Climate change - Hoax ?

Stewie Griffin

Firecrakka wrote:

Like Christians arguing with Atheists.
Do you people enjoy playing 'Ring around the Rosie'?

Yawn.

Its ring a ring o' roses actually and here is something I have copied from the net to prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o'_Roses

Crapaud

Firecrakka wrote:

The topic interests me, ...

So what are your thoughts on global warming then? Engaging with the topic would be a better way of involving yourself in the thread than crying at how others are participating.

Firecrakka

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Firecrakka wrote:

Like Christians arguing with Atheists.
Do you people enjoy playing 'Ring around the Rosie'?

Yawn.

Its ring a ring o' roses actually and here is something I have copied from the net to prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o'_Roses

I beg to differ, after long and detailed review of the subject I conclude that it is indeed 'Ring around the Rosie'. I have read many peer reviewed studies on the matter. What information besides a Wicipedia link can you put forth? I challenge the credibility of your source and use of these links to prove your theory.

Here is a link I have in response to your claims though.

http://www.rhymes.org.uk/ring_around_the_rosy.htm

Crapaud wrote:

Firecrakka wrote:

The topic interests me, ...

So what are your thoughts on global warming then? Engaging with the topic would be a better way of involving yourself in the thread than crying at how others are participating.

I stated my opinion back on around page 5 or 6. :P

Seanos

Firecrakka wrote:

I stated my opinion back on around page 5 or 6. :P

And what a great contribution that was:

One day the sun will expand and swollow the earth. True story, tell a friend.

This is like standing on the decks of the Titanic and agonising about the rain.

So if you haven't got anything of interest to say why do you feel the need to point it out?

Porgy

Firecrakka wrote:

Like Christians arguing with Atheists.

I assume you mean that Christians seem to be denying the obvious implications of scientific research, and trying to elevate their voodoo mythologies to the level of scientific theories, just like the climate deniers.

Firecrakka

Seanos wrote:

Firecrakka wrote:

I stated my opinion back on around page 5 or 6. :P

And what a great contribution that was:

One day the sun will expand and swollow the earth. True story, tell a friend.

This is like standing on the decks of the Titanic and agonising about the rain.

So if you haven't got anything of interest to say why do you feel the need to point it out?

I believe that comment is a PROVEN FACT.
How about all of yours? Or are they all still under "Peer Review" ?

Homer J

This thread has gone from boring to funny.. i shall keep reading

Seanos

Firecrakka wrote:

I believe that comment is a PROVEN FACT.
How about all of yours? Or are they all still under "Peer Review" ?

I believe that comment was a BIT MENTAL.
How about explaining how it has anything to do with AGW? Or are you just looking for "Some Attention?" :roll:

Firecrakka

Seanos wrote:

Firecrakka wrote:

I believe that comment is a PROVEN FACT.
How about all of yours? Or are they all still under "Peer Review" ?

I believe that comment was a BIT MENTAL.
How about explaining how it has anything to do with AGW? Or are you just looking for "Some Attention?" :roll:

I'm sorry, shall I play your game and just respond to every comment made by others with a question?
Implying that I know something about the subject but really giving nothing to it?
Is that how it works?

Seanos wrote:

So if you haven't got anything of interest to say why do you feel the need to point it out?

How about explaining how it has anything to do with AGW?

Or are you just looking for "Some Attention?

Do you not have any real friends to talk to, so find you have to leave comments on
threads that don't interest you?

Because his 'paper' is cack?

Do you exercise any quality control when you are googling this stuff?

Do you know anything about the peer review process?

Do you understand that it doesn't work like this?

What's interesting about it? Explain what the paper is about and how it supports your
position.

Ah, here it is. So, is it any good?

So, your best evidence against AGW is a flaky paper that doesn't contradict the
fundamentals of AGW?

Bit of a tired tactic, evading the questions by posting loads of irrelevant links. Don't you
people grow out of this stuff? Anyway, back to the matter in hand.

Would you care to point out how he'd get a 'rake-off'?

You mean aren't we lucky not to live in Central Greenland?

What has this got to do with global temperatures?

Do you actually read (let alone understand) what you post?

And your point is...?

Actually understanding the science and backing up what you're saying with good
evidence instead of flaky research isn't, is it?

Evidence?

You haven't explained why the models are wrong, you've just made an unsubstantiated
claim. Care to try and substantiate it?

Any rebuttal to these points or counter-argument setting out why you think the Beck
paper is scientifically valid?

Or are you happy to accept any so called 'peer reviewed' paper that hits teh interwebz that

suports your position, without submitting it to critical scrutiny?

You haven't explained why the models are wrong, you've just made an unsubstantiated
claim. Care to try and substantiate it?

Etc etc etc etc etc etc.....

:roll:

Seanos

Firecrakka wrote:

I'm sorry, shall I play your game and just respond to every comment made by others with a question? Implying that I know something about the subject but really giving nothing to it?
Is that how it works?

Do what you like, it'd be an improvement on "the sun's going to swallow the earth" (which is PROVEN FACT, apparently) or "this thread is boring, look at me everyone!"

Why shouldn't you ask someone who has made a claim or a statement to explain themselves? (Do you see what I did there?)

Oh, and do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Heh, did it again)

nicensleazy

God, this is an interesting thread!

Seanos

nicensleazy wrote:

God, this is an interesting thread!

You started it! Just as a matter of interest, who are these scientists you are referring to?

Are we being sold down the river on climate change? According to certain scientists (who are in the know) we are.

Alain Quay

If you thinkk it is a hoax

you are very, very stupid.

ddraver

nicensleazy wrote:

God, this is an interesting thread!

Has anyone brought up Gaia Theory yet?

Homer J

Here's Johnny....

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/147328/Actress-Brittany-Murphy-dies-aged-32-


ps: ignore url title

Porgy

ddraver wrote:

nicensleazy wrote:

God, this is an interesting thread!

Has anyone brought up Gaia Theory yet?

only you

nicensleazy

I would rather the country spend its money on other pressing subjects nearer to home before committing £££££££££££££ to this natural climate change matter !!!

Homer J

nicensleazy wrote:

I would rather the country spend its money on other pressing subjects nearer to home before committing £££££££££££££ to this natural climate change matter !!!

+1

finchy

Homer J wrote:

nicensleazy wrote:

I would rather the country spend its money on other pressing subjects nearer to home before committing £££££££££££££ to this natural climate change matter !!!

+1

In the long run it'll probably be a saving - prepare for a low carbon economy now, before the oil starts getting REALLY expensive.

Porgy

johnfinch wrote:

Homer J wrote:

nicensleazy wrote:

I would rather the country spend its money on other pressing subjects nearer to home before committing £££££££££££££ to this natural climate change matter !!!

+1

In the long run it'll probably be a saving - prepare for a low carbon economy now, before the oil starts getting REALLY expensive.

all the advice i offer my company on climate change leads to net savings.

Any money invested in alternative energy sources will ultimately translate as overseas revenue when we're able to sell our technology globally.

We have to reduce our carbon dependence anyway just becasue fossil fuels will become so damned expensive in the next few decades and ultimately - they will no longer be available for most industries.

Even without climate change I don;t see that another course of action is open to us - just that climate change makes it all a bit more urgent.

OffTheBackAdam

Agreed, so why's the Left been so against nuclear power, the only useful technology that'll produce electricity in useful amounts?
Oh, for those who want to look at the Climategate e-mails in context, here's a .pdf timeline.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/ ... banner.pdf

nicensleazy

cjw

Porgy wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Homer J wrote:

nicensleazy wrote:

I would rather the country spend its money on other pressing subjects nearer to home before committing £££££££££££££ to this natural climate change matter !!!

+1

In the long run it'll probably be a saving - prepare for a low carbon economy now, before the oil starts getting REALLY expensive.

all the advice i offer my company on climate change leads to net savings.

Any money invested in alternative energy sources will ultimately translate as overseas revenue when we're able to sell our technology globally.

We have to reduce our carbon dependence anyway just becasue fossil fuels will become so damned expensive in the next few decades and ultimately - they will no longer be available for most industries.

Even without climate change I don;t see that another course of action is open to us - just that climate change makes it all a bit more urgent.

Agree with most of that. However. There is now billions being invested in carbon sequestration and other research and technologies that is just unwarrented - ie let's just bury something at huge cost that doesn't need doing.

I fully agree with preserving our resources, but spending so much based on poor science that doesn't stand up to scrutiny is just crazy - no matter what the zealots would have you believe. CO2 is not the main driver for the climate but a bit player.

Just to be clear where I stand.

1. There is actually plenty of evidence for climate change
2. There is no evidence that CO2 is the main driver - in fact in the past the earth was in ice ages with 20 times the level we have now
3. There is evidence that other factors are drivers for climate change
4. We are now spending billions of dollars on CO2 'treatment' and research

The idea that there is a consensus in the scientific community that CO2 causes climate change is not correct.

There are many listed here http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/ ... 2-3_lq.pdf

And recent paper just published (peer reviewed of course ) says other factors and NOT CO2 drive global warming.

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5152


WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

cjw

Of course, all of the oil companies have now jumped on the CO2 bandwagon as a profit making opportunity. As oil runs out, they have a great capability of reburrying the CO2 that they have generated. The big business for the future of these companies is now in low carbon technologies;

http://www.engineerlive.com/Oil-and-Gas ... ect/16020/

Shell and Statoil join forces in carbon sequestration project
Shell and Statoil have signed an agreement to work towards developing the world’s largest project using carbon dioxide (CO2) for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) offshore.

The concept involves capturing CO2 from power generation and utilising it to enhance oil recoveryresulting in increased energy production with lower CO2 impact.

The projectwhich could eventually cost up to E1.2bnconsists of a gas-fired power plant and methanol production facility at Tjeldbergodden in mid-Norwayproviding CO2 to the Draugen and Heidrun offshore oil and gas fields. Power from the plant will also be provided to the offshore fieldsenabling near zero CO2 and nitrogen oxide emissions from these installations. The various elements of the project will be phased in between 2010 and 2012.

Now guess who pays for this (and of course the profits to the oil comapnies - yes the tas payers and consumers. BUT HEY WE ARE NOW GREEN.

cjw

And here's another carbon cature project for SHell funded by Canada for $800 MILION;

The Canadian government, along with the government of Alberta, gave Royal Dutch Shell over $800 million for a carbon capture and sequester project. Shell had asked for the money last year.
The total amount of money is $865 million. The funds will support the development of Canada's first large-scale carbon capture project. The project will capture C02 gases at the Scotford upgrader, which was recently occupied by Greenpeace activists. The carbon will be converted into liquid and pumped into the earth where it will stay indefinitely.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280319

Where do you really think big business is now. And research grants to the tune of 30 Billion Dollars + governments increased taxation.

This is the most incredible con in history.

Sorry RANT MODE OFF

Crapaud

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

... Oh, for those who want to look at the Climategate e-mails in context, here's a .pdf timeline.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/ ... banner.pdf

What are we supposed to be looking at here? The 2 items with the bomb (for bombshell) symbol are open to interpretation. I had a read through the e-mails in a link waaaaaaay back in the thread and I didn't see the same things as skeptics / deniers. Reading the whole way through, instead of picking out selective quotes, I get the sense of a work a progress, discussions about problems / interpreting and explaining data and the scientists feeling under seige from the denialists (as opposed to skeptics). There's a context to the quotes that's been discarded.

I also get the impression that they saw the FOI requests as being co-ordinated harassment and their reactions as exasperation and frustration. It might be a touch of paranoia on their part, but it's not evidence of conspiracy or manipulation of data. Indeed, the only way that I can see of getting a conspiracy from the e-mails is to selectively quote and put a spin on them. From reading her site, Joanna Nova is clearly a denialist and her timeline reflects this; she's not looking at GW and the e-mails from a neutral perspective.

Scientific American's take on it: Climate change cover-up? You better believe it

Scientific American wrote:

... one of the most "damaging" emails in question from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is actually mourning the paucity of Earth observation systems and data in the past decade, such as satellites (gutted by a lack of funding and launch miscues in recent years) to monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability.

Scientific American wrote:

While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under deadline while being harassed by political opponents.
Note the adjective there. Political, not scientific, opponents. Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory or alternative hypotheses (all of those, in their time, have been shot down and nothing new has been offered in years) but a hysterical reaction ...

The opinion of physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart in a Washington Post article:

Washington Post wrote:

... As time passed they have had to spend more and more of their time answering criticism of the scientific results already established, criticism mostly based on ignorance, fallacious reasoning, and even deliberately deceptive claims. Still more recently they have had to spend far too much of their time defending their personal reputations against ignorant or slanderous attacks. ...

Washington Post wrote:

... Our society is having difficulty dealing with this new form of communication. Look at last week's verdict on the Bear Sterns hedge fund managers who were accused of misleading investors. The prosecutrs based their case on a few seemingly incriminating sentences drawn from a mass of emails. When the jury saw the whole set of emails, they quickly found that there was no crime, just ordinary business chatter. From what I've seen, I expect that will be the verdict on the climate scientists' emails.

nicensleazy

When we have a total nuclear war - there will be no need to worry about climate change!

finchy

nicensleazy wrote:

When we have a total nuclear war - there will be no need to worry about climate change!

When, not if? You're a bit pessimistic today.

cjw

johnfinch wrote:

nicensleazy wrote:

When we have a total nuclear war - there will be no need to worry about climate change!

When, not if? You're a bit pessimistic today.

Oh it's guaranteed. The US were told many times about a terrorist about to board a plane on Christmas eve. Instead, searched every old granny they could find, but let said terrorist onto plane with explosives in his undies.

What chance would thay have against an organised nuclear risk from (say) Korea or China or India or Pakistan.

They (and their lapdog UK govt.) will be searching eveyrone else - spending millions on detecting equipment and searching every family travelling on holiday with 2 small kids to avoid offending anyone who profiling says could be a terrorist. Cause after all - the law abiding will never complain, whereas the terrorist will scream like hell if the security services detain them for two minutes.

So.... nuclear amegeddon is a certainty due to political correctness.

cjw

Ignore the above. I sound like a Daily Heil reader. :oops:

And I'm not... honest.