Game_Over
-
Posts
7,861 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Game_Over
-
-
You do realize this is sound logical science (i speak as a scientist), and you don't have a clue what your talking about?
Tell me that again in 20 years time.
The many scientists who question the theory obviously know as much as those whose funding depends on promoting it
only they don't have a vested interest and are therefore far more likely to be impartial
and not make up data to suit the theory.
Its not as if anyone has been caught admitting to doctoring the data.
-
I take it you do not listen to the news or read papers.
The UK has given up on wind turbines, as has Germany
and both India and China have built and are still building hundreds of coal fired power stations.
Meanwhile the UK is about to have a shale gas energy boom
so we will be burning gas for the foreseable future.
However, if you get a warm fuzzy feeling believing that our politicians sole mission in life is to save the planet
then who am I to question your beliefs?
Editied to add - we will continue to burn fossil fuels until they are superceded by newer technologies one of the latest avenues of research is Thorium reactors - here's a link.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
Interestingly MMGW is being used to counter previous 'green' objections to nuclear power - which is one of the political drivers of the cult.
Apologies for duplicate
-
1/ Briffa was the original data source behind the Mann's Hockey Stick work; the original Hockey Stick and current Briffa's work using the same methodology contradict and one of them is wrong. I personally believe it is Mann
2/ no; it means the complete opposite that the CO2 climate sensitivity is lower and the temperature changes in 20th century are not driven by man made CO2, but by the same mechanism as during the MWP
3/ I did not omit any data. I showed you a wiki page which states that climate sensitivity was estimated by multiple peer reviewed papers from 0.5 to 7 degrees for CO2 doubling, where 0.5 is no problem and 7 means we will all die next year; this proves that the climate science in this area is not settled yet
4/ No, it means that your method or theory is wrong or there is no causality
Wasting your breath
The theory of MMGW has nothing whatever to do with science - it is a politically motivated cult.
If I light a match I will warm the atmosphere - that's a scientific fact.
-
I don't know why people bother engaging with climate change deniers. It is simple - there has been a decision made by the PTB across the globe that there will be a shift to renewables along with other adaptation and mitigation activity. What is happening in the UK is happening globally, indeed in many respects UK government policy is seriously behind the curve. The shift to renewables will happen slowly over a period of decades, but it is going to happen. Fossil fuels are seen now as a stop gap and serious amounts of money are being spent on R&D. Costs will come down as the technology improves. It is a shame some on here are on the wrong side of history and don't like or understand what is happening but there you have it. In life you need to understand that you can run alongside the bus or get on the bus. It is highly unlikely you'll get to drive the bus. You can pretend you are free and stand in front of the bus if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. The UK is well placed, if it so chooses, to be a green industry frontrunner. I doubt however that it will grab the opportunity.
I take it you do not listen to the news or read papers.
The UK has given up on wind turbines, as has Germany
and both India and China have built and are still building hundreds of coal fired power stations.
Meanwhile the UK is about to have a shale gas energy boom
so we will be burning gas for the foreseable future.
However, if you get a warm fuzzy feeling believing that our politicians sole mission in life is to save the planet
then who am I to question your beliefs?
-
Wouldn't you like to think that. I am however in the process of pulling most my savings and assets out of the UK which gives me a warm fuzzy feeling as I know I'll no longer be contributing towards your welfare cheques
Actually as my daughter is now working I don't get a penny from the government.
Well - apart from free glasses and dentistry.
However because 'I is poor' my sons are both getting their degrees paid for.
I didn't create the system - I have that well known genius G.Brown to thank for that.
-
According to the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate
since 1998 global surface temperatures have not shown a rising trend
ie it has not got any warmer since 1998
but apparently this is because sulphur emissions from Chinese Coal fired power stations of masked the warming effect !!!!!
You really couldn't make it up.
Anyway given that Germany is now building loads of coal fired stations and India has hundreds in the pipeline, quite apart from the hundreds in China
Personally I think that the MMGW scam is now officially over and that we should build gas and coal fired power stations.
Clearly shale gas and cheap coal is the fastest way to plug the looming energy gap and avoid freezing to death in the up coming mini ice age that was predicted by scientists in the 70's
-
Lets face it 99.9% of us haven't got a clue. No one is an expert on everything. We rely on people studying the subject and coming up with a scientific answers. Maybe a new renewable source off energy will come a long in the future that will make wind turbines look stupid. The only thing we Know for certain is that one day fossil fuels will run out.
We never ran out of wood or coal
and we will never run out of oil either.
This is because as fuels become scarce their cost increases which means that time and effort is invested in finding an alternative.
We already have perfectly viable alternatives to fossil fuels
but, because fossil fuels are still relatively cheap the alternatives are not developed to their maximum potential.
Remember that the vast majority of the cost of fuel is tax.
I think it costs something like 5 Dollars a barrel to pump crude in Saudi Arabia which means that extracting oil from shale at a cost of 30 Dollars is not yet economical
but the fact that a barrel of oil sells for far more than 30 Dollars should tell you that oil will be with us for at least the rest of this century.
Off the top of my head, I think there 200 years worth of shale oil reserves have already been discovered and more will be found.
As far as I remember we were supposed to have run out of oil 20-30 years ago.
-
yes, they did (some of them). but a new research from Briffa this month shows that MWP summer had same temperature as late 20th temperature summer. and also that Mann's Hockey Stick did not correctly interpreted Briffa's data
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract
so somebody from these 2 guys must be wrong. or there is some new theory/fact coming in. in any case it is another point that the climate science is not settled at all ...
as like the string theory which is not settled either ...
Sorry, but you are flogging a dead horse here.
It is pretty obvious that at least one of the posters here has put their entire life savings into this scam
so trying to have any sort of meaningful debate is pointless.
The science is not proven, many scientists question it
but most don't want to rock the boat for fear of losing their funding
-
This article is complete BS. Booker's senile dementia is clearly getting worse. John Hayes has been over ruled by Davey and Cameron has supported Davey. As far as wind farm development goes it is BAU.
Someone has clearly invested their life savings in Wind Turbines
-
fluffy, are you aware that the science evolves and that new theories replace the disputed one ??? we still do not have a good grip about the universe, human mind and believe or not the climate:
http://en.wikipedia....logical_schools
The psychological schools are the great classical theories of psychology. Each has been highly influential, however most psychologists hold eclectic viewpoints that combine aspects of each school.
http://en.wikipedia....eory#Criticisms
Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Notable critics include Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, Philip Warren Anderson,[56] Sheldon Glashow,[57] Lawrence Krauss,[58] and Carlo Rovelli.[59] Some common criticisms include:
- Very high energies needed to test quantum gravity.
- Lack of uniqueness of predictions due to the large number of solutions.
- Lack of background independence.
http://en.wikipedia....ate_sensitivity
Idso (1998)[22] calculated based on eight natural experiments a λ of 0.1 °C/(Wm−2) resulting in a climate sensitivity of only 0.4 °C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Forest, et al. (2002)[24] using patterns of change and the MIT EMIC estimated a 95% confidence interval of 1.4–7.7 °C for the climate sensitivity, and a 30% probability that sensitivity was outside the 1.5 to 4.5 °C range. Gregory, et al. (2002)[25] estimated a lower bound of 1.6 °C by estimating the change in Earth's radiation budget and comparing it to the global warming observed over the 20th century.
Frame, et al. (2005)[27] noted that the range of the confidence limits is dependent on the nature of the prior assumptions made.Forster and Gregory (2006)[29] presented a new independent estimate based on the slope of a plot of calculated greenhouse gas forcing minus top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance, as measured by satellite borne radiometers, versus global mean surface temperature. In the triad notation of Annan and Hargreaves their estimate of sensitivity was (1.0, 1.6, 4.1)°C. Royer, et al. (2007)[30] determined climate sensitivity within a major part of the Phanerozoic. The range of values—1.5 °C minimum, 2.8 °C best estimate, and 6.2 °C maximum—is, given various uncertainties, consistent with sensitivities of current climate models and with other determinations.[31]
If you don't agree with him, you are an idiot
This is how science works apparently.
-
The elderly are pitiful and helpless though. So when they come crying to the papers at the obscenity of having to sell their home to pay for care some politician filled with crocodile tears will steal from people (who are mostly poorer than the pensioners!) to allow them to effectively have 2 homes. After all, the old have paid their taxes and worked. (obviously not anywhere near enough, but whose counting)
They are not proposing a cap to stop old people losing their life savings
They are proposing a cap to prevent themselves losing their 'rightful' inheritance
-
There is no way that I will end up in a care home and I will take whatever measures necessary to make sure of it.
If you get dementia you will have very little understanding what is happening to you and even less control
Sorry.
-
Newton was just after a grant. If you look closely enough, you can see mini pixies flying the apples down.
That was then, this is now.
-
Always been so!
I actually like the windmills! Subsidised now, but maybe not in the future! Governments always have to be seen "doing something", and now they did "something"!
Does anyone have the extra money to pay these bills for these (partially) follies! Not now they don't!
It's got worse.
-
I've already explained in the simplest possible terms why the article you quoted is deliberately misleading due to its omissions. If real climatologists presented work in such a fashion, they would be justifiably pilloried for incompetence or deceit. Yet you insist on accepting it without question, merely because it supports your idealogical position. That is simply not rational, so I don't see much point in further discussion with you. It's like talking to one of those old "Eliza" AI programs.
I don't have an ideological position
I have 50+ years experience of being told the World was going to end.
I also have first hand experience of the widespread cheating and fabrication of scientific data in academia.
If anyone is interested the main driver of scientific research is not the pursuit of truth
It is the pursuit of funding.
The thing that amuses me the most though, is the fact that one day you will realise I was right
and when you do, you are going to be really, really p*ssed off.
-
All I wanted was a decent house at a decent price. Instead I got:
Bank bailouts
Taxation coming out my ears
mp expenses
Schemes to underpin house prices.
Q.E.
Deliberate inflation
Rich people getting richer
rich people paying no tax
Companies paying no tax
Real jobs dying a death
real wages not going us
Bankers taking over European countries.
Low interest rates.
Youth unemployment
University fees.
Immigration
councils borrowing money
councils lending money.
Media ramping property
Banks not repossessing.
Fake bank shell companies
big companies milking us dry.
Unemployment.
I am sick of the UK and the way it is being run.
Why would anyone want to live here!
The Benefit System
Public Sector Jobs
Foreign Criminals with shed loads of money are welcomed - no questions asked
-
That's just it though - neither the article nor many of the charts refer to global temperatures. As I stated, the article relates to U.S. temperatures (but fails to say so explicitly), and the historical graphs mostly relate to temperature of Greenland (which is known to be particularly variable). Most of the historical graphs also stop before the period of recent warming over the last few decades, which means that they cannot be used to compare recent and ancient temperatures. It should be quite obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the author of this piece is intentionally trying to deceive the reader through his omissions of relevant data and information.
He just holds a view different from yours and the 'consensus'.
And as I keep repeating, history shows that the 'consensus' is more often than not, wrong.
If you do not appreciate the significance of MMGW being relabeled Climate Change - which is undeniable, as the climate always has and always will change, then that is your problem.
At the end of the day the argument is becoming irrelevant because the political drivers that created the cult are changing.
We are now entering an era where no one, anywhere, will be able to pursue anything other than the cheapest option, regardless of unproven scientific theories.
Germany which is one of the richest countries in the World has lots of cheap coal so is now building coal fired power stations,
India and China are building hundreds, so why we should force millions in the UK into fuel poverty and make our industries even more uncompetitive is beyond my understanding.
Lets face it - it ain't going to happen
And MMGW will be quietly airbrushed out of history.
At least you will be able to look back and say you read it here first.
-
Aha, I see the source of your confusion. 1934 was indeed one of the warmest years in the United States. Globally, however, it was unremarkable, and every year since 1977 has been warmer than 1934.
The fact that the author of the piece fails to make this clear and indeed implies that he is actually referring to a global temperature should tell you everything you need to know about the quality of Watts' site. Classic propaganda - no outright lies, but just enough information missing to fool the reader into reaching the wrong conclusion. Real scientists attempt to make their work understandable to the layman rather than trying to deceive him.
Well I suppose it was intended for an American audience.
The article and all the charts relate to global temperatures and make very fair and reasonable points.
Interestingly the comments on this and other articles are far more balanced than the reactions we get here.
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that many generally accepted scientific theories have been shown to be false.
Just because professor XYZ claims something is true based on doctored statistics and Joe Bloggs doesn't believe him
this does not make professor XYZ right and Joe Bloggs an idiot
in fact the history of science shows that more often than not professor XYZ is actually wrong.
-
I once had the misfortune to attempt to buy a bed from Dreams
If you want to know why they are in trouble just read some of the comments on this site
http://www.trustpilot.co.uk/review/www.dreams.co.uk
-
But what you don't seem to understand is that inequality is already too high to sustain employment and our mass production-consumption system. Incomes for the UK's bottom 50% of society used to be ~16% of GDP, its now ~12% of GDP. This is what the debt bubble was all about, it hid this fact. They could already not consume the fruits of their own production without taking on debt.
Now without household debt continually increasing that income differential is exposed, and demand is collapsing which is resulting in bankruptcies and causing businesses to downsize and downscale. But that puts further downward pressure on the system.
The only reason it all has not collapsed yet is because governments are continually stimulating and taking on more debt itself to prop up demand. So the idea that further inequality will occur and that the system can survive it is simply not believable. We are already past the point of where the system could do this. It was just hidden by a 30 year global debt bubble.
The system cannot survive
but it won't be replaced with what you think it will be
-
From the article I linked
Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
1934 has long been considered the warmest year of the past century. A decade ago, the closest challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F). Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S. data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and seemingly erased the original rather large lead of 1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong 2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year another possible contender for the warmest year of the century. However, December 2010 has been one of the coldest Decembers in a century in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably won’t be warmer than 1998.
Information on Dr Easterbrook
Dr. Easterbrook is a Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University here in Bellingham. When I minored in geology back in the late 1960s for my degree from Western, Don was chair of the department. He is an easy-to-meet guy, open, and friendly. I took geomorphology from him, which is the study of how landscapes are created.
Don is called a climate "skeptic." That is, he does not buy the current popular belief that humans, and the excessive carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere, is the primary cause of global warming. Indeed, along with most climate skeptics, he believes the global temperature is not even particularly warm. He has predicted the climate may even cool for the next 10 or 20 years, and will not rise significantly over this century. Don is now nationally known because of his scientific credentials and because he is in the minority of scientists on the anthropogenic global warming scenario.
Don's article is oriented toward a factual presentation of temperatures, with a rhetorical question at the end asking why we look for other than natural causes for the rise in global temperatures.
Ice cores taken from the Greenland ice cap allow us to trace yearly temperatures for over 100,000 years. They show our present 30 years of warming is very insignificant when compared to warming and cooling periods over the centuries. In the Middle Ages, the normal yearly temperature in North America and Europe was probably higher than it is now. Rome rose and flourished during a 500 year warm period like our own. But in 1977, scientists - and climatologists in particular - thought we may be entering a new ice age.
-
Yes, I could think about the sort of political driver that has a person proudly declaring as fact ('1934 being the hottest year') something that has absolutely no basis in reality - and that could be trivially checked as such. You want to see someone blinded by ideology and pseudoscience? LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
I post articles that back up what I have said and you just claim the sources are unreliable
Apparently the only reliable data is produced by institutions that have been caught red handed fiddling the figures.
What you are obviously too young or naive to understand is that all oppressive regimes require an existential threat to justify their own existence and after the end of the cold war MMGW became IT along with Muslim Fundamentalism.
Politicians might have raped and pillaged the entire planet for the last 20 years
but we still need them and their global power structures because otherwise how are we going to save the planet from 'Global Warming' or nasty men with towels wrapped around their heads.
Hopefully one day you will grow up.
Have a nice day
-
Left or right, I guess people just thought it was a stupid question. Why would they want to seize that £20 billion exactly?
I think there is a role for Land Tax that would allow Land to find its proper level such that the community obtains the gains for which it has created (such as roads, power, airports, jobs etc.) and to introduce more liquidity into the market so that more productive uses can be found if they cannot make it wash its face.
That is not the same as wanting 'to seize the £20 billion rise in prices'.
The thread is entitled how the UK deficit could be wiped out at a stroke
I assumed this would involve stealing 100 Billion+ from someone
I was just pointing out that this has been tried before and has never worked
-
yeah, but, they will have a plentiful supply of rubber Dogsmuck.
Oh, and Microprocessors, computers, cars, roads, just about everything...and they wont have to borrow a penny.....
Unfortunately you can't eat any of these things.
Last time China had a massive state driven restructuring of it's economy 60 million people starved to death
Sadly they are heading the same way again IMO
Booker: It Is Wind Power That Will Send Our Bills Sky-High
in Current affairs
Posted
I just had a read of the second article because I liked the sound of 'beyond the bluster' - lets analyse the summary of the article
The report addresses two commonly held misconceptions around two important, often misunderstood, questions:
Is wind power an effective way of reducing carbon emissions?
Is wind power a secure and reliable source of energy for the UK?
It shows unequivocally that wind power can significantly reduce carbon emissions, is reliable, poses no threat to energy security, and is technically capable of providing a significant proportion of the UK’s electricity supply with minimal impact on the existing operation of the grid.
Straight away it starts with a false premise because no one asserts that wind turbines produce less carbon emissions than say a gas fired power station.
Also no one questions the fact that a wind turbine in a field in England is more 'secure' than gas coming down a pipeline than Russia.
Also wind is clearly 'reliable' in that we will always have wind at a fairly predictable average level over a given period of time, but again this is not the issue.
Also what constitutes a significant proportion 2%, 5%, 20% ?
The article therefore manages to successfully refute arguments that no one who is opposed to wind turbines is making.