Here we go again - climate change
11 February 2014, 08:26 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cymru
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The met office have to be the most useless organization on the planet.
I have a £30 weather station from maplins that is far more accurate for short term forecasting.
A friend of my wife's father worked for the met office in Bracknell, when they relocated to Exeter they purchased his house from him for £400k which was at the very top end of a valuation, paid all his travelling and accommodation costs whilst he travelled to Devon looking for a new property, paid all his legal fees, stamp duty and moving costs. He then promptly took early retirement less than six months later. From what I heard it took the met office over a year to sell his old house and they lost almost £100k in doing so.
I have a £30 weather station from maplins that is far more accurate for short term forecasting.
A friend of my wife's father worked for the met office in Bracknell, when they relocated to Exeter they purchased his house from him for £400k which was at the very top end of a valuation, paid all his travelling and accommodation costs whilst he travelled to Devon looking for a new property, paid all his legal fees, stamp duty and moving costs. He then promptly took early retirement less than six months later. From what I heard it took the met office over a year to sell his old house and they lost almost £100k in doing so.
11 February 2014, 08:57 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The met office have to be the most useless organization on the planet.
I have a £30 weather station from maplins that is far more accurate for short term forecasting.
A friend of my wife's father worked for the met office in Bracknell, when they relocated to Exeter they purchased his house from him for £400k which was at the very top end of a valuation, paid all his travelling and accommodation costs whilst he travelled to Devon looking for a new property, paid all his legal fees, stamp duty and moving costs. He then promptly took early retirement less than six months later. From what I heard it took the met office over a year to sell his old house and they lost almost £100k in doing so.
I have a £30 weather station from maplins that is far more accurate for short term forecasting.
A friend of my wife's father worked for the met office in Bracknell, when they relocated to Exeter they purchased his house from him for £400k which was at the very top end of a valuation, paid all his travelling and accommodation costs whilst he travelled to Devon looking for a new property, paid all his legal fees, stamp duty and moving costs. He then promptly took early retirement less than six months later. From what I heard it took the met office over a year to sell his old house and they lost almost £100k in doing so.
11 February 2014, 12:46 PM
#34
Basically they don't actually know WTF is happening whether its a natural cycle the planet goes through every so often or indeed if it actually is a man made thing.
What they do need to do though is stop trying to fill our heads with bullsh1t and tax us to death on something they don't fully understand.
What they do need to do though is stop trying to fill our heads with bullsh1t and tax us to death on something they don't fully understand.
Martin doesn't seem to understand, yet again, LOL.
The point being that YES the MetOffice and climate change scientists KNOW about the sun's cycles, but they choose to ignore it while peddling bullsh1t that will keep their government grants which, in turn, come out of the spurious taxation they generate!
11 February 2014, 12:48 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nail, head.
Martin doesn't seem to understand, yet again, LOL.
The point being that YES the MetOffice and climate change scientists KNOW about the sun's cycles, but they choose to ignore it while peddling bullsh1t that will keep their government grants which, in turn, come out of the spurious taxation they generate!
Martin doesn't seem to understand, yet again, LOL.
The point being that YES the MetOffice and climate change scientists KNOW about the sun's cycles, but they choose to ignore it while peddling bullsh1t that will keep their government grants which, in turn, come out of the spurious taxation they generate!
11 February 2014, 12:51 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
not sure how couple of hundred years records are viable as information agaist a several billion year old planet? whats that 0.00000002% of data consideration?
11 February 2014, 01:17 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nail, head.
Martin doesn't seem to understand, yet again, LOL.
The point being that YES the MetOffice and climate change scientists KNOW about the sun's cycles, but they choose to ignore it while peddling bullsh1t that will keep their government grants which, in turn, come out of the spurious taxation they generate!
Martin doesn't seem to understand, yet again, LOL.
The point being that YES the MetOffice and climate change scientists KNOW about the sun's cycles, but they choose to ignore it while peddling bullsh1t that will keep their government grants which, in turn, come out of the spurious taxation they generate!
I’m not evensure I understand what you actual position is on this…
Are you stating that man has had zero impact upon the climate? If so you are in a tiny minority even within the sceptic community. The big and important debate goingon now is the extent man’s impact, the implications, and what if anything can be done about it.
The way I’d frame the discussion on this site is one of believing only what you want to believe, then creating a neat conspiracy to catch all the glaring imperfectionsin your argument.
As an example(and a good old BBC one at that), who would you listen to on this subject, Professor Brian *** (OBE, RoyalSociety University Research Fellow, PPARC Advanced Fellow at the University ofManchester) or Jeremy Clarkson (Orang-utan and Car show presenter)? Now admittedly *** isn’t a climatologist, but he’s likely to be fairly good a disseminating complex scientific evidence.
Now if I was looking to buy a car, I would definitely not ask the professor! Pressumably there are many here that would!!
Last edited by Martin2005; 11 February 2014 at 01:21 PM.
11 February 2014, 01:19 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard on the radio that it's been the wettest winter for two hundred and fifty years, considering we were living under candle light and using peat as a heating source back then we did very little damage if any to the Enviroment, so if it wasn't climate change to blame back then it was most probably just something that happened.
I guess most probably like what's happening today.
I guess most probably like what's happening today.
Last edited by RA Dunk; 11 February 2014 at 02:20 PM.
11 February 2014, 01:34 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
I’m not evensure I understand what you actual position is on this…
Are you stating that man has had zero impact upon the climate? If so you are in a tiny minority even within the sceptic community. The big and important debate goingon now is the extent man’s impact, the implications, and what if anything can be done about it.
The way I’d frame the discussion on this site is one of believing only what you want to believe, then creating a neat conspiracy to catch all the glaring imperfectionsin your argument.
As an example(and a good old BBC one at that), who would you listen to on this subject, Professor Brian *** (OBE, RoyalSociety University Research Fellow, PPARC Advanced Fellow at the University ofManchester) or Jeremy Clarkson (Orang-utan and Car show presenter)? Now admittedly *** isn’t a climatologist, but he’s likely to be fairly good a disseminating complex scientific evidence.
Now if I was looking to buy a car, I would definitely not ask the professor! Pressumably there are many here that would!!
Are you stating that man has had zero impact upon the climate? If so you are in a tiny minority even within the sceptic community. The big and important debate goingon now is the extent man’s impact, the implications, and what if anything can be done about it.
The way I’d frame the discussion on this site is one of believing only what you want to believe, then creating a neat conspiracy to catch all the glaring imperfectionsin your argument.
As an example(and a good old BBC one at that), who would you listen to on this subject, Professor Brian *** (OBE, RoyalSociety University Research Fellow, PPARC Advanced Fellow at the University ofManchester) or Jeremy Clarkson (Orang-utan and Car show presenter)? Now admittedly *** isn’t a climatologist, but he’s likely to be fairly good a disseminating complex scientific evidence.
Now if I was looking to buy a car, I would definitely not ask the professor! Pressumably there are many here that would!!
Until they open their research and all associated data up for proper peer review, as any branch of proper science would do, I shall continue to believe that they are all a bit too Gillian McKeith
11 February 2014, 01:45 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very core of all true science is discussion, as Professor *** would no doubt tell you. The problem I have with the Climate Change brigade is that discussion is the very last thing they want, especially if that discussion turns towards how they arrived at their conclusions
Until they open their research and all associated data up for proper peer review, as any branch of proper science would do, I shall continue to believe that they are all a bit too Gillian McKeith
Until they open their research and all associated data up for proper peer review, as any branch of proper science would do, I shall continue to believe that they are all a bit too Gillian McKeith
I read recently that only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed authors rejected Climate Change.
11 February 2014, 02:14 PM
#41
Basically they don't actually know WTF is happening whether its a natural cycle the planet goes through every so often or indeed if it actually is a man made thing.
What they do need to do though is stop trying to fill our heads with bullsh1t and tax us to death on something they don't fully understand.
What they do need to do though is stop trying to fill our heads with bullsh1t and tax us to death on something they don't fully understand.
11 February 2014, 02:50 PM
#42
I hear what you are saying, and there has undoubtably been some massaging of the figures going on. That said, I'm not sure how you can claim that climate change science hasn't been properly peer reviewed...
I read recently that only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed authors rejected Climate Change.
I read recently that only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed authors rejected Climate Change.
Last edited by jonc; 11 February 2014 at 02:51 PM.
11 February 2014, 03:20 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 February 2014, 03:33 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was only one man that went against the general consensus and widely held belief by those of a religious persuasion that the Sun and the stars revolved around the Earth. Anthropogenic climatism is the new eco-religion; there is no empirical or definitive proof that it exists or that it’s impact, if any, can be truly measured and yet we are to ‘believe’ that the science is settled and we should accept it.
11 February 2014, 06:00 PM
#46
Unfortunately, the argument now being used by many warmies is that we don't really know, so we ought to do something just in case......
Now I ask you...what if what we do makes it worse?
And I ask again, HOW can we take seriously people who predicted;
1. The next ice age during the seventies with about 20% of the world's population to survive.
2. That by 2015 the south coast of the UK would have a Mediterranean climate, while the Med would be desert.
3. The last two winters before this as mild and dry.
4. The last two summers to be warm barbecue summers.
5. THIS winter to be VERY cold again......
Basically, they haven't got ONE long range forecast correct in years. Yet we are expected to believe that they somehow know what will happen in twenty-five, or fifty more years?
Nope, not gonna happen. I'd rather put my faith in astrology...at least THEY aren't using their predictions to sell you on more taxation.
Now I ask you...what if what we do makes it worse?
And I ask again, HOW can we take seriously people who predicted;
1. The next ice age during the seventies with about 20% of the world's population to survive.
2. That by 2015 the south coast of the UK would have a Mediterranean climate, while the Med would be desert.
3. The last two winters before this as mild and dry.
4. The last two summers to be warm barbecue summers.
5. THIS winter to be VERY cold again......
Basically, they haven't got ONE long range forecast correct in years. Yet we are expected to believe that they somehow know what will happen in twenty-five, or fifty more years?
Nope, not gonna happen. I'd rather put my faith in astrology...at least THEY aren't using their predictions to sell you on more taxation.
12 February 2014, 06:03 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has to be admitted that such a long series of very deep depressions is unusual, whether it is down to climate change or not is hard to say of course.
I doubt very much that anything significant will be done to reduce any sort of climate change, unless the World is forced into it!
More tax is a different matter of course!
Les
I doubt very much that anything significant will be done to reduce any sort of climate change, unless the World is forced into it!
More tax is a different matter of course!
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 12 February 2014 at 06:04 PM.
12 February 2014, 06:40 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Beds / Cambs border
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all fairness I agreed with what the climatologist said who was interviewed on Sky News today around lunch time, she basically said that we have such varied weather in the UK that at times it swings to the extremes (from what I can remember of the interview) therefore nothing has really changed its just part of unpredictable British weather.
The jet stream is sitting far south and is so strong that it is literally throwing these Atlantic storms our way, you can push as much conspiracy into that as you will - BP Oil Well disaster somehow affected the jet stream flow, radiation in Japan, polar ice caps melting releasing cold water into the sea affecting the jet flow etc etc etc
The jet stream is sitting far south and is so strong that it is literally throwing these Atlantic storms our way, you can push as much conspiracy into that as you will - BP Oil Well disaster somehow affected the jet stream flow, radiation in Japan, polar ice caps melting releasing cold water into the sea affecting the jet flow etc etc etc
12 February 2014, 07:32 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
I hear what you are saying, and there has undoubtably been some massaging of the figures going on. That said, I'm not sure how you can claim that climate change science hasn't been properly peer reviewed...
I read recently that only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed authors rejected Climate Change.
I read recently that only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed authors rejected Climate Change.
And very few of the scientist who take the opposing view are actually climate scientists, or indeed have any scientific knowledge at all
Like asking a tyre fitter to give a view on ringland failure because they are mechanics and work on cars
They may have a view - but on limited knowledge and experience
12 February 2014, 08:03 PM
#51
Yes, I have that research too
And very few of the scientist who take the opposing view are actually climate scientists, or indeed have any scientific knowledge at all
Like asking a tyre fitter to give a view on ringland failure because they are mechanics and work on cars
They may have a view - but on limited knowledge and experience
And very few of the scientist who take the opposing view are actually climate scientists, or indeed have any scientific knowledge at all
Like asking a tyre fitter to give a view on ringland failure because they are mechanics and work on cars
They may have a view - but on limited knowledge and experience
Oh FFS......the climate scientists who dare to oppose the view are pretty soon deprived of their grants etc, so have a quick guess what they are now saying?
What part of IT'S A SCAM aren't you lot getting?
12 February 2014, 08:12 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
12 February 2014, 08:22 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure if your job/funding was dependant on it Climate Change would be the most real thing ever.
It's like the fishing quota thing up here, according to EU scientists Cod are almost extinct.
But according to our own scientists there are that many Cod in the North Sea they are causing widespread damage because they are the bigger species and eating every thing else.
And speaking to the fishermen who go to sea they are seeing massive numbers of them in their nets, not to bad for a fish that's soon to be extinct though is it.
But guess who's jobs have became reliant on there being no fish in the North Sea?
It's like the fishing quota thing up here, according to EU scientists Cod are almost extinct.
But according to our own scientists there are that many Cod in the North Sea they are causing widespread damage because they are the bigger species and eating every thing else.
And speaking to the fishermen who go to sea they are seeing massive numbers of them in their nets, not to bad for a fish that's soon to be extinct though is it.
But guess who's jobs have became reliant on there being no fish in the North Sea?
12 February 2014, 09:34 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you're totally naive, I do think that your argument is pretty thin though.
If this is THE BIG anti argument then I'm becoming less sceptical by the second.
Let's break it down shall we.
For what you say to be true then virtually all climatologist are on the take, lying and corrupt. That in itself is completely irrational, after all I thought scientist studied for years to uncover the truth, not to suppress it.
If these climatologist are THAT corrupt then why aren't significant numbers of them working for the big hydocarbon industries earning WAY MORE MONEY?
There are many very good and well thought out arguments against the current percieved wisdom on climate change, most of which are between climatologists. There is no one view of climate change amongst the scientific community. Most of the debate is around how big the impact actually is and what the implications are likely to be. So why not focus on that rather than constructing an irrational conspiracy theory?
Last edited by Martin2005; 12 February 2014 at 09:36 PM.
13 February 2014, 09:58 AM
#57
Because we've SEEN the e-mails about doctored figures?
Because we've SEEN grants withdrawn from those who oppose?
Because there isn't a real argument: if you oppose it, you are an eco-terrorist, wrong, to be belittled, deprived of work, grants etc
Are you aware that in schools, the new government-written science curriculum now includes climate change as a FACT, with NO counter-arguments allowed?
Even creationists are allowed to put their points and arguments, but anti-climate change? Nope, not allowed.
Not a conspiracy, eh?
Because we've SEEN grants withdrawn from those who oppose?
Because there isn't a real argument: if you oppose it, you are an eco-terrorist, wrong, to be belittled, deprived of work, grants etc
Are you aware that in schools, the new government-written science curriculum now includes climate change as a FACT, with NO counter-arguments allowed?
Even creationists are allowed to put their points and arguments, but anti-climate change? Nope, not allowed.
Not a conspiracy, eh?
13 February 2014, 10:27 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because we've SEEN the e-mails about doctored figures?
Because we've SEEN grants withdrawn from those who oppose?
Because there isn't a real argument: if you oppose it, you are an eco-terrorist, wrong, to be belittled, deprived of work, grants etc
Are you aware that in schools, the new government-written science curriculum now includes climate change as a FACT, with NO counter-arguments allowed?
Even creationists are allowed to put their points and arguments, but anti-climate change? Nope, not allowed.
Not a conspiracy, eh?
Because we've SEEN grants withdrawn from those who oppose?
Because there isn't a real argument: if you oppose it, you are an eco-terrorist, wrong, to be belittled, deprived of work, grants etc
Are you aware that in schools, the new government-written science curriculum now includes climate change as a FACT, with NO counter-arguments allowed?
Even creationists are allowed to put their points and arguments, but anti-climate change? Nope, not allowed.
Not a conspiracy, eh?
OK so you are actually saying that all climatologists are corrupt liars.
Fair enough
13 February 2014, 12:46 PM
#60
LOL, trust you to put it in bald terms.
No, I'm saying that they all want/need/rely on the money from government to even exist, so guess what their reports are going to say?
What about the withdrawal of grants? we've seen that happen.
What about those e-mails? The evidence has since "accidentally" been destroyed
And what of teaching climate change as fact in schools, whilst not allowing the alternate view to be seen? In ten to twenty years, we will have a young population who all believe the lies because it was taught in school...now that is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong!!!!
It's akin to brain-washing.
Ad still you tell me it's not a scam??????
No, I'm saying that they all want/need/rely on the money from government to even exist, so guess what their reports are going to say?
What about the withdrawal of grants? we've seen that happen.
What about those e-mails? The evidence has since "accidentally" been destroyed
And what of teaching climate change as fact in schools, whilst not allowing the alternate view to be seen? In ten to twenty years, we will have a young population who all believe the lies because it was taught in school...now that is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong!!!!
It's akin to brain-washing.Ad still you tell me it's not a scam??????