On 30 Nov 2012 at 4:54pm Pete wrote:
Don't say I didn't warn you - see link, and look at the graph which is starting to go exponential !! Buy your house on the Nevill now before they rocket !!
Check it out here »
On 30 Nov 2012 at 6:02pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
The BBC,that honest,respectable,morally unimpeachable institution is indulging in a little scaremongering. I believe their pension fund is invested in a lot of "green"industries. Global warming is a highly profitable agenda and we will never see the truth. Carbon dioxide,the "greenhouse gas" forms a whacking 0.03% of the atmosphere and that which is man made a tiny proportion of that,a few millionths.I'm a real greenie but I'm afraid the movement has been hijacked .Believe half you see and nothing you read.
On 30 Nov 2012 at 9:24pm Zebedee wrote:
You seem to have a similar problem with punctuation and spaces as the late non-lamented Paul Newman. At least he was bright and occasionally witty.
On 30 Nov 2012 at 11:39pm bloke wrote:
Welcome back Paul. I missed your idiocy. Yet again you look no further than the messenger. I could go on ... .
On 1 Dec 2012 at 7:23am Southover Queen wrote:
This is instructive. (Since it's in the Guardian I dare say all the Person 2 types will reject it, but I offer it nevertheless)
Check it out here »
On 1 Dec 2012 at 8:39am LewesSkeptic wrote:
Hah! That's brilliant SQ. I've had that conversation loads of times. BTW Dean Burnett, the author of that piece, runs Cardiff Skeptics in the Pub. He's a neuroscientist and a comedian. I was planning to have him down here last year but he'd just got a new job and new baby so he was a bit to busy to come down here from Wales. I've been loving his Guardian blogs though.
On 1 Dec 2012 at 9:34am Harold wrote:
Check out radio 4 prog`More or less` for an insight into facts and figures that are spouted by so called experts.
On 1 Dec 2012 at 9:52am Southover Queen wrote:
Oddly enough it was the proto-Paul Newman post which reminded me so strongly of my experience of that conversation, LewesSkeptic. Lewes SitP would enjoy a bad science talk, I think: the trouble is that it's rather preaching to the converted!
Harold: since that's perpetrated by the wicked biased BBC, presumably in support of its undercover extreme-green agenda, I suspect that the Person 2s hereabouts will reject that too.
(I must say I'd love to know what Green agenda Nixon does embrace if rising CO2 levels are to be dismissed)
On 1 Dec 2012 at 11:47pm Harold wrote:
@sq If you follow the show you will find the BBC gets a good slapping as well, Its the exact reverse of what you think, It has the facts about global warming, sea levals ect, The program is all about showing how lies are used by what ever group that needs to falsify an agenda, this week was about how questions in surveys are used to get the results that are needed to prove points .
Did you know there has been no rise in global temp rises other that odd rogue mesurements for ten to twelve years, and that sea rise levals have been revised from 12ish feet by 2050 to just 18 inchescheck it out . fridays at 430 pm
On 2 Dec 2012 at 11:44am bloke wrote:
@Harold
"Did you know there has been no rise in global temp rises other that odd rogue mesurements for ten to twelve years"
Except ... that's not exactly true. I'm not sure where your 10-12-year figure comes from. Climate change deniers usually refer to 1998 (perhaps your info is two-to-four years out of date). 1998 was an extremely warm year compared to the years immediately preceding it. Using that as a baseline is like using an unusually warm day in March and saying that Summer isn't coming because we've not had a day as hot at that since then (apart from some ".. odd rogue measurements"). The approach of summer is not indicated solely by daily increases in temperature and similarly global warming is not indicated solely by year-on-year increases. You need to look at the trend and you need to look at the trend over a time-period that gives sufficient accuracy. Now there are three different temperature datasets (the Met Office/HADCrut, NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[US])). If you average them out what you find is this: Nine of the ten warmest years on record have been since 2001. We've actually had two years warmer than 1998 (2005 and 2010) and presumably this is what you mean when you speak of ".. odd rogue measurements". 2012 is set to be the 9th warmest year on record. If anyone think's this is means that we're on a cooling trend then they are making the same mistake that as someone who thinks that summer isn't coming because May 8th was cooler than all of the rest of the first week in May.
Regarding "More or Less" are you referring to a specific edition?
Check it out here »
On 2 Dec 2012 at 7:49pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
I don't follow any agenda,Southover Queen,just work on feelings. The U.N. think tank the Club of Rome has an agenda which it revealed in the nineties. They were looking for a rallying cry after the collapse of the eastern bloc and decided that environmental concerns fitted the bill,casting mankind as the enemy. This fitted their depopulation agenda perfectly. Nobody votes for the U.N. it is an organisation created by the R,I.A.A. and it's American counterpart the C.F.R.both of which were formed by international merchant bankers.Sorry about the punctuation Zebedee and no, I'm not Paul Newman but I am as devilishly handsome.
On 3 Dec 2012 at 5:05pm Southover Queen wrote:
Ah, feelings. Right. I have to be honest and say that that list of conspiracy theories doesn't sound like "feelings" you just have, and anyway"feelings" are not the best foundation for arriving at a scientifically sound assessment of a complicated phenomenon.
Harold, I do listen often to More or Less. It's difficult to answer your point specifically since I didn't hear that episode. Also I'm not basing my concern about climate change on the BBC's reporting of it or any other single source for that matter. One of the characteristics of climate change is that you can interpret the results of scientific investigation in differing ways, but pretty well everyone agrees that human activity is affecting our climate. The alternative to your list of shady Liberal associations falsifying the evidence is that the evidence is real and we should probably do something about it. I know which I accept.
(The RIAA seems to be the Recording Industry Association of America, so I'm not sure what they have to do with anything.)
On 4 Dec 2012 at 11:25am Nixon Scraypes wrote:
Sorry S.Q.a slip of the finger, I meant Royal Institute for International Affairs.I'm not talking about theories,man-made climate change is a theory.I feel sure we must have some effect on the climate but I'm very suspicious of "scientists". I read a lot of stuff in the sixties and seventies on green matters and in those days they were predicting an ice age,I kid you not. The sun goes through hot and cold periods and so does the earth,for instance,the medieval warm period and the later mini ice age. What people had to do with that I don't know .If you want to know about the RIIA and CFR,their official historian Carrol Quigley wrote two books which mention them ,The Anglo American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope. He says that all the presidents and prime ministers since the late Eighteen hundreds have been chosen by them! i agree that sounds super conspiratorial but he was their man and he was given access to their archives.After a small printing the plates were destroyed;had he said too much? Scientifically sound assessments are hard on a small forum comment but we can suggest things to eachother.
On 4 Dec 2012 at 4:00pm Southover Queen wrote:
NS, you can't be suspicious of "scientists", or not at least in the sense that you expect all scientists to be either trying to pull the wool over your eyes or actively mislead you. You should indeed be sceptical of science, as I think you should be of everything; by that I mean that you should try to discover as wide a range of sources and weigh up the evidence. The problem, I'd suggest, is that the media are inclined to seize on complicated arguments and reduce them to bite sized headlines, often squeezing out the nuances and counterarguments for the sake of "a good story".
Climate science is relatively new as a discipline and the proposal that human activity might be having profound adverse effects on the planet's atmosphere is even more recent, only crossing into general knowledge in the 60s. I remember the discussions about "new ice ages" in the 70s, just as I remember "global warming" headlines in the 80s. Now everyone's talking about "climate change". My interpretation of that is that as scientific understanding matures of how different systems are affected in different ways so the theories are adapted. The prediction has been for quite a while that what we can all expect is for the weather to become more unpredictable and more violent, and that's certainly been borne out in the last few years. Flooding events, for instance, that should only happen once in a hundred years now happen twice or three times in a month.
We can all bury our heads in the sands and say that because a headline back in the 70s turns out not to be true that the science is at fault. I prefer to err on the side of caution and agree that the climate is changing and that human activity is causing that and that therefore we had better start tackling it. I can see no reason why we shouldn't look for ways of reducing our impact on the planet, because whatever the science tells us, it makes sense anyway.
Cue everyone telling me how patronising I'm being...
On 4 Dec 2012 at 6:54pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
I agree with your second to last sentence wholeheartedly. I try to live in the least damaging way possible as I'm sure you do. My concern is that organisations like the UN are using peoples genuine worries about the environment to push their own agenda. I waded through Agenda 21's bureaucrospeak and it's not a pretty sight. It's very opaque and full of "inter alias"rather like a student trying to sound impressive.I had to look it up ,confession,and it just means- among other things.Maurice Strong, the Gaia worshipping ex Rockerfeller oil man who put it together is a very dodgy character-google Maurice Strong,Iraq,oil for food, and a million dollar cheque ! If you ferret around the UN you find all sorts of things like -democracy is too slow- the family must go -nation states must go-all the carbon credit tradinng to go through the Rothschild bank etc,etc. This is all hard facts,no theories as you can verify for yourself.I'd better stop wittering on before you fall asleep.
On 4 Dec 2012 at 7:28pm Southover Queen wrote:
What is their agenda though? What is that they're all trying to achieve by frightening everyone? I can't be bothered with conspiracy theories because I don't see that they get anyone anywhere, and to be honest that's what this sounds like.
I'm interested in demonstrable fact: I can see that the climate is becoming more and more unpredictable and that threatens us and future generations now.
On 4 Dec 2012 at 11:34pm bloke wrote:
Regarding the claims about Ice-ages from the 1970s. See the video.
Watch the video »
On 5 Dec 2012 at 5:01pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
I can quote scientists who agree with me ,you can quote scientists who agree with you-stalemate. We can,t go anywhere with that one. The agenda is a world government, massive depopulation, the end of the family, no nation states as I said before. It's not a theory,it's hard facts as you could verify for yourself if you wanted. Would it get you anywhere? I don't know. Here's a fictional analogy.I find a document on the council website with plans to bomb Southover! I post this information on the forum.You say you're not interested in conspiracy theories, they don't get you anywhere. All i can say is look at the council website and see for yourself. there's nothing you can do about it ,but you could absent yourself from home at the relevant time!
On 5 Dec 2012 at 6:46pm bloke wrote:
"I can quote scientists who agree with me ,you can quote scientists who agree with you-stalemate."
It's not about what scientists "say" its what the evidence says. The rest of your post is looney-toons akin to a David Icke rant.
On 6 Dec 2012 at 2:38pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
Oh alright then,the people whose evidence I believe are different to the people whose evidence you believe,stalemate.We'll never agree no matterwhat semantics we employ. As far as the looney tunes stuff is concerned, all you have to do is check it out. On second thoughts, don't bother, it's much easier to ignore it, anyway my day release has run out and I hear Matron coming.See you on the ward.
On 7 Dec 2012 at 3:17pm Southover Queen wrote:
Over 13,000 scientists say you're wrong, NS. (You've still got 24 on your side so all is not entirely lost)
Check it out here »