fires of hell. similarly your using the argument of "why take a risk?"
The debates on climate change remind me somewhat of the controversy over smoking and cancer a few decades ago where there were vested interests on both sides cherry picking data and generating their own.
the problem with this attempt at equivalence is that everyone knew smoking was bad for you, hence terms like "cancer sticks" or "nails in the coffin" used commonly by smokers. it was almost universally accepted smoking would shorten your life and harm your lungs, the only groups professing otherwise were scientific "studies" and "surveys" carried out by medical professionals and so called scientists.
the other great myth is that it was big tobacco and advertising that forced people to smoke, the reality it was industries like film, music and the arts that glamourised and popularised smoking.
*you're (thought i'd save the anally retentive spell checkers a trip) 
I just read that 37% of Americans think that global warming is a hoax (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-landing-faked-why-people-bel... That naturally means that it's not difficult to find websites that "completely debunk the myth of global warming".
But it's a fact that the vast majority of scientists think man made global warming is real. Anyone who doubts that can pick some random scientists, and call them and ask them what they think. The scientific consensus may be wrong. I mean I have no reason to think it's wrong, but it's at least seems within the realm of possibility that it's wrong. There are after all some historic examples of the scientific consensus being completely wrong. But to say anything other than that currently the scientific consensus is that climate change is real and extremely likely caused by human activities is just stupid.
But it's a fact that the vast majority of scientists think man made global warming is real. Anyone who doubts that can pick some random scientists, and call them and ask them what they think. The scientific consensus may be wrong. I mean I have no reason to think it's wrong, but it's at least seems within the realm of possibility that it's wrong. There are after all some historic examples of the scientific consensus being completely wrong. But to say anything other than that currently the scientific consensus is that climate change is real and extremely likely caused by human activities is just stupid.
The study of climate is a science, not a religion. I would agree that to be guided by religion is ridiculous, to be guided by science is not.
UK is actively working to address climate change by closing down all of our steel mills. Just a shame about the thousands of job losses.
AIDS epidemic
Climate change
War on terror
Bird flu.... etc etc
Maybe they just want to keep us permanently stressed out
Climate change
War on terror
Bird flu.... etc etc
Maybe they just want to keep us permanently stressed out
The study of climate is a science, not a religion. I would agree that to be guided by religion is ridiculous, to be guided by science is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLSADmQm4kc
a religion no doubt, and if you repeat your recitation of belief enough times, it becomes real.
halleluyah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLSADmQm4kc
a religion no doubt, and if you repeat your recitation of belief enough times, it becomes real.
halleluyah!
Excellent youtube link Poly.
The often repeated statistic that claims 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming, is a joke. That number can be tied to a vague 2009 questionnaire that was only answered by 79 scientists from the climate field, and which ignored the opinions of thousands of researchers from multiple relevant fields. There is no consensus.
The often repeated statistic that claims 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming, is a joke. That number can be tied to a vague 2009 questionnaire that was only answered by 79 scientists from the climate field, and which ignored the opinions of thousands of researchers from multiple relevant fields. There is no consensus.
Oct 20, 2015 -- 8:40PM, treetop wrote:
UK is actively working to address climate change by closing down all of our steel mills. Just a shame about the thousands of job losses.
Here in Sweden politicians have congratulated themselves because over the past X years CO2 emissions within the borders of the country have gone down. But if you also include emissions because of the stuff that we import, then emissions have gone up! Haven't really achieved anything if you just have moved production from one country to another, have you?
97 percent of bookies say the favourite cannot be beaten - yet it happens. all the scientists once believed the earth was the centre of the solar system. 97 percent of the medical profession once tore strips off Louise Pasteur and his wild theories of microbes and bacteria.
All the evidence says the climate is changing ,of course correlation does not mean causation but the chances are that man has effected the climate due to ignorance ,greed and selfishness .Any reduction in pollution and mans negative impact on the planet can only be good .We are using up natural resources at an unsustainable rate.But more importantly we must invest in future technology for the masses ,power ,transport ,food supply and birth control all need global solutions ,thats the least we can do for future generations .Instead we are consumed by a meaningless greed struggle that divides ,we strive for knowledge and understanding but struggle to comprehend the information and present it to others in a way that makes sense ,knowledge is power and power is money ,it seems they cant convince anyone of anything because their is a massive breakdown in trust ,we dont trust them and its probably a good thing but people do need this and many other issues explained a whole lot better .I Believe mans pact on this planet has been massive and suspect the climate is just the tip of the iceberg .
I don't give a toss....that's the extent of my contribution. Why cos there's fuck all I can do about it.
a religion no doubt, and if you repeat your recitation of belief enough times, it becomes real.
halleluyah!
Exactly what you're doing polybot.
You think that the study of climate is not a science. Stick to reading the horoscope if you can't tell the difference.
halleluyah!
Exactly what you're doing polybot.
You think that the study of climate is not a science. Stick to reading the horoscope if you can't tell the difference.
Zorro, do you actually believe that 97% of bookies believe a favourite can not be beaten.
I realise you have some pretty wild theories. Should we fike this bookie one with the others you have shared?
I realise you have some pretty wild theories. Should we fike this bookie one with the others you have shared?
Of course the study of climate is a science.
It's interesting to see people's attitude towards various problems facing the world. To my mind, there is a clear bias with many people depending on whether they are partially responsible.
E.g. Immigrants: feckers coming over here to steal our jobs and take our benefits.
E.g. The environment: what do you mean we've fecked it up? It's fine. Just because you can observe CO2 trapping heat in a school science experiment and virtually all scientists agree we're really risking the planet's future by continuing to act as we are, there's no way I'm going to change my behaviour. It's all a big conspiracy.
E.g. The national debt if you're not a banker: Fecking bankers. It's all their fault. Nothing to do with an entire generation living beyond its means.
E.g. Europeans from a South American perspective: Look how many wars they have over there! They're really violent, unlike us.
E.g. South Americans from a European perspective: Look how many murders there are over there! They're really violent, unlike us.
Even if global warming turns out not to be that big a problem, we'll probably just continue using too many resources and polluting the place until it's too late. We're just too immature as a species to face up to our responsibilities.
It's interesting to see people's attitude towards various problems facing the world. To my mind, there is a clear bias with many people depending on whether they are partially responsible.
E.g. Immigrants: feckers coming over here to steal our jobs and take our benefits.
E.g. The environment: what do you mean we've fecked it up? It's fine. Just because you can observe CO2 trapping heat in a school science experiment and virtually all scientists agree we're really risking the planet's future by continuing to act as we are, there's no way I'm going to change my behaviour. It's all a big conspiracy.
E.g. The national debt if you're not a banker: Fecking bankers. It's all their fault. Nothing to do with an entire generation living beyond its means.
E.g. Europeans from a South American perspective: Look how many wars they have over there! They're really violent, unlike us.
E.g. South Americans from a European perspective: Look how many murders there are over there! They're really violent, unlike us.
Even if global warming turns out not to be that big a problem, we'll probably just continue using too many resources and polluting the place until it's too late. We're just too immature as a species to face up to our responsibilities.
I'm with the Baron on this. I hurled abuse at the lying fkrs on the box but they weren't listening.
By accident I think I have hit on the problem!!!!!????
By accident I think I have hit on the problem!!!!!????
Patra that is singularly the biggest load of sanctimonious bullsh1t I have ever had the misfortune to read.
And I have read some of Homefortea's drivel!
And I have read some of Homefortea's drivel!
Please expand. Because from your Monday evening post it's evident that you don't even understand the difference between CFCs and greenhouse gases. Mightn't you be underqualified to tell us it's all OK?
But immigrants HAVE stolen our jobs - about 4 million and rising. Plus another mill illegals. Just saying. Not sure it has anything to do with global warming, sorry I mean climate change. But then it is what people like Patra do - just divert and obfuscate; confusing us simpletons.
Anyway - it is fkn cold here this evening.
I will get one of my somali staff to fling a couple more logs on.
ps
and if you squeeze the length of that graph you can make it look like a steep rise
Or. Stretch it about 5 yards and it will look as if there has been almost no rise.
Anyway - it is fkn cold here this evening.
I will get one of my somali staff to fling a couple more logs on.
ps
and if you squeeze the length of that graph you can make it look like a steep rise
Or. Stretch it about 5 yards and it will look as if there has been almost no rise.
So if we hadn't had any immigration the unemployment stats would be minus 2 or 3 million?
I'm not trying to divert and/or obfuscate(!). I'm just trying to understand the world and explain it as I see it, and I see people blaming others for their problems a whole lot more than they blame themselves.
I'm not trying to divert and/or obfuscate(!). I'm just trying to understand the world and explain it as I see it, and I see people blaming others for their problems a whole lot more than they blame themselves.
I Believe mans pact on this planet has been massive and suspect the climate is just the tip of the iceberg .
Well, I laughed.
Well, I laughed.
Not as loud as me 
nearly my furst ever 100% Grammatically correct and spelling mistake free post in 9 years , shaved the woodwork ,prob as close as am gunna get ,tbf it was worth pointing out
nearly my furst ever 100% Grammatically correct and spelling mistake free post in 9 years , shaved the woodwork ,prob as close as am gunna get ,tbf it was worth pointing out
Oct 22, 2015 -- 11:31AM, mobo wrote:
Never mind patra it is not your fault.
Of course it's partly my fault!
By the way, has anyone tried asking any actual scientists? Yesterday I emailed two friends who work in scientific research, and although they are involved in totally irrelevant areas (neuroscience and MRI), they are at big universities (Newcastle and London) and of course they interact with other scientists. The reckoned that the 97% figure sounded about right to them.
I also know a couple of people who are more directly involved in the field, and they agree that climate change is basically man-made, although I suppose you'd put them down as being part of the conspiracy.
Ah BnB I was laughing at the pun at the end of that sentence - tips of icebergs/climate change and all that.
By the way, has anyone tried asking any actual scientists?
So now we're not just suggesting that science should be done by consensus, we're suggesting it should be done by phoning up random scientists of any discipline going. Hello, Geology department? The Cat here. Look Geology, what's your position on the superposition of photons in a robin's head? What's that? You don't know? But surely you've overheard physicists on you lunch break in the canteen talking about it? You haven't? You're facking useless then!
By the way, has anyone tried asking any actual scientists?
So now we're not just suggesting that science should be done by consensus, we're suggesting it should be done by phoning up random scientists of any discipline going. Hello, Geology department? The Cat here. Look Geology, what's your position on the superposition of photons in a robin's head? What's that? You don't know? But surely you've overheard physicists on you lunch break in the canteen talking about it? You haven't? You're facking useless then!
It's like being swept up in a tidal wave all going one way. A lot of young scientists want to keep their jobs so better not come up with anything that is outside the status quo.
Nobody told me it was an Inquisition.
At least we know the earth is round
Hang on - no it's not!!!!
NOBODY EXPECTS THE INQUISITION!!!
Nobody told me it was an Inquisition.
At least we know the earth is round
Hang on - no it's not!!!!
NOBODY EXPECTS THE INQUISITION!!!
I got a medium to connect me to Einstein.
Einstein said it was a load of bollox.
For a 2nd opinion I asked my daughter who is emminent in the field of science (she has a class award certificate from her junior school). She just said 'Huh?? What's for tea dad?'
So my research suggests that the scientists of the past and future refuse to be railroaded into such bunkum. Case dismissed.
Einstein said it was a load of bollox.
For a 2nd opinion I asked my daughter who is emminent in the field of science (she has a class award certificate from her junior school). She just said 'Huh?? What's for tea dad?'
So my research suggests that the scientists of the past and future refuse to be railroaded into such bunkum. Case dismissed.
*for the slower kids to notice.
can't remember the post which this was a spelling or grammar correction to, but must have been a good one for some "man of science" to plead and beg for its removal
can't remember the post which this was a spelling or grammar correction to, but must have been a good one for some "man of science" to plead and beg for its removal
MEXICO SUFFERS GREATEST HURRICANE IN HISTORY OF WORLD!!!
winds of 35 kilometres experienced, deck chairs blown over.
my guess for a certain world leader's speech writer to feature in the paris conference:
"MEXICO SUFFERS GREATEST HURRICANE IN HISTORY OF WORLD!!!" (possibly more exclamation marks)
winds of 35 kilometres experienced, deck chairs blown over.
my guess for a certain world leader's speech writer to feature in the paris conference:
"MEXICO SUFFERS GREATEST HURRICANE IN HISTORY OF WORLD!!!" (possibly more exclamation marks)
Polybot disappointed the cat five weakened and changed direction and did not open up and sweep across a major city ,just the six dead and few thousand without power and crops destroyed ..,,sorry to hear it disappointed .Being a el nino year there will prob be a few more ,and maybe some massive quakes or a country destroying tsunami for you ...,
perhaps its is just because our media are now all pervasive and the impression given is more extreme climate effects. The explosion of Mt Krakatoa would entail thousands of media people sailing out in small boats nowadays when it hardly registered across the world compared to events today.
What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA.
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than has been lost to its thinning glaciers.
The US space agency research claims an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is "currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from melting glaciers.
Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after Nasa also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe.
Major studies previously made the case for global warming being a man-made problem, including the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which said that Antarctica was overall losing land ice.
But a Nasa spokesman said: "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
"That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
- Express - 02 November 2015
.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than has been lost to its thinning glaciers.
The US space agency research claims an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is "currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from melting glaciers.
Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after Nasa also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe.
Major studies previously made the case for global warming being a man-made problem, including the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which said that Antarctica was overall losing land ice.
But a Nasa spokesman said: "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
"That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
- Express - 02 November 2015
.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year
Antartic ice has not been the concern imo so slightly a red herring ,artic land ice loss and sea ice gain is the main current debate ,we will need to run through the 41k rotational axis angle cycle a few dozen times and also the 100k orbit cycle a few dozen more before we can extrapolate some meaningful data , in the meantime best err on the side of caution 
And close down all our industry and lay people off onto the dole ?
I am not aware of the link between the global warming debate and the Uk steel making industry ect ...is there one ?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539