never trust any information that comes from a country which used an atomic device during wartime.
they will go to any lengths to make you believe what they are telling you is right.
remember the saying:no greater might than the might which is right!.
who says they are right? could all be dead tomorrow if iran is targetted.
then all fucking hell will break loose. so if you dont mind i wont put my tv on standby.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Climate change
last reply
172 replies
7.8k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Isn't it ironic that we are told to save energy and pay more taxes to support recycling to help reduce carbon footprints, yet we are then told we must wash out all our plastic containers before recycling? This uses more energy than that saved by recycling the stuff in the first place and wastes more water.
Climate change is a global con to make us change our habits and dependencies on fossil fuels gently while reaping more money for future infrastructure because industry won't foot the bill itself.
When we're all broke and sitting in sandals and recycled carrier bag wraps admiring our PV house with recycled water sipping on algae tea breathing clean air listening to millions of wind turbines thump, looking out over what was once a sea carpetted for thousands of miles with wave generating bouys whilst next door to our local town nuclear reactor/waste incinerator soaking up the darkness under solar sails and infra red absorption blankets over 'green' communications airships and wondering at Top Gear on your recycled telly ranting on how fab the latest Tesla car is......please dont come running to me.......cos i'll say 'told ya so....'
Think ill go light a bonfire now.
Climate change is a global con to make us change our habits and dependencies on fossil fuels gently while reaping more money for future infrastructure because industry won't foot the bill itself.
When we're all broke and sitting in sandals and recycled carrier bag wraps admiring our PV house with recycled water sipping on algae tea breathing clean air listening to millions of wind turbines thump, looking out over what was once a sea carpetted for thousands of miles with wave generating bouys whilst next door to our local town nuclear reactor/waste incinerator soaking up the darkness under solar sails and infra red absorption blankets over 'green' communications airships and wondering at Top Gear on your recycled telly ranting on how fab the latest Tesla car is......please dont come running to me.......cos i'll say 'told ya so....'
Think ill go light a bonfire now.
Sexpert
The simple answer is, we really don't know.
If you compress the life of the earth into a 1 year timeframe, then in comparative terms, humans appeared something like 1 minute to midnight on December 31st. The Earth's climate has always changed, ebbing and flowing between ice age and warm tropical, with ice sheets waxing and waning, often with huge temporary fluctuations during a general trend of cooling or warming.
So what the eco-mentalists are doing is pointing to (heavily massaged) data from maybe a second or two (in comparative terms as per the 1 year timeframe analogy), and attempting to extrapolate that as a trend caused by man.
We are talking about cycles that have taken place over billions of years, linked to the movement of tectonic plates, solar activity and variations in the Earth's orbit. To think we are able to draw any meaningful conclusions from data covering only a hundred years or so is frankly absurd, even if we could trust the integrity of the data and the so called scientists who control it (and who have actually deleted the raw data - an absolute scientific heresy ffs!). The Earth's climate will continue to change, so long as the earth has an atmosphere and the sun continues to shine. That's why they've dropped the term Global warming in favour of Climate Change, so whatever ultimately happens, they can say see - we told you - Climate change!
I'm a bit of an old hippy at heart, I think it's great that we're concerned about emissions and the environment, but for 30 years or so I've been trying to explain to anyone who would listen, what the issues are with the so called greenhouse effect. Often I've been treated with intellectual contempt by my peers and accused of being in denial. So much so that I've given up evangelising.
Whilst I take some satisfaction that finally, someone has outed these so called scientists, I lament the fact that science in general will be tainted by this debacle
If you compress the life of the earth into a 1 year timeframe, then in comparative terms, humans appeared something like 1 minute to midnight on December 31st. The Earth's climate has always changed, ebbing and flowing between ice age and warm tropical, with ice sheets waxing and waning, often with huge temporary fluctuations during a general trend of cooling or warming.
So what the eco-mentalists are doing is pointing to (heavily massaged) data from maybe a second or two (in comparative terms as per the 1 year timeframe analogy), and attempting to extrapolate that as a trend caused by man.
We are talking about cycles that have taken place over billions of years, linked to the movement of tectonic plates, solar activity and variations in the Earth's orbit. To think we are able to draw any meaningful conclusions from data covering only a hundred years or so is frankly absurd, even if we could trust the integrity of the data and the so called scientists who control it (and who have actually deleted the raw data - an absolute scientific heresy ffs!). The Earth's climate will continue to change, so long as the earth has an atmosphere and the sun continues to shine. That's why they've dropped the term Global warming in favour of Climate Change, so whatever ultimately happens, they can say see - we told you - Climate change!
I'm a bit of an old hippy at heart, I think it's great that we're concerned about emissions and the environment, but for 30 years or so I've been trying to explain to anyone who would listen, what the issues are with the so called greenhouse effect. Often I've been treated with intellectual contempt by my peers and accused of being in denial. So much so that I've given up evangelising.
Whilst I take some satisfaction that finally, someone has outed these so called scientists, I lament the fact that science in general will be tainted by this debacle
Sex God
I am quite surprised that more is not being made of the hacked computer material and the fact that the raw data has been destroyed.
We in this country have too much of a "must not grumble" attitude as we stoically take on board what appears to be at least questionable climate change assumptions and swallow the "green" taxes that are being ever more punitively mounted upon us. If this does turn out to be one huge con, what about all the taxes collected based on bullshit theories? There should be a f*****n revolution if that turns out to be the case.
I have just spent five months across the Atlantic and will be returning to Blighty for Christmas. No-one here would accept the carbon based taxing of vehicles - a car is not really a car unless it has a V8 engine. Petrol - why that's $ a gallon sir !!!
Yet we get behind our stupid green politicians and start to stare down our noses at any vehicle bigger than a hairdrier and accept £400 a year in road tax for a perfectly normal aspirational car and the equivilent of £5($8) a gallon. Yes we Brits are doing our bit to save the world, just as well cos no f****r else is. Are we the only people who really believe it? Is that why the research centre is in leafy East Anglia?
Revolution I say !!!! Storm Parliament, ban the carbon taxes !!
We in this country have too much of a "must not grumble" attitude as we stoically take on board what appears to be at least questionable climate change assumptions and swallow the "green" taxes that are being ever more punitively mounted upon us. If this does turn out to be one huge con, what about all the taxes collected based on bullshit theories? There should be a f*****n revolution if that turns out to be the case.
I have just spent five months across the Atlantic and will be returning to Blighty for Christmas. No-one here would accept the carbon based taxing of vehicles - a car is not really a car unless it has a V8 engine. Petrol - why that's $ a gallon sir !!!
Yet we get behind our stupid green politicians and start to stare down our noses at any vehicle bigger than a hairdrier and accept £400 a year in road tax for a perfectly normal aspirational car and the equivilent of £5($8) a gallon. Yes we Brits are doing our bit to save the world, just as well cos no f****r else is. Are we the only people who really believe it? Is that why the research centre is in leafy East Anglia?
Revolution I say !!!! Storm Parliament, ban the carbon taxes !!
Quote by Too Hot
I am quite surprised that more is not being made of the hacked computer material and the fact that the raw data has been destroyed.
We in this country have too much of a "must not grumble" attitude as we stoically take on board what appears to be at least questionable climate change assumptions and swallow the "green" taxes that are being ever more punitively mounted upon us. If this does turn out to be one huge con, what about all the taxes collected based on bullshit theories? There should be a f*****n revolution if that turns out to be the case.
I have just spent five months across the Atlantic and will be returning to Blighty for Christmas. No-one here would accept the carbon based taxing of vehicles - a car is not really a car unless it has a V8 engine. Petrol - why that's $ a gallon sir !!!
Yet we get behind our stupid green politicians and start to stare down our noses at any vehicle bigger than a hairdrier and accept £400 a year in road tax for a perfectly normal aspirational car and the equivilent of £5($8) a gallon. Yes we Brits are doing our bit to save the world, just as well cos no f****r else is. Are we the only people who really believe it? Is that why the research centre is in leafy East Anglia?
Revolution I say !!!! Storm Parliament, ban the carbon taxes !!
When i was enjoying a cigarette legally outside a ski resort cafe in Utah (at an altitude of about 6000 ft up a mountain) a group of hotshot skiers started moaning about me lighting up a" disgusting smokey poisen stick". I was 10 ft away from them.
I pointed out that after they had finished skiing for the day then they would all go back to their vehicles and fire up their V8 engines and not give a second thought to all the fumes they belched out over anyone passing by and then up in to the atmosphere which is a lot more damageing than my puny cigarette. I also suggested that they go and get an O2 fix and bugger off on a ski run whilst they try to get a better perspective on reality.
Sadly though, Just like all Zealots, they can't or won't see the wood for the trees.
Quote by Rob_hood
Sadly though, Just like all Zealots, they can't or won't see the wood for the trees.
A bit of an over-use of words though. I assume you were being internationally polite ?
My response would be more along the line of two words. One starting with an "F" and the other with an "O". But I'm always being domestically told that I'm too direct and should develop politically.
Sex God
Now I'm not a scientist,I'm certainly not a climatologist(sic?) but if I remember correctly (and I am working from memory)the split between those who are,is about 80:20 on the side of there being a significant human contribution to climate if 20% of people told you that the greatest sensation you could ever experience was to smear your genitals in napalm and light them,would you do it ? They haven't tried it themselves you understand, but their interpretation of the figures says it's highly probable,would you light the match?Or would you err on the side of caution and keep your gonads ?
The economic factors involved in the issue are a different argument,the real issue is ,if you've got napalm on your bollocks is it a good idea to play with fire?
The economic factors involved in the issue are a different argument,the real issue is ,if you've got napalm on your bollocks is it a good idea to play with fire?
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Now I'm not a scientist,I'm certainly not a climatologist(sic?) but if I remember correctly (and I am working from memory)the split between those who are,is about 80:20 on the side of there being a significant human contribution to climate if 20% of people told you that the greatest sensation you could ever experience was to smear your genitals in napalm and light them,would you do it ? They haven't tried it themselves you understand, but their interpretation of the figures says it's highly probable,would you light the match?Or would you err on the side of caution and keep your gonads ?
The economic factors involved in the issue are a different argument,the real issue is ,if you've got napalm on your bollocks is it a good idea to play with fire?
Well I am not a scientist either and I will wait for them to prove beyond ANY doubt, it is happening.
Blimey if these guys cannot agree, then there must be something wrong.
Quote by Staggerlee_BBstaggers, no comparison. the data showes the earth has been cooling for the last 9 years and it has been deliberately corrupted to fit an agenda. carbon tax and carbon tax credit trading. even the review of the corrupted data was authenticated by scientists connected directly/employed by the group. the reason why the issue of the hacked e-mails is low key is so as not to disrupt the copenhagen accord. no doupt human activity contributes to carbon emissions but global warming or cooling is affected far more by solar activity than any other phenomina. the economic factors involved are NOT a different aurgument. they are the driver's to the fraud.
Now I'm not a scientist,I'm certainly not a climatologist(sic?) but if I remember correctly (and I am working from memory)the split between those who are,is about 80:20 on the side of there being a significant human contribution to climate if 20% of people told you that the greatest sensation you could ever experience was to smear your genitals in napalm and light them,would you do it ? They haven't tried it themselves you understand, but their interpretation of the figures says it's highly probable,would you light the match?Or would you err on the side of caution and keep your gonads ?
The economic factors involved in the issue are a different argument,the real issue is ,if you've got napalm on your bollocks is it a good idea to play with fire?
Sex God
Al Gore now not going to Copenhagen and he is being asked to return Oscar for his factual "Inconvenient Truth," now proved to be based on ficitious data.
"The Biggest Scientific Scandal in our generation" Daily Telegraph - RE - Climategate
FOX NEWS - Now on the case to get US Green taxes repealed on the basis that laws made on the basis of IPCC science which has now been exposed as flawed - leading the assault - Senator James Inhofe.
Personally, I think that this will develop into one of the biggest stories in modern life and will lead to the humiliation of the scientists, politicians and journalists who have championed this cause for the last 10 years.
"The Biggest Scientific Scandal in our generation" Daily Telegraph - RE - Climategate
FOX NEWS - Now on the case to get US Green taxes repealed on the basis that laws made on the basis of IPCC science which has now been exposed as flawed - leading the assault - Senator James Inhofe.
Personally, I think that this will develop into one of the biggest stories in modern life and will lead to the humiliation of the scientists, politicians and journalists who have championed this cause for the last 10 years.
Sex God
Hmmmmmm . . . .
In the news this week . . . climate scientist busted using, and I quote, 'Mike's Nature trick'
The media have jumped up and down on this, as though the word 'trick' necessarily means deceitful, dubious, a lie, a manipulation of the data to prove a point that could not otherwise be proven, etc, yadda, yadda, ya.
Very few of the reporters in yer daily mails have been mithered enough to actually give the science behind 'Mike's'Nature'trick of adding in the real temps' even the most cursory investigation ((( Nature being one of your peer reviewed scientific publications par excellence, the trick in question being an apparently common, valid correction to a dataset with known errors? ))) no doubt, cos it would have left them with bugger all of an article?
If they had bothered doing the kind of in-depth investigation we've come to expect of the national press, they might well have had rather less of a story? :? If they'd even triesd to put the whole thing in context, well? As I say, I'm not a climatologist, but I know spin and multiple meanings when I see it? This 'devastating revelation' is pure politics. The timing's fishy in the extreme, given the Copenhagen summit next week. It's all meant to be the nail in the coffin of the whole climate change thing, but very few of the nay-sayers seem able to explain exactly why this is the final nail, and seem to be being very careful to stick to the 'trick' thing, without actually explaining quite what the trick is? :? Funny that! I learnt more about it in 30 seconds on google than the national press has been feeding me all week?
N x x x ;)
In the news this week . . . climate scientist busted using, and I quote, 'Mike's Nature trick'
The media have jumped up and down on this, as though the word 'trick' necessarily means deceitful, dubious, a lie, a manipulation of the data to prove a point that could not otherwise be proven, etc, yadda, yadda, ya.
Very few of the reporters in yer daily mails have been mithered enough to actually give the science behind 'Mike's'Nature'trick of adding in the real temps' even the most cursory investigation ((( Nature being one of your peer reviewed scientific publications par excellence, the trick in question being an apparently common, valid correction to a dataset with known errors? ))) no doubt, cos it would have left them with bugger all of an article?
If they had bothered doing the kind of in-depth investigation we've come to expect of the national press, they might well have had rather less of a story? :? If they'd even triesd to put the whole thing in context, well? As I say, I'm not a climatologist, but I know spin and multiple meanings when I see it? This 'devastating revelation' is pure politics. The timing's fishy in the extreme, given the Copenhagen summit next week. It's all meant to be the nail in the coffin of the whole climate change thing, but very few of the nay-sayers seem able to explain exactly why this is the final nail, and seem to be being very careful to stick to the 'trick' thing, without actually explaining quite what the trick is? :? Funny that! I learnt more about it in 30 seconds on google than the national press has been feeding me all week?
N x x x ;)
Well, you can almost "guarantee" it's a "trick" since Gawdy Broon has now decided to champion the cause...
He couldn't save the world over the financial crisis (he says he did) so now he's pottering around with Milliebanned to get the world to agree a climate change levy on all "rich" nations to fund the poorer ones to change their habits - like China, to stop them using coal fired generators.
Meanwhile, back in Blighty, while rome burns nero fiddles the figures (again).
He couldn't save the world over the financial crisis (he says he did) so now he's pottering around with Milliebanned to get the world to agree a climate change levy on all "rich" nations to fund the poorer ones to change their habits - like China, to stop them using coal fired generators.
Meanwhile, back in Blighty, while rome burns nero fiddles the figures (again).
Sexpert
Quote by neilinleeds
Hmmmmmm . . . .
In the news this week . . . climate scientist busted using, and I quote, 'Mike's Nature trick'
The media have jumped up and down on this, as though the word 'trick' necessarily means deceitful, dubious, a lie, a manipulation of the data to prove a point that could not otherwise be proven, etc, yadda, yadda, ya.
Very few of the reporters in yer daily mails have been mithered enough to actually give the science behind 'Mike's 'Nature' trick of adding in the real temps' even the most cursory investigation ((( Nature being one of your peer reviewed scientific publications par excellence, the trick in question being an apparently common, valid correction to a dataset with known errors? ))) no doubt, cos it would have left them with bugger all of an article?
If they had bothered doing the kind of in-depth investigation we've come to expect of the national press, they might well have had rather less of a story? :? If they'd even triesd to put the whole thing in context, well? As I say, I'm not a climatologist, but I know spin and multiple meanings when I see it? This 'devastating revelation' is pure politics. The timing's fishy in the extreme, given the Copenhagen summit next week. It's all meant to be the nail in the coffin of the whole climate change thing, but very few of the nay-sayers seem able to explain exactly why this is the final nail, and seem to be being very careful to stick to the 'trick' thing, without actually explaining quite what the trick is? :? Funny that! I learnt more about it in 30 seconds on google than the national press has been feeding me all week?
N x x x ;)
Nope - it's a "trick", designed to massage the real data to present a finding you want to support and hide the fact that the data do not support it.
In real science, you never use the term "trick", even if you meant it to mean some clever, but valid, technique to tease information out of a data set - you would use the term "xyz correction technique" or somesuch
Master of Sex
neilinleeds wrote"a dataset with known errors?"
when is a database not a database?
when is a database not a database?
Sexpert
Quote by annejohn
neilinleeds wrote"a dataset with known errors?"
when is a database not a database?
A data set is not a database.
Errors are common in data sets, often the amount of error can be reasonably estimated and the data adjusted accordingly.
In this case, if anyone is bothered, you can follow up the link I posted above and the links within that page, and read how these people deliberately used invalid techniques to hide the fact that the data do not support their assertions, in fact, they even decided what answers they wanted and then adjusted the data to support this foregone conclusion, then hid the fact that they'd done it, tried to get each other to delete emails that might catch them out if they came to light, and even went so far as to destroy raw data so they would not be found out!!
Whatever the motives behind the release of the emails, it doesn't change the fact that supposedly top research scientists at a supposedly respected world wide authority on this topic, are in fact pure charlatans.
Sex God
I must say I am surprised at how little serious coverage this seems to be getting in the UK. CNN and FOX are now starting to up the ante in the USA and Republican Senators are now suggesting both that Obama does not go to Copenhagen and that a special congressional committee is formed to independantly verify what the hell is going on.
On FOX tonight the anchorman put it just about right when he said:
"You got one bunch of people telling us that the temperatures have gone down in the last ten years and another bunch of people telling us that the eight hottest years on record have been in the last ten years. Now they can't both be right so can someone please find out the truth and let us know - it can't be difficult."
Meanwhile the UK's most famous climate change sceptic has released a fascinating report here (pdf ) which is simply fabulous:
If you like the report - check out his video's - all available with a youtube or google search
On FOX tonight the anchorman put it just about right when he said:
"You got one bunch of people telling us that the temperatures have gone down in the last ten years and another bunch of people telling us that the eight hottest years on record have been in the last ten years. Now they can't both be right so can someone please find out the truth and let us know - it can't be difficult."
Meanwhile the UK's most famous climate change sceptic has released a fascinating report here (pdf ) which is simply fabulous:
If you like the report - check out his video's - all available with a youtube or google search
Sexpert
superb - a bit ranty at times, but from my research and existing knowledge - just about nails it - thanks
Sexpert
Quote by duncanlondon
I was just wondering about volcanoes. they must be chucking out a whole load of stuff 24/7. nobody's seemed to have included them in all this.
Volcanoes are a key element in the Carbon cycle, their emissions have been extensively studied, documented and their effect on world climate noted and apparent in all climate studies. So the simple answer is, yes they are, yes they have and do
Sexpert
I know it's only wiki and not an authoritative, academic, peer reviewed reference, but it's a good overview and start point for further rigorous research if one is so inclined
Sex God
Quote by duncanlondon
I was just wondering about volcanoes. they must be chucking out a whole load of stuff 24/7. nobody's seemed to have included them in all this.
Volcano's chuck out masses of methane rather than co2 but methane is a much worse greenhouse gass than co2 anyway.
Sexpert
They chuck out (gaseous emissions wise) mostly water vapour Sulphourous compunds, CH4 (methane) CO2 - and probably lots of other stuff - see my earlier post on the Carbon cycle and wiki link with further cross refs
Sexpert
They chuck out (gaseous emissions wise) mostly water vapour Sulphourous compunds, CH4 (methane) CO2 - and probably lots of other stuff - see my earlier post on the Carbon cycle and wiki link with further cross refs
