This board is becoming totally crap

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="SPat"][quote user="blahblahblah"]could it be

that the warming is caused by that gigantic nuclear

furnace that sits only 92 million miles away from us ?  Now let me think - cars, aerosols and cow farts, or gigantic nuclear furnace ?  It''s a toughie...[/quote]Why on earth do you think you know more about it than trained climatologists? You''d rather belive that scientists make stuff up to secure grant money and back that solid argument with a some Daily Mail style tosh. Throw in some childish conspiricy theories about governments trying to steal more of our money, free thinkers seeing more than the naive etc etc but the bottom line is it that like so many others, the solution means you have to do something

that is annoying or expensive so you just don''t want to belive it.  End of. [/quote]All I said was that "it''s a toughie".  I don''t think you can prove it one way or the other.  How can you accurately model anything as complex as the earth ?  If, on the other hand you can look at the results of climate warming from a neighbouring planet, it might be possible to prove that an external source, such as an absolutely massive nuclear furnace 92 million miles away, which has been previously responsible for warming and ice ages, might be responsible.However, if you want to believe the government, and why wouldn''t you, MPs are so trustworthy after all, and if you want to stop greenhouse gasses, stop drinking milk or eating beef.  It''s methane that causes most greenhouse gasses apparently.  According to that bloke what used to be the keyboard player in D:Ream and is now a quantum physicist, On Saturns moon Titan, methane does the same job that water does here.  That place is going to really hum...

[ca 1]

Going back to the thread title ''''This board is becoming totally crap '''' it certainly is today. [:@]

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I often wonder about all this. But I''m afraid to say, despite it showing me up as a bit of a thicko, I don''t have the attention span or interest to read all the articles to form an informed opinion. So all I have is my uninformed opinion which is that over the years I haven''t noticed much difference in the climate. Some years are warm and some are cold. Some are wet and some dry. Some we get snow and some we don''t. My wild plum tree has blossomed as early as February but this year it hasn''t blossomed yet. The later it blossoms the more fruit we get. Last year was bumper but the year before hardly any. There seems no pattern to any of it.

OK, I know, I''m thick and should stick to football

Or maybe not even that....

[;)]

[/quote]

Perhaps now all is revealed. Nigel Worthington had a "plum" job in Norwich. [:D]

 

[/quote]

I have the plum job Yankee and the best thing about it is it''s mine[:)]

I wonder what Mr. Paddonsbeard makes of Bury Yellow''s thread now discussing nutty''s plum tree...

He probably doesn''t give a fig[:O]

[;)]

 

[ron obvious 1,501]

My main problem with climatology & its ilk is that it gives science a bad name. Science is fundamentally concerned with the formation of predictive models, in order to solve that most pressing of problems: what happens next. Our extraordinary success as a species is down to our capability to form accurate hypothetical models & act accordingly.Science is fantastic at dealing with fairly simple situations with few variables - essentially any scientific experiment examines the behaviour of one variable on another while keeping all the others constant, so there is always an element of approximation when dealing with the real world, where this constancy never happens. As the predictive models become increasingly complex then the predictions inevitably become more statistical & more prone to catastrophic destabilisations (as, in fact, predicted by chaos & complexity theories).Also, do not forget that scientists are human. For a while I worked on a mesh internet system operating at 38GHz. There were at least two huge problems (with the doubler & the antenna) for which the technological solutions did, & still do, not exist; the elephants in the room which nobody talked about.Doing the research was great fun though.Eventually the money ran out.

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="SPat"][quote user="blahblahblah"]could it be that the warming is caused by that gigantic nuclear furnace that sits only 92 million miles away from us ?  Now let me think - cars, aerosols and cow farts, or gigantic nuclear furnace ?  It''s a toughie...[/quote]Why on earth do you think you know more about it than trained climatologists? You''d rather belive that scientists make stuff up to secure grant money and back that solid argument with a some Daily Mail style tosh. Throw in some childish conspiricy theories about governments trying to steal more of our money, free thinkers seeing more than the naive etc etc but the bottom line is it that like so many others, the solution means you have to do something that is annoying or expensive so you just don''t want to belive it.  End of. [/quote]

You mean the experts who have been proved both inacurate and missleading on many counts.

Global warming to climate change because it became to obvious.

Statements disproved by people living in Canada etc.

There has always been cyclical changes in climate over the life of this planet but us laymen are not supposed to know that are we.

There may be some truth in their statements but they are doing a VERY good job in making themselves look stupid without any outside help.

Increasing taxation does not help just lines the Govt pockets yet again. The money taken does not go to any known "climate change" program.

[/quote]Scientists are human and make mistakes, they also make informed guesses which obviously they get wrong sometimes. It is a common and misconception that the majority view flip flops back and forward, for example that one day cheese is healthy, the next it isn''t. What happens is that the media notice and publish stories about research that contradicts majority view. Of course there will be "scientists" who are also trying to make a name for themselves by being controversial. The fact is that the vast majority of credible climate scientists believe that human production of greenhouse gases are causing global warming. They are not doing that to secure their grants, this is a fiction put about by the antis, and for those who love a good conspiricy, doesn''t it strike you as a convenient that big business, profits from energy companies and anti global warming theories all come as the same package?     The sicentists have not been doing a good job at making themselves look stupid, the people who hacked into computers and stole emails are doing the job of trying to make them look stupid. Anyone that works in science (as I do, though not in climatology) knows that the leaked emails look like completely normal work practice, not covering up, not manipulation but regular behaviour of people doing a real job in a complex area. Global warming is slow and there will always be places that buck the trend, but there just isn''t some kind of global conspiricy to pretend it''s happening when it''s not. Scientists are in general people trying to find out what''s actually going on and normally will fight tooth and nail to be independant from outside influences. You really should have more faith in them than the media who really are financed and influenced by interests other than trying to find the truth. It''ll be ordinary people around the world that will suffer,maybe not here, maybe not in some parts of Canada, but many people will have their lives and their environment changed for the worse. Pretending (hoping) that it''s not us and we can''t do anything is giving in to the scum-bag multinationals that don''t want to cut their profits from selling us oil and the products that use it.

[a1canary 0]

Good stuff spat. What really pees me off about all this stuff that has blown up out of the UEA businesses is the obsession with the one argument about whether or not climate change is man made. Suppose that it is not man made. What then? We can all go back to work with a sigh and wonder to each other what all the fuss was about? And we can forget all about market driven resource depletion, commodity price spikes, habitat destruction, species extinction, pollution, inequality, poverty...

Because if climate change is nothing to do with us, we can carry on abusing the planet and its resources and ignoring the poor!

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Penguins don''t interest me and I''d much rather jump in the motor and be sitting under a palm tree 30 minutes later in Costa del hemsby slurping on a pina colada.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]Penguins don''t interest me and I''d much rather jump in the motor and be sitting under a palm tree 30 minutes later in Costa del hemsby slurping on a pina colada.[/quote]

Which is what your grandfather did too Arthur, except he probably got there on a bicycle. Lord knows what he dumped into the environment on the way. I''m with you mate.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]And we can forget all about market driven resource depletion, commodity

price spikes, habitat destruction, species extinction, pollution,

inequality, poverty...[/quote]Most of the above can be laid at the door of big business - businesses who lobby governments to get what they want while the population at large get squeezed at the petrol pumps and are made to feel guilty about filling their car so the government can squeeze them for more tax.  What do the government do to promote solutions to these problems ?  Not much, but they spend millions on trying to frighten us into saving Co2 at all costs.And when the governments do fly in from all over the world to "tackle" the one thing they agree must be tackled, what do they do ?  They fail to get an agreement.  And China keeps opening up new coal-fired power stations.

[Joanna Grey 0]

1. The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has no background in Climate Science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming the head of the IPCC.

2. Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed.

3. A paper that became a key reference source for the IPCC’s claimed that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was “negligible”. It turned out that 49 of the 84 climate monitoring stations used for the report had no history of their locations at all, meaning no one could verify where the data came from. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest no fewer than 18 “had been moved” during the study period to warmer urban areas. When the source data was re-examined it was found that urbanisation was responsible for 40% of the warming previously reported and claimed as evidence for “man-made” global warming.

4. When asked to independently review the IPCC’s last two reports on claimed sea-level rises, the reviewing scientist was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors was a sea level specialist”.

5. Up until 2003, the IPCC’s satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so the IPCC used an increase of 2.3mm recorded on a single Hong Kong harbour tide-gauge to claim a global sea level increase of 2.3mm.

6. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was derived from nothing more scientific than a phone interview with someone who wasn’t even a scientist.

7. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “man-made” global warming would lead to increasing numbers of natural disasters, such as Katrina scale hurricanes, was based on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to critical peer-review.

8. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “man-made” global warming was going to result in deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was also based on a non peer-reviewed claim in a non-scientific paper.

9. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “up to 40%” of the Amazonian rain forest could react drastically to even a slight reduction in rainfall was based on a non-peer-reviewed non-scientific paper.

10. The IPCC’s claim that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level, rather than the actual 26%, has now been retracted.

11. According to the United States Historical Climateology Network (USHNC) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be poorly situated, meaning that they have a margin of error greater than one degree Centigrade, which is huge in climateology terms.

12. In 1978 there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations; today there are only about 1,200.

13. The vast majority of lost climate monitoring stations were sited in rural areas, meaning that overall results are distorted upwards due to a much greater percentage of such stations being located in urban areas, often on top of warm office blocks.

14. Carbon dioxide contributes only 4.2% to 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect.

15. Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is actually man-made.

16. Water vapour accounts for between 90% and 95% of the green house gas effect.

17. An estimated 99.99% of water vapour is natural, meaning that no amount of de-industrialisation could get rid of it.

18. There have been many times when the temperature of the planet has been higher than it is now; these include the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene and the Jurassic periods.

19. Antarctic ice core samples prove that increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them as claimed by the IPCC.

20. A leading figure in the “Climategate” scandal now admits that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995.

21. 2008 and 2009 were the two coolest years of the decade, neither of which are likely to be as cold as 2010.

22. During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times higher than what they are now – yet the temperature was lower.

23. Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change.

24. Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar in cause.

25. The planet Mars has warmed by about half a degree Centigrade since the 1970’s, which is about as much as the Earth over the same period; as far as we are aware there is no industry on that planet.

26. The 0.7 degree Centigrade increase in temperature over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, climate trends.

27. The distance between the Earth and the Sun varies; thus affecting the amount of heat energy the earth receives.

28. Earth’s axial tilt oscillates between 21.4 degrees and 24.8 degrees, which affects the distribution of the sun’s energy across its surface.

29. Antarctica has 90% of the earth’s ice and it is growing, not shrinking as claimed by the IPCC.

30. The Arctic sea ice has now returned to its 1979 levels, which is when monitoring began.

31. The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007.

32. The Arctic is now one degree Centigrade cooler than it was in the 1940’s.

33. Sea level 81,000 years ago was one metre higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower.

34. According to satellite data sea level has been decreasing since 2005.

35. Instead of damaging forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow.

36. Some climate scientists argue that urban warming is responsible for half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002.

37. According to a leaked “Climategate” email, temperatures recorded in Darwin, Australia, were shown to be falling by 0.7 degrees Centigrade per century – but after IPCC “homogenisation” they were recorded as increasing at 1.2 degrees Centigrade per century.

38. It is alleged by Russian scientists that Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit “cherry picked” climate data from just 25% of Russia’s surface weather monitoring stations, thereby overstating Russia’s warming by a very significant two-thirds of a degree Centigrade for the period between the 1870’s and 1990’s.

39. It is alleged that Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit, the body at the centre of “Climategate”, threw out original temperature data that could have been re-examined to verify its findings, because it claimed it did not have “storage space”.

40. The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, allegedly including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to make trillions of dollars if cap-and-trade is passed by the US administration

[The Butler 0]

M F I don''t know where this information came from but thank you.

I have not seen it detailed as such all in one place.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

M F I don''t know where this information came from but thank you.

I have not seen it detailed as such all in one place.

[/quote]

Well, I suppose it''s either his/her own creation or he/she has not attributed it.

I wonder if he/she would kindly set the record straight?

OTBC

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Well, I suppose it''s either his/her own creation or he/she has not attributed it.

I wonder if he/she would kindly set the record straight?[/quote]As this boards resident googlemeister Bly, why not have a little google to see if those forty point are correct or not? That should keep you happily googling for a while. Google on![&]

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

M F I don''t know where this information came from but thank you.

I have not seen it detailed as such all in one place.

[/quote]

I''m guessing either the Daily Mail or Fox News........

[Bury Yellow 2]

Does anyone know if the Leeds game is a sell out

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Does anyone know if the Leeds game is a sell out[/quote]

What''s this thread got to do with you anyway?

Coming on here with questions about NCFC and football, shame on you[:D]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Well here''s the Rajendra Pacauri chappie currently Head of Yale University''s Climate and Energy Institute according to Wikipedia.

And a little bit of their bumph about him:

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born August 20, 1940) has served as the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002. He has also been director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University. He has also been the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University''s International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri has been outspoken about climate change. He is now serving as the head of Yale''s Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI).

At the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony when the award was shared between Al Gore and the IPCC on December 10, 2007, Pachauri represented the IPCC.^{[2] [3]}

Now putting 2 and 2 together I suggest the The Daily Telegraph might be a good starting point for determining the author of the 40 points.

But it would be much easier if Furioso attributed the author of those 40 points. Looks like he/she''s gone into hiding though.

OTBC 

P.S. That''s what tends to happen when you try to make fun of Google. As your pal nigel.

[;)]

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Well, environmentally speaking Bly, I''d suggest that fellow looks like he could do with a bit of a clean-up himself.

[Tony DaWonderful 35]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Well, environmentally speaking Bly, I''d suggest that fellow looks like he could do with a bit of a clean-up himself.[/quote]No no, YC all that hair is a pollution filtration system! You dont know nuffin!

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

Bury Yellow wrote the following post at 22/03/2010 5:22 PM:

Does anyone know if the Leeds game is a sell out

That''s the kind of rubbish I''ve come to expect from you Bury Yellow.

PS the Carbon Footprint for Elland road is a colossal 9 1/2. That''s very nearly an arm full.

GPB.

[Evil Monkey 52]

Myths, misunderstandings and unadulterated bullsh*t... the sheer amount of inaccuracies spouted on this thread (occasionally from both sides of the climate debate) is truly staggering.  I could personally refute or explain a large number of Mustachio''s list of climate points, but I really can''t be bothered.But I will just make a point to Blahx3... one of your points was about the intricacies of climate modelling and uncertainty with future projections.  No scientist I know would disagree with this - models, by their very nature, deal with uncertainties.  The best climate models take such things into account, which is why you''ll find the IPCC''s climate projections dealing in ranges and scenarios, instead of predictions (there is a major difference).  No one will try to say that these projections are an attempt to tell the future, more an attempt to give us an idea of the kind of climate (not weather) we''ll be dealing with, in order to help us mitigate and adapt in the future.  Whatever we choose to do, on the timescales we''re dealing with here most of us will be long gone, so its really not worth you all getting so worked up about it.  The planet will still be here, it will not ''die'' as some claim and life will go on.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Myths, misunderstandings and unadulterated bullsh*t... the sheer amount of inaccuracies spouted on this thread (occasionally from both sides of the climate debate) is truly staggering.  I could personally refute or explain a large number of Mustachio''s list of climate points, but I really can''t be bothered.
[/quote]

Ah, but is it Furioso''s list of climate points????? Or..........?

We''re waiting Mustachio. [8] We''re waiting. [8]

Cat got your whiskers?

OTBC

[ca 1]

Not sure about the site becoming crap more about the site becoming a Leeds forum, 20 Leeds threads all on the front page - oh dear!!!

[blahblahblah 2]

EM - My only real point was that the results of warming on Mars shouldn''t be discounted when compared to the models of Earth.  The whole "this earth is dying and it''s all our fault" nonsense appeals to the egos of humans I reckon - it''s all going wrong, but we can change it, wow, suddenly we''re all climate super-heroes !  When governments spend millions on getting us to swallow this hog-wash so that they can justify raising taxes on fuel to cover the cock-ups that de-regulating the banking industry has caused, well, that''s a reason to get animated, don''t you think ?

[Joanna Grey 0]

LOL @ bbb getting his Big Girl''s Knickers in a twist.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Myths, misunderstandings and unadulterated bullsh*t... the sheer amount of inaccuracies spouted on this thread (occasionally from both sides of the climate debate) is truly staggering.  I could personally refute or explain a large number of Mustachio''s list of climate points, but I really can''t.

[/quote]

Oh go on... You know you want to.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]LOL @ bbb getting his Big Girl''s Knickers in a twist.[/quote]Yeah, ok... [:)]

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]LOL @ bbb getting his Big Girl''s Knickers in a twist.[/quote]

Yeah, ok... [:)]
[/quote]

Not you, t''other bbb.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]LOL @ bbb getting his Big Girl''s Knickers in a twist.[/quote]Yeah, ok... [:)][/quote]

Not you, t''other bbb.

[/quote]Oh !  Ah. Yeah !  Ok ! [:)]

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]EM - My only real point was that the results of warming on Mars shouldn''t be discounted when compared to the models of Earth.  The whole "this earth is dying and it''s all our fault" nonsense appeals to the egos of humans I reckon - it''s all going wrong, but we can change it, wow, suddenly we''re all climate super-heroes !  When governments spend millions on getting us to swallow this hog-wash so that they can justify raising taxes on fuel to cover the cock-ups that de-regulating the banking industry has caused, well, that''s a reason to get animated, don''t you think ?[/quote]Thing is Blah, with regards to the Mars warming, the article you linked does go on to mention that pretty much most of the rest of the climate scientists contacted have refuted this evidence, and quite rightly to - to try to link any events on one planet to another is completely at odds with stellar science.  There are so many different and complex factors involved in the Earth''s climate that to try to boil it down to one specific component on a completely different planet is like trying to compare NCFC with Leeds (we''re worlds apart).The sun is indeed a major component of our planet''s climate, but its not as simple as that - fluctuations in solar output, fluctuations in the Earth''s orbit around the sun on a yearly (and on longer timescales) basis, both have an impact.  But in terms of keeping the Earth warm, one of the biggest factors is the so-called ''greenhouse gases'' (GHGs) within our atmosphere.  I strongly recommend to anyone who is in any doubt about climate science, and to those who believe they already know it all, to read James Lovelock''s original GAIA book.  Although somewhat anecdotal in its style, and over 30 years old now, it does offer an insight into the Earth''s major systems and how they interact.  Specifically, with regards to the Mars point: "If the Earth were simply a solid, inanimate object, its surface temperature would follow the variations in solar output."  Over 4.5 Aeons, it has not.On the other hand, I do agree with you regarding the ''climate super-heroes'' and so-called ''greenwashing'' (the eco equivalent of bullsh*t practiced by industry and governments to make themselves appear more concerned than they actually are).  Too many people think they have all the answers and think they can preach to others about how they should live their lives.  Changes are needed, yes, but it is the major step-changes in technology and society that will make the overall difference on our GHG output - a major shift to renewable energy, electric vehicles (proper ones, not the G-First-Wizz), building design, or major new zero-carbon aircraft technology.  Turning off our low energy lightbulbs or walking more or eating less meat will only make so much difference.The onus is on industry and governments to get the planet out of a hole of its own making, and yet they are the ones who appear to be profiteering from it all....