Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Fuzzar

OT - EU straw poll...

Recommended Posts

Talking of planes, Billock, Easyjet announced yesterday that even in the event of a 'No Deal' they would continue flying to the UK.

That's not what you, Herman, CM, Purple, KiO and numerous others said previously on this thread.

How many 'Project Fear' myths exposed is that we've witnessed now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jools said:

No, it isn't interesting in the slightest -- it's Lefty claptrap.

Climate change is very real. Always has been. Man-made sources of carbon dioxide makes stuff green.

Earth has witnessed five ice ages that we know of and Romans harvested grapes on Beeston Bump.

Shut up.

 

You are such a serf, hoping for some crumbs off the billionaire's tables. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bill said:

Whereas other nutjobs claim none of it is man made

Refer to my original post and you will see that I said 'Man-made sources of carbon dioxide makes stuff green.'

How much is man-made certainly doesn't warrant cost ineffective wind turbines or fields of solar panels.

Nor all the Lefty guff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Herman said:

You are such a serf, hoping for some crumbs off the billionaire's tables. 

🤣

 

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, who to believe. The overwhelming majority of scientists or the billionaires telling us that the pollutants they sell aren't pollutants. Wake up Jools and RTB. You seem to fall for every piece of crap the man tells you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Yep, who to believe. The overwhelming majority of scientists or the billionaires telling us that the pollutants they sell aren't pollutants. Wake up Jools and RTB. You seem to fall for every piece of crap the man tells you. 

Half the computer you're sitting in front of started as oil, Hermanski.

You'd best get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

Not true:

From the  National Snow and Ice Data Center

Unusual warmth continues

"Over the Pacific side of the Arctic, a pattern of unusual warmth noted in last month’s post continued. While sea ice extent in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas remains below average, extent remains especially low on the Atlantic side of the Arctic in the Barents and Laptev Seas. October sea ice extent in the Arctic was the third lowest in the satellite record."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/21/arctics-strongest-sea-ice-breaks-up-for-first-time-on-record

Now lets have a look at the actual current data as of today

Arctic Sea Ice Extent (yesterday 20th Nov)

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

Looks like it suddenly got quite chilly, I wonder why?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Herman said:

Yes mate, argument well won. Jeez. 😐

Then please allow James Delingpole to win the argument on my behalf:

 

The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations.

According to the paper by Laure Resplandy et al, published this month in the prestigious journal Nature, a lot of the missing heat from global warming — 60 percent more than hitherto thought — has been absorbed by the oceans.

Naturally, this shocking discovery caused much excitement across mainstream media and was widely reported by environmental correspondents as proof that the global warming crisis was more serious than evah.

However, their exultant doom-mongering has been shortlived. An independent analyst, Nic Lewis, examined the paper and quickly spotted it was based on flawed math.

As the Global Warming Policy Forum reported:

    Independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis has uncovered a major error in a recent scientific paper that was given blanket coverage in the English-speaking media. The paper, written by a team led by Princeton oceanographer Laure Resplandy, claimed that the oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. It was announced, in news outlets including the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Scientific American that this meant that the Earth may warm even faster than currently estimated.

https://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-in-study-of-how-fast-the-oceans-are-warming/

 

    However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.

    “If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.

    In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

    “Their claims about the effect of faster ocean warming on estimates of climate sensitivity (and hence future global warming) and carbon budgets are just incorrect anyway, but that’s a moot point now we know that about their calculation error”.

Now, one of the paper’s co-authors, Ralph Keeling has gamely fessed up to the error — and hinted that this effectively invalidates the paper:

    “Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”

    The central problem, according to Keeling, came in how the researchers dealt with the uncertainty in their measurements. As a result, the findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper’s conclusion about just how much heat the oceans have absorbed over time.

    The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors. But Keeling said the authors’ miscalculations mean there is actually a much larger margin of error in the findings, which means researchers can weigh in with less certainty than they thought.

    “I accept responsibility for what happened because it’s my role to make sure that those kind of details got conveyed,” Keeling said.

There are broader lessons here which — as so often before — are likely to be completely lost on the climate alarmist establishment.

One lesson is that climate skeptics are not scientific ignoramuses. They boast a huge range of independent experts like Nic Lewis who on many occasions have proved themselves more intellectually agile and better informed on climate science than the alarmist “consensus” gatekeepers in academe and at institutions like NASA and NOAA.

Another lesson is — as has been clear since Climategate — the peer-review system for scientific papers, especially if they have anything to do with climate change, is bust. Too often it is just a pal-review system in which chums on the climate change gravy train pass their colleagues’ work for publication nem con. Such is the appetite among alarmists for “evidence” that supports their doomsday thesis that the scarier it is, the more likely it is to get published.

Another lesson is that the mainstream media simply cannot be trusted to apply any kind of professional scrutiny to alarmist papers. No environmental correspondent, it’s true, would have had the advanced math skills that Nic Lewis used to find the paper false.

But the fact remains that there is not one science or environment correspondent attached to any mainstream media publication prepared to do their due diligence on global warming scare stories. They are all so wedded to the alarmist consensus that they scarcely even bother to alter the press release.

Finally, do not expect this humiliating retraction to be given anywhere near the prominence afforded the original story. This is how the climate scare machine works: the hysteria is only ever ratcheted upwards, never dialed down.

 

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jools said:

Talking of planes, Billock, Easyjet announced yesterday that even in the event of a 'No Deal' they would continue flying to the UK.

That's not what you, Herman, CM, Purple, KiO and numerous others said previously on this thread.

How many 'Project Fear' myths exposed is that we've witnessed now?

I do not believe I have ever expressed any opinion, here or anywhere else, on the subject of post-Brexit airline flights. Not least because I have not the sllghtest idea what would happen.

I correctly predicted what the German carmakers' attitude would be to the UK's hope of access to the single market without FoM, since I had a very good idea about that. A much better idea than several of the most prominent and opinionated Leave posters here, as it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

Nobody is denying climate change. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It hasn't been proved to what extent man-made activity affects climate change. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour, which recycles as precipitation and cools the earth as it does so.

The precise extent hasn't been proved, how can it be when there is always some natural change occurring concurrently?

But it has been proven beyond any scientific doubt that man-made activity is a major and increasing factor in the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Now lets have a look at the actual current data as of today

Arctic Sea Ice Extent (yesterday 20th Nov)

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

Looks like it suddenly got quite chilly, I wonder why?

Some careful selection of dates there...starting for some reason at 1996 .Since the late 1970s, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk on average about 21,000 square miles (54,000 square kilometers) with each passing year. There will be variations up and down from year to year but what matters is the long term trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MooreMarriot said:

.Since the late 1970s, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk on average about 21,000 square miles (54,000 square kilometers) with each passing year. There will be variations up and down from year to year but what matters is the long term trend.

Yet the antartic ice field is growing each year. The scientists, of course have an explanaton for that, but it does show that a bit like brexit, we all know climate change is happening, but there are differing ways of interprating the same data.

I'm waiting for the scientists to come to the conclusion that the climate change is a precursor to the next ice age which is due, as the earth reacts against the extra heat it is experiencing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only things you need to know about the  Global Warming Policy Forum are that it refuses to say who funds it and it's chairman is Nigel Lawson , a man with no scientific credentials at all who covers the alarming gaps in his knowledge by simply making things up on the radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herman said:

Yep, who to believe. The overwhelming majority of scientists or the billionaires telling us that the pollutants they sell aren't pollutants. Wake up Jools and RTB. You seem to fall for every piece of crap the man tells you. 

'Consensus science' of the moment also spake of the Sun orbiting the Earth and mariners sailing off the edge of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I do not believe I have ever expressed any opinion, here or anywhere else, on the subject of post-Brexit airline flights. Not least because I have not the sllghtest idea what would happen.

I correctly predicted what the German carmakers' attitude would be to the UK's hope of access to the single market without FoM, since I had a very good idea about that. A much better idea than several of the most prominent and opinionated Leave posters here, as it happens.

Me neither, and I'm guessing that the only reason that EasyJet have made that annoucement is that they've restructured their business to create an Austrian HQ, and therefore qualify as a European airline - another huge success for the Brexiteeers!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile we now have

" Speaking during prime minister's questions, Ms May insisted MPs must back her deal or face the prospect of "no Brexit at all".  "

Whoever would have thought that ?

And fancy making that claim when it is obvious that the deal is certain to be accepted by the lower house........absolutely

Why, you could almost imagine that the 'deal' was set up to fail, just so her 'threat 'could happen (cue the elderly imagining 7ft lizards, and others claiming politician are not that devious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "No Deal Brexit" is misleading.

A complete lack of agreement on everything is impossible - you simply couldn't a have a failure to recognise eachother's protocols on flights/ airspace; no security agreements etc.

"No deal" is really just short-hand for no trade deal - which is perfectly possible once we are able to negotiate independent integration into the WTO - although at the moment the WTO has blocked our attempts at a fast-track deal with them.

(https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/world-trade-organisation-members-block-uk-attempts-fast-track-post-brexit-deal/)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

Some careful selection of dates there...starting for some reason at 1996 .Since the late 1970s, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk on average about 21,000 square miles (54,000 square kilometers) with each passing year. There will be variations up and down from year to year but what matters is the long term trend.

Indeed it has my friend, but you have to ask yourself why most of the graphs proposing AGW start in the 1970's cold period and ignore warmer periods in the 1930/40's.

However the graph and the statistical data shows sea ice levels above each of the last five years and many of those in the previous decade. I'm not a climatologist but am simply pointing out that the data shows that claims of ever decreasing sea ice levels are disingenuous. I do however have a good memory and recall that twenty five years ago our children would never see snow, the Arctic Ice cap would be gone and Polar bears would be extinct. None of that has happened and those that made those claims now simply push the dates further and further into the future.

As I said, I'm not a climatologist. I merely posted the factual data about where we are today, that seems to run counter to the media narrative.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear

global warming does not simple amount to the UK having ever increasing warm weather

what is happening is ever increasing weather extremes, so we will experience more heatwaves, rain fall or lack of, snow, winds etc

and despite very selective charts there is shrinking ice sheets, glacier retreat and rising sea levels which correspond the the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

yes, the earth's climate has changed throughout history bu those previous changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives - this is not that

what should also raise concern is towhy some feel the need to try and deny this just as those who still believe that humans can talk to the dead

I can see why the likes of Trump and other paid for voices try to deny this on behalf of the polluters making vast sums of money from this, but what reason has the low grade right wing nut job got for doggedly churning out their misinformation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill said:

Whereas other nutjobs claim none of it is man made

That's right, it didn't start until I bought my first car.

The Guardianistas must be wringing their hands by now wondering why all those pesky Polar populations are on the increase.

Is your holiday home in the Maldives under water yet.😀

In another few years we will know one way or another if AGW or Natural Cycles is correct as we are now entering a period of low solar activity after 50 years of cycles with high activity.

Not long to wait Bill. Do you think Carrow Rd will need a sunshade or an up rated heating system to warm our seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

That's right, it didn't start until I bought my first car.

The Guardianistas must be wringing their hands by now wondering why all those pesky Polar populations are on the increase.

Is your holiday home in the Maldives under water yet.😀

In another few years we will know one way or another if AGW or Natural Cycles is correct as we are now entering a period of low solar activity after 50 years of cycles with high activity.

Not long to wait Bill. Do you think Carrow Rd will need a sunshade or an up rated heating system to warm our seats.

but what reason has the low grade right wing nut job got for doggedly churning out their misinformation ?

image.png.fb1b4684ff6b48481ce23e5cd2b5b9c7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Badger said:

The term "No Deal Brexit" is misleading.

A complete lack of agreement on everything is impossible - you simply couldn't a have a failure to recognise eachother's protocols on flights/ airspace; no security agreements etc.

"No deal" is really just short-hand for no trade deal - which is perfectly possible once we are able to negotiate independent integration into the WTO - although at the moment the WTO has blocked our attempts at a fast-track deal with them.

(https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/world-trade-organisation-members-block-uk-attempts-fast-track-post-brexit-deal/)

All of that is true although I suspect many don't realise that is what 'no deal' really means, or indeed that the WTO route is not entirely straightforward - the issues may only be temporary but how long is temporary?

Same applies to the very basic agreements that would be necessary as you mention - they will still require a certain amount of time. I imagine they would be fairly straightforward but given the grindingly slow progress we've seen over the last two years I'd be surprised if they could be done in a matter of weeks.

So if TM's deal isn't even put to the HoC until next month and gets voted down, as hopefully it will, then I suspect that the Article 50 date will have to be pushed back somewhat to allow for what happens next, whatever it may be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

.............then I suspect that the Article 50 date will have to be pushed back ...........

blimey, who would have ever thought that might happen ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bill said:

but what reason has the low grade right wing nut job got for doggedly churning out their misinformation ?

image.png.fb1b4684ff6b48481ce23e5cd2b5b9c7.png

Yes, that's how all the alarmists dismiss the data. If you want to make an alarmist claim the data has to fit the theory. So far the models have conspicuously failed to do that. Forgive me for remaining skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming is an interesting debate, but one that is flawed IMO. There is 'evidence' to support both sides of the argument, but how accurate is this data? Relatively speaking, this data has been taken over such a minute (my nute) period of time. 

I hear people often say Winters used to be colder whilst Summers much drier. But in reality seasons are merely arbitrary. The planet's weather cycles are much more complex, and we need to go further back than 50-100 years to identify accurate trends. 

I remember when the craze was the hole in the ozone layer. Don't hear much about that now, do we?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your RWNJ's do tend to get yourselves rather over excited about this type of stuff. Awareness is not a 'craze'.

In response harmful CFCs were discontinued and recovery is on it's way (you don't hear much about rickets and polio either)

Just as is is very slowly with global warming, hence the attempts at reduction of fossil fuels.

 

ps any chance of 'mad' Moy returning ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bill said:

alarmist ?

dearie me, is that the best you can come up with ?

The data is what it is Bill, its neither left nor right. Why not argue with that, instead of trying to play politics.

And yes, I think alarmist is the correct word to use since none of the models have predicted anything like what the data has shown. There are many factors that contribute to a changing climate and CO2 may be one of them but forty odd years of data from a time when we know solar activity was higher than for several hundred years seems like betting the farm on very dubious evidence to me.

Time will tell who is right or wrong. Not so long to wait.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×