EARTH-CLIMATE WARS
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom, what would you prefer to talk about, apart from rippin up sum tarmac wiv the boyz? Let us know and we'll start a new thread, just for you.
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because I was typing quickly and it was a typo, I don't have to time to proof read everything I post. Mistakes can and will creep in - I just think picking up on everyones odd spelling mistake or type is a bit unnecessary.
#65
Tom... take your 79 post arsse and disappear of this thread, matey.....
If I had to stake my house and give a reason why I think global warming is happening then I will state, on record, it all stems from population.... and the lack of control we have on that
If I had to stake my house and give a reason why I think global warming is happening then I will state, on record, it all stems from population.... and the lack of control we have on that
#68
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Back in a Scoob!!!
Posts: 3,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im just sick of all this rubbish we keep getting shoved down our necks,theres nothing we can do pal nothing at all,its always happend its gona happen whatever we do dont you get it,its the greatest scam in the history of the planet
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, if you do sign up to mankind being responsible to some extent. How you control population though is a different ballgame, but a LOT harder than changing the way people burn fossil fuels for example!
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom, indulge me. WHY is it all a scam? Apart from you being charged more for petrol to rip up the tarmac. Ignore that bit. Why is it a scam?
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny BELFAST
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is, proof that any rate of change is higher now than 95% of earths history.
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#77
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on people, my last post must have deserved an Unwanted rating. It was rated negative but it's gone back to OK. Must try harder.
Maybe it is arrogant, but I don't believe that anyone (including me) on the board has the relevant qualifications to weigh up the actual evidence (happy to be proved wrong - please mention what degree, PhD etc you have in a relevant discipline).
I do believe that most of us on here can understand the layman explanations given to us. However, you're on a hiding to nothing if you think that understanding the layman explanation is understanding the evidence.
Comparing one layman explanation with another is pointless - you're not comparing the science or the evidence. The only thing the rest of us can do when there is a debate about a topic such as this is look for the consensus to appear - WHICH IT ALREADY HAS!
As other posters have said, there is still huge debate going on about the potential consequences and the effects of this are going to be. For example, some research published this week esimated significantly less ocean level rise than before. What ocean level rise there will be seems still being hotly debated.
However, apart from a few oddballs the people who really understand this now agree that human action is adversly affecting the climate. All you people who think otherwise are wrong. If you think that climate change is all hogwash then maybe you should author a paper and send it in to reputable journal to be peer reviewed
Ah, politics and science again. What the bloody evil politicians do with the evidence is up to them. What we shouldn't do is mix opposition to the political policies dreamt up by the buggers in westminster with opposition to the scientific research and conclusions.
And you're being extremely arrogant in saying, basically, that the readers of this forum cannot make up their own minds when presented by evidence of *climate change*. You don't need to be able to write an essay on *scientific theory* to be able to weigh up what is available. That's the attitude that says 'the science is settled' when a 'sceptic' pipes up.
I do believe that most of us on here can understand the layman explanations given to us. However, you're on a hiding to nothing if you think that understanding the layman explanation is understanding the evidence.
Comparing one layman explanation with another is pointless - you're not comparing the science or the evidence. The only thing the rest of us can do when there is a debate about a topic such as this is look for the consensus to appear - WHICH IT ALREADY HAS!
As other posters have said, there is still huge debate going on about the potential consequences and the effects of this are going to be. For example, some research published this week esimated significantly less ocean level rise than before. What ocean level rise there will be seems still being hotly debated.
However, apart from a few oddballs the people who really understand this now agree that human action is adversly affecting the climate. All you people who think otherwise are wrong. If you think that climate change is all hogwash then maybe you should author a paper and send it in to reputable journal to be peer reviewed
Ah, politics and science again. What the bloody evil politicians do with the evidence is up to them. What we shouldn't do is mix opposition to the political policies dreamt up by the buggers in westminster with opposition to the scientific research and conclusions.
#78
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would take exactly the same as it took to convince me - patient peer reviewed research published in a reputable journal, tested by lots of world experts in the subject, leading to a consensus within the relevant scientific community. That's what the scientific method is!
The funny thing is that people are only interested in climate change now a conclusion has been reached. No-one paid attention during the years and years and years of actual and meaningful debate and research that has got us to this point!
#80
If governments were truely that worried, would they not be planting trees all over the place to soak up the CO2?
How many times have you heard this government say they'll re-forest vast areas of countryside? Never, that's how many! It's far easier to raise tax on petrol!
How many times have you heard this government say they'll re-forest vast areas of countryside? Never, that's how many! It's far easier to raise tax on petrol!
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure propaganda once again from the peace crisp munching femenist run loopy left BBC.
I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.
I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure propaganda once again from the peace crisp munching femenist run loopy left BBC.
I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.
I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.
#85
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As other posters have said, there is still huge debate going on about the potential consequences and the effects of this are going to be. For example, some research published this week esimated significantly less ocean level rise than before. What ocean level rise there will be seems still being hotly debated.
However, apart from a few oddballs the people who really understand this now agree that human action is adversly affecting the climate. All you people who think otherwise are wrong. If you think that climate change is all hogwash then maybe you should author a paper and send it in to reputable journal to be peer reviewed
Maybe you should publish a paper on why climate change's roots lie in the activities of humans instead of believing laymans explanations
You have declared that the opposing view is wrong, not maybe wrong, but wrong. That is fairly unequivocal, you obviously are as closed to the evidence that GW is not caused by humans are some are blind to the evidence for it.
Geezer
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and as for ahah's patronising references to the scientific method - I have an engineering degree thanks - what are your qualifications?
It is precisely my scientific training that makes me realise what a crock of crap the MMGW claims are. The temperature data is corrected in a poor fashion, the corrections given are large , untested and outweigh the measured increases, the models predictions of warming in the atmosphere when warming is actually observed at the surface, the poor modelling of clouds and their influences.
And finally as you are such a fan of the scientific method - you would realise what horsecrap the whole idea of consenus is, an alien concept to the SM. What is the real test is a theory that predicts outcomes that can be tested, by which measure the IPCC has failed.
More interesting stuff at Watts Up With That?
It is precisely my scientific training that makes me realise what a crock of crap the MMGW claims are. The temperature data is corrected in a poor fashion, the corrections given are large , untested and outweigh the measured increases, the models predictions of warming in the atmosphere when warming is actually observed at the surface, the poor modelling of clouds and their influences.
And finally as you are such a fan of the scientific method - you would realise what horsecrap the whole idea of consenus is, an alien concept to the SM. What is the real test is a theory that predicts outcomes that can be tested, by which measure the IPCC has failed.
More interesting stuff at Watts Up With That?
Last edited by warrenm2; 15 September 2008 at 11:11 PM.
#87
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure propaganda once again from the peace crisp munching femenist run loopy left BBC.
I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.
I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.
The programme started "quite well", showing how the urban heat island effect causes temperatures in cities to be (in this case) four degrees higher than the surrounding land. Thus weather stations, that are gradually being encircled by concrete, will show increased average temperatures over time - even though the Earth is maintaining the status quo.
This was "backed up" by new (as in, the last ten or fifteen years) satellite data, so "up your's" to the environMENTALists. However, oops, it seems that the satellites were falling and suffering from friction, so your can't believe them - ergo the earth is undergoing unstoppable terminate warming panic, worry, more taxes!
Funny how the programme then completely forgot about the UHIE, which still exists and thus discredits any claims that the temperature is rising. Nope, we are still all doomed, we have consensus, UHIE - what UHIE??
For the middle part of the programme, Stewart was doing his best to do impressions of Billy Connolly whilst gesticulating around like a hen pecking for corn - he is supposed to be a scientist not a bloody celebrity
And to finish the programme (after totally denying the medieval warm period on the "hockey stick"), he "proved" that sun spots don't have any effect on climate. They "extrapolated" the temperature/spot graph to show temps increasing massively over the last ten years whilst spots were declining. Er, hello Mr so-called Dr.??? Temperatures have actually fallen over the last ten years along with the spots, so your graph is a blatant lie!!!
Still, it is par for the course when the BBC are mowing the lawn - see lets run a program on lots of PCs to prove a pre-decided outcome
I might join Noel Edmunds and withhold my licence fee until they can start producing un-biased "factual" programmes!!
mb
#88
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think of the hundreds of scientists that fed into the IPCC? Are they all somehow under the influence of Greenpeace? Every one of them sitting in their offices and labs deliberately created a fraud?
I doubt that there is a single scientific theory that has 100% of scientists that agree with it. Take the example of the nutter professor from Haiwai who tried to stop the LHC from starting up as he thought it would destroy the Earth! There are even a few physicists that think that the Standard Model is bobbins and a lucky fluke that experimental data supports it.
Last edited by ahar; 19 September 2008 at 08:22 AM. Reason: Spelling & Grammar :)
#89
that's assuming CO2 is to blame. I'm not convinced but am convinced humans are impacting the planet - population control is the only answer. otherwise the human race will definitely find something to make the population collapse at some point.
we need more dictators.
Gordo