Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 3 of 45 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 890

Thread: Global Warming Propaganda

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North Shields
    Posts
    2,179

    Default

    Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Thurso
    Posts
    3,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phill View Post
    It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.
    Absolutely, and there's nothing we can do to stop it in it's tracks. The difference we, as a race, have made on the global climate change is negligible, and will continue to be negligible.

    This whole Man-made Global Warming is a myth, perpetuated by money-hungry reactionaries in Government and their chosen 'advisors'.

    Have a read here, and learn about Multi-Decadal Oscillation.
    "It makes my blood burn with metal energy..."

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    I've really no desire to get into another one of these debates, that being said:

    As a fan of science and reason, I question Al Gore and his ilk; the environmentalist movement seems to have been taken over by political groups pushing social agendas, they doctor reports, intimidate and generally act like fundamentalists.

    Just to be clear based on what I've read - I believe the climate is changing as it has done so naturally in the past and that human influence is negligible.

    Rather than me paraphrasing I offer these as a rebuttal to An Inconvenient Truth.

    Penn & Teller: Bullshit - being green (Google Video - 28 minutes)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video - 1 hour 16 minutes)

    EDIT: I should probably add that I do believe we should research alternative forms of energy and recycling, but thats just because research in itself is good and we may find something more efficient or cheaper.
    Last edited by RecQuery; 25-Nov-09 at 15:51.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    See now you're acting just like a creationist, its just like watching Stavro argue the existence of god.

    My sources are proper science... not pseudo-science how can my sources sell stuff they basically say everything is all right. I never believed in it before the recent scandal and I'm so confident in my position and the evidence that I'll even give the guy a pass on that one situation.

    It is your sources that use scare tactic headlines to sell
    It is your sources where supposed teams of scientists are stacked with liberal arts majors
    It is your sources, that when they do have proper scientists, doctor reports and then don't allow people to remove their names
    It is your sources that have been peddling the same stuff repackaged since the 1900's

    I take great offence that you assume I haven't researched and read and that your point is correct because you believe it, I look critically and skeptically on everything.

    I'd personally like to stick it to large monolithic energy companies, but thats a political opinion, the science just isn't there.
    Last edited by RecQuery; 25-Nov-09 at 16:47.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RecQuery View Post
    the science just isn't there.
    You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.
    Last edited by Rheghead; 25-Nov-09 at 16:56.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wick
    Posts
    3,849

    Default

    Climate change clearly isn't tosh, the climate has consistently been changing. A fact I'm happy to accept.

    The headlines and scandal I'm not subscribing too is that we need to handover more taxpayers money to large corporations under the guise of subsidies.

    Even in Caithness we have residents brokering deals to cash in on subsidies, ahem, sorry, to make deals to save the planet.
    And then fly off round Europe in a private jet.

    Now if you take your headlines (based on scientific fact of course) aviation is apparently the single most contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and we're all gonna get taxed if we want to take a flight shared with a few hundred other people.
    But, if you have your own windfarm subsidised from our taxes you can fly around in your own comfort tax free

    Hmmmm
    I'd go with the facts too. If you can actually find them.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.
    Wow I've been quoted out of context again, I was clearly talking about about a body of evidence designed to make a particular point and not the nature of CO2 - a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.
    Last edited by RecQuery; 25-Nov-09 at 18:18.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RecQuery View Post
    a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.
    Completely wrong. Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.
    Last edited by Rheghead; 26-Nov-09 at 17:18.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  10. #50

    Default

    between the turds on the carpet and 'fudge factors' in the computer climate model programs something is really beginning to hit the fan! Lmao. Lots of uncomfortable i told you sos' and job vacancies at the cru coming soon! Www.climaterealists.com

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wick
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phill View Post
    I don't think we have enough reliable data at all, never mind that which is twisted to gain the desired results.

    We only really have reliable weather data for the UK since 1914, although some records go back to the 1650's this cannot be relied upon as accurate by today's calibrated standards.

    I would imagine we have only really gotten any idea of global weather since WWII. The jet stream was only discovered at the end of the war.

    How can we seriously think we have enough data when it's based on a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the time the planet has been in existence.
    And during all that time the planet has constantly evolved and changed in many ways, and it will continue to do so.

    We still don't have answers for what has happened in the past to the planet, how can we predict the future.

    Yes man has had an impact, in many ways, that cannot be denied.
    But change is inevitable, whatever we do. Part of the problem is the human psyche and our natural resistance to change.
    The planet is changing and carving up the countryside to plant some windmills isn't going to stop the evolutionary/natural/godly process.

    It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.
    Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.

    Also, about the weather data, can't they measure stuff from long rods of ice from the poles?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern Spain and Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    628

    Default

    I so wish my late husband was around to answer this thread. He was an environmental scientist. He often used to say that many people that 'talk' on the 'Global Warming' issue had it all wrong it was 'Climate Change' for a start and that many others simply failed to understand the subject and should not be allowed to speak on the subject in public. In his working life he was part if IPPC BAT and IPTS and JRC. If any is interested in his work mail me and I will give you his name to google. He did not blow his own trumpet, a shy man who left an amazing legacy to us all. ( These are not my words but those of work colleagues all over the world)
    Images of Spain can be seen at valspages.com

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Clyth
    Posts
    4,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redeyedtreefrog View Post
    Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.
    The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph.
    Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels.

    Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever.

    Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence.
    How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth.

    When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.
    Animals I like, people I tolerate.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAWS View Post
    The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph.
    Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels.

    Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever.

    Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence.
    How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth.

    When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.
    Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about. You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Thurso
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about. You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
    I'm no that bothered about Global warming. I know this back end has been the mildest in caithness for a long time so I'm all for it. Whats interesting here though is how I am beginning to swing with the conspiracy theorists. Normally I wouldnt touch them with a barge pole against the scientists but I think the nos have it, the nos have it.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Very sad or it's a wind up. And it's working...
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wick
    Posts
    3,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
    I don't think anyone is shrugging it off as if nothing is changing and all is tickety boo.

    The climate is changing and we all need to be aware of that. Humankind is spewing out all sorts of emissions and we need to do something about it also.

    However I don't see myself as a conspiracy theorist but, as with many things, money is blurring the issue. And one thing I do know a little about is what happens when money becomes involved in research of any kind, for or against.
    You pay for the results you want.

    It's a long standing game in business, introduce "independent" research via politicians which suggest something bad is going to happen unless we throw money at it.
    Where does the money come from? You, me, average bloke n' wifey getting taxed on something.
    Where does the money go? To the corporations providing the equipment and services to prevent the bad stuff from happening.

    Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can keep money moving and create jobs etc.

    Being seen to be "Green" is fashionable and media friendly, so it's worth the likes of Asda Walmart to join the subsidy party and fly half way around the world in a nice big CO2 belching jet to look for prime chunks of Caithness & Sutherland to carve up so they can cash in on the grants from the govt to plant windmills.
    They can then tell all their customers ('cept up 'ere) that they are a jolly nice company concerned about the planet.

    Double bonus, they can count the windfarm twice to get more money from the gov'ts. Once in the UK and again in the US.


    Funny, while out the other day out of 7 windymills I saw only 1 was turning, quite a windy day too.
    The're not very reliable either.
    Last edited by Phill; 25-Nov-09 at 22:31.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wick
    Posts
    3,849

    Default

    Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
    I did wonder what happened to that one.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phill View Post
    Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
    I did wonder what happened to that one.
    Since the curative action for acid rain is the same for climate change, why should lobby groups run 2 campaigns to cure the same problem and outspend their budget? Seemples
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

Page 3 of 45 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •