Can anyone trust science anymore?
amacm...@aol.com
promote political agendas ?
The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
as "facts".
Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038% of
the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about, and that
water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the planet's
temperature - if I have picked that up correctly. Everyone knows that
in winter clear skies at night usually mean frost.
Does this beg the question that even if C02 rises by a multiple of
perhaps 4, is it going to make that much difference; taking into
consideration its low starting point?
For conservationists to conveniently exclude the activities of man as
part of nature to suit their concept of native and non-native species
shows the depths to which "science" has plunged in its agenda
supporting role.
Is there any honesty in science any more?
I'm interested to know what readers think about this.
Robert Henderson
amacm...@aol.com writes
>Can anyone trust science when much of it is financed by governments to
>promote political agendas ?
>
>The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
>scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
>that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
But....but....but....where are the three creatures squealing OT.... RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Magnus
news:vsl6lZKf...@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
> In message <alrbj5pcbhcm2bpcr...@4ax.com>,
> amacm...@aol.com writes
>>Can anyone trust science when much of it is financed by governments to
>>promote political agendas ?
>>
>>The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
>>scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
>>that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
>
> But....but....but....where are the three creatures squealing OT.... RH
Kindly explain why discussion of material which exposes a major fraud with
an impact on Scottish finances and infrastructure is off-topic.
Alternatively, accept that most of the posters here regard you as a
trolling half-wit.
Andrew
> Can anyone trust science when much of it is financed by governments to
> promote political agendas ?
>
> The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
> scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
> that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
What was leaked was raw data. Tne trouble with raw data is that it only
ever tells a part of the story and has to be assessed in the context of
the experiments being carried out and in the context of other data.
Every experiment throws up results that don't fit the pattern of the
rest of the results. Such results are generally not published
>
> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
> as "facts".
Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views should
be viewed exactly in those terms
>
> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038% of
> the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about, and that
> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the planet's
> temperature - if I have picked that up correctly. Everyone knows that
> in winter clear skies at night usually mean frost.
Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon dioxide
makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>
> Does this beg the question that even if C02 rises by a multiple of
> perhaps 4, is it going to make that much difference; taking into
> consideration its low starting point?
Well yes. Bearing in mind that even the present concentration makes a
difference. As Feldman and Marks point out, without the normal
greenhouse effect the Earth would be unihabitably cold. If 0.03% makes
such a difference, multiplying it certainly will.
>
> For conservationists to conveniently exclude the activities of man as
> part of nature to suit their concept of native and non-native species
> shows the depths to which "science" has plunged in its agenda
> supporting role.
No one's excluding anything. Certainly there may well be natural cycl
es that affect the Earth's temperatures. But they will happen anyway
and there's nothing we can do about them. If there is a component to
climate change for which we are responsible, though, it makes sense to
take the steps we can.
Robert Henderson
<also....@nowhere.com> writes
>
>> In message <alrbj5pcbhcm2bpcr...@4ax.com>,
>> amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>Can anyone trust science when much of it is financed by governments to
>>>promote political agendas ?
>>>
>>>The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
>>>scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
>>>that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
>>
>> But....but....but....where are the three creatures squealing OT.... RH
>
>Kindly explain why discussion of material which exposes a major fraud
>with an impact on Scottish finances and infrastructure is off-topic.
I refer you to the creature Guig who insists that only topics
exclusively about Scotch politics are on topic in this ng.... RH
>Alternatively, accept that most of the posters here regard you as a
>trolling half-wit.
--
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>
>> Can anyone trust science when much of it is financed by governments to
>> promote political agendas ?
>>
>> The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
>> scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
>> that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
>
>What was leaked was raw data. Tne trouble with raw data is that it only
>ever tells a part of the story and has to be assessed in the context of
>the experiments being carried out and in the context of other data.
>Every experiment throws up results that don't fit the pattern of the
>rest of the results. Such results are generally not published
>
I agree that's probably the case but hiding a line behind others on
the hockey stick graph seemed to show a deliberate propensity to
deceive.
>>
>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
>> as "facts".
>
>Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views should
>be viewed exactly in those terms
Yes but they do qote others that are experts in their field. However,
can "experts" be trusted if they're paid by politicians?
>
>>
>> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038% of
>> the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about, and that
>> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the planet's
>> temperature - if I have picked that up correctly. Everyone knows that
>> in winter clear skies at night usually mean frost.
>
>Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon dioxide
>makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
>years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>
You're asking a lot at my age :-) I seem to remember being told the
main components of the atmosphere but not the percentages.
>>
>> Does this beg the question that even if C02 rises by a multiple of
>> perhaps 4, is it going to make that much difference; taking into
>> consideration its low starting point?
>
>Well yes. Bearing in mind that even the present concentration makes a
>difference. As Feldman and Marks point out, without the normal
>greenhouse effect the Earth would be unihabitably cold. If 0.03% makes
>such a difference, multiplying it certainly will.
>
But they also say that when the CO2 was around 20% the planet was
still cooling.
>>
>> For conservationists to conveniently exclude the activities of man as
>> part of nature to suit their concept of native and non-native species
>> shows the depths to which "science" has plunged in its agenda
>> supporting role.
>
>No one's excluding anything. Certainly there may well be natural cycl
>es that affect the Earth's temperatures. But they will happen anyway
>and there's nothing we can do about them. If there is a component to
>climate change for which we are responsible, though, it makes sense to
>take the steps we can.
>
To an extent. But paying emergening economies to increase their CO2
emissions whilst cutting our own seems only an altruistic exercise
rather than making much difference.
James Hogg
> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other
>>> Bollocks" by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN
>>> 978-1-84454-718-0) and although only into the first few pages, it
>>> seems to be making the point that a lot of "science" is agenda
>>> driven with beliefs and opinions presented as "facts".
>> Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views
>> should be viewed exactly in those terms
>
> and putting their name to papers?
>
>>> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038%
>>> of the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about,
>>> and
> that
>>> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the
>>> planet's temperature - if I have picked that up correctly.
>>> Everyone knows that in winter clear skies at night usually mean
>>> frost.
>> Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon
> dioxide
>> makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
>> years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>
Yes but he said "we very rarely hear about" it. Andrew pointed out that
it's common knowledge as taught in school.
--
James
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
I think most people who leave school will forget about the percentages
and that it would do no harm for them to be reminded later on in life
in the climate change issue.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEE6CE2A...@62.141.42.83...
>>
>>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
>>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
>>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
>>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
>>> as "facts".
Surefire best-seller.
Check the top twenty on Amazon. Last time I checked about half of them had
titles along the lines of "Buy this book and stop feeling guilty about
destroying your kids future"
I bought three or four myself.
It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
Magnus
news:Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au:
I think you'll find it's midwinter primarily in the northern hemisphere,
unless of course it's snowing on Bondi Beach.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au>, Adam
>Whyte-Settlar <ador@ble.?.invalid> writes
>Try reading the reviews of the book Angus mentions on Amazon.co.uk.
>
>Not wholly flattering!
>
>And Angus's comment above could easily refer to his endless claims, i.e.
>that they are "agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented as
>facts" :-)
>
>
>--
>Malcolm
Have you read the book, Malcolm?
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <nl0fj5hgf9k59agv0...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>No, Angus. I have, though, read this review:
>
>"I was greatly disappointed by this extremely poor offering. The crude
>title on the cover gives a good indication of the quality of thought to
>be found within. It cannot even get its basic science right. I found the
>first howler on page 10, where we are told that "when there are a lot of
>sunspots, the energy is reduced and the temperature...falls slightly",
>which is the exact opposite of the truth. There are other signs in the
>book that the authors don't know what they are talking about. For
>example, their unthinking assumption that a global "population
>explosion" is in progress is completely unsupported by evidence and is
>just another silly end-of-the-world scare story of the kind the book is
>supposed to debunk. Despite its claim to be about 'evidence', this book
>merely substitutes one set of ignorant prejudices and dogmas for
>another. There are plenty of better and more intelligently written books
>than this on the topic of global warming. The sceptics' cause is
>ill-served by tendentious nonsense like 'Global Warming and Other
>Bollocks'."
>
>So, the review has shown me that it is full of prejudice and
>"tendentious nonsense", which is also a very apt description of your
>posts. As I've already said, the book and you are clearly made for each
>other :-)
I think it's the opposite. You have not read the book but you're
prepared to condemn it through the prejudice of another.
I would venture to say that it's people llike you with closed minds
that is giving science a bad name.
amacm...@aol.com
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:42:12 +0000 (UTC), soupdragon <m...@privacy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
>>should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
>>Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
>>expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
>>on flood defences?
>
>I to have been dismayed at some of the science emerging these days.
>Engineers though, still have to produce bridges that will only collapse
>after 50 years of neglect.
>I actually wrote this a few weeks ago but have waited till someone asked
>the question. I am certain that it will raise howls of protests. Anyway it
>has the distinction of being entirely researched on Wiki, so nit-pickers
>needn't read further. As originally written:
>
>"Wisdom from a Jug of Beer".
>I've come to the conclusion that I've been out of circulation for too long
>and out of date with modern thinking...
>I was having a beer with a much younger ex-colleague, (also retired so you
>do the sums) last week and we were chewing the cud, including ClimateGate.
>
>During the conversation he mentioned, "post normal science", hell, I didn't
>want to display my ignorance, so I waited until I could access the fount of
>all knowledge.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
>"a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to
>characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where
>"facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent".
>It is primarily seen in the context of long-term issues where we possess
>less information than we would like.
>
>Which reminded me of Cargo cult science.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
>
>Cargo cult science is a term used by physicist Richard Feynman during his
>commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, in 1974 to
>describe work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing "a
>kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
>corresponds to a kind of utter honesty".
>
>"cargo cult scientists conduct flawed research that fails to produce useful
>results. Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists,
>researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to
>question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and
>investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment".
>
>"An example of cargo cult science is an experiment that uses another
>researcher's results in lieu of an experimental control".
>
>"Other examples, given by Feynman, are from educational research,
>psychology (particularly parapsychology), and physics. He also mentions
>other kinds of dishonesty, for example, falsely promoting one's research to
>secure funding".
>
>Which in turn reminded me of the Sokal Affair.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
>
>Sokal's hoax was an experiment by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the
>editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal
>Social Text (published by Duke University Press).
>
>In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a
>paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal
>in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted
>with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors'
>ideological preconceptions.". The paper argued that quantum gravity is a
>social and linguistic construct.
>
>The paper, titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative
>Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Spring/Summer 1996
>"Science Wars" issue of Social Text, which at that time had no peer review
>process, and so did not submit it for outside review. On the day of its
>publication, Sokal announced in another publication, Lingua Franca, that
>the article was a hoax, calling his paper "a pastiche of left-wing cant,
>fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense", which was
>"structured around the silliest quotations he could find about mathematics
>and physics" made by postmodernist academics.
>
>In an interview with National Public Radio's All Things Considered Alan
>Sokal said that he was inspired to conduct his "experiment" after reading
>Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science by
>Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt. The book discusses what the authors
>believed was a disturbing trend in university liberal arts departments,
>especially English, to become dominated by a "trendy" branch of
>postmodernist deconstructionist thought.
>
>In the 1990s, according to Higher Superstition, the "academic left" was
>dominated by professors focusing on racism, sexism and other forms of
>prejudice. Science was among the targets of this critique, sparking what
>became known as the "science wars". According to Gross and Levitt, academic
>journals in the humanities were increasingly publishing articles in which
>authors were extremely critical of science, even though they demonstrated
>little or no knowledge of science. As Gross and Levitt state in their
>introduction: "A curious fact about the recent left-critique of science is
>the degree to which its instigators have overcome their former timidity of
>indifference towards the subject not by studying it in detail, but rather
>by creating a repertoire of rationalizations for avoiding such study."
>
>Higher Superstition selected a number of essays by members of the academic
>left who seemed not to understand the original scientific documents they
>were critiquing. The result, according to Gross and Levitt, was a series of
>nonsensical statements. What they found especially troubling was that
>academic journals were not judging scholarship by its intellectual quality,
>but instead by its political leanings. Gross and Levitt maintained that
>academic articles in the humanities needed only display the proper leftist
>thought and be written by, or quote, well-known leftist authors to be
>published.
>
>Certainly explains why education seems to have gone to hell.
>You know were to go to read the full text.
>
>So we have: Funtowicz et al
>"facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent".
>long-term issues where we possess less information than we would like.
>Sounds like global warming, ozone hole, DDT "ban" and many others."
>
>Then: Feynman
>"work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing
> a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
>corresponds to a kind of utter honesty".
>
>"conduct flawed research that fails to produce useful results"
>
>Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their own
>results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data, see above "missing a
>kind of utter honesty" and "investigate possible flaws in a theory".
>
>I am at peace now but worry about the consequences ($) of crap science.
>
>It's too long already
>Scott.
I think scientists are doing themselves a great disservice by fixing
science to suit political agendas.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <6l2fj59e6114j2js6...@4ax.com>,
>You would think that. Like I said, the book are you are clearly made for
>each other so I wouldn't have expected any other response.
From you that hasn't even read it :-(
>
>> You have not read the book but you're
>>prepared to condemn it through the prejudice of another.
>>
>The response that I expected from you. I have read several other reviews
>of the book, and not just on amazon.co.uk, and it is absolutely clear
>that it would be a complete waste of time reading it.
So you clearly don't think for yourself.
>
>>I would venture to say that it's people llike you with closed minds
>>that is giving science a bad name.
>>
>A deeply prejudiced remark from you. I don't expect anything else.
>
Well, don't complain.
>But I'll tell you something else. If you read that book and believe what
>it says then it demonstrates that you have no understanding of science
>whatsoever.
If you don't read the book you'll have no understanding of what it
says, so how will you know?
>Still, that doesn't matter, because you have absolutely no
>ability to give "science a bad name", though that is what the authors of
>this book have done their best to do.
I dion't think they can match you in giving science a bad name.:-))
>Only the deeply prejudiced and
>already committed climate change deniers are going to agree with the
>book and, like you, they don't matter.
How do you know; you haven't even read it?
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> amacm...@aol.com wrote in
> news:th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com:
> [..]
>
>
> Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
> slanging match.
>
> Zzzzzzzzzz!
I quite liked Scotty's post (downthread...upthread? I dunno...
call it "elsethread") though...information without abuse,
who'd'a thunk it? :-) And I think the people he cites raise
valid points wrt the sociology of science...the problem of
assigning value judgements to scientific facts in order to
determine social policy is, and always has been, a thorny
one.
For myself, I believe the topic warrants discussion, how-
ever as you point out, USENET may not be a place were
such a discussion can be (civilly) had. I doubt a thread
about ideas (instead of personalities) can survive for long
even if the primary participants are reasonable...there are
simply too many sophomoric zealots who believe disrup-
tion, hectoring and loudly beating a conceptual drum are
how one exchanges ideas and conducts a discussion...in
the end, this ilk always succeed in driving Reason from the
arena.
Deirdre
________________
Ideas are not responsible for their followers.
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>amacm...@aol.com wrote in
>news:th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:43:32 +0000, Malcolm
>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>
>Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
>slanging match.
>
>Zzzzzzzzzz!
I hope you noticed I didn't start the slanging match. I can't post
anything without being "stalked" by Malcolm. He's been doing it for
about ten years.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com>,
>Don't need to. The reviews have said it all.
>
>>>
>>>> You have not read the book but you're
>>>>prepared to condemn it through the prejudice of another.
>>>>
>>>The response that I expected from you. I have read several other reviews
>>>of the book, and not just on amazon.co.uk, and it is absolutely clear
>>>that it would be a complete waste of time reading it.
>>
>>So you clearly don't think for yourself.
>>
>Duh! Sometimes, Angus, you give a marvellous impression of someone who
>doesn't understand the written word.
>
>By reading several reviews, I have thought for myself by coming to the
>conclusion that it would be a complete waste of time.
>
>>>
>>>>I would venture to say that it's people llike you with closed minds
>>>>that is giving science a bad name.
>>>>
>>>A deeply prejudiced remark from you. I don't expect anything else.
>>>
>>
>>Well, don't complain.
>>
>I certainly wasn't complaining. What is there to complain about? You
>gave the expected response - deeply prejudiced as ever.
>
>>
>>>But I'll tell you something else. If you read that book and believe what
>>>it says then it demonstrates that you have no understanding of science
>>>whatsoever.
>>
>>If you don't read the book you'll have no understanding of what it
>>says, so how will you know?
>>
>Because I have read several reviews.
>>
>>>Still, that doesn't matter, because you have absolutely no
>>>ability to give "science a bad name", though that is what the authors of
>>>this book have done their best to do.
>>
>>I dion't think they can match you in giving science a bad name.:-))
>>
>Of course not, because I don't. They can't possibly match that.
>>
>>>Only the deeply prejudiced and
>>>already committed climate change deniers are going to agree with the
>>>book and, like you, they don't matter.
>>
>>How do you know; you haven't even read it?
>>
>I don't need to have read it, Angus. I have read several reviews and
>have made my judgement based on those. You very regularly make claims
>based on nothing more than prejudice, certainly not on having read any
>source material like published books, papers or reports. And when you do
>quote something, it is almost always some newspaper article which is
>either incomplete, inaccurate or misleading.
>
>When you've read this book, perhaps you would like to tell us whether or
>not it has convinced you to become (?remain) a climate change denier.
Malcolm, you're boring the pants of everyone. I posted this because
there is a genuine feeling that scientists are in the pockets of
politicians because it's the politicans that in many cases pay their
wages.
If you've anything to say why not try to address the issue itself
rather than attack me all the time. It make you look stupid. And me
too, because if you attack me I return the compliment.
Perhaps you'd be better occupied chasing the youknowwho farmer up in
Islay:-))
amacm...@aol.com
I think you're right.
Perhaps there should be some form of scientific association where
politicians and large companies would require to put their ideas and
products on the table for independent evaluation without actuall
employing scientists to back their cause. I don't know how it would
work but it's just a thought and could be the basis for further
debate.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <5udfj5188s7kgm3kt...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:29:59 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com>,
>>>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:43:32 +0000, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <6l2fj59e6114j2js6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:12:13 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <nl0fj5hgf9k59agv0...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:34:17 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au>, Adam
>>>>>>>>>Whyte-Settlar <ador@ble.?.invalid> writes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:Xns9CEE6CE2A...@62.141.42.83...
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
>>>>>>>>>>> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and although
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>point that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Angus, you posted that you had received a book written by two climate
>change deniers and then immediately linked that to your well-known
>obsession against conservationists.
I don't have an obsession against conservationists. I oppose those
who say they're conservationists and indulge in killing wildlife and
induling in, and encourage, environmentally damaging activities.
>>
>>If you've anything to say why not try to address the issue itself
>>rather than attack me all the time. It make you look stupid. And me
>>too, because if you attack me I return the compliment.
>>
>I didn't attack you. I pointed out that the book you were recommending
>had had adverse reviews.
Of course you did. After condemning the book you said it and I were
well matched - or words to that effect. You can't help yourself and
just make yourself look silly.
>
>>Perhaps you'd be better occupied chasing the youknowwho farmer up in
>>Islay:-))
>>
>Your previous feeble attempts to link me with a farmer on Islay fell
>flat because it was pure sleaze and libel without any foundation
>whatsoever. It still has none. Your desperation in raising it again is
>noted.
Not what I was told :-))
So why not make a New Year resolution and try to address the issues I
post rater than stalk me. As I have said it just make you look a fool.
And if you don't bother me I shan't bother you and we won't bore the
pants of others.
How's that for a deal?
Andrew
> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>
>>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
>>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
>>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
>>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
>>> as "facts".
>>
>> Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views should
>> be viewed exactly in those terms
>
> Isn't that the case with most 'scientists' working on global warming and
> putting their name to papers?
No,
>
>>>
>>> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038% of
>>> the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about, and
> that
>>> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the planet's
>>> temperature - if I have picked that up correctly. Everyone knows that
>>> in winter clear skies at night usually mean frost.
>>
>> Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon
> dioxide
>> makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
>> years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>
> Err.. isn't that what he said? 0.03% ~= 0.038%?
My point is that it's scarcely "something we rarely hear about" - it's
something that has been inthe Secondary School science syllabus since
1969
>
>>>
>>> Does this beg the question that even if C02 rises by a multiple of
>>> perhaps 4, is it going to make that much difference; taking into
>>> consideration its low starting point?
>>
>> Well yes. Bearing in mind that even the present concentration makes a
>> difference. As Feldman and Marks point out, without the normal
>> greenhouse effect the Earth would be unihabitably cold. If 0.03% makes
>> such a difference, multiplying it certainly will.
>
> The question, by how much and why? By and large, the biggest greenhouse
> gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, as Angus pointed out, so why
> should the change of a relatively minor constituent like CO2 have such a
> large effect on climate - if it does at all?
Because water is a double-edge sword in the atmosphere. When it
condenses to form clouds it reflects solar radiation from the planet
and has a cooling effect. The same cannot be said of carbon dioxide.
> The % annual change in
> water vapour year on year is probably way more than changes in CO2 in
> the last 100 years to such an extent that it would swamp any changes
> in CO2.
You're making the assumption that both are equally effective as green
house gases. They're not.
>
>
>>> For conservationists to conveniently exclude the activities of man as
>>> part of nature to suit their concept of native and non-native species
>>> shows the depths to which "science" has plunged in its agenda
>>> supporting role.
>>
>> No one's excluding anything. Certainly there may well be natural cycl
>> es that affect the Earth's temperatures. But they will happen anyway
>> and there's nothing we can do about them. If there is a component to
>> climate change for which we are responsible, though, it makes sense to
>> take the steps we can.
>
> And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
> should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
> Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
> expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
> on flood defences?
You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
"both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to
global warming. So yes, we should be spending money on flood defences,
AND we should be reducing our carbon emissions.
Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway
- they are a finite resource.
Andrew
Are there no opponents of the climate change position? Can't they do that?
Andrew
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:48:44 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>
>>> Can anyone trust science when much of it is financed by governments to
>>> promote political agendas ?
>>>
>>> The leaked climate change emails seem to have been such that the
>>> scientists appeared to be under pressure to show rises in temperature
>>> that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
>>
>> What was leaked was raw data. Tne trouble with raw data is that it only
>> ever tells a part of the story and has to be assessed in the context of
>> the experiments being carried out and in the context of other data.
>> Every experiment throws up results that don't fit the pattern of the
>> rest of the results. Such results are generally not published
>>
>
> I agree that's probably the case but hiding a line behind others on
> the hockey stick graph seemed to show a deliberate propensity to
> deceive.
No - it's simply the way science works. The "hockey stick graph" is the
result of lots of measurements in lots of places. Some of those
measurements will be messed up, for all sorts of reasons, so they are
ignored.
>
>>>
>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other Bollocks"
>>> by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0) and although
>>> only into the first few pages, it seems to be making the point that a
>>> lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and opinions presented
>>> as "facts".
>>
>> Feldman and Marks are not specialists in the field. Their views should
>> be viewed exactly in those terms
>
> Yes but they do qote others that are experts in their field. However,
> can "experts" be trusted if they're paid by politicians?
Climate change science didn't start with politicians
>
>>
>>>
>>> Interestingly, it says that C02 concentration is less than 0.038% of
>>> the atmosphere, which is something we very rarely hear about, and that
>>> water vapour has a much greater effect in controlling the planet's
>>> temperature - if I have picked that up correctly. Everyone knows that
>>> in winter clear skies at night usually mean frost.
>>
>> Err... as a science teacher I've been teaching kids that carbon dioxide
>> makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere every year for the last 25
>> years. Didn't you learn that at school?
>>
>
> You're asking a lot at my age :-) I seem to remember being told the
> main components of the atmosphere but not the percentages.
You could look them up - they're scarcely secret. I'm not sure what
good you think they would do, though. Percentage quantities don't, in
themselves, tell you much about effect. A far lower concentration of
hydrogen sulphide in the atmosphere would poison us
>
>
>>>
>>> Does this beg the question that even if C02 rises by a multiple of
>>> perhaps 4, is it going to make that much difference; taking into
>>> consideration its low starting point?
>>
>> Well yes. Bearing in mind that even the present concentration makes a
>> difference. As Feldman and Marks point out, without the normal
>> greenhouse effect the Earth would be unihabitably cold. If 0.03% makes
>> such a difference, multiplying it certainly will.
>>
>
> But they also say that when the CO2 was around 20% the planet was
> still cooling.
That would be at a time when it was too hot for life to exist, then? Or
at least before there was oxygen-using life.
>
>>>
>>> For conservationists to conveniently exclude the activities of man as
>>> part of nature to suit their concept of native and non-native species
>>> shows the depths to which "science" has plunged in its agenda
>>> supporting role.
>>
>> No one's excluding anything. Certainly there may well be natural cycl
>> es that affect the Earth's temperatures. But they will happen anyway
>> and there's nothing we can do about them. If there is a component to
>> climate change for which we are responsible, though, it makes sense to
>> take the steps we can.
>>
>
> To an extent. But paying emergening economies to increase their CO2
> emissions whilst cutting our own seems only an altruistic exercise
> rather than making much difference.
I tend to agree. I think the Copenhagen accord was disappointing from
that point of view. That said, one can see the view of emerging
economies - it was we who burned all that fuel to kick-start our
economies; it seems scarcely sporting to insist that they continue to
live in pre-industrial poverty to remedy oiur mistakes.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
>> And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
>> should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
>> Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
>> expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
>> on flood defences?
>
> You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
> "both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to
> global warming. So yes, we should be spending money on flood defences,
> AND we should be reducing our carbon emissions.
I agree with the fundamental premise of your point, but there's
something about lumping a Basic Science like climate study in-
to the same bin as Applied discipline like flood prevention which
strikes a discordant note with me. Maybe if more people under-
stood that Basic Research is about observation and theorisation
and not actual problem solving, it'd be different.
(I also wish that more people understood that if the data can be
statistically manipulated to support multiple contentions, then
the data are _not_ "conclusive"...sheesh.)
Yes, we should be reducing emissions, not simply because it's
the responsible thing to do, but also because we might find a
use for the sequestered product of smoke scrubbers and the
like...resource conservation and reutilisation all have parts to
play in the energy ballet.
> Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway
> - they are a finite resource.
<looking around> Shhhh! What's the matter with you? No
one's supposed to know that!
Anyway, we're making _new_ fossil fuels...who's to say that
in 325 million years, some creatures aren't going to be mining
our former landfills to extract the wealth of petrochemicals
locked within the plastics therein? Does it really matter that
it isn't us doing the mining?
Deirdre
________________
I doubt therefore I might be.
HardySpicer
Yes the scientific world has many rooms and just because the climate
reserach is a bit dodgy doesn't mean that the whole pack of cards is
wrong. It is still the best way by far to discover things and (in
engineering terms) find solutions to real problems. It's unfortunate
that the climate people are driven by agendas outwith science (or at
least their supporters are). I remember the same arguments in the late
70s about nuclear power. the power stations were not for power but for
weapons - therefore no nukes etc! They were also a bit dangerous in
those days. I reckon by now we can say a nuclear power station is
99.99% safe.
So lets stop as far as possible burning fossil fuels and have more
nuclear and alternative (even though the alternative is not much at
present).
Hardy
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Magnus" <also....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEEA08ED3FF7...@69.16.176.253...
So you havn't read "Global Warming - and other Bollocks" by Professors
Feldman and Marks I take it.
They prove without a shadow of a doubt that it's winter everywhere.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
news:3ltej5hju9o6bqbkd...@4ax.com...
> Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their own
> results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data,
Except that they didn't of course.
Coming from a rabid anti-science usefull-idiot who was only yesterday caught
out blatantly lying about the data you've sure got a lot of gall to be
posting such jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
Not that anyone will be surprised given your track record of late.
You have not one shred of credibility in this group Scotty.
The only person you are fooling is youself.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2009122723360816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
> "both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to global
> warming. So yes, we should be spending money on flood defences, AND we
> should be reducing our carbon emissions.
>
> Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway -
> they are a finite resource.
Er..You are attempting to use logic and reason on someone who believes the
MWP was a Global Event.
Just thought you should be warned.
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:3ltej5hju9o6bqbkd...@4ax.com...
>
>> Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their own
>> results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data,
Dropping instrumental readings into what purported to be a Paleo record
because their tree rings didn't show a rise?
Trust worthy? I don't think so.
Or Trenberth, I think, saying," we can't explain the decline and it is a
travesty".
Trust worthy? I don't think so.
Tom Wigley (his boss), emailed Jones saying it would have been easier to
admit the data's shortcomings. "Why, why, why did you not simply say this
right at the start?"
Trust worthy? I don't think so.
And that's just off the top of my head. How many more examples do you want?
>Except that they didn't of course.
>
>Coming from a rabid anti-science usefull-idiot who was only yesterday caught
>out blatantly lying about the data you've sure got a lot of gall to be
>posting such jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
What data are you on about? Did you mean this? It comes from a reliable
source:
Global air temperature 2008 anomaly +0.33C ([only] 10th warmest on record)
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <u9dfj5ddabuis4fqj...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>Bwahahahahahaha !!!!
>
>All I have ever done is to correct Angus's unsupported claims. He
>doesn't like someone doing that so, because he can never produce any
>evidence for his claims, he resorts to childish abuse and insults.
A key criterion set by the conservation industry for determining if a
species is "native" is that it should have evolved with all other
species within its own ecosystem and not have been introduced or
assisted by man to arrive at what is regarded as its natural location.
In short, it should have got to where it is by its own efforts and
evolved naturally. If man assisted it, it is regarded as
"non-native".
This is confirmed in Scottish Natural Heritage's website:
"3.5. Native species are presumed to be those that are present in
Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were
transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice
Age, without the assistance of humans."
"3.6. Non-native species have been introduced to Great Britain,
either deliberately or accidentally, by humans.
However, this criterion is profoundly flawed and could only be
credible if the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of
nature.
So is man part of nature, Malcolm?
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>If you've anything to say why not try to address the issue itself
>>rather than attack me all the time. It make you look stupid. And me
>>too, because if you attack me I return the compliment.
>>
>I didn't attack you. I pointed out that the book you were recommending
>had had adverse reviews.
But you've never read it so how can you know for yourself?
>
>>Perhaps you'd be better occupied chasing the youknowwho farmer up in
>>Islay:-))
>>
>Your previous feeble attempts to link me with a farmer on Islay fell
>flat because it was pure sleaze and libel without any foundation
>whatsoever. It still has none. Your desperation in raising it again is
>noted.
Well as you rarely write any OPs other than trolls on any newsgroups.
I just thought you'd be better occupied doing something else.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <6aofj55keebnub2k5...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:57:11 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Angus, you posted that you had received a book written by two climate
>>>change deniers and then immediately linked that to your well-known
>>>obsession against conservationists.
>>
>>I don't have an obsession against conservationists. I oppose those
>>who say they're conservationists and indulge in killing wildlife and
>>induling in, and encourage, environmentally damaging activities.
>>
>Yes, that's right, an obsession.
>
I wouldn't call it that. All I do is expose the fakes.
>>>>
>>>>If you've anything to say why not try to address the issue itself
>>>>rather than attack me all the time. It make you look stupid. And me
>>>>too, because if you attack me I return the compliment.
>>>>
>>>I didn't attack you. I pointed out that the book you were recommending
>>>had had adverse reviews.
>>
>>Of course you did. After condemning the book you said it and I were
>>well matched - or words to that effect. You can't help yourself and
>>just make yourself look silly.
>>
>Not at all. You and the book (including the title) go together very
>well.
See what I mean!
>>>
>>>>Perhaps you'd be better occupied chasing the youknowwho farmer up in
>>>>Islay:-))
>>>>
>>>Your previous feeble attempts to link me with a farmer on Islay fell
>>>flat because it was pure sleaze and libel without any foundation
>>>whatsoever. It still has none. Your desperation in raising it again is
>>>noted.
>>
>>Not what I was told :-))
>>
>Whatever you were told was a libel as I informed you the first time you
>raised it. Your repeated raising of it turns it into a worse libel.
>
What was the libel?
You tell me.
>>So why not make a New Year resolution and try to address the issues I
>>post rater than stalk me. As I have said it just make you look a fool.
>>
>Your opinions of me are of no consequence. Your own NYR should be to
>check your facts *before* you post your "issues" which too often take
>the form of claims for which it subsequently turns out you have no
>evidence.
Well here's on with evidence:
A key criterion set by the conservation industry for determining if a
species is "native" is that it should have evolved with all other
species within its own ecosystem and not have been introduced or
assisted by man to arrive at what is regarded as its natural location.
In short, it should have got to where it is by its own efforts and
evolved naturally. If man assisted it, it is regarded as
"non-native".
This is confirmed in Scottish Natural Heritage's website:
"3.5. Native species are presumed to be those that are present in
Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were
transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice
Age, without the assistance of humans."
"3.6. Non-native species have been introduced to Great Britain,
either deliberately or accidentally, by humans.
However, this criterion is profoundly flawed and could only be
credible if the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of
nature.
So is man part of nature, Malcolm?
>
>>And if you don't bother me I shan't bother you and we won't bore the
>>pants of others.
>>
>>How's that for a deal?
>>
>I'll wait for your first evidenceless claim of the New Year :-)
>
>I'll also suggest you will bore fewer people if you confine your
>postings to uk.environment.conservation and leave the denizens of this
>ng to cope with their existing, resident, troll.
Does that mean you're staying here?
Robert Peffers
"Magnus" <also....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEEA08ED3FF7...@69.16.176.253...
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> news:Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CEE6CE2A...@62.141.42.83...
>>> Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in news:2009122623484416807-
>>> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacm...@aol.com said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other
>>>>> Bollocks" by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0)
>>>>> and although only into the first few pages, it seems to be making
>>>>> the point that a lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and
>>>>> opinions presented as "facts".
>>
>> Surefire best-seller.
>> Check the top twenty on Amazon. Last time I checked about half of them
>> had titles along the lines of "Buy this book and stop feeling guilty
>> about destroying your kids future"
>> I bought three or four myself.
>>
>> It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think you'll find it's midwinter primarily in the northern hemisphere,
> unless of course it's snowing on Bondi Beach.
Eve while my sister in Australia does the same from her window.
We mail these pictures to each other.
Nope, it is not snowing in Australia but I'm unable to get my vehicle down
my drive.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7ppo6h...@mid.individual.net...
--
Auld Bob
HardySpicer
> "Magnus" <also.sec...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CEEA08ED3FF7...@69.16.176.253...
>
> > "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> >news:Z6Odndy5_LvV86rW...@westnet.com.au:
>
> >> "soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9CEE6CE2A...@62.141.42.83...
> >>> thecroft@macunlimitednet:
>
> >>>> On 2009-12-26 11:09:33 +0000, amacmil...@aol.com said:
>
> >>>>> I have been given a book called "Global Warming - and other
> >>>>> Bollocks" by Professors Feldman and Marks (ISBN 978-1-84454-718-0)
> >>>>> and although only into the first few pages, it seems to be making
> >>>>> the point that a lot of "science" is agenda driven with beliefs and
> >>>>> opinions presented as "facts".
>
> >> Surefire best-seller.
> >> Check the top twenty on Amazon. Last time I checked about half of them
> >> had titles along the lines of "Buy this book and stop feeling guilty
> >> about destroying your kids future"
> >> I bought three or four myself.
>
> >> It is Mid-Winter all over the planet after all.
>
> > I think you'll find it's midwinter primarily in the northern hemisphere,
> > unless of course it's snowing on Bondi Beach.
>
> It is a family tradition that I take pictures from my window on Christmas
> Eve while my sister in Australia does the same from her window.
> We mail these pictures to each other.
> Nope, it is not snowing in Australia but I'm unable to get my vehicle down
> my drive.
> --
>
> Auld Bob
What's your point Bob? Remember 1963? (061 was it?) just as bad snow-
wise. Also 13 years ago or so it was -20C in Glasgow - rememebr it
well. -30C further north. People have very short memories. If there is
one thing you can be sure about in the UK and that's that every time
it snows the people think it is a disaster and for some reason the
authorities get caught out. Ask the population who is the best singer
of all time and you get an asnwer "Robbie Williams" or some such.
Memories go back very short times. For your info, Ozz is bloody hot at
present and so is NZ - but it always is at this time of year too.
I think Ozz has been getting warmer than normal but who knows the
reason. Certainly not the climate scientists.
Hardy
Fred J. McCall
:On 2009-12-27 10:42:12 +0000, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> said:
:>
:> The % annual change in
:> water vapour year on year is probably way more than changes in CO2 in
:> the last 100 years to such an extent that it would swamp any changes
:> in CO2.
:
:You're making the assumption that both are equally effective as green
:house gases. They're not.
:
No, they aren't. WATER is a much more 'effective' greenhouse gas than
CO2 (as are a large number of other things floating about in the
atmosphere).
:>
:> And therein lies the question. If global warming is a natural phenomena,
:> should we be squandering money on an endless procession of junkets like
:> Copenhagen and funding scaremongering scientists research and pointless
:> expensive carbon emission controls? Or would we be better spending it
:> on flood defences?
:
:You're missing the point. This isn't an "either/or" question - it's a
:"both/and" issue. There are both natural AND man-made components to
:global warming.
:
Still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
:
:Incidentally, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway
:- they are a finite resource.
:
Quite right, and that transition probably ought to be dictated by the
price of fossil fuels and the price of alternatives.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.com> writes
>>>>>that weren't there to fit the green agenda.
>>>>
>RH
>>>
>>>Kindly explain why discussion of material which exposes a major fraud
>>>with an impact on Scottish finances and infrastructure is off-topic.
>>
>>
>> I refer you to the creature Guig who insists that only topics
>> exclusively about Scotch politics are on topic in this ng.... RH
>
>Let's see your proof then. Oh wait, you were asked this before and
>couldn't.
Just ask the creature Guig to deny it.... RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Ian Smith
wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
Well I had thought along those lines myself. Since FF now appears to be
leaving the "cheap and plenty" era, the upwards cost pressure should
concentrate many minds on alternatives and spawn many new innovations.
--
Calendar - http://www.1r5.net
Magnus
<grin> I take your point.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Well I had thought along those lines myself. Since FF now appears to be
:leaving the "cheap and plenty" era, the upwards cost pressure should
:concentrate many minds on alternatives and spawn many new innovations.
:
Provided we can keep Government from trying to pick winners and losers
via tax policies and subsidies, I believe you are quite correct. As
China wants more and more petroleum, demand is going to outstrip
supply and that is going to drive prices up quickly.
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Peter Jason
"Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote in
message news:eb9_m.1364$%05...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Curious, but all the science boffins and their Aspergers
haven't considered limiting the number of children a woman
can have. This, and I mean this, is the fundamental
SCIENTIFIC cause of commodity shortages, the
"global-warming" neuroses, huge movements of populations
with the resulting warsand pestilences , and the ongoing
African and usurping-Israelis disasters.
Limiting births, even to two children per woman, would
ameliorate the ongoing world's problems.
Of course this is *so* obvious no one can see it.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4723 (20091228) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
HardySpicer
> "Ian Smith" <ianinho...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote in
> messagenews:eb9_m.1364$%05...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:26:12 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> > couldnae haud thur
> > wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
>
Also a vegetarian diet is important. Less cows farting - and sheep.
Believe it or not they take the farting very seriously here in NZ - at
least whatever end the gases come out.
Hardy
Scotty
>>Coming from a rabid anti-science usefull-idiot who was only yesterday caught
>>out blatantly lying about the data you've sure got a lot of gall to be
>>posting such jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
>
>What data are you on about? Did you mean this? It comes from a reliable
>source:
>
>Global air temperature 2008 anomaly +0.33C ([only] 10th warmest on record)
See this link, it even shows the turning point/decline:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
HardySpicer
You cannot deduce anything from that graph though. Yes it has a dip
downwards but insuffiecient data to saywhether that will continue. It
could be a blip.
Certainly looks like it has risen by about 1C over the last century if
the measurements are right. It could be a plateau as well. The
temperature change is so small however that I doubt that they could
even be sure that the measurements are right. I can see why they would
think it is still rising. The layman would certainly think tha,t but
we cannot jump to conclusions. This reminds me of somebody I know who
when doing their masters degree in agriculture was checking whether
feeding a certain kind of feed versus ordinary feed made the cows
yield more milk. Well, to begin with the new feed did nothing but
after a few weeks it caught up and over took the old feed. Then they
were going neck and neck when...he ran out of new feed! Since the
trend was up and up he assumed that the new feed would be better in
the long term than ordinary feed., However, that is a false assumption
since the data was not there to prove it.
So, we have to wait and see maybe another 20 odd years. the arguments
will still go on since if we do reduce Co2 and the temp goes down then
proposers of the Co2 argument will claim it is due to their prompt
action!! if it goes on up then the warmists can claim victory in as
much as claiming that the temp is indeed going up. They may even make
a claim that it is dues to humans - but, that still may not be the
case.
Hardy
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <MfidnWD3ZIAbuKTW...@netspace.net.au>, Peter
>Jason <p...@jostle.com> writes
>>
>>Curious, but all the science boffins and their Aspergers
>>haven't considered limiting the number of children a woman
>>can have. This, and I mean this, is the fundamental
>>SCIENTIFIC cause of commodity shortages, the
>>"global-warming" neuroses, huge movements of populations
>>with the resulting warsand pestilences , and the ongoing
>>African and usurping-Israelis disasters.
>>
>>Limiting births, even to two children per woman, would
>>ameliorate the ongoing world's problems.
>>
>Hmm, there appears to be a gap in your knowledge.
>
>China has had such a policy for the last 30 years.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
How about your "knowledge", Malcolm?
I posted this yesterday and you haven't resopnded.
"A key criterion set by the conservation industry for determining if a
species is "native" is that it should have evolved with all other
species within its own ecosystem and not have been introduced or
assisted by man to arrive at what is regarded as its natural location.
In short, it should have got to where it is by its own efforts and
evolved naturally. If man assisted it, it is regarded as
"non-native".
This is confirmed in Scottish Natural Heritage's website:
"3.5. Native species are presumed to be those that are present in
Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were
transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice
Age, without the assistance of humans."
"3.6. Non-native species have been introduced to Great Britain,
either deliberately or accidentally, by humans.
However, this criterion is profoundly flawed and could only be
credible if the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of
nature.
So is man part of nature, Malcolm?"
So is man part of nature, Malcolm and what scientific evidence do you
have to say he isn't?
Ian Smith
wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
> Ian Smith <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
>
> :
> :Well I had thought along those lines myself. Since FF now appears to be
> :leaving the "cheap and plenty" era, the upwards cost pressure should
> :concentrate many minds on alternatives and spawn many new innovations.
> :
>
> Provided we can keep Government from trying to pick winners and losers
> via tax policies and subsidies, I believe you are quite correct. As
> China wants more and more petroleum, demand is going to outstrip supply
> and that is going to drive prices up quickly.
Yes, but unfortunately it is very difficult to keep government in check.
The power-grabbers within just cannot leave things alone.
Ian Smith
Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a far
more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to generate
enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw materials required
without having to dig them out of the ground. We're talking a century or 2
from now. So, fewer babies until then would be really smart.
However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls the
population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong negative
tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <icojj558mo86prsie...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:43:34 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <MfidnWD3ZIAbuKTW...@netspace.net.au>, Peter
>>>Jason <p...@jostle.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>Curious, but all the science boffins and their Aspergers
>>>>haven't considered limiting the number of children a woman
>>>>can have. This, and I mean this, is the fundamental
>>>>SCIENTIFIC cause of commodity shortages, the
>>>>"global-warming" neuroses, huge movements of populations
>>>>with the resulting warsand pestilences , and the ongoing
>>>>African and usurping-Israelis disasters.
>>>>
>>>>Limiting births, even to two children per woman, would
>>>>ameliorate the ongoing world's problems.
>>>>
>>>Hmm, there appears to be a gap in your knowledge.
>>>
>>>China has had such a policy for the last 30 years.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
>>
>>
>>How about your "knowledge", Malcolm?
>>
>>I posted this yesterday and you haven't resopnded.
>>
>So when I respond you say I'm stalking you and when I don't you post to
>ask why not. You're confused again, Angus.
No Malcolm. I'm pointing out you don't answer questions you find
awkward.
>
>snip endlessly reposted extract from SNH website.
And you snip the evidence against you.
"3.5. Native species are presumed to be those that are present in
Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were
transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice
Age, without the assistance of humans."
This shows that SNH regard the activities of humans as divorced from
nature.
>>
>>However, this criterion is profoundly flawed and could only be
>>credible if the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of
>>nature.
>>
>That is merely your opinion, Angus. Nothing more and of no consequence
>whatsoever.
What evidence have you to say that?
>
>>So is man part of nature, Malcolm?"
>>
>>
>>So is man part of nature, Malcolm and what scientific evidence do you
>>have to say he isn't?
>>
>I've already told you that I agree with the SNH website descriptions of
>native and non-native, which are based on internationally agreed
>criteria.
Which excludes the activities of man from nature.
So I ask you again. Is man part of nature or not?
Simple question. Why not answer it?
>Why you need to ask again, I can't imagine, unless you wish to
>give yet further proof that you cannot understand the written word.
>
Because you haven't answered the question. I even suggested you asked
you buddy Professor Harris if man was or was not part of nature and
let me know what he said. But you didn't want to do that. Why not?
>In any case, the reason you keep harping on and on about the subject is
>because you've decided that you want to save the grey squirrel from
>being culled - thereby dooming the red squirrel to extinction in
>Britain, something you don't seem to care about - which is forcing you
>to come up with your repeated nonsense claims that, firstly, the red
>squirrel isn't native because there isn't a continuous day-to-day record
>of them in Britain from the time of the last ice age to the present day
>(as if there was for any of the tens of thousands of native species of
>animals and plants), and, secondly, that introduced species like the
>grey squirrel aren't non-native because man's transporting them across
>the Atlantic was somehow "natural".
That sounds like you won't answer the question because it would
confirm I'm correct. Just because you're asked a question that
undermines the credibility of your agenda doesn't mean it shouldn't be
answered.
>
>I've no doubt that you will continue in these sad and futile beliefs for
>a long time to come, but do, please, cease boring the pants off readers
>of the newsgroups to which you keep posting your nonsense views.
They go much further than newsgroups, Malcolm and have not yet been
countered.
amacm...@aol.com
<ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
What about the large families of the unemployed?
Fred J. McCall
:
:Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a far
:more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to generate
:enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw materials required
:without having to dig them out of the ground. We're talking a century or 2
:from now. So, fewer babies until then would be really smart.
:
If you look at the current trends, world population will flatten and
start declining all by itself by then. It looks like it'll peak
around 30-40 years from now and then flatten out.
:
:However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls the
:population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong negative
:tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
:
Social engineering via tax policy? Hardly the libertarian ideal...
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Ian Smith
wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
> Ian Smith <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
>
> :
> :Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a
> far :more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to
> generate :enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw
> materials required :without having to dig them out of the ground. We're
> talking a century or 2 :from now. So, fewer babies until then would be
> really smart. :
>
> If you look at the current trends, world population will flatten and
> start declining all by itself by then. It looks like it'll peak around
> 30-40 years from now and then flatten out.
I hope you're right. I also hope that mass starvation and wars are not
involved in the process.
> :However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls
> the :population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong
> negative :tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
> :
>
> Social engineering via tax policy? Hardly the libertarian ideal...
I know. Ok, not a very good suggestion; but maybe less damaging to freedom
than other possible measures.
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:02:49 -0700, Fred J. McCall couldnae haud thur
:wheesht ony mair an' gied us this:
:
:> Ian Smith <ianin...@btinternet.com.removethis> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Population control would be a prudent measure until we can sort out a
:> far :more sustainable future, for sure. By that I mean we are able to
:> generate :enough power to run everything _and_ synthesise any raw
:> materials required :without having to dig them out of the ground. We're
:> talking a century or 2 :from now. So, fewer babies until then would be
:> really smart. :
:>
:> If you look at the current trends, world population will flatten and
:> start declining all by itself by then. It looks like it'll peak around
:> 30-40 years from now and then flatten out.
:
:I hope you're right. I also hope that mass starvation and wars are not
:involved in the process.
:
It's based on declining birth rates.
:> :However, the libertarian in me is in a quandary as to how one controls
:> the :population without impinging on personal freedom. Perhaps strong
:> negative :tax implications for having more than "x" number of children?
:> :
:>
:> Social engineering via tax policy? Hardly the libertarian ideal...
:
:I know. Ok, not a very good suggestion; but maybe less damaging to freedom
:than other possible measures.
:
The only way you get that kind of change is by changing societal
attitudes. Tax laws don't do that.
Scotty
You are quite right, it is far too soon to gloat which is why I said to
Adam, "lets talk again in another ten years". The significance of the dip,
to me, is that the temp is turning/plateaing/declining is happening in the
face of continually rising CO2. You have to see both together. And don't
forget that we have now moved down the temp curve by ten years in spite of
runaway increases in CO2 which the alarmists insist are causing warming.
I have said many times that the planet is warming and has been warming
since the end of the mini ice age, nothing new there, except that "we" were
not there to produce the CO2 that initiated or caused the end of the MIA.
It also started warming before the Industrial Revolution and the rate of
rise of temperature doesn't show any inflection during or after the
industrial revolution and has in fact declined for abt. the last ten years!
>So, we have to wait and see maybe another 20 odd years. the arguments
>will still go on since if we do reduce Co2 and the temp goes down then
>proposers of the Co2 argument will claim it is due to their prompt
>action!! if it goes on up then the warmists can claim victory in as
>much as claiming that the temp is indeed going up. They may even make
>a claim that it is dues to humans - but, that still may not be the
>case.
>Hardy
Yep, there is always the chance that the alarmists will claim victory and
say, "it was us for raising the awareness that prevented runaway warming".
Ah well, you've just got to take your knocks. Remember, my thesis is that
the warming we have seen over the last 3-400 years is a naturally occurring
cycle that started without us and was not CAUSED or exacerbated by CO2.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <ksujj55jdj63ela7s...@4ax.com>,
>You don't ask "awkward" questions, Angus. Your questions are nonsense
>ones, silly ones, occasionally stupid ones, or often enough meaningless
>ones. Then, of course, there are the questions you ask of someone who
>has asked you for your evidence for a claim you've just made and for
>which you haven't any, so in desperation you ask the questioner to
>provide their evidence instead.
No, Malcolm. I'm asking you a simple question. Is man part of nature
or not? Why won't you answer it? Yes or no will do.
>
>>>
>>>snip endlessly reposted extract from SNH website.
>>
>>And you snip the evidence against you.
>>
>That isn't evidence "against" anyone.
Of course it's evidence.
�3.5. Native species are presumed to be those that are present in
Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were
transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice
Age, without the assistance of humans.�
It's absolutely clear that SNH regard the activities of humans as
divorced from nature - and you agree with them.
>Your incomprehension just plumbed
>new depths. It is a set of criteria that have been agreed
>internationally.
I don't care whether God himself has agreed it; it's factually wrong.
And look how the climate change issue is falling apart. I seem to
remember you saying that 160 countries signed up to it. How signed up
to Copenhagen? The whole fake conservation and environmental
industru is falling apart - and not before time.
>Just because, with your obsession with the grey
>squirrel, you don't want to believe in them, doesn't change the fact
>that they exist and have been adopted internationally.
But for how long?
>>
>>>>
>>>>However, this criterion is profoundly flawed and could only be
>>>>credible if the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of
>>>>nature.
>>>>
>>>That is merely your opinion, Angus. Nothing more and of no consequence
>>>whatsoever.
>>
>>What evidence have you to say that?
>>
>It's obviously your opinion, as you have stated it. It isn't anything
>more than your opinion, because I've never seen anyone else express a
>similar opinion, and it is of no consequence whatsoever because your
>opinion isn't going to change the criteria or the fact that they have
>been internationally agreed.
Probably because it's not been questioned before.
>
>>>
>>>>So is man part of nature, Malcolm?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So is man part of nature, Malcolm and what scientific evidence do you
>>>>have to say he isn't?
>>>>
>>>I've already told you that I agree with the SNH website descriptions of
>>>native and non-native, which are based on internationally agreed
>>>criteria.
>>
>>Which excludes the activities of man from nature.
>>
>>So I ask you again. Is man part of nature or not?
>>
>>Simple question. Why not answer it?
>>
>Your powers of comprehension have just hit even lower depths.
It's nothing to do with "comprehension".
Why not answer the question. "Yes" or "No".
>>
>>
>>>Why you need to ask again, I can't imagine, unless you wish to
>>>give yet further proof that you cannot understand the written word.
>>>
>>
>>Because you haven't answered the question. I even suggested you asked
>>you buddy Professor Harris if man was or was not part of nature and
>>let me know what he said. But you didn't want to do that. Why not?
>>
>Why on earth should I?
Because he'd rightly think you were daft.
>He's just co-edited the new Mammals of the
>British Isles which doesn't include man.
Has he contributed to it? I understand there 118 authors.
>If he agreed with you, the book
>would have had to include man, wouldn't it?
So you're saying he agrees with you?
Can I qoute you on that and write to him?
>>
>>>In any case, the reason you keep harping on and on about the subject is
>>>because you've decided that you want to save the grey squirrel from
>>>being culled - thereby dooming the red squirrel to extinction in
>>>Britain, something you don't seem to care about - which is forcing you
>>>to come up with your repeated nonsense claims that, firstly, the red
>>>squirrel isn't native because there isn't a continuous day-to-day record
>>>of them in Britain from the time of the last ice age to the present day
>>>(as if there was for any of the tens of thousands of native species of
>>>animals and plants), and, secondly, that introduced species like the
>>>grey squirrel aren't non-native because man's transporting them across
>>>the Atlantic was somehow "natural".
>>
>>That sounds like you won't answer the question because it would
>>confirm I'm correct.
>
>Ah yes, the well-known ability of Angus to make assumptions based on
>wishful thinking and not facts. Still, I note you haven't denied
>anything I said about your motives.
It's nothing to do with "motives". It's a simple question. Is man
part of nature or not?
>
>> Just because you're asked a question that
>>undermines the credibility of your agenda doesn't mean it shouldn't be
>>answered.
>>
>The question doesn't "undermine" anything.
Of course it does and that's why you have difficulty in answering it.
>It is a nonsense question
>posed by someone obsessed with trying to stop grey squirrel culls even
>though this will mean the extinction of the red squirrel in Britain.
>
Why is man not part of nature?
>>>
>>>I've no doubt that you will continue in these sad and futile beliefs for
>>>a long time to come, but do, please, cease boring the pants off readers
>>>of the newsgroups to which you keep posting your nonsense views.
>>
>>They go much further than newsgroups, Malcolm and have not yet been
>>countered.
>>
>Well, we've only your word for that, haven't we?
Sure you do.
>Please let us know when
>the internationally-agreed criteria get changed as a result of your
>nonsense claims, but until then cease boring the pants off readers of
>these newsgroups.
It's you who's prolonging the discussion.
All you have to do is answer the question.
HardySpicer
Well my sister is a bit of an ecologist and a trainied Geologist. even
she is doubtful about the current theories of warming.
Hardy
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:P6GdnRgkVoeNbaXW...@bt.com...
>
> "Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:7ppo6h...@mid.individual.net...
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>> amacm...@aol.com wrote in
>>> news:th4fj55cdhu8p4g64...@4ax.com:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:43:32 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
>>> slanging match. Zzzzzzzzzz!
>>
>> Ideas are not responsible for their followers.
>>
> Assuming, of course, there was reason in the arena to begin with.
Quite.
I gave up trying to debate politely or reason with these lunatics months
ago. Complete waste of time.
I really tried with Scotty, mountains of the latest scientific papers
referenced, all the latest figures from GISS, CRU and the rest - and what do
I get in return - blatant lies.
IMO there is nothing more insulting than a lie.
But then that's just me.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
news:8sghj55sg15bko94j...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:3ltej5hju9o6bqbkd...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Climate Scientists did apparently: "doubt their own theories and their
>>> own
>>> results". But then proceeded to manipulate the data,
>
> Dropping instrumental readings into what purported to be a Paleo record
> because their tree rings didn't show a rise?
ER.. the tree rings DID show a rise.
That was the point. The instrumental readings showed a decline in
convergence. The tree rings showed a greater rise in temps than was actually
recorded.
This had already been discussed in at least two papers that he had already
published in the peer reviewed literature.
Trey to get something right.
> Or Trenberth, I think, saying," we can't explain the decline and it is a
> travesty".
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted
(among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves
that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If
one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is
discussing, his meaning becomes clear.
If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing
fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An
imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy
(Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much
net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also
discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of
our climate system.
Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to
increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago
but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m2 over the 2000 to 2005 period,
as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy
imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is
that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still
happening.
Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface
temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability".
But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes
involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere.
Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did
the 2008 La Nina rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the
above? Trenberth wants answers!
So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget,
tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A
global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x
1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going
into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:
a.. Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year
b.. Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year
c.. Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year
d.. Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year
e.. Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year
f.. Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from
2004 to 2008)
These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 1020 joules per year.
This falls well short of the total 145 x 1020 joules per year (although the
error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation
systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global
warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites
find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more
accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the
energy budget.
So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to
900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered
below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von
Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down
to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been
accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat
would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite
measurements of net energy imbalance. However, von Schuckmann's results were
published after Trenberth's paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays
out in future papers.
So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he
meant was this:
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating
heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track
of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively
explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years.
That's a travesty!"
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as
secretive and deceptive. However, * when one takes the trouble to acquaint
oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent*
Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating
his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's
opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet.
They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and
much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email..."
Next?
>
> Tom Wigley (his boss), emailed Jones saying it would have been easier to
> admit the data's shortcomings.
ER - no he didn't. That's just another rightardfact you've swallowed hook
line and sinker - how surprising.
"Why, why, why did you not simply say this right at the start?"
Like in the peer-reviewed papers he published earlier you mean?
> And that's just off the top of my head. How many more examples do you
> want?
Oh I KNOW it's all off the 'Top of your head' Scotty.
That much is obvious.
Give me one single example that stands up to more than a few seconds of
scrutiny.
I get bored debunking the same old shallow lies.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events as I've
shown you and you choose to ignore.
except that "we" were
> not there to produce the CO2 that initiated or caused the end of the MIA.
Natural regional event - get over it. The debate has long since moved on
from that tired old denier canard that 'the world was warmer in the MWP'.
It wasn't. I'm not going to reference all the studies that show this AGAIN
as you will just ignore the science and continue blithely parroting this
weeks new line of bunk.
I'm still wating for you to explain how the basic laws of physics no longer
apply to Co2. Go back to square one and show me how you have come to the
conclusion that Co2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
How can there NOT be an overall energy imbalance? All the rest is politics
not science.
> It also started warming before the Industrial Revolution and the rate of
> rise of temperature doesn't show any inflection during or after the
> industrial revolution and has in fact declined for abt. the last ten
> years!
>
> Yep, there is always the chance that the alarmists will claim victory and
> say, "it was us for raising the awareness that prevented runaway warming".
> Ah well, you've just got to take your knocks. Remember, my thesis is that
> the warming we have seen over the last 3-400 years is a naturally
> occurring
> cycle that started without us and was not CAUSED or exacerbated by CO2.
Your 'thesis'!!
Bwhahahahahahahaaa.
Stop it - you're killing me. And as for 'claiming victory' - jeez - you
think I *want* to see the end of my comfortable western existance?! I'm too
old for this survivalist shit.
And I havn't got the time nor the energy to go through every one of your
dozens of grossly innacurate lines of pure bunk.
But then that's how anti-science works. That's what you count on isn't it.
That you can come up with more junk quicker than the real scientists can
refute it.
Meanwhile, today - this very day - is the hottest in 800,000 years. You guys
are just sad.
HardySpicer
It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
at all.
They are victims of a cult. Don't get me wrang though. I am in favour
of reducing polutants - by increasing Nuclear power facilities. This
is the one and only way at present. I don't care if the temp is going
up or down, reducing pollutants is always a good thing. We're just a
little behind technology wise at present to live life normally if we
use renuwable energy. You can see on this pro-renewable site (which is
biased as hell)
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/spain-sets-wind-power-generation-record/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figures came as the World Wildlife Fund praised Spain’s rapid move
into renewable energies. Spain has also earned praises from WWF for
its overall effort in developing renewable energy during the past 12
years. By the next year Spain aims to meet 30% of its annual
electricity demand from renewable sources.
-----------------------------------------
30% is not bad but a little optimistic. who knows, they may make it -
but there is a little trouble is there not with the renmaining 70%!!!
LOL
Hardy
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>
But can we trust any scientists?
Evidential claims made by conservationists are frequently littered
with slippery qualifiers that include words like �presumed to be�,
�thought to be�, �possibly�, �perhaps�, �may be�, etc. and used as
escape routes from being held to account. The careful reader is well
advised to look out for these qualifiers before coming to any
conclusion as to the merit of any particular claim.
amacm...@aol.com
wrote:
>
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/01/giss-data-manipulated.html
HardySpicer
I would be careful with this kind of Science but to sya you cannot
trust Scientists is taking it a bit far.
When Science has political motives the truth often gets a little
"bent" one way or another and is open to some interpretation.
What is wrong is that only one side is getting a say at present. Too
many do-gooders, pop-stars and general wankers are getting air-time
and the real debate is being lost. The real debate is simple...this 1C
increase in temp...is it being caused by humans or is it natural? To
me the answer is simple - stop using oil immediately. Go back to horse
and cart. No cosmetics for women, no plastics, no PCs any more - no
internet- get rid of mobile phones and we all turn vegan. That otta do
it. - forgot - no planes or ships either. - or TV. (TVs have loads of
plastics which come from nasty oil). Better not burn wood either ir
coal.
Hardy
Hardy
amacm...@aol.com
I think the problem is that too many scientists are in the pockets of
political and manufacturing agendas. If they're employed or receive
grants from governments or big business then they have to come up with
the "right" scientific answers. Perhaps the solution might be for an
independent organisation that gets money up front for evaluating ideas
and products that are submitted anonymously so that they are free to
arrive at considered opinions without outside pressure.
>When Science has political motives the truth often gets a little
>"bent" one way or another and is open to some interpretation.
>What is wrong is that only one side is getting a say at present. Too
>many do-gooders, pop-stars and general wankers are getting air-time
>and the real debate is being lost. The real debate is simple...this 1C
>increase in temp...is it being caused by humans or is it natural? To
>me the answer is simple - stop using oil immediately. Go back to horse
>and cart. No cosmetics for women, no plastics, no PCs any more - no
>internet- get rid of mobile phones and we all turn vegan. That otta do
>it. - forgot - no planes or ships either. - or TV. (TVs have loads of
>plastics which come from nasty oil). Better not burn wood either ir
>coal.
And no-one wants that.
The climate change talks are doomed to failure because economic
considerations outweigh any wish to save the planet - if it needs
saving.
I get the feeling that we are probably contributing a bit to global
warming but it appears the planet has been warm before and not a lot
happened. I think that makes me a skeptic.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
:news:P6GdnRgkVoeNbaXW...@bt.com...
:>
:> "Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
:> news:7ppo6h...@mid.individual.net...
:>> soupdragon wrote:
:>>>
:>>> Oh dear! Another potentially interesting thread reduced to a personal
:>>> slanging match. Zzzzzzzzzz!
:>>
:>> Ideas are not responsible for their followers.
:>>
:> Assuming, of course, there was reason in the arena to begin with.
:
:Quite.
:I gave up trying to debate politely or reason with these lunatics months
:ago. Complete waste of time.
:
Don't look now, but you and your ilk are the *problem*.
:
:IMO there is nothing more insulting than a lie.
:But then that's just me.
:
Yes, it is, and we would all be better served if you would stop lying
and disrupting discussions with your 'debating' tactics.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:atidnYOfvI1IOqfW...@westnet.com.au...
> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
> Meanwhile, today - this very day - is the hottest in 800,000 years. You
> guys are just sad.
It was "A thousand years" three posts ago.
Have you no short term memory whatsoever?
Robert Peffers
"conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QN2dnfVpI8v28abW...@giganews.com...
--
Auld Bob
Scotty
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
>of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
>at all.
>They are victims of a cult. Don't get me wrong though. I am in favour
>of reducing polutants - by increasing Nuclear power facilities. This
I don't know if you've seen the reports, maybe it was Jason who commented
that with the anticipated water shortages we would have to start using
de-salination plants.
Well the UAE has decided to go there and they need the power to drive it,
so they have just placed an order for four nuclear plants for $80B.
The surprise was that they didn't get them from the US: they're getting
them from South Korea!
>is the one and only way at present. I don't care if the temp is going
>up or down, reducing pollutants is always a good thing. We're just a
>little behind technology wise at present to live life normally if we
>use renuwable energy. You can see on this pro-renewable site (which is
>biased as hell)
>
>http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/spain-sets-wind-power-generation-record/
Did you look at this link on the same page as above?
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/japan-wind-power-project-threatened/
They don't use the terminology but it should be, "network stability",
applies equally to the Spanish surge in generation, a very serious problem,
your baseload stations can't turn the wick down quickly enough and the
whole network oscillates.
Scott.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF173643...@62.141.42.83...
>> Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events as
>> I've shown you and you choose to ignore.
>
> Really? http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html says the opposite
> was the case and backs it up with recorded examples. This is an AGW site
> but points out both were global phenomena although not all areas were
> equally effected.
Yep really.
I can only assume that that site is old, or the author hasn't been keeping
up to date with the latest research.
The latest study was completed earlier this year.
If you don't mind I'll just block and paste an earlier post I made on this
subject in reply to Scotty, who had just deliberately misquoted this peice
of research - I presume he thought I hadn't read it from cover to cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[me]
"....I just pointed you to the latest global scientific research from:
Michael E. Mann,
Zhihua Zhang
Scott Rutherford
Raymond S. Bradley'
Malcolm K. Hughes
Drew Shindell
Caspar Ammann,
Greg Faluvegi,
and Fenbiao Ni
Almost all of them heads of departments and teams of climatologists at:
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
Pennsylvania State University,
Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol,
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts..
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York.
Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder.
Who ALL agree that their vast combined study of the data (thousands of
man-hours) shows that the so-called Medieval Warming Period was a localised
event centred primarily on the North Atlantic (that's near Greenland
Scotty).
They didn't use 'a few sediments in Norway' , they used a global "..network
of diverse climate proxies such as tree ring samples, ice cores, coral and
sediments.." to reconstruct spatial patterns of ocean and land surface
temperature over the past 1500 years. They found that the patterns of
temperature change show dynamic connections to natural phenomena such as El
Ni�o.
Mann and his colleagues reproduced the relatively cool interval from the
1400s to the 1800s known as the "Little Ice Age" and the relatively mild
conditions of the 900s to 1300s sometimes termed the "Medieval Warm Period."
The researchers found that "...1,000 years ago, *.regions such as southern
Greenland may have been as warm as today. However, a very large area
covering much of the tropical Pacific was unusually cold at the same time *,
suggesting the cold La Ni�a phase of the El Ni�o phenomenon....
....This regional cooling offset relative warmth in other locations, helping
to
explain previous observations that * the globe and Northern hemisphere on
average were not as warm as they are today*..."
My astericks.
I expect there are dozens of websites out there who don't keep abreast of
all the latest research. It's almost a full-time job keeping up.
The paper is entitled 'Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little
Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly'
and is available here: [you'll have to block and paste the url]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;326/5957/1256?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Global+Signatures+and+Dynamical+Origins+of+the+Little+Ice+Age+and+Medieval+Climate+Anomaly&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Adam Whyte-Settlar
And I think you'll find I said 'thousands' of years. I certainly meant to.
The estimates range from about 120,000 to over a million.
My favourite is 800,000 years as that was the last time we had Co2 at the
levels they are at today.
Whatever. I'm not going to die in a trench defending that figure as no-one
knows for sure once you go back 120,000 years SFAICA.
But! It's much hotter (globaly) now than during the MWP in the North
Atlantic which is the point that most people have yet failed to understand.
I can appreciate why they are confused. Even I was taught about the MWP as a
kid at school and the presumption was that it was probably global. But the
technology wasn't available back then and it's since been disvovered that it
was a localised event with the main area (though not all) of the warming
being in the North Atlantic.
Interestingly, even during the so-called 'Mini Ice Age' - also a localised
event - the seas around Greenland stayed *much* warmer than other areas too.
Weird.
Probably something to do with the warm ocean currents of the time. A bit
like the Gulf Stream nowadays which keeps the seas off the west coast of
Britain - and especially Scotland - ice free in winter, even though Scotland
is on the same latitude as Moscow. Seems reasonable to me.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
: )
I'm writing this from Australia. So that *proves* I'm right.
You get those nasty Easterlies in Kelty. Throws all those years of global
climate study right out of wack.
"Australia records hottest six months on record"
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-records-hottest-six-months-on-record-20091209-kjd5.html
Yes - I do know it's only weather - but just thought you might be interested
in a heart-warming story as you freeze your balls off in Kelty.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:04:41 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
> <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the majority
>>of hype. They take everything at face value and have no discrimination
>>at all.
>>They are victims of a cult.
Oh the irony.
Coming from the king of the dupes. The sucker supreme for every
denialist-myth and op-ed piece of conspiracy-nut nonsense ever printed.
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
Aye! Where I am in Kelty we get the worst of the Easterlies as I'm out on
the east side of the village with the country park across the road. There is
no shelter from that side. My next door neighbours are two story and I'm a
one level cottage. When the cold North Sea wind starts driving in the snow
in it swirls round his drive and dumps the snow into my drive. He stays
clear and I have to dig my way out.
As it happens we have a family tradition. On Christmas eve I take either
photos or a short video and send to my sister in Queensland and she posts
the QL scene to me. I'm sitting with the heating going full blast, with a
quilted shirt and a thermal hat on while she sits out on the porch in her
swimwear.
--
Auld Bob
.
The Highlander
> "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
In Northern Canada once you leave Yellowknife and start heading into
the High Arctic, you'll find huge trucks using frozen rivers as
highways which have been bulldozed from the ice.
More recently, these roads have been extended to take advantage of the
sea, which freezes and stay frozen until the spring thaw.These trucks
carry diamond drilling equipment weighing hundred of thousands of
pounds and travel at high speed to make their next stop before
darkness sets in. The ice roads are checked regularly to ensure that
they are nor breaking up and it was the fact that they rarely do that
prompted the truckers to start using the Arctic ocean as a highway.
Just across the water, the Russians do the same thing with their
trucks to keep their Siberian settlements supplied. I don't know what
you'll make of the above, but it is a fact and I thought it might
interest you..
Cory Bhreckan
I used to believe in Global Warming but there's snow on the ground so I
can't anymore. Maybe if it gets hot again I can believe in Global
Warming again.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
>
>>
>> "soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CF173643...@62.141.42.83...
>>
>>>> Except that it hasn't of course. The MWP and MIA where local events
>>>> as I've shown you and you choose to ignore.
>>>
>>> Really? http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html says the
>>> opposite was the case and backs it up with recorded examples. This is
>>> an AGW site but points out both were global phenomena although not
>>> all areas were equally effected.
>>
>>
>> Yep really.
>
>
>> I can only assume that that site is old, or the author hasn't been
>> keeping up to date with the latest research.
>
>
>>
>> The latest study was completed earlier this year.
>>
>> If you don't mind I'll just block and paste an earlier post I made on
>> this subject in reply to Scotty,
>
>
> So essentially, your research agrees with the site I quoted -
No
MWP was
> a global phenomena, though not all areas -
No
such as those in the Pacific
> affected by El Nino - were equally effected.
No
Greenland was warm enough
> for Viking settlements.
Yes
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Even then it's a bit dodgy. We all know that El Nina events are
> sun-synchronous and last 11 years. How long was the MWP? Several hundred
> years! It's unlikely that a several hundred year event was restricted to a
> fairly small part of the earth.
Then I suggest that you contact the following leading climatologists at the
following institutions and inform them that you know better than them:
(Please let us know how you get on)
Michael E. Mann,
Zhihua Zhang
Scott Rutherford
Raymond S. Bradley'
Malcolm K. Hughes
Drew Shindell
Caspar Ammann,
Greg Faluvegi,
and Fenbiao Ni
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
conwaycaine
Is it ever a hot day in Scotland?
I remember one of our vaunted Scots complaining about the temperature
getting up to 70 degrees F.
He was about to have a heat stroke.
(Note to all Scots: you do not wish to move to Arizona)
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Yes - I do know it's only weather - but just thought you might be
> interested
> in a heart-warming story as you freeze your balls off in Kelty.
>
> Aye! Where I am in Kelty we get the worst of the Easterlies as I'm out on
> the east side of the village with the country park across the road. There
> is no shelter from that side. My next door neighbours are two story and
> I'm a one level cottage. When the cold North Sea wind starts driving in
> the snow in it swirls round his drive and dumps the snow into my drive. He
> stays clear and I have to dig my way out.
Thank you for reminding me why I chose to be in Queensland in January.
> As it happens we have a family tradition. On Christmas eve I take either
> photos or a short video and send to my sister in Queensland and she posts
> the QL scene to me. I'm sitting with the heating going full blast, with a
> quilted shirt and a thermal hat on while she sits out on the porch in her
> swimwear.
Furry boots in Queensland is she?
conwaycaine
> As it happens we have a family tradition. On Christmas eve I take either
> photos or a short video and send to my sister in Queensland and she posts
> the QL scene to me. I'm sitting with the heating going full blast, with a
> quilted shirt and a thermal hat on while she sits out on the porch in her
> swimwear.
> --
You've no woolen "Long Johns" in Scotland?
They would keep you warm no matter what the wind was doing.
And the flap in back comes in quite handy as well.
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
I'm sure rightard Christians are somehow involved in all
this...................
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>
> "conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:QN2dnfVpI8v28abW...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>> news:atidnYOfvI1IOqfW...@westnet.com.au...
>>> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> Meanwhile, today - this very day - is the hottest in 800,000 years. You
>>> guys are just sad.
>>
>> It was "A thousand years" three posts ago.
>> Have you no short term memory whatsoever?
>
>
> And I think you'll find I said 'thousands' of years. I certainly meant to.
>
I thought "a thousand years" but, fool that I am, I didn't preserve the
post.
La N
> On Dec 31, 12:33 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>> "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> the High Arctic, you'll find huge trucks using frozen rivers as
> highways which have been bulldozed from the ice.
>
> http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=ice+road+truckers+season+3&meta=&aq=0&oq=ice+road+truckers&fp=ca7bc37eb6518610
>
> More recently, these roads have been extended to take advantage of the
> sea, which freezes and stay frozen until the spring thaw.These trucks
> carry diamond drilling equipment weighing hundred of thousands of
> pounds and travel at high speed to make their next stop before
> darkness sets in. The ice roads are checked regularly to ensure that
> they are nor breaking up and it was the fact that they rarely do that
> prompted the truckers to start using the Arctic ocean as a highway.
> Just across the water, the Russians do the same thing with their
> trucks to keep their Siberian settlements supplied. I don't know what
> you'll make of the above, but it is a fact and I thought it might
> interest you..
A friend in Saskatchewan was recently offered work driving one of these
trucks. He would be paid $400/day with 20 days in and 20 days out (flown
back home) as a routine.
- nilita
La N
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:cvpnj59mnvfdh02os...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:04:41 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
>>> <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's sad that ordinary people like AWS are taken in with the
>>>> majority of hype. They take everything at face value and have no
>>>> discrimination at all.
>>>> They are victims of a cult.
>>
>> Oh the irony.
>> Coming from the king of the dupes. The sucker supreme for every
>> denialist-myth and op-ed piece of conspiracy-nut nonsense ever
>> printed.
>
> I used to believe in Global Warming but there's snow on the ground so
> I can't anymore. Maybe if it gets hot again I can believe in Global
> Warming again.
Cory, you're so wise. It's no wonder they named a religion after you.
- nil