Climategate

[DODGYDODDS]

Following on from wez's thread, just thought id put this up, as i hadn't seen it mentioned.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

 

A very strong case that evidence is withheld,falsified, and that cc as they say, may not be even happening. And evidence of collusion to get scientists with opposing views out of the peer review process. And

 

This treaty being proposed with affect bussiness, jobs, tax will go through the roof, It's crazy. And all on what now appears to be falsified science or at best patchy and inconclusive

 

CLIMATE GATE SONG

nEiLgbBGKVk

 

Now i dont dispute climate change, i just think it is a natural process at the mo, and not entirely man made as they'd have you believe.

[jevansio]

Tell ya what, I don't even need to watch the video, from the clip if a Polar Bear is standing with a stick pointing at graphs that enough for me to believe the icecaps are going mad

[AndyT]

Isn't that a surprise. Governments f+ck everyone over for another tax. Where does the wealth get distributed then?

I hate the way we're treated as plebs and not capable of of coming up with better ideas.

[DODGYDODDS]

Tell ya what, I don't even need to watch the video, from the clip if a Polar Bear is standing with a stick pointing at graphs that enough for me to believe the icecaps are going mad

It's a song mate, pretty funny

Isn't that a surprise. Governments f+ck everyone over for another tax. Where does the wealth get distributed then?

I hate the way we're treated as plebs and not capable of of coming up with better ideas.

 

wealth will be going to developing nations, we owe them apparantly

[Tannhauser]

I hate the way we're treated as plebs and not capable of of coming up with better ideas.

 

Hmm.

[jevansio]

Hmm.

Is this one of the thread types you mention in your other thread?

[Tannhauser]

Is this one of the thread types you mention in your other thread?

 

Sorry, you've lost me there.

[jevansio]

Sorry, you've lost me there.

A thread where you were on about people starting threads with no real understanding of the subject matter they are discussing,

 

Edit it was actually this post & funnily enough you refered to a post by the OP, that was not intentional by me (promise)

 

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showpost.php?p=2359541&postcount=25

 

The only reason I recall your thread is as what you said WRT "contributing to the ever-increasing pile of informational bullshit" actaull struck a chord with me

[Tannhauser]

A thread where you were on about people starting threads with no real understanding of the subject matter they are discussing,

 

Edit it was actually this post & funnily enough you refered to a post by the OP, that was not intentional by me (promise)

 

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showpost.php?p=2359541&postcount=25

 

Right, gotcha.

[jevansio]

Right, gotcha.

Like I say it was pure coincedence that the person in that thread & this thread are the same person, this thread just looked like another one of those "post some link & see what people say" threads without any real belief or opinion on the content

[AndyT]

wealth will be going to developing nations, we owe them apparantly

 

We owned 75% of the planet at one time. Apparently now we've been thrown out out of these countries we now owe them to keep the taps running.

[RedM]

We owned 75% of the planet at one time.

 

What did we ever do with all that sea? We let it run right through our fingers.

[Pot]

We let it run right through our fingers.

 

Water has a habit of doing that - We should have made loads of really big plastic buckets

[Tannhauser]

What did we ever do with all that sea? We let it run right through our fingers.

 

Very good

[DODGYDODDS]

A thread where you were on about people starting threads with no real understanding of the subject matter they are discussing,

 

uh hum, steady jay. You may like fraud i dont bud . A school kid can figure out the subject matter. There's lots to site but i dont think icba with an indepth itineray but the earth is actually cooling and has been since 1998.

 

The debate is not over that's the bottom line, even though many love the man made theroy and lap it up. Fact is there are so many factors, Solar cycle. Sea currents, interstellar radiation, earths magnetic field weakening, govt weather manipulation an e.g H.A.A.R.P .

 

If people want to pay carbon tax credits,basically a tax on breathing then i think they need their head looking at.

 

We reduce all our carbon by 40% one volcanic eruption wipes that offset out for years, I know lets plug or tax volcanoes

[AndrewOW]

e.g H.A.A.R.P

 

 

Bloody good concert that!

[Tannhauser]

 

We reduce all our carbon by 40% one volcanic eruption wipes that offset out for years, I know lets plug or tax volcanoes

 

Wrong on two counts.

 

Firstly, volcanoes tend to result in short term global cooling. The ash and SO2 result in increased filtering/scattering of solar radiation. There may even be a net drop in CO2 levels as a result of decreased soil respiration or increased solubility of CO2 in the oceans.

 

Secondly, even if this wasn't the case, it's just not true that the emissions are in any way comparable to man-made processes. Fossil fuel burning alone contributes around 7.5 billion tonnes/year. On average, volcanoes contribute about 0.15 billion tonnes/year.

[DODGYDODDS]

your up late mate.

 

Ok coulda picked better than vocanoes but isn't the percentage of co2 of total ammount that we humans contribute something like 3.2% the rest being natural, cows, termites etc .even if the kyoto protocol { granted failure} was followed and promptly, it would only have a 1/20th of a degree effect on global temperature by 2050 ( source Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service)

 

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small, perhaps undetectableeffect on global climate {thanks gc}

 

 

And not forgetting water, as that constitutes earths most significant green house gas i.e water vapour, accounting for around 95% {iirc} of the greenhouse effect, but most anthropogenic studies/facts/figures negate to include water vapour. carelessly {or perhaps deliberately} overstating human impacts. Of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

 

 

Just to clarify, i dont deny a climate change, i just hate the way it's mislead into saying it is all man. And then the following draconian marxist taxes/ rules and life invasion, by all the bureaucrats

 

On a side not cliff, what's your take on the schwarzschild proton.

[Ian C]

No all-caps sentences yet? I'm disappointed

[Richie-R]

Has anyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton ?

[AJI]

I've been following the MMGW theory for a while now and I'm 100% satisfied that its total bull.

(Actually there will be a MINUTE fraction of an effect, but its so insignificant that its basically undetectable).

 

All the reasoning by both sides of the argument have lead me to believe that the science used/manipulated is nowhere near accurate enough for any government to commit itself to spending billions of tax payer's money to fund their misguided crusade on this term of "saving the planet" !

 

But with the talks in Copenhagen taking place and the scientific advisors to governments spouting their crap about how man is to blame for both global warming AND cooling, they have been gullible enough to go in and sign away progress and development for many years to come.

 

How gullible do people really have to be to fall for a taxation policy (and dodgey science) that both taxes for warming AND cooling??

[DODGYDODDS]

No all-caps sentences yet? I'm disappointed

HERES ONE FOR YOU IAN

 

Has anyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton ?

Cant say i have mate

 

 

How gullible do people really have to be to fall for a taxation policy (and dodgey science) that both taxes for warming AND cooling??

 

couldnt agree more. As that is all it is, a taxation/control policy

[Tannhauser]

On a side not cliff, what's your take on the schwarzschild proton.

 

OK, I had to look this up. I watched a youtube clip with some maths that went very quickly. I am by no means qualified to comment on the validity of Nassim Hasamein's ideas, so I took another route.

 

If a guy is promoting a radical new theory, I want to know what his background is. I first went to a couple of physics forums and looked for some discussion on him - nothing. This is surprising because he is claiming that his idea is a 'new paradigm' - an extravagant claim.

 

So next I went to his website and found that he had won an award for 'best paper' in a peer reviewed journal at the University of Liege. That sounded REALLY good. But I was puzzled why it was at a computing symposium.

 

Fortunately, he put a jpeg of his award on the site. His paper was reviewed by eleven peers, and sure enough there are eleven signatures on the paper. So I started googling some of the signatures that I could read, starting with Viveca Asproth. Guess what? She's a computing bod, and so are the others I checked out. It's a genuine symposium, and they are genuine academics (as far as I can tell), but here's the killer:

 

They aren't even physicists, let alone specialists in the area.

 

This is really crucial. Quantum physics is not easy stuff. To pass any sort of judgement on how good a new idea is, you have to have some sort of rock-solid credentials, and his judges simply haven't. His paper gets awarded a prize by a bunch of clever non-specialists at an academic symposium held at a genuine university (but not part of their research) and suddenly he is in the blogosphere as a 'renowned expert'.

 

I know you think that I pick very minor points, but his credibility is absolutely crucial, and we could probably unpick any of his academic claims in the same way. Then I find that he thinks Nasa hushed up some comet heading for earth, and I kind of lost interest in him.

 

So: Schwazschild protons. Interesting, but you have to be suspicious about anyone that claims, on his website:

 

As early as 9 years old, Nassim was already developing the basis for a unified hyperdimensional theory of matter

[DODGYDODDS]

Cheers fr that answer, i saw it a few months back, and was like wow, that explains alot, but then when looking into it, i found the same as you, an award by non specialists.

 

Dont get me wrong i think it is a great theory and ties in some good logic, but since the award it hasnt really taken off, as it were. But then again ''new paradigms'' always take a while and usually with resistance. especially when you are saying protons in essence contain black holes, and theyr'e mass is equal to the known mass in the universe

 

Credibility isn't a minor point, but yes i do think you do sometimes , but only when it come to cc. Which i spout alot, but only as im against the agenda behind the theory. im much more into quatum phisics and the unified field, and sciences take on conscience.

[Ian C]

Yes Cliff, but it takes a lot less time to boggle at the claims in a slack jawed fashion and take it as gospel. I mean, that's X-Factor viewing time you've burnt up there, c'mon.