# Bobs global warming/smart meter whinge-a-thon



## Spandex

Here you go Bob. A place for all your alternative facts on global warming and smart meters. Basically the topic is "the contents of Bobs brain", so you can't go off topic here. I'll start things off:

Man made global warming is real and smart meters don't microwave your testicals.


----------



## 3TT3

On yer bike mate 




Little known fact or at least of little interest to UK folk .
Ireland isnt going to meet the emissions targets for 2020 it signed up to ,so its going to get fined .
Recently a milk production cap per acre was removed across the EU..er so?
The cow population here has gone up,there were already more cows than people.
Agriculture and associated production accounts for 45% of our emissions and its increasing , a lot of that is direct cow emissions  .
Sounds like a new dragons den opportunity ! cnaf (cow nappy and air filter) . :lol: 
Govt response is of course, keep our heads down till next election , just worry about water charges and keeping EU masters happy.


----------



## Spandex

Yes, I think we've all heard the "because X makes more CO2, we don't need to worry about Y making loads of it" argument.

If I was slapping you round the head every minute, I'm not sure you'd accept the argument that I can carry on doing it as long as JohnH is kicking you in the nuts every 30 seconds.


----------



## 3TT3

:lol: 
but if I was wearing my "sports protector" .
Im not saying global warming is an evil fabrication foisted on us by dogooders and that our brains are being damaged by say vibrations from wind farm towers springing up all over but.
Its laughable that govt policy encourages us to cycle to work/use leccy cars (as long as they dont lose too much tax revenue) and so on,but then some minor improvements in this regard are totally outweighed by literally bs 
Theyre now blaming the Green party , who got wiped out in the last election/but were in a coalition govt, for signing us up to unrealistic targets.
The greens you see didnt forsee a cow population increase..shame on them ! .


----------



## Spandex

3TT3 said:


> :lol:
> but if I was wearing my "sports protector" .
> Im not saying global warming is an evil fabrication foisted on us by dogooders and that our brains are being damaged by say vibrations from wind farm towers springing up all over but.
> Its laughable that govt policy encourages us to cycle to work/use leccy cars (as long as they dont lose too much tax revenue) and so on,but then some minor improvements in this regard are totally outweighed by literally bs
> Theyre now blaming the Green party , who got wiped out in the last election/but were in a coalition govt, for signing us up to unrealistic targets.
> The greens you see didnt forsee a cow population increase..shame on them ! .


You're just repeating the same fallacious argument though. The implication being that the smaller CO2 producers are not worth addressing because a larger CO2 producer exists.

The measures taken to address CO2 production should take into account a number of factors - the primary one being how easy it is to reduce CO2 for that producer. If instead you assume that the volume of CO2 produced should be the deciding factor when working out which producers to prioritise, you just end up crippling yourself and doing nothing.

Anyway, where's Bob when you need him. This thread needs less debate and more conspiracy theories.


----------



## John-H

Wouldn't be ironic if someone mentioned the EU on this thread :roll: oops


----------



## 3TT3

Ah well I have a special derogation from the commission , I posted up on this just on the basis of the title . I was unaware of its origins at first not having followed the other thread for awhile . 
Hey I did send a pm on that other matter .


----------



## John-H

:lol: I was referring to myself mentioning the EU. We mentioned it once and thought we'd got away with it - quick all shut up before Bob comes along. . . . Warming global thoughts about smart meters tum te tum. Those meters hey? Heavens isn't it warm? [smiley=oops.gif]


----------



## NickG

Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!

You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.

How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## NickG

And anyway...who's Bob? :lol:


----------



## Spandex

NickG said:


> Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!
> 
> You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.
> 
> How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]


Now, I know you don't really believe any of the above, because I've seen you debating things in the Mk1 section where you rely on and refer to 'experts' opinions on many different topics. Don't you read reviews before buying things? I know I do - not because I 100% trust every 'expert' reviewers opinion, but because they tend to know more than me so I give their opinions a degree of weight.

As for man-made global warming, the majority of experts do agree. Of course, not all of them do, but there isn't a single scientific principal where ALL the experts agree. So, it comes down to a choice - at what point do you trust them? How many have to agree before you believe it?

There are qualified doctors out there who claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The vast majority of doctors disagree with them. Would you give your child the vaccine or not?

Just remember, there IS ALWAYS a right and wrong answer - Not knowing what that is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure if the UK economy goes down the pan, the brexiteers will all say "we made the right choice, but the politicians screwed it up". Well my response will be "if you didn't allow for the fact that politicians might screw it up, then you made the choice badly".


----------



## Spandex

NickG said:


> And anyway...who's Bob? :lol:


Well, I'm a bit upset that he hasn't dropped by. I've tried to make it all cosy here for him.


----------



## NickG

Yeah, i've definitely debated things in the Mk1 section, but these are areas where i have control and have researched, or attempted to at least increase my knowledge in the area. I also like a debate, hell i can debate with myself and happily present an argument for or against almost anything, but that doesn't mean i'm right and can almost always appreciate both sides of an argument!

An example of this is the area of 'suspension', you can read into suspension setup for a lifetime and still not know everything or be able to make a conclusion on what set-up/style/system is best, for that reason you won't find me pushing any particular theory as correct. The removal of the front anti-roll bar is a great example, there's people saying this is 100% the way to go, whereas others find this blaspheme as 'of course you need one'. I've read theories and have decided to trial it as i like the theory, that doesn't mean it's right, but i can at least test it and see if it works for me. If it does, maybe i can form a solid opinion on it and cram it in every post going forwards in the knowledge that i've tested it and it works, or vice-versa.

Regarding vaccines, i don't have a child, so from an unbiased point of view i'd say it could well cause Autism or it might not. If i had a child then i do know i would be getting them vaccinated, again i have no research to suggest either way and the majority of professionals agree it is safe, so i'd have no problem with getting it and also wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt if it caused negative side effects, as i would be relying on experts advice who are paid to know better then me.

So how can anyone, without any possibility of conducting their own research in the real world, regarding either Global Warming or 'Brexit', make their decision and stand by it 100%? You can't possibly, you can only hold your own opinion and should respect other people's.

Being right or wrong can surely only be measured at a certain point? A year from now the economy could be down the pan and it could be regarded as the wrong choice... but what happens if 2 years on the economy is then booming, is that because of, or in spite of Brexit?! :lol: It seems to be 50% of "experts" wanted it one way and 50% the other, so i hate that the next best solution is to ask a bunch of people who haven't got a clue what should happen.

To be honest i do think Global warming is a real thing although not necessarily an issue, i don't believe anyone knows how much man contributes to it, from there it's then reasonable to conclude that i don't know how much i contribute to it, so for that reason i won't let it effect anything i do. What's the point in not living the few years you have how you want to, on the basis that you may or may not be influencing the global climate? When i want to cycle to work i do, but not because of emissions, when i want to burn copious amounts of fuel on a track i do, when i turn the heating off it's because i hate being too hot and like saving money and when i want to have bonfire i do it (As long as the neighbors not got the washing out, i'm not a complete a-hole!) :lol: If you're conscious of the issue and actively seek a way to reduce your own carbon footprint, then good on you, i would assume that's because it's what you want to do however, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do!


----------



## NickG

Good god, it's Friday afternoon at work...can you tell!!! :lol: :roll:


----------



## Shug750S

NickG said:


> Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!
> 
> You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.
> 
> How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]


Damn cold today though.

A few years back the 'experts' were telling us we'd have a Mediterranean climate in the U.K. by now.

Maybe we should ignore the experts for a while?


----------



## NickG

Shug750S said:


> Damn cold today though.
> 
> A few years back the 'experts' were telling us we'd have a Mediterranean climate in the U.K. by now.
> 
> Maybe we should ignore the experts for a while?


Not a bad call, i wouldn't say no to the offer of some more bike days!


----------



## YELLOW_TT

Shug750S said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!
> 
> You can apply that same theory to the ridiculous arguments about the EU In, Out, Shake it all about crap. There's no right or wrong answer, if there was, it would be a decision made, not come down to a vote that allows the outcome to be decided by 99% of people who haven't got a bloody clue which is the right way, let alone any solid theory to support it.
> 
> How anyone can strongly argue for or against either of the above and ridicule others for their differences in opinion is beyond me... I was always taught not to argue unless you were 100% certain you were correct with you argument. Anyway, pointless rant over, at least i got that one out of the system! [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> 
> 
> 
> Damn cold today though.
> 
> A few years back the 'experts' were telling us we'd have a Mediterranean climate in the U.K. by now.
> 
> Maybe we should ignore the experts for a while?
Click to expand...

Must be the same expertise who told everyone to drive diesel cars as it was better for the environment


----------



## Spandex

NickG said:


> Regarding vaccines, i don't have a child, so from an unbiased point of view i'd say it could well cause Autism or it might not. If i had a child then i do know i would be getting them vaccinated, again i have no research to suggest either way and the majority of professionals agree it is safe, so i'd have no problem with getting it and also wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt if it caused negative side effects, as i would be relying on experts advice who are paid to know better then me.


But that's pretty much it in a nutshell. You trust your (or your childs) life to 'experts' even though you know there is always _some _disagreement between them. If you can be so confident in their informed opinions that you trust them with your life, then surely you'd be confident enough to back that view in a forum debate?? Even if 'backing it' is simply you pointing out that the vast majority of medical opinion is on your side.



NickG said:


> So how can anyone, without any possibility of conducting their own research in the real world, regarding either Global Warming or 'Brexit', make their decision and stand by it 100%? You can't possibly, you can only hold your own opinion and should respect other people's.


Because it doesn't have to be 100% unless, like Bob, you're looking for a loophole. He's happy to trust his life to 'experts' when he wants to, yet as soon as he doesn't like what they're telling him he hunts around for any dissenting voices then hold them up as proof that the 'experts' are all wrong because they can't agree with each other. Or, even more amusingly, he hunts back through history to find an instance were scientists were wrong, then claims that as evidence that they must be wrong now.

If someone stood you in front of a door and said, as a structural engineer, they felt there was a strong likelihood the room on the other side would collapse at some point in the next half hour, I suspect you'd make a decision not to walk through that door. And, importantly, you'd stand by that decision 100%, even though the information you based it on was clearly an opinion with no guarantees. And if someone said it's fine to walk in the room because "structural engineers have been wrong in the past", it would be perfectly reasonable to debate the logic of that statement, without having to understand structural engineering at all.

When Bob tells me we can't trust doctors because of Harold Shipman and something about stomach ulcers, I don't feel I need a deep understanding of modern medical techniques in order to point out the flaws in his argument.


----------



## NickG

Spandex said:


> When Bob tells me we can't trust doctors because of Harold Shipman and something about stomach ulcers, I don't feel I need a deep understanding of modern medical techniques in order to point out the flaws in his argument.


Yep, that's just unreasonable! :lol:



Spandex said:


> But that's pretty much it in a nutshell. You trust your (or your childs) life to 'experts' even though you know there is always _some _disagreement between them. If you can be so confident in their informed opinions that you trust them with your life, then surely you'd be confident enough to back that view in a forum debate?? Even if 'backing it' is simply you pointing out that the vast majority of medical opinion is on your side.


I would probably back that view yes, but again, that's a fairly small percentage of people saying it _can_ cause autism in a small amount of cases, not that it does in any majority of cases.

Even if 100% of doctors agreed that maybe 1/10,000 children will develop autism due to this vaccination, would you take the risk? What are the risks of serious life changing effects of Measles for example... i don't know at all, but in reality maybe neither option is particularly favorable, therefore you could argue there is no right answer!



Spandex said:


> If someone stood you in front of a door and said, as a structural engineer, they felt there was a strong likelihood the room on the other side would collapse at some point in the next half hour, I suspect you'd make a decision not to walk through that door. And, importantly, you'd stand by that decision 100%, even though the information you based it on was clearly an opinion with no guarantees. And if someone said it's fine to walk in the room because "structural engineers have been wrong in the past", it would be perfectly reasonable to debate the logic of that statement, without having to understand structural engineering at all.


It depends what i needed to go into the room for doesn't it! If it's to save a loved one, i'd still go in there and hope lucks with me in the half hour window, if it's for a £5 bet i sure as hell wouldn't! The consequences to me personally aren't worth it for money.

Relating that back to Global warming then, if Global warming was 100% going to cause death to the human race in 5 years and the experts all or in majority agreed, I'd do everything i could! But as it is, it _might_ cause something bad in many many years, the consequences of which personally aren't worth worrying about, especially when you have such a minuscule affect on the outcome.

But what if the majority agreed that Global warming 100% would lead to the human race not being able to survive another;

100 years? I'd be inclined to get on board, i'd probably be feeling the effects in my lifetime and (Potential) children's lifetime.

1000 years? Selfish maybe but i probably wouldn't be concerning myself with doing anything drastic about it... scientists should focus on space travel to find a new habitable planet instead i'd say! :lol:


----------



## Spandex

NickG said:


> It depends what i needed to go into the room for doesn't it! If it's to save a loved one, i'd still go in there and hope lucks with me in the half hour window, if it's for a £5 bet i sure as hell wouldn't! The consequences to me personally aren't worth it for money.


Exactly! It doesn't matter what you would chose, or how you balance your priorities. The point I was making was that you can make a decision which you can back up 100% even if the information you're basing it on is incomplete. Hence why we can debate brexit on here, even though our information comes from 'experts' and isn't 100% guaranteed to come true.


----------



## bobclive22

Well here I am Spandex,

I posted a video for John relating to smart meters and RF exposure, he stated it was rubbish.

Here we go, I am in my mid 70`s, for about a year I have been suffering from acute tiredness, tired after a nights sleep, tired during the day, I was led to believe it was my age and had accepted this, having viewed that video one of the symptoms of RF radiation is *acute tiredness.*
Looking back, about the same time I started to have this problem I had purchased an android tablet for my wife, we found WiFi was almost none existent in our bedroom, to remedy this I hard wired my office router to a second router in the bedroom. The wifi from this router now connects with the tablet, the router ran 24/7.

2 days ago after viewing that video I turned the router off at night, *I AM NOW BACK TO NORMAL*, yes, that quick, so bullshit or not I can honestly state that RF emitting in my bedroom caused my acute tiredness. Prior to that episode of tiredness I had constructed a brick extension to my garage plus a brick side extension to the house. All the work other than plastering I did, even dug out most of the foundations.


----------



## bobclive22

> When Bob tells me we can't trust doctors because of Harold Shipman and something about stomach ulcers, I don't feel I need a deep understanding of modern medical techniques in order to point out the flaws in his argument.


Rubbish Spanex, you can`t trust so called experts just because they say they are experts.

Shipman thought he could alter his computer records without trace,

Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren
discovered the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, the experts in this field called their discovery rubbish, that was until the most widely used drug at the time ran out of patent some 8 years later.

After a heart attack some 30 years ago I was placed on statins, I was then given an Angina spray to help alleviate the side effects of the statins, after reading an article on the net I decided to come off those drugs. While on statins I could not walk 200 yards without pain, 30 years later I walk miles, I always question expert opinion.


----------



## bobclive22

> NickG wrote:
> Does anyone else tend to give zero-f***ks about global warming due to the fact that experts can't even agree on whether it exists or not? It's peoples opinions, based on 'facts' determined by others, so how can anyone spend time on a TT forum debating it? You don't know, i don't know, the bloody 'experts' don't know!


*It is unproven,* it`s solely based on computer models GIGO, and it has massively increased your energy bills, filled the countryside with wind turbines and caused the diesel scandal, the pain for diesel owners has only just begun, I`m petrol though, did my homework. Therefor it should be debated, if you fill a greenhouse with CO2 the plants increase their yield, if you fill the same greenhouse with NOX the plants die, doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure out which is the pollutant, but if you don`t question it you won`t know will you.


----------



## bobclive22

> As for man-made global warming, the majority of experts do agree. Of course, not all of them do, but there isn't a single scientific principal where ALL the experts agree. So, it comes down to a choice - at what point do you trust them? How many have to agree before you believe it?


Spandex, do you trust them if you can`t replicate their studies because those climate scientists promoting AGW won`t release their data to anyone outside their grouping, do you just take their word for it. It`s all in the climategate emails.

If you can`t replicate the peer reviewed studies then the studies are rubbish.


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> *I AM NOW BACK TO NORMAL*.


Plenty of room for a whole new debate there Bob :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> so bullshit or not I can honestly state that RF emitting in my bedroom caused my acute tiredness.


No, you honestly can't state that. All you have described is a sequence of events. You haven't even shown it's repeatable, which is surely the bare minimum needed to form any kind of proof??

Oh, and welcome to your thread


----------



## 3TT3

Ill just state for "Bob" I allways think of Rowan Atkinsons Bob..probably ruined the name Robert for a whole generation !

There is a guy on Irish television Duncan something, Duncan boring really.. the program is called eco eye..aye aye.
generally how we can save millions of therms by building our houses out of balsa wood n so on n so forth..a total eco platform .Obviously with no dissenting viewpoints in the course of the never ending series.

However . the bold Duncan threatened to stop providing his services to the state broadcaster if his arch enemies viewpoints were repeated ..
These were some doods who stated like "sheet man global temp is cyclical , we could be heading for warmer times still prior to the next ice age,temperature records over the past 3 or 4 hundred years dont mean doodle" and so on.
Me personally, Ive no wish to see an hour of Duncan on tv anytime soon one way or the other but hey way to go on a monopoly viewpoint.
"Im right and God help anyone who tries to oppose me"


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As for man-made global warming, the majority of experts do agree. Of course, not all of them do, but there isn't a single scientific principal where ALL the experts agree. So, it comes down to a choice - at what point do you trust them? How many have to agree before you believe it?
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex, do you trust them if you can`t replicate their studies because those climate scientists promoting AGW won`t release their data to anyone outside their grouping, do you just take their word for it. It`s all in the climategate emails.
> 
> If you can`t replicate the peer reviewed studies then the studies are rubbish.
Click to expand...

Bob, the 'climategate' emails were a non-story that the sceptic community tried to turn into a scandal. The contents of the (carefully filtered) emails were taken out of context and none of the investigations into the leaked information have shown anything untoward.

Not to mention the fact that this was 8 years ago, and many other papers will have been published since then.


----------



## John-H

Shug750S said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I AM NOW BACK TO NORMAL*.
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of room for a whole new debate there Bob :lol:
Click to expand...

You don't think there might be some "confirmation bias" there?

Reminds me of the magnets that save fuel. Remarkably the people that bought the magnets and the argument posted that they were doing more mpg!

Or the Goons; "Dear Sir, Since taking your course of thunder pills I feel like a new man. Signed, Mrs Ivy Turnbill"

Keep taking the tablets :wink:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> if you fill a greenhouse with CO2 the plants increase their yield, if you fill the same greenhouse with NOX the plants die, doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure out which is the pollutant


Genius. If it's good enough for some plants in a greenhouse, it's good enough for the whole planet, its climate and everything living in it, right? I mean, that's the point you're making isn't it bob? A greenhouse full of plants is the same as a planet, yeah? Apart from not having to worry about ice caps in a greenhouse, of course. And 'weather' - You don't get that in a greenhouse either. And if it gets too hot in the greenhouse you can vent to outside. And humans don't live in greenhouses. But apart from all that, it's a good analogy. Good work there bob. Have you considered getting your crayons out and writing to your local MP about this?


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so bullshit or not I can honestly state that RF emitting in my bedroom caused my acute tiredness.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you honestly can't state that. All you have described is a sequence of events. You haven't even shown it's repeatable, which is surely the bare minimum needed to form any kind of proof??
> 
> Oh, and welcome to your thread
Click to expand...

Bob, you could have bought your mrs headphones to use with the tablet in the bedroom. 
Would have been quieter when she was watching it

You'd have slept better...


----------



## NickG

Spandex said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends what i needed to go into the room for doesn't it! If it's to save a loved one, i'd still go in there and hope lucks with me in the half hour window, if it's for a £5 bet i sure as hell wouldn't! The consequences to me personally aren't worth it for money.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! It doesn't matter what you would chose, or how you balance your priorities. The point I was making was that you can make a decision which you can back up 100% even if the information you're basing it on is incomplete. Hence why we can debate brexit on here, even though our information comes from 'experts' and isn't 100% guaranteed to come true.
Click to expand...

You can, but only because of the extreme scenario pondered. If you was to say one structural engineer is 100% sure the room will collapse, where as another equally qualified structural engineer is 100% sure it will not collapse, thats essentially the subject of Brexit no?

I still won't be entering the room admittedly, but they're both experts so who am I to judge who's right? I couldn't argue with either party either way... exactly like Brexit. I wouldn't want to make a decision which will be based purely on chance, therefore my only logical answer is to remain away from the room. That still doesn't mean it's right however does it, there's still a 50% chance it won't collapse, there's still a 100% chance I'd go in there to save a loved one and a 0% chance I'd go in for a fiver.

Apply that to Brexit, to me the only logical solution was remain, because you can always gather more info to leave at a later date. To me what's not logical is to make the leave/remain vote be decided by me, Bob, John, you and Shugs as none of us have any form of qualification to make the 'right' decision. Logically we should all agree that none of us really know the right decision and on that basis, I'm amazed that anyone thinks they are right!

I have no idea, leaving the EU could turn out to be brilliant, so I sure as hell Can't preach any more about how it was the stupidest thing ever... but in that same token I can't congratulate the Leave voters either! At the time I was angry, but in honesty my anger is at allowing it to be out in the hands of the general public. If none of this happened, there was no general public vote and we woke up this morning to a News Report of "Britain to leave EU - the process has begun" I'd actually be a lot happier with what was happening!!


----------



## Spandex

NickG said:


> You can, but only because of the extreme scenario pondered. If you was to say one structural engineer is 100% sure the room will collapse, where as another equally qualified structural engineer is 100% sure it will not collapse, thats essentially the subject of Brexit no?


Not at all, no. The vast majority of independent experts in various fields such as economics and international law said that leaving the EU would be bad for the country. I'm not including politicians in that statement, because obviously they tend to either have an ideological belief one way or the other, or they tend to chose a position based on political strategy rather than what's best for the country as a whole. So no, it wasn't 50/50 or even close to that. Hence why we had senior politicians coming on tv telling us we were 'tired of experts' - they had to somehow dismiss the overwhelming weight of expert opinion against them.



NickG said:


> To me what's not logical is to make the leave/remain vote be decided by me, Bob, John, you and Shugs as none of us have any form of qualification to make the 'right' decision. Logically we should all agree that none of us really know the right decision and on that basis, I'm amazed that anyone thinks they are right!


Well, I completely agree that it's insane to ask the likes of us to decide something so complex, with such far reaching implications spanning decades. But then we come back to the structural engineer - if you HAVE to make a decision and you have the information, you're forced to form a strong opinion on the best course of action, even whilst accepting that it has the potential to be wrong. And if I can form an opinion on it strong enough to go to a polling station and vote, then surely that opinion is strong enough to argue the toss on a car forum?


----------



## Shug750S

Problem is the grass is always greener is a pretty good statement.

Establishment / experts were shocked at outcome as most referendum (referendi ?) tend to go with the status quo rather than risk change.

Of course without parallel universes no one will ever know if it was a good or bad call, as things could have happened anyway.

I am not an expert, but can only see pound dropping, exports becoming harder and economy getting tougher.. we can only wait and see


----------



## John-H

You included the answer in your post Nick - that nobody can be 100% certain what will eventually happen but just as it's safer not to go in the room when the structural engineer said it could collapse, it was also safer to remain in the EU as any risk of remaining was incremental and could be steered in time but voting leave was a leap into the unknown with the potential for catastrophic collapse just like the room.

Now let me ask - is it right or wrong to take such a risk and gamble with the country and its people? The answer to that question is the true answer to the right and wrong of the decision - depending on if you think taking such a risk for an unknown advantage is a morally correct way to go or should you play safe? - not to use the eventual (unknown at present) outcome of leaving as the determinant.

It's like someone saying I'll flip a coin and if it's heads you might suddenly gain some advantage but you might not but you have to bet your life savings to have a go and you might lose them. Oh and if it lands on heads then nothing happens and you keep your savings just as if nothing happened. What would you do? Argue the toss (pun intended) that nobody can be certain that heads will win or tails will be good or bad or do the one thing that is certainly safe and not take the risk? A question for Cameron really.


----------



## Spandex

That's the thing. Leaving the EU has the potential to cause massive damage to the economy, but the actual outcome is very difficult to predict accurately. Huge risk and unpredictability don't make good bedfellows, so it's logical that you would only take such a massive gamble if the problems (actual, not theoretical or potential) being caused by staying in the EU were significant enough that they outweighed the massive risks.

Now, it's very telling to me that the leave campaign struggled to show serious damage currently being caused by us being in the EU (sure, they pointed out issues, but nothing disastrous) and much of the campaign centered around the _potential_ future problems. EU army? Turkey joining? Etc, etc... These are the sorts of things that might require us to make a decision if they ever happened, but the leave campaign acted like this was the only opportunity the UK would ever get to influence the EU or even leave it. They needed people to think the risk was worth it because we were standing on the brink of some imaginary precipice.

Then you get people like bob who actually admit they are happy to put up with a reduced economy just so he can retain his 'britishness'. Because bob can't understand that 'britishness' has been changing for as long as Britain has existed, and no one is interested in a 70 year old mans antiquated idea of Britishness any more. The world is trying to move on, while bob is trying to turn the clocks back - he's voted us back out of the EU and he's hoping to persuade us to stop using wifi. Actually bob, have you considered disconnecting the internet altogether?


----------



## John-H

I think we are in danger of being off topic on Bob's thread about global warming and smart meters but then again he didn't post first ... hmmmm


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> Leaving the EU has the potential to cause massive damage to the economy,


Yes. Potential. It may, or may not happen.



Spandex said:


> and much of the campaign centered around the _potential_ future problems.


See above.

The coin toss analogy really isn't a good one (apart from it being a 'double headed' coin'?) as you're only making up the rewards for one side and not the other, which is slightly biased. You could easily flip it the other way and say things would stay the same or things may well prosper (eventually, admittedly) but I understand the sentiment.  And neither is the collapsing room really as any variables can be thrown in to buffer the argument either way.
NickG seems to be the only one speaking any real (*unbiased*) sense here. I too am also one that was unsure which way to vote due to there being pro's and con's in both. (As it was, I couldn't, due to geographical and logistic reasons but that's a different story). Had I been forced to, I probably would've gone for 'leave' but had the outcome been 'remain', I wouldn't have had a problem with it as that's what the majority thought was best and voted as such. I was as shocked at the outcome as any and wondered if it was the right decision (quite possibly not, time will tell). :? 
One thing is for sure though, no one, and I mean *no one*, knows how this is going to pan out. From the average Joe, up to the higher echelons, everything is pure speculation - nothing more. Whilst speculating the 'what, where, when and how's' on forums can be informative, not to mention entertaining, it's just pure guesswork. Only time will tell.


----------



## John-H

Some fair points but the binary choice on the leave side has a much bigger effect in a relatively short time with the associated bigger risk of it going wrong. Staying put gives no immediate change and a much greater time and chance to manage any long term risk.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to explore the potential truthfully and then decide rather than decide first without knowing?

Supposedly that's why May won't allow a Scottish referendum on independence before the result of negotiations with the EU are known. Apparently it would be "unfair" to ask the Scottish people to decide before the outcome.

How then was it fair to ask us ley public to decide before the deal was known? - and even when it is, not allowing us to to change our minds? How does that work?

The right and wrong of the result years down the line may not be known but I stand by the referendum being a stupid decision by Cameron that puts us all at a far greater risk. That's why I chose the coin toss analogy compared to walking away.


----------



## Roller Skate

In all the years I've been on this forum I've never read such utter s*** ... :lol:


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Some fair points but the binary choice on the leave side has a much bigger effect in a relatively short time with the associated bigger risk of it going wrong. Staying put gives no immediate change and a much greater time and chance to manage any long term risk.


Oh I fully agree John. Wholeheartedly.



John-H said:


> Wouldn't it be more sensible to explore the potential truthfully and then decide rather than decide first without knowing?


Again, I fully agree. But also, how long would it take to explore possible outcomes? And how do we know when would be the best possible time to leave? The EU would always make it as hard as possible for anyone to leave whether it be 10 years ago or in ten years time. So maybe we wouldn't be able to "decide first" as maybe we wouldn't actually 'know'. Just a thought?



John-H said:


> Supposedly that's why May won't allow a Scottish referendum on independence before the result of negotiations with the EU are known. Apparently it would be "unfair" to ask the Scottish people to decide before the outcome.


Yes, and that makes perfect sense to me. Fortunately she's in a position to, unlike we were.



John-H said:


> How then was it fair to ask us ley public to decide before the deal was known? - and even when it is, not allowing us to to change our minds? How does that work?


It wasn't. And I can't for the life of me fathom out why it was done when it was done and how it was done. Like I say, I was on the fence with the whole debacle from day one. Why? Because I don't know enough about politics or economics to make an informed (very important) decision as to how the country would or should be run. The vast majority of the population are the same (whether they believe it or not). There is no way this decision should have been made by the 'general' public.



John-H said:


> The right and wrong of the result years down the line may not be known but I stand by the referendum being a stupid decision by Cameron that puts us all at a far greater risk. That's why I chose the coin toss analogy compared to walking away.


Yes. A very stupid decision that no doubt will have serious repercussions somewhere down the line. I do understand why you used the coin toss analogy (ie - a big gamble) and like I say, the sentiment.


----------



## Stiff

Roller Skate said:


> In all the years I've been on this forum I've never read shut utter s*** ... :lol:


You should try Scoobynet :lol: They even have a 'muppets' section


----------



## Roller Skate

Stiff said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all the years I've been on this forum I've never read shut utter shit ... :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> You should try Scoobynet :lol: They even have a 'muppets' section
Click to expand...

Bimmer Forums ... just as bad. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving the EU has the potential to cause massive damage to the economy,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Potential. It may, or may not happen.
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> and much of the campaign centered around the _potential_ future problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See above.
Click to expand...

Just because there are two potential outcomes doesn't mean they're equally likely. Risk is a function of probability as well as impact. The leave campaign hoped we'd ignore that though - they presented unlikely potential issues as though they were guaranteed. They presented unlikely potential benefits (£350m a week to the NHS?) as though they were guaranteed.



Stiff said:


> The coin toss analogy really isn't a good one (apart from it being a 'double headed' coin'?) as you're only making up the rewards for one side and not the other, which is slightly biased. You could easily flip it the other way and say things would stay the same or things may well prosper (eventually, admittedly) but I understand the sentiment.  And neither is the collapsing room really as any variables can be thrown in to buffer the argument either way.


Well to be fair, the 'collapsing room' analogy was supposed to explain how you can debate something even when you're not an expert in the complex components underlying the decision. You defer to the experts for the 'facts', then debate the logic of how those facts are applied. It wasn't ever supposed to be analogous to the brexit decision though.


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> I think we are in danger of being off topic on Bob's thread about global warming and smart meters but then again he didn't post first ... hmmmm


You got there before I did ....
The EU thread was hijacked by Bob with smart meters etc. Now the smart meter thread is hijacked by EU stuff. One can't win :roll: 
[just like this country and the EU remain/leave thing]


----------



## John-H

Well I agree; we put up with Bob going on about global warming and smart meters for some considerable time in the EU thread so it is ironic but not perhaps so immensely unfair that there's been a bit of a rant about the EU on the "Bobs global warming/smart meter whinge-a-thon" thread. But perhaps we should now allow the correct topic to prevail so everything is in its correct place . . .


----------



## ZephyR2

Roller Skate said:


> In all the years I've been on this forum I've never read such utter s*** ... :lol:


At last, someone talking some sense here amongst the sea of Remoaners.


----------



## Roller Skate

ZephyR2 said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all the years I've been on this forum I've never read such utter s*** ... :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> At last, someone talking some sense here amongst the sea of Remoaners.
Click to expand...

The post isn't targeted at any side of the fence, it's targeted at the argument. Nobody wins ... the people involved are simply having small chunks of their lives being sucked away by futility. I'm surprised at both John and Spandex, two people I've got quite a bit of respect for rising to the bait of trying to explain reason to someone who's either trolling them or is in reality an imbecile.

I read this rubbish daily being spouted by absolute retards on my Facebook page that have over the last couple of years suddenly become economists and pseudo scientists, experts in Brexit outcomes and global warming ... people that I wouldn't let walk my dog they're that unreliable. All they're doing is reciting their view of the one sided rhetoric they read, I think like people that read Dan Brown books, it makes them feel intelligent and superior.

With top economists around the world trying to work out what the outcome of Brexit is going to be so they can hedge their bets on the gamble of the century, most of them admit there's simply too many variables to be in any way certain.

But here you all are ... arguing the toss, being bitchy and doing nothing more than increasing your post count.


----------



## John-H

Very kind sir. I think another factor is also liking a debate and there have been some hilarious moments. That's why I like this forum. You meet all sorts of people and opinions and some very clever, helpful, entertaining and nice people too


----------



## Spandex

Bobs definitely not trolling anyone...

But as John said, debating him can be entertaining, even if I do end up reading a lot of his posts though my fingers, with my head in my hands.


----------



## John-H

I did laugh when you started this thread :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

About RF,



> You don't think there might be some "confirmation bias" there?


That was my first thought John, how long does confirmation bias last, perhaps that`s what has cured me.  

By the way the Southwell Minster school near to where I live turn off wi-fi during school hours.

http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html


----------



## John-H

A precautionary principal perhaps? There was speculation that given the almost infinite number of planets and the likelihood that even a small percentage developed life that in turn developed radio, then why aren't our skies awash with signals? Conventional wisdom of the estimates and some simple maths was that the average time between civilisation, development of radio, nuclear war and annihilation meant that we were in between visible civilians and in turn it wouldn't be long before we wiped ourselves out - but perhaps the more optimistic view is that they all discover that radio fries your brains and so turn it off :wink:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> About RF,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think there might be some "confirmation bias" there?
> 
> 
> 
> That was my first thought John, how long does confirmation bias last, perhaps that`s what has cured me.
> 
> By the way the Southwell Minster school near to where I live turn off wi-fi during school hours.
> 
> http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you didn't click on a single one of those links, but judging by the various abstracts I read (and I'll admit, I'm not planning on downloading all the actual papers) they're not testing anything like domestic wifi. Most of them seemed to be 2.4Ghz at *3W or 12W* - significantly more than any wifi device you'll ever encounter in the home.

Regardless, I'm sure someone could compile an equally long list of studies that contradict the results you linked to. That's how science works. It's not enough to find a few trials that back up your theory. If that was all it took, every food product known to man would be classed as carcinogenic, based on some study or other.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bobs definitely not trolling anyone.


I thought this tread was for me, I don`t believe you can troll your own thread, or maybe you can in a Spandex world.


----------



## bobclive22

> The post isn't targeted at any side of the fence, it's targeted at the argument. Nobody wins ... the people involved are simply having small chunks of their lives being sucked away by futility. I'm surprised at both John and Spandex, two people I've got quite a bit of respect for rising to the bait of trying to explain reason to someone who's either trolling them *or is in reality an imbecile.*


How nice, I wonder what stone you crawled from under.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm guessing you didn't click on a single one of those links,


I didn`t need to Spandex, they are peer reviewed studies. The point is, I now feel normal again and the only difference is I no longer have wi-fi transmitting in my office (router was 1 meter away) or in the bedroom over night.


> Regardless, I'm sure someone could compile an equally long list of studies that contradict the results you linked to.


Possibly so, I wonder who would be funding them.


----------



## bobclive22

Bob wrote


> After a heart attack some 30 years ago I was placed on statins, I was then given an Angina spray to help alleviate the side effects of the statins, after reading an article on the net I decided to come off those drugs. While on statins I could not walk 200 yards without pain, 30 years later I walk miles, I always question expert opinion.
Click to expand...

Is this also your confirmation bias John.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I'm guessing you didn't click on a single one of those links,
> 
> 
> 
> I didn`t need to Spandex, they are peer reviewed studies. The point is, I now feel normal again and the only difference is I no longer have wi-fi transmitting in my office (router was 1 meter away) or in the bedroom over night.
Click to expand...

Where does it say they're peer reviewed? And the reason why you should have clicked on the links is that many of them don't refer to tests which represent actual wifi signals. As I said, they tested RF radiation at 2.4ghz, but that's where the similarity ended. They used massively increased power levels in order to create a measurable effect in rats. Whilst that's interesting, it *does not mean* that they proved that wifi affects humans.



bobclive22 said:


> Regardless, I'm sure someone could compile an equally long list of studies that contradict the results you linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly so, I wonder who would be funding them.
Click to expand...

Then I assume you also wondered who funded the papers you linked to? No, of course you didn't. Because once again you're demonstrating that you completely trust anything that backs up your viewpoint with no questions asked, yet anything that doesn't can be dismissed out of hand. I haven't even linked to any papers, yet you're already accusing them of bias and a conflict of interests. Do you even know you're doing it? Don't you feel the slightest bit of self doubt when it's pointed out to you?


----------



## bobclive22

> Because it doesn't have to be 100% unless, like Bob, you're looking for a loophole. He's happy to trust his life to 'experts' when he wants to, yet as soon as he doesn't like what they're telling him he hunts around for any dissenting voices then hold them up as proof that the 'experts' are all wrong because they can't agree with each other.


This is a reply from Phil Jones to a fellow scientist who wanted to replicate his (Jones) study.

*We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.*

I believe trying to find something wrong with another scientists work is the bedrock of science, but perhaps not in the Spandex world.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2399271/posts
http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/0 ... ipulation/

We also have Kieth Briffa`s divergence problem, he used tree rings as a proxi for past temperatures, *if you do this for the past you must obviously carry it through to the present,* the problem for Prof Briffa a mate of Jones was that his tree rings showed a cooling trend from the mid1960`s onwards, how did he resolve this, he discontinued using tree rings from 1981 and substituted thermometer temps, it`s called apples and oranges and it`s fraud.

The full story below, Being a true believer of the religion Spandex you probably won`t read it but anyone with an open mind should question the validity of the global temperatures derived by Jones and Briffa of the UEA.

http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/0 ... e-divergen
http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/0 ... e-coverup/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1136 ... rming.html

It appears you and your ilk Spandex believe anything spoon fed to you, it`s any wonder you are on the loosing side of this referendum.


----------



## bobclive22

> Then I assume you also wondered who funded the papers you linked to? No, of course you didn't.


I didn`t need to because the mobile industry won`t shoot themselves in the foot, remember asbestos and smoking, that`s why LLoyds won`t insure against health issues related to RF, they are obviously not convinced it is safe and won`t take the risk.


----------



## John-H

It's not a case of them refusing to insure because they believe it causes harm as you do Bob. It's simply a precaution about an unproven possible future risk. At best you could say they don't know so they don't want to take a stand, unlike yourself Bob. They don't back up your argument that it causes harm at all, they simply don't express an opinion and don't want to be involved. That doesn't stop you misinterpreting this and misrepresenting them though :roll:

They won't insure you against nuclear war either because if it happened the cost would be ruinous - so they exclude it. It doesn't mean it's any more likely to happen.


----------



## Spandex

Bob, as I said, the climategate emails have been investigated by a number of independent groups and no fraud had been found. Do you have any evidence that refutes the investigations, or are you hoping that repeating the same quotes over and over will eventually prove something they failed to prove all the other times you said it?


----------



## Roller Skate

I don't know why I'm still reading this but seeing as I am I thought I'd speed up the loss of brain cells I was losing by banging my head against a brick wall.

And guess what ... banging your head against a brick wall uses up 150 calories an hour.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Then I assume you also wondered who funded the papers you linked to? No, of course you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn`t need to because the mobile industry won`t shoot themselves in the foot, remember asbestos and smoking, that`s why LLoyds won`t insure against health issues related to RF, they are obviously not convinced it is safe and won`t take the risk.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight. Because an industry has a vested interest in showing that something is safe, we should just assume it's not. Wowza...


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, as I said, the climategate emails have been investigated by a number of independent groups and no fraud had been found.


I posted an article relating to the Briffa study, where Thermometer temps were graphed onto tree ring proxy data because the proxy data didn`t go in the required direction after the mid 1960`s. The red line is thermometer temperature.

Now a reasonable person would deduce that if the proxi data did not follow the thermometer data after 1960 then the proxi data cannot be considered reliable prior to 1960. In the Spandex world that might not be the case.






Watch above video Spandex, I would appreciate a rational comment regarding the Jones scientific method, surely a reasonable person would deduce that if you don`t have the data you can`t replicate the study, in the Spandex world you don`t need the data because you always take everthing on trust.


----------



## bobclive22

http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128


----------



## Shug750S

Roller Skate said:


> I don't know why I'm still reading this but seeing as I am I thought I'd speed up the loss of brain cells I was losing by banging my head against a brick wall.
> 
> And guess what ... banging your head against a brick wall uses up 150 calories an hour.


Feel your pain Mr Skate...

Who's going to stop first?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I posted an article relating to the Briffa study, where Thermometer temps were graphed onto tree ring proxy data because the proxy data didn`t go in the required direction after the mid 1960`s. The red line is thermometer temperature.
> 
> Now a reasonable person would deduce that if the proxi data did not follow the thermometer data after 1960 then the proxi data cannot be considered reliable prior to 1960. In the Spandex world that might not be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch above video Spandex, I would appreciate a rational comment regarding the Jones scientific method, surely a reasonable person would deduce that if you don`t have the data you can`t replicate the study, in the Spandex world you don`t need the data because you always take everthing on trust.


I think you're missing the point here Bob. I'm not saying I understand climatology in anywhere near enough detail to analyse the data. Your fictional 'reasonable person' doesn't either, because they're not climate scientists, so honestly who cares what they deduce. You'll notice that I've never really commented on the data or the science itself for this very reason, so I'm not about to get into a ridiculous conversation with you about tree rings where neither of us has the first clue what we're talking about.

Whether you like it or not, with no climatology knowledge of our own we're in the hands of the 'experts' here and the experts you're siding with are in the minority. So, I'm curious what criteria you used when deciding which side was right. You clearly didn't base your decision on any actual knowledge of the subject, so what made you decide? I honestly want to know (and it would be nice if you could actually answer for yourself, without posting a link to someone elses opinion.


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> Who's going to stop first?


Not me!!


----------



## A3DFU

Shug750S said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I'm still reading this but seeing as I am I thought I'd speed up the loss of brain cells I was losing by banging my head against a brick wall.
> 
> And guess what ... banging your head against a brick wall uses up 150 calories an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel your pain Mr Skate...
> 
> Who's going to stop first?
Click to expand...

There is an _"unsubscribe topic"_ button at the bottom of the page :wink: 8)


----------



## bobclive22

*Spandex,* forget everything else, it`s beyond you, just watch the video and listen to the questions and answers, without the computer programs the original raw data and meta data scientific studies cannot be replicated. being as you are so poorly educated I will repeat it again, without the computer programs the original raw data and meta data scientific studies cannot be replicated, without the computer programs the original raw data and meta data scientific studies cannot be replicated.






See you May 8th.


----------



## John-H

Bob, you are a cracked record :lol:

Take a step back for some perspective....

Are you ready?

(1) You, inexpert in climate science, have found a minority view video claiming that the accepted majority view is wrong. You also claim to hold true, several other conspiracy theories which go against the accepted view. We've discussed them at length.

(2) The vast majority of experts in climate science have also seen the video (or heard the arguments) but DO NOT accept them in their expert opinion.

So, now, from that perspective (that we have also gained). Answer me this:

Who do you think we believe is more likely to know what they are talking about? 

(1 or 2? No links or other people's quotes allowed)


----------



## Roller Skate

A3DFU said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I'm still reading this but seeing as I am I thought I'd speed up the loss of brain cells I was losing by banging my head against a brick wall.
> 
> And guess what ... banging your head against a brick wall uses up 150 calories an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel your pain Mr Skate...
> 
> Who's going to stop first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an _"unsubscribe topic"_ button at the bottom of the page :wink: 8)
Click to expand...

Yeah ... but it's like watching Game of a Thrones, nothing happens for ages then when you stop watching it your Facebook feed fills up with people going on about a characters head getting cut off.

Guess what I'm waiting for? :lol:


----------



## Shug750S

Roller Skate said:


> Yeah ... but it's like watching Game of a Thrones, nothing happens for ages then when you stop watching it your Facebook feed fills up with people going on about a characters head getting cut off.
> 
> Guess what I'm waiting for? :lol:


Bob will probably quote some expert who advises against cutting heads off as it's a BBC plant or something...


----------



## Shug750S

A3DFU said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I'm still reading this but seeing as I am I thought I'd speed up the loss of brain cells I was losing by banging my head against a brick wall.
> 
> And guess what ... banging your head against a brick wall uses up 150 calories an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel your pain Mr Skate...
> 
> Who's going to stop first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an _"unsubscribe topic"_ button at the bottom of the page :wink: 8)
Click to expand...

I know, but keep watching it as at some point someone will agree with Bob, or maybe he'll find an expert who everyone agrees with.

Could be a long wait though.

Bit like watching a bad film but hanging around to the end just so you don't miss the shock ending


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *Spandex,* forget everything else, it`s beyond you, just watch the video and listen to the questions and answers, without the computer programs the original raw data and meta data scientific studies cannot be replicated. being as you are so poorly educated I will repeat it again, without the computer programs the original raw data and meta data scientific studies cannot be replicated, without the computer programs the original raw data and meta data scientific studies cannot be replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you May 8th.


Bob, are you attacking me rather than my argument?? Didn't you say that means you've lost the argument? :lol:

And did you somehow mistakenly come to the conclusion that the reports that are discussed in that video are the only ones that confirm man made climate change? Given that the video was made 7 years ago, do you know that no data has been released since then? And are you suggesting that no other studies have been made since? I only ask, because you do seem to reference a lot of very old material when you're scrabbling around for 'evidence'.

Why will you see me on May the 8th? You popping round for tea? Lovely...


----------



## Spandex

Roller Skate said:


> Yeah ... but it's like watching Game of a Thrones, nothing happens for ages then when you stop watching it your Facebook feed fills up with people going on about a characters head getting cut off.
> 
> Guess what I'm waiting for? :lol:


Well, Bob's coming over to my place for a cup of tea on May the 8th. I'm gonna turn my wifi up to 11 and see what happens.


----------



## Roller Skate

Spandex said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... but it's like watching Game of a Thrones, nothing happens for ages then when you stop watching it your Facebook feed fills up with people going on about a characters head getting cut off.
> 
> Guess what I'm waiting for? :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Bob's coming over to my place for a cup of tea on May the 8th. I'm gonna turn my wifi up to 11 and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as the wifi's going to be on can you live stream it? Live on May 8th 2017, exclusively on The TT Forum, International Idiot Baiting.


----------



## John-H

My cooker went up to 11 . . .










It fried my tea :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> My cooker went up to 11 . . .
> 
> 
> 
> It fried my tea :wink:


11 for when 10 just isn't enough for flambe


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, are you attacking me rather than my argument?? Didn't you say that means you've lost the argument? :lol:
> 
> And did you somehow mistakenly come to the conclusion that the reports that are discussed in that video are the only ones that confirm man made climate change?


Spandex, please show where I am attacking you, you don`t seem to understand do you, Phil Jones data is the defining data used by ALL climate scientists. The video clearly shows that Jones *would not release the RAW DATA.* to allow others to replicate his work.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by *Jones* unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to *press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.*

Debunking UEA`s Dr Keith Briffa's Version of the Hockey Sticks

http://volokh.com/2009/12/06/debunking- ... key-stick/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... osion.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/ ... -rebuttal/

*YAD06 - the Most Influential Tree in the World*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/ ... the-world/
https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yam ... ent-358160

To conclude, it appears Dr Briffa cherry picked his temperature trees and manage to keep all his data out of reach from any scientists that wanted to replicate his work. Briffa and Jones are colleagues at the UEA, *Both have refused to disclose 
their data.*

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.


----------



## John-H

You've not answered my question - 1 or 2 Bob?


----------



## bobclive22

> (1) You, inexpert in climate science, have found a minority view video claiming that the accepted majority view is wrong.


*John*, are these eminent scientists below all wrong for not holding the consensus view on climate change.

Would you sooner believe Al Gores version in his film an inconvenient truth or the facts laid out in the video`s below ?

*Professor Matt Ridley*






*Freeman Dyson, One of the finest minds on the planet.
*





*Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever*'s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.






John, you don`t comment on the select committee`s interview with Phil Jones regarding withholding data, why?
Do you find it acceptable to withhold data from other scientists.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John, you don`t comment on the select committee`s interview with Phil Jones regarding withholding data, why?
> Do you find it acceptable to withhold data from other scientists.


Bob, that video is 7 years old, and referenced an incident even further back. Whilst that behaviour is troubling, it doesn't mean that the data hasn't since been shared, and it doesn't mean that there haven't been other studies since then. And it certainly doesn't mean the theory is incorrect.

This is what I mean when I say you hunt for 'get-out clauses'. You think that by finding something wrong with one study, or one scientist, or one data source you can sink the whole theory. That's not how it works.

Perhaps you can answer one question (I know, I know - I always ask you things which you ignore and just just post more links to the same stuff, but I live in hope): *why do the majority of climate experts believe that man made global warming is real?*


----------



## John-H

Yes, it's a fair question Bob. I'd be interested to hear your answer too, to that simple question about your decision making deduction process. In fact, your answer to Spandex might sway you to contemplate answering 1 or 2 to my question to you too


----------



## Spandex

Also, what's happening on May the 8th?


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, that video is 7 years old, and referenced an incident even further back.


Spandex, It`s not when it happened it`s what it revealed, the video clearly showed the extent these few climate scientists went to stop the release of their data. Today climate change graphics are still using this Global data set complied by Jones.

Is this more up to date for you Spandex, Dec 2015.

*Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. *






*Professor of Physics at Princeton University Professor Happer *


----------



## Spandex

Just answer my previous question.


----------



## bobclive22

Spandex and John.

Another eminent scientist with no funding issues.

Dr Fred Goldberg

John, this is a superb informative video with all the important graphs and math`s with explanations, Spandex, it`s not for you.


----------



## Spandex

Just answer the question...


----------



## bobclive22

> Just answer the question...


Has your needle stuck. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Just want to know why you think the vast majority of climate experts believe in man made climate change. You seem to think it's very obviously bollocks, so how do you explain how most experts in the field don't agree.

Also, I still want to know what's happening on May the 8th.


----------



## John-H

Yes Bob, why do the vast majority of experts disagree with you and what makes you believe you are correct in your opposition? For an admitted non expert what convinced you to oppose them?

Was it just a guess? Did you roll a dice and think if I get a six I'll go for it? What, given the huge strength and number in opposition, made you go the opposite way? Was it just a feeling to support the underdog? Was it nothing more than that?

Can you, or can you not, explain your working? I predict you can't on your past record.

So, 1 or 2? Still waiting....... :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes Bob, why do the vast majority of experts disagree with you and what makes you believe you are correct in your opposition? For an admitted non expert what convinced you to oppose them?


I posted video`s from 3 globally eminently respected scientists,

They explained their scepticism of catastrophic man made global warming, I thought if you viewed those video`s you might have questioned your belief in AGW, or at least checked the facts they refered to. My scepticism started years ago when I followed climate audit and was made aware of how long it took Steve McIntyre to obtain the data that underpinned Michael Mann`s Hocket stick graph, (this graph has now been dropped by the IPCC). The video from the UK select committee also showed how data had been withheld. The climategate emails clearly showed that Mann, Briffa and Jones were closely linked within a small grouping, all were withholding this extremely important data data.

If you are content to accept any pronouncements from any scientists who will not release their data for other scientists to try to validate the original studies then you are a fool, that`s the kindest way I can put it.

Now if all that does not give you pause for thought, you are obviously a true believer in the region of global warming and there is nothing more to be said.

By the way John after removing wi-fi from my office and bedroom I still feel 1000% better than I did before it was removed.
The video I linked to was from a tv channel aired on Israeli TV I believe, The Jewish race are not considered fools, food for thought John.

http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/67 ... l-ban.html


----------



## John-H

I think you are the religious one Bob - belief without proof sounds pretty much an attitude of faith on your part :roll:

Oh, and by the way two seconds with Google shows that Goldberg is not respected and renowned as you claim. Who's feeling a fool now?



> Fred Goldberg is a climate change skeptic; critics state that "while his educational background is in welding technology, Goldberg has been cited as an authority on polar history and exploration at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden." [1]
> 
> Goldberg was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. [2]
> 
> Goldberg identified himself as an "associate professor at the Royal School of Technology in Stockholm," Sweden, as recently as 2006. [3] Goldberg is also listed as a speaker at an Institute forum titled "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability," held in September 2006. [4] However, according to an undated profile of Goldberg, he is "not currently employed" by the Institute. [1] Heartland's profile of Goldberg says he "was affiliated with the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) from 1969 to 2000," and in 2006 "was appointed Secretary General for an International Climate Seminar at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm." [5] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fred_Goldberg


----------



## Spandex

And Bob, I still want to know why you think the vast majority of climate experts still believe in man made climate change.


----------



## bobclive22

> I think you are the religious one Bob - belief without proof sounds pretty much an attitude of faith on your part :roll:
> 
> Oh, and by the way two seconds with Google shows that Goldberg is not respected and renowned as you claim. Who's feeling a fool now?


*
Belief without proof sounds pretty much an attitude of faith on your part*

John, Observations *not computer models*,

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.






*Do you mean this Fred Goldberg.
*
Fred Goldberg (1942-2016)

Fred Goldberg, a climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration, passed away on November 6, 2016. He was 75 years old.
Fred Goldberg was a climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration. He was affiliated with the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) from 1969 to 2000, where he received his Ph.D. in 1975 and became adjunct professor that year. Goldberg had been an invited lecturer at more than a dozen universities around the world and participated in numerous conferences worldwide with papers about thermal cutting, mechanized welding, laser processing, and seam tracking systems. He published in more than 12 languages on those topics as well as on polar history and exploration.

In 1966, he participated in the Stockholm University Svalbard Expedition with Prof. Valter Schytt and Prof. Gunnar Hoppe. In 2004 he formed an informal international network to study and distribute information about climate change and global warming. In 2006 he was appointed Secretary General for an International Climate Seminar at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

He was a frequent lecturer on climate change at civic organizations, on television programs, and to such wide-ranging groups as the Travellers Club, the Swedish Parliament, California Institute of Technology, Linköpings University, University of Copenhagen, Liberalni Institute, University of Leiden, the 9th International Conference on Arctic Mining (Norway), the 260 Club (Tucson, Arizona), and Alandia People's Education Center.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what happens if you question the consensus of climate change.

https://www.cfact.org/2015/03/02/dr-wil ... itch-hunt/






Dr. Ed Berry (Ph.D., Atmospheric Physics)

http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics ... te-change/


----------



## bobclive22

> And Bob, I still want to know why you think the vast majority of climate experts still believe in man made climate change.


They rely on computer models being more accurate than the actual data and the funding, the funding is obviously the key.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/clim ... e-reality/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> And Bob, I still want to know why you think the vast majority of climate experts still believe in man made climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> They rely on computer models being more accurate than the actual data and the funding, the funding is obviously the key.
Click to expand...

So, in a nutshell, your answer is that the vast majority of climate experts are just stupid? They're using completely inaccurate information when accurate information is easily available and widely known about, but lack the basic common sense to realise this? THAT'S the effing conclusion you've come to??? Not only are they stupid, but you... YOU Bob, worked it out when they couldn't?

And what is this funding issue you speak of? And I don't want you to give the usual 'bob answer' where you just repeat a vague unsubstantiated claim, or imply that something is so obvious it doesn't need clarifying. Give us some facts here. Who is paying for almost every climate scientist in the world to make the same effing mistake? And why, given the oil industries well documented history of massively well funded lobbying and dubious scientific studies, are you not equally suspicious of science which favours fossil fuel?


----------



## Spandex

One quote from your link to ponder on though:


> At Cato's Center for the Study of Science our investigations have led us to the hypothesis that the anthropogenic influence on the earth's climate-specifically through emissions of greenhouse gases-is near the low end of the "mainstream" (e.g., IPCC) assessed range of influence. And further, that models developed to simulate the behavior of the earth's climate have generally overestiamted the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.


So what they're saying is that man made climate change is, in their opinion, real - yes, they count amongst the majority view that you think are all idiots or shills. They even believe the effect is within the IPCC 'range of influence'. All they're saying in that article is that it's not as severe as many models predict (although we don't know how many, because for some reason they chose to use the mean instead of the median).

And that, right there, is the problem with your argument. You latch onto any failing in the models because you mistakenly believe that if you can show the model output to be inaccurate, you can completely refute all conclusions drawn from it. In fact I'd suggest you sit down for 5 minutes and just think about the word 'accuracy' and how relevant it is. Think how it would apply to a weather forecast for tomorrow. Think about how accurately they'd have to predict hourly rainfall in mm for you to decide whether or not to hang your washing out, for example.


----------



## bobclive22

> So what they're saying is that man made climate change is, in their opinion, real


*Of course it`s real Spandex, 100% of scientists and all the sceptics agree this*, it`s all about the word *catastrophic*, like 0.8 of a degree since 1860.

Man made global warming has little to do with CO2 and everything to do with land use change. Clearing forests, building cities and airports and roads. CO2 is logarithmic, the more there is the less effect it has, the only possible way catastrophic warming can occur is the positive effect of water vapour which accounts for around 95% of the greenhouse effect, you should know this.

Both sides agree that the signal for man made global warming is a hotspot in the upper troposphere,no hotspot has been found up to present.

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
29 Mar 2017
Testimony of John R. Christy

By the way Dr Mann was the architect of the now *disgraced hockey stick graph which has now been dropped by the IPPC,* he believes he is THE finest scientists on the Planet and says so, notice he is the only panellist to attack the other panellists but gives NO scientific evidence to the hearing. Man appears to suggest that 95% of scientists are bullied by the sceptical 5%, mmm.

Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama
State Climatologist
University of Alabama in Huntsville.

https://science.house.gov/sites/republi ... 170329.pdf





 start at 24.50.


----------



## bobclive22

> And that, right there, is the problem with your argument. You latch onto any failing in the models because you mistakenly believe that if you can show the model output to be inaccurate, you can completely refute all conclusions drawn from it.


SPANDEX, how many model runs do you want, do you keep on going until get one out of thousands that agrees with reality. You can model an aeroplane, a building, a bridge etc and it should be safe first time, you can do so because you know all the variables, even with all the variables known (or thought to be known)a simple design like the millennium bridge caused problems. How do you model a chaotic climate system with any certainty, you can`t that`s why the models get it wrong. They now have the powerful computers on the planet, all that happens is they get it wrong quicker.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> And that, right there, is the problem with your argument. You latch onto any failing in the models because you mistakenly believe that if you can show the model output to be inaccurate, you can completely refute all conclusions drawn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> SPANDEX, how many model runs do you want, do you keep on going until get one out of thousands that agrees with reality. You can model an aeroplane, a building, a bridge etc and it should be safe first time, you can do so because you know all the variables, even with all the variables known (or thought to be known)a simple design like the millennium bridge caused problems. How do you model a chaotic climate system with any certainty, you can`t that`s why the models get it wrong. They now have the powerful computers on the planet, all that happens is they get it wrong quicker.
Click to expand...

You're insane bob. You're basically saying "we haven't got the models 100% right yet, so we should give up altogether". Is that really how you think science should work?? Surely doing it thousands of times until you get it right is EXACTLY what they should do, isn't it??

But in the meantime, my 'hanging your washing out' analogy still stands. Accuracy is a spectrum, not an on/off switch. Inaccurate models are still valuable. Not to you, because you're just looking for a reason not to trust them, you're not looking for what you can learn.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So what they're saying is that man made climate change is, in their opinion, real
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course it`s real Spandex, 100% of scientists and all the sceptics agree this*
Click to expand...

So what do you think we're arguing about? I've not used the word 'catastrophic', and even if I did, it's a pretty subjective word.

So what you've been saying all this time is that you don't believe we should try to reduce CO2 production unless it's going to cause a 'catastrophe'? Anything less than a catastrophe isn't worth worrying about?


----------



## bobclive22

> You're insane bob. You're basically saying "we haven't got the models 100% right yet, so we should give up altogether". Is that really how you think science should work?? Surely doing it thousands of times until you get it right is EXACTLY what they should do, isn't it??


average or median it looks very much the same, the models don`t match reality.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... means1.png

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/sti ... ear-means/


----------



## bobclive22

> So what you've been saying all this time is that you don't believe we should try to reduce CO2 production unless it's going to cause a 'catastrophe'? Anything less than a catastrophe isn't worth worrying about?


Atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm, greenhouse growers increase this to 1200 ppm, submariners breath in on average 5000 ppm, it is a plant food and without it life would not exist. Other than from computer models there is* NO scientific evidence that shows CO2 is dangerous and is the main cause of this small 0.8 degree temperature rise, none, *. I repeat it is not possible to model a chaotic system.

Spandex, On a hot day in the summer months I can drive 10 miles from the city of Nottingham, there can be a 7 degree temp difference between urban and rural and you accept we are heading for catastrophic warming with 0.8 degree rise since 1860 just because these models tell you so.

CO2 is still rising yet temperatures have shown little or no increase since the large el nino of 1998.
Because of this total belief that CO2 is bad we now have this massive diesel problem and NOX which really is dangerous and it doesn`t take dodgy computer models to prove that point.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm, greenhouse growers increase this to 1200 ppm, submariners breath in on average 5000 ppm, it is a plant food and without it life would not exist. Other than from computer models there is* NO scientific evidence that shows CO2 is dangerous and is the main cause of this small 0.8 degree temperature rise, none, *. I repeat it is not possible to model a chaotic system.


Bob, this is beyond moronic. You're making yourself look like a fool. To help you out here, because you genuinely seem unable to grasp the simple concept, no one is saying the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are poisonous to humans, and no one is saying they're directly harmful to plants. What they're saying is that they raise temperatures, and that may reach a level which affects human life. What's good for a plant, and what's survivable in a submarine may not be good for the climate. Got it now? Ok.


bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, On a hot day in the summer months I can drive 10 miles from the city of Nottingham, there can be a 7 degree temp difference between urban and rural and you accept we are heading for catastrophic warming with 0.8 degree rise since 1860 just because these models tell you so.


Excellent. Bob has noticed that everywhere in the world isn't the same temperature. But to address your second point, no I don't thing we're heading for catastrophic warming because a model told me so. I think we're having an undesirable effect on our planets climate because the vast majority of climate experts told me so. If the vast majority of climate experts decide they were wrong then I'll believe that instead. Unless I want to devote the rest of my life to studying climate science, I have no choice but to defer to experts. You're doing the same, but for some reason that you've still not explained, you're choosing to defer to the minority.


bobclive22 said:


> CO2 is still rising yet temperatures have shown little or no increase since the large el nino of 1998.
> Because of this total belief that CO2 is bad we now have this massive diesel problem and NOX which really is dangerous and it doesn`t take dodgy computer models to prove that point.


The graphs you posted and the graphs in links you posted all show an increase in temperatures. The majority of scientists believe this is linked to CO2 increases. It's that simple bob. There really is no point you trying to persuade me it's not linked, because neither you or I are in a position to make those judgements. Your biggest mistake is being arrogant enough to think you are.


----------



## John-H

Yes, Bob, What made you choose to believe the minority view given you are not an expert in the subject? Did someone tell you to or was it some other unrelated prejudice on your part?


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, this is beyond moronic. You're making yourself look like a fool. To help you out here, because you genuinely seem unable to grasp the simple concept, no one is saying the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are poisonous to humans, and no one is saying they're directly harmful to plants. What they're saying is that they raise temperatures, and that may reach a level which affects human life. What's good for a plant, and what's survivable in a submarine may not be good for the climate. Got it now? Ok.


Only computer models support your statement, *empirical evidence does not*, the data from computer models compared the the real world data is running hot, see graph below, these are IPCC projections and they appear to be getting less catastrophic as the years go by. The rise of diesel has been based entirely on this flawed concept, we now burn forests and food for fuel in the total belief the climate models are correct. You construct your model then test it against reality, in this case reality is the most accurate temperature data from satellites and radiosondes.

*Test against reality.*

For an aircraft's first flight, the aim is to *validate* the aircraft's basic handling qualities, and begin measuring performance - including its fuel consumption and cruise efficiency. The test pilots provide vital operational insight so that any differences in handling between the *computer model, simulators and actual aircraft* can be identified for fine-tuning of the controls.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 699-2#Fig6

*IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft*

What they are not prepared to countenance, notwithstanding the real-world, measured evidence, is the growing probability that they and their precious models have so badly misunderstood the climate, or so well understood it and so badly misrepresented it, that global warming is simply not going to occur at anything like any of the exaggerated rates that they had until now so confidently over-predicted.

Do not underestimate the importance of the IPCC's climbdown, albeit that it is furtive and that there is *not a hint of it in the Summary for Policymakers - the only part of the latest assessment that lazy politicians and incurious journalists may ever get around to reading.*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ ... nal-draft/

*Computer models don`t agree with reality, repeat that 100 times.*


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes, Bob, What made you choose to believe the minority view given you are not an expert in the subject? Did someone tell you to or was it some other unrelated prejudice on your part?


It`s all based on computer models which need verification, if they were reasonably correct against real world data which are are not, I might change my mind, the scientists promoting catastrophic warming would also have to freely release all their computer programs, data and meta data they have used in their studies so this can be verified by any other scientist, this is not the case as was clearly shown in the leaked climategate emails. Do you remember Al Gores back to front temperature and CO2 graph, don`t you ever question anything.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... ore-graph/

This is a good read John,

http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/g ... ming02.htm


----------



## John-H

Bob, the basic premise still stands - why is it that the majority of climate experts disagree with you and your minority view?

Is the rest of the world deluded and all the experts incapable of assessing things for themselves?


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, the basic premise still stands - why is it that the majority of climate experts disagree with you and your minority view?
> 
> Is the rest of the world deluded and all the experts incapable of assessing things for themselves?


John the premiss is based on which rises first temperature or CO2, this one study is quoted 967 times, the 3rd highest quoted study in Nature and it`s based on Climate models NOT ice cores, again the real world data does NOT support this study. Open your mind, read all six chapters of this series, please post your comments relating to this article and the science you purport to believe in, if you consider the content is wrong say so and explain why. Stop firing your bullets at me.



> It is precisely because Jean-Robert Petit's research has not contributed one iota of evidence to support the CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis that in his 1999 paper, the one cited 967 times, his reason for claiming that CO2 acts as an amplifier was not the Vostok evidence he was reporting but the IPCC computer models, as shown earlier. So if we accept Petit's judgment as first author that the "significance" of his paper rests on that particular claim, then he has been cited 967 times simply for saying that he has religious faith in the IPPC computer simulations.


http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/g ... ming03.htm

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/13/new- ... 9N4vG.dpbs


----------



## John-H

Bob, that is not the premise we keep returning to and which you repeatedly ignore and fail to answer - you keep missing the point. Please answer this specific question:

Why is it that the majority of climate experts disagree with you and your minority view?

Is the rest of the world deluded and all the experts incapable of assessing things for themselves?

Why do you believe you know best given you are not an expert in climate science? How can you possibly know better than the majority of experts?

If you can't answer that without posting any more links or dubious graphs that you are not qualified to endorse with any authority - Let's keep it general instead. . .

Generally speaking and avoiding any specific subject or examples, I'm curious... What makes you choose a side in an argument?


----------



## Spandex

Ok bob, I feel like you're not really reading what we're posting, you're just repeatedly pasting the same claims from different sites regardless of what you're 'replying' to.

Let's break this down. We both believe different things. Neither of us are qualified to interpret the science ourselves, so what we believe is based on what someone else (who we trust is qualified) has told us. I chose who to believe based on the the sheer weight of opinion within the scientific community. How did you choose who to believe, and why?

Can you see now why posting the science itself isn't relevant? Can you see why this can't be a debate about climateology, so has to be a debate about why someone with no personal insight into the subject would chose a minority view?


----------



## bobclive22

> ]Bob, that is not the premise we keep returning to and which you repeatedly ignore and fail to answer - you keep missing the point. Please answer this specific question:
> 
> Why is it that the majority of climate experts disagree with you and your minority view?


*Because I am more inclined to believe this expert.*

written by Jonathan DuHamel

I am a retired economic geologist and have worked as an explorationist in search of economic mineral deposits, mainly copper, molybdenum, and gold. My exploration activities have been mainly in the Western U.S. including Alaska. I have also worked in Mexico, South Africa, Ireland, and Scotland.

Exploration geologists are trained not only in the geologic sciences, but also in chemistry, physics, botany, and geostatistics. I am also trained in the natural history of the Sonoran Desert.

After graduating from The Colorado School of Mines with a Geologic Engineering degree and Master of Science degree, and before practicing as a geologist, I served as an officer in the Army Chemical Corps assigned to a unit that tested experimental weapons and equipment.

https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/201 ... e-2015.pdf


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ]Bob, that is not the premise we keep returning to and which you repeatedly ignore and fail to answer - you keep missing the point. Please answer this specific question:
> 
> Why is it that the majority of climate experts disagree with you and your minority view?
> 
> 
> 
> *Because I am more inclined to believe this expert.*
Click to expand...

Why? (without posting further links or disputed evidence) answer the question HOW you decide whether to believe anyone in general terms.


----------



## Spandex

Surely you realise, bob, that a lot of scientists on the other side of the argument also have very impressive resumés. That alone is not a good way to chose a side.


----------



## bobclive22

> Why? (without posting further links or disputed evidence) answer the question HOW you decide whether to believe anyone in general terms.


John, the whole Global warming religion is based on the premise that climate models are accurate. Now you are either taking the pi** or are extremely thick if you unquestionably take that for granted.

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... alarmists/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/ ... cientists/


----------



## Roller Skate

Ice creams, popcorn? Kia Ora? Um Bongo? Anyone?


----------



## Stiff




----------



## Roller Skate

Stiff said:


>


 :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

Stiff wrote:
https://68.media.tumblr.com/f253011c31a ... o1_500.gif

Here are the films to go with the popcorn,

*The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies*


----------



## Spandex

Bob is looking more like a spambot every day...


----------



## John-H




----------



## Roller Skate

Brilliant. :lol:


----------



## Nyxx

God that was a funny read. [smiley=book2.gif] :lol:

You believe who you like, we were all told how clean/green, and how great diesel was by "all" the experts. Now the same people are telling us?

A simple look at a bus or lorry pulling off v a petrol car told you all you needed to know, but O now that diesel is the way to go!!! ,....... O wait :roll:

Each to there own. Believe who you like. 

If you really want to talk about a really big problem talk about human population growth. It makes global warming problems like cutting down to 1 sugar in your tea from 2.


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> God that was a funny read. [smiley=book2.gif] :lol:
> 
> You believe who you like, we were all told how clean/green, and how great diesel was by "all" the experts. Now the same people are telling us?
> 
> A simple look at a bus or lorry pulling off v a petrol car told you all you needed to know, but O now that diesel is the way to go!!! ,....... O wait :roll:
> 
> Each to there own. Believe who you like.


I don't think anyone ever claimed diesel was 'clean' or 'green'. People just said it produced less CO2, which is still true, and that happened to be the only thing the governement worried about at the time so VED only took CO2 into account - thus encouraging us all to buy diesels instead of expensive petrol cars.

It would be incorrect to claim that no one worried about diesel emissions - DPFs were mandated on diesel vehicles by the EU as far back as 2006/2007, and the emissions requirements have been getting stricter every year. It's really only our government (and possibly others) that haven't reacted in line with these concerns.


----------



## bobclive22

> I don't think anyone ever claimed diesel was 'clean' or 'green'. People just said it produced less CO2, which is still true, and that happened to be the only thing the governement worried about at the time so VED only took CO2 into account - thus encouraging us all to buy diesels instead of expensive petrol cars.


Your talking garbage as usual Spandex, other than a few Greens 95% of consumers purchased a diesel car *because of it`s fuel efficiency*, which in fact is nothing like the stated manufactures figures.


> I don't think anyone ever claimed diesel was 'clean' or 'green'


 The politicians advisers new the danger but thought it could be engineered out, Volkswagen tried that, oops.

The government put in a sweetener with lower VED, even without that sweetener the diesel would still have sold by the millions purely based on it`s fuel efficiency.

The government *did not inform the general public about the danger of NOX, if they had stated that diesel was more efficient but may kill your kids perhaps less cars would have been purchased*.


----------



## bobclive22

> If you really want to talk about a really big problem talk about human population growth. It makes global warming problems like cutting down to 1 sugar in your tea from 2.


Our planet is getting greener thanks to the growth-boosting effects of extra carbon dioxide in the air.
A greener planet should = more food for the growing populations of the world.

At present millions of acres of land are being farmed for bio fuel instead of food, this has caused a massive increase in the cost of grain, the poorest countries suffer the most. 
Rain forests are being destroyed and cleared for growing crops for biofuel, destroying the lungs of the planet.
Forests are being cut down in US Canada and Eastern Europe and used for fuel in UK power stations and smaller systems within the UK.

Fig. 17a-f: Viscri municipality forest. Final stage of femel system. Oak forests are managed
in age of 120 years by femel system. *Within 10-15 years all old 
trees were felled. The result is like a clearcutting. The timber is mainly used as fuel*

http://wilderness-society.org/wp-conten ... omania.pdf

All this in the belief of the unproven Theory that CO2 will destroy the planet.

It isn`t population growth you should be afraid of it`s the destruction of the bio system by politicians who`s advisors have total belief in the religion of global warming.

CO2 is logarithmic, it is stated that a doubling of CO2 will produce 1.1 degrees C, that`s 270mmp pre industrial to 540ppm = 1.1 degree c increase, we are now at 420 since 1860.

The next doubling is 540 x 2 = 1080ppm = 2.2 degree c rise.
Up to present there has been 150ppm increase in 157 years.

This is still an unproven theory.


----------



## bobclive22

> It's really only our government (and possibly others) that haven't reacted in line with these concerns.


More garbage Spandex, the problems all over the EU and elsewhere.

*Paris, Madrid, Athens and Mexico City will ban the most polluting cars and vans by 2025 to tackle air pollution *

"*Soot from diesel vehicles is among the big contributors to ill health and global warming[/b]," added Helena Molin Valdés, head of the United Nations' climate and clean air coalition, noting that more than nine out of 10 people around the globe live where air pollution exceeds World Health Organisation safety limits.

Paris is stepping up its war on air pollution with a complete ban on diesel cars registered before December 2000.

And a lot of good that will do.*


----------



## John-H

The worst thing is the spread of misinformation via the gullible and the interference with our democracy by those who stand to gain by its spread.


----------



## Nyxx

You guys would argue that black was white or white was black. 

Have fun


----------



## John-H

Nyxx said:


> You guys would argue that black was white or white was black.
> 
> Have fun


I thought that was you that did that :wink:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Your talking garbage as usual Spandex, other than a few Greens 95% of consumers purchased a diesel car *because of it`s fuel efficiency*, which in fact is nothing like the stated manufactures figures.


I love how you think your rants will sound more authoritative with some statistics thrown in, so you just make up the figure of 95% in the hope no one questions it... the irony of you doing that straight after telling me I'm talking garbage isn't lost on me though. :wink:

When I say 'our government and possibly others', the point I'm making is that the EU was much more concerned about diesel emissions than any of the governments which encouraged us (through VED and fuel prices) to purchase diesel cars. I'm not saying our government didn't make a mistake, I'm saying it wasn't the EU conspiracy you would like us to believe it was.

It is of course completely true that the EU tests for emissions don't go anywhere near far enough, but again this is hardly a sign of conspiracy. In fact, for the EU to fully regulate manufacturers with real-world emissions testing would require a level of control and bureaucracy that would have you frothing at the mouth in rage - so I'm not really sure what you think they should have done.

Clearly our own government didn't give a damn about nox emissions, so even the ineffective efforts of the EU are better than what we'd have outside the EU. This is the bit that truly amazes me about your argument - you point out all the failings of the EU, in the completely irrational belief that our government wouldn't have made the same (or worse) mistakes.


----------



## bobclive22

> When I say 'our government and possibly others', the point I'm making is that the EU was much more concerned about diesel emissions than any of the governments which encouraged us (through VED and fuel prices) to purchase diesel cars. I'm not saying our government didn't make a mistake, I'm saying it wasn't the EU conspiracy you would like us to believe it was.


The EU put the directive in place and *designed and policed the standards,* are you actually suggesting that they had *NO idea that real world tests bore no resemblance to their lab tests*, it`s one thing to issue directives like Euro standards it`s another to blatantly ignore them because they were* impossible to meet and tell no one, or was it pressure from EU car makers*. If it had not been for their *total belief in the religion of climate change, that`s a scary 0.8 C increase since 1860* diesel would never have got off the ground.

BACKGROUND AND 
METHODOLOGY
»
Transport is the largest contributor to emissions of NOXin the EU *(46% in 2013)*, and 80% of NOX emissions in the transport sector come from diesel vehicles.*Euro 4 and Euro 5 standards failed to reduce real-world NOX from diesel cars.* Real-world NoX emission factors for Euro 4 and Euro 5 diesel cars average 800 mg/km-3.2 times the Euro 4 limit of 250 mg/km and 4.4 times the Euro 5 limit of 180 mg/km. *In contrast, gasoline-powered cars have met regulated NOX emission limits under real-world conditions*,* including the 60 mg/km limit for Euro 6 gasoline cars*.Since September 2015, all new diesel passenger cars registered in the EU must meet the Euro 6 standard, which lowered 
the NOX emission limit to 80 mg/km. But studies conducted with portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) estimate a* real-world NOX emission factor of 450-600 mg/km (5 to 7 times the limit) for early Euro 6 models.*

That`s *higher than Euro 3 at 500kg per km Jan 2000 and slightly less than Euro 2 at 700kg per km implemented at Jan 1997,* that means 2015 cars cannot even comply with Euro 3 standards of 2000, they will all have to go. If the EU had done due diligence in the first place this air quality problem would probable never have occurred, I kept with petrol though.

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/fi ... nglish.pdf


----------



## John-H

The long winter evenings must just fly by in your house Bob :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> The long winter evenings must just fly by in your house Bob


Just trying to enlighten John, more interesting than watching TV.

Study Dec 2011.

The large sample size of 84,269 vehicles was carefully cross-referenced to a detailed and comprehensive database of vehicle information. We find that there are significant discrepancies between current UK/European estimates of NOx emissions and those derived from the remote sensing data for several important classes of vehicle. In the case of light duty diesel vehicles it is found that NOx emissions have changed little over 20 years or so over a period when the proportion of directly emitted NO2 has increased substantially. For diesel cars it is found that absolute emissions of NOx are higher across all legislative classes than suggested by UK and other European emission inventories. *Moreover, the analysis shows that more recent technology diesel cars (Euro 3-5) have clear increasing NOX emissions as a function of Vehicle Specific Power, which is absent for older technology vehicles. *

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1011010260

*Analyzing on-road emissions of light-duty vehicles with Portable Emission Measurement Systems (PEMS) *

*EUR 24697 EN - 2011 European commission document dated 2011* *NOTE THE DATE*

The PEMS results indicate that average NOXemissions of diesel vehicles (0.93 ± 0.39 g/km), including Euro 5 diesel vehicles (0.62 ± 0.19 g/km), substantially exceed respective Euro 3-5 emission limits. The observed deviations range from a factor of 2-4 for average NOX emissions over entire test routes up to a factor of 14 for average NOX emissions of individual averaging windows. By comparison, on-road NOX emissions of gasoline vehicles as well as CO and THC (total hydrocarbon) emissions of both diesel and gasoline vehicles generally stay within Euro 3-5 emission limits.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/ ... 639_en.pdf

This has been a great experiment on the general public purely in the belief that CO2 is a pollutant, the EU`s own document (EUR 24697 EN) dated 2011 clearly shows the EU were fully aware that NO diesel manufacturer could meet their fairyland targets *in real life*, in fact it is obvious they could not come anywhere near them, I didn`t purchase a diesel but millions have, seems odd that most other countries outside of the EU have stayed with petrol.


----------



## Spandex

Yes Bob, everyone already knows that the tests aren't representative of real world driving conditions. And clearly if we all know that then it's no surprise that the EU also know.

As I've said a number of times, the tests are a compromise. More accurate testing will be more expensive and more bureaucratic (something you berate the EU for, yet now you're suggesting they should have done it). Even the 'real world' on-road testing described in your post isn't accurate, it's just _more accurate_. You still have to invent a standardised driving cycle which won't represent every cars usage. And when it comes to simulating traffic, it's very difficult to do so in a repeatable *and* accurate way (the more accurate it is, the less repeatable it becomes).


----------



## bobclive22

> As I've said a number of times, the tests are a compromise. More accurate testing will be more expensive and more bureaucratic (something you berate the EU for, yet now you're suggesting they should have done it).


Spandex, the EU`s own study in 2012 showed the lab tests were unreliable yet it was ignored until the US caught VW cheating.

They knew Nox was a killer but obliviously hoped a solution could be found before the public realised the danger, bloody criminals if you ask me. You make me puke with your stupid replies. It was the EU that drove diesel, they should have been the ones that ensured it was safe NO MATTER WHAT THE COST.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, the EU`s own study in 2012 showed the lab tests were unreliable yet it was ignored until the US caught VW cheating.


Yes, they know the tests aren't an accurate representation of real world emissions, and they haven't addressed that fact - Didn't I just say that? As for the VW scandal, what does that have to do with it? That's a completely separate issue.


bobclive22 said:


> They knew Nox was a killer but obliviously hoped a solution could be found before the public realised the danger, bloody criminals if you ask me.


Yeah Bob, that right there is pretty much why no one asks you.


bobclive22 said:


> You make me puke with your stupid replies.


Lol.


bobclive22 said:


> It was the EU that drove diesel, they should have been the ones that ensured it was safe NO MATTER WHAT THE COST.


Can you explain how 'the EU drove diesel'? And I don't mean your genius reasoning that because diesel is popular in Europe it *must be* because the EU secretly made it that way. I mean, you've already explained that "95%" of diesel owners bought their car because it was more economic.. did the sneaky EU make diesel engines more fuel efficient?

By the way bob, I do love how you spend half your time complaining about the EU telling us what to do, and now you're complaining that they didn't tell us what to do enough. :wink: Bob wants *more* testing and *more* regulations!! Bob wants the EU to tell us what fuel to use!!


----------



## bobclive22

> Can you explain how 'the EU drove diesel'?


Following the signing of the Kyoto protocol climate change agreement in 1997, most rich countries were legally obliged to reduce CO2 emissions by an average of 8% over 15 years.

Japanese and American car makers backed research into hybrid and electric cars,* but the European commission was lobbied strongly by big German car makers BMW, Volkswagen and Daimler, to incentivise diesel.* A switch to diesel was said by the industry to be a *cheap and fast way* to reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change.

The European auto industry ramped up diesel engine production.* Under EU pressure,*

A senior civil servant, now retired, who worked in the department for transport but asked not to be named, said that cost-benefit studies of a switch to diesel were done by government* but climate change was "the new kid on the block"* and long-term projections of comparative technologies were not perfect.

"We did not sleepwalk into this. To be totally reductionist, *you are talking about killing people today rather than saving lives tomorrow.*

Read the article it`s from your bible the Guardian so it must be true.

As I have said before the diesel scandal was driven by the EU because of their total belief in the religion of global warming.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pollution


----------



## bobclive22

> As for the VW scandal, what does that have to do with it? That's a completely separate issue.


Spandex, the EU were aware lab testing was flawed as early as when it was first enacted, VW must have considered the EPA would be equally soft on the issue. The stupidity of VW was that they had not done their homework, VW obviously considered the EPA would believe VW`s bench tests and take them as accurate, as had the EU.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... 46_web.pdf

If the EPA had not discovered VW cheating the general public would probable *still be unaware of the dangers of diesel pollution*. So of cause it is all linked.

*How The EPA Won $1 Billion From Diesel Cheaters Long Before VW.*

http://jalopnik.com/how-the-epa-won-1-b ... 1732109485


----------



## bobclive22

*Dieselgate in Europe How Officials Ignored Years of Emissions Evidence *

*EU Notified Of Problem Early On*

The EU bureaucracy was one of the first to be informed, through its research organizations, about the high nitric oxide emissions of the VW vehicle fleet. In 2007, experts with European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) tested the emissions from operating diesel cars. Additional tests using the so-called PEMS method were performed in 2011 and 2013. The results were the same each time: Nitric oxide (NOX) emissions were several times higher than the levels measured in type approval tests in the laboratory.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/bus ... 08325.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As for the VW scandal, what does that have to do with it? That's a completely separate issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex, the EU were aware lab testing was flawed as early as when it was first enacted, VW must have considered the EPA would be equally soft on the issue. The stupidity of VW was that they had not done their homework, VW obviously considered the EPA would believe VW`s bench tests and take them as accurate, as had the EU.
Click to expand...

Ah... Only Bob would think it was reasonable to provide an explanation that used the words "must have" and "obviously". What makes you think anyone cares about your half-arsed guesswork. If you don't know the answer, just say "I don't know".

Let me answer it for you. The VW issue has nothing to do with the real-world accuracy of the tests. Conflating the two just shows how little you understand of either.



bobclive22 said:


> If the EPA had not discovered VW cheating the general public would probable *still be unaware of the dangers of diesel pollution*. So of cause it is all linked.


Are you that dumb? Everyone knew diesel and petrol emissions were harmful to our health long before VW got caught cheating. They're not pumping fecking daisies out exhaust pipe. Everyone knew emissions measurements in testing would be lower than real-world usage long before VW got caught cheating. Are you seriously telling me that you didn't know till then? And if you did, what makes you think you managed to work something out that other people couldn't??


----------



## bobclive22

> Are you that dumb? Everyone knew diesel and petrol emissions were harmful to our health long before VW got caught cheating. They're not pumping fecking daisies out exhaust pipe. Everyone knew emissions measurements in testing would be lower than real-world usage long before VW got caught cheating. Are you seriously telling me that you didn't know till then? *And if you did, what makes you think you managed to work something out that other people couldn't?? *


I didn`t buy a diesel. :lol: :lol:



> Everyone knew diesel and petrol emissions were harmful to our health long before VW got caught cheating.


*Don`t link petrol with diesel*, there was and still is* NO concern regarding **health* issues with petrol, read the EU`s own document, it was only *fairy tail CO2 that concerned them*, diesel as you very well know or should know by now is the problem, emission problems associated with petrol were mostly eliminated with the introduction of the cat and low sulphur fuel, petrol I believe has met all recommender levels for nox in real world tests up to the present time.

We are talking about diesel, *petrol is used mainly in the US which as you must be aware has the strictest emission standards in the world as VW found out. *

So what you are saying is that a large percentage of the public knew diesel would damage their own and their children`s health* but went ahead and bought one anyway*, for what, an extra few miles per gallon.

*Read the link below*, the German car industry went to extraordinary lengths to cheat, do you really think there was any intention of informing the general public that their cars were health hazards.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/bus ... 61615.html


----------



## bobclive22

> Let me answer it for you. The VW issue has nothing to do with the real-world accuracy of the tests. Conflating the two just shows how little you understand of either.


You see Spandex, you build a new car, you test it on your test track, you then test it on the urban roads, I believe you are aware of the term test mule.

All the manufacturers needed to do if it was not their intension to fiddle the data was to *test their emissions and fuel economy in the real world when doing the thousands of miles on open roads with the test mules.* They didn`t do so because they were not legally bound to. It`s all in Spiegel, in other words they can cheat in EU counties and even if caught aren`t considered to have broken the law and hence everything rolls on as before. If VW had not been caught out in the US that`s exactly what would be happening now.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *Don`t link petrol with diesel*, there was and still is* NO concern regarding **health* issues with petrol


Let's do the Bob test, shall we? If you fed the exhaust fumes from a petrol engine into a greenhouse, would the plants thrive? If you pumped it into a submarine would the crew survive? :lol:

Petrol exhaust gases aren't good for us bob. You're an idiot if you think it is.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Let me answer it for you. The VW issue has nothing to do with the real-world accuracy of the tests. Conflating the two just shows how little you understand of either.
> 
> 
> 
> You see Spandex, you build a new car, you test it on your test track, you then test it on the urban roads, I believe you are aware of the term test mule.
> 
> All the manufacturers needed to do if it was not their intension to fiddle the data was to *test their emissions and fuel economy in the real world when doing the thousands of miles on open roads with the test mules.* They didn`t do so because they were not legally bound to. It`s all in Spiegel, in other words they can cheat in EU counties and even if caught aren`t considered to have broken the law and hence everything rolls on as before. If VW had not been caught out in the US that`s exactly what would be happening now.
Click to expand...

What information would they use from their test tracks? What would you compare it to? Every time someone released data it would correspond to a different driving cycle, because they wouldn't be following a standard test spec. You can't just hook up some equipment, drive around for a while then get a nice emissions printout at the end.

What you're suggesting is truly unworkable bob. If it helps you believe me when I say that, I have qualifications in technical testing and have managed test teams in the past. Unrepeatable tests are pointless, and if everyone isn't following the same standard test cycle, how can it be repeatable?

Does the engine have to be up to temperature? Is there traffic? Traffic lights? How many stops (where stop-start can help modern cars)? How worn are the tyres? What pressure? How much fuel? How many passengers? Wind conditions? Hills?

Or, ignore all those variables and "just drive around measuring it"? Good idea Bob.


----------



## bobclive22

> What information would they use from their test tracks? What would you compare it to? Every time someone released data it would correspond to a different driving cycle, because they wouldn't be following a standard test spec. You can't just hook up some equipment, drive around for a while then get a nice emissions printout at the end.
> 
> What you're suggesting is truly unworkable bob. If it helps you believe me when I say that, I have qualifications in technical testing and have managed test teams in the past. Unrepeatable tests are pointless, and if everyone isn't following the same standard test cycle, how can it be repeatable?
> 
> Does the engine have to be up to temperature? Is there traffic? Traffic lights? How many stops (where stop-start can help modern cars)? How worn are the tyres? What pressure? How much fuel? How many passengers? Wind conditions? Hills?
> 
> Or, ignore all those variables and "just drive around measuring it"? Good idea Bob.


Well Spandex, if the map used in the lab tests was acceptable on the road why the need for the defeat device, why did VW not use that same map on the road, could it be that their cars performance and fuel consumption would have been severely curtailed. They have been forced to buy back US cars because these vehicles will obviously loose performance with the remap.

While VW has offered to buy back about 500,000 diesel cars in the US that contained defeat devices, the company rejects the case for taking similar steps in Europe because it maintains the software used to bypass emission tests did not breach EU law.

The EU get out of jail card.


----------



## bobclive22

> What information would they use from their test tracks? What would you compare it to? Every time someone released data it would correspond to a different driving cycle, because they wouldn't be following a standard test spec. You can't just hook up some equipment, drive around for a while then get a nice emissions printout at the end.


Please explain how the EPA managed to do just that to VW.

The drama unfolded in 1998 when the Justice Department on behalf of the EPA sued every major diesel engine manufacturer in the United States. The suit alleged these companies' heavy trucks were "*equipped with devices that defeat the engines' emissions control system, resulting in the emission of illegal amounts of oxides of nitrogen."*

The engines met the requirements when run on the EPA's 20-minute test procedure, but had three times the legal NOx emissions in highway driving.



> You can't just hook up some equipment, drive around for a while then get a nice emissions printout at the end.


Well VW obviously came to the same conclusion as you and it cost them how many billions. It must be the arrogance of the Germans thinking they were smarter than the others who had tried it on with the EPA and got caught.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So what you are saying is that a large percentage of the public knew diesel would damage their own and their children`s health* but went ahead and bought one anyway*, for what, an extra few miles per gallon.


Just to address this older post, yes Bob, I am saying exactly that. How on earth is that in any way hard to believe? Parents carried on smoking in front of their children for many years after it was known that it can seriously harm them - many still do. Parents put their children at risk all the time based on bad assessments of the level of risk - "I've been smoking all my life and it's not harmed me", "the car window is always open when the kids are with me and I'm smoking", etc.

No one honestly thought diesel fumes were 'safe'. They might have thought they were more safe than they actually are, or they might have thought they were only dangerous in enclosed spaces, or whatever.

But that narrative doesn't work for you, does it? There always has to be a conspiracy, doesn't there? It can't just be 'human nature' or 'incompetence', it has to be an evil plot by whichever organisation you're getting frothy-mouthed over this week.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well Spandex, if the map used in the lab tests was acceptable on the road why the need for the defeat device, why did VW not use that same map on the road, could it be that their cars performance and fuel consumption would have been severely curtailed. They have been forced to buy back US cars because these vehicles will obviously loose performance with the remap.
> 
> While VW has offered to buy back about 500,000 diesel cars in the US that contained defeat devices, the company rejects the case for taking similar steps in Europe because it maintains the software used to bypass emission tests did not breach EU law.
> 
> The EU get out of jail card.


The map used in the lab tests reduced performance in order to gain efficiency. That's well documented, isn't it? That has nothing to do with why your suggestion for analysing emissions during mule testing is moronic.

As for a 'get out of jail free card', WTF are you on about? Our regulations are different to the EPAs regulations, yes? Our legal system is different to the US legal system, yes? So why do you expect the same results here as over there?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Please explain how the EPA managed to do just that to VW.


They didn't. You're talking about two different things. Firstly, it wasn't the EPA, it was an independent lab that reported it to the EPA. Secondly, the type of real world testing they did was never supposed to be consistent and they never expected it to be - that wasn't an issue for what they wanted to show, but it would be an issue if you were using it for conformance testing.

As it happened, the difference they found between real world and lab testing was so great that it could not be explained by the expected variations inherent in real world tests (those variations that make it unsuitable for conformance testing). This is what prompted an investigation - the results alone would never have been enough evidence because.. you guessed it... real world testing is so variable.



bobclive22 said:


> You can't just hook up some equipment, drive around for a while then get a nice emissions printout at the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Well VW obviously came to the same conclusion as you and it cost them how many billions. It must be the arrogance of the Germans thinking they were smarter than the others who had tried it on with the EPA and got caught.
Click to expand...

Jesus Bob, this is like arguing with a GCSE student. You've learned just about enough to convince yourself that you understand this crap, but you're literally scraping the surface and drawing conclusions based on a painfully narrow understanding. I'm not saying that real world testing can't be used to show emissions, I'm saying it would be massively complicated to use it as a repeatable, reliable conformance test due to the natural variations you get from having zero control over a huge number of variables during the test.


----------



## Spandex

Just to help your limited understanding Bob, the emissions 'figure' for a car isn't a nice number that pops out the end of an emissions test rig once you've done a few miles of random driving. The emissions vary constantly as the car is used. It varies by speed (engine and road speed) and load. It varies by air temperature and pressure. It varies by acceleration (rate of change of speed).

So to calculate a single figure, or a range of figures, you need to create a test specification that describes all of these things, including how fast the car must accelerate/decelerate to each speed setting and how long they remain at each speed. You might need to include stops (to simulate traffic) - these need to be defined in both location and length.

Now, this sort of thing is fairly easy to do on a rolling road in a climate controlled room, but what happens when testing is done all over the world, at different altitudes, on different roads, with different traffic levels, with different temperatures, with different topography, all tested at different times of the year? How on earth are you planning on comparing the results of two different cars from the same manufacturer, let alone from different manufacturers?? How can you say they've 'passed' a test when you know that the results could vary massively from one day to the next? Do we just accept that cars tested in Holland have lower emissions because it's flat??

And more importantly, can you still call it 'real world' testing when it's only representative of people who drive in broadly the same manner as the test spec? Most people who buy a Ferrari don't use it to commute into the office in town. No one buys a Caterham to drive up and down the M1 every day. Does every car need a slightly different test cycle to make sure it actually represents the real emissions, rather than a fictional value based on a someones idea of 'average' usage?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the current tests are the best we can manage, but it's idiocy to think the solution is, "just do real world tests, duh". The hurdles they'd need to overcome are huge, and the resulting bureaucracy would be expensive and complex - something you claim not to like.


----------



## bobclive22

> Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the current tests are the best we can manage, but it's idiocy to think the solution is, "just do real world tests, duh". The hurdles they'd need to overcome are huge, and the resulting bureaucracy would be expensive and complex - something you claim not to like.


The Euro emission limits regulate how much specific pollutants, such as NOx, may be emitted by a car when it is tested under laboratory conditions and using a specific driving cycle. In the case of gasoline vehicles, the NOx emissions measured in the laboratory are *fairly well in line with the level of emissions measured on-road,* i.e., when driving the car under real-world conditions on a real road.

*Lab results are compared with on the road result*s,

N*Ox emissions from gasoline and diesel cars*

This, however, is not the case for diesel cars. *Diesel vehicles in the EU are allowed a much higher NOx emission level than gasoline cars.*In 2000, when the Euro 3 standard was introduced, the allowed level was 0.5 g/km, more than twice as much as for gasoline vehicles. Yet, as vehicle tests show, even back then *the real on-road emission levels were closer to 1.0 g/km*, i.e., much more than actually allowed by the standard. Still, the vehicles received their type-approval and could be sold, as the* Euro emission standards have to be met under laboratory conditions only.*

We address the existing concerns by analyzing the gaseous emissions of one novel Euro 6 diesel car and six Euro 4-5 diesel cars with *Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS).*

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1012008412

*Use of portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) for the development and validation of passenger car emission factors.*

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1012009363

These studies appear to have overcome your huge hurdles Spandex.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> These studies appear to have overcome your huge hurdles Spandex.


You're an idiot.

You haven't even read those studies. This kind of nonsense might pass for 'research' in your little world, but I'm buggered if I'm going to spend time trying to decode this when I have no way of knowing what you've actually linked to.


----------



## bobclive22

> You're an idiot.
> 
> You haven't even read those studies. This kind of nonsense might pass for 'research' in your little world, but I'm buggered if I'm going to spend time trying to decode this when I have no way of knowing what you've actually linked to.


No need to decode anything Spandex, being able to read should do it.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You're an idiot.
> 
> You haven't even read those studies. This kind of nonsense might pass for 'research' in your little world, but I'm buggered if I'm going to spend time trying to decode this when I have no way of knowing what you've actually linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to decode anything Spandex, being able to read should do it.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the studies, but you want me to waste my time reading your jibberish? No thanks, Einstein...


----------



## bobclive22

It all starts here,

Tony Heller: Is the global temperature record credible?






https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/05 ... more-32398


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It all starts here,
> 
> Tony Heller: Is the global temperature record credible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/05 ... more-32398


I have a new rule: I'm not going to read or watch anything you link to. If you can't be bothered to make the point in your own words then I can't be bothered to read it.


----------



## John-H

And this is the beginning of where it all ends Bob:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61351.html


----------



## bobclive22

> And this is the beginning of where it all ends Bob:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61351.html


Do you actually believe this utter rubbish, It`s from the green bible.

experts on a committee set up by the Australian government, that should tell you something John.

_"Members agreed that, in our lifetime and on our watch, substantial areas of the Great Barrier Reef and the surrounding ecosystems are experiencing major long-term damage which may be irreversible unless action is taken now.

"The planet has changed in a way that science informs us is unprecedented in human history. While that in itself may be cause for action, the extraordinary rapidity of the change we now observe makes action even more urgent."_

The corals have been around for millions of years, are these so called experts saying that a 0.8 degree c rise in temps is the highest temperature the planet has experienced in all those millions of years, if not how did the coral survive in the past.

What action should be taken John, stop el nino events, how has the planet changed, is it the 0.8c rise in temperature since 1860.

It`s all bull John, it`s aimed at convincing president Trump to stay in the Paris climate change agreement. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

I'm sure you'll be happy with Trump. The rest of us shake our heads sadly and wonder if you'll grasp reality in the time you have left.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm sure you'll be happy with Trump. The rest of us shake our heads sadly and wonder if you'll grasp reality in the time you have left.


Do you mean the 2 of you. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Best bit of news since climategate.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/01/ ... n-climate/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Best bit of news since climategate.


Why's that good news, Bob?


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> Best bit of news since climategate.
> 
> Why's that good news, Bob?


----------



## Spandex

Heh. That's what I thought. You really do know how to make yourself look good, don't you.

Trump leaving the Paris Accord does nothing to help you, or to change anything about your countries CO2 priorities, yet you're still happy about it - the only conclusion being (and confirmed by you) that you simply like seeing people you don't agree with unhappy. It makes you feel like you're 'winning'. You have reached peak 'old man'. You're just a bitter old fart.

Has it occurred to you that all the things you hate are just things that have changed since you were young? You're not principled. You're not intelligently finding flaws. You're just moaning about change like every other old fart in the world.


----------



## bobclive22

> Heh. That's what I thought. You really do know how to make yourself look good, don't you.
> 
> Trump leaving the Paris Accord does nothing to help you, or to change anything about your countries CO2 priorities, yet you're still happy about it - the only conclusion being (and confirmed by you) that you simply like seeing people you don't agree with unhappy. It makes you feel like you're 'winning'. You have reached peak 'old man'. You're just a bitter old fart.
> 
> Has it occurred to you that all the things you hate are just things that have changed since you were young? You're not principled. You're not intelligently finding flaws. You're just moaning about change like every other old fart in the world.


Unfortunately Spandex, this is not you,

A freethinker is one who maintains that the basis for all beliefs should be science, logic, and reason, rather than faith, authority, dogma, or tradition.

Trump leaving the Paris accord does everything to help me, it is the second step along the way to destroying the religion of climate change, the first step was the release of the climategate emails which caused Copenhagen to fail.

Co2 is a plant food therefore it should be increased not restricted, it`s odd Spandex, all the doom is in the future and it`s all from computer models, what is sad is that you believe this GIGO without question.

*Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100*

A $100 billion a year of tax payer money for 0.05c of a degree reduction, *our NHS could do with some of that cash.*

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-re ... e-promises


----------



## Spandex

If anything, the US leaving the accord has galvanised support for it. Trump is seen by the majority as a laughing stock, so it's unlikely that any other countries will look on this as anything more than another of his badly thought out decisions. It's not step on the way to anything.

As for science, logic and reason, you understand none of them. You think understanding science just means reading selected websites and quoting them.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> . . . Co2 is a plant food therefore it should be increased not restricted, . . .


Explain that to the coral reefs :roll:


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Co2 is a plant food therefore it should be increased not restricted, . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Explain that to the coral reefs :roll:
Click to expand...

It really is a great illustration of how simplistic bobs understanding of logic is when he repeats that 'plant food' line. He genuinely can't comprehend the notion that something might cause *two* separate effects. Free thinker, my arse.

Even if science proved without any doubt that CO2 caused our heads to fall off, he'd still be sitting there telling us all that CO2 can't hurt us because it's plant food.


----------



## bobclive22

> It really is a great illustration of how simplistic bobs understanding of logic is when he repeats that 'plant food' line. He genuinely can't comprehend the notion that something might cause two separate effects. Free thinker, my arse.
> 
> Even if science proved without any doubt that CO2 caused our heads to fall off, he'd still be sitting there telling us all that CO2 can't hurt us because it's plant food.


Spandex, how many deaths have been caused by CO2 levels of up to 6000 ppm, atmospheric levels are 400ppm or thereabouts, Hint, zero. The reason for this is that Co2 is not dangerous to human life and there probably is not a greenhouse effect which is only an unproven theory.

Spandex, you like peer reviewed science, below is a 2017 paper.

*Foundations of Greenhouse Theory Challenged by New Analysis of Solar System Observations*

*Ned Nikolov says:	*

*We now have a full-blown alternative theory to the current Greenhouse (GH) hypothesis.* Unlike the GH concept, however, our theory is based on vetted planetary observations spanning an enormous range of physical environments in the Solar System. The GH hypothesis began its life as a theoretical conjecture in 1827 that the atmosphere worked like "the glass of a hothouse" (see the writings of Fourier). Of course, we now know that this is completely erroneous &#8230; Yet, the core assumption of the GH hypothesis, namely that a free convective atmosphere could 'trap' radiant heat, *has never been validated or demonstrated experimentally.* Such a validation has been lacking for 190 years simply because heat-trapping by free gases is *physically impossible in reality!*

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... ?aid=88574


----------



## bobclive22

> Explain that to the coral reefs :roll:


John, it`s all to do with El-Nino events, nothing to do with CO2 and global temps which have been stable for the last 20 years or so.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, how many deaths have been caused by CO2 levels of up to 6000 ppm, atmospheric levels are 400ppm or thereabouts, Hint, zero. The reason for this is that Co2 is not dangerous to human life and there probably is not a greenhouse effect which is only an unproven theory.


Can someone switch bob off at the socket and then back on again. He's stuck in some kind of loop...

No one has said that CO2, in the levels we're talking about, is directly dangerous to humans. No one. It's not an issue, so the fact that you keep on pointing out that it's safe is starting to make you look a bit mental. If it helps, and more importantly, if it stops you banging on about it, *I agree with you that atmospheric CO2 levels aren't poisonous to humans*. I also know plants like CO2.

Happy? Can you, for the love of god, stop mentioning it now?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, you like peer reviewed science, below is a 2017 paper.
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... ?aid=88574


Yes, I like peer reviewed science. Ironic then, that you've linked to a report with no evidence of peer review.

You still don't understand, do you? There are lots of peer reviewed reports on both sides of the argument - producing one here proves nothing (which is why I haven't bothered doing it). It just proves that there are a large number of theories out there, which we all knew anyway. So, we come back to the real question - how does a non-expert like you or I decide which side to believe? We can't just find a report and say "see? This says it's true!" because there are contradictory reports. So how to choose?


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes, I like peer reviewed science. Ironic then, that you've linked to a report with no evidence of peer review.


quote,

It's been a long and treacherous road involving many revisions and refinements of the original study. On several occasions the manuscript was rejected unread, but Ned and Karl have finally got their greatly improved and expanded paper published. This latest version is a tour de force *strengthened by the rigors of criticism from an army of peer reviewers at several journals along the way.*

You Spandex appear to believe that the present greenhouse theory is absolutely correct even though it has never been proven to be so, it is still a theory. This study is questioning that theory, unfortunately you are not able to accept the fact that if these two scientists are correct the whole man made global warming cabal would collapse.

Before you post more rubbish comments read the link below and the attached comments, most people would learn something from reading the link or at least question the consensus opinion, unfortunately you are probably not within that group.

The Pic shows why Trump left the Paris climate accord.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06 ... more-32484


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You Spandex appear to believe that the present greenhouse theory is absolutely correct even though it has never been proven to be so, it is still a theory. This study is questioning that theory, unfortunately you are not able to accept the fact that if these two scientists are correct the whole man made global warming cabal would collapse.


Once again, despite me repeating myself a number of times, you completely misunderstand. I'm perfectly able to accept that if these scientists are correct, it may mean an end to the current climate change theories. I'm absolutely fine with that, because, unlike you, I don't have an axe to grind here. I honestly don't care who is right. If we can carry on pumping out CO2 with no negative effect on the climate, I'll be over the moon.

But think about what you've written above. You berate me for believing a 'theory', then present a different 'theory' as evidence that my theory is wrong. As arguments go, it's pretty moronic. But I'll say it once more for the hard of thinking - *THEY'RE ALL JUST THEORIES*. So why do you like the theory you posted more than you like the greenhouse theory? How did you decide? Don't tell me it was because of the science, because we all know you're not clever enough to understand that, so how?


----------



## Trouble4

since this is a Global thing that would make the US a small voice on here ... as pointed out in earlier comments Trumps/US pull out is of no consequence as it seems through the media he is a joke but fortunately or unfortunately he is in charge of a very powerful nation so this non-joke or joke does not believe in global warming and pulling out will effect and affect a hell of a lot "period"..... as does anything he does...... Like taxing higher tariffs on cars watch out BMW........

Now one should be concerned about a possible Global warming especially for our children and grandchildren

but I am getting tired of hearing just wait 20 years WELL have heard this 3 times now and nothing has changed in sea level in Florida where I grew up nothing that is over 50 years ........

So, I say screw the future........ [smiley=book2.gif] [smiley=book2.gif] [smiley=book2.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]

Believe this was a topic since 1906ish ...... IMO get over it be realistic and keep pollution down sure blah blah


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> since this is a Global thing that would make the US a small voice on here ... as pointed out in earlier comments Trumps/US pull out is of no consequence as it seems through the media he is a joke but fortunately or unfortunately he is in charge of a very powerful nation so this non-joke or joke does not believe in global warming and pulling out will effect and affect a hell of a lot "period"..... as does anything he does...... Like taxing higher tariffs on cars watch out BMW.......


it doesn't really matter if the US is 'a very powerful nation' when it comes to the Paris Accord, because no one seems to want to follow their lead and the combined CO2 output of the countries remaining in it far outweigh the US contribution. So, the US leaving will have only a relatively small impact on global CO2 and zero impact on everyone else's belief in man made climate change.

It would be much better for the planet if they stayed in, but everyone else will carry on fine without them.


----------



## John-H

We could expect nothing less from a president named after a greenhouse gas.


----------



## Trouble4

> the combined CO2 output of the countries remaining in it far outweigh the US contribution


does this mean that the US has a handle on their CO2 emissions?

as far as the emphasis on powerful Country it is meaning in influential (at least was) .......

we all have to work together where ever we live...........

Now IF and again """ IF """ I was a cold heartless bastard ... The US should cut off all aid to every Country of every kind

as children in US are starving to death in this Country just like any other one...... That is just wrong anywhere......

US should stay out of everyone's business focus on their issues and shut the hell up ........

Now the above is not the correct thing to do (maybe shut the hell up)

Let us hope we all can compromise and still live with oneselves..............


----------



## bobclive22

> We could expect nothing less from a president named after a greenhouse gas.


John,

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, *attack the witness.*


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> does this mean that the US has a handle on their CO2 emissions?


Not at all. It just means that there are a lot of other countries in the accord and together they add up to a lot more than the US.

The US produces a lot of CO2 and it would be better if they reduced that, but everyone else seems be happy to move forward with or without them.


----------



## bobclive22

> But think about what you've written above. You berate me for believing a 'theory', then present a different 'theory' as evidence that my theory is wrong.


No Spandex, I posted that link so that you may just consider the prevailing theory may be wrong, not that it is wrong, it`s called looking at both sides of the argument then coming to a ration decision and not excepting the consensus view just because it is the consensus view.

I ask why if the consensus is correct do they need to manipulate the data.
This graph below shows the data left out shaded pink, if your theory is solid why would you do this, you do it Spandex to make the graph look worse than it is by starting at the highest point to fool the likes of you.

NOAA claims they don't have satellite data before 1979, but they are lying. The 1990 IPCC report showed NOAA satellite data back to 1973, which was much lower than 1979.

https://realclimatescience.com/governme ... ice-fraud/


----------



## bobclive22

> Not at all. It just means that there are a lot of other countries in the accord and together they add up to a lot more than the US.
> 
> The US produces a lot of CO2 and it would be better if they reduced that, but everyone else seems be happy to move forward with or without them.


Spandex, as far as I am aware the greenhouse effect of CO2 is just a theory which has never been validated outside of a glasshouse, water vapour and clouds I believe have the most powerful warming effect accounting for up to 85% of any warming, CO2 is just a minor player.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> We could expect nothing less from a president named after a greenhouse gas.
> 
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, *attack the witness.*
Click to expand...

Bob, it was a joke. Just like the logic of your arguments.

You still fail to give a rational explanation of why you, a non expert, consider yourself eligible to judge and conclude against the majority of experts who are qualified (the elephant in the room fact). That simple argument, which anyone else can appreciate, you obviously can't, which allows us to safely conclude that your logical process and sense of perspective are flawed and therefore your arguments are not credible.


----------



## Trouble4

stating a fact or an opinion is always misleading confusing and not a rational explanation of why myself or anyone as a non expert should conclude really anything from "does a bear shit in the woods" to "Brexit yes or no"

we are a people of questions ideas and those that strive for the high calling in their field of study surely deserves our ear.. we as a individual still should question and do research as much as one can believe and with that make a decision or not.....


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> But think about what you've written above. You berate me for believing a 'theory', then present a different 'theory' as evidence that my theory is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No Spandex, I posted that link so that you may just consider the prevailing theory may be wrong, not that it is wrong, it`s called looking at both sides of the argument then coming to a ration decision and not excepting the consensus view just because it is the consensus view.
Click to expand...

Bob, for the last time, you simply don't understand climatology enough to do that based on the science itself. So all that's happening here is that I'm blindly trusting a majority view and you're blindly trusting a minority view. Stop kidding yourself that you're clever enough to judge this on the science itself.



bobclive22 said:


> I ask why if the consensus is correct do they need to manipulate the data.
> This graph below shows the data left out shaded pink, if your theory is solid why would you do this, you do it Spandex to make the graph look worse than it is by starting at the highest point to fool the likes of you.


They don't need to fool the likes of me bob - I'm not a scientist. And actual scientists aren't fooled or confused by graphs like that, but somehow you've convinced yourself that they must be. Because your whole climate belief system hinges on the notion that thousands of highly educated and trained scientists have completely missed something that's so simple and obvious that even Bob the builder understands it. If it wasn't so arrogant, it'd be hilarious.

So stop worrying about how they fooled the likes of me and think about the huge majority of scientists who believe in man made climate change. They're the anomoly you red to explain, not me.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, for the last time, you simply don't understand climatology enough to do that based on the science itself. So all that's happening here is that I'm blindly trusting a majority view and you're blindly trusting a minority view. Stop kidding yourself that you're clever enough to judge this on the science itself.


No Spandex, we have two opinions here, the sceptics and the true believers like yourself, me Spanex, I tend to question the facts being promoted. Now if the consensus science was so solid why would those consensus scientists need to alter their data. The graph below shows Giss global surface temperature graphs, why should these two graphs not align if they are using the same data, Giss doesn`t show those graphs together neither do the MSM. That graph shows Giss has cooled the past and warmed the present, the outcome is obvious, well maybe not to you.

Why would Briffa hide his tree ring temperature proxi when it went down in the 1960`s instead of up , you wont (if you are an honest scientist) change from using tree ring proxies to thermometers when the tree rings stop going in the direction you need them to,

Because of this CO2 nonsense we have killer diesel and energy costs going through the roof.

You don`t need to be an expert to have a bullshitomitor.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/ ... orruption/
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming. ... ecline.asp


----------



## Spandex

So basically, your answer is, "they did stuff that appears suspicious to me, so I will assume everything they say is wrong". It's a bold approach Bob, I'll give you that.

But AGAIN, how come all the scientists who have peer reviewed all this work haven't spotted the glaring errors that you think are so obvious? Are you honestly saying this is some sort of global scientific conspiracy?


----------



## John-H

Bob, if I told you that fairies lived at the bottom of my garden but most experts didn't agree but then because I'm in the minority and do not accept the consensus fairy denying sceptics would you believe me? Would you think that having heard my argument and seen my evidence (my daughter shook hands with one look):










... and with all the so called experts dismissing my claims would you now feel justified to carry on the argument for me? I am the underdog minority after all? If the consensus fairy denying science was correct then how do they explain this police evidence:










... and this fossilised fairy:










I'm sure that by looking at both sides of the argument then coming to a rational decision and not excepting the consensus view just because it is the consensus view you too can be away with the fairies!


----------



## Roller Skate

This made me laugh.


----------



## Trouble4

Trouble4 said:


> stating a fact or an opinion is always misleading confusing and not a rational explanation of why myself or anyone as a non expert should conclude really anything from "does a bear shit in the woods" to "Brexit yes or no"
> 
> we are a people of questions ideas and those that strive for the high calling in their field of study surely deserves our ear.. we as a individual still should question and do research as much as one can believe and with that make a decision or not.....


thought I would repost as my inner child felt a little twinge that nobody was listening / or cares and sadness covered my World

All Better........ aaahhhh!!!!!

Bottom line again is that I have learned that "I do not know anything and it is better to be a dumbass/ignorant/mentally challenged and in that way I can enjoy Life to its fullest being stress free and with bells on...   :lol: 8)


----------



## bobclive22

> But AGAIN, how come all the scientists who have peer reviewed all this work haven't spotted the glaring errors that you think are so obvious? Are you honestly saying this is some sort of global scientific conspiracy?


Watch the 4th video and then consider why Briffa grafted the thermometer data onto his proxi data from 1960 onwards, he did this because his proxi data went down after 1960 when he expected it to go up, this supports Dr Fred Singers statement that the second warming is FALSE. Fred is getting old now, have some patience and watch the bloody video you might learn something instead of acting like the tree monkeys.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> But AGAIN, how come all the scientists who have peer reviewed all this work haven't spotted the glaring errors that you think are so obvious? Are you honestly saying this is some sort of global scientific conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Yeah, not watching those. As I've said, if you can't be arsed to type, I can't be arsed to follow your links.

Not to mention the fact that I have no intention of getting any information from fecking YouTube.


----------



## bobclive22

> Yeah, not watching those. As I've said, if you can't be arsed to type, I can't be arsed to follow your links.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that I have no intention of getting any information from fecking YouTube.


Obviously Al Gores An inconvenient truth has had a devastating effect on your reasoning, I give up. :? :? :? :?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Yeah, not watching those. As I've said, if you can't be arsed to type, I can't be arsed to follow your links.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that I have no intention of getting any information from fecking YouTube.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Al Gores An inconvenient truth has had a devastating effect on your reasoning, I give up. :? :? :? :?
Click to expand...

Not watched that either.

Don't give up Bob. Try posting loads more links. That's usually a great way to convince people..


----------



## bobclive22

> Not watched that either.
> 
> Don't give up Bob. Try posting loads more links. That's usually a great way to convince people..


Problem is Spandex, if I post in my own words you rubbish me for being a none expert, if I post links that verify what I have written you wont read them, circular argument I believe anyway, not that I am convinced by a consensus opinion like yourself Spandex, but here is a list of *31, 487 American scientists including 9,029 with PHD`s that don`t believe in catastrophic man made global warming *, name your 97% consensus scientists that believe the opposite. I could list all the signatories but that would take considerable space, therefore I post a link which you with the three monkey syndrome probably won`t read, the list may though help some others interested in this subject.

Just a few names, for the full list click the link.

Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Carl M. Abrams, Robert C. Abrams, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., B. Steven Absher, Sally Absher, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Joseph P Accardo, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Daniel T. Achord, PhD, Ernest R. Achterberg, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Gene L. Ackerman, John R. Ackerman, William L. Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry D. Ackman, Donald O. Acrey, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., Robert K. Adair, PhD, William G. Adair Jr., Brian D. Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, Anthony F. Adamo, Albert H. Adams, MD, Ann S. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Audrey W Adams, Brook W. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Bryant L Adams, PhD, Charles K. Adams, Daniel B Adams Jr., Daniel Otis Adams, PhD, Dell H. Adams, Donald Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Eugene Adams, Gail D. Adams, PhD, George Baker Adams, PhD, George F. Adams, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Gregory A Adams, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Henry J. Adams, Howard J. Adams, James D. Adams, James William Adams, Jim D. Adams, John Edgar Adams, PhD, John Adams, Kent A. Adams, Lee A Adams Jr., Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, Louis W. Adams, PhD, N. Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard Ernest Adams, Richard L. Adams, Richard W. Adams, MD, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Roy B. Adams, Stanley D Adams, Steve W. Adams, Steven W. Adams, William W. Adams, William P. Adams, MD, William M. Adams, PhD, William John Adams, William D. Adams, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, Verne E. Adamson, Wayne L. Adamson, Karlis Adamsons Jr., PhD, George Adcock, Robert E. Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel Paul Adda, PhD, Ben J. Addiego, Albert W. Addington, Tim Addington, William H. Addington, Paul Bradley Addis, PhD, Marshall B. Addison, PhD, Winford R. Addison, Joseph E. Adducci, MD, John K. Addy, PhD, Wayne F. Addy, C. William Ade, Albert H. Adelman, PhD, Barnet R. Adelman, Gary N. Adkins, L. A. Adkins, Michael F. Adkins, Ronald R. Adkins, PhD, T. Adkins, Wilder Adkins, Perry Lee Adkisson, PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Jacques J.P. Adnet, Eric R. Adolphson, John H. Adrain, MD, Anthony J. Adrignolo, PhD, V. Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A. Adsero, Steve E. Aeschbach, Stanley P. Aetrewicz, Stephen B. Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack G. Agan, Frederick A. Agdern, Larry Delmar Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, David Agerton, PhD, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark R. Agnew, Nathan Agnew, Robert F. Agnew, MD, Sean R Agnew, Thomas I. Agnew, PhD, M. C. Agress, John Aguilar, Jorge T. Aguinaldo, Aida M. Aguirre, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip S. Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Richard G. Ahlvin, Edward J Ahmann, MD, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert A. Ahokas, PhD, H. William Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W. Ahrens, PhD, Robert M. Ahring, PhD, John J. Aiello, Robert P. Aillery, Brian R. Ainley, Alfred Ainsworth, Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD, Steven L. Ainsworth, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, John W. Ake, John Hvan Aken, Arthur W. Akers, David J. Akers, Stuart R. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Munawwar M. Akhtar, Frank Jerrel Akin, PhD, Thane Akins, Frederick I. Akiya, MD, John S. Akiyama, M. H. Akram, PhD, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, Lloyd Alaback, John A. Alai, Robert J. Alaimo, PhD, Rogelio N. Alama, Greg Alan, Janet Alanko, Randy A Alanko, MD, Vincent M. Albanese, Henry Albaugh, Grant Alberich, Daniel C. Albers, Kenneth O. Albers, MD, Timothy A. Albers, Arthur Edward Albert, PhD, Edward G Albert, Eric K. Albert, PhD, James T. Albert, Tom J. Albert, William L. Albert, James L. Alberta, Leland C. Albertson, Roy A. Albertson, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, Allan J. Albrecht, Robert M. Albrecht, Rudolph C. Albrecht, Fred Ronald Albright, PhD, James C. Albright, PhD, Jay Donald Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, William D. Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Evelyn A. Alcantara, PhD, Ernest Charles Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D. Alcorn, John C. Alden, PhD, Ronald Godshall Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Ben Alderton, Franklin Dalton Aldrich, PhD, Harl P. Aldrich, PhD, Reuben J. Aldrich, Richard John Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Roy Aldrich, PhD, Robert Aldridge, Gabriel C. Aldulescu, MD, Perry Baldwin Alers, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Steven J. Alessandro, Andrew J. Alessi, Stephen R. Alewine, Joseph J. Alex, Danrick W. Alexander, Dave Alexander, Dennis J. Alexander, Fred Alexander, George C. Alexander, DVM, Harold R. Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, James B Alexander, James F. Alexander Jr., John C. Alexander, Kelsey Alexander, Kevin Alexander, M. Dale Alexander, PhD, Michael L. Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Igor Alexeff, PhD, Charles D. Alexson, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, Jennifer M. Alford, Mary E. Alford, Rex Alford, Robert L. Alford, Luis A. Algarra, Roger C. Alig, PhD, Mark J. Alkire, MD, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Roger L. Allard, Joel W. Alldredge, William David Alldredge Jr., Fred A. Allehoff, John F. Alleman, Ben C. Allen, PhD, Charles W Allen, PhD, Charles M. Allen, PhD, Charles C. Allen, Christopher G. Allen, Clayton H. Allen, PhD, David M. Allen, David J Allen, PhD, Emma Allen, PhD, Eric R. Allen, PhD, Gary L. Allen, PhD, James L. Allen, PhD, Jason D. Allen, John L. Allen, Joshua C. Allen, Kenneth L. Allen, Kimbol R. Allen, Kristin L. Allen, Levi D. Allen, Madelyn H. Allen, DVM, Marvin E. Allen, Merrill P. Allen, Paul W. Allen, PhD, Randall Allen, Robert K. Allen, MD, Robert G. Allen, DVM, Robert C. Allen, Roger B. Allen, PhD, Stewart J. Allen, Thomas Hunter Allen, PhD, William Allen Jr., Robert T. Van Aller, PhD, George L. Allerton, Carl J. Allesandro, Robert Q. Alleva, Ernest R. Alley, Jonathan Alley, MD, William Edward Alley, PhD, George L. Allgoever, Robert H. Allgood, Robert W. Allgood, Richard Alan Alliegro, Mike E. Alligood, Craig Allison, Gary L. Allison, Kevin R. Allison, Randall W. Allison, Ronald C. Allison, MD, Terry G. Allison, Charles E. Allman, George J. Allman, Philip D. Allmendinger, MD, John J. Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Bruce W. Allred, Ivan D. Allred, Victor Dean Allred, PhD, Gary W. Allshouse, Arthur W. Allsop, R. A. Allwein, Ronaldo A. Almero, Frank Murray Almeter, PhD, Anthony H Almond, Kent A. Alms, Richard E. Almy, Jorge L. Alonso, Ramon J. Alonso, PhD, James A. Aloye, Ali Yulmaz Alper, Reevis Stancil Alphin, PhD, Allen A. Alsing, A. Frank Alsobrook, Robert C Alson, Albert W. Alsop, PhD, John Henry Alsop, PhD, Randy J. Alstadt, Sally S. Alston, Charles Alt, Greg A. Altberg, Vincent O. Altemose, Nicholas A. Alten, Frederick C. Althaus, George A. Alther, Howard W. Althouse, Timothy L. Altier, Ashton Altieri, Martin E. Altis, David Altman, PhD, Larry W Altman, Melvyn R. Altman, PhD, Ronny G. Altman, Peter Christian Altner, MD, Herbert N. Altneu, Sidney J. Altschuler, Edward E. Altshuler, PhD, Burton Myron Altura, PhD, Patrick Aluotto, PhD, Raul C. Alva, Anthony B. Alvarado, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Virgilio E. Alvarez, Dayton L. Alverson, PhD, R. Byron Alvey, Stephen Edward Always, PhD, Vern J. Always, James I Alyea, Bradley A. Aman, Farouk Amanatullah, Larry C. Amans, James L. Amarel, Charles David Amata, PhD, Carmelo J. Amato, Paul Gerard Amazeen, PhD, Ronald F. Amberger, PhD, Leonard Amborski, PhD, Joseph R. Ambruster, Donald Ford Amend, PhD, Marvin Earl Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Edward J. Ames II, Lynford L Ames, PhD, Martin R. Ames, Donald R. Amett, Michael R. Amick, Wayne P. Amico, Dean P. Amidon, Pushpavati S. Amin, Duane R. Amlee, Kenneth S. Ammons, Moris Amon, PhD, Richard D. Amori, Lee Amoroso, PhD, Bonnie B. Amos, PhD, Dewey Harold Amos, PhD, A. Amr, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Robert L. Amster, DVM, Thomas A. Amundsen, Adolph L. Amundson, Keith L Amunson, James P. Amy, Barry M. Amyx, MD*, Raymond J. Anater, Sal A. Anazalone, Kenneth L. Ancell, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Ernest J. Andberg, Kenneth J. Anderer, G. Anderle, PhD, John P. Anders, MD, D. Andersen, Donald A. Andersen, PhD, Donald R. Andersen Jr., Doug E. Andersen, Gene P. Andersen, George H. Andersen, Lawrence D. Andersen, Terrell Neils Andersen, PhD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Robert W. Andersohn, Alan J. Anderson, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Amos Robert Anderson, PhD, Amy L Anderson, Andrew S. Anderson, PhD, Anita Teter Anderson, Arthur G. Anderson, PhD, Arthur E. Anderson, Arvid Anderson, Barry D. Anderson, Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD, Bruce Martin Anderson Jr., C. M. Anderson Jr., Charles R Anderson, PhD, Chris Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, Corby G. Anderson, PhD, Craig A. Anderson, David W. Anderson, David Robert Anderson, PhD, David O. Anderson, PhD, David B. Anderson, David A. Anderson, David Anderson, PhD, David Anderson, Donald Anderson, PhD, Donald Heruin Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer A. Anderson, PhD, Eric Anderson, Fred G. Anderson, MD, Gerald L. Anderson, Glenn L. Anderson, Greg J. Anderson, H. C. Anderson, Harrison Clarke Anderson, MD, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J. Hilbert Anderson, James R. Anderson, James R. Anderson, James P. Anderson, James K. Anderson, James Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Janis W. Anderson, Joel Anderson, John C. Anderson, PhD, John O. Anderson, Jon C. Anderson, MD, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Julia W. Anderson, PhD, Keith R. Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E. Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Leif H. Anderson, Leslie Anderson, PhD, Louis Weston Anderson, Lowell Ray Anderson, Lynn C. Anderson, DVM, Mark Anderson, Mark A. Anderson, Mary P Anderson, Mike E. Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, P. Jennings Anderson, Percy G. Anderson Jr., R. L. Anderson, Randall H. Anderson, Reece B. Anderson, Richard Alan Anderson, PhD, Richard C. Anderson, Robert Anderson, Robert E. Anderson, Robert J Anderson, MD, Rodney C. Anderson, PhD, Roger O. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD, Roy E. Anderson, Russell Anderson, Theodore D. Anderson, Thomas P. Anderson, Thomas F. Anderson, PhD, Thornton Anderson, Tom Anderson, Tom P. Anderson, Walton O. Anderson, Warren Ronald Anderson, Wilbert C. Anderson, William L. Anderson, Karen Andersonnoeck, Charles S. Andes, David J. Andes, Mark J. Andorka, Robynn Andracsek, John Robert Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, John Andrako, PhD, Ivan J. Andrasik, Peter R. Andreana, PhD, Gilbert M. Andreen, Eva Andrei, PhD, George Andreiev, Richard M. Andres, PhD, Douglas R Andress, Steven M. Andreucci, James F. Andrew, PhD, James M. Andrew, Felixe A. Andrews, Frederick T. Andrews, Harry N. Andrews, John Stevens Andrews, PhD, Marion L. Andrews, Mel Andrews, Raynal W. Andrews, Russell A. Andrews, Russell S. Andrews, PhD, Scott Andrews, PhD, Timothy Andreychek, Lois Andros, Edward A. Andrus, M. B. Andrus, PhD, Walter S. Andrus, Robert E. Angel, Ernest F. Angelicola, Vincent Angelo, PhD, Francis M. Angeloni, PhD, T. Angelosaute, Steven T. Angely, Claude B. Anger, Robert H. Angevine, Ernest Angino, PhD, Keith Angle, Walter C. Anglemeyer, Howard P. Angstadt, PhD, Micheal J. Anhorn, Kevin P. Ankenbrand, William D. Ankney, William L Anliker, Stuart H. Anness, MD, Stig A. Annestrand, Edward J Annick, B. M. Anose, PhD, Mohammed R. Ansari, Gregory W. Antal, Bradley C. Antanaitis, PhD, John Allen Anthes, PhD, Elizabeth Y. Anthony, PhD, Jack R. Anthony, Lee Saunders Anthony, PhD, Robert D. Anthony, Charles H. Antinori, PhD, Achilles P. Anton, MD, Herbert D. Anton, Nick J. Antonas, Dan Antonescu-Wolf, MD, Rolando A. Antonio, Wilfred L. Antonson, Stephen P. Antony, Mary J. Anzia, PhD, Clarence R. Apel, MD, Henry W. Apfelbach, MD, P. J. Apice, Carl Apicella, Bruce W. Apland, David R. Appel, Kenneth P. Apperson, Norman Apperson, W. H. Appich Jr., Lynn Apple, Alan Appleby, PhD, Robert H. Appleby, Donald Applegate, DVM, James K. Applegate, PhD, Lowell N. Applegate, John K. Applegath, Herbert S Appleman, Douglas E. Applequist, PhD, Morris Herman Aprison, PhD, Charles Apter, PhD, Richard Apuzzo II, J. B. Aquilla, MD, Arturo Q. Arabe, PhD, Ara Arabyan, PhD, Steven B. Aragon, MD, Orlando A. Arana, Eric C. Araneta, Jonathan Arata, PhD, Howard Arbaugh, Anatoly L Arber, PhD, Harry D. Arber, R. Kent Arblaster, Jaime Arbona-Fazzi, PhD, Earl F. Arbuckle, John Arcadi, MD, Antonio E. Arce, Ed Arce, James R. Arce, Frank G Arcella, PhD, Byron J. Arceneaux, Leon M. Arceneaux, Webster J. Arceneaux Jr., John Arch, Diane M Archer, Donald Archer, William W. Archer, Patrick J. Archey, Philip Archibald, Robert L. Archibald, John L Archie, Angela N. Archon, William Bryant Ard, PhD, William Ard, Richard J. Ardine Arthur, Joe R. Arechavaleta, Christopher Arend, Robert W. Arends, Elton E. Arensman, Vittorio K. Argento, PhD, Harold V. Argo, PhD, Guvenc Argon, John W. Argue, Lawrence Ariano, MD, William J. Arion, PhD, Gary Arithson, Zaven S. Ariyan, PhD, Alfred Arkell, PhD, Raymond D Arkwright, Giacomo Armand, PhD, Gertrude D. Armbruster, PhD, Thomas G. Armbuster, MD, Bradley Armentrout, Richard W. Armentrout, PhD, Lew Armer, Joseph S Armijo, PhD, Ralph Elmer Armington, PhD, Bobby M. Armistead, William E Armour, Robert L. Arms, Baxter H. Armstrong, PhD, Clifford B. Armstrong Jr., Desiree A. Armstrong, PhD, Glenn M. Armstrong, James E. Armstrong, James R. Armstrong, DVM, Lou Armstrong, Lowell Todd Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Marvin D. Armstrong, PhD, Melvin B. Armstrong, Robert L. Armstrong, PhD, Robert Lee Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Dana Arndt, Harold H. Arndt, Jerome C. Arnett Jr., MD, Ross Harold Arnett, PhD, William S. Arnett, Charles Arney, Philip J. Arnholt, PhD, Aaron J Arnold, Charles W. Arnold, Charles Arnold, PhD, David Arnold, Edwin L. Arnold, Gregory B. Arnold, Herbert K. Arnold, Jack N. Arnold, John K Arnold, DVM, Lance L. Arnold, Marcia L. Arnold, R. Arnold, PhD, Randall W. Arnold, Robert Arnold Jr., DVM, Stephen Arnold, Timothy D. Arnold, William Archibald Arnold, PhD, John H Arns, Jr, Lester C. Arnwine, James T. Arocho, MD, Sidney O. Arola, Casper J. Aronson, Seymour Aronson, PhD, George V Aros Chilingarian, PhD, Joseph Bartholomew Arots, PhD, Adrian Arp, PhD, Charles Hammond Arrington, PhD, Dale E. Arrington, PhD, Donald R. Arrington, Clement R. Arrison, Rhea T. Van Arsdall, John V. Artale, James S. Arthur, PhD, Charles G. Artinian, MD, Robert Artz, Jaime N. Aruguete, MD, Delano Z. Arvin, PhD, Joseph J. Arx, Goro G Asaki, George J. Asanovich, Charles H. Asbill, Bob J. Ascherl, Alvin G. Ash, Michael W. Ashberry, Edward V. Ashburn, Joe E. Ashby, PhD, Kenny Ashby, Randolph W Ashby, PhD, Raymond A. Ashcraft, Charles R. Ashford, A. Ashley, PhD, Doyle Allen Ashley, PhD, Edward E. Ashley, Holt Ashley, PhD, Maynard B. Ashley, Warren Cotton Ashley, PhD, Wayne A. Ashley, William M. Ashley, Alvin Ashman, Jerome P. Ashman, Abhay Ashtekar, PhD, Philip T. Ashton, Romney A. Ashton, MD, Walter R. Ashwill, Bob Ashworth, Jim F. Ashworth, Monroe Ashworth, Robert A Ashworth, Robert S. Ashworth, Victor Asirvatham, PhD, Orv B. Askeland, Ann Askew, B. Askildsen, Charles W. Askins, Philip R. Askman, Tom Asmas, PhD, Robert C. Asmus, Erik Aspelin, Winifred Alice Asprey, PhD, Don O. Asquith, PhD, Mike Assad, Andrew P. Assenmacher, Orazio J. Astarita, Jacob F. Asti, Everett L. Astleford, Eugene Roy Astley, R. Lee Aston, PhD, Raymond J. Astor Sr., Otilia J. Asuncion, MD, Charles E. Atchison, James Atchison, Curtis L. Atchley, Greg J. Aten, Robert Aten, PhD, James Athanasion, Michael J. Atherton, PhD, William J. Atherton, PhD, Robert D. Athey Jr., PhD, Arthur C. Atkins, David C. Atkins, Larry P. Atkins, Mark D. Atkins, D. O. Atkinson, Erika J Atkinson, John P. Atkinson, MD, John R. Atkinson, Keith Atkinson, Larry N. Atkinson, Lynn A Atkinson, Matthew R. Atkinson, Stanley L. Atnipp, Richard Attig, Leonardo D. Attorre, William J. Attwooll, Jerry C. Atwell, Mark Atwood, PhD, Robert C. Atwood, Luben Atzeff, MD, Jerry Y. Au, Lester C. Auble, Darrel D. Auch, James C. Auckland, Walter Auclair, PhD, Daniel J. Aucutt, Bryan Audiffred, William H. Audley, Louis A. Auerbach, Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD, Keith H. Aufderheide, PhD, William R. Aufricht, Dale A. Augenstein, PhD, Owen H. Auger, Dustin M. Aughenbaugh, Gregory S Augspurger, Joe Augspurger, PhD, Brad August, James K. August, Mike August, Brian Augustine, PhD, W. David Augustine, Frederick N. Aukeman, J. Todd Aukerman, C. Mark. Aulick, PhD, Luther Aull, PhD, Neil N. Ault, PhD, Kathi A. Aultman, MD, John B. Aultmann Jr., Thomas E. Aumock, Bob J. Aumueller, Henry Spiese Aurand, Richard A. Aurand, Richard Aurisano, PhD, Joeseph D Aurizio, Brian E. Ausburn, Kent E Ausburn, PhD, Kenny Ausmus, Kurt L. Austad, Alfred Ells Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, Carlton L. Austin, D. Austin, D. Austin, PhD, Harold T. Austin, Lloyd H. Austin, Michael N. Austin, Paul E. Austin, Robert L. Austin, Robert H Austin, PhD, Roger J. Austin, PhD, Ward H. Austin, Edward T. Auth, Donald W. Autio, Amalia R. Auvigne, MD, Andrew B. Avalon, William E. Avera, Mark Averett, Jon R. Averhoff, Frank Averill, PhD, Rosario D. Averion, MD, Alex Avery, Donald Avery, Nathan M. Avery, Philip J. Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Arthur J. Avila, Luis A. Avila, Teresita D. Avila, MD, Joseph Avruch, MD, Theodore C. Awartkruis, PhD, Steven G. Axen, M. Friedman Axler, PhD, William P. Aycock, Jessica Ayers, Robert C. Ayers Jr., PhD, Bruce D. Ayres, PhD, T. G. Ayres, Wesley P. Ayres, PhD, Dany Ayseur, Alison M. Azar, Max Azevedo, Azizollah Azhdam

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php


----------



## Shug750S

Absolutely gutted you didn't post all 31,000+ names there Bob :lol:


----------



## Roller Skate

bobclive22 said:


> Not watched that either.
> 
> Don't give up Bob. Try posting loads more links. That's usually a great way to convince people..
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is Spandex, if I post in my own words you rubbish me for being a none expert, if I post links that verify what I have written you wont read them, circular argument I believe anyway, not that I am convinced by a consensus opinion like yourself Spandex, but here is a list of *31, 487 American scientists including 9,029 with PHD`s that don`t believe in catastrophic man made global warming *, name your 97% consensus scientists that believe the opposite. I could list all the signatories but that would take considerable space, therefore I post a link which you with the three monkey syndrome probably won`t read, the list may though help some others interested in this subject.
> 
> Just a few names, for the full list click the link.
> 
> Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Carl M. Abrams, Robert C. Abrams, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., B. Steven Absher, Sally Absher, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Joseph P Accardo, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Daniel T. Achord, PhD, Ernest R. Achterberg, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Gene L. Ackerman, John R. Ackerman, William L. Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry D. Ackman, Donald O. Acrey, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., Robert K. Adair, PhD, William G. Adair Jr., Brian D. Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, Anthony F. Adamo, Albert H. Adams, MD, Ann S. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Audrey W Adams, Brook W. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Bryant L Adams, PhD, Charles K. Adams, Daniel B Adams Jr., Daniel Otis Adams, PhD, Dell H. Adams, Donald Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Eugene Adams, Gail D. Adams, PhD, George Baker Adams, PhD, George F. Adams, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Gregory A Adams, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Henry J. Adams, Howard J. Adams, James D. Adams, James William Adams, Jim D. Adams, John Edgar Adams, PhD, John Adams, Kent A. Adams, Lee A Adams Jr., Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, Louis W. Adams, PhD, N. Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard Ernest Adams, Richard L. Adams, Richard W. Adams, MD, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Roy B. Adams, Stanley D Adams, Steve W. Adams, Steven W. Adams, William W. Adams, William P. Adams, MD, William M. Adams, PhD, William John Adams, William D. Adams, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, Verne E. Adamson, Wayne L. Adamson, Karlis Adamsons Jr., PhD, George Adcock, Robert E. Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel Paul Adda, PhD, Ben J. Addiego, Albert W. Addington, Tim Addington, William H. Addington, Paul Bradley Addis, PhD, Marshall B. Addison, PhD, Winford R. Addison, Joseph E. Adducci, MD, John K. Addy, PhD, Wayne F. Addy, C. William Ade, Albert H. Adelman, PhD, Barnet R. Adelman, Gary N. Adkins, L. A. Adkins, Michael F. Adkins, Ronald R. Adkins, PhD, T. Adkins, Wilder Adkins, Perry Lee Adkisson, PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Jacques J.P. Adnet, Eric R. Adolphson, John H. Adrain, MD, Anthony J. Adrignolo, PhD, V. Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A. Adsero, Steve E. Aeschbach, Stanley P. Aetrewicz, Stephen B. Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack G. Agan, Frederick A. Agdern, Larry Delmar Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, David Agerton, PhD, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark R. Agnew, Nathan Agnew, Robert F. Agnew, MD, Sean R Agnew, Thomas I. Agnew, PhD, M. C. Agress, John Aguilar, Jorge T. Aguinaldo, Aida M. Aguirre, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip S. Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Richard G. Ahlvin, Edward J Ahmann, MD, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert A. Ahokas, PhD, H. William Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W. Ahrens, PhD, Robert M. Ahring, PhD, John J. Aiello, Robert P. Aillery, Brian R. Ainley, Alfred Ainsworth, Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD, Steven L. Ainsworth, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, John W. Ake, John Hvan Aken, Arthur W. Akers, David J. Akers, Stuart R. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Munawwar M. Akhtar, Frank Jerrel Akin, PhD, Thane Akins, Frederick I. Akiya, MD, John S. Akiyama, M. H. Akram, PhD, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, Lloyd Alaback, John A. Alai, Robert J. Alaimo, PhD, Rogelio N. Alama, Greg Alan, Janet Alanko, Randy A Alanko, MD, Vincent M. Albanese, Henry Albaugh, Grant Alberich, Daniel C. Albers, Kenneth O. Albers, MD, Timothy A. Albers, Arthur Edward Albert, PhD, Edward G Albert, Eric K. Albert, PhD, James T. Albert, Tom J. Albert, William L. Albert, James L. Alberta, Leland C. Albertson, Roy A. Albertson, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, Allan J. Albrecht, Robert M. Albrecht, Rudolph C. Albrecht, Fred Ronald Albright, PhD, James C. Albright, PhD, Jay Donald Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, William D. Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Evelyn A. Alcantara, PhD, Ernest Charles Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D. Alcorn, John C. Alden, PhD, Ronald Godshall Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Ben Alderton, Franklin Dalton Aldrich, PhD, Harl P. Aldrich, PhD, Reuben J. Aldrich, Richard John Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Roy Aldrich, PhD, Robert Aldridge, Gabriel C. Aldulescu, MD, Perry Baldwin Alers, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Steven J. Alessandro, Andrew J. Alessi, Stephen R. Alewine, Joseph J. Alex, Danrick W. Alexander, Dave Alexander, Dennis J. Alexander, Fred Alexander, George C. Alexander, DVM, Harold R. Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, James B Alexander, James F. Alexander Jr., John C. Alexander, Kelsey Alexander, Kevin Alexander, M. Dale Alexander, PhD, Michael L. Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Igor Alexeff, PhD, Charles D. Alexson, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, Jennifer M. Alford, Mary E. Alford, Rex Alford, Robert L. Alford, Luis A. Algarra, Roger C. Alig, PhD, Mark J. Alkire, MD, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Roger L. Allard, Joel W. Alldredge, William David Alldredge Jr., Fred A. Allehoff, John F. Alleman, Ben C. Allen, PhD, Charles W Allen, PhD, Charles M. Allen, PhD, Charles C. Allen, Christopher G. Allen, Clayton H. Allen, PhD, David M. Allen, David J Allen, PhD, Emma Allen, PhD, Eric R. Allen, PhD, Gary L. Allen, PhD, James L. Allen, PhD, Jason D. Allen, John L. Allen, Joshua C. Allen, Kenneth L. Allen, Kimbol R. Allen, Kristin L. Allen, Levi D. Allen, Madelyn H. Allen, DVM, Marvin E. Allen, Merrill P. Allen, Paul W. Allen, PhD, Randall Allen, Robert K. Allen, MD, Robert G. Allen, DVM, Robert C. Allen, Roger B. Allen, PhD, Stewart J. Allen, Thomas Hunter Allen, PhD, William Allen Jr., Robert T. Van Aller, PhD, George L. Allerton, Carl J. Allesandro, Robert Q. Alleva, Ernest R. Alley, Jonathan Alley, MD, William Edward Alley, PhD, George L. Allgoever, Robert H. Allgood, Robert W. Allgood, Richard Alan Alliegro, Mike E. Alligood, Craig Allison, Gary L. Allison, Kevin R. Allison, Randall W. Allison, Ronald C. Allison, MD, Terry G. Allison, Charles E. Allman, George J. Allman, Philip D. Allmendinger, MD, John J. Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Bruce W. Allred, Ivan D. Allred, Victor Dean Allred, PhD, Gary W. Allshouse, Arthur W. Allsop, R. A. Allwein, Ronaldo A. Almero, Frank Murray Almeter, PhD, Anthony H Almond, Kent A. Alms, Richard E. Almy, Jorge L. Alonso, Ramon J. Alonso, PhD, James A. Aloye, Ali Yulmaz Alper, Reevis Stancil Alphin, PhD, Allen A. Alsing, A. Frank Alsobrook, Robert C Alson, Albert W. Alsop, PhD, John Henry Alsop, PhD, Randy J. Alstadt, Sally S. Alston, Charles Alt, Greg A. Altberg, Vincent O. Altemose, Nicholas A. Alten, Frederick C. Althaus, George A. Alther, Howard W. Althouse, Timothy L. Altier, Ashton Altieri, Martin E. Altis, David Altman, PhD, Larry W Altman, Melvyn R. Altman, PhD, Ronny G. Altman, Peter Christian Altner, MD, Herbert N. Altneu, Sidney J. Altschuler, Edward E. Altshuler, PhD, Burton Myron Altura, PhD, Patrick Aluotto, PhD, Raul C. Alva, Anthony B. Alvarado, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Virgilio E. Alvarez, Dayton L. Alverson, PhD, R. Byron Alvey, Stephen Edward Always, PhD, Vern J. Always, James I Alyea, Bradley A. Aman, Farouk Amanatullah, Larry C. Amans, James L. Amarel, Charles David Amata, PhD, Carmelo J. Amato, Paul Gerard Amazeen, PhD, Ronald F. Amberger, PhD, Leonard Amborski, PhD, Joseph R. Ambruster, Donald Ford Amend, PhD, Marvin Earl Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Edward J. Ames II, Lynford L Ames, PhD, Martin R. Ames, Donald R. Amett, Michael R. Amick, Wayne P. Amico, Dean P. Amidon, Pushpavati S. Amin, Duane R. Amlee, Kenneth S. Ammons, Moris Amon, PhD, Richard D. Amori, Lee Amoroso, PhD, Bonnie B. Amos, PhD, Dewey Harold Amos, PhD, A. Amr, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Robert L. Amster, DVM, Thomas A. Amundsen, Adolph L. Amundson, Keith L Amunson, James P. Amy, Barry M. Amyx, MD*, Raymond J. Anater, Sal A. Anazalone, Kenneth L. Ancell, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Ernest J. Andberg, Kenneth J. Anderer, G. Anderle, PhD, John P. Anders, MD, D. Andersen, Donald A. Andersen, PhD, Donald R. Andersen Jr., Doug E. Andersen, Gene P. Andersen, George H. Andersen, Lawrence D. Andersen, Terrell Neils Andersen, PhD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Robert W. Andersohn, Alan J. Anderson, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Amos Robert Anderson, PhD, Amy L Anderson, Andrew S. Anderson, PhD, Anita Teter Anderson, Arthur G. Anderson, PhD, Arthur E. Anderson, Arvid Anderson, Barry D. Anderson, Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD, Bruce Martin Anderson Jr., C. M. Anderson Jr., Charles R Anderson, PhD, Chris Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, Corby G. Anderson, PhD, Craig A. Anderson, David W. Anderson, David Robert Anderson, PhD, David O. Anderson, PhD, David B. Anderson, David A. Anderson, David Anderson, PhD, David Anderson, Donald Anderson, PhD, Donald Heruin Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer A. Anderson, PhD, Eric Anderson, Fred G. Anderson, MD, Gerald L. Anderson, Glenn L. Anderson, Greg J. Anderson, H. C. Anderson, Harrison Clarke Anderson, MD, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J. Hilbert Anderson, James R. Anderson, James R. Anderson, James P. Anderson, James K. Anderson, James Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Janis W. Anderson, Joel Anderson, John C. Anderson, PhD, John O. Anderson, Jon C. Anderson, MD, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Julia W. Anderson, PhD, Keith R. Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E. Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Leif H. Anderson, Leslie Anderson, PhD, Louis Weston Anderson, Lowell Ray Anderson, Lynn C. Anderson, DVM, Mark Anderson, Mark A. Anderson, Mary P Anderson, Mike E. Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, P. Jennings Anderson, Percy G. Anderson Jr., R. L. Anderson, Randall H. Anderson, Reece B. Anderson, Richard Alan Anderson, PhD, Richard C. Anderson, Robert Anderson, Robert E. Anderson, Robert J Anderson, MD, Rodney C. Anderson, PhD, Roger O. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD, Roy E. Anderson, Russell Anderson, Theodore D. Anderson, Thomas P. Anderson, Thomas F. Anderson, PhD, Thornton Anderson, Tom Anderson, Tom P. Anderson, Walton O. Anderson, Warren Ronald Anderson, Wilbert C. Anderson, William L. Anderson, Karen Andersonnoeck, Charles S. Andes, David J. Andes, Mark J. Andorka, Robynn Andracsek, John Robert Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, John Andrako, PhD, Ivan J. Andrasik, Peter R. Andreana, PhD, Gilbert M. Andreen, Eva Andrei, PhD, George Andreiev, Richard M. Andres, PhD, Douglas R Andress, Steven M. Andreucci, James F. Andrew, PhD, James M. Andrew, Felixe A. Andrews, Frederick T. Andrews, Harry N. Andrews, John Stevens Andrews, PhD, Marion L. Andrews, Mel Andrews, Raynal W. Andrews, Russell A. Andrews, Russell S. Andrews, PhD, Scott Andrews, PhD, Timothy Andreychek, Lois Andros, Edward A. Andrus, M. B. Andrus, PhD, Walter S. Andrus, Robert E. Angel, Ernest F. Angelicola, Vincent Angelo, PhD, Francis M. Angeloni, PhD, T. Angelosaute, Steven T. Angely, Claude B. Anger, Robert H. Angevine, Ernest Angino, PhD, Keith Angle, Walter C. Anglemeyer, Howard P. Angstadt, PhD, Micheal J. Anhorn, Kevin P. Ankenbrand, William D. Ankney, William L Anliker, Stuart H. Anness, MD, Stig A. Annestrand, Edward J Annick, B. M. Anose, PhD, Mohammed R. Ansari, Gregory W. Antal, Bradley C. Antanaitis, PhD, John Allen Anthes, PhD, Elizabeth Y. Anthony, PhD, Jack R. Anthony, Lee Saunders Anthony, PhD, Robert D. Anthony, Charles H. Antinori, PhD, Achilles P. Anton, MD, Herbert D. Anton, Nick J. Antonas, Dan Antonescu-Wolf, MD, Rolando A. Antonio, Wilfred L. Antonson, Stephen P. Antony, Mary J. Anzia, PhD, Clarence R. Apel, MD, Henry W. Apfelbach, MD, P. J. Apice, Carl Apicella, Bruce W. Apland, David R. Appel, Kenneth P. Apperson, Norman Apperson, W. H. Appich Jr., Lynn Apple, Alan Appleby, PhD, Robert H. Appleby, Donald Applegate, DVM, James K. Applegate, PhD, Lowell N. Applegate, John K. Applegath, Herbert S Appleman, Douglas E. Applequist, PhD, Morris Herman Aprison, PhD, Charles Apter, PhD, Richard Apuzzo II, J. B. Aquilla, MD, Arturo Q. Arabe, PhD, Ara Arabyan, PhD, Steven B. Aragon, MD, Orlando A. Arana, Eric C. Araneta, Jonathan Arata, PhD, Howard Arbaugh, Anatoly L Arber, PhD, Harry D. Arber, R. Kent Arblaster, Jaime Arbona-Fazzi, PhD, Earl F. Arbuckle, John Arcadi, MD, Antonio E. Arce, Ed Arce, James R. Arce, Frank G Arcella, PhD, Byron J. Arceneaux, Leon M. Arceneaux, Webster J. Arceneaux Jr., John Arch, Diane M Archer, Donald Archer, William W. Archer, Patrick J. Archey, Philip Archibald, Robert L. Archibald, John L Archie, Angela N. Archon, William Bryant Ard, PhD, William Ard, Richard J. Ardine Arthur, Joe R. Arechavaleta, Christopher Arend, Robert W. Arends, Elton E. Arensman, Vittorio K. Argento, PhD, Harold V. Argo, PhD, Guvenc Argon, John W. Argue, Lawrence Ariano, MD, William J. Arion, PhD, Gary Arithson, Zaven S. Ariyan, PhD, Alfred Arkell, PhD, Raymond D Arkwright, Giacomo Armand, PhD, Gertrude D. Armbruster, PhD, Thomas G. Armbuster, MD, Bradley Armentrout, Richard W. Armentrout, PhD, Lew Armer, Joseph S Armijo, PhD, Ralph Elmer Armington, PhD, Bobby M. Armistead, William E Armour, Robert L. Arms, Baxter H. Armstrong, PhD, Clifford B. Armstrong Jr., Desiree A. Armstrong, PhD, Glenn M. Armstrong, James E. Armstrong, James R. Armstrong, DVM, Lou Armstrong, Lowell Todd Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Marvin D. Armstrong, PhD, Melvin B. Armstrong, Robert L. Armstrong, PhD, Robert Lee Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Dana Arndt, Harold H. Arndt, Jerome C. Arnett Jr., MD, Ross Harold Arnett, PhD, William S. Arnett, Charles Arney, Philip J. Arnholt, PhD, Aaron J Arnold, Charles W. Arnold, Charles Arnold, PhD, David Arnold, Edwin L. Arnold, Gregory B. Arnold, Herbert K. Arnold, Jack N. Arnold, John K Arnold, DVM, Lance L. Arnold, Marcia L. Arnold, R. Arnold, PhD, Randall W. Arnold, Robert Arnold Jr., DVM, Stephen Arnold, Timothy D. Arnold, William Archibald Arnold, PhD, John H Arns, Jr, Lester C. Arnwine, James T. Arocho, MD, Sidney O. Arola, Casper J. Aronson, Seymour Aronson, PhD, George V Aros Chilingarian, PhD, Joseph Bartholomew Arots, PhD, Adrian Arp, PhD, Charles Hammond Arrington, PhD, Dale E. Arrington, PhD, Donald R. Arrington, Clement R. Arrison, Rhea T. Van Arsdall, John V. Artale, James S. Arthur, PhD, Charles G. Artinian, MD, Robert Artz, Jaime N. Aruguete, MD, Delano Z. Arvin, PhD, Joseph J. Arx, Goro G Asaki, George J. Asanovich, Charles H. Asbill, Bob J. Ascherl, Alvin G. Ash, Michael W. Ashberry, Edward V. Ashburn, Joe E. Ashby, PhD, Kenny Ashby, Randolph W Ashby, PhD, Raymond A. Ashcraft, Charles R. Ashford, A. Ashley, PhD, Doyle Allen Ashley, PhD, Edward E. Ashley, Holt Ashley, PhD, Maynard B. Ashley, Warren Cotton Ashley, PhD, Wayne A. Ashley, William M. Ashley, Alvin Ashman, Jerome P. Ashman, Abhay Ashtekar, PhD, Philip T. Ashton, Romney A. Ashton, MD, Walter R. Ashwill, Bob Ashworth, Jim F. Ashworth, Monroe Ashworth, Robert A Ashworth, Robert S. Ashworth, Victor Asirvatham, PhD, Orv B. Askeland, Ann Askew, B. Askildsen, Charles W. Askins, Philip R. Askman, Tom Asmas, PhD, Robert C. Asmus, Erik Aspelin, Winifred Alice Asprey, PhD, Don O. Asquith, PhD, Mike Assad, Andrew P. Assenmacher, Orazio J. Astarita, Jacob F. Asti, Everett L. Astleford, Eugene Roy Astley, R. Lee Aston, PhD, Raymond J. Astor Sr., Otilia J. Asuncion, MD, Charles E. Atchison, James Atchison, Curtis L. Atchley, Greg J. Aten, Robert Aten, PhD, James Athanasion, Michael J. Atherton, PhD, William J. Atherton, PhD, Robert D. Athey Jr., PhD, Arthur C. Atkins, David C. Atkins, Larry P. Atkins, Mark D. Atkins, D. O. Atkinson, Erika J Atkinson, John P. Atkinson, MD, John R. Atkinson, Keith Atkinson, Larry N. Atkinson, Lynn A Atkinson, Matthew R. Atkinson, Stanley L. Atnipp, Richard Attig, Leonardo D. Attorre, William J. Attwooll, Jerry C. Atwell, Mark Atwood, PhD, Robert C. Atwood, Luben Atzeff, MD, Jerry Y. Au, Lester C. Auble, Darrel D. Auch, James C. Auckland, Walter Auclair, PhD, Daniel J. Aucutt, Bryan Audiffred, William H. Audley, Louis A. Auerbach, Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD, Keith H. Aufderheide, PhD, William R. Aufricht, Dale A. Augenstein, PhD, Owen H. Auger, Dustin M. Aughenbaugh, Gregory S Augspurger, Joe Augspurger, PhD, Brad August, James K. August, Mike August, Brian Augustine, PhD, W. David Augustine, Frederick N. Aukeman, J. Todd Aukerman, C. Mark. Aulick, PhD, Luther Aull, PhD, Neil N. Ault, PhD, Kathi A. Aultman, MD, John B. Aultmann Jr., Thomas E. Aumock, Bob J. Aumueller, Henry Spiese Aurand, Richard A. Aurand, Richard Aurisano, PhD, Joeseph D Aurizio, Brian E. Ausburn, Kent E Ausburn, PhD, Kenny Ausmus, Kurt L. Austad, Alfred Ells Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, Carlton L. Austin, D. Austin, D. Austin, PhD, Harold T. Austin, Lloyd H. Austin, Michael N. Austin, Paul E. Austin, Robert L. Austin, Robert H Austin, PhD, Roger J. Austin, PhD, Ward H. Austin, Edward T. Auth, Donald W. Autio, Amalia R. Auvigne, MD, Andrew B. Avalon, William E. Avera, Mark Averett, Jon R. Averhoff, Frank Averill, PhD, Rosario D. Averion, MD, Alex Avery, Donald Avery, Nathan M. Avery, Philip J. Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Arthur J. Avila, Luis A. Avila, Teresita D. Avila, MD, Joseph Avruch, MD, Theodore C. Awartkruis, PhD, Steven G. Axen, M. Friedman Axler, PhD, William P. Aycock, Jessica Ayers, Robert C. Ayers Jr., PhD, Bruce D. Ayres, PhD, T. G. Ayres, Wesley P. Ayres, PhD, Dany Ayseur, Alison M. Azar, Max Azevedo, Azizollah Azhdam
> 
> http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php
Click to expand...

WTF? Spandex has finally sent someone around the bend. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Nyxx

Roller Skate said:


> WTF? Spandex has finally sent someone around the bend. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


No surprise really! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Not watched that either.
> 
> Don't give up Bob. Try posting loads more links. That's usually a great way to convince people..
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is Spandex, if I post in my own words you rubbish me for being a none expert, if I post links that verify what I have written you wont read them, circular argument I believe anyway, not that I am convinced by a consensus opinion like yourself Spandex, but here is a list of *31, 487 American scientists including 9,029 with PHD`s that don`t believe in catastrophic man made global warming *, name your 97% consensus scientists that believe the opposite. I could list all the signatories but that would take considerable space, therefore I post a link which you with the three monkey syndrome probably won`t read, the list may though help some others interested in this subject.
> 
> Just a few names, for the full list click the link...
Click to expand...

But you're not posting links that 'verify' what you've written. You're just posting links that say the same as what you've written. There's a big difference.

I think it's interesting though, that your list of alleged 'scientists' have only signed something to say they don't believe in *catastrophic* man made climate change. Does it have to be catastrophic before we decide to do something about it? What are they defining as a catastrophe? To be honest, I wasn't really making that distinction in my mind - I figured if we're changing the climate in a negative way, we should probably stop. Are you working on the theory that man made climate change is real, but as long as it doesn't kill us all, it's not worth changing our behaviour??



Roller Skate said:


> WTF? Spandex has finally sent someone around the bend.


As if Bob was sane before this started. The man thinks his wifi is killing him, ffs.


----------



## Spandex

Just to help your sanity bob, I'll respond to your silly list using the medium you respect most - the link and extract combo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html



> So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.





> The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."





> "Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
> 
> "Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.


----------



## Roller Skate

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not watched that either.
> 
> Don't give up Bob. Try posting loads more links. That's usually a great way to convince people..
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is Spandex, if I post in my own words you rubbish me for being a none expert, if I post links that verify what I have written you wont read them, circular argument I believe anyway, not that I am convinced by a consensus opinion like yourself Spandex, but here is a list of *31, 487 American scientists including 9,029 with PHD`s that don`t believe in catastrophic man made global warming *, name your 97% consensus scientists that believe the opposite. I could list all the signatories but that would take considerable space, therefore I post a link which you with the three monkey syndrome probably won`t read, the list may though help some others interested in this subject.
> 
> Just a few names, for the full list click the link...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you're not posting links that 'verify' what you've written. You're just posting links that say the same as what you've written. There's a big difference.
> 
> I think it's interesting though, that your list of alleged 'scientists' have only signed something to say they don't believe in *catastrophic* man made climate change. Does it have to be catastrophic before we decide to do something about it? What are they defining as a catastrophe? To be honest, I wasn't really making that distinction in my mind - I figured if we're changing the climate in a negative way, we should probably stop. Are you working on the theory that man made climate change is real, but as long as it doesn't kill us all, it's not worth changing our behaviour??
> 
> 
> 
> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? Spandex has finally sent someone around the bend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if Bob was sane before this started. The man thinks his wifi is killing him, ffs.
Click to expand...

In that case, It's now a case of what's going to kill him first, this argument, his wifi or the weight of his tinfoil hat.


----------



## Roller Skate

Nyxx said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? Spandex has finally sent someone around the bend. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise really! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Someone will eventually have the last word ... one of them's going to die of wifi, the other of boredom. :lol:


----------



## Nyxx

"only" 14 pagers in.........so far


----------



## Stiff

Roller Skate said:


> Someone will eventually have the last word ...


That's usually my other half


----------



## Trouble4

at least it is a discussion

whether it is true or not that is one's own decision

but where does it in rank in priority of other causes ?

Children Dying or have incurred death due to starvation

Cancer research

where do we put "The Money"


----------



## John-H

Bob, you are in danger of being seen as a spammer again :roll:


----------



## Trouble4

John-H said:


> Bob, you are in danger of being seen as a spammer again :roll:


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

in off topic :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

bob that is a compliment take that and run


----------



## bobclive22

> But you're not posting links that 'verify' what you've written. You're just posting links that say the same as what you've written. There's a big difference.
> 
> I think it's interesting though, that your list of alleged 'scientists' have only signed something to say they don't believe in catastrophic man made climate change. Does it have to be catastrophic before we decide to do something about it? What are they defining as a catastrophe? To be honest, I wasn't really making that distinction in my mind - I figured if we're changing the climate in a negative way, we should probably stop. Are you working on the theory that man made climate change is real, but as long as it doesn't kill us all, it's not worth changing our behaviour??


Well you tell me, India wants 2.5 trillion dollars to do nothing, China wont comply until 2030 that`s business as usual, Russia set their baseline at 1990 so they can keep on emitting as usual. So the three largest emitters just keep on emitting CO2 at the same old rate and receive vast sums of tax payers cash for doing so.

China builds two new coal plants a week.Japan is pushing ahead with new coal-fired plants and so is Germany, There are current plans to build 370 coal-fired power stations in India.

India cannot pursue coal at all costs if it wants to meet its Paris climate pledge. IT DOESN'T it want`s the 2.5 trillion dollars though.

Europe's New Coal Curtain: Eastern Europe Embraces Coal as Western Europe Deserts It-and Russia Is Still All In

http://www.powermag.com/europes-new-coa ... ll-all-in/

Spandex, Paris is nothing to do about CO2 it`s about re distribution of wealth on the back of a *none event* and it`s tax payers money, The US has now decided it will have none of it.


> I figured if we're changing the climate in a negative way, we should probably stop.


*THE NONE EVENT*

*Bjorn Lomborg, Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100*

Google the above or go to link below.

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-re ... e-promises


----------



## bobclive22

> Just to help your sanity bob, I'll respond to your silly list using the medium you respect most - the link and extract combo:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html


The Huffington Post.

*Are you serious?* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Just to help your sanity bob, I'll respond to your silly list using the medium you respect most - the link and extract combo:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 43092.html
> 
> 
> 
> The Huffington Post.
> 
> *Are you serious?* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh bob, you're so predictable, I'm going to call you Predictabob from now on. I knew you'd ignore the factual points raised in the article and try to deflect them by complaining about the source. So, let's ignore that stupid Huff article. Probably bollocks because they're biased and Predictabob doesn't read biased media.

But, completely unrelated, I had a look at the stats and only 0.5% of the people on the list are climate scientists. AND I did some research and apparently the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science." AND some of the people on the list are architects and medical doctors. Not to mention it was circulated about a decade ago. So Predictabob, are you _sure_ you want to use that petition as a sign that your beliefs are credible?


----------



## Trouble4

Beliefs are credible ??? There it is .... it was finally said .... beliefs are credible to those from which they came

and some believe if two or more that are gathered in the same belief ""Their I shall be as well""


----------



## bobclive22

> only 0.5% of the people on the list are climate scientists.


So Spandex you have to be a climate scientist to have an opinion on climate change, in your world an ordinary PHD won`t do, your source was DESMOGBLOG, :lol: :lol: :lol: , that`s the believer`s bible aimed at the brain dead. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:.

Have another go, as I have said to you before when warmists like yourself loose the argument they attack the man.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> only 0.5% of the people on the list are climate scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> So Spandex you have to be a climate scientist to have an opinion on climate change, in your world an ordinary PHD won`t do, your source was DESMOGBLOG, :lol: :lol: :lol: , that`s the believer`s bible aimed at the brain dead. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:.
> 
> Have another go, as I have said to you before when warmists like yourself loose the argument they attack the man.
Click to expand...

Oh for gods sake. No Predictabob, my source wasn't DESMOGBLOG. The petition THAT YOU LINKED TO lists the numbers of people with climate science experience. You might think that working out a percentage is so complex you'd need someone else to do it for you, but I can manage it without copying someone else's working out. It also lists the fields of experience for many of the signees.

And no, you don't need ANY qualifications in order to have an opinion on climate change. Hell, even an ex-builder can have an opinion. But that's not what you're saying is it.. you're saying not only do these people have opinions, but that we should value their opinions equally with actual climate scientists.


1. It's full of people who have no demonstrable knowledge of climate science.
2. It was distributed along with a paper that 'explained' why climate change wasn't real (in an attempt to influence the recipient).
3. Responses weren't checked at all - over the years people have submitted fake signatures using tv/film characters names and made up qualifications and they all made the list.
4. It was started, and the bulk of names added 20 years ago. Scientific understanding has moved on.
5. 30 of the climate scientists on the list were contacted - 6 of them said they would not sign it if asked now. Some even said they didn't remember signing it in the first place.

Just accept it, that petition is dumb.


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh for gods sake. No Predictabob, my source wasn't DESMOGBLOG. The petition THAT YOU LINKED TO lists the numbers of people with climate science experience. You might think that working out a percentage is so complex you'd need someone else to do it for you, but I can manage it without copying someone else's working out. It also lists the fields of experience for many of the signees.


It doesn`t matter, they were all experts in their own field and were entitled to their opinion.

Davin King (chemist) advised Brown and Cameron on climate change, because of this advice from King we now have the diesel scandal, he was a chemist not a climate scientist.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that meeting CO2 targets, which were part of the climate change agenda, was the priority at the time. "What was* on our minds very heavily* was how do we reduce carbon dioxide emissions given the challenge of climate change. Diesel-driven vehicles can do more miles per gallon. It didn`t appear to matter what field the advisor was expert in as long as he was a true believer.

The point Spandex is Trump believes the data is flawed and that global policy is being implemented on flawed data.

*Are the numbers real or manipulated*, President Trump believes they are manipulated that is one of the reasons he pulled out of the Paris accord and that is the reason why Scott Pruitt now heads the EPA. An example of this data manipulation is below, if you care to read it. These scientists are manipulating the data and failing to archive that data which makes it impossible for other scientist to replicate those studys, failing to archive data is the norm in climate science, but then you Spandex as a true believer obviously accept that as good science, NOOA and especially NASA climate studies are now having their budgets drastically reduced because of this. Trump is intent in ensuring that all data used to construct global temperature sets and any climate studies funded by tax payers money will be fully transparent to all, interesting times ahead.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ience-noaa
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html


----------



## bobclive22

Just came across this and thought of you Spandex.

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source, the reliable Wikipedia bans the daily mail, :lol: :lol: :lol:

It`s all in the unbiased Guardian, who would have guessed.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... or-website

Here is another take on the subject.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... -speak-out


----------



## bobclive22

This is directly from John bates ex NOOA and why I am a skeptic of catastrophic man made climate change.

*Climate scientists versus climate data*

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/clim ... mate-data/

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/no ... ter-study/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It doesn`t matter, they were all experts in their own field and were entitled to their opinion.


As I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equal. You wouldn't get a plumber in to talk about your health problems, would you? I mean, he's entitled to an opinion if you tell him about it, but do you value it like you'd value a doctors opinion?

But this is starting to sound like you're changing the subject. You posted that petition in response to comments about the concensus. You were trying to show that there isn't agreement in the scientific community. Just admit that petition proves nothing.



bobclive22 said:


> President Trump believes they are manipulated that is one of the reasons he pulled out of the Paris accord


Can you post a link to his statement where he says that he thinks the data was manipulated? I've not seen that.


----------



## bobclive22

> But this is starting to sound like you're changing the subject. You posted that petition in response to comments about the concensus. You were trying to show that there isn't agreement in the scientific community. Just admit that petition proves nothing.


As you said Spandex the petition I posted proves nothing, neither does the so called 95% consensus prove anything, you don`t do science by consensus.

Trump tweets say it all.

Newly released emails prove that *scientists have manipulated data on global warming.* The data is unreliable. Nov 2011 tweet

Trump, *Global warming is based on manipulated science * Nov 2012 tweet

We can't destroy the competitiveness of our factories in order to prepare for* nonexistent global warming.* China is thrilled with us! Nov 2012 tweet

They changed the name from "*global warming" to "climate change*" after the term global warming just wasn't working March 2013 tweet.

Wrong, used to be called global warming and when that name didn't work, they deftly changed it to climate change-because it's freezing! April 2013 tweet.

We should be focused on magnificently clean and healthy air and *not distracted by the expensive hoax that is global warming!* Dec 2013 tweet.

Wow, just in-John Beale, the top person in government on climate change (EPA), *is a total fraud, and just admitted it!* What can they say now Dec 2013 tweet.

This *very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull***** has got to stop. Jan 2014 tweet.

Don't forget. "Global warming" can also mean earth is getting colder! That way they cover both sides of the fence!" Jan 2914 tweet.

Whether Global Warming or Climate change. *The fact is We didn't cause it. We cannot change it.* Feb 2014 tweet.

They only changed the term to *CLIMATE CHANGE when the words GLOBAL WARMING didn't work anymore. Come on people, get smart! * July 2014 tweet.

Do you get the gist Spandex, thats why Trump pulled out of the Paris accord and why he is pulling the teeth of Nasa climate studies and the EPA.


----------



## Shug750S

Bob, not so sure The Donald is the smartest guy in the planet, but he agrees with you on this, so he must be then?

:lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As you said Spandex the petition I posted proves nothing, neither does the so called 95% consensus prove anything, you don`t do science by consensus.


No one is suggesting that anyone 'does science' by consensus. I'm saying I judge scientific questions that I'm unable to answer myself by looking at the consensus. The scientists aren't all sitting back saying "no need to look further. Job done. Consensus achieved". But I think you know that.



bobclive22 said:


> Trump tweets say it all.


Ahh right, that's why I couldn't find a statement about him leaving Paris because of manipulated data. :wink:

Must be a bit gutting though, right? You're trying to come across as intelligent and analytical, then Trump comes along and says he agrees with you... ouch..


----------



## John-H

Unlike Bob to Trump his own arguments :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> No one is suggesting that anyone 'does science' by consensus. I'm saying I judge scientific questions that I'm unable to answer myself by looking at the consensus.


*Consensus Is Not Science*

*Albert Einstein*

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

The late Michael Crichton,

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. *Consensus is the business of politics*. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are *verifiable by reference to the real world*. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

*Ship of Fools III - Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of 'Unprecedented' Ice*

Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

A multi-million dollar study on the impact of climate change which was set to take place in the Hudson's Bay had to be cancelled due to climate change.

It became clear to me very quickly that these weren't just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions," Dr. David Barber, the lead scientist on the study, told VICE. "We were finding thick multi-year sea ice floes which on level ice were five metres thick... it was much, much thicker and much, much heavier than anything you would expect at that latitude and at that time of year."

The ice was creating havoc in the area, puncturing hulls causing some boats to sink and freezing other boats in place. Barber said that there were numerous search and rescue operations requiring helicopters taking place multiple times a day. The team quickly saw that, because Canada has limited ice breakers and the situation was so dire, there was no other alternative to canceling their mission.

It was clear it was from the Arctic, I just needed to be among the ice to see it," said Dr. Barber. *"What was also clear to me was that climate change has caused this event to happen."
*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ented-ice/

So Global warming, sorry I mean climate change causes thicker ice, who would have thunk it. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, not so sure The Donald is the smartest guy in the planet, but he agrees with you on this, so he must be then?
> Shug750s


Stupid reply, I was asked for a link to my statement regarding President Trumps reasons for withdrawing from the Paris accord, his tweets are my link. I believe the billionaire is a little bit smarter than you mate.


----------



## bobclive22

> Ahh right, that's why I couldn't find a statement about him leaving Paris because of manipulated data. :wink:
> 
> Must be a bit gutting though, right? You're trying to come across as intelligent and analytical, then Trump comes along and says he agrees with you... ouch..


Back to front as usual, perhaps I should try to answer the question before you ask it.

Spandex, couldn`t find a link, Bob, here it is Spandex, can`t understand why my answer to your question is intelligent or analytical it`s just a tweet from President Trump. I suppose someone with a low level of intelligence might construe it as such though. [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. *Consensus is the business of politics*.


So why are you accusing *scientists* of consensus science? They're just doing science - non-scientists are the ones who have to use the consensus in order understand the current scientific thinking on a subject, not scientists.

you keep singling out the lone voices speaking against the consensus (and quoting them ad nauseum), so let's try asking you again, for the millionth time; how did you decide to believe the one, instead of the many? I can understand why there will always be scientists who disagree - that's their job - but why do *you* disagree?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Back to front as usual, perhaps I should try to answer the question before you ask it.


That's exactly what you did. Reverse engineering trumps decision based on 4 year old tweets.


----------



## Spandex

Actually bob, can I ask you a question:

What shape do you believe the world is and why?


----------



## bobclive22

> So why are you accusing scientists of consensus science? They're just doing science,


Barack Obama‏Verified account @BarackObama
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.











I post this again,

The late Michael Crichton, MD, 
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the *claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels*; it is a way to *avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.* Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has *nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. *Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.


----------



## bobclive22

> That's exactly what you did. Reverse engineering trumps decision based on 4 year old tweets.


Did President trump take the US out of the Paris climate accord, appears his 4 year old tweets indicated the direction he would take on US climate change legislation, he believed the climate data was flawed and acted on that belief.


----------



## bobclive22

> That's exactly what you did. Reverse engineering trumps decision based on 4 year old tweets.


Did President trump take the US out of the Paris climate accord, appears his 4 year old tweets indicated the direction he would take on US climate change legislation, he believed the climate data was flawed and acted on that belief.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So why are you accusing scientists of consensus science? They're just doing science,
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama‏Verified account @BarackObama
> Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I post this again,
> 
> The late Michael Crichton, MD,
> I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the *claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels*; it is a way to *avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.* Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
> 
> Let's be clear: the work of science has *nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. *Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't a scientist! The fact that non scientists use the consensus is NOT evidence of 'consensus science'. Repeating it over and over won't make it true. Your quote even agrees with me. It says consensus is for politics - isn't Obama a politician?

So I'll ask again. Why are you accusing SCIENTISTS of consensus science?


----------



## Spandex

And you've still not replied to my question about the shape of the earth...

I'm trying to understand how you, as a non-scientist, decide what to believe when there are competing theories. Let's take another example. You're a grandfather, right? Would you want your grandkids to get the MMR jab? There are a small minority of scientists who say that it's dangerous but a consensus in the scientific and medical community believes that it is perfectly safe. You're not a doctor or a scientist, so ultimately you have to take someone else's word for it, whichever way you go. So how do YOU decide bob?

Your little quote above points out that science only needs one person to be right (misleading, but technically true) - but there is at least one person on both sides of the MMR argument, so that little soundbite doesn't help you with a decision.


----------



## Spandex

So this is where we learn what consensus really means. It means probability. That's it. Simple as that. No one thinks consensus means something is proven, or a fact, or irrefutable, so to argue against it on those grounds is pointless.

A consensus is simply a means of understanding the current scientific thinking and working out the likelihood of a theory being true. It's a tool. So when someone says "there's a 97% consensus about climate change", you can disagree with the figure, or you can disagree with what we should do with that information, but what *you're* doing is just moronic. You're trying to discredit the whole notion of consensus as a tool. You're trying to pretend that having 97% of scientists agree about something holds no significance whatsoever.


----------



## John-H

Well put. I hope Bob will be forthcoming on these questions.


----------



## Trouble4

what is consensus: a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people:

Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion.The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense "majority of opinion" rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense "general agreement .

Whenever there's disagreement, there's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. When you're talking about all the people in the world

so basically a consensus means an argument.

Definition of consensus: Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared


----------



## Spandex

Not really relevant when the consensus we're talking about is defined by a percentage. Saying "a consensus" is indeed vague, but saying "a 97% consensus" gives the reader all the information they need in order to decide what to do with that information.

In fact, it would probably be better for my sanity if we never mentioned the word 'consensus' again. If we just say "97% of climate scientists believe ...... " then bob can't keep banging on about concensus in the hope that he'll somehow convince us that the science that the 97% agree on must be wrong purely because someone used the wrong word to describe that 97%. It's laughable really.


----------



## Trouble4

Spandex said:


> Not really relevant when the consensus we're talking about is defined by a percentage. Saying "a consensus" is indeed vague, but saying "a 97% consensus" gives the reader all the information they need in order to decide what to do with that information.
> 
> In fact, it would probably be better for my sanity if we never mentioned the word 'consensus' again. If we just say "97% of climate scientists believe ...... " then bob can't keep banging on about concensus in the hope that he'll somehow convince us that the science that the 97% agree on must be wrong purely because someone used the wrong word to describe that 97%. It's laughable really.


.
and there my friend is how murders as well get off on those charges..............

there again distraction.. changing of the rules (if there were any)... Regardless neither are going to submit which is fine for those involved it has been a good discussion IMO The 3% still bring doubt or possible doubt it all depends on the individual and how they want to process the information presented to them...


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> there again distraction.. changing of the rules (if there were any)... Regardless neither are going to submit which is fine for those involved it has been a good discussion IMO The 3% still bring doubt or possible doubt it all depends on the individual and how they want to process the information presented to them...


Of course the 3% brings doubt! No one ever claimed otherwise. You're falling into the same binary trap that Bob has become bogged down in - you think that an equivocal answer from scientists is somehow an excuse for non-scientists to just cherry pick the theory they like the sound of (i.e. the one that doesn't impact their lifestyle much).

Science will ALWAYS have conflicting theories for EVERYTHING. Even fundamental stuff that we assume is universally agreed on by science - there's always a contrary voice. That's a good thing because that's how science works. But just because every answer to a question is possible doesn't mean that every answer is EQUALLY possible. That's where Bob has become confused.


----------



## Trouble4

Spandex said:


> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there again distraction.. changing of the rules (if there were any)... Regardless neither are going to submit which is fine for those involved it has been a good discussion IMO The 3% still bring doubt or possible doubt it all depends on the individual and how they want to process the information presented to them...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the 3% brings doubt! No one ever claimed otherwise. You're falling into the same binary trap that Bob has become bogged down in - you think that an equivocal answer from scientists is somehow an excuse for non-scientists to just cherry pick the theory they like the sound of (i.e. the one that doesn't impact their lifestyle much).
> 
> Science will ALWAYS have conflicting theories for EVERYTHING. Even fundamental stuff that we assume is universally agreed on by science - there's always a contrary voice. That's a good thing because that's how science works. But just because every answer to a question is possible doesn't mean that every answer is EQUALLY possible. That's where Bob has become confused.
Click to expand...

is that like beauty is in the mind of the beholder and that be me ? .. The bottom line when someone cannot be swayed by rational / scientific / and the majority....... a person has done their job in what they believe to be true and now have to leave it with the person or person's to come to their on conclusions ...........


----------



## John-H

Only thing is that a discussion thread invites discussion and if someone keeps posting opinion then that invites reply :wink:


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> a person has done their job in what they believe to be true and now have to leave it with the person or person's to come to their on conclusions ...........


I think you've misunderstood what's happening here. If bob wants to quietly come to a conclusion - any conclusion - he's welcome to. As are we. If, however, he wants to go on a public forum and attempt to convince other people, or ridicule those who disagree with him (usually by likening them to religious zealots, regardless of the topic - brexit, political leanings, climate change, etc - tedious, but bob and originality are not good friends) then it's open season.


----------



## Trouble4

Spandex said:


> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a person has done their job in what they believe to be true and now have to leave it with the person or person's to come to their on conclusions ...........
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've misunderstood what's happening here. If bob wants to quietly come to a conclusion - any conclusion - he's welcome to. As are we. If, however, he wants to go on a public forum and attempt to convince other people, or ridicule those who disagree with him (usually by likening them to religious zealots, regardless of the topic - brexit, political leanings, climate change, etc - tedious, but bob and originality are not good friends) then it's open season.
Click to expand...

if I was a moderator ... would ask all sides ""Who is the adult here?"" but then would get hit up with "what is considered an adult?""

LOL... all good.......... now most of us or some of us can realize why the wheels of Gov't is so slow........


----------



## bobclive22

> That's it. Simple as that. No one thinks consensus means something is proven, or a fact, or irrefutable.


It appears Obama believes consensus science is fact, he said so and signed the Paris accord believing so.

Currently, developed countries are obliged to 'mobilise' $100bn a year of public and private finance to help developing countries by 2020 - a target set in Copenhagen in 2009.

The Paris decision says they "intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025" - *in other words continue the $100bn a year, and then by 2025 set a new goal "from a floor of $100bn". *

So the cost for a 0.8 degree rise in temperature since 1880 which has not been proven to have been caused by CO2 will cost tax payers $100 billion a year until 2030 and probably more after that all on the unproven belief in *catastrophic man made global warming. *


----------



## bobclive22

> If, however, he wants to go on a public forum and attempt to convince other people, or ridicule those who disagree with him (usually by likening them to religious zealots,


Zealotry is believing so strongly in something that you are completely intolerant of different beliefs or opinions. That`s you I believe Spandex.

I have posted graphs, links to peer reviewed studies, vid`s from UK select committee, links to climate gate emails clearly indicating the other sides position, not once have you offered an opinion or been prepared to discuss those posted links in a reasonable response therefore religious zealot appears to me apt.


----------



## bobclive22

Your 97% consensus.

The H. pylori theory was ridiculed by the establishment scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that everyone was against me, but I knew I was right.

This is one example of consensus none science.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> If, however, he wants to go on a public forum and attempt to convince other people, or ridicule those who disagree with him (usually by likening them to religious zealots,
> 
> 
> 
> Zealotry is believing so strongly in something that you are completely intolerant of different beliefs or opinions. That`s you I believe Spandex.
> 
> I have posted graphs, links to peer reviewed studies, vid`s from UK select committee, links to climate gate emails clearly indicating the other sides position, not once have you offered an opinion or been prepared to discuss those posted links in a reasonable response therefore religious zealot appears to me apt.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Bob but that's completely unfair. Spandex has been an absolute trooper trying to take your posts seriously, checking out the sources and replying to you in a logical manner, first asking you to explain discrepancies which you repeatedly ignore and finally trying to get you to answer one simple question: - Where you are not an expert (on whatever subject) and there is a conflict of expert opinion, how do you decide which side you believe? But again you have not answered. You are running away from the obvious point that if you don't know something you ask an accepted expert - not someone who most experts think is wrong. Why would you do that if you don't know the subject?

You are posting evidence supported by a tiny minority view and claiming it's the truth when it's rejected by most experts but you give no credible evidence of how you, a non expert, can be trusted to judge the subject.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Your 97% consensus.
> 
> The H. pylori theory was ridiculed by the establishment scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that everyone was against me, but I knew I was right.
> 
> This is one example of consensus none science.


Yes bob. Sometimes the majority of scientists are wrong. So, how do you think that relates to the climate change debate?

It tells us that the 97% are wrong? Nope.
It tells us that the 97% are right? Nope again.
It tells us that the 97% might be wrong? Yep, I'd agree with that.

So, is that your whole point? That they might be wrong? Why didn't you just say that and we could have all agreed ages ago.

What you conveniently ignore when you post that example, is that Marshall had a theory that went against current thinking. People disagreed with him. Nothing unusual about that. Not a sign of 'bad science', or 'consensus science', just normal scientific process. Once he proved his theory, the scientific community changed their position, right?

All good so far. Science working as it should, accepting change. So why haven't they accepted the minority view on climate change? Is it because 97% of climate scientists are idiots? Is it because 97% of climate scientists are corrupt? Seriously bob, why?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It appears Obama believes consensus science is fact, he said so and signed the Paris accord believing so.


No it doesn't. You're the one calling it 'consensus science' and you're the one claiming people think things are 'fact'.

Like I said, no one is saying it's a fact. It's about probability and risk. If someone told you there was a 50% chance that your cup of tea had gone cold, you'd probably take the chance and drink it. If someone told you there was a 50% chance your plane would crash, I'm not sure you'd get on it. So, how certain do scientists have to be in order for us to take action to reduce CO2? Does it have to be a 'fact'? Highly likely? Quite likely? 97% likely?


----------



## Trouble4

> So why haven't they accepted the minority view on climate change? Is it because 97% of climate scientists are idiots? Is it because 97% of climate scientists are corrupt?


THERE IS TO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE........ former vice-president has made 50+ million dollars in supporting climate change alone..... 


> Is it because 97% of climate scientists are corrupt?


 No but 50% are



> Is it because 97% of climate scientists are idiots?


 No but 17% are

that = 67% :lol: :lol: :lol: those are facts sad but true

found this and IMO this hits in UK if I am not wrong:http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...id-dishonest-semi-literate-climate-scientist/


----------



## Spandex

Riiiiiiigght... first of all, breitbart is nowhere near to being an unbiased source of information on climate change. And that's an opinion piece which doesn't even pretend to be 'news'. For gods sake, he spends a number of paragraphs trying to explain how climate scientists are all actually a bit thick. I'm surprised he didn't say they smelled and no one likes them.

Too much money to be made from climate change? I guess there's bugger all to be made by denying climate change and burning a crap-load of fossil fuel though, right? And that's how this works, isn't it? I don't have to *prove* that climate change deniers are corrupt, I just have to point out that the fossil fuel lobbyists are massively well funded, then say something wanky like "follow the money!", then sit back smugly as though I've just proved a point.

And your 50% + 17%? I'm not sure I should dignify that with an answer. Show your sources, then we'll talk.


----------



## bobclive22

*Yes Minister*


----------



## bobclive22

> Riiiiiiigght... first of all, breitbart is nowhere near to being an unbiased source of information on climate change. And that's an opinion piece which doesn't even pretend to be 'news'.


Spandex, your problem is your total belief in the religion of Man made Global Warming, if you had an open mind it would not matter where this article was printed or whether it was an opinion piece or not, all you would need to do to put forward a valid opinion was to read the actual press release and then read the actual study, you haven`t done that therefore your comments are just regurgitated junk as usual.

Is the Guardian an unbiased source of information.

Heathrow in west London had recorded temperatures of 34.5C (94.1F) by 4pm, the highest for June since the 35.6C (96F) recorded in Southampton on June 28 1976.

Now why would the Met office place a Stevenson screen 500 ft from the runway and taxiway of one of the busiest airports on the planet and then use this temperature data to form part of their global temperature data set. 
It appears though that the past 41 years of global warming has not breached the 1976 record even though the airport has seen massive expansion during that time.


----------



## bobclive22

> Like I said, no one is saying it's a fact. It's about probability and risk. If someone told you there was a 50% chance that your cup of tea had gone cold, you'd probably take the chance and drink it. If someone told you there was a 50% chance your plane would crash,


Spandex, it`s all from computer models, the models stated proof would be the hot spot, it isn`t there, there has been little if any warming since 1998 yet CO2 is still increasing, fact Spandex thats what you need to form an opinion on the probability and risk, GIGO, $100 billion a year untill 2025 based soley on an unproven theory supported by climate models that don`t agree with real world data.


----------



## bobclive22

> Obama isn't a scientist! The fact that non scientists use the consensus is NOT evidence of 'consensus science'.


Spandex, Obama was the most powerful man on the planet it didn`t matter whether he was a scientist or not, he believed in consensus science, hence his tweet, he stated the science was settled and acted on that when he signed the Paris accord, fortunately for the western world PRESIDENT TRUMP walked away from that. It`s a belief spandex like King Canute and the king with no clothes.

I thought the term (97% of scientists believe) is evidence of consensus science.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Obama isn't a scientist! The fact that non scientists use the consensus is NOT evidence of 'consensus science'.
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex, Obama was the most powerful man on the planet it didn`t matter whether he was a scientist or not, he believed in consensus science, hence his tweet, he stated the science was settled and acted on that when he signed the Paris accord, fortunately for the western world PRESIDENT TRUMP walked away from that. It`s a belief spandex like King Canute and the king with no clothes.
> 
> I thought the term (97% of scientists believe) is evidence of consensus science.
Click to expand...

The science will never be 'settled'. But people still need to make decisions. Hence looking at the majority view of scientists.

It's a simple concept bob. If you need to make a decision you have to look at the current evidence.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, it`s all from computer models, the models stated proof would be the hot spot, it isn`t there, there has been little if any warming since 1998 yet CO2 is still increasing, fact Spandex thats what you need to form an opinion on the probability and risk, GIGO, $100 billion a year untill 2025 based soley on an unproven theory supported by climate models that don`t agree with real world data.


No, the models never stated 'proof would be anything that accurate. That's why there are many different models using different parameters to try to cover a huge number of variables - and that's why we have to look at the average of the models and that's why we can only really compare the trend rather than instantaneous data points.

And bob, just so you know, in science there's no such thing as a proven theory. That's right, ALL theories are technically unproven and always will be.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, your problem is your total belief in the religion of Man made Global Warming, if you had an open mind it would not matter where this article was printed or whether it was an opinion piece or not, all you would need to do to put forward a valid opinion was to read the actual press release and then read the actual study, you haven`t done that therefore your comments are just regurgitated junk as usual.


Didn't you *just* dismiss an article in the huffington post based purely on where it was 'printed'? At least I read the article and addressed what was in it, which is more than you managed.



bobclive22 said:


> Is the Guardian an unbiased source of information.


No.



bobclive22 said:


> Heathrow in west London had recorded temperatures of 34.5C (94.1F) by 4pm, the highest for June since the 35.6C (96F) recorded in Southampton on June 28 1976.
> 
> Now why would the Met office place a Stevenson screen 500 ft from the runway and taxiway of one of the busiest airports on the planet and then use this temperature data to form part of their global temperature data set.
> It appears though that the past 41 years of global warming has not breached the 1976 record even though the airport has seen massive expansion during that time.


All airports have weather stations. Even you can work out why.

As for why they would use this data, why wouldn't they?


----------



## Trouble4

it is a pattern every 20 years + or - LOL


----------



## John-H

Bob, you remind me of one of those religious types stood in town with a placard spouting religious nonsense with all the shoppers walking past and ignoring them. One or two may stop to engage but soon realise there's no point in arguing because the preachers mind is fixed and totally closed.

And you accuse Spandex of having a closed mind? He's just being logical, pointing out that the vast majority of climate experts disagree with you, you are not an expert anyway and asks how you then decide?

Given that you are not a climate expert, yet you choose to faithfully adhere to a minority view, doesn't that then make you the religious one?

Faith denies proof and has no time for the logic of an open mind.

My uncle used to invite jehovah's witnesses into his house and keep them talking for hours with the sole intention of wasting their time and stop them gaining unfettered access to other members of the public who may be more easily indoctrinated. This thread is a little like having a peek into his lounge.


----------



## bobclive22

> The science will never be 'settled'. But people still need to make decisions. Hence looking at the majority view of scientists.
> 
> It's a simple concept bob. *If you need to make a decision you have to look at the current evidence.*


You missed out two important words Spandex* real world.*

radiosondes agree with satellites which show little or no warming since the 1998 large El-nino.
No hot spot in the tropical upper troposphere.
Co2 still increasing.
Ocean buoys show no warming.
Death valley highest temp still June 10, 1913,
Luton Airport still hotter in 1976.
France Aug 1947 43.7 degrees Aug 2003 44.1 degrees 0.4 degrees in 70 years
Hottest day in Australia January 1909 was 125 degree Fahrenheit recorded on 3rd January, 
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/artic ... 4/15929232

India. The previous record was set in 1886 and that was 50.6 c, new record 2016 at 51.0 c 130 years to gain 0.4 degrees, the 1860`s were at the end of the little ice age.

China Hong Kong 1900 and 1990 recorded 36.1 c Aug 2015 recorded 36.3, a 0.2c rise in 117 years. I believe there may be a little UHI effect since 1900.

Karachi The highest temperature ever recorded in the living history of *Karachi was 48.8°C*, almost 50°C. This temperature was recorded in *British India's Karachi on May 9, 1938.*
KARACHI: History books should be re-written again as on June 20, 2015 Karachi experienced one of the hottest days in years when temperature soared to *45°C.*, 3.8 degrees less than 1938 record.

Russia 43.8 at Alexander Gaj, Kalmykia Republic, on August 6, 1940. 44.0°C in Yashkul, Kalmykia Republic, 2010. 0.2 degrees c in 70 years.

Many of these modern temperatures are set in urban area`s and airports therefore UHI effect would increase these temps.

I can`t see any catastrophic global warming here.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I can`t see any catastrophic global warming here.


Well that's good to know, and if the scientific community ever want a retired builder with delusions of grandeur to interpret the data for them, I'm confident they'll be in touch.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, you remind me of one of those religious types stood in town with a placard spouting religious nonsense


Well John, I have posted links to try to show why I am sceptical, I have given what I believe to be valid arguments as to why Catastrophic man made global warming is nonsense, you and Spandex on the other hand have given nothing but strawman a arguments, in fact other than the term consensus you have provided nothing to support your belief, this is exactly the tactic of a true believer of a religion.


----------



## bobclive22

> Well that's good to know, and if the scientific community ever want a retired builder with delusions of grandeur to interpret the data for them, I'm confident they'll be in touch.


NO Spandex, I post the facts and nothing but the facts, no interpretation needed, the historical temperatures speak for themselves.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Bob, you remind me of one of those religious types stood in town with a placard spouting religious nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> Well John, I have posted links to try to show why I am sceptical, I have given what *I believe *to be valid arguments as to why Catastrophic man made global warming is nonsense, you and Spandex on the other hand have given nothing but strawman a arguments, in fact other than the term consensus *you have provided nothing* to support your belief, this is exactly the tactic of a true believer of a religion.
Click to expand...

I know you believe Bob - as a non expert. That's the point - why do you believe? How do you know when you are not qualified to judge? It just comes down to your personal belief. That is indeed faith in the face of what we have provided and pointed out is the vast majority of expert opinion and evidence to the contrary - if you say that is nothing you are indeed a climate change denier in the face of overwhelming evidence and testimony of experts. We believe too - but our belief is based on the probability that the experts are more likely to be correct than a singular individual who has faith in their own non expert opinion to inexplicably judge the issue rather than accede to the expert qualification and majority. That's more like practical common sense on our part though rather than faith. We don't need to be climate experts to come to that conclusion.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Bob, you remind me of one of those religious types stood in town with a placard spouting religious nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> Well John, I have posted links to try to show why I am sceptical, I have given what I believe to be valid arguments as to why Catastrophic man made global warming is nonsense, you and Spandex on the other hand have given nothing but strawman a arguments, in fact other than the term consensus you have provided nothing to support your belief, this is exactly the tactic of a true believer of a religion.
Click to expand...

That's because you stupidly believe that you're clever enough to understand the actual science involved. *You're not and you don't. You're just choosing to believe one theory instead of another.* All the bollocks you regurgitate from other websites is just window dressing to mask the fact that you have simply made a choice.

On its own, that's fine though. I've made a choice too. But my choice is to trust the majority of experts in the field and at this time they say that man made climate change is real. Your choice is to go with the tiny minority - and you seem completely unwilling to explain why. *Repeating what that minority say isn't an explanation for why you believe it.*


----------



## Spandex

And this is why you're like a religious zealot bob. I've left the decision to a body of experts who know vastly more than me on the subject. If they all turn around tomorrow and say they were wrong, then I'll go along with that - because I don't have a _belief_ in the matter.

You do though. You believe. You wouldn't care if you were in a minority of one. You don't care how agreed the scientific community are - if anything, the unbelievers make your faith stronger. You start telling yourself that being in the minority is a good thing. The heretics are walking around in the darkness - they don't see the light like you do.

And yea though bob walks through the valley of the shadow of science, he shall fear no experts. For trump art with him...


----------



## bobclive22

> I know you believe Bob - as a non expert. That's the point - why do you believe? How do you know when you are not qualified to judge? It just comes down to your personal belief.


John, as I have said many times you cannot have a rational debate with a true believer, I have given you many reasons why I am sceptical, for me John and millions of others, *empirical evidence trumps computer models every day of the week especially when their prediction is in a hundred years.*

It`s the same with your support for smart meters, £11 billion just to be able to view your energy usage instantly, if you believe these meters are good for the consumer you must also believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden.

*Phil Jones to Mike Mann regarding The Sceptic John Daly`s death *

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

Mike,
*In an odd way this is cheering news !* One other thing about the CC paper - just found
another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! *According to legal advice IPR overrides this.*

Cheers
Phil

Nice one and they don`t want to release their data to enable other scientists to be able to replicate their work, You John take their word for granted without question, you appear to be a bit gullible to me.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I know you believe Bob - as a non expert. That's the point - why do you believe? How do you know when you are not qualified to judge? It just comes down to your personal belief.
> 
> 
> 
> John, as I have said many times you cannot have a rational debate with a true believer, I have given you many reasons why I am sceptical, for me John and millions of others, *empirical evidence trumps computer models every day of the week especially when their prediction is in a hundred years.*
> 
> It`s the same with your support for smart meters, £11 billion just to be able to view your energy usage instantly, if you believe these meters are good for the consumer you must also believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden.
> 
> *Phil Jones to Mike Mann regarding The Sceptic John Daly`s death *
> 
> From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
> Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
> 
> Mike,
> *In an odd way this is cheering news !* One other thing about the CC paper - just found
> another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
> to give all the data and codes !! *According to legal advice IPR overrides this.*
> 
> Cheers
> Phil
> 
> Nice one and they don`t want to release their data to enable other scientists to be able to replicate their work, You John take their word for granted without question, you appear to be a bit gullible to me.
Click to expand...

Bob, I don't wish to be rude but I find your accusation that I "support" smart meters evidence of your complete inability to impartially deal with evidence presented to you. You read what I said yet you said the above. Unbelievable! You are a nincompoop sir. I only said I don't support the clap trap that you were spouting on the subject regarding exposure to radiation and being spied upon or whatever conspiracy nonsense etc. I don't want a smart meter in my house but only because I don't see the worth and don't want to be bothered with the hassle of the installation. That's not support.

So if you completely misrepresent what I said only recently here, can anyone trust what you report about what others say elsewhere about climate change? Oh, you are not an expert on the subject, so we don't trust you on this anyway!


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John, as I have said many times you cannot have a rational debate with a true believer


Ironic.


bobclive22 said:


> I have given you many reasons why I am sceptical


No you haven't bob. That's the problem. You've simply told us about someone else's data and said you believe that. That's not an explanation for *why* you believe it.


----------



## Nyxx

Bob.................................................................................................Spandex


----------



## Stiff




----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> Bob.................................................................................................Spandex


That gif makes it look a lot more fun than it is...


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, I don't wish to be rude but I find your accusation that I "support" smart meters evidence of your complete inability to impartially deal with evidence presented to you. You read what I said yet you said the above. Unbelievable! You are a nincompoop sir. I only said I don't support the clap trap that you were spouting on the subject regarding exposure to radiation and being spied upon or whatever conspiracy nonsense etc.* I don't want a smart meter in my house but only because I don't see the worth and don't want to be bothered with the hassle of the installation.* That's not support.


John, your previous comment on the subject,



> Posted: 08 Feb 2017, 19:04
> Bob. I'm an electronic engineer and I happened to be involved in the roll out of smart metering and the technology behind it and I have to say that I have never heard such a load of clap trap.


So John you admit there is* NO worth to yourself or the consumer* of having a smart meter installed in the home, yet you are more than happy to be involved in the roll out and installation of this useless piece of equipment on other people, don`t you have a conscience John, or is it all about money as usual.

There *is* more unnecessary RF introduced into homes with smart meters, they *can* be turned off remotely, the energy company`s *will *have access without the consumers consent to their daily energy routine and *will *sell that data to anyone willing to pay for it, these meters *can* easily be hacked, *smart appliances **are* scheduled to be rolled out and the smart meter* will* be able to recognise which appliance is being used and at what time of day, linked to this there *will *be multiple tariffs for differing appliances regarding the power they each use and at the time they use it. Anyone that had a free vehicle charging point installed should be aware that each time a car is charged at that point data goes back to the government and to the energy supplier via the smart meter. Charge your car at the wrong time of day and you will certainly pay heavily for it once the system is fully up and running.

Yes John, these smart meters are of NO worth to the consumer but they will be a gold mine to the energy companies, I believe they will also cause consumers energy costs to go up not down.

Watchdog did a piece on smart meters today, a caller asked whether they were compulsory, BBC stated no but followed that by stating they had advantages, they didn`t say what advantages or to whom.

Just do a google search on the term Smart meters and RF, you state it`s garbage but it appears you like me are staying well clear of smart meters.

So you are an electronic engineer John, what does that entail, dropping a mother board into a tower or laptop and installing the operating system, done that since the 386.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> what does that entail, dropping a mother board into a tower or laptop and installing the operating system, done that since the 386.


Can't work out if this is hilarious or tragic...

Bob, just to help you understand the division of labour here, electronics engineers design the motherboards, and any fecking idiot with half a clue fits them into the computer and whacks an OS on there.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Just do a google search on the term Smart meters and RF


Ahh, so *thats* how you do research. I've been doing it all wrong.

Ok, so I've just found out that aliens are constantly stealing our cows, we never landed on the moon, the government are poisoning us using chem trails and crystals can be used to cure cancer. I'd never have known all these amazing facts if I hadn't learned your brilliant technique of googling the thing you want to be true, then believing anyone that posts about it on the internet. Genius.


----------



## John-H

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is so funny. Bob you are so entertaining. The way you twist things to fit your own beliefs rather than stand back and try and judge impartially. You'd make a good scientist - not!

Yes I was involved with the roll out of smart meters. More the monitoring of them for remote reading but times move on.

It was first envisaged that customers would be changing suppliers frequently with the market so up to date meter readings were important. Eventually it was realised that people wouldn't change so frequently so the model changed and the equipment I was working on became uneconomical along with the system managing it.

It was estimated that a manual meter read cost 50p. The kit we designed talked to the meters to keep count and only took 5uA at 50V from a phone line as a power source converting it to 35uA at 5V to run a low power processor in sleep mode. It was relatively cheap to produce but BT pulled the plug on their management system so as subcontractor we had to drop it too.

Similarly now, the argument for smart meters is shifting further. They were also being sold on the idea that consumers would use them to economise consumption but it's being shown that once the novelty wears off they are ignored. Add into this that most people who switch are looking for long term fixed prices to offset the threat of price rise shocks and you can see my current reason to think I won't be bothering with one.

My reasoning to choose not to have one has got nothing to do with RF exposure which is the nonsense you are pushing so there is no contradiction as you creatively imply.


----------



## Trouble4

now I see both thoughts are credible

and believe these comments would have been written differently.. if not for some other opinions or ideas
that have been escalating.... a question may have been presented much differently than a statement or assumption
so the response may have been much different........

and yes I know I am an open target here but IMO what else is new........ 

last post for me am sure the popcorn [smiley=gossip.gif] are saddened :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, just to help you understand the division of labour here, electronics engineers design the motherboards, and any fecking idiot with half a clue fits them into the computer and whacks an OS on there.


Nice reply as usual Spandex, It appears there are a lot of fecking idiots keeping a lot of fecking idiots in business repairing Pc`s, Laptops and mobile phones including PC world. Let John reply for himself.

I built the odd fecking circuit for fun.


----------



## bobclive22

> Ahh, so thats how you do research. I've been doing it all wrong.
> 
> Ok, so I've just found out that aliens are constantly stealing our cows, we never landed on the moon, the government are poisoning us using chem trails and crystals can be used to cure cancer. I'd never have known all these amazing facts if I hadn't learned your brilliant technique of googling the thing you want to be true, then believing anyone that posts about it on the internet. Genius.


So you`ve never done any research online then Spandex, you no doubt get all your information from the MSN, that`s why your so clueless.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I built the odd fecking circuit for fun.


Yes Bob, and I've baked a cake following instructions in a cook book, but I'm not going to start telling professional chefs how to do their job.

Whilst I'm sure building a fecking headphone amp, following someone else's design, is good fun it's not really giving me any confidence that I should listen to anything you say about RF design.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So you`ve never done any research online then Spandex, you no doubt get all your information from the MSN, that`s why your so clueless.


I've done plenty of research online bob. I don't think I said otherwise.

What I DID say was that your research technique is only likely to tell you exactly what you wanted to hear, because it's based on the concept of googling the thing you want to be true, then accepting the opinion of anyone on the internet that agrees with you.

Here's the bob method:

"just google 'chemtrails' and you'll learn everything you need to know"

Except you won't. You'll see many many sites 'confirming' the existence of chemtrails, and very few sites saying it's bollocks. That's because it's a niche thing that most sensible people have never heard of and, honestly, very few people would think it was worth their time writing about how dumb it is. So, following the Bob method, you can show that chemtrails are a government plot to drug us all simply by googling it.


----------



## bobclive22

> That is so funny. Bob you are so entertaining. The way you twist things to fit your own beliefs rather than stand back and try and judge impartially. You'd make a good scientist - not!
> 
> Yes I was involved with the roll out of smart meters. More the monitoring of them for remote reading but times move on.
> 
> It was first envisaged that customers would be changing suppliers frequently with the market so up to date meter readings were important. Eventually it was realised that people wouldn't change so frequently so the model changed and the equipment I was working on became uneconomical along with the system managing it.
> 
> It was estimated that a manual meter read cost 50p. The kit we designed talked to the meters to keep count and only took 5uA at 50V from a phone line as a power source converting it to 35uA at 5V to run a low power processor in sleep mode. It was relatively cheap to produce but BT pulled the plug on their management system so as subcontractor we had to drop it too.
> 
> Similarly now, the argument for smart meters is shifting further. They were also being sold on the idea that consumers would use them to economise consumption but it's being shown that once the novelty wears off they are ignored. Add into this that most people who switch are looking for long term fixed prices to offset the threat of price rise shocks and you can see my current reason to think I won't be bothering with one.
> 
> My reasoning to choose not to have one has got nothing to do with RF exposure which is the nonsense you are pushing so there is no contradiction as you creatively imply.


John you have been hoodwinked mate, £11 billion in costs for the examples you have just given, I don`t think so, if the powers that be can control the energy supply to a whole population they control that population, why do you think these smart meters are being rolled out throughout the world. The thing is, consumers are footing the costs of the roll out with increases to their energy bills.

Science and technology committee March 2017.

There is also an element of future-proofing. In coming years, we may all be driving electric vehicles. The first thing someone will do after coming home from work will be to begin charging the car so that it is ready for the morning commute the next day, which could mean a huge spike in demand in the early evening. *Smart meters could pave the way for smart charging*-charging in the sense of replenishing the battery-to balance the total demand on the network, and hence the price, against when cars need to be charged. They may not need to be charged straight away to get to 100% capacity by 8 o'clock the following morning. Optimising when they are charged may mean being able to avoid having to fire up gas plants to deal with the evening surge in demand.

So if you plug your car in your smart meter will decide when to start charging, slight problem if you need car immediately.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?i ... -09a.201.0

Since households are responsible for 40% of total energy consumption, *the European Commission believes smart meters will be a key element in reducing energy demand and cutting associated carbon-dioxide emissions.*

So it`s all down to the EU`s total belief in CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-euro ... -roll-out/


----------



## bobclive22

> No you haven't bob. That's the problem. You've simply told us about someone else's data and said you believe that. *That's not an explanation for why you believe it*.


CAGW is based solely on computer models which do not agree with real world data and the scientists pushing that ideology will not release their data or computer codes to enable other scientists to replicate their studies *that`s why I don`t believe in CAGW.*
How many times do I have to say this to you Spandex, example, the red line is computer model output, the green and blue lines are balloon and satellite data.

A new paper has been published in Geophysical Research Letters that shows once again, that climate models and reality significantly vary.

*Our study documents pronounced differences* between the observed and CMIP5-simulated climate variability in the twentieth century. These differences are dominated by a coherent multidecadal hemispheric-scale signal present in the observed SST and SLP fields but completely missing in any of the CMIP5 simulations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> CAGW is based solely on computer models which do not agree with real world data and the scientists pushing that ideology will not release their data or computer codes to enable other scientists to replicate their studies *that`s why I don`t believe in CAGW.*


The 'information' you have that is convincing you that they won't release their data is a decade old. It's not relevant anymore. Scientists around the world are all running different computer models which all broadly agree with each other (i.e. they all show a similar trend).


bobclive22 said:


> How many times do I have to say this to you Spandex, example, the red line is computer model output, the green and blue lines are balloon and satellite data.


So, once again, you just provide other peoples data and interpretation when asked why you believe their data and interpretation. It's a circular argument bob. How do you know that the difference between the lines on the graph is significant? How do you know what that difference tells us? I'll answer that for you - you know because a climate skeptic has told you what it means. So lets start again. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEM???


----------



## bobclive22

> The 'information' you have that is convincing you that *they won't release their data is a decade old*. It's not relevant anymore. Scientists around the world are all running different computer models which all broadly agree with each other (i.e. they all show a similar trend).


Look at the graph above your post, the blue and green is radiosondes and satellite data, it`s real world data Spandex.

Spandex, computer models have to agree with real world data not the other way round :lol: :lol:

NO Spandex it is still the norm.

*Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. *

*The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no 'hiatus' in global warming in the 2000s *

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/clim ... mate-data/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Look at the graph above your post, the blue and green is radiosondes and satellite data, it`s real world data Spandex.
> 
> Spandex, computer models have to agree with real world data not the other way round :lol: :lol:


But are you using the 'real world' data correctly? Does it need to be weighted? Normalised? adjusted in any way? Is it a direct comparison?

I don't know the answer to the above. You don't either. But someone will tell you and you will believe them.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> NO Spandex it is still the norm.


I think you and I have a very different definition of 'the norm'. Given that there are thousands of climate scientists in the world, and given that approximately 97% of them disagree with you, how significant is it if you show that one, or even a handful of them didn't keep records as accurately as expected?

And, bear in mind that this doesn't prove they're wrong, it simply means that their results need more scrutiny.


----------



## Spandex

Here you go Bob... A study which shows the difference between modeled and measured temperatures is actually not as great as previously thought.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/publi ... l53276.pdf

The basis for this is that computer models produce measurements that can't be directly replicated in the real world, so scientists have to adjust the satellite or surface measurements (or a blending of both) in order to create a level playing field that allows comparison. Obviously there are many different ways these adjustments and blending can be done and the authors of this paper believe it hasn't been done correctly so far.

The reason I post this isn't because I think they're correct - as I've said, I'm no climate scientist so I'm in no position to judge it - but because it clearly shows that there is no direct comparison between real world and modeled data and that the methods used to adjust the data to enable that comparison are open to interpretation. Those graphs you keep posting aren't showing actual measured temperatures, they're showing a modified dataset that blends various adjusted sources. It is *based on* actual measurements but is not, by any stretch of the imagination, raw data from those measurements.

So when you triumphantly post your graphs and state "but it's real world!!" as though you actually have the first clue what 'real world' means in this context, I'm afraid it doesn't really carry much weight with me.


----------



## bobclive22

> Here you go Bob... A study which shows the difference between modeled and measured temperatures is actually not as great as previously thought.
> 
> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/publi ... l53276.pdf


Did I spot *Mike E Man of HOCKEY STICK fame* as one of the authors, you know the hockey stick graph that has been totally discredited which even the IPCC doesn`t refer to any more, how did you manage to find that load of garbage.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Did I spot *Mike E Man of HOCKEY STICK fame* as one of the authors, you know the hockey stick graph that has been totally discredited which even the IPCC doesn`t refer to any more, how did you manage to find that load of garbage.


I know you didn't get past the author list on the paper, but did you even read what I wrote?

<edit> I'll help you out because I genuinely think you're too stupid to actually deduce anything that's not spoon fed to you. Whether you trust the conclusion or not, the paper explains that the current graphs that you stupidly think are showing actual measured temperatures are actually showing calculations based on actual measured temperatures.

Honestly bob, it feels like I'm talking to a toddler. It's infuriating because you manage to misunderstand the simplest of concepts, whilst simultaneously convincing yourself that you're clever because you soldered some components to a veroboard, copying a design off the internet. I reckon I'm done, because if I carry on, I'm just going to end up getting my posts deleted by John because I'm sick of being polite about how thick you are.


----------



## bobclive22

> <edit> I'll help you out because I genuinely think you're too stupid to actually deduce anything that's not spoon fed to you. Whether you trust the conclusion or not, the paper explains that the current graphs that you stupidly think are showing actual measured temperatures are actually showing calculations based on actual measured temperatures.


I believe they are called *anomaly's* Spandex and yes I am aware of this, it still doesn`t alter the fact that the hottest days in many countries around the world were in the past, that was before the world population explosion, mass urbanisation and fiddling the numbers. These high numbers in the past were also from weather stations mainly situated in rural environments NOT as now in mainly urban areas and at airports such as Heathrow.

It appears the Trump administration take the same view regarding the consensus and questionable peer or shall we say PAL reviewed science. It appears in your world Spandex anyone that disagrees with you is a fool.

*EPA
Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate science*

Interesting times ahead.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858


----------



## bobclive22

*2011* *Climate change 'blowing in' stronger winds, CSIRO finds,*

Dick Whitaker, the chief meteorologist with the Weather Channel, said winds were caused by contrasts in atmospheric temperature, and *he was not surprised by the finding they had increased due to climate change.*

"We think the overall increase is caused by the widening of the tropical belt, *due to climate change,*" he said.

He said the findings were important because international studies had found wind speeds generally decreasing overall in other parts of the world.

"The way in which the large-scale patterns change in the atmosphere is such that we have losers and winners," he said.

*The findings were significant for wind-farm developers as they meant increased productivity,* but there were implications for agriculture and building.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 9c0df114e7
*
2017* *Lack of wind blows out South Australia`s power costs.*

The *slowest wind conditions on record* in some places of South Australia have slashed east coast wind generation in the June quarter, pushing up electricity prices, cutting wind farm profits and spurring concerns about future energy market planning.

The trend, spurred by unusually high pressure systems in the Great Australian Bight that are becoming more prevalent as the globe warms, is forecast to continue in July and August, the weather bureau says.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/07 ... wer-costs/

So these* experts* looking into their crystal balls (computer models) stated in *2011* that global warming will mean higher wind speeds and wind farm developers believed them. Now in *2017* they say *low wind speeds* will be more prevalent because of global warming, what a difference a few years makes.


----------



## bobclive22

*Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America*

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... h-america/


----------



## bobclive22

*Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply*

What did the Paris accord agree, was it, phase out dirty coal to save the planet, the EU must have forgotten about India, China and Japan.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-0 ... ts/8224302


----------



## bobclive22

*The HONEST Act has passed the House of Representatives.*

*SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.*

Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is amended to read as follows:

(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is-

(A) the best available science;

(B) specifically identified; and

(C) *publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results,* except that any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial 
information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public availability.

It looks like we will now hopefully have honest science, this new law if passed should put an end to the biggest scam in scientific history, THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM that the EU has totally embraced.

This act is as big as the action president Trump took by pulling out of the Paris accord.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/ ... onest-act/
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ... 30/summary


----------



## bobclive22

Hi John,

The real reason behind the roll out of the smart meter, total control of the energy you use, hacking is the least of the consumers worries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttles.html


----------



## bobclive22

* :lol: Reference smart meter John, see where it is going.*

Consumers will save £17bn to £40bn by 2050, according to the government and energy regulator Ofgem. :lol: 
*
By Roger Harrabin*

The rules are due to come into effect over the next year.

They will reduce costs for someone who allows their washing machine to be turned on by the *smart meter*/internet to maximise use of cheap solar power on a sunny afternoon.

And they will even support people who agree to have their freezers switched off for a few minutes by the *smart meter* to smooth demand at peak times.

They'll also benefit a business that allows its air-conditioning to be turned down briefly by the *smart meter* to help balance a spell of peak energy demand on the National Grid.

It doesn`t mention when the *smart meter* will allow your electric car to be charged.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -harrabin/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986


----------



## Spandex

Well, I think that's enough for my experiment.

*Hypothesis:*
Bob is a spambot.

*Test Methodology:*
1. Leave the BobBot alone in a thread so tedious that no one else will post.
2. Wait approx. 1 month.
3. Review number of consecutive posts from the BobBot.

*Results:*
The BobBot posted 8 separate replies. The frequency of replies was similar to when it posts in an active thread. The BobBot included other users names in the posts in order to give the impression it was replying to specific posts from that user (those posts did not exist).

*Conclusion:*
The BobBot is a relatively advanced spambot.


----------



## Roller Skate

Spandex said:


> Well, I think that's enough for my experiment.
> 
> *Hypothesis:*
> Bob is a spambot.
> 
> *Test Methodology:*
> 1. Leave the BobBot alone in a thread so tedious that no one else will post.
> 2. Wait approx. 1 month.
> 3. Review number of consecutive posts from the BobBot.
> 
> *Results:*
> The BobBot posted 8 separate replies. The frequency of replies was similar to when it posts in an active thread. The BobBot included other users names in the posts in order to give the impression it was replying to specific posts from that user (those posts did not exist).
> 
> *Conclusion:*
> The BobBot is a relatively advanced spambot.


If he's the future of AI, we've nothing to worry about.


----------



## bobclive22

I can`t find one single constructive comment on any post you have ever made *Spandex.*

But judging where you live you haven`t got very far in life, not surprising though.

Over and out.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> But judging where you live you haven`t got very far in life, not surprising though.


That's odd. You don't know where I live. Or anything about my life at all.

Fake news?


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But judging where you live you haven`t got very far in life, not surprising though.
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd. You don't know where I live. Or anything about my life at all.
> 
> Fake news?
Click to expand...

Spandex, very slowly, go to the window and peek out. Is there a non-descript van with dark windows parked anywhere near your house?

Could be Bob's tracked you down and is watching.... :twisted:


----------



## Roller Skate

bobclive22 said:


> I can`t find one single constructive comment on any post you have ever made *Spandex.*
> 
> But judging where you live you haven`t got very far in life, not surprising though.
> 
> Over and out.


Bobs been hacked.


----------



## Stiff

Shug750S said:


> Is there a non-descript van with dark windows parked anywhere near your house?


I'll bet it's this one...


----------



## John-H

Well it looks like we're all going to Hell in a hand cart . . . or is it a Bob sleigh?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 69641.html


----------



## bobclive22

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.c ... =500&h=355

The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record

https://realclimatescience.com/history- ... orruption/

Not much warming John.


----------



## John-H

You are not a scientist Bob and had you been trained in data analysis you would know the folly of comparing points on one noisy graph to corresponding points on another noisy graph. With uncorrelated noise sources and especially when the noise bandwidth is different, such comparisons are invalid and only go to show that the people presenting such analysis don't know what they are talking about. Seeing patterns in noise is like seeing faces in the flames, or more appropriately, the clouds.

Perhaps you should consider why, when the same data is freely available to proper climate scientists, they don't come to the same conclusions.

Which do you think is more likely; that the vast majority of climate scientists are all involved in a vast conspiracy to ignore this freely available data, or that a few maverick individuals and their unscientific and untrained followers are simply wrong?


----------



## bobclive22

> Perhaps you should consider why, when the same data is freely available to proper climate scientists, they don't come to the same conclusions.


John the graphs are genuine Nasa Giss and EPA graphs not mine or anyone one else's.

The problem you have is you only read from one source.

This is off topic but shows my point The guardian can run this Monday 7 August 2017.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... e-fox-news

But won`t run this dated 10 August 2017 and current.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... ssia-story

*1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second*

You are a tech man John, it appears that transfer speed is impossible over the net, a memory stick would do it, hence no hack.


----------



## bobclive22

> Perhaps you should consider why, when the same data is freely available to proper climate scientists, they don't come to the same conclusions.


Do you mean like this from Professor Phil Jones of the UEA,

Warwick Hughes,

I have just had an email saying that the Feb 2005 email from Dr Phil Jones to me saying - "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

And this,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html

And this,

"They had good data from buoys," he told the Daily Mail. "And they threw it out and 'corrected' it by using the bad data from ships [a natural warming source]. You never change good data to agree with the bad, but that's what they did so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer."

And the problems don't stop with just this report. Bates wrote in a post at the blog Climate Etc. that government scientists often fail to preserve any of their work. "The most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data," he wrote. *Feb 7, 2017 and it goes on and on *

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07 ... l-reasons/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps you should consider why, when the same data is freely available to proper climate scientists, they don't come to the same conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is you only read from one source.
Click to expand...

I'm only occasionally reading what you've written on this subject. Yes perhaps that is a problem but my point still stands. You are basically accusing everybody else of the same thing - all the experts are reading the wrong thing, of them all being wrong despite them being experts in their field and the data you are referring to being freely available.

When I say all I mean the vast majority. You picking out one or two mavericks is not going to convince me, or anyone else.

As for your graphs, they may be genuine, but you entirely miss the point that it is your comparison and analysis of the data that is flawed.

The most amazing thing is that despite not being an expert you consider yourself a judge.


----------



## Spandex

What you need to remember is that the BobBot is outraged at media bias that disagrees with him yet is, inexplicably, completely unable to spot media bias in stories that agree with him.

There is no reasoning with the BobBot. It honestly doesn't matter what anyone says. 100% of climate scientists could agree, and the BobBot will still find a reason not to trust them. *Everyone in the world* could agree and the BobBot will just sneer at the 'sheeple' and carry on in his own little world.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm only occasionally reading what you've written on this subject. Yes perhaps that is a problem but my point still stands. You are basically accusing everybody else of the same thing - all the experts are reading the wrong thing, of them all being wrong despite them being experts in their field and the data you are referring to being freely available.


Here are 2 Nasa graphs, one produced in 1999 the other 2001 I believe, the links are Nasa links, the question is why the difference, how can the past be altered John, the 1999 nasa graph shows no warming yet the 2001 graph does.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif 2001

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... 9_fig3.gif


----------



## bobclive22

Crawl back in your hole Spandex.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Crawl back in your hole Spandex.


Well BobBot, i can either crawl back in my hole, or I can follow you around...

Which will he choose? [smiley=dizzy2.gif] [smiley=dizzy2.gif]


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I'm only occasionally reading what you've written on this subject. Yes perhaps that is a problem but my point still stands. You are basically accusing everybody else of the same thing - all the experts are reading the wrong thing, of them all being wrong despite them being experts in their field and the data you are referring to being freely available.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are 2 Nasa graphs, one produced in 1999 the other 2001 I believe, the links are Nasa links, the question is why the difference, how can the past be altered John, the 1999 nasa graph shows no warming yet the 2001 graph does.
> 
> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif 2001
> 
> https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... 9_fig3.gif
Click to expand...

So BobBot, you do understand that the figures for both those graphs will have been adjusted, right? That's just what they have to do because the raw data isn't all from one source - they have to modify/adjust it to make all the sources comparable. So, given that, why are you so convinced that the adjustments applied to the raw data in 1999 are ok, but the adjustments applied in 2001 aren't ok??

Only a simpleton would look at that and say "omg they're editing the past!"


----------



## bobclive22

> So BobBot, you do understand that the figures for both those graphs will have been adjusted, right? That's just what they have to do because the raw data isn't all from one source - they have to modify/adjust it to make all the sources comparable. So, given that, why are you so convinced that the adjustments applied to the raw data in 1999 are ok, but the adjustments applied in 2001 aren't ok??[/quote
> 
> I believe this link may explain the issue better than I, you will note that Giss has blocked public access to past data images since 2005, *why would they do that.*I am probably wasting my time but Hey I give it a go.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/ ... -archived/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I believe this link may explain the issue better than I, you will note that Giss has blocked public access to past data images since 2005, *why would they do that.*I am probably wasting my time but Hey I give it a go.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/ ... -archived/


That linked page starts with a link to an update which explains that it was all a bug in the software used to generate the page. It's also nothing to do with anything we were discussing.

As for blocking access, I can't see my evidence of them currently preventing anyone from having access to their data or methods. If you want me to care about something they did in 2005, you're going to have to come up with something better than "why would they do that?".

Seriously BobBot, if man made climate change isn't real then why are you spending so much time attacking the other side and their methods?? Why is that necessary?


----------



## Stiff

Here's an interesting article regarding the start date of referencing climates and why.

*'Why do all our climate data start in 1880?'*

https://qz.com/1055629/why-does-all-our ... t-in-1880/


----------



## bobclive22

> Seriously BobBot, if man made climate change isn't real then why are you spending so much time attacking the other side and their methods?? Why is that necessary?


Why are the other side pushing man made global warming so vigorously , why did Obama state that man made global warming was more dangerous than terrorism, why did he sign the Paris accord. Why has the cost of energy gone through the roof, what caused the diesel scandal, why are billions being spent on reducing CO2, what benefit have you gained from the billions already spent, why do you believe in this religious garbage.

These graphs are for public, press and political consumption.

*Graph 2 * The temperature in the United States was also warm, about 0.7°C above the 1951-1980 average (Figure 3). 1999 was approximately the 10th warmest year of the century. The warmest years in the United States occurred during the dust bowl era, with 1934 being the warmest year.

Does graph* 2* 1999 look like there is catastrophic man made global warming* NO* but graph *1 * 2016 looks better for the alarmists position.

Graph *3* shows the two graphs together, the question is how can the present alter the past?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... uc2602.htm


----------



## Spandex

FFS BobBot, I've told you, all of the graphs show adjusted data. No one is 'altering the past', they're just changing *how* the data is adjusted because they now know that the previous method was flawed. Why can't you get your head round this??


----------



## John-H

Oh dear. Bob is on stage again acting his heart out in the role of climate change expert clergy and purveyor of holy graphs. Sorry Bob but I'm not convinced about your (or whoever created them) 's dubious analysis and just a small thing (being ironic here) but the vast majority of climate experts don't agree with you - and there are an awful lot of them. Good luck with establishing truth.


----------



## bobclive22

> FFS BobBot, I've told you, all of the graphs show adjusted data. No one is 'altering the past', they're just changing how the data is adjusted because they now know that the previous method was flawed. Why can't you get your head round this??


So you are saying that all the eminent scientists of the past got it wrong and all the present eminent sceptical scientists also got it wrong.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/ ... al-of-agw/

*The Great Hot 1934 vs 1998 Race*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/ ... n-history/

NASA GISS - Adjusting the Adjustments

By Steve McIntyre, a world class mathematician who broke Mann`s Hockey Stick.

https://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nas ... justments/

Read the comments in the climate Audit link, you might understand why many are sceptical of AGW.


----------



## bobclive22

> Sorry Bob but I'm not convinced about your (or whoever created them) 's dubious analysis and just a small thing (being ironic here) but the vast majority of climate experts don't agree with you


(1) As I have previously said the graphs are both taken directly from the Nasa Giss site.
(2) You are back to consensus science again I see.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So you are saying that all the eminent scientists of the past got it wrong and all the present eminent sceptical scientists also got it wrong.


Well, firstly they're only _revising_ some of their calculations, not throwing everything out the window and starting from scratch. But no, I'm not saying they got it wrong - I'm saying that *they're* saying they got it wrong, which is why they've revised it. They might have to revise it again - that's how science works, right?

As for the present eminent sceptical scientists, aren't they disagreeing with a large number of eminent scientists themselves? So how do you know which eminent scientists to believe? I know, I know... we ask you this a lot and you avoid the question every time. You'll just post a load of 'evidence' and pretend that you're qualified to judge the quality of that evidence.


----------



## bobclive22

> Well, firstly they're only revising some of their calculations, not throwing everything out the window and starting from scratch. But no, I'm not saying they got it wrong - I'm saying that they're saying they got it wrong, which is why they've revised it. They might have to revise it again - that's how science works, right?


The point is at every revision the temperature goes up, the link below discusses this and the comments are interesting.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/19/ ... ak-update/

Podcast with James Lovelock, this is worth a listen.

http://www.breitbart.com/podcasts/james-delingpole/


----------



## bobclive22

> As for the present eminent sceptical scientists, aren't they disagreeing with a large number of eminent scientists themselves?


Exactly, that`s why the science is not settled.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The point is at every revision the temperature goes up


Are you disagreeing with the science because you can see a flaw in their calculations, or just assuming the science must be wrong because you don't like the end result?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As for the present eminent sceptical scientists, aren't they disagreeing with a large number of eminent scientists themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, that`s why the science is not settled.
Click to expand...

You're the only one who's ever used the term "settled" in this discussion.

So which one is it BobBot? Are scientists claiming the science is settled, or are they constantly revising their methods and calculations? You seem to be moaning that both are happening.


----------



## Shug750S

So, next Saturday night...

Mayweather vs McGregor

Or

Bob vs Spandex

:lol:


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> So, next Saturday night...
> 
> Mayweather vs McGregor
> 
> Or
> 
> Bob vs Spandex
> 
> :lol:


Pffft... I could take the BobBot out just by switching on the wifi...


----------



## bobclive22

> So which one is it BobBot? Are scientists claiming the science is settled, or are they constantly revising their methods and calculations? You seem to be moaning that both are happening.


Both are happening actually Spandex.

I suppose after watching the MSM you believe the hurricanes that have hit the US recently are down to AGW, I am afraid that is not the case according to the attachment, you will note that the *1935 Hurricane* is still number one.

I know this is a skeptical link but unfortunately you will not find this sort of data anywhere else, it`s worth reading even for a die hard green like yourself.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/12/ ... da-agenda/


----------



## Spandex

I have no idea if scientists are saying the recent storms are in any way influenced by man made global warming, but what I do know is that it would take a real moron to think that that table proves anything either way. For example, if there was one massively powerful storm in 1935 and five marginally less powerful storms in 2017, an idiot reading your little table might incorrectly assume that it demonstrated that 1935 was a worse year for storms.

The article fortunately goes into more detail, although I think I'll just wait to see what the scientific community says about it (if anything) rather than reading openly biased articles.

Why you think it's acceptable to get your information from sources that are clearly biased against the concept of man made global warming, whilst simultaneously complaining about sources biased towards it is really beyond me though BobBot. Maybe it makes sense in your head.


----------



## bobclive22

> The article fortunately goes into more detail, although I think I'll just wait to see what the scientific community says about it (if anything) rather than reading openly biased articles.


Do you mean like this openly biased article Spandex.

*Denying Hurricane Harvey's climate links only worsens future suffering *

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -suffering

Here is a more balanced article, if AGW caused the recent hurricanes what caused the more powerful hurricanes in the past.

The 1935 Labor Day hurricane was the strongest storm at time of landfall in U.S. history and also the first Category 5 storm to strike the U.S. in the 20th century (followed by Hurricane Camille in 1969 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992).

At the time, this storm was the most intense hurricane to affect the United States with a lowest pressure recorded at 892 mb. It would hold this title until 1988 when it was surpassed by Hurricane Gilbert (888 mb) and later by Hurricane Wilma (2005, 882 mb).

The particularly small size of the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 is comparable to that of Hurricane Andrew, which inflicted catastrophic damage to Florida in 1992.

http://www.hurricanescience.org/history ... /LaborDay/

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/heal ... g-typhoons

https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/t ... s-1.287593

Can`t see an AGW link here, it seems history is just repeating itself.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Do you mean like this openly biased article Spandex.


I mean *any* openly biased articles regardless of which side they support. Although I still suspect your definition of 'openly biased' basically translates to any article which links the hurricanes to AGW. You'll never accept this BobBot, but you're a terrible judge of bias, because you only see it as a means to attack contrary viewpoints.



bobclive22 said:


> Here is a more balanced article, i*f AGW caused the recent hurricanes what caused the more powerful hurricanes in the past.*


Ahh.. Classic BobBot. Twist things that other people say in order to make it easier to disprove, then act like you've found a flaw in their argument. No one has said that AGW caused recent hurricanes. It's even in the first line of the guardian article you linked to.

You know BobBot, when I read stuff like this I genuinely can't work out if you're deliberately misrepresenting things as a cynical way of winning an argument, or if you're just not smart enough to tell the difference between 'causing' and 'influencing'. I suspect it's the latter, but I'm open to the possibility of the former.


----------



## bobclive22

> You know BobBot, when I read stuff like this I genuinely can't work out if you're deliberately misrepresenting things as a cynical way of winning an argument, or if you're just not smart enough to tell the difference between 'causing' and 'influencing'. I suspect it's the latter, but I'm open to the possibility of the former.


*Hurricanes, AMO , And Sahel Droughts*

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... the-sahel/

*NOAA*

*Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
*
Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. *This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation.* In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php

So it appears NOAA believe in AGW but have no real evidence to prove it.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So it appears NOAA believe in AGW but have no real evidence to prove it.


Does it? One article saying that and you're convinced? It's _almost_ as if you already believed that, and you just searched for an article that confirmed your view. I imagine you refer to this process as 'research'. :lol:

Anyway BobBot, as I said before, I'll just wait to see what the scientific community say about any link (or lack of link). I feel that's probably the most sensible approach. I guess you'll carry on only believing sources that agree with you, and calling the rest 'biased'.


----------



## Spandex

Actually, that last paragraph made me realise something:

You approach this by deciding which theory you believe, then trust any source that agrees with it. I decide which source I trust, then believe whichever theory they agree with.

Sorry BobBot, but I just cannot understand how you can say your approach is logical.


----------



## bobclive22

> You approach this by deciding which theory you believe, then trust any source that agrees with it.


Spandex,

The average depth of the ocean is *12,100 feet*. The total weight of the atmosphere is equal to the weight of *33 feet of that ocean* and the ocean covers* 72% of the surface of the planet, CO2 accounts for 0.04 percent of the atmosphere and water vapour up to 4% .* lock these facts in your mind and read the study, then tell me CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
*

Ocean Cycles, Not Humans, May Be Behind Most Observed Climate Change*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/15/ ... te-change/

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... nis-17.pdf


----------



## Spandex

Ok BobBot, let me make something completely clear - *I know that there are other theories about the cause of climate change*. You don't need to post links to articles and studies about those theories - the fact that competing theories exist doesnt prove anything in itself. And I'm not going to suddenly start believing them just because you put them under my nose, because I'm not a climateologist so I'm not in a position to evaluate the science behind the theories (neither are you, but humility isn't a character trait that troubles you much).

As I've said more times than I can remember, I will rely on the scientific community to evaluate the theories. If they decide man made climate change isn't real, then I'll trust them. Unlike you, I don't actually have a preference for which is true. What I do know though is that as long there is some doubt, it makes sense to hedge our bets by not continuing to produce huge amounts of CO2 while we refine our understanding of the science.


----------



## Nyxx

Shame you guys did not see Sky news last night at 10pm, The experts are now saying they overestimated global warming impact and it's had much less effect than thought.

Probably not the news you want to hear. Give them a few years and like the 80's they will be telling us we are heading for an ice age.


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> Shame you guys did not see Sky news last night at 10pm, The experts are now saying they overestimated global warming impact and it's had much less effect than thought.
> 
> Probably not the news you want to hear. Give them a few years and like the 80's they will be telling us we are heading for an ice age.


I heard it on the radio on the way home. Not sure why you think we wouldn't want to hear that though - it sounds like excellent news, doesn't it? The scientists have said that if the new study is correct, it would mean we now have more time to reduce CO2 output before we reach the point where it will have serious detrimental effects.

As I've said a number of times, I'd love for the scientists to change their minds about this. Wouldn't we all? I don't believe in man-made climate change because I hate cars, or because I was picked on by a coal-fired power station when I was a kid - I believe it because the vast majority of experts in the field believe it and it would take some kind of moron (don't worry, one will be along shortly) to disagree with them whilst having no ability to analyse the science themselves.

Incidentally, the authors of this new study were also at pains to point out that this shouldn't be seen as an excuse to relax our efforts in reducing CO2 output, as it's simply buying us more time, not changing the overall conclusions regarding man made climate change and its risks.


----------



## John-H

Exactly. In trying to be impartial and acceding to the latest science and understanding, I believe the authors also said that this was a revision of the past forecasts largely due to more accurate monitoring and the latest science. It did not say that global warming was not happening - just that we had more time to sort it out.

It would be a bit ridiculous to stick to an old prediction based on old models and science when you develop a better one. That's the point about science - it adapts to the latest understanding - it doesn't stay stuck in the past like a religion. There is no shame in adaptation of ideas, that's actually an intelligent willingness to change, unlike a rigidity of understanding, unable to adapt to evidence and trending to avoid the consensus of experts for no good reason other than due to prejudice and preference of outcome.


----------



## bobclive22

> It would be a bit ridiculous to stick to an old prediction based on old models and science when you develop a better one


*Gavin's Twitter Trick*

John, no matter how more advanced the temperate measuring systems are today you cannot improve on the readings taken in the past, therefor you cannot alter the past.

Read the article but more importantly read the comments and follow the links to the data, note the friendliness of the commenters to all who post.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/26/ ... ter-trick/

This video is about the recent loss of sea ice in the Arctic, the start date of the data is the fraud part which the general public are not made aware of.






Just for reference,

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/gr ... emails.pdf


----------



## bobclive22

> I heard it on the radio on the way home. Not sure why you think we wouldn't want to hear that though - it sounds like excellent news, doesn't it? The scientists have said that if the new study is correct, it would mean we now have more time to reduce CO2 output


Spandex, more time to reduce CO2, why would we want to do that, I don`t know of one instance where CO2 has endangered anyone or anything other than in the world of computer models at some unknown future date, these models now appear to be very slowly tracking nearer to reality, probably because more realistic data is now being fed into them instead of the garbage of the past. 
With the growing world population needing a greater amount of food only a higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will enable that to happen, why do you think glass house growers pump CO2 into their glass houses at 1200ppm, couldn`t be that yields of up to 40% are normal at that level of CO2 could it.


----------



## bobclive22

> the fact that competing theories exist doesnt prove anything in itself. And I'm not going to suddenly start believing them just because you put them under my nose,


I put them there Spandex hoping you may just question the consensus opinion by following the links to the data instead of swallowing said consensus hook line and sinker, but if you are a true believer it appears that won`t happen.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> With the growing world population needing a greater amount of food only a higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will enable that to happen, why do you think glass house growers pump CO2 into their glass houses at 1200ppm, couldn`t be that yields of up to 40% are normal at that level of CO2 could it.


BobBot, we've covered this. It's an absolutely idiotic argument. It's almost childish. I'm not going to bother explaining why because I already did it once and you didn't read/understand it.



bobclive22 said:


> I put them there Spandex hoping you may just question the consensus opinion by following the links to the data instead of swallowing said consensus hook line and sinker, but if you are a true believer it appears that won`t happen.


Why would I question the combined judgement of the vast majority of climate scientists? I have no qualifications in climate science. It would be madness for me to pick a side based on my interpretation of the science, when i have no formal training in the subject whatsoever. What kind of moron would do that?

Why do you believe these articles that you keep linking to, BobBot? There are articles and scientific papers on both sides of this argument, so why do *you* believe one and not another? How do you make that choice? I can explain exactly how I decide - I use a logic which I'm perfectly happy to put up for scrutiny. But how do you decide?


----------



## bobclive22

> Why would I question the combined judgement of the vast majority of climate scientists? I have no qualifications in climate science.


You don`t need a science degree just a working brain Spandex, you will not see this in the Guardian as that would undermine their religious belief in AGW.

A 2016 study authored by scientists from China, the U.S., Britain, and several other countries that *showed a 14 percent increase in green vegetation between 1982 to 2011; 70 percent of that lush growth is attributed to higher concentrations of CO2. *Zaichun Zhu, one of the study's co-authors explained that "the greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two times the size of mainland USA and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system." We have more croplands, grasslands, and forests now than we did in the 1980s.

70% attributed to that polluting CO2, who would have thought it.



> Why do you believe these articles that you keep linking to, BobBot? There are articles and scientific papers on both sides of this argument, so why do you believe one and not another?


*Intrinsic evidence Spandex* not computer models that can hind-cast the past but get it totally wrong in the present, like the graphs I posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... l-optimist


----------



## John-H

So, you don't need any knowledge or training to challenge over a subject and put yourself forward as an expert.

Interesting.

"Intrinsic evidence" - evidence that belongs to a subject. But how would you know and how can you judge that evidence? Oh I'm forgetting all you need is an uninformed guess.

Now it becomes clear why we shouldn't listen to you. Thanks


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> 70% attributed to that polluting CO2, who would have thought it.


Yes BobBot, I'm not disagreeing that elevated CO2 levels are good for plants. What I'm disagreeing with is the idiotic conclusion that just because something's good for plants, it must also be good for the climate. As far as I can tell, your child-like mind can only cope with chemicals being either wholly 'good' or wholly 'bad'. If CO2 makes plants grow better, it must be 'good' - and if it's good, it can't be responsible for climate change, right?



bobclive22 said:


> Why do you believe these articles that you keep linking to, BobBot? There are articles and scientific papers on both sides of this argument, so why do you believe one and not another?
> 
> 
> 
> *Intrinsic evidence Spandex* not computer models that can hind-cast the past but get it totally wrong in the present, like the graphs I posted.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what 'intrinsic evidence' there is, other than what you've read in the articles! That's my fecking point!! I'm asking you *why *you believe them BobBot. Why do you believe they are using intrinsic evidence? Why do you believe they're using that evidence correctly? Why do you believe that the conclusions they draw from that evidence are correct? Why do you believe them when they tell you that the 'other side' is using the wrong data, or using it incorrectly? NOW do you understand what I'm asking you?

Effectively, all you've written above is "I believe them because I believe them". Engage your brain before answering.


----------



## bobclive22

> *You don't even know what 'intrinsic evidence' there is,* other than what you've read in the articles! That's my fecking point!! I'm asking you why you believe them BobBot. Why do you believe they are using intrinsic evidence? Why do you believe they're using that evidence correctly? Why do you believe that the conclusions they draw from that evidence are correct? Why do you believe them when they tell you that the 'other side' is using the wrong data, or using it incorrectly? NOW do you understand what I'm asking you?


Perhaps this might explain it to you Spandex, by the way my name is Bob,

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mikhail- ... 015506945/


> Why do you believe that the conclusions they draw from that evidence are correct?


Because the only other alternative is to believe the output from computer models that have never agreed with real world data.

Is the amount of warming real,

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -heathrow/


----------



## bobclive22

*Canberra's "hottest ever" September record due to thermometer changes and a wind profiler*

Spandex, real climate scientists don`t just accept the data is accurate but actually check the data is accurate.

http://joannenova.com.au/


----------



## Spandex

That's fine BobBot. We can keep repeating this as long as you want. I'll keep telling you that the existence of competing theories isn't evidence in and of itself that a particular theory is incorrect, and you keep responding by spamming us with articles that show that competing theories exist. Maybe one day you'll get it, but I won't hold my breath.

Out of interest, how certain are you that you're on the right side? Give me a percentage.

Oh, and your name isn't 'Bob', it's 'BobBot 3000'. I've shortened it to BobBot because we're pals.


----------



## Nyxx

It's so nice to listen to two pals have a nice conversation without falling out.


----------



## bobclive22

> That's fine BobBot. We can keep repeating this as long as you want. I'll keep telling you that the existence of competing theories isn't evidence in and of itself that a particular theory is incorrect, and you keep responding by spamming us with articles that show that competing theories exist. Maybe one day you'll get it, but I won't hold my breath.


The articles are for rational discussion, here is another one, read the comments, you post nothing but rhetoric (language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content).

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/austra ... more-55412



> Out of interest, how certain are you that you're on the right side? Give me a percentage.


At the moment 100%


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The articles are for rational discussion, here is another one, read the comments, you post nothing but rhetoric (language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content).


But neither of us are climate scientists, so there's no value in either of us trying to come to a conclusion based on the scientific content of those articles. Unfortunately you're so arrogant that you've convinced yourself you're clever enough to overcome your lack of qualifications through willpower alone.


bobclive22 said:


> At the moment 100%


Then you're an idiot. There are at least two competing arguments, made by people with vastly more knowledge of the subject than you. For you to think you know enough to completely dismiss *any* of the theories is ridiculous. You're a joke.


----------



## bobclive22

> Then you're an idiot. There are at least two competing arguments, made by people with vastly more knowledge of the subject than you. For you to think you know enough to completely dismiss any of the theories is ridiculous. You're a joke.


(made by people with vastly more knowledge of the subject than you).

Would you accept the data from this vastly knowledgeable scientist Professor Mörner who in a 40-year career has published 547 scientific papers in the peer-reviewed literature, most of them about sea level.

*Sea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner*

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wp-co ... rising.pdf

Would you go with Professor Nils-Axel Mörner`s data or the data submitted by this lot below who never appear to get it right but want your cash anyway.

http://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/ ... nd-the-IMF

Or this, it`s always in the future and always by computer models (GIGO).

Projections of global sea level rise by 2100 range from 0.2 metres to 2.0 metres (0.66 to 6.6 feet). Strauss co-authored a recent study which found that even a sudden elimination of CO2 emissions up to the year 2100 would still leave more than six million Americans living on "endangered land".

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016 ... un-habitat


----------



## Spandex

That's the thing BobBot. I have nothing whatsoever against Professor Mörner. I don't doubt his credentials. I have no way of disproving his conclusions myself (and have no way to prove them either). You see the issue? Not being a climate scientist myself, I can't personally prove or disprove anyone's work - so I need to find another way to judge.

That's why I keep asking you how you decide which side to believe, but all you give me is a circular argument. All you tell me is that you believe Mörner because Mörner is clearly right. But your grasp of abstract logic is so poor, you can't even see the problem with that.

That's why you keep on spamming this thread with links - because you still believe this is a debate about climateology.


----------



## John-H

Put simply, Bob, you are just lording up one side against the other but .... WHO ARE *YOU* to judge?


----------



## bobclive22

> That's the thing BobBot. I have nothing whatsoever against Professor Mörner. I don't doubt his credentials. I have no way of disproving his conclusions myself (and have no way to prove them either). You see the issue? Not being a climate scientist myself, I can't personally prove or disprove anyone's work - so I need to find another way to judge.


The other way is to read Professor Mörner`s article, then read other studies from other scientists in that field then come to a conclusion, you see Spandex because of this CO2 religion we have one of the worlds highest energy prices which hurts the poor, energy will keep on rising certainly if there is a large take up of electric vehicles, we have killer diesel, we have smart meters to control energy use by the general public (it won`t effect the wealthy) all on the back of an unproven theory, it`s unproven Spandex because nothing has happened.

Because of this unproven theory the world bank will not fund any coal fired power stations in the third world, china and India fortunately are providing funding, without cheap energy (coal) Africa will not be able to progress their economies into the modern world. India and china are continuing to build hundreds of coal fired power plants and Germany is bringing coal fired power online now.

It`s the 3 monkeys syndrome Spandex, what`s your opinion on fracking.


----------



## bobclive22

> Put simply, Bob, you are just lording up one side against the other but .... WHO ARE YOU to judge?


I am not lording anything John, I am posting links to show why I am skeptical of AGW. Why do you consider the consensus view is correct, you might convince me to change my mind with rational discussion, what`s your take on fracking.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The other way is to read Professor Mörner`s article, then read other studies from other scientists in that field then come to a conclusion


Exactly. And the reliability of that conclusion is entirely dependant on your ability to understand the science. So I studied science A levels, I have a science based degree and a general interest in science - but I don't feel I know enough to make a reliable conclusion either way. You _do_ feel you're able to judge reliably but the problem is, even if you're not able to, you trust your conclusion because you feel that you're capable.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Put simply, Bob, you are just lording up one side against the other but .... WHO ARE YOU to judge?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not lording anything John, I am posting links to show why I am skeptical of AGW. Why do you consider the consensus view is correct, you might convince me to change my mind with rational discussion, what`s your take on fracking.
Click to expand...

But you are exactly not posting links to show WHY you are skeptical. You are simply reminding us -ad nauseam- that you are :lol: You prove repeatedly that you have no capability of explaining.

I consider that what you call the "consensus" view is more likely to be correct because it represents the majority view of qualified climate experts. My reason is one based on probability which I am able to judge because it is self evident.

You come to the opposite view for no reason that you are qualified or capable of explaining - that of an imbalance and denial of commonsense it would appear.


----------



## Trouble4

sorry I have posted one more time Please forgive.

always recheck the facts....

http://www.renewamerica.com/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

read the link if you have time or not ...........

this is a common sense on global warming

When a controversial issue in science is politicized and seems to become a fad, does an ordinary person have the tools to judge whether it is likely to be good science, or junk science carried along by scare headlines and politically-correct institutional group think?

Well, the ordinary person has some advantages that academic scientists often lack - such as common sense, a disinterested objectivity, and freedom from peer pressure or political agenda. He does not need to worry about rejection of his doctoral thesis or denial of tenure if he says something heretical to establishment science. The ordinary person is not trained in the currently prevailing paradigms of institutional science, and he is able to see things that the intensely specialized graduate studies and tightly focused paradigms of the academic world tend to filter out.

With that in mind, let's take a look at global warming. First, we shall consider a "smell test" that an ordinary person can employ with the help of common sense. Then, if the global warming movement does not pass the smell test, we shall build upon scientific facts that are available to a bright college freshman to evaluate whether the global warming theory is likely to be valid.

(much more in between in article)

Conclusion

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that CO2 gas has a greenhouse effect, because they have presented no understandable mechanism or process that explains how CO2 gas in the atmosphere increases heat on earth. The greenhouse metaphor that is successful for water droplets in clouds appears to be a failure when applied to CO2 gas. If we receive evasions instead of answers and explanations from scientists on this crucial question, we have a right to conclude that global warming theory does not make sense, and we can consign it to the accumulating heap of junk science, along with the discarded theory of global cooling of thirty years ago.


----------



## John-H

Trouble4 said:


> sorry I have posted one more time Please forgive.
> 
> always recheck the facts....
> 
> http://www.renewamerica.com/analyses/050317hutchison.htm
> 
> read the link if you have time or not ...........
> 
> this is a common sense on global warming
> 
> When a controversial issue in science is politicized and seems to become a fad, does an ordinary person have the tools to judge whether it is likely to be good science, or junk science carried along by scare headlines and politically-correct institutional group think?
> 
> Well, the ordinary person has some advantages that academic scientists often lack - such as common sense, a disinterested objectivity, and freedom from peer pressure or political agenda. He does not need to worry about rejection of his doctoral thesis or denial of tenure if he says something heretical to establishment science. The ordinary person is not trained in the currently prevailing paradigms of institutional science, and he is able to see things that the intensely specialized graduate studies and tightly focused paradigms of the academic world tend to filter out.
> 
> With that in mind, let's take a look at global warming. First, we shall consider a "smell test" that an ordinary person can employ with the help of common sense. Then, if the global warming movement does not pass the smell test, we shall build upon scientific facts that are available to a bright college freshman to evaluate whether the global warming theory is likely to be valid.
> 
> (much more in between in article)
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> The burden of proof lies with those who claim that CO2 gas has a greenhouse effect, because they have presented no understandable mechanism or process that explains how CO2 gas in the atmosphere increases heat on earth. The greenhouse metaphor that is successful for water droplets in clouds appears to be a failure when applied to CO2 gas. If we receive evasions instead of answers and explanations from scientists on this crucial question, we have a right to conclude that global warming theory does not make sense, and we can consign it to the accumulating heap of junk science, along with the discarded theory of global cooling of thirty years ago.


Thanks for posting that because it highlights the issues in understanding and obfuscation employed.

So the article (and many a climate change denier) says, in a nutshell; the non expert ley person has the advantage over the expert, of common sense, and the very lack of understanding is an advantage in realisation of the truth. They have a "smell test". They don't follow the herd and can ask simple questions that can't be answered, thus proving their case.

So we don't need experts.

Where have we heard that before?

Well, why don't we apply the same logic to rocket science? Non experts would not be able to design and build rockets that could put a man on the moon because it's not easy - it's rocket science. The non experts could say, they have the advantage of common sense (the idea is preposterous), not understanding the science (any group believing in something I don't understand is obviously group think and can be dismissed), and apply the "smell test" and ask: we know that the earth is moving and spinning and the moon goes round and at night it's dark - why wouldn't a rocket fall over as soon as it takes off and how can you possibly steer it to land on the moon? Nobody has bothered to answer me where I'm looking so I'm right.

Of course they don't ask such stupid questions (despite not understanding the science) because they have the evidence of their own eyes. We've all seen the pictures and the films - rocket science is accepted (I'm not mentioning moon landing conspiracists).

The difference with climate science is that greenhouse gases are invisible and the effects are indirect and slow to happen, so it's easy to argue, and in ignorance, believe yourself to be validated by your common sense and your "smell test" - How does carbon dioxide act as a greenhouse gas when it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere? Nobody has managed to answer that question where I'm looking (climate denying websites) so I must be correct and climate change is fake.

However, it only took me five minutes to find this which explains that carbon dioxide and other trace "greenhouse" gases, unlike the majority gases in the atmosphere, reflect long wave radiation. That's why, and if it weren't for some greenhouse gases we'd all be very cold - the problem is we are disturbing that delicate balance:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... house-gas/

So there you go, "smell test" shown up for what it is - willful ignorance put about by people who should do some research.

Indeed much of the other nonsense put about is also debunked but you don't have to look if you'd rather not


----------



## Trouble4

I am not for or against....... I agree if someone puts themselves out there (this forum) they open themself to open debate banter names ect............ in the presentation in which I submitted an opinion of commonsense through as reasonable fact check and a reasonable science is not of my own ........ but as a layman it looked/read reasonable........

I am appreciative of you gentleman wanting to preserve the World for future generations
as for myself I care less..... Let us just burn.... but have enjoyed immensely the banter..

The entertainment value is precious ........ [smiley=book2.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]

all good


----------



## John-H

Well I think the debate and entertainment is what this forum is all about and having a voice in as far as it goes for whatever cause - all reasons why we are here. I wouldn't have it any other way. Where would be the fun if we all agreed? :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> So the article (and many a climate change denier) says, in a nutshell;


Well John one word in that reply indicates a total lack of understanding of the subject on your part, it also slanders people like myself who have skeptical views regarding AGW. That word John is linked to holocaust deniers, shame on you John, but that`s what happens when you visit those sites that are pushing this utter junk. Skeptics do not deny climate change, climate has always changed and always will. Skeptics accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has the ability to raise global temperatures slightly, what we do not accept is that this rise of 0.8 C since 1880 is mainly caused by humans.

You should visit WUWT the worlds most visited science blog, where the word denier is never used and no one is ever barred no matter what view they hold, (unlike the site you linked to) there have been many true believers like yourself John that have changed their opinions regarding AGW by visiting Anthony Watts blog.

From your link John

_DailyClimate.org took up Smeed's challenge and passed the fact sheet on to a climate scientist - Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science. He also publishes the blog RealClimate.org, one of the more-respected climate science blogs._

Gavin Schmidt is a computer modeler and will shortly no longer work at NASA, RealClimate.org is a warmist blog, all you get is what you want to hear, visit realclimate and WUWT, you just might get enlightened.


----------



## bobclive22

> Exactly. And the reliability of that conclusion is entirely dependant on your ability to understand the science. So I studied science A levels, I have a science based degree and a general interest in science - but I don't feel I know enough to make a reliable conclusion either way. You do feel you're able to judge reliably but the problem is, even if you're not able to, you trust your conclusion because you feel that you're capable.


*All you need Spandex is real world evidence*, go to the bottom of page 199 of this link, it shows a tree growing on the shore since 1940, keep reading, then comment if you wish.

When an issue has gone so far away from reality that you allow yourself to
destroy a piece of evidence just because it contradicts your own believe, we are
indeed far away from the normal ethics and theory formulations of science

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Ch7Elsevier.pdf


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *All you need Spandex is real world evidence*


No BobBot, you need to know how to interpret that evidence.

A tree being on the shore for 50 years doesn't tell you anything in and of itself - you need to extrapolate from that. You need to make assumptions and interpret that data. Ultimately, you need to trust the people who wrote that paper and trust what they're telling you that tree means about climate change. The existence of that tree is a fact - what it _means_ is an interpretation. You, it seems, are incapable of understanding the difference.

All that being said, I don't actually get what they're saying about the tree. I get that it hasn't moved (trees are famous for not moving), but I don't get how that means the shoreline hasn't moved. The tree may well be in a precarious position relative to the sea now, but was it as precarious 50 years ago? All I know from that paper is that the tree existed 50 years ago and hasn't moved. Not that I want to get into a mind-numbingly tedious discussion with you about a bloody tree.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You should visit WUWT the worlds most visited science blog, where the word denier is never used and no one is ever barred no matter what view they hold, (unlike the site you linked to) there have been many true believers like yourself John that have changed their opinions regarding AGW by visiting Anthony Watts blog.


It's not the most visited science site. It is (according to them) the most viewed site on global warming and climate change. It is also a site biased against AGW - they might not bar anyone with opposing views, but all of the articles on there are skeptical, which you have to admit, isn't proportional to the views of the climate science community.

But of course, you don't mind biased media when it agrees with you, do you? You only complain about bias when it disagrees with you.

BobBot the hypocrite strikes again.


----------



## John-H

Holocaust? Shame on you for making that link Bob. So in your world you can't use the word denier but you can use the word sceptic (although you misspell it skeptic). Everyone knows that in this context climate change denier or climate change sceptic refers to the argument over man made influence of the climate. It's shorthand. Such sensitivity on semantics and the attempt to hang the argument on such irrelevance just underpins the ineptitude of your pomposity and the foolishness of your claims.

You remind me of the priest in Life of Brian jumping up and down and pointing shouting, "He said Jehovah!" :lol:

Since when has the Scientific American been a "site pushing utter junk"? That claim surely belongs to the man made climate change denying websites you frequent and harvest links from to regularly spam this thread and others without any ability whatsoever to explain why you believe them to be true. Your inability to do this and your use of accusatory terms to others of blasphemy and faith just highlight your own religious zeal and consequential inability to deal with evidence in a rational and scientific manner.

The link I posted was entirely relevant to combating the false claim that nobody can explain why C02 is a greenhouse gas. If you read it, it also explains why man is having an effect by increasing the amount if greenhouse gases - something you are denying is the case.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... house-gas/

Your denial of this widely accepted fact and why you believe a minority view to the contrary remains unexplained by you and can only therefore be seen as a matter of faith on your part.


----------



## bobclive22

> Holocaust? Shame on you for making that link Bob. So in your world you can't use the word denier but you can use the word sceptic (although you misspell it skeptic). Everyone knows that in this context climate change denier or climate change sceptic refers to the argument over man made influence of the climate. It's shorthand. Such sensitivity on semantics and the attempt to hang the argument on such irrelevance just underpins the ineptitude of your pomposity and the foolishness of your claims.


_So in your world you can't use the word denier but you can use the word skeptic. _

In a word *YES.*

*Climate Statistics Prof. Dr. Caleb Rossiter rails against fellow leftists for comparing skeptics to 'Holocaust deniers' - 'Please, call me a skeptic. And lay off World War II'
*
Fired for 'Diverging' on Climate: Progressive Professor's fellowship 'terminated' after WSJ OpEd calling global warming 'unproved science' - Dr. Caleb Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University. Rossiter, who has taught courses in climate statistics, holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics.

'Here is what my friend and anti-imperial compatriot John Tirman, executive director of the M.I.T. Center for International Studies, "tweets" about me and others who are not convinced that industrial emissions are the primary cause of the one degree rise in global average temperature since 1860 - or that this historically minuscule rise, whatever its reasons, is a primary cause of random storms and droughts: "One day, climate change deniers will be viewed like Holocaust deniers are now. #sandy #climatechange" Ouch.

How am I, a statistician who teaches about the uncertainty of exploratory computer climate models in separating human-induced warming from natural fluctuations of various cycles and extreme randomness (an uncertainty that is openly acknowledged by the modelers themselves, who call their models "scenarios" and not "predictions"), analogous to someone who denies that the Nazis planned and carried out the murder of six million Jewish civilians?

Can't I just be called an "industrial-emissions-warming-catastrophe" skeptic, honoring Diogenes, Socrates, and the core tradition of scientific thought, the refusal to accept claims "on authority" without testing them with reality? Skepticism has brought us a better understanding of our solar system (thanks, Copernicus and Gallileo) and our universes big and little (thanks, Einstein and Heisenberg), the end of the unjust and brutal social systems of monarchy, feudalism, slavery, imperialism, and colonialism, as well as the modern medicines and treatments of water, crops, and materials that have extended our lives some 50 years on average from the 1600's. Skeptic, please. Please, call me a skeptic. And lay off World War II.'

*Tide turns on sea-level alarmists*


----------



## bobclive22

*Professor Bob Carter*

*Tide turns on alarmists
*

AUSTRALIA is lucky to possess the high-quality, 128-year-long tide gauge record from Fort Denison (Sydney Harbour), which since 1886 indicates a long-term rate of sea-level rise of 0.65mm a year, or 6.5cm a century.

Lucky, because 60-year-long oceanographic atmospheric oscillations mean a true long-term measurement of sea-level rise can be made only when such a record is available.

Similarly low rates of local sea-level rise have been measured at other tide gauges along the east coast. National Tidal Centre records reveal variations between about 5cm and 16cm/century in rates of relative rise. The differ­ences between individual tide gauges mostly represent slightly differing rates of subsidence of the land at each site, and differing time periods.

For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.

Despite this high-quality and unalarming data, it is surprising that some east coast councils have implemented coastal planning regulations based on the computer projections of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For instance, a recent consultancy report for the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla shire councils, informed by IPCC computer model projections, advised those councils to plan using a rate of rise of 3.3mm/yr, four times the rate at Fort Denison.

The numbers were in part based on experimental estimates of sea-level change provided by satellite altimetry measurements. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which launches the satellite platforms, says these estimates contain errors larger than the sea-level signal claimed and proposes spending more than $US100 million on launching a new GRASP satellite to rectify the matter.

Mindful of these facts, on October 28, Shoalhaven Shire Council rejected advice to use the IPCC's most extreme emissions Scenario 8.5, applying the still highly precautionary Scenario 6.0, and using their nearest long tide gauge record (Fort Denison) to set future planning policy. The council specifically ruled out the future use of satellite or model-generated sea-level estimates until their accuracy is guaranteed.

In mid-2010, the Eurobodalla council, south of Shoalhaven, introduced a unique interim sea level rise policy that shackled more than a quarter of all properties in the shire to restrictive development controls. Predictably, there was an immediate shire-wide decline in property values.

Figures from RP Data property information specialists show that between 2011 and 2014, Eurobodalla property values suffered a 5.3 per cent loss in value compared with increases of 4.9 per cent and 7.3 per cent for neighbouring coastal shires that didn't have equivalent restrictive sea-level policies. In the worst cases, individual properties have lost up to 52 per cent of their market value.

In three years, individual Eurobodalla properties lost about $40,000 in value. With 22,000 properties in the shire, this represents a capital loss of $880m at a rate of $293m a year. This steady loss of rateable value means householders will face higher rate increases.

If similar policies were implemented along the entire east coast there would be annual property capital losses of billions of dollars.

So it is not surprising that NSW and Queensland governments are reconsidering their coastal management policies.

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney recently notified Moreton Bay Regional Council of his intention to direct it to amend its draft planning scheme "to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise due to climate change from all and any provisions of the scheme". Seeney said his intention was to use a statewide coastal mapping scheme "that will remove the 'one size fits all' approach that incorporates a mandatory 0.8m addition to historical data".

At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea-level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems - local weather and local sea-level change is what matters.

Satellite measurements and computer model projections are not accurate enough for shire planning. As the NSW Chief Scientist has said, coastal policy needs to be informed by the best available factual measurements.

And as Seeney said: "All mandatory elements of the (planning) scheme must reflect only proven historical data when dealing with coastal hazards such as storm tide inundation and erosion control areas." Similar policies need to be espoused by all state governments and councils.

Sea-level alarmism has passed high tide and is at last declining. *With luck, empirical sanity will soon prevail over modelling.*


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> _So in your world you can't use the word denier but you can use the word skeptic. _
> 
> In a word *YES.*
> 
> *Climate Statistics Prof. Dr. Caleb Rossiter rails against fellow leftists for comparing skeptics to 'Holocaust deniers' - 'Please, call me a skeptic. And lay off World War II'
> *


Lol. BobBot, do you actually have an opinion of your own, or are all your opinions given to you as handy bite-sized quotes by the internet?

What's your favourite colour BobBot? Quick! find a professor to tell you which colour is definitely the very best colour!


----------



## Spandex

Oh, and Dr. Caleb Rossiter has never been a professor of 'climate statistics'. He was a professor of statistics, specialising in national security policy, as far as I can tell.

The only places that refer to him as a professor of climate statistics are AGW sceptic articles. Why do you think they do that? He never refers to climate statistics in his biography or CV, so the people writing these articles must have made up his role - presumably to add weight to his anti-AGW opinion. Respected professor of statistics sounds good, but 'professor of climate statistics' sounds like the sort of person we should be listening to on climate change.

This is the sort of thing they do. Little tweaks here and there, knowing that people like you either aren't smart enough to spot them, or simply won't look into it because they're saying exactly what you want to hear.

Now, you call yourself sceptical, but clearly you've got nothing on me - the first thing I thought when I saw that quote was, "professor of climate statistics?? That sounds made up". :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh, and Dr. Caleb Rossiter has never been a professor of '*climate *statistics'. He was a professor of statistics, specialising in national security policy, as far as I can tell.
> 
> The only places that refer to him as a professor of climate statistics are AGW sceptic articles. Why do you think they do that? He never refers to climate statistics in his biography or CV, so the people writing these articles must have made up his role - presumably to add weight to his anti-AGW opinion. Respected professor of statistics sounds good, but 'professor of climate statistics' sounds like the sort of person we should be listening to on climate change.
> 
> This is the sort of thing they do. Little tweaks here and there, knowing that people like you either aren't smart enough to spot them, or simply won't look into it because they're saying exactly what you want to hear.


He was dismissed because of his OpEd titled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, your whole comment revolves around one word that may or may not be correct, pathetic.

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) was the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He held the post from 2002 until his resignation in 2015, (*PhD in the economics of railway engineering)*,
comment on that.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> He was dismissed because of his OpEd titled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, your whole comment revolves around one word that may or may not be correct, pathetic.


He wasn't dismissed from a role as professor of climate statistics though, was he. 'May or may not be correct"?? It's not fecking correct you idiot. Go read his CV on his own website. What you should be asking is why someone added 'climate' into his job title for their article. But you'll never ask that, because you don't question anything. People like you are a gift to these people. 


bobclive22 said:


> Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) was the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He held the post from 2002 until his resignation in 2015, (*PhD in the economics of railway engineering)*,
> comment on that.


You really have missed the point haven't you Einstein. I'm not saying Dr. Rossiter shouldn't be listened to because he's not a professor of climate statistics. I'm saying that someone lied about his qualifications and that's important. That should tell you something. But it won't, will it. Because you have the inquisitiveness of a baked potato.


----------



## John-H

Bob, I referred to some people denying man made climate change and made no reference to the holocaust as it is irrelevant to this subject. The link, to your shame, was made by you.

If I argued with Spandex and accused him of exaggerating his potato reference and that your inquisitiveness was in fact more like that of a half baked potato would you see that as a positive or negative thing? - just curious.

Or would you accuse me of racism because I used the word "half" which is used in some prejudicial phrases by some but which would also be irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, I referred to some people denying man made climate change and made no reference to the holocaust as it is irrelevant to this subject. The link, to your shame, was made by you.


Your post included that term, if you had a linked to a more balanced blog this term would not have appeared.

This is a comment to the article below, I whole hardheartedly agree with this.

Bill williams said...

The problem is that none of these individuals are willing to admit that science findings are *meant to be challenged.* There is *no such concept as consensus in the field of science *that would not still be open to challenge. Clearly, these comments reflect a closed mind and a lack of scientific training. *The models used to precict climate are seriously flawed and inaccurate. The examples of missed predictions fills a page. The tactic of calling skeptics deniers is straight out of the works of Saul Alinsky who taught the 70s generation of socialists that "when one cant win with facts, turn to ridicule and name calling"*. This current crop of name-callers, having no firm, uncontroversial facts, turn to ridicule and ridiculous analogy. Hopefully they will soon be seen as the actual deniers,who refuse to examine the raw data to see that the consensus is bogus.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/0 ... niers.html


----------



## bobclive22




----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Bob, I referred to some people denying man made climate change and made no reference to the holocaust as it is irrelevant to this subject. The link, to your shame, was made by you.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post included that term, if you had a linked to a more balanced blog this term would not have appeared.
Click to expand...

No you brought it up not me.



bobclive22 said:


>


Even your Yes Prime minister links are fake. Can't trust anything you post :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Even your Yes Prime minister links are fake.


Pretty factual though John. :roll:

Here are both versions, these work.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... l-warming/


----------



## John-H

Must be some new usage of the word factual I want previously aware of :roll:


----------



## Spandex

Well BobBot, I think I've managed to find some pretty compelling evidence that sea levels are rising. Check out this factual documentary:






:lol: :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Must be some new usage of the word factual I want previously aware of :roll:


It`s a fact that this was the stage version.


----------



## bobclive22

> Well BobBot, I think I've managed to find some pretty compelling evidence that sea levels are rising. Check out this factual documentary:


Once a believer always a believer Spandex.

No sea level rise at *Isle of the dogs*

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/part2.htm

THE ISLE OF THE DEAD BENCHMARK, THE SYDNEY, 
FORT DENISON TIDE GAUGE AND THE IPCC AR5 CHAPTER 13 
SEA LEVELS REVISITED
Albert Parker School of Engineering and Physical Science, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j ... 5-0003.pdf

So 4 eminent scientists of the past managed to get the measurement wrong and a true believer 155 years later managed to get it right. :roll: :roll:


----------



## Spandex

Sense of humour bypass working well there BobBot.. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/quageo.2015.34.issue-1/quageo-2015-0003/quageo-2015-0003.pdf


Jesus, that was hard work. It really tried very hard to look like a scientific paper, but at some point they just gave up and descended into an embarrassingly one-sided rant about climate science they disagree with. I think they maybe should have asked someone to proof read it to remove the worst of the grammar and spelling mistakes too, if they wanted to fool anyone into thinking it was a genuine study. Well, anyone other than you, eh?



bobclive22 said:


> So 4 eminent scientists of the past managed to get the measurement wrong and a true believer 155 years later managed to get it right. :roll: :roll:


Listen to yourself. You're a joke BobBot. Any scientist that agrees with you is 'eminent' and completely trustworthy, whilst the ones that don't are 'true believers' and shouldn't be listened to? The funniest thing is, it's so blatant yet you're completely oblivious to it. You genuinely don't realise you're doing it. Hilariously, you think you're being clever :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Listen to yourself. You're a joke BobBot. Any scientist that agrees with you is 'eminent' and completely trustworthy, whilst the ones that don't are 'true believers' and shouldn't be listened to? The funniest thing is, it's so blatant yet you're completely oblivious to it. You genuinely don't realise you're doing it. Hilariously, you think you're being clever


http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/part2.htm

I suggest you read part 2 and the Ross narative Spandex, either Sir James Clark Ross put his mark at the mean sea level or he did not, if he did there has been little sea level rise since 1841.

John Daly`s piece is factual and the Ross narrative states mean sea level.

1847 - Ross, J. C. A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions [New Zealand Chapters Only].

CHAPTER I.

Refitting the Ships. -- Fossil Trees of Derwent Valley. -- Geological Remarks. -- Tassman's Peninsula. -- Eagle Hawk Neck. -- Tesselated Pavement. -- Entrecasteaux Channel. -- Timber on the Banks of the Huon. -- Advantages of Port Arthur. -- *Mean Level of the Ocean. *-- Launceston. -- Prepare for Sea. -- Deviation of the Compass............Page 1

Note it again states *mean sea level.*, if you want sea level rise just alter historical facts, but in the Spandex world that`s normal.

http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document ... ction=null

130 years of sea level rise

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... 18712b.gif

If Sea Level Was Rising, Wouldn't Someone Have Noticed?

http://linkis.com/wattsupwiththat.com/KeRqV


----------



## bobclive22

> Sense of humour bypass working well there BobBot..


Here we go Spandex,

All electric vehicle chargers sold in the UK to be 'smart' under government plans.

https://www.cleanenergynews.co.uk/news/ ... vernment-p


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Here we go Spandex,
> 
> All electric vehicle chargers sold in the UK to be 'smart' under government plans.
> 
> https://www.cleanenergynews.co.uk/news/ ... vernment-p


Wrong thread BobBot.. do try to keep up.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Listen to yourself. You're a joke BobBot. Any scientist that agrees with you is 'eminent' and completely trustworthy, whilst the ones that don't are 'true believers' and shouldn't be listened to? The funniest thing is, it's so blatant yet you're completely oblivious to it. You genuinely don't realise you're doing it. Hilariously, you think you're being clever
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you read part 2 and the Ross narative Spandex, either Sir James Clark Ross put his mark at the mean sea level... blah blah blah
Click to expand...

You're still doing it. You still don't know you're doing it. You're still a joke.


----------



## bobclive22

> You're still doing it. You still don't know you're doing it. You're still a joke.


Still suffering from the three monkeys syndrome Spandex, a double whisky with a dash of common sense should do it.

No comment on the smart Car charges. _I believe this is the right thread Spandex_

*Bobs global warming/smart meter whinge-a-thon*

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

In their "hottest year ever" press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... 060741.png

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... 0229-1.png

Now why would they do that Spandex.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Now why would they do that Spandex.


I don't know. It must mean something though. It must be really important, right? Maybe it's an admission that everything they've said is wrong. You've done it BobBot!! You've proved man made climate change is a lie!! Omg, you should tell someone.

Someone who cares what you think, I mean. Not me.


----------



## bobclive22

> I don't know. It must mean something though. It must be really important, right? Maybe it's an admission that everything they've said is wrong. You've done it BobBot!! You've proved man made climate change is a lie!! Omg, you should tell someone.
> 
> Someone who cares what you think, I mean. Not me.


I hope some of my posts are enlightening to others interested in the subject and encourage some rational discussion which unfortunately has been lacking in your case Spandex. I haven`t proven climate change is a lie as any half educated individual knows climate is always changing and is probably caused by natural cycles and has very little to do with CO2 other than in the world of climate models. True believers in the religion of AGW like yourself Spandex can`t see the wood for the tree rings.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I hope some of my posts are enlightening to others interested in the subject and encourage some rational discussion which unfortunately has been lacking in your case Spandex.


I'm perfectly capable of having a rational discussion BobBot. But trying to do that with you is an exercise in futility. You don't discuss, you just post more links to other peoples ideas, thoughts and discussions. If I want to read spam, I can check my email junk folder - I don't need to read your blinkered, half-arsed attempt at 'research'.


bobclive22 said:


> I haven`t proven climate change is a lie as any half educated individual knows climate is always changing and is probably caused by natural cycles and has very little to do with CO2 other than in the world of climate models. True believers in the religion of AGW like yourself Spandex can`t see the wood for the tree rings.


So let me get this straight - you're not certain what exactly is causing climate change (unless 'probably' actually means 'definitely' in your world), yet you're 100% certain (according to you earlier) that it can't be humans? How does that work?

You're *not *certain what causes it. You *are *certain it's not humans. Just mull that one over for a while BobBot. See if you can see the implications. Do you realise that in order for those two statements to be true, you'd have to actually prove humans *can't *be the cause? I'm genuinely interested to hear how you think you'd even approach that.

Proving a negative isn't that easy BobBot - I mean, I could throw you off a cliff in order to prove humans can't fly, but all I'd actually demonstrate is that you *didn't* fly.

Anyway, I'll leave you to ponder the logical hole you've dug yourself.


----------



## bobclive22

> You're not certain what causes it. You are certain it's not humans.


No spandex, CO2 is a green house gas it can cause a slight warming, it is also logarithmic, for catastrophic warming to occur there most be positive feed back from the most powerful greenhouse gas which is water vapour, all agree on this, this has not occurred, all computer models predict that man made warming is indicated by a hot spot in the upper troposphere over the equator, this has also not occurred.

Spandex Radiosondes are not effected by the urban heat island effect, and the data from radiosondes has not as yet been manipulated unlike the ground station data. Now I have just posted a graph which uses NOOA`s radiosondes data from 1957, it shows no warming over that period. You either believe the manipulated ground station data or the pristine radiosondes data, that should be a no brainer.

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

https://steemit.com/science/@zhanmusi/s ... fraud-hoax


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You either believe the manipulated ground station data or the pristine radiosondes data, that should be a no brainer.


The data from the radiosondes is adjusted too you know? Keep wearing those blinkers, BobBot...


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
> Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."


You see, this is the problem with you. You plaster your posts with quotes and 'facts' and it would take too much time to research it all fully to see if it's true or not, so you get away with mistakes and lies.

Dr. Joanne Simpson didnt say that quote. It's from Dr. Kiminori Itoh - a man who, on his own website, describes himself as a "physical chemist familiar with environmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science."

As for Dr. Joanne Simpson, she actually said "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."


----------



## bobclive22

> As for Dr. Joanne Simpson, she actually said "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases *and the climate models are right,* the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."


I didn`t know that Spandex,

The problem Spandex is that the computer models are *NOT right *also, why did she not say this when she worked for the IOP, odd that, a statement like this would certainly not have made her position untenable at that institution.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... submission

Found any more misquotes.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I didn`t know that Spandex,


There's probably lots of things you don't know, but for some reason you don't let that stop you making judgements.


bobclive22 said:


> The problem Spandex is that the computer models are *NOT right *also, why did she not say this when she worked for the IOP, odd that, a statement like this would certainly not have made her position untenable at that institution.
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... submission
> 
> Found any more misquotes.


What makes you think she didn't say it at other times? Not that I can find any reference to her working for the IOP. Doesn't really matter though.

There are probably loads of misquotes, mistakes and outright lies in your posts, but I can't be arsed to proof read every one. Half your posts I barely read at all...

It's odd though that someone who, only a couple of posts ago, you held up as a preeminent scientist whose opinion we should listen to, thought that it's possible that the models could be right. Perhaps she realised that just because the models aren't right about everything doesn't mean that they therefore must be wrong about everything.


----------



## bobclive22

> There are probably loads of misquotes, mistakes and outright lies in your posts, but I can't be arsed to proof read every one. Half your posts I barely read at all...
> 
> It's odd though that someone who, only a couple of posts ago, you held up as a preeminent scientist whose opinion we should listen to, thought that it's possible that the models could be right. Perhaps she realised that just because the models aren't right about everything doesn't mean that they therefore must be wrong about everything.


Try to be civil Spandex and stop calling me a liar.

She was one of many in that list Spandex, you managed to find one misquote, the point is she died in 2010, 7 years later the models are still wrong, would she still have the same opinion today, perhaps not.

It is odd Spandex that when she worked for NASA she didn`t speak out even though that organisation NASA GISS is the most pro AGW on the planet and it`s director Gavin Schmidt runs the warmist Blog Realclimate.org

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now "global warming" and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet&#8230;*However, the main basis of the claim&#8230;is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system&#8230;The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?&#8230; as a scientist I remain skeptical. *

After all that she then states this which is the part I was unaware of, the paragraph below is her opinion, I believe she is wrong. If the models were proven to be correct then her opinion is valid, they are still wrong 7 years after her death.

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

She said the entire premise is based almost entirely upon climate models which are wrong.

The EU believed Diesel was safe.



> just because the models aren't right about everything doesn't mean that they therefore must be wrong about everything.


We are not talking about everything Spandex they are tracking only one thing, temperature increase due to CO2 in that they are wrong.

http://blog.drwile.com/dr-joanne-simpson/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Try to be civil Spandex and stop calling me a liar.


No. You tell lies on here. You make claims that you know you can't back up, but you pretend they're facts in the hope no one looks into it.



bobclive22 said:


> She was one of many in that list Spandex, you managed to find one misquote, the point is she died in 2010, 7 years later the models are still wrong, would she still have the same opinion today, perhaps not.


Yes, I found one misquote in that. I've also found numerous mistakes in your posts and on the pages you spam this thread with. Who knows how many others have gone unnoticed. The point is, you apply no filter to this stuff. If it agrees with your world view, all objectivity goes out the window. You just copy and paste it here. You never check it, because you want it all to be true. You're not interested in accuracy, you're just interested in proving a point.

As for the models being wrong, this woman who you believed was intelligent and eminently qualified (when you thought she agreed with you - not so much now, eh?) accepted that they were flawed but she still understood that that didn't mean they should be ignored, or that the opposite conclusion must be true.

This woman wasn't certain that AGW was true, but she realised that the risks were high enough that i was still prudent to act on CO2 levels. You on the other hand, despite having none of her qualifications, are 100% certain it's not true. Bonkers.


----------



## bobclive22

> This woman wasn't certain that AGW was true, but she realised that the risks were high enough that i was still prudent to act on CO2 levels. You on the other hand, despite having none of her qualifications, are 100% certain it's not true. Bonkers.


The climate changes it always has and always will, are humans mainly responsible for the slight warming since 1880, probably not, especially as only computer models suggest this.

You won`t find this in the left wing media or the BBC, but then if you only read the Bible.....

http://gregoirecanlorbe.com/interview-w ... ws-network


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You won`t find this in the left wing media or the BBC, but then if you only read the Bible.....


You don't like the left wing media, but have no problem linking to the right wing media? Do you know you're a massive hypocrite, or are you somehow justifying it in your little head?


----------



## bobclive22

> You don't like the left wing media, but have no problem linking to the right wing media? Do you know you're a massive hypocrite, or are you somehow justifying it in your little head?


Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past, (Independent).

http://web.archive.org/web/201507230901 ... 24017.html

This is why I visit other sources for information Spandex.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past, (Independent).
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/201507230901 ... 24017.html
> 
> This is why I visit other sources for information Spandex.


The only sources of information you visit are ones that agree with you. If they don't agree, you dismiss them as biased. You've consistently done this throughout this thread. It's an easy way for you to convince yourself that you're well informed without ever having to actually engage with anything that conflicts with your views.


----------



## bobclive22

> The only sources of information you visit are ones that agree with you. If they don't agree, you dismiss them as biased. You've consistently done this throughout this thread. It's an easy way for you to convince yourself that you're well informed without ever having to actually engage with anything that conflicts with your views.


The article is from the Independent your green MSM Spandex, it`s the paper all greens read, it was utter rubbish and the link *has now been removed.*

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html






https://climatechangedispatch.com/istva ... l-warming/


----------



## Spandex

I have no idea what point you're trying to make any more BobBot. In the absence of me engaging with your nonsense, you seem to have started arguing with what you imagine I must be thinking.

You've decided I'm 'a green' (whatever the hell that is), you've decided I must read the Independent and for some reason you've decided I might care that they got something wrong.

The only thing I care about is what the currently accepted scientific theory is. I don't care who does or doesn't report that accurately, I don't care if other theories exist, as long as they're not widely accepted. I don't even care what the accepted theory is.


----------



## bobclive22

> The only thing I care about is what the currently accepted scientific theory is.


What you actually mean is. _The only thing I care about is what the currently accepted scientific concensus is_.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. *Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
*

*Consensus Is Not Science*

In our rapidly changing world, wise public policy is becoming increasingly dependent on the best scientific information available. *Public policy depends on consensus-majority rules*. Science, on the other hand, depends on *just one investigator who happens to come up with the most reliable conclusions that are verifiable by new and often more precise observations.*

Scientists understand that observations are rarely complete-that interpretations often vary. There is usually considerable room for discussion and debate. *Debate is as important to science as consensus is to politics.* But debate needs to be based on observations, not opinions.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
- Michael Crichton, MD.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The only thing I care about is what the currently accepted scientific theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> What you actually mean is. _The only thing I care about is what the currently accepted scientific concensus is_.
Click to expand...

If I'd meant 'concensus', I'd have said that. I meant theory. AGW is accepted as a scientific theory, whether you believe it meets your definition or not.


----------



## John-H

Bob does talk a lot of baubles. Oh no I've gone Christmassy too soon :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob does talk a lot of baubles. Oh no I've gone Christmassy too soon :roll:


*
James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' *

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian ... matechange

*James Lovelock on 'wicked' renewables and why he changed his mind on climate change*

http://truenorthreports.com/james-lovel ... renewables

If you only read the left wing press you only get left wing propaganda.


----------



## bobclive22

> If I'd meant 'concensus', I'd have said that. I meant theory. AGW is accepted as a scientific theory, whether you believe it meets your definition or not.


Is there a theory of AGW, if there is, is it proven.

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/cli ... ing-theory

*Natural climate variability, part 2: Interpretation of the post 2000 temperature standstill*

http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/file ... 9-36413417


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Is there a theory of AGW, if there is, is it proven.


Well, both those links refer to AGW as a theory, and most of the scientific community are ok with calling it a theory, so I'm going to say, "yes, it's a theory".

As for whether or not it's proven, well, whatever definition of proof you apply to AGW must also be applied to other climate theories - so I suspect that means the theories you prefer will be no more proven than AGW.

The problem is that we have incomplete information on this. But, the most widely accepted theory is so concerning that it would be prudent to act on it, if only as an insurance policy. Then, if in 50 years time we discover that the AGW theory was demonstrably wrong then at least we've not made the situation worse while we waited to find out. If we discover that AGW is true, and have spent the last 50 years ignoring it and churning out more CO2 (because BobBot said it's good for plants in a greenhouse so he felt it was reasonable to extrapolate this result to an entire climate system), then we're going to be a bit screwed, aren't we.

I know, I know, you can post links to times when climate policy damaged countries or regions, in the name of AGW. But that's not an argument against AGW, it's an argument against badly drafted or implemented policies.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *James Lovelock on 'wicked' renewables and why he changed his mind on climate change*


Yes BobBot, people change their minds...

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how ... r-science/


----------



## bobclive22

> The problem is that we have incomplete information on this. But, the most widely accepted theory is so concerning that it would be prudent to act on it, if only as an insurance policy. Then, if in 50 years time we discover that the AGW theory was demonstrably wrong then at least we've not made the situation worse while we waited to find out.


You mean like diesel cars.



> Then, if in 50 years time we discover that the AGW theory was demonstrably wrong then at least we've not made the situation worse while we waited to find out.


You mean like trashing the western economies whilst allowing China and India plus other third world economies to flourish as these economies will have no co2 restrictions.

Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald's tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/clim ... d=tw-share

Your a fool Spandex.


----------



## bobclive22

*Global temperature continues to cool*

Global effects of El Niño event seem to have passed, and we've cooled to a value just before the event, according to data from the UK Hadley Climate Centre

The HadCRUT4.5 temperature anomaly for September calculated by spherical triangulation is 0.54C, a fall of 0.17C since August. Temperatures have seemingly returned to a long trend after the 2016 El Niño.

Looks like claims of the "hottest year ever" won't be happening in 2017, and we may see a return of "the pause" soon.

So *CO2 is increasing *and the temperature pause from 1998 probably continuing, is the science settled Spandex.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/01/ ... s-to-cool/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Your a fool Spandex.


Oh dear...


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You mean like trashing the western economies whilst allowing China and India plus other third world economies to flourish as these economies will have no co2 restrictions.


Sorry, I thought you were arguing that AGW didn't exist. What has economics got to do with it if it doesn't exist??


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> is the science settled Spandex.


No, so how have you concluded that AGW isn't true?


bobclive22 said:


> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/01/global-temperature-continues-to-cool/


Oh BobBot. Are you quoting HadCRUT4.5 temperature data at me?? You do realise that data has been manipulated, right??? I thought you only trusted 'unmanipulated data', whatever the hell that is? :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh BobBot. Are you quoting HadCRUT4.5 temperature data at me?? You do realise that data has been manipulated, right??? I thought you only trusted 'unmanipulated data', whatever the hell that is? :lol:


Clive Best uses a custom triangulation method to calculate the global temperature anomaly from the* raw data*, so I thought I'd verify this from the publicly available HadCrut data. (WUWT)

The thing is Spandex, the official temperature data is always adjusted UP *never down*, therefor if this HadCRUT4.5 has been manipulated it probably indicates a greater cooling than that shown on the graph.

I have shown you how Giss cool the past and warm the present.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com ... 062717.pdf

This young man has a totally open mind unlike you Spandex.

Study: U.S. climate closely follows Pacific ocean cycle known as the PDO

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4mwxbbgk3qo63 ... L.pdf?dl=0


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> You mean like trashing the western economies whilst allowing China and India plus other third world economies to flourish as these economies will have no co2 restrictions.
> 
> _Sorry, I thought you were arguing that AGW didn't exist. What has economics got to do with it if it doesn't exist??_


I state that AGW has not been proven to exist, you argue for the cautionary approach, I stated it would trash the western economies and nothing would be gained, even if AGW was found to be correct the developing counties would not have stopped burning coal. It would be burnt in greater amounts in the ensuing years as is shown in the link I posted.


----------



## John-H

Thankfully BoB you are isolated in a small area of your own influence and do not appear to have any responsible roles in wider society or the scientific community. We help by keeping you trapped here, unable to influence the wider world by displaying your ramblings as a warning to the unwary. Keep up the good work


----------



## Spandex

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it...


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I state that AGW has not been proven to exist


Oh no no BobBot. You stated that you are 100% certain it *does not* exist. Then in other posts you state the science isn't settled. The science isn't settled, but you've settled on a 100% certainty. In other words, you admit that your opinion is in direct contradiction to the science.

That's the difference between you and me. I haven't picked a side, I've picked a criteria. If AGW no longer meets my criteria, then I'll simply trust whatever theory replaces it as the accepted explanation for climate changes. You have picked a side though, and now you feel you have to justify that choice, even to the point of contradicting yourself. It wouldn't matter if every scientist on the planet agreed with AGW. You'd still need to disagree because you've chosen a side and now you can't go back.

And you have the bare faced cheek to call me a true believer... :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Thankfully BoB you are isolated in a small area of your own influence and do not appear to have any responsible roles in wider society or the scientific community. We help by keeping you trapped here, unable to influence the wider world by displaying your ramblings as a warning to the unwary. Keep up the good work


Do you mean like the ramblings of this man John, who is possibly a tad more knowledgeable than you and whose opinions on this subject should be accepted as founded in solid science for the more inquiring minds not locked into the AGW neme, obviously not for you John.

*Dr. Tim Patterson *

Dr. Tim Patterson is a Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He received both a B.Sc. in Biology (1980) and a B.A. in Geology (1983) from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1986 with the late Professor Helen Tappan Loeblich and late Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich. After brief stints as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California at Berkeley and as a visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Southern California he was appointed to the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in 1988 as an Assistant Professor. He was promoted to Full Professor in 1999.

He was appointed an International Fellow in the School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology at the Queen's University of Belfast in 2006.

Tim Patterson was a founding executive editor of the electronic journal Palaeontologia Electronica. He served as associate Editor of Micropaleontology (1990-1997) and has just stepped down from serving a 14 year stint as Associate Editor of the Journal of Foraminiferal Research (1995-2008).

He is Canadian leader of the UNESCO supported International Geological Correlation Programme Project (IGCP) 495 "Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions" and was appointed chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition in 2008.

Tim Patterson has made ~200 scholarly contributions, including ~120 peer-reviewed research papers. He utilizes micropaleontological, sedimentological and geochemical techniques to:

study of paleoclimate records in Holocene lacustrine, marine, and bog environments to assess the dynamics of climate variability.
assess the impact of anthropogenic land-use change on natural lacustrine systems.
investigate the dynamics of sea-level change utilizing fossil salt marsh deposits.

For his research efforts he was awarded a 2002-2003 Carleton University Research Achievement Award for 'outstanding research'.


















*Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark's Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory.*

There are other possible causes of this slight warming other than CO2 and they appear more plausible, they do actually reside in the real world not just in computer models.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/thou ... QhBBf.dpbs


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> _I state that AGW has not been *proven* to exist_
> 
> Oh no no BobBot. You stated that you are 100% certain it does not exist. Then in other posts you state the science isn't settled. The science isn't settled, but you've settled on a 100% certainty. In other words, you admit that your opinion is in direct contradiction to the science.


You missed the word *proven*.Spandex.


----------



## bobclive22

> That's the difference between you and me. I haven't picked a side, I've picked a criteria. If AGW no longer meets my criteria, then I'll simply trust whatever theory replaces it as the accepted explanation for climate changes.


So diesel cars met your criteria as they produced less CO2, well that`s what you were led to believe at the time, it now appears that is not correct. I purchased 2 vehicles over the last 4 years both petrol.

Your criteria has now probably changed regarding diesel cars, unfortunately the damage has been done and thousands have died because of the pollution from those vehicles.

You appear to vehemently support the criteria of man made Global warming now changed to climate change when the planet stopped warming for 20 years even though CO2 has increased over that period. Do you wait until there is real world evidence that CO2 is the main cause of this slight warming or go the precautionary rout as per diesel.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You missed the word *proven*.Spandex.


No I didn't. I pointed out the ridiculousness of someone saying they're 100% certain that AGW isn't true, despite also saying that the science isn't settled. If you can't understand the contradiction there then I despair. Not being proven =/= proven not to be true.


bobclive22 said:


> Do you wait until there is real world evidence that CO2 is the main cause of this slight warming or go the precautionary rout as per diesel.


You go the precautionary route. Didn't I say this already?

I don't really understand why you keep banging on about diesel though. It's just more BobBot Logic™ isn't it. We tried to reduce vehicle CO2 emissions and chose the wrong solution. So by thicko BobBots Logic™ we should never try to reduce CO2 emissions ever again. Maybe we should apply this logic to all your posts - I mean, you've posted some terrible old crap on here in the past, like the hilarious time you misheard a news report about immigration levels, so we can therefore extrapolate that using BobBot Logic™ to prove that everything you post from that point onwards must be rubbish. That's how it works, isn't it? Prove someone got one thing wrong, and you can then claim everything they say is wrong?


----------



## bobclive22

[E]lectronic thermometers record transient temperature that is not captured by traditional thermometers. The UK's record July temperature this year alongside the runways at Heathrow Airport - by around 0.1 deg C - and widely PR'd by the Met Office was seperately checked and analysed in detail in the Met Office records.

That found that there was a temperature spike of 0.9 deg which lasted just 2 minutes before dropping back to the previous hour's temperatures. The met Office records temperatures at 2 minute intervals. *Further research into this showed a wind direction change for just a few minutes during this heat spike and the found that coincidentally a Boeing Dreamliner was maonoevering on the taxiway adjacent to the thermometer.*

Given how determinedly warmist the Met office is it is not surprising that they did not find it all curious that the temperature rose by 0.9 deg C for a two minute period - and equally so that they would, with not the least scientific embarrassment claim this to be a New Record and Proof of 'Global warming'.

Any true scientists would have been highly sceptical of a jump in temp of 0.9 deg C lasting just 2 minutes - but it seems that Met Office climate 'scientists' don't fit into that category. - Roger @ Jo Nova's

As a large number of weather stations are situated at airports, is there actually any significant warming.
Hottest temperature in the Us is still 1934, odd that.


----------



## Spandex

If in doubt, spam the thread with more irrelevant quotes.


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> You missed the word proven.Spandex.
> 
> No I didn't. I pointed out the ridiculousness of someone saying they're 100% certain that AGW isn't true, despite also saying
> 
> 
> 
> that the science isn't settled. If you can't understand the contradiction there then I despair. Not being proven =/= proven not to be true.
> 
> bobclive22 wrote:
> Do you wait until there is real world evidence that CO2 is the main cause of this slight warming or go the precautionary rout as per diesel.
> 
> You go the precautionary route. Didn't I say this already?
> 
> I don't really understand why you keep banging on about diesel though. It's just more BobBot Logic™ isn't it. We tried to reduce vehicle CO2 emissions and chose the wrong solution. So by thicko BobBots Logic™ we should never try to reduce CO2 emissions ever again. Maybe we should apply this logic to all your posts - I mean, you've posted some terrible old crap on here in the past, like the hilarious time you misheard a news report about immigration levels, so we can therefore extrapolate that using BobBot Logic™ to prove that everything you post from that point onwards must be rubbish. That's how it works, isn't it? Prove someone got one thing wrong, and you can then claim everything they say is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting hot under the collar Spandex.
Click to expand...

Comment on the postings, if you think they are rubbish, explain why with some constructive comments instead of attacking me. your a fool Spandex, that`s why you are at the bottom of the pile.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Comment on the postings, if you think they are rubbish, explain why with some constructive comments...


I've told you plenty of times now that it's pointless for two non-scientists to sit here arguing about the relative merits of the competing theories. How many more times will I have to say it before it sinks in? Anyway, why would I waste my time composing constructive comments when you can't be arsed to write anything yourself and just copy and paste everything.


bobclive22 said:


> ...instead of attacking me.your a fool Spandex, that`s why you are at the bottom of the pile.


Ok, two points.

1, you've *just* attacked me straight after telling me not to attack you. Have I mentioned you're a hypocrite?
2, IT'S 'YOU'RE', NOT 'YOUR'!!! Normally I'd let a typo go, but that is literally the second time that you've called me a fool *whilst* making a mistake that you should have learned in primary school. Once is a typo, twice is just illiteracy. I would point out how ironic it is, but you'd probably have to go and find a 10 year old to explain what that meant.


----------



## bobclive22

> I don't really understand why you keep banging on about diesel though.


Banning DDT was the *cautionary approach* it killed 50 million people mainly children.

The push for diesel was also a *cautionary approach*, no idea how many that will kill over the coming years.

The precautionary approach to science when the science is not proven.

MALARIA VICTIMS: HOW ENVIRONMENTALIST BAN ON DDT CAUSED 50 MILLION DEATHS

In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, "If there's nothing else [besides DDT] and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."
This change of heart was too little, too late. The longstanding, uncompromising, inflexible dogmas of Mr. Hind's organization and others on the environmental Left had already condemned at least 50 million innocent people to death in three-and-a-half decades.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view ... sp?id=1259

* Precautionary actions regarding CO2,*

It is ironic that the push for lower carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change has led to higher air pollution. 
A silent killer, air pollution is now being recognised for its devastating effects, particularly on small children and older people.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ns-scandal

Diesel cars emit 10 times more toxic pollution than trucks and buses, data shows

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... data-shows

How taxpayers' money is being used to fuel Europe's deadly diesel pollution
By Chris Harris last updated: 18/10/2017
EU countries paid out €21 billion in subsidies for diesel - despite exhaust fumes from the fuel being considered a major cancer risk. 
Diesel exhaust fumes were identified as a major cancer risk by the World Health Organisation in 2012. In the same year it was estimated nitrogen oxide, largely caused by diesel vehicles, led to 75,000 premature deaths in Europe.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/18/how- ... -pollution

Diesel Exhaust More Deadly Than Car Accidents Apr 22, 2012 @ 01:17 PM Note the DATE.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampen ... cc8aaf23b5

Corn better used as food than biofuel, study finds

In monetary terms, their results show that the net social and economic worth of food corn production in the U.S. is $1,492 per hectare, versus a $10 per hectare loss for biofuel corn production."One of the key factors lies in the soil," Richardson said. The assessment considered both short-term and long-term effects, such as nutrients and carbon storage in the soil."We found that most of the environmental impacts came from soil nutrient fluxes. Soil's role is often overlooked in this type of assessment, and viewing the landscape as a critical zone forces us to include that," Richardson said."Using corn as a fuel source seems to be an easy path to renewable energy," said Richard Yuretich, the NSF program director for Critical Zone Observatories. "However, this research shows that the environmental costs are much greater, and the benefits fewer, than using corn for food."

https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/520569

EU destroys 700,000 hectares of rainforest for biofuels
The plantations needed to satisfy Europes's demand for palm oil cover an area of 700,000 hectares - land that until recently was still rainforest and the habitat of 5,000 endangered orangutans. Despite the clear-cutting, the EU has classified palm oil as sustainably produced.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petit ... r-biofuels

Some scientists also worry that policies promoting wood fuels could unleash a global logging boom that trashes forest biodiversity in the name of climate protection.Some trees cut from a logging site in Duplin County in North Carolina will be squeezed into wood pellets, to be burned in power plants.
"It basically tells the Congo and Indonesia and every other forested country in the world: 'If you cut down your forests and use them for energy, not only is that not bad, it's good,'" says Tim Searchinger, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., who has studied the carbon impacts of wood energy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/ ... re-divided

The campaign against Drax aims to reveal the perverse effects of biofuels 
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... ssil-fuels
Dramatic deforestation highlights EU 'folly' on biofuels

https://www.transportenvironment.org/ne ... 9-biofuels

All this because of the cautionary approach, the do it just in case CO2 might cause some future warming approach, the Spandex approach.


----------



## John-H

I don't know why you keep banging on about diesel either Bob. The argument that diesel causes unacceptable pollution is largely accepted. Why then do you keep bringing it up?

You seem to be trying to make a wider and more vacuous point, and generally unsupportable; that "caution is unwise" and a bigger gamble on minority views that reflect those who are prepared to oppose the general learned community, will demonstrably give a more favorable outcome. You seem to be trying to demonstrate this with circumstance (rather than principal) but trying to claim it as a principal.

This is nonsense Bob.

If you don't believe me try doing something "risky" like paddling out to sea on a giant inflatable set of false teeth and getting rescued by the coast guard. The fact as reported on the News Quiz once with the coastguard quote, "This sort of thing happens all the time.", may be taken as literal truth by you.

I'm worried. It would be interesting for you to conduct this experiment several times in the interests of repeatability and let us know the result.

As for quoting other studies warning that extra CO2 may be released due to a secondary effect opposing the original good intention of some other measure - well I have to ask - Have you now accepted the danger of man made greenhouse gas induced climate change? I'm glad we at least won you over on that one!

Remember you previously claimed greenhouse gas has a "slight effect" and that if it was good for plants it's good for us?

You seem to have read some other stuff and forgotten that in your pursuit of your latest argument.

Why not stick to one thing? In the fullness of time, like a stopped clock you are bound to be right eventually, for a moment at least :wink:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> All this because of the cautionary approach, the do it just in case CO2 might cause some future warming approach, the Spandex approach.


So what you're saying is that we shouldn't even try to reduce CO2 just in case the method we choose has unforeseen side effects? That's odd, because before you were saying there was no need to reduce CO2 because CO2 wasn't a problem - now you're saying it's just too damn risky to reduce CO2. Now do you see why I don't know what point you're actually trying to make? You just flit from one argument to another with no real coherent narrative on what you really think is going on. In fact, I don't think you actually care what the real cause of climate change is, you just don't want it to be humans because you don't want the status quo to change. So you trawl the net looking for clever sounding articles that agree with how you want the world to be. Then you dismiss every contrary article as biased.

Just like with Brexit, all you really want to do is wind back the clocks.


----------



## John-H

There are quite a few people who view the past through rose tinted testicles.


----------



## bobclive22

> There are quite a few people who view the past through rose tinted testicles.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry


----------



## bobclive22

> So what you're saying is that we shouldn't even try to reduce CO2 just in case the method we choose has unforeseen side effects?


Judging by past actions I would wait and see, the cautionary approach does not appear to be all that successful, in fact it has been catastrophically damaging.

We are actually decarbonising by moving to natural gas which harms no one and provides cheap energy.

Spandex, if you don`t agree with the posted articles, state your reasons.

Burning forests, 
Growing wheat for fuel instead of food,
Subsidising diesel,
Drastically inflating energy prices,

Has that stopped the increase of CO2, NO, perhaps CO2 is not the cause of the warming.


----------



## John-H

Here you go Bob all ready for your experiment:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, if you don`t agree with the posted articles, state your reasons.


What about if I don't read them? Can I get out of replying then?


bobclive22 said:


> Has that stopped the increase of CO2, NO, perhaps CO2 is not the cause of the warming.


Surely those two things are unrelated. Whether or not we have stopped the increase in CO2 has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is causing climate change.

You've not really addressed the original point though, have you. You haven't explained how you can conflate past attempts to reduce CO2 output with future, completely different attempts to reduce CO2 output. It's not the goal that causes the negative side effect, it's the method of reaching that goal. Therefore you can't make any predictions based purely on the different methods having a shared goal.

If I'm trying to walk to the shop and I get my feet wet because the route I choose takes me through a stream, you can't conclude that going to the shop makes your feet wet. That's effectively the logic you're applying to CO2 reduction.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> There are quite a few people who view the past through rose tinted testicles.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Click to expand...

You see, this is a prime example of the chaotic nature of your argument. Curry is quite open about her belief in AGW, but does have issues with the degree to which the planet will warm in the timescales given. But you just latch onto the comments where she's outspoken against the IPCC and try to repurpose her as a supporter of your position. But let's be clear here. You are "100% certain" that AGW is not real. She takes the opposing view. She's not on your side.

But you know what, even if she did agree with you, what on earth do you think that would prove? *We already know there are qualified scientists on both sides of the argument.* Presenting one here just confirms what we already know. The same goes for all your articles that I rarely bother reading.

But as usual, I'm sure you won't discuss the logic of how you choose a side, you'll just post more articles and paste more quotes. Anything to avoid addressing the difficult question, eh?


----------



## bobclive22

> You see, this is a prime example of the chaotic nature of your argument. Curry is quite open about her belief in AGW, but does have issues with the degree to which the planet will warm in the timescales given.


Exactly, and she gets ostracised for it, you don`t need draconian measures to fix a none problem. Is warmer better than colder?.

*Why Timber Towers Are On the Rise in France*

Spurred by concerns over* climate change *and the negative impacts of concrete manufacturing, architects and developers in France are increasingly turning to wood for their office towers and apartment complexes.

Might have a slight issue with fire.


----------



## bobclive22

> Surely those two things are unrelated. Whether or not we have stopped the increase in CO2 has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is causing climate change.


If CO2 is the cause of this slight warming (it can`t be the culprit prior to the 1950`s) why has there been little or no warming for the last 20 years when CO2 has been increasing in that same period.

Spandex first it was called man made global warming, when it stopped warming the term was changed to climate change it`s all the same. The climate has always changed and always will throwing money at it won`t alter that.


----------



## bobclive22

> But you know what, even if she did agree with you, what on earth do you think that would prove? We already know there are qualified scientists on both sides of the argument.


So the science is not settled then, has the precautionary method actually achieved anything other than line the pockets of the wealthy?.


----------



## bobclive22

> Here you go Bob all ready for your experiment:


Not much to say then John, how is the smart meter roll out going, have you decided to take the plunge yet.


----------



## John-H

Bob, if you don't engage with the logic of the discussion and keep trying to change the subject when pressed, then I'm afraid your argument has no teeth and looks a little deflated.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You see, this is a prime example of the chaotic nature of your argument. Curry is quite open about her belief in AGW, but does have issues with the degree to which the planet will warm in the timescales given.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and she gets ostracised for it, you don`t need draconian measures to fix a none problem. Is warmer better than colder?
Click to expand...

She hasn't been 'ostracised', you massive drama queen.

As for 'non problem', I thought the science wasn't settled, so how can we state it's a non problem??


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Surely those two things are unrelated. Whether or not we have stopped the increase in CO2 has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is causing climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> If CO2 is the cause of this slight warming (it can`t be the culprit prior to the 1950`s) why has there been little or no warming for the last 20 years when CO2 has been increasing in that same period.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe there's more than one factor at play? Actually, maybe we should just ask some climateologists why. They probably know more than we do. Unless they say something that you don't like - Then you should ignore them and just keep asking people till you get the answer you want.



bobclive22 said:


> The climate has always changed and always will throwing money at it won`t alter that.


In your opinion BobBot. But can you guess how much value I place on the opinion of an uneducated builder? Go on, have a guess. You want a hint?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You see, this is a prime example of the chaotic nature of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...Why Timber Towers Are On the Rise in France...
Click to expand...

Talk about illustrating my point... :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> I don't know. *Maybe there's more than one factor at play*? Actually, maybe we should just ask some climateologists why. They probably know more than we do. Unless they say something that you don't like - Then you should ignore them and just keep asking people till you get the answer you want.


Maybe there is, maybe it`s not the 0.04% of atmospheric CO2, maybe it`s the sun that glowing ball in the sky or the oceans that cover 72% of the planet.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I don't know. *Maybe there's more than one factor at play*?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe there is,
Click to expand...

Perfect. At least you accept this is possible.


----------



## bobclive22

*How Germany's Energiewende is destroying German society*

The Energiewende (German for energy) is the term used in Germany to describe the country's transition off of fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. It mostly relies on wind, solar and hydroelectric sources.

In this interview with Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the founders of the environmental movement in Germany and the Chairman of the German Wildlife Trust, describes how his country's new energy policy is not only splitting the environmentalist movement but destroying his country overall.






*Core data of the National Climate Assessment consists of a combination of imaginary and fraudulent data.*






Station data by year

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/


----------



## Spandex

BobBot, you do realise that doing your research on YouTube makes you look like a simpleton?

Actually, while we're here, what are your thoughts on whether or not man landed on the moon? Was 9/11 an inside job? Are 'chem-trails' real?


----------



## bobclive22

> BobBot, you do realise that doing your research on YouTube makes you look like a simpleton?


Here are a few old news articles, it appears the climate is always changing even at 350ppm of CO2.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/below350-org/


----------



## bobclive22

> BobBot, you do realise that doing your research on YouTube makes you look like a simpleton?


I didn`t do my research on You tube Spandex, I presented it in that format to make it easier for you to understand.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> BobBot, you do realise that doing your research on YouTube makes you look like a simpleton?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn`t do my research on You tube Spandex, I presented it in that format to make it easier for you to understand.
Click to expand...

Jesus! Did you actually think I was going to watch them??

Brilliant... :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Jesus! Did you actually think I was going to watch them??


It was an interview with a German environmentalist, I thought that would interest you as this post is a global warming post.

*The USCRN Revisited.*

This data is from state-of-the-art ultra-reliable triple redundant weather stations placed on pristine environments. As a result, these temperature data need none of the adjustments that plague the older surface temperature networks, such as USHCN and GHCN, which have been heavily adjusted to attempt corrections for a wide variety of biases. Using NOAA's own USCRN data, which eliminates all of the squabbles over the accuracy of and the adjustment of temperature data, we can get a *clear plot of pristine surface data.*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/ ... revisited/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/ ... -a-decade/

No statistically significant warming since the start of the record in 2005.

http://www.surfacestations.org/


----------



## Spandex

http://www.newsweek.com/daily-caller-ju ... bal-344262


----------



## Spandex

Oh, and I'm glad you trust the USCRN data, because it's been used to test the accuracy of the adjustments that must be applied to the unhomogenised historical data sets:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/unde ... ture-data/

Turns out the adjustments are pretty accurate.


----------



## John-H

:lol: well that sums it up for Bob.


----------



## Spandex

The problem is, it's actually quite rare to find rebuttals of specific denier arguments on the net. What tends to happen is:

1. Scientists publish some AGW supporting work.
2. Denier blogs around the world put together articles explaining why they think the work is rubbish.
3. Scientists carry on doing their job and don't get into internet arguments with bloggers.

So then you get the BobBots of this world who trawl sites like WUWT, where they know they won't ever have to read anything that challenges their existing views (but ironically, they feel that they're somehow better informed than the people who only ever read the guardian), and they see what appears to be a massive body of 'evidence' against AGW. In reality though, they're just reading an argument that the other side couldn't be arsed to turn up for, and imagining that it's the whole story.


----------



## John-H

Yes. That's very true. Good find.


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh, and I'm glad you trust the USCRN data, because it's been used to test the accuracy of the adjustments that must be applied to the unhomogenised historical data sets:
> 
> https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/unde ... ture-data/
> 
> Turns out the adjustments are pretty accurate.


Well it actually *turns out* it was a post by Zeke Hausfather, Skeptical blogs allow warmists to post, therefore it`s his post and his opinion, he writes for Carbon Brief, so not an impartial opinion by any means.
*
New study: Temperature Adjustments Account For 'Nearly All Of The Warming' In Government Climate Data*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/ ... mate-data/

*The study*

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com ... 062717.pdf


----------



## bobclive22

> :lol: well that sums it up for Bob.


Sums what up John, do you mean this-

*Weather station sites Met Office*

*Ideal site Level ground.*

No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements.

*Undesirable site*

Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature

Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind.

Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/m ... r-stations

Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area.
*
Heathrow is OK then John.* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> The problem is, it's actually quite rare to find rebuttals of specific denier arguments on the net. What tends to happen is:
> 
> 1. Scientists publish some AGW supporting work.
> 2. Denier blogs around the world put together articles explaining why they think the work is rubbish.
> 3. Scientists carry on doing their job and don't get into internet arguments with bloggers.
> 
> So then you get the BobBots of this world who trawl sites like WUWT, where they know they won't ever have to read anything that challenges their existing views (but ironically, they feel that they're somehow better informed than the people who only ever read the guardian), and they see what appears to be a massive body of 'evidence' against AGW. In reality though, they're just reading an argument that the other side couldn't be arsed to turn up for, and imagining that it's the whole story.


_
The problem is, it's actually quite rare to find rebuttals of specific denier arguments on the net._

Try Here Spandex you should really feel at home.

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/
http://scienceofdoom.wordpress.com/


----------



## John-H

You should be ashamed BoB for being shown to be peddling misinformation whilst pretending authority which you don't have. No apology. No humility. You instead skate right over your embarrassment to avoid addressing the issue and with blinkers on proceed to post more nonsense. I'm really quite tired of it now. Excuse me I think my sock drawer needs tidying :roll:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well it actually *turns out* it was a post by Zeke Hausfather, Skeptical blogs allow warmists to post, therefore it`s his post and his opinion, he writes for Carbon Brief, so not an impartial opinion by any means.


Is there something he's written that you'd like to address, or are you basing your argument purely on the fact that the author is a known AGW supporter? Isn't that basically like saying that you'll only listen to people who agree with you?



bobclive22 said:


> Try Here Spandex you should really feel at home.
> 
> http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science
> http://www.realclimate.org/
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/
> http://scienceofdoom.wordpress.com/


I think you may have misunderstood me. I know sites exist (and I'm sure I could find them myself if I was remotely interested), but as I said, they are rare. Particularly if you compare them to the number of denial sites.

Anyway, my main point was the rebuttal of your claim that USCRN data shows no temperature increase. Do you have any comment on that?


----------



## bobclive22

> Anyway, my main point was the rebuttal of your claim that USCRN data shows no temperature increase. Do you have any comment on that?
Click to expand...

It starts in 2005.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-prec ... 7&month=12



> Is there something he's written that you'd like to address, or are you basing your argument purely on the fact that the author is a known AGW supporter? Isn't that basically like saying that you'll only listen to people who agree with you?


Spandex the USCRN is a network of weather stations that are *pristine *and that *BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE AGREE ON*, they started at 2005, prior to that date you had this, don`t be a total idiot, or do you think this is a good old rural site.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... _above.jpg


----------



## bobclive22

> You should be ashamed BoB for being shown to be peddling misinformation whilst pretending authority which you don't have. No apology. No humility. You instead skate right over your embarrassment to avoid addressing the issue and with blinkers on proceed to post more nonsense. I'm really quite tired of it now. Excuse me I think my sock drawer needs tidying :roll


:

Here is some of your nonsense John.

The Met Office is wedded to Man made global warming and love to promote the hottest day ever, the odd thing is they invariably quote 2 weather stations, Heath Row airport and Graves end Broadness temperaturs for these high values.
As Graves end Broadness is NOT an international climate station and has only been in existence since 1995 and is in the undesirable siting section of the Met office publication it seems bizarre that this weather station is quoted by the Met office as indicating the hottest temperature ever in the UK, It is also strange that Heathrow airport another poorly sited weather station (according to the Met Office) is also regularly used when it shows the highest temperature.

I as a Skeptic question why the Met Office rely on these two weather stations when temps are high instead of using the numerous RURAL stations they have which would give a more realistic indication of the actual UK temperature.

You Spandex are probably willing to accept anything the Met Office tells you.

The you tube video shows the weather station siting at Graves end which the Met Office did not want the public to see. The other link indicates and describes the location of the Heathrow airport sensor.






https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/m ... r-stations

This looks like a good old rural site ideal for a Met Office weather station, not quite like the one shown in the met Office brochure though.

https://weatheraction.files.wordpress.c ... 572653.jpg
Is it jet engines or CO2 that`s caused the warming.

http://www.wings900.com/vb/general-squa ... -pics.html

This blog gives links to all the data for anyone to check, no advocacy just the facts.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... g-weather/

Wittering RAF Base, another one of the Met Offices preferred rural sites.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.w ... mage14.png


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Anyway, my main point was the rebuttal of your claim that USCRN data shows no temperature increase. Do you have any comment on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It starts in 2005.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume from that comment that you didn't actually read the link I posted. Or you read it and completely missed the entire point of their argument.


bobclive22 said:


> Is there something he's written that you'd like to address, or are you basing your argument purely on the fact that the author is a known AGW supporter? Isn't that basically like saying that you'll only listen to people who agree with you?
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex the USCRN is a network of weather stations that are *pristine *and that *BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE AGREE ON*, they started at 2005, prior to that date you had this, don`t be a total idiot, or do you think this is a good old rural site.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... _above.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume from that comment that you didn't actually read the link I posted. Or you read it and completely missed the entire point of their argument.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The you tube video shows the weather station siting at Graves end which the Met Office did not want the public to see. The other link indicates and describes the location of the Heathrow airport sensor.


BobBot the liar returns. You can't help yourself, can you. When you say "which the Met Office did not want the public to see" what exactly did you mean? Because you seem to have linked to a video showing how you can simply walk right up to the fecking thing, and it's clearly marked on google maps. Basically, you just made it up to make it sound like a conspiracy because you think nothing of using a few little lies to help your argument.

As for all this 'Met Office preferred sites' nonsense, you do realise that the Met Office placed their weather stations at airports and airbases because historically they have provided aviation weather reports, don't you? There's no cock up, or deliberate manipulation here. If people want to use the data from these stations for long term climate monitoring, then they will need to homogenise it like they would for any of the historical data that wasn't homogenised by design because it wasn't intended for these purposes. If people want to take the raw data from one of these sites and announce that we've had a very hot day, then I'm afraid the most outrage I can muster is:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> You should be ashamed ...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some of your nonsense John.
> 
> The Met Office ...
Click to expand...

No, that was a complaint about your nonsense followed inconsiderately by more of your nonsense Bob.... I've not read any of your links because to do so would be like a broken pencil ........ pointless.


----------



## bobclive22

> BobBot the liar returns. You can't help yourself, can you. When you say "which the Met Office did not want the public to see" what exactly did you mean?







This photo of *Gravesend* is from a Royal Meteorological Society publication, *they apparently didn't want the world to see the other nearby issues related to the radar station.*

Does that answer your question Spandex, compare that to the video.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Does that answer your question Spandex, compare that to the video.


BobBot, they're taking a photo of the weather station, not the radar system. So why would they take it from an angle that included an irrelevant piece of equipment?

Either you're a liar or a moron. I genuinely can't work out which.


----------



## bobclive22

> BobBot, they're taking a photo of the weather station, not the radar system. So why would they take it from an angle that included an irrelevant piece of equipment?
> 
> Either you're a liar or a moron. I genuinely can't work out which.


Silly boy Spandex, they didn`t want the general public to see that other equipment close to the weather station as it absorbs heat and raises the immediate temperature, the weather station is also sited in a hollow, haven`t done your homework have you, whose a moron now.

I see the BBC have been at it again, *sea levels rising in Miami at 10 times the global mean*, it was all garbage can you believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-re ... tone270317


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> whose a moron now.


Still you.

So BobBot, which temperature does that small metal structure and concrete pad raise? The raw measurement or the homogenised one?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I see the BBC have been at it again, *sea levels rising in Miami at 10 times the global mean*, it was all garbage can you believe.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-re ... tone270317


Are we talking about the science or the media reporting? Are we really going to start trawling the net for misrepresented climate information? I mean, you're already a very tedious man, BobBot, but this could be a new low.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Silly boy Spandex, they didn`t want the general public to see that other equipment close to the weather station as it absorbs heat and raises the immediate temperature, the weather station is also sited in a hollow, haven`t done your homework have you, whose a moron now.


Some other equipment nearby absorbs heat but then raises the immediate temperature? Which is it? You do realize that it's not possible to absorb convected heat to a separate object in an open system? You could absorb radiated infra red heat I suppose - is your weather station festoned with infra red lamps?

You obviously didn't question that - or did you not explain properly?

Tell me exactly how the mechanism you refer to works. I bet you don't.


----------



## Spandex

Ignoring all the obvious flaws in his 'reasoning', I do love how he's managed to construct an entire conspiracy based on a single photo. That the site is clearly marked on maps, publicly accessible and well known seems not to factor into it.

"The site they didn't want the world to see (but completely forgot to hide)!"


----------



## bobclive22

> "The site they didn't want the world to see (but completely forgot to hide)!"
> 
> Some other equipment nearby absorbs heat but then raises the immediate temperature? Which is it? You do realize that it's not possible to absorb convected heat to a separate object in an open system? You could absorb radiated infra red heat I suppose - is your weather station festoned with infra red lamps?


The top pic is the actual location and all the nearby steel, concrete and brick infrastructure which should not be anywhere near the temperature sensor.
The sensor should as I have already shown be sited in a rural area away from any man made objects that are likely to effect the sensor. If you place your hand on the steel work on a hot summers day it would feel far hotter than the side of the Stevenson screen and would effect the temperature the sensor inside that screen was reading.

The bottom pic is the* official pic from the Met office* which does not show the true situation regarding the position of the sensor.

On a hot, sunny summers day, roofs, pavement, brickwork, steel work etc become hotter than the surrounding air, while shaded or moist surfaces-often in more rural surroundings-remain close to air temperatures. These are surface urban heat islands and can be significantly warmer than rural areas.

Will that do.


----------



## Spandex

Out of interest BobBot, is this site used for global climate measurements, or just Met Office weather data? Because a lot of your complaints seem to be about how it's always reported in the press as "the hottest day ever!" because of this site.

I imagine you're constantly outraged that people bang on about how hot it is in London:

*The BobBot:* "But all the buildings and concrete skew the temperature measurement! If it was all a massive field it would be cooler!"
*Everyone in London:* "it's not a massive field, so it is hotter, you bellend"

Still, if you could answer my question above, that would be great: "which temperature does that small metal structure and concrete pad raise? The raw measurement or the homogenised one?"


----------



## bobclive22

> Out of interest BobBot, is this site used for global climate measurements, or just Met Office weather data? Because a lot of your complaints seem to be about how it's always reported in the press as "the hottest day ever!" because of this site.
> 
> I imagine you're constantly outraged that people bang on about how hot it is in London:
> 
> The BobBot: "But all the buildings and concrete skew the temperature measurement! If it was all a massive field it would be cooler!"
> Everyone in London: "it's not a massive field, so it is hotter, you bellend"
> 
> Still, if you could answer my question above, that would be great: "which temperature does that small metal structure and concrete pad raise? The raw measurement or the homogenised one?"


No Spandex it is not part of the Global network it`s a propaganda station aimed at people like you, it`s quoted by the Met office to reinforce your belief in AGW.

_The BobBot: "But all the buildings and concrete skew the temperature measurement!_

That`s right Spandex you`ve got it.

_which temperature does that small metal structure and concrete pad raise? The raw measurement or the homogenised one? _

Well it can`t be homogenised before it`s actually been taken so I leave you to figure that one out.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No Spandex it is not part of the Global network it`s a propaganda station aimed at people like you, it`s quoted by the Met office to reinforce your belief in AGW.


Idiot.




bobclive22 said:


> _The BobBot: "But all the buildings and concrete skew the temperature measurement!_
> 
> That`s right Spandex you`ve got it.


It's strange how both you and I have 'got it', yet you're convinced a load of climatelolgists have overlooked it, isn't it. Unbelievable, some might say.



bobclive22 said:


> _which temperature does that small metal structure and concrete pad raise? The raw measurement or the homogenised one? _
> 
> Well it can`t be homogenised before it`s actually been taken so I leave you to figure that one out.


Don't worry, I'd already figured it out. It was a rhetorical question aimed at highlighting the sheer idiocy of your argument. As if it needed highlighting. :roll:


----------



## Spandex

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the tiny radar building is too small to have any effect on the temperature measurements.

Ever noticed how you always suddenly feel hotter as you walk past an isolated farm building in the countryside? No, me neither.


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh, and I forgot to mention, the tiny radar building is too small to have any effect on the temperature measurements.


It`s all the steel, concrete and brick structures within close proximity of the sensor Spandex, or Perhaps the Met office managed by chance to place their thermometer on the hottest spot in the UK.


----------



## bobclive22

> Ever noticed how you always suddenly feel hotter as you walk past an isolated farm building in the countryside? No, me neither.


Ever noticed how the temperature drops when driving from the city into the countryside.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Ever noticed how you always suddenly feel hotter as you walk past an isolated farm building in the countryside? No, me neither.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever noticed how the temperature drops when driving from the city into the countryside.
Click to expand...

Is the gravesend station in a city BobBot? If not, why mention it? Are you hoping to imply that the effect from a few buildings is comparable to the effect from a city? Stop being a tit.


----------



## bobclive22

> Is the gravesend station in a city BobBot? If not, why mention it? Are you hoping to imply that the effect from a few buildings is comparable to the effect from a city? Stop being a tit.


Stupid question, that`s why you are at the bottom of the pile.

Spandex, brickwork, steel and concrete retain heat if you place a thermometer near to those types of structures and then place that same thermometer in an open field the readings will be different, I leave it with you to figure out which thermometer will read higher and where. Any type or size of structure near to the sensor will effect the temperature reading and in one direction only.

_Ideal site_
Level ground.

*This site is in a hollow*

No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements.

*This site has man made sructures nearby *

*Undesirable site*

Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature
Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind.

Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations.
Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area.


----------



## Spandex

Right... you ARE hoping to imply the effect from a few scattered buildings is the same. BobBot, you're a simpleton. The only problem is, you're too dumb to understand how dumb you are. You genuinely think you're clever. It's laughable.

There are very few buildings anywhere near that site. What there is will have no measurable effect on measurements, let alone the dramatic effect you're claiming.

And all this ignores the fact that this site is supposed to tell us the temperature in gravesend which happens to be a built up area. What would be the point of finding a rural site nowhere near any of the buildings in gravesend? You don't measure the temperature for London using a weather station in rural Essex.

You're clutching at straws because that's all you've got. You're actually sitting here arguing about a weather station near London that has nothing to do with global climate measurements. Does that not strike you as a bit ridiculous? A bit desperate? This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. They pick away at tiny little details because they can't hope to address the whole issue.


----------



## bobclive22

> You're clutching at straws because that's all you've got. You're actually sitting here arguing about a weather station near London that has nothing to do with global climate measurements. Does that not strike you as a bit ridiculous? A bit desperate? This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. They pick away at tiny little details because they can't hope to address the whole issue.


But it makes the front pages of the MSM, it`s aimed directly at true believer`s such as you Spandex, if it has nothing to do with Global climate measurements why give it such Prominence, especially by the BBC and the Guardian.

Here is another scientific study (just for you Spandex) by the true believer so called scientists,

*Climate change may be making bearded dragons less intelligent* :? :?

(Phys.org)-A team of researchers affiliated with the University of Lincoln in the U.K. has found evidence suggesting that as the planet heats up due to global warming, the bearded dragon may become less intelligent. In their paper published in the journal Royal Society Open Science,

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-climate-b ... t.html#jCp


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> But it makes the front pages of the MSM, it`s aimed directly at true believer`s such as you Spandex, if it has nothing to do with Global climate measurements why give it such Prominence, especially by the BBC and the Guardian.


Its a bloody *weather* station, you idiot! On their website they talk about the *ideal* placement for weather monitoring stations, but 'ideal' means just that - it's a list of ideal conditions, that should be aimed for when choosing a site. But *clearly* you can't put a weather station in an 'ideal' position if you're trying to monitor the weather in a built up area because there is no ideal position in a built up area. You have to compromise, and given how built up gravesend is, I'd say that weather station is about as 'rural' as you can get.

So when they say London is the hottest place in the uk one day, they're not lying or being sensational or even being scientifically inaccurate. It really *is* the hottest place. What do you want them to do? Pretend it's not that hot there just because the heat is partly due to the fact there are lots of buildings in London??

Now BobBot, I've got a serious question to ask you. I know we've argued on here and traded a few insults, but I'd like to put that aside for a moment. This is important and I don't want our personal feelings to get in the way of you giving me an honest answer -

Are you a bearded dragon?


----------



## bobclive22

All in the name of the green lobby and CO2.

https://news.sky.com/story/long-read-gr ... s-11146108

You will get the same again when your smart meter tells you to run your cloths drier at night while you are asleep.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> All in the name of the green lobby and CO2.
> 
> https://news.sky.com/story/long-read-gr ... s-11146108
> 
> You will get the same again when your smart meter tells you to run your cloths drier at night while you are asleep.


Typical BobBot misdirection...

The issue with fire safety is the use of inappropriate insulation to save costs, not the use of insulation per se. Linking this to the green lobby or CO reduction is deliberately misrepresenting the issue.


----------



## bobclive22

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide, the main source of greenhouse gases.

It appears it`s the intellectual types (well they believe they are intercultural) like you Spandex, that believe in this man made climate change rubbish.

Even UN delegates signed the petition to ban water.


----------



## bobclive22

It looks different when the pie chart includes water vapour, wonder why they left it off, actually a pie chart including water vapour is like trying to find hens teeth.

http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.AtmComposition


----------



## Spandex

When you look back at these two posts, do you feel like you've put forward a coherent point?

Are you saying that CO2 is a much smaller portion of the atmosphere than water vapour, therefore its effect isn't worth worrying about? Is there some scientific basis for that theory, or are you just giving the scientific community the benefit of your 'common sense'?


----------



## bobclive22

> When you look back at these two posts, do you feel like you've put forward a coherent point?
> 
> Are you saying that CO2 is a much smaller portion of the atmosphere than water vapour, therefore its effect isn't worth worrying about? Is there some scientific basis for that theory, or are you just giving the scientific community the benefit of your 'common sense'?


No Spandex, it shows that water vapour has been omitted from the discussion, the two pie graphs have a large visual impact on young minds, the right hand graph gives the impression that CO2 is the largest most important and powerful greenhouse gas when it certainly is not. The only reason the planet has an average temperature I believe of around 17 degrees C is water vapour, co2 gives only minor added warmth. without water vapour and clouds there would be no life on earth.

So the right hand pie graph should be replaced with the graph above which shows the actual volumes of the most important greenhouse gasses.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No Spandex, it shows that water vapour has been omitted from the discussion, the two pie graphs have a large visual impact on young minds, the right hand graph gives the impression that CO2 is the largest most important and powerful greenhouse gas when it certainly is not. The only reason the planet has an average temperature I believe of around 17 degrees C is water vapour, co2 gives only minor added warmth. without water vapour and clouds there would be no life on earth.
> 
> So the right hand pie graph should be replaced with the graph above which shows the actual volumes of the most important greenhouse gasses.


BobBot, the vast majority of climate scientists believe that climate change is happening and that it is largely influenced by mankind. Those scientists already know exactly how much water vapour is in the atmosphere, and how much effect it has. They seem to believe the CO2 creates a positive feedback loop that amplifies the effect of water vapour, for what it's worth.

So, are you suggesting that they have misunderstood something that you, a poorly educated builder, has worked out by looking on the internet? Is that actually what you're asking us to believe? If so, do you think that's a compelling argument?


----------



## John-H

Carbon dioxide is non condensible and lasts indefinitely whereas water vapour can condense back to the oceans in days. Just because water vapour, with its larger quantity at any time, has a bigger greenhouse effect ignores the fact that the amount of water vapour is controlled by the non condensible greenhouse gasses which raise temperatures in the first place. The water vapour follows. This might help you Bob:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallsh ... b06873238f

As it says, oversimplification is a dangerous thing. 

See this too: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... house-gas/


----------



## bobclive22

> They seem to believe the CO2 creates a positive feedback loop that amplifies the effect of water vapour, for what it's worth.


I think you may have it the wrong way round Spandex, by the way NASA has a satellite that tracts water vapour in the atmosphere, it appears there has been no net gain in water vapour even though there has been a slight rise in temperature over the period, that would suggest there is no positive feed back due to this slight warming from CO2.

Scientists, however, have been measuring relative humidity for many decades. Rather than keeping pace with modestly warming temperatures, relative humidity is declining. This decline has been ongoing, without interruption, for more than 60 years. After more than six decades of consistent data, we can say with strong confidence that absolute humidity is not rising rapidly enough for relative humidity to keep pace with warming temperatures.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... dcd6283d88

New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative
Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... -made.html

My post was regarding the misleading pie charts.


----------



## bobclive22

> Carbon dioxide is non condensible and lasts indefinitely whereas water vapour can condense back to the oceans in days. Just because water vapour, with its larger quantity at any time, has a bigger greenhouse effect ignores the fact that the amount of water vapour is controlled by the non condensible greenhouse gasses which raise temperatures in the first place. The water vapour follows. This might help you Bob:


Read my above post John, *NO net gain in water vapour since records begain 60 years ago* so no positive feedback, have you forgot about clouds John.

John, the alarmist position totally relies on the positive feedback of water vapour which appears not to be happening.

New Study Confirms: The Warming 'Pause' Is Real And Revealing

https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-confi ... revealing/


----------



## bobclive22

> BobBot, the vast majority of climate scientists believe that climate change is happening and that it is largely influenced by mankind.


Every scientist agrees with that statement Spandex other than the word LARGELY.


----------



## bobclive22

Illecillewaet Glacier melting, is this CO2, you don`t see this in the Guardian.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> My post was regarding the misleading pie charts.


I was trying to do you a favour by ignoring that nonsense. You just ignore all the scientists findings and bang on about some pie chart. The pie chart isn't the science. It's irrelevant, unless you're a denier who's desperately hunting around for stuff to attack.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> BobBot, the vast majority of climate scientists believe that climate change is happening and that it is largely influenced by mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Every scientist agrees with that statement Spandex other than the word LARGELY.
Click to expand...

How exciting.


----------



## 3TT3

So are we the virus then?
Aside from when the plague,a couple of world wars and the flu took out a big % of the worlds population.its increasing
Living in igloos isnt going to do it.
We radiate heat to survive, the food we eat does it too n so on.
Aside from goin to "logans run", sterilisation,the premise in kingsmen or inferno (mass culling of the human race):I personally am not going to be going all greeny for future generations..whether the warming is cyclical or not. 
"soylent green is people!


----------



## John-H

3TT3 said:


> So are we the virus then?
> Aside from when the plague,a couple of world wars and the flu took out a big % of the worlds population.its increasing
> Living in igloos isnt going to do it.
> We radiate heat to survive, the food we eat does it too n so on.
> Aside from goin to "logans run", sterilisation,the premise in kingsmen or inferno (mass culling of the human race):I personally am not going to be going all greeny for future generations..whether the warming is cyclical or not.
> "soylent green is people!


It's easier to understand what you say about cars.


----------



## Shug750S

Noticed it's a lot milder today than the past few days.

So definitely proof of global warming this week. :x


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Carbon dioxide is non condensible and lasts indefinitely whereas water vapour can condense back to the oceans in days. Just because water vapour, with its larger quantity at any time, has a bigger greenhouse effect ignores the fact that the amount of water vapour is controlled by the non condensible greenhouse gasses which raise temperatures in the first place. The water vapour follows. This might help you Bob:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my above post John, *NO net gain in water vapour since records begain 60 years ago* so no positive feedback, have you forgot about clouds John.
> 
> John, the alarmist position totally relies on the positive feedback of water vapour which appears not to be happening.
> 
> New Study Confirms: The Warming 'Pause' Is Real And Revealing
> 
> https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-confi ... revealing/
Click to expand...

Bob, you twist and turn like a twisty turney thing. One minute you say that global warming has more to do with water vapour and CO2 has a small effect in comparison, then the next minute you say there has been no mean change in water vapour as if to show it has no effect [smiley=dizzy2.gif]

You cite mean global levels of water vapour as an indicator but that just shows again the danger of over simplification.

Water vapour in the atmosphere is a dynamic system of evaporation from hot areas over water, wind transport of invisible and visible water vapour, condensation (remember clouds?) and precipitation. Everybody knows that warmer air is capable of containing more water vapour but it's also capable of being dried by condensation against colder surfaces.

As the earth gets hotter it's possible to imagine that the equator picking up more water vapour (more water vapour!), the winds being stronger and more rain falling as the air dries against colder zones - a more dynamic weather system in response but with a mean average water vapour level being relatively constant - so mean is not helpful here is it Bob? Also presuming you can measure it reliably in three dimensions.

Remember as I said CO2 is non condensing and lasts indefinitely but water vapour is condensing often within hours.

Basically CO2 gives a permanent change but it's warning effect is amplified by approximately a factor of two by water vapour in the atmosphere - but water vapour is condensing and itself has it's own dynamic feedback system - that's called weather. Where it's hot the water vapour can increase to higher peaks but it gets dried in this dynamic so the mean is a misleading thing to look at.

This may help: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Bob, you twist and turn like a twisty turney thing. One minute you say that global warming has more to do with water vapour and CO2 has a small effect in comparison, then the next minute you say there has been no mean change in water vapour as if to show it has no effect [smiley=dizzy2.gif]


This is the problem. He's not got a consistent theory about what is happening, he's just randomly attacking every small detail in the hope that by discrediting one of them he can cause the whole lot to come toppling down. But he doesn't care if every counter argument he puts forward has any kind of overall consistency. He doesn't care if he contradicts something he said 10 posts ago.

He's not remotely interested in the climate, or what's happening to it - he just wants to prove that it's not being affected by humans because he's ideologically/politically against the action that would be required if AGW was true.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, you twist and turn like a twisty turney thing. One minute you say that global warming has more to do with water vapour and CO2 has a small effect in comparison, then the next minute you say there has been no mean change in water vapour as if to show it has no effect [smiley=dizzy2.gif]


John I believe this is how it works,

*The IPCC's greenhouse theory.* Increasing CO2 absorbs some of the upwards radiation from the surface, and then re-emits it back toward earth. This has the effect of increasing earth's atmospheric temperature as outgoing longwave infrared radiation (OLWIR) which is reduced by increasing quantities of CO2. As *water vapour is the main greenhouse gas*, the IPCC models propose that positive feedbacks dominate. This is where some warming leads to increased water vapour, and as water vapour is the main greenhouse gas this increases the greenhouse effect, this further lowers OLWIR, and further increases the temperature.

The problem for the true believers John is that according to NOOA, *water vapor has fallen by 10%*, Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor decreased precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where it would have the biggest effects on climate.

This means John that there can be no catastrophic warming as there is NO added water vapour in the atmosphere to cause it, you are left with only the slight warming due to rising CO2, there can be NO positive feed back from water vapour as there has been NO increase in water vapour to cause this modeled feed back. The only thing that has changed is there is now a little more CO2 in the atmosphere which has caused the recent greening of the planet.


----------



## bobclive22

> He's not remotely interested in the climate, or what's happening to it - he just wants to prove that it's not being affected by humans because he's ideologically/politically against the action that would be required if AGW was true.


Did SUV`s cause these glaciers to recede Spandex,

Illecillewaet glacier ice loss.

The middle photo of the three is dated Aug 4th 1950.

What caused the warming around 1880, history Spandex study your history.

*NASA Dramatic glacier melt *

There's nothing quite like historical photos of glaciers to show what a dynamic planet we live on. Alaska's Muir Glacier, like many Alaskan glaciers, has retreated and thinned dramatically since the 19th century.

This particular pair of images shows the glacier's continued retreat and thinning in the *second half of the 20th century*. From 1941 to 2004, the front of the glacier moved back about seven miles while its thickness decreased by more than 2,625 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

While historical photos like these show change over many decades, satellites are giving us a better understanding of how Earth's ice cover has changed in the more recent past. The satellite era, beginning in the 1970s, has given us a picture of accelerating ice changes in places like Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica, where the loss of land-based ice is contributing to global sea level rise.

You see Spandex they left out that middle photo giving the impression that the ice loss was down to those USV`s,

This is why I am a skeptic.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/


----------



## bobclive22

> Basically CO2 gives a permanent change but it's warning effect is amplified by approximately a factor of two by water vapour in the atmosphere - but water vapour is condensing and itself has it's own dynamic feedback system - that's called weather. Where it's hot the water vapour can increase to higher peaks but it gets dried in this dynamic so the mean is a misleading thing to look at.


John there has been little warming since 1998, it was called the pause, it`s well documented yet during that same period CO2 has been increasing which according to the IPCC should have caused an increase in water vapour it *hasn`t.*.

*July 2004*

*A NASA-funded study *found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

Their work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, *but it may be weaker than we expected*," Minschwaner said.

2014 Nasa states 10% less water vapour in atmosphere.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/looki ... idity.html


----------



## John-H

Bob you are clutching at straws, some of which are provided by those with a political interest and you are lapping it up. Did you not look at the NASA report summary I provided. It says that a three dimensional water vapour survey with enough accuracy has only recently been possible meaning that your past trend mean data is flawed. In fact it is flawed for another reason and that is due to the dynamic weather cycle - the mean you previously provided is only a mean of the old data and not a thorough 3D global mean. The dynamic cycle is in play to regulate the points you are looking at! It would not then be surprising the mean was constant.

You now seen to be claiming however that water vapour has gone down by 10%! Are you now claming that the planet is cooling?

Get a grip Bob and face the fact that there are far more clever people dealing with the climate than you. We know that too so we don't trust your reasoning when you try to make climate arguments. The mearest bit of Google research and scientific understanding proves you wrong time after time.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Did SUV`s cause these glaciers to recede Spandex,
> 
> Blah blah blah photos..
> 
> Blah blah glaciers


What are you hoping to prove here? AGW isn't real because someone posted a misleading photo or pie chart? Really BobBot??

This is exactly what I mean - you're just firefighting. You're desperately trying to discredit every piece of information you can find using google because that's all your little brain can understand. There is a massive body of scientific writing out there which supports the theory, but you keep banging on about internet articles and photos and fecking pie fecking charts.

In fact, it occurs to me that you're not even capable of doing that. You're not searching for AGW info, then constructing a counter argument. You're just trawling denier websites to find articles where they've done all the leg work for you, then regurgitating it here - *then* pretending you're knowledgable on the subject. That's why you do so much copying and pasting. You're not smart enough to form a coherent argument yourself (whenever you try to go it alone you end up rambling and misunderstanding/mishearing stuff).


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob you are clutching at straws, some of which are provided by those with a political interest and you are lapping it up. Did you not look at the NASA report summary I provided. It says that a three dimensional water vapour survey with enough accuracy has only recently been possible meaning that your past trend mean data is flawed. In fact it is flawed for another reason and that is due to the dynamic weather cycle - the mean you previously provided is only a mean of the old data and not a thorough 3D global mean. The dynamic cycle is in play to regulate the points you are looking at! It would not then be surprising the mean was constant.
> 
> You now seen to be claiming however that water vapour has gone down by 10%! Are you now claming that the planet is cooling?


Is an 18 year pause while CO2 was still increasing good enough .

The *latest *study states there has been NO increased water vapour in the atmosphere, weather balloon data verifies that fact, without an increase in water vapour there can be no positive feed back, if that actually exists.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot ... de_19.html

I posted these links and have received no response, what caused the warming from 1887.

Regarding water vapour, if it had increased I am sure we would all have heard about it as proof of the illusive positive feed back.

*New paper on Global Water Vapor puts climate modelers in a bind (2012)*

Forrest Mimms III writes via email:

This paper is a bit sketchy and needs filling out. Nevertheless, it's quite possibly *the most significant water vapor paper in a decade.*

The key finding of this paper is the time series in Fig. 4(c), which bears a rough resemblance to my time series over nearly the same time.This time series is devastating to the modeler's assumptions about the positive feedback of water vapor in a world with steadily rising CO2 levels.

The modelers have no explanation for why temperature and PW across the SE USA have actually declined during the last century. The explanation is likely a combination of at least three factors:

1. Global warming is best described as regional warming.

2. ENSO and other natural cycles play a major role.

3. How can we trust the global temperature record when (as shown by you, Watts, et al.) so many stations are improperly situated, especially as urbanization has arrived or surrounded them.

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ ... t-al-2012/


----------



## bobclive22

> What are you hoping to prove here? AGW isn't real because someone posted a misleading photo or pie chart? Really BobBot??


Did CO2 cause the 1887 warming of the ILLECILLEWAET glacier.



> Global Warming has no impact on Himalayas claims Wadia Director


It appears Global warming isn`t Global, dosn`t seem to have occurred in the US either, I believe the 1930`s are still record years.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100411080 ... 15763.aspx

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ ... t-al-2012/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> What are you hoping to prove here? AGW isn't real because someone posted a misleading photo or pie chart? Really BobBot??
> 
> 
> 
> Did CO2 cause the 1887 warming of the ILLECILLEWAET glacier.
Click to expand...

Well, I would think you should really ask the scientists who disagree with you. But, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that there are probably lots of things that cause glaciers to melt. I suspect that glaciers sometimes melted long before we started affecting the climate. Obviously I'm just speculating, as I'm not a climate scientist like you.



bobclive22 said:


> Global Warming has no impact on Himalayas claims Wadia Director
> 
> 
> 
> It appears Global warming isn`t Global, dosn`t seem to have occurred in the US either, I believe the 1930`s are still record years.
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20100411080 ... 15763.aspx
> 
> https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ ... t-al-2012/
Click to expand...

OMG! You've found some people who think AGW isn't happening! That's amazing BobBot! I mean, it doesn't matter if the majority of the worlds climate experts think it is happening, as long as you can find a handful of people who disagree, I just can't see how anyone could argue with that. JohnH, you might as well close the thread. BobBot has got this one in the bag!

You do crack me up BobBot.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Bob you are clutching at straws, some of which are provided by those with a political interest and you are lapping it up. Did you not look at the NASA report summary I provided. It says that a three dimensional water vapour survey with enough accuracy has only recently been possible meaning that your past trend mean data is flawed. In fact it is flawed for another reason and that is due to the dynamic weather cycle - the mean you previously provided is only a mean of the old data and not a thorough 3D global mean. The dynamic cycle is in play to regulate the points you are looking at! It would not then be surprising the mean was constant.
> 
> You now seen to be claiming however that water vapour has gone down by 10%! Are you now claming that the planet is cooling?
> 
> 
> 
> Is an 18 year pause while CO2 was still increasing good enough .
> 
> The *latest *study states there has been NO increased water vapour in the atmosphere, weather balloon data verifies that fact, without an increase in water vapour there can be no positive feed back, if that actually exists. ....
> 
> Bla bla .... repeated regurgitation of pointless mean water vapour data .. .... Bla bla ... dogmatic blinkered misunderstanding...
> Bla bla ... not listening ... too busy cutting and pasting...
Click to expand...

What I was telling you about mean water vapour level being an unhelpful thing to look at because the movement of water vapour in a weather system being self regulatory seems to have entirely gone over your head Bob :roll:

CO2 caused global warming gaining feedback from water vapour as a greenhouse gas can occur within a dynamic self regulating weather system (bigger peaks and troughs) without the mean level of water vapour being measured being affected. That's what you are not understanding. You are entirely being mislead by use of a mean and attempting (very unwittingly) to mislead others.


----------



## bobclive22

> CO2 caused global warming gaining feedback from water vapour as a greenhouse gas can occur within a dynamic self regulating weather system (bigger peaks and troughs) without the mean level of water vapour being measured being affected. That's what you are not understanding. You are entirely being mislead by use of a mean and attempting (very unwittingly) to mislead others.


It appears John that to get this positive feedback water vapour *has to increase* in the atmosphere, according to the latest satellite data from Nasa there is *no increase *therefore no feedback. By the way, there is also NO hotspot in the upper troposphere either which is supposedly the main indicator of Man made global warming.

*The (missing) hot spot in the tropics*

_Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere. The reason for this is quite simple.

More warming at the surface means more evaporation and more convection. Higher in the troposphere the (extra) water vapour condenses and heat is released. Calculations with GCMs show that the lower troposphere warms about 1.2 times faster than the surface. For the tropics, where most of the moist is, the amplification is larger, about 1.4._

*Nasa funded study. *

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result," Dessler said. "So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, *the associated increase in water vapor *will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

I think John he is saying that there needs to be more water vapour entering the atmosphere for this feedback to happen.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html 17/11/2008

*NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/ ... ter-vapor/ 6/3/2013

*Some history,*

*European summer temperatures since Roman times * J Luterbacher et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett.11 024001

The warmer medieval period was followed by relatively cold summer conditions, persisting into the 19th century, with a
notable return to somewhat warmer conditions during the middle portion of the 16th century. Finally, the reconstruction reproduces the pronounced instrumentally observed warming in the early and late part of the 20th century. *The warmest century in both the CPS and BHM reconstructions is the 1st century CE for BHM also the 10th century*.It is *0.2°C warmer
than the 20th century *and multiple testing reveals the difference is not statistically significant.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 024001/pdf

*The effects of CO2 emissions are less than thought.*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z50VoaZFrI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/ ... 1IvJgSrBI=


----------



## bobclive22

John this is how the ground temperatures are adjusted.

http://euanmearns.com/the-horrors-of-homogenization/


----------



## John-H

Bob, can you understand that if more water vapour enters the atmosphere e.g. faster rate and more water vapour leaves at the same faster rate that the amount at any one time in the the atmosphere is the same? Can you grasp that possibility? This is like more extreme weather.

Imagine a fixed length of hose pipe - you turn the tap on more, the water goes through faster but it's the same size pipe so same amount in the pipe at any one time.

Do you see how the mean amount can remain constant?

Now imagine a row of nails on a wall three foot off the ground. You lay the hose pipe along these nails - the water's average height is three foot.

Now you add a row of nails at four foot and at two foot in between - you zig zag the hose pipe between the two foot and four foot nails crossing each original three foot high nail.

Do you see how the mean level of water is still at three foot but the peaks and troughs are more extreme?

You could add five and one foot nail rows. You get a bigger zig zag. You can go straight between high nails for a bit then dive to lower ones for an equal bit too and still maintain the same mean.

Can you see that the mean level is misleading as to the flow rate and the amount of water reaching what levels around that mean?

The NASA report I gave you included a graph showing peaks and troughs. The higher peaks being at the equator where it picks up more water vapour and energy. Think about it a bit more dynamically. I hope that helps with realisation


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John this is how the ground temperatures are adjusted.
> 
> http://euanmearns.com/the-horrors-of-homogenization/


BobBot, let me break this down into simple terms.

There are (broadly) two camps. One says that AGW is real, the other says it is not. It therefore follows that there are articles and studies published supporting both sides. So, when you post articles supporting your position, the only thing you're proving is that articles supporting your position exist. As I mention above, we already know this. You're adding nothing.

What you need to ask yourself is, given that articles and studies exist supporting both sides, why do the majority of climate scientists believe AGW exists? They've read all the serious studies which disagree with their position, yet they still believe it. They have all the information you've posted. They still believe AGW exists.

In summary, most of the people who know a great deal more about this than either of us don't think your argument is compelling. So why do you expect me to find it compelling?


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, can you understand that if more water vapour enters the atmosphere e.g. faster rate and more water vapour leaves at the same faster rate that the amount at any one time in the the atmosphere is the same? Can you grasp that possibility? This is like more extreme weather.


The AGW theory, The water vapor feedback mechanism works in the following way, as the atmosphere warms supposedly due to the increase in carbon dioxide, water vapor increases, trapping more heat in the atmosphere, which in turn causes a further increase in water vapor.

John, if water vapour increases at a faster rate and leaves at the same rate there is equilibrium, there is *NO increase*, therefore the same volume can`t trap more heat, for positive feedback by water vapour to occur there needs to be more of it, *there is not*. Without this supposed positive feedback the slight warming from CO2 is only *beneficial*, Nasa states the planet is greening because of this extra CO2, more food for the worlds growing population.

CO2 is a small player, more water vapour in the atmosphere will also form clouds which are a negative feedback but as there is NO extra water vapour this is irrelevant.

*Ice core bubbles and carbon dioxide*

The pre-industrial level of CO2 may not be 270ppm, it could be much higher but no one really knows.

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2012/01/1 ... n-dioxide/


----------



## bobclive22

> The NASA report I gave you included a graph showing peaks and troughs. The higher peaks being at the equator where it picks up more water vapour and energy. Think about it a bit more dynamically. I hope that helps with realisation


What`s altered John, not even the true believer`s are concerned about the slight warming from CO2, the whole premise stands or falls on proving there is positive feedback from water vapour.

There is NO extra water vapour in the atmosphere, NO hot spot and little or no warming over the last 20 years.


----------



## bobclive22

> What you need to ask yourself is, given that articles and studies exist supporting both sides, why do the majority of climate scientists believe AGW exists? They've read all the serious studies which disagree with their position, yet they still believe it. They have all the information you've posted. They still believe AGW exists.


Money.

Government funding Spandex.


> _They've read all the serious studies which disagree with their position,_


*President Dwight D. Eisenhower *

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields&#8230; ," Eisenhower warned. "Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."

While continuing to respect discovery and scientific research, he said, "We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

*U.S. Government Funding of Climate Change *

After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars. By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, operating from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions-seven of them sending men to the moon and back-cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, which equals about $200 billion in 2012 dollars, if we use the Consumer Price Index to adjust that figure. In "fighting" climate change, the United States government is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions.

http://www.climatedollars.org/full-stud ... te-change/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Money.
> 
> Government funding Spandex.


And the real BobBot reveals himself. You're just a pathetic, tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist. A bitter old man hunting for reasons why the world isn't the way he wants it to be anymore, dumb enough to believe anything that backs up his theories. Vain enough to believe anything that massages his ego and makes him feel more intelligent than all the sheeple.

Some food for thought BobBot: in 2013/2014 the fossil fuel industry was given $41.8bn in federal production and exploration subsidies. So in 2 years, they spent a quarter of what's been spent on climate change in 20 years. Still keen on 'following the money' BobBot?


----------



## bobclive22

> Some food for thought BobBot: in 2013/2014 the fossil fuel industry was given $41.8bn in federal production and exploration subsidies. So in 2 years, they spent a quarter of what's been spent on climate change in 20 years. Still keen on 'following the money' BobBot?


And the US have the cheapest energy on the planet, how does the UK stand.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> the whole premise stands or falls on proving there is positive feedback from water vapour.


I love how you genuinely think the whole thing can be so easily proven as false, yet can offer no sensible explanation for why almost every climate scientist out there hasn't worked it out yet.


----------



## bobclive22

Remember when all polar bears would drown because of global warming.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... d-2015.pdf


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Some food for thought BobBot: in 2013/2014 the fossil fuel industry was given $41.8bn in federal production and exploration subsidies. So in 2 years, they spent a quarter of what's been spent on climate change in 20 years. Still keen on 'following the money' BobBot?
> 
> 
> 
> And the US have the cheapest energy on the planet, how does the UK stand.
Click to expand...

No BobBot. No changing the subject. Not this time.

Follow the money BobBot. Come on.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Remember when all polar bears would drown because of global warming.
> 
> https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... d-2015.pdf


Remember when you misheard the news and completely failed to realise the immigrant figure you were 'quoting' was 10 times greater than reality? Yeah? Remember? Excellent - now we don't need to trust anything else you say, right?


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Bob, can you understand that if more water vapour enters the atmosphere e.g. faster rate and more water vapour leaves at the same faster rate that the amount at any one time in the the atmosphere is the same? Can you grasp that possibility? This is like more extreme weather.
> 
> 
> 
> The AGW theory, The water vapor feedback mechanism works in the following way, as the atmosphere warms supposedly due to the increase in carbon dioxide, water vapor increases, trapping more heat in the atmosphere, which in turn causes a further increase in water vapor.
> 
> John, if water vapour increases at a faster rate and leaves at the same rate there is equilibrium, there is *NO increase*, therefore the same volume can`t trap more heat, for positive feedback by water vapour to occur there needs to be more of it, *there is not*. Without this supposed positive feedback the slight warming from CO2 is only *beneficial*, Nasa states the planet is greening because of this extra CO2, more food for the worlds growing population.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

Bob, I've tried to explain but either you are not listening or can't grasp the dynamic concept of weather or I'm not trying hard enough. You seem stuck on this "average" idea as a means of proving there has been no change but you are entirely mistaken as you are ignoring the dynamics of the situation which is the important bit. Measuring exact levels of water vapour in three dimensions globally is not trivial either and according to NASA has only recently been good enough to be useful.

I'll try again. Now imagine the equator where it's hot. Energy is picked up as is water vapour. If it's hotter due to the greenhouse effect then more water vapour can be picked up - about 7% for every one degree rise in temperature. Now that increased level of water vapour can travel over areas that are cooler and form clouds etc and increase warming due to the greenhouse effect and the increased size of those areas. Then the water vapour drops out as rain which can be heavier causing more flooding etc. Then the air is dry again and that air can travel further due to higher wind speeds due to the increased peaks and troughs and more energy being in the dynamic weather system, in turn perhaps causing an increase of drought in other areas. Then eventually the dry air gets back to the equator again and the cycle repeats.

Now, can you see that the average water vapour can be constant but larger peaks and troughs including increased cloud cover can occur within this dynamic system with more extreme weather. So, increased greenhouse effect and global warming and yet the average water vapour content doesn't have to have gone up to accommodate that. Can you grasp that? Think of my analogy with the zig zagging hose pipe - you can have more of it higher up representing greenhouse effect tapping heat and more of it lower radiating no heat and the average hose level is the same but you have more greenhouse (or should that be green hose?) effect - because the elevated water levels in part of the system tapping the heat are balanced by the deceased levels elsewhere in the system so the average is constant - but you get more warming. Can you see it now?


----------



## bobclive22

*Radiative forcing of greenhouse gases (GHG), and atmospheric temperatures,*

_



Furthermore, as an economist who has done research on pre-World War II data, I am struck by something I don't see in the above chart. If the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by burning fossil fuels, which has increased significantly during the industrial era, then why don't we see *any decrease, or at least a deceleration, during the great depression of 1929 to 1933?
*
The great depression had severe effects on two of the largest industrial economies: the USA and Germany. *Industrial production in the USA, from 1929 to 1932, dropped by 46%.* Coal production in the USA dropped from 608 million short English tons in 1929 to 359 million in 1932. In *Germany, industrial production dropped by 42%[ from 1929 to 1932. German coal production dropped from 163 million metric tons in 1929 to 104 million in 1932.
*

Click to expand...

_*



And yet, according to Etheridge et al (1996), the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from 307.2 ppm in 1929 to 308.9 ppm in 1933. And the concentration kept increasing every year after that until 1942.

Click to expand...

*


> There was no deceleration in the increases. *Either the theory that burning fossil fuels adds to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is flawed,* or perhaps Etheridge's estimates of the concentration of this GHG are inaccurate. I don't know which is the case.


Development of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/ ... -warmists/

https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datser ... ndex_e.php

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4) levels, 1850-present (from ice cores)

http://www.sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4c.html


----------



## John-H

You are ignoring me Bob, incapable it seems of engaging in a reasoned argument and only capable of more cut and paste as a diversionary tactic. I'm not impressed and I doubt if anyone else is either.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'll try again. Now imagine the equator where it's hot. Energy is picked up as is water vapour. If it's hotter due to the greenhouse effect then more water vapour can be picked up - about 7% for every one degree rise in temperature. Now that increased level of water vapour can travel over areas that are cooler and form clouds etc and increase warming due to the greenhouse effect and the increased size of those areas.


_



*If *it's hotter due to the greenhouse effect then more water vapour *can* be picked up

Click to expand...

_John, the latest Nasa satellite data which I have already posted show NO extra water vapour in the atmosphere, you do realise that the tops of clouds reflect solar energy back into space, negative feedback. what part of the supposedly 1c rise in temperature since 1860 is positive feedback from water vapour.

John, open the link below and put mouse pointer on red line, Co2 levels are shown for each year, *notice they are still increasing during the 1929-33 global depression,* if the increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels is due human emissions you would expect CO2 to level off or fall during this period.

The data is taken from ice cores.

http://www.sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4c.html


----------



## bobclive22

> Remember when you misheard the news and completely failed to realise the immigrant figure you were 'quoting' was 10 times greater than reality? Yeah? Remember? Excellent - now we don't need to trust anything else you say, right?


As usual you have nothing of substance to discuss,


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Remember when you misheard the news and completely failed to realise the immigrant figure you were 'quoting' was 10 times greater than reality? Yeah? Remember? Excellent - now we don't need to trust anything else you say, right?
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you have nothing of substance to discuss,
Click to expand...

Just responding to your idiotic 'no substance' post BobBot... if you want sensible discussions, be sensible yourself. If you just want to mock, then we have more than enough ammunition to mock you.

So, let's discuss substance. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

That's How it works, isn't it? Show that one side of the argument is getting loads of government funding, and that automatically proves that the scientists on that side are lying. So, I've shown that the fossil fuel industry is milking the US government for billions, so by your logic, all these 'scientists' that you link to are just shills, right?

Or are we in for another massive dose of BobBot hypocrisy?


----------



## bobclive22

> That's How it works, isn't it? Show that one side of the argument is getting loads of government funding, and that automatically proves that the scientists on that side are lying. So, I've shown that the fossil fuel industry is milking the US government for billions, so by your logic, all these 'scientists' that you link to are just shills, right?


I am not sure where you got that info from Spandex , but it appears odd that Germany, Australia and the UK have the most expensive energy costs on the planet yet use virtually NO coal, well other than Germany.

It is also odd that president Obama spent 8 years trying to destroy the US coal industry but gave it billions in subsides anyway.

*Climate gate resurrected*

As we know the climate gate inquiry`s in the UK were a white wash, this may now be different in the US.

http://tucson.com/news/local/ua-ordered ... 7b637.html


----------



## Spandex

No no no no BobBot. Stop changing the subject.

Follow the money.


----------



## Spandex

Oh, and if you can't work out the connection between massive government subsidies and low prices, then you truly are a moron.

Want another stat? In 2015 alone, global fossil fuel subsidies were 6.5% of global gdp. That's 4.8 trillion dollars.

Follow the money BobBot.


----------



## bobclive22

> No no no no BobBot. Stop changing the subject.


It`s my link.

*Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen?*

In a new paper published in Earth Systems and Environment this month, Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier uncover evidence that Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) overseers appear to have been engaging in the "highly questionable" and "suspicious" practice of adjusting historical tide gauge data to show recent accelerated sea level rise where no such acceleration (or rise) exists.

Extensive evidence from "tide gauges, coastal morphology, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, archaeological remains, and historical documentation" all suggest that sea levels in the Indian Ocean have effectively been stable in recent decades.

The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.

http://joannenova.com.au/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-0020-z


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No no no no BobBot. Stop changing the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> It`s my link.
Click to expand...

Right. So you think you can just ignore the points you don't have a response to, but you expect us to trawl through your drivel? No thanks, chump.

Follow the money, BobBot.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ...
> John, the latest Nasa satellite data which I have already posted show NO extra water vapour in the atmosphere, ...


Bob, trying to reason with you is like trying to reason with one of those religious types that knocks on your front door, is incapable of reason and won't go away until you shut the front door.

I've referenced a report by NASA showing increased water vapour peaks and troughs which is part of the greenhouse feedback effect. I've explained patiently why the average level of water vapour is irrelevant to this dynamic effect and what do you do? You refer to the average level not changing yet again. You keep repeating it like a broken record as if it means something when it doesn't.

This is pointless. In shutting the front door.......


----------



## bobclive22

*Great Depression*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression that took place mostly during the 1930s, originating in the United States. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations; in most countries it started in 1929 and lasted until 1941.[1] It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century.[2] In the 21st century, the Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the world's economy can decline.[3]

The depression started in the United States after a major fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929, and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday). Between 1929 and 1932, worldwide gross domestic product (GDP) fell by an estimated 15%. By comparison, worldwide GDP fell by less than 1% from 2008 to 2009 during the Great Recession.[4] Some economies started to recover by the mid-1930s. However, in many countries, the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the beginning of World War II.[5]

The Great Depression had devastating effects in countries both rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and in some countries rose as high as 33%.[6]

_Yet Co2 continued it`s upwards path, no hint of that depression even though trade plunged 50% world wide, now if you accept ice core data showing 280 ppm for per-industrial CO2 you have to accept that that same data showed NO leveling off or reduction in that period, that being the case CO2 cannot be the driver of this slight warming as there is no correlation during that period.
_
http://www.sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4c.html


----------



## bobclive22

> I've referenced a report by NASA showing increased water vapour peaks and troughs which is part of the greenhouse feedback effect. I've explained patiently why the average level of water vapour is irrelevant to this dynamic effect and what do you do? You refer to the average level not changing yet again. You keep repeating it like a broken record as if it means something when it doesn't.


You mean this John,

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html

Just open the links, they are just scientific studies nothing to do with wuwt.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-0070-z
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... ider-1.pdf
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... cnider.pdf

*Water Vapor Decline Cools the Earth: NASA Satellite Data* March 4th 2013.

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets ... ch2013.pdf


----------



## Spandex

Sorry BobBot, I'm going to have to press you on this...

I pointed out that the majority of scientists believe in AGW and your response was that they are being bought off because billions are spent on climate change. Now that I've explained that trillions are spent every year on fossil fuel subsidies, can you answer the following:

1. How can you trust scientists who support your view, when you claim that government funding automatically makes the science unreliable?
2. If government funding does cause scientists and other interested parties to lie, which side do you think will be more affected? The billion dollar climate change industry, or the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry?


----------



## bobclive22

> I've referenced a report by NASA showing increased water vapour peaks and troughs which is part of the greenhouse feedback effect. I've explained patiently why the average level of water vapour is irrelevant to this dynamic effect and what do you do? You refer to the average level not changing yet again. You keep repeating it like a broken record as if it means something when it doesn't.


*5) The Missing "Hot Spot"*

Most people don't realize that the missing tropospheric "hot spot" in satellite temperature trends is potentially related to water vapor feedback. One of the most robust feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the "hot spot" would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback signature in the satellite temperature trends could be an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in nature.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/fiv ... -positive/


----------



## bobclive22

> Some food for thought BobBot: in 2013/2014 the fossil fuel industry was given $41.8bn in federal production and exploration subsidies. So in 2 years, they spent a quarter of what's been spent on climate change in 20 years. Still keen on 'following the money' BobBot?


Felipe Calderon is the former President of Mexico and Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy & Climate

https://www.ft.com/content/75af4458-c36 ... bf625eb228

_



I have often heard that on a global level fossil fuel subsidies are higher than renewable energy subsidies. But is this true and if so how many times larger?

An analysis by the IEA and the Financial Times shows that fossil fuels receive more than 4 times the subsidies ($490bn in 2014) that renewable energy receives ($112bn in 2014).

As a rule of thumb, those subsidising renewable energy technologies tend to be richer OECD countries and those that subsidise fossil fuels tend to be non OECD countries, particularly large oil/gas producers like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Click to expand...

_


> *Solar PV and wind tend to get the majority of the renewable energy subsidies:*


http://auriumcapital.com/fossil-fuel-su ... subsidies/

If you dig a little deeper you get the complete story, odd that those countries giving most of the fossil fuel subsidies signed the Paris climate change agreement.


----------



## Spandex

Once again BobBot, you try to divert the argument. Not going to happen. We can talk about your conspiracies later, but right now I'm going to need an answer from you on those questions I asked.

1. How can you trust scientists who support your view, when you claim that government funding automatically makes the science unreliable?
2. If government funding does cause scientists and other interested parties to lie, which side do you think will be more affected? The billion dollar climate change industry, or the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry?

This is your own fault. You're the one who brought up government funding when you had no answer for why the majority of scientists are against you. But I'm not going to let you just change the subject like you usually do when you back yourself into a corner.


----------



## bobclive22

> 2. If government funding does cause scientists and other interested parties to lie, which side do you think will be more affected? The billion dollar climate change industry, or the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry?


Neither, but the tax payer will with higher energy costs.

*Emissions from burping cows 'higher than family car'*

A herd of cows belches out more climate-changing gas than a family car, a university researcher said today.
Dr Andy Thorpe, an economist at the University of Portsmouth, explained that 200 cows burp the annual equivalent amount of methane to the energy produced by a family car being driven 111,850 miles..

This is actually a pear reviewed study.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090304224 ... 67995.html

I woke up to some global warming this morning.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> 2. If government funding does cause scientists and other interested parties to lie, which side do you think will be more affected? The billion dollar climate change industry, or the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry?
> 
> 
> 
> Neither, but the tax payer will with higher energy costs.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Ignoring your clumsy attempt to change the subject yet again, the important point here is that you say neither side of the scientific debate will be more affected. Now, earlier you said that scientists who support AGW were influenced by government funding - in other words they had been bought out. Now you're saying that's not the case. So, as you've backtracked on your first answer, that means I can ask the original question again:

Why do the majority of scientists, who have access to all the scientific studies that support your view as well as theirs, still think AGW is real?



bobclive22 said:


> I woke up to some global warming this morning.


In other news, idiot confuses 'weather' with 'climate' - shows how spectacularly dumb he is.


----------



## bobclive22

> Excellent. Ignoring your clumsy attempt to change the subject yet again,


So you are happy to pay high energy bills because of green energy subsidies, maybe you should put that scenario to the poor and elderly on fixed pensions.

*The Massive subsidies for second generation biofuels totally wasted.*

*Biofuel or Biofraud? The Vast Taxpayer Cost of Failed Cellulosic and Algal Biofuels*

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/ ... -biofuels/

Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes[/b]

Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.

Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 79811.html

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/biofuels ... nvironment

*EU green transport target 'may have increased greenhouse gas emissions' *

European Union renewable energy targets may have increased greenhouse gas emissions because the dirtiest biofuels produce three times the emissions of diesel oil, according to the most complete EU analysis yet carried out.

Biodiesel made from palm oil emits more than three times as much and soybean oil around twice as much, when the crops' effects on land use are considered, the research by the Ecofys consultancy for the European commission found.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... house-gas- emissions

*Europe's love affair with biofuels is on the rocks*

It all started with big expectations. In 2009 the EU decided that by 2020 10% of EU transport was going to be powered by renewable energy - in reality mostly by biofuels. But because there were no adequate quality controls, the market was flooded with biofuels that are worse for the climate than fossil fuels. For example, crop biodiesel - which makes up 80% of the market - is, on average, 80% worse for the climate than fossil diesel and is increasingly sourced from palm oil.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/ne ... uels-rocks

The EU are so involved with the religion of climate change they are unaware that they are actually causing more damage to the planet than the slight warming from CO2. The article (biofuel or biofraud) clearly shows there is no possibility in the near future of obtaining *second generation biofuel * as British airways found out with their failed GreenSky project.


----------



## bobclive22

> In other news, idiot confuses 'weather' with 'climate' - shows how spectacularly dumb he is.


Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150723090 ... 24017.html


----------



## Spandex

As usual, I have no real idea what your point is. I _think_ you're stupidly trying to show that an article about how snow would become less common has been proved wrong by an uncommon amount of snow falling.



bobclive22 said:


> So you are happy to pay high energy bills because of green energy subsidies, maybe you should put that scenario to the poor and elderly on fixed pensions.


FFS BobBot. STOP. CHANGING. THE. FECKING. SUBJECT.

Answer the damn question. *Why do the majority of scientists, who have access to all the science you post here, still believe in AGW?*

Oh, and yes I am happy to pay higher energy bills because of green energy subsidies. I'd also happily pay more tax in order to fund schools and the NHS better. Basically, I don't decide what's right based on whether or not it will cost me more. Unlike you.


----------



## bobclive22

> As usual, I have no real idea what your point is. I think you're stupidly trying to show that an article about how snow would become less common has been proved wrong by an uncommon amount of snow falling.


Read the article,

However, *the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold *than in much hotter summers. According to *Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".*

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

Well Spandex, it`s Global warming for Dr David Viner but weather for me.

The link to this article no longer works, I am sure you can work that out for yourself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20140111074 ... 24017.html

Seems it also snowed in 2016.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/17/2795254/


----------



## bobclive22

*A Biofuel Dream Gone Bad*

The* EU *are still running with it though, first their diesel cars then the biofuel to go with them, monkeys could do better.

KiOR was a crown jewel in Khosla's biofuel portfolio. Khosla Ventures held 75% of its voting shares at one point and wagered nearly $160 million, much of it Khosla's own money. He attracted a constellation of names. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined KiOR's board. Later, tech magnate Bill Gates, who has invested in Khosla's funds and shares his interest in energy tech, committed millions. Former U.K. Prime Minister *Tony Blair* joined Khosla Ventures as a senior adviser in 2010, partly to counsel clean-tech startups.

With Blair on board is the kiss of death.

You won`t find this in the MSM.

http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You won`t find this in the MSM.


Bet you I can...


bobclive22 said:


> http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech/


There it is!

Idiot.. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Anyway, answer the question BobBot. It's pretty fundamental to this whole argument. If you can't answer that, then all your other points become meaningless.


----------



## bobclive22

> Anyway, answer the question BobBot.


You`re like a revolving door Spandex, round and round and end up at the same place.

One for you John,

*Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere*

The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be *4.3%,* its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is* 15% *and the *average residence time 4 years.*

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8116304787

https://iowaclimate.org/2017/06/29/evid ... n-changes/


----------



## John-H

Just answer Spandex's question Bob - don't use me as another excuse to change the subject.


----------



## bobclive22

> Just answer Spandex's question Bob - don't use me as another excuse to change the subject.


Are the facts getting to you John,

According to climate "scientists" it is weather when it is cold and "climate" when it isn't..

Can`t see much global warming here.


----------



## John-H

The facts are clearly getting to you Bob, as is the logic. The way you obfuscate - it's laughable :lol:

P.S. I don't read your links any more as they are often highly dubious and you don't read mine clearly because you are still spouting the same misinformation in full ignorance of the facts.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Anyway, answer the question BobBot.
> 
> 
> 
> You`re like a revolving door Spandex, round and round and end up at the same place.
Click to expand...

If only there was a simple way to stop me asking.

Answer the question BobBot.


----------



## bobclive22

i


----------



## bobclive22

> The facts are clearly getting to you Bob, as is the logic. The way you obfuscate - it's laughable :lol:
> 
> P.S. I don't read your links any more as they are often highly dubious and you don't read mine clearly because you are still spouting the same misinformation in full ignorance of the facts.





> The facts are clearly getting to you Bob


Eer, not me mate i`m providing them, they are obviousely getting to you though John.

The snow graph is from here,

*Rutgers State University of New Jersey,* is a leading national research university and the state of New Jersey's preeminent, comprehensive public institution of higher education. Established in 1766, the university is the eighth oldest higher education institution in the United States.

https://www.rutgers.edu/about

*Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere* comes from here, I believe it is a scientific journal. [smiley=book2.gif]

Elsevier
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 152, May 2017, Pages 19-26
Global and Planetary Change
Original research article
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere


----------



## bobclive22

> Answer the question BobBot.


72


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Answer the question BobBot.
> 
> 
> 
> 72
Click to expand...

Hilarious. I bet the whole family are looking forward to xmas with you.

Answer the question. It really is the only one that matters - without an answer to that, all your links are meaningless.


----------



## John-H

Yes I quite agree


----------



## bobclive22

For you John, I believe it is from NOAA, see the correlation :lol:


----------



## Spandex

No one cares BobBot. Just answer the question.


----------



## John-H

I'm not interested Bob. We are at the crux by which your argument hangs. Answer Spandex's question!


----------



## bobclive22

> Answer the damn question. Why do the majority of scientists, who have access to all the science you post here, still believe in AGW?


Because they accept the output of climate models as proof instead of intrinsic evidence, they also fear that if proven wrong most of their funding would stop.

No hotspot and no correlation with rising CO2 to anything, other than it lags warming.

*Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)*

*
How independent are the other two international data sets?*

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... uc3902.htm


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm not interested Bob. We are at the crux by which your argument hangs. Answer Spandex's question!


Your not interested John because your counter arguments are baseless.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Answer the damn question. Why do the majority of scientists, who have access to all the science you post here, still believe in AGW?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they accept the output of climate models as proof instead of intrinsic evidence, they also fear that if proven wrong most of their funding would stop.
Click to expand...

No no no. We've established that funding isn't the issue. They could make more money by saying that AGW is wrong. The fossil fuel industry has a documented history of funding studies supporting that position.

So we're back to square one. We're just left with the argument that the scientists are accepting the output of models which you claim are so obviously wrong, even a non-scientist such as yourself can see it. This is clearly nonsense. Try again. Why would scientists believe in AGW when they have access to all of the scientific data that you do, and are better equipped to analyse that data?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I'm not interested Bob. We are at the crux by which your argument hangs. Answer Spandex's question!
> 
> 
> 
> Your not interested John because your counter arguments are baseless.
Click to expand...

No, he's not interested because unless you can adequately explain why you think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists, the details of your position are meaningless. You need to explain why *you* should be believed over the qualified experts. Until you do that, your argument is irrelevant because no one has any reason to believe it.


----------



## bobclive22

> No, he's not interested because unless you can adequately explain why you think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists,


Spandex, _No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong, albert_einstein_ Concensus is not science.

*Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*.

*The first part is for John and yourself Spandex, it`s for the true believer of the religion. *

*Section one*

*The propaganda,*

*Global warming and Hurricanes*

*Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like*

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... vey-215547

*Stop talking right now about the threat of climate change. It's here; it's happening
Bill McKibben*

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... a-droughts

*Irma Won't "Wake Up" Climate Change-Denying Republicans. Their Whole Ideology Is on the Line.*

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/11/irm ... apitalism/

*As Planet Rages With Fires and Storms, Ire Aimed at Murderous Climate Denialism*

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/ ... -denialism

*Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer-and it's not the storm. 
*
https://www.thenation.com/article/clima ... illing-us/

*It is ironic, of course, that an event so related to climate change would occur in a state that is home to so many climate-change deniers *

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... =accessreg

* section Two*

*Now the science.*

*Abstract*

Ten years ago, Webster et al. documented a large and significant increase in both the number as well as the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for all global basins from 1970 to 2004, and this manuscript examines whether those trends have continued when including 10 additional years of data. *In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend while the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant upward trend between 1990 and 2014. Accumulated cyclone energy globally has experienced a large and significant downward trend during the same period.* The primary reason for the increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes noted in observational datasets from 1970 to 2004 by Webster et al. is concluded to be *due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centers*, primarily in the first two decades of that study.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10 ... -15-0188.1

Professor Cliff Mass CURRICULUM VITAE,

https://atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/Cli ... 062011.pdf

*Thursday, August 31, 2017 Global Warming and Hurricane Harvey *

Human-induced global warming played an *inconsequential role in this disaster of Hurricane Harvey. *

http://cliffmass.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08 ... arvey.html

*Managing risks of extreme events and disaters to advance climate change adaption
Summary for policymakers IPCC. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report*

*Detection and attribution:*

It remains *uncertain *whether past changes in any tropical cyclone activity (frequency, intensity, rainfall, and so on) *exceed the variability expected through natural causes,* after accounting for changes over time in observing capabilities.

Projections:

It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either* decrease or remain essentially unchanged owing to greenhouse warming.* . . Current models project changes ranging from −6 to −34% globally, and up to ±50% or more in individual basins by the late twenty-first century. Some increase in the mean maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones is likely (+2 to +11% globally) with projected 21st century warming."

There is *low confidence* in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. 
It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. 
There is *low confidence *in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
There is* medium confidence *that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in *some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,* or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is *limited to medium evidence* available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,
there is *low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.* [3.5.2]

*Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity*
Geophysical Research Letters Dr Ryan N Maue.
Abstract

[1] Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the *lowest levels since the late 1970s*. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 47711/full


----------



## John-H

[smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## bobclive22

> No no no. We've established that funding isn't the issue. They could make more money by saying that AGW is wrong.


That`s why you`re at the bottom of the pile Spandex, you can`t think outside the box.

*I was tossed out of the tribe': climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed
For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic*

It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. *Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none,* and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too 'challenging'. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-w ... terviewed/

Here is a two part list of 400 peer reviewed studies published in 2017 that disagree with Man Made Global warming disaster.
The two links go directly to the studies, be brave John, click the links they might enlighten you, probably not though if you are a true believer.

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/


----------



## bobclive22

The response of a true believer, [smiley=zzz.gif]

Is that why you lost the contract
for installing smart meters John. :lol:


----------



## John-H

[smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=sleeping.gif]


----------



## Spandex

You just have to answer one simple question BobBot. Even you can manage that, can't you?


----------



## bobclive22

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in New Delhi, India.

*Global Agricultural Boom: A Million Thanks to Climate Change!*

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/52886


----------



## bobclive22

> [smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=sleeping.gif]


I take that as a yes then John.


----------



## bobclive22

Spandex question,

Answer, *they will loose their funding.*

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/

_Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on "politicized science", his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Nasa's Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
_

That`s 2 Billion saved.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-research


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex question,
> 
> Answer, *they will loose their funding.*


We've talked about your constant lying before haven't we.

Show me evidence that all of the scientists who believe in AGW are receiving funding which will end if they produce evidence that it's not real.

Don't worry BobBot. It's a rhetorical question. I know you can't because it's clearly more of your mud slinging bollocks.

So, given that you have absolutely zero evidence, I'm not accepting that answer. Try again. Why do the vast majority of scientists believe AGW when they have access to all of the science in both sides of the debate?


----------



## Spandex

You want to see why Trump and his cronies are killing research in climate change:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ ... ?ind=E01++

Do you honestly think these companies would spend these vast sums of money if they didn't expect to get a return on their investment? If you follow the money, you always end up back at the fossil fuel industries. There's only one group buying scientists and governments in all this. You really will ignore anything that doesn't agree with you, won't you...


----------



## bobclive22

> Do you honestly think these companies would spend these vast sums of money if they didn't expect to get a return on their investment? If you follow the money, you always end up back at the fossil fuel industries. There's only one group buying scientists and governments in all this. You really will ignore anything that doesn't agree with you, won't you...


Spandex, The Democrats have been trying to close down these industries for decades, it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure out that why these unions and industries are funding the republicans.


----------



## bobclive22

> So, given that you have absolutely zero evidence, I'm not accepting that answer. Try again. Why do the vast majority of scientists believe AGW when they have access to all of the science in both sides of the debate?


Here is some AGW science Spandex,

https://web.archive.org/web/20070214171 ... yt&emc=rss

*Here is the scam behind that science*





http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 887890.htm

Now find me a similar bulls**t piece by the sceptic side, if your science is solid why the need for this, but then Spandex you as a true believer would swallow it hook line and sinker.

Polar bears can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.).


----------



## Spandex

Lol.. no, it doesn't take a rocket scientist. They spend that money because they want to stop the government from introducing policies that damage their industry. For some strange reason though, you think that's fine. You don't seem to want governments making decisions based on solid information, you want governments making decisions based on who gives them the most money. Because you have no principals. But we established that before, didn't we. You decide what's right and wrong based on how much it costs you.

But anyway, stop changing the subject. What we're talking about is funding influencing science, yes? You're going to get me that evidence that 97% of climate scientist have been bought, or you're going to stop lying about it. Which is it?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Here is some AGW science Spandex


No BobBot, that's an article on a news site. Are you a simpleton? Is that what you think 'science' is? Bless...

Oh, and it's not 'my science'. It's the science of 97% of the worlds climate scientists. If you want to discuss it with someone, I suggest you try them. Please, for the love of god, try them...


----------



## bobclive22

> Show me evidence that all of the scientists who believe in AGW are receiving funding which will end if they produce evidence that it's not real.


*
British scientists face a 'huge hit' if the US cuts climate change research *

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... arch-trump






After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars. By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, operating from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions-seven of them sending men to the moon and back-cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, which equals about $200 billion in 2012 dollars, if we use the Consumer Price Index to adjust that figure. *In "fighting" climate change, the United States government is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions.*

Up to the present time *Spandex *, NO proof of Catastrophic man made global warming has been found, that`s after Spending over $200 billion, in fact NO link has been scientifically proven that CO2 is the primary cause of this present slight warming.

http://www.climatedollars.org/full-stud ... te-change/


----------



## bobclive22

> No BobBot, that's an article on a news site. Are you a simpleton? Is that what you think 'science' is? Bless...


Spanex, it was *front page news in the worlds press,* it was aimed at true believers like yourself, even Gore ran it.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No BobBot, that's an article on a news site. Are you a simpleton? Is that what you think 'science' is? Bless...
> 
> 
> 
> Spanex, it was *front page news in the worlds press,* it was aimed at true believers like yourself, even Gore ran it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Front page news =/= science.

It's odd, because you keep banging on about how the media misrepresent or even outright lie about things, yet you now seem to be saying that an article interpreting a summary of some scientific paper can be considered an accurate representation of the contents of that scientific paper. It's almost as if you'll contradict yourself in order to make a point. _Almost_ like you're a massive lying hypocrite.

Anyway, back to the point. Prove that 97% of scientists have been bought, or stop saying it and answer the main question again without the lies.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> British scientists face a 'huge hit' if the US cuts climate change research [/u][/b]


Moron. That article is showing that scientists will suffer because they will lose out on significant amounts of data from the US if funding is cut. Did you actually read it?

As for you repeating your post from earlier, yes I understand that governments fund climate change research. I asked you to prove that those payments were dependent on the scientists only publishing pro-AGW material. You can't just say "look, there's funding" and then make up the rest. Unless you're a massive liar of course. You're not one of those though, are you BobBot? You wouldn't just make up a connection you have no evidence for and pass it off as fact, would you?


----------



## bobclive22

> No BobBot, that's an article on a news site. Are you a simpleton? Is that what you think 'science' is? Bless...


The article in the NYtimes was by *Andrew Revkin* he together with *George Monbiot *of the Guardian are trusted reporters, they are both in the Pro *AGW* camp and are trusted by the warmist scientists to get their studies into press. The press are needed to get the Global warming propaganda into the minds of the general public, especially true believers.

You don`t appear to know much do you Spandex.

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/09/

*Soul-crushing' video of starving polar bear exposes climate crisis, experts say Friday 8 December 2017*

*The film-makers drew a direct line between the bear's state and climate change. *"As temperatures rise and sea ice melts, polar bears lose access to the main staple of their diets - seals," the video noted. "Starving, and running out of energy, they are forced to wander into human settlements for any source of food.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ange-video

*Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?*

Mr Nicklen and Ms Mittermeier are co-founders of the conservation group Sea Legacy, with a *declared mission to "use the power of storytelling to create the change we want to see"*. *(propaganda actually)*

This particular animal could also simply have been sick. *Biologist Jeff Higdon*, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer.

"It's not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals," he said. "*The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer.* It's far more likely that it is starving due to *health issues*."

*Well that`s a first for the BBC, honest journalism.*, unfortunately the Guardian is business as usual.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322346


----------



## bobclive22

> Moron. That article is showing that scientists will suffer because they will lose out on significant amounts of data from the US if funding is cut. Did you actually read it?


NO data = NO studies = NO funding.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Moron. That article is showing that scientists will suffer because they will lose out on significant amounts of data from the US if funding is cut. Did you actually read it?
> 
> 
> 
> NO data = NO studies = NO funding.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Idiot.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No BobBot, that's an article on a news site. Are you a simpleton? Is that what you think 'science' is? Bless...
> 
> 
> 
> The article in the NYtimes was by *Andrew Revkin* he together with *George Monbiot *of the Guardian are trusted reporters
Click to expand...

Ok. You are a simpleton. Fair enough BobBot, you're not going to suddenly get any cleverer at this stage so let's not waste our time, eh..


----------



## Toshiba

Many attempts to communicate are nullified by saying too much. 
There are people who, instead of listening to what is being said to them, are already listening to what they are going to say themselves and there are people who have big egos and little ears...


----------



## bobclive22

*Alaska's Glaciers Are Retreating* September 30, 2016

Although the mechanisms vary, together the glaciers are losing 75 billion tons of ice annually

According to the USGS, climate change could cause summer temperatures to warm by 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and *snow accumulation to markedly decrease.* Those changes could contribute to the loss of thousands of glaciers in Alaska and northwest Canada by the end of the century.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... etreating/

*Snowfall on Alaska mountains has doubled - climate change blamed* New study

According to the research, wintertime snowfall has increased *117 percent since the mid-19th century *in southcentral Alaska in the United States. Summer snows also showed a *significant increase of 49 percent *in the short period ranging less than two hundred years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/19/ ... ge-blamed/

(Link to paper) https://www.dartmouth.edu/press-release ... peaks.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130408034 ... 24017.html

Wish these warmers could make their minds up.

*It`s the sun stupid*
*
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei*

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2


----------



## 3TT3

The smart meters for electricity that are going to be compulsory by law here(ireland) next year..

They require a broadband /net service to operate .
I wont have one  or if I do they wont be getting a free piggyback on my home network or access to it.
If its a mobile phone type sim card thingy,Im afraid Ill have to block reception/transmission (bad reception area sorry stuff happens)
If a free home broadband service is provided with installation well hey cmon down


----------



## bobclive22

It`s the sun stupid.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-energy-su ... tists.html

Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that "a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming."

So a trace gas of 0.04% of the atmosphere is more powerful than the Sun that provides all the planets heat. :roll:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/22/3-ne ... r6WRS.dpbs

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02995


----------



## Spandex

The BobBot struggling once again with the concept that multiple things might have an effect on something.

They say 'ignorance is bliss', but in your case it just seems to make you more angry.


----------



## bobclive22

> The BobBot struggling once again with the concept that multiple things might have an effect on something.
> 
> They say 'ignorance is bliss', but in your case it just seems to make you more angry.


As usual Spandex you have nothing to say of any consequence.

*Science or silence? My battle to question doomsayers about the Great Barrier Reef*

By Professor Peter Ridd

Around the world, people have heard about the impending extinction of the Great Barrier Reef: some 133,000 square miles of magnificent coral stretching for 1,400 miles off the northeast coast of Australia.

The reef is supposedly almost dead from the combined effects of a warming climate, nutrient pollution from Australian farms, and smothering sediment from offshore dredging.

Except that, *as I have said publicly as a research scientist who has studied the reef for the past 30 years,* all this most likely isn't true.

And just for saying that - and calling into question the kind of published science that has led to the gloomy predictions -* I have been served with a gag order by my university.* I am now having to sue for my right to have an ordinary scientific opinion.

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2 ... 17-IPA.pdf ( auto download) click open file in downloads.

Unlike you Spandex I read beyond the left wing headlines.

Because of this man made global warming Bulls**t we have one of the highest energy costs on the planet and are suffering the deadly health effects from diesel exhaust fumes.

https://ipa.org.au/research-areas/clima ... cy-science

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/ ... -reef.html


----------



## bobclive22

*Surprise! Poster child for sea level rise, Tuvalu, is actually growing!* *February 9, 2018*

Results highlight a *net increase in land area in Tuvalu* of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. 
*Surprisingly*, we show that all islands have changed and that *the dominant mode of change has been island expansion,* which has increased the land area of the nation.

*Another one bites the dust Spandex.*

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 Published online: 09 February 2018

*Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise* *March 19, 2009*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/ ... evel-rise/

From *THE *warmist site Spandex. Posted on *26 November 2011 *by Rob Painting

Scientific studies to support these claims have been hard to find, but now a recently published study vindicates what many Tuvaluans have insisted all along - *sea level has risen rapidly around Tuvalu.*

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Whats- ... Level.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Unlike you Spandex I read beyond the left wing headlines.


Trying to put a positive spin on ignoring any sources that don't agree with you, hey?


----------



## bobclive22

> Trying to put a positive spin on ignoring any sources that don't agree with you, hey?


Was the medieval warming global.

Medieval Temperature Trends in Africa and Arabia 2018

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/med ... and-arabia

Not your usual Guardian hack.

https://eos.org/author/t-cook

Here is a hit piece by the Guardian.

Work of prominent climate change *denier was funded by energy industry *

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... y-industry

The actual source of Willie Soon`s funding.

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who- ... illie-soon

Spandex, the Guardian tried to trash two scientists careers over whether or not the medieval warming was global, this latest study appears to back up Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas 2003 study. You see Spandex the medieval warming makes a large hole in the warmist statement that the slight 20th century warming was unprecedented.


----------



## Spandex

BobBot, the majority of actual, qualified climate scientists disagree with you.


----------



## bobclive22

Spandex, want global warming, close the weather stations in cooler areas.

https://www.moultrienews.com/opinion/op ... 668bc.html


----------



## Spandex

Unfortunately, the majority of actual, qualified climate scientists believe that man made climate change is real BobBot.


----------



## SLine_Tom

I'm all for global warming, its too chilly for me.....But not too hot either !

Can we have some sort of smart meter installed please ?


----------



## bobclive22

> Unfortunately, the majority of actual, qualified climate scientists believe that man made climate change is real BobBot.


No Spandex they hope to fool the general public that it is real, true believers like yourself always believe the press statements instead of checking the facts.

*New York's Temperature Record Massively Altered By NOAA*

On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were *2.7F less than in 1943*. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only *0.9F*.

Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures *down, relatively, by 1.8F.*
Indeed, it is arguably worse than that. You will notice that there is an outlier in *Syracuse,* which suggests that 2014, quite* nonsensically, was warmer*. Syracuse's temperature station is, however, based at the International Airport there, *slap bang in between runways.* (The blue marker is the current site).

Facts Spandex check the facts.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... d-by-noaa/


----------



## Spandex

Sure, sure, but the majority of qualified climate scientists think you're wrong BobBot.


----------



## bobclive22

> Can we have some sort of smart meter installed please


*Smart meters slow in the UK*

In the UK the problems have been weak policy, and customer disengagement. The well-known economics analyst Dieter Helm neatly summed up the situation in his March 2017 paper 'Not so smart - what has gone wrong with the smart meter programme and how to fix it'.

In it, he says: 'The smart meter programme started out as a good idea, but has been badly implemented ... with hard targets and *overhyped claims about the benefits*. £11 bn costs are supposed to produce £18 bn in benefits, and be *paid for by the lucky customers who are assumed to get all these benefits.*

'Customers were going to have energy efficiency houses, and they would be able to shop around for the most competitive prices. Together with the heavily subsidised wind farms and solar panels ... these policies were together going to result in lower prices to consumers.

'It has* not* turned out as planned. The energy suppliers are* not* on course to complete the smart meter roll out by 2020, there are *problems* with the meters, and consumers *are not* behaving in the way politicians assumed they would. They *are not switching* and the prices are *going up sharply as wholesale costs are coming down.*

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/gas/retail-mar ... ion-values


----------



## bobclive22

> Sure, sure, but the majority of qualified climate scientists think you're wrong BobBot.


We are back to the 3 monkeys syndrome, but I supposed that`s why you are still at the bottom of the pile Spandex.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> We are back to the 3 monkeys syndrome, but I supposed that`s why you are still at the bottom of the pile Spandex.


Is that an ad hominem attack BobBot? I thought you hated them? Or are you, in fact, a massive hypocrite?

Anyway, enough distractions - what about all those qualified climate scientists that disagree with you? Shouldn't you be addressing that thorn in the side of your argument instead of waffling about monkeys?


----------



## SLine_Tom

I was taking the piss Bob, you sound like you need a very long holiday.



bobclive22 said:


> Can we have some sort of smart meter installed please
> 
> 
> 
> *Smart meters slow in the UK*
> 
> In the UK the problems have been weak policy, and customer disengagement. The well-known economics analyst Dieter Helm neatly summed up the situation in his March 2017 paper 'Not so smart - what has gone wrong with the smart meter programme and how to fix it'.
> 
> In it, he says: 'The smart meter programme started out as a good idea, but has been badly implemented ... with hard targets and *overhyped claims about the benefits*. £11 bn costs are supposed to produce £18 bn in benefits, and be *paid for by the lucky customers who are assumed to get all these benefits.*
> 
> 'Customers were going to have energy efficiency houses, and they would be able to shop around for the most competitive prices. Together with the heavily subsidised wind farms and solar panels ... these policies were together going to result in lower prices to consumers.
> 
> 'It has* not* turned out as planned. The energy suppliers are* not* on course to complete the smart meter roll out by 2020, there are *problems* with the meters, and consumers *are not* behaving in the way politicians assumed they would. They *are not switching* and the prices are *going up sharply as wholesale costs are coming down.*
> 
> https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/gas/retail-mar ... ion-values
Click to expand...


----------



## bobclive22

> It seems to be 50% of "experts" wanted it one way and 50% the other, so i hate that the next best solution is to *ask a bunch of people who haven't got a clue what should happen*.


Even when experts are wrong about their predictions, they tend to not accept accountability. Rather than take responsibility for a bad prediction, Philip Tetlock says the errors are often attributed to "bad timing" or an "unforeseeable event." Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania did a landmark twenty-year study, which was published in his book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (read excellent review in The New Yorker). In the study Tetlock interviewed 284 economic and political professionals and collected more than 80,000 predictions from them. *The results? The experts did worse than blind guessing.* 
:roll: :roll: :roll: 
https://investingcaffeine.com/2012/07/0 ... ng-chimps/


----------



## bobclive22

> I was taking the piss Bob, you sound like you need a very long holiday.


Sorry mate, I thought you were actually in the market for one.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It seems to be 50% of "experts" wanted it one way and 50% the other, so i hate that the next best solution is to *ask a bunch of people who haven't got a clue what should happen*.
> 
> 
> 
> Even when experts are wrong about their predictions, they tend to not accept accountability. Rather than take responsibility for a bad prediction, Philip Tetlock says the errors are often attributed to "bad timing" or an "unforeseeable event." Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania did a landmark twenty-year study, which was published in his book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (read excellent review in The New Yorker). In the study Tetlock interviewed 284 economic and political professionals and collected more than 80,000 predictions from them. *The results? The experts did worse than blind guessing.*
> :roll: :roll: :roll:
> https://investingcaffeine.com/2012/07/0 ... ng-chimps/
Click to expand...

So you don't trust *any* experts then BobBot?

If I was being cynical, I'd think you were just spouting this bollocks to give you an excuse to ignore any experts you disagree with. Because you conveniently forget about your distrust of experts when you want to post things written by people you class as climate experts. Almost like you're a massive hypocrite.


----------



## bobclive22

> So you don't trust any experts then BobBot?


Not the ones pushing AGW Spandex.
*
CHILDREN JUST AREN'T GOING TO KNOW WHAT SNOW IS*

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. * Year 2000.*

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs ... 0a727fb09d

*Snow: travel chaos with flights and trains cancelled, roads closed, 36 hours of blizzards and 10,000 without electricity across Britain

Strong winds mean blizzards - and the big freeze lingers into next week
*
Martin Hickman
@martin_hickman
Friday 18 *January 2013 *18:37 GMT
0 comments

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 53159.html

Here is the original which the independent has removed from their data base, wonder why.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100113183 ... 24017.html

https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forec ... er-history

Now as I look out of the window on 1st March 2018 I see that very rare and exciting event, SNOW.


----------



## FJ1000

Surely you're not cherry picking a bad prediction made 18 years ago- to make a point about global warming and support your delusion that you know more than the pretty much the entire scientific community?

Only an idiot would do that...

Do you also happen to believe the earth is flat?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So you don't trust any experts then BobBot?
> 
> 
> 
> Not the ones pushing AGW Spandex.
Click to expand...

And there we have it. The circular argument that fuels your lunacy. If I ask why you don't trust experts, you'll tell me it's because of what they say. If I ask why you don't believe what they say you'll tell me it's because you can't trust them.

You're the 'true believer' here, aren't you. You don't need proof or evidence, you just need people saying things that agree with what you already decided was true. You trust anyone who says that AGW isn't real, and by extension you trust all of their 'science' too.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Now as I look out of the window on 1st March 2018 I see that very rare and exciting event, SNOW.


Are you so dumb that you don't know what rare means? I mean, you making sense is rare, but that doesn't mean it never happens (I assume you just don't post stuff on here when it happens, which explains why we've never seen it).

Snowfall has reduced in the uk over the years. It is expected to continue that trend. For the hard of thinking, that doesn't mean it won't snow (so if you look out your window and see snow, that doesn't mean it isn't rare, or becoming rarer) it just means the frequency is changing.


----------



## bobclive22

> So you don't trust any experts then BobBot?
> 
> _Not the ones pushing AGW and statins Spandex._


*AGW*

Junk science is no longer welcome at the Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Scott Pruitt has declared war on what he calls "secret science" - the process whereby EPA regulators have been able to craft rules using non-publicly-available science data.

The New York Times has billed it as "an attack on science" - as if, somehow, scientific experiments conducted in secret for political ends are somehow more representative of "science" than experiments which are both open and independently reproducible.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... on-agency/

*Statin*

*Relative Risk or Absolute Risk, that`s the con *+ all the data from the majority of the drug company funded studies are held by *Professor Sir Rory Collins of Oxford University*, He will not release this data for independent researches to verify those studies. Professor Collins group at Oxford has received over £270 million from those drug companies.

http://foodmed.net/2016/09/statins-stud ... ns-lancet/

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/02/1 ... lian-move/


----------



## bobclive22

> So you don't trust any experts then BobBot?
> 
> _Not the ones pushing AGW and statins or maybe the MMR vaccine Spandex_


Remember The MMR vaccine supposed scandal.

https://archive.org/details/Vaxxed.From ... rophe.2016


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Remember The MMR vaccine supposed scandal.
> 
> https://archive.org/details/Vaxxed.From ... rophe.2016


Yes BobBot, I remember the vast majority of the medical community saying the MMR vaccine was safe, and a handful of wackos saying it wasn't, and it turns out all the experts were correct.

By the way, I have no idea what point you're actually trying to make, because I have absolutely no intention of watching an hour and a half of video in order to find out. I feel like I've wasted enough time just reading the drivel you write here without adding to it by reading/watching all the spam links you post too.


----------



## bobclive22

A little bit of history, it`s all happened before.



> The Middle Ages also provide a particularly interesting example of architectural
> evolution because they stretch across *one of the most dramatic climate transitions that have taken
> place in the common era*-the shift from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age.





> Tree ring samples provide a more regional scale picture of climate trends; Carbon-14 (C14)
> concentrations, for example, generally decrease when solar radiation is high (and are high for
> when clouds, rain, and particulate matter block radiation) (263). Data obtained from tree rings,
> appearing in Figure 2, seems to indicate a marked minimum in the *Twelfth Century *(associated
> with greater radiation and warmer temperatures) and an increasing trend again beginning in the
> *early-mid Thirteenth century* (associated with cooling temperatures).


The little iceage ended around 1870 and temperatures are said to have risen by 1.1 degrees centigrade since that time, can this be classed as a dramatic climate transition similar to the little ice age but in reverse, I don`t believe so.

http://www.esmg.mcgill.ca/bschonorsthesis.pdf

*Why Global Warming Would be Good for You*

"Why Global Warming Would be Good for You" appeared in The Public Interest Winter 1995, (read the history)

https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

References.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140731064 ... ENCES.HTML

How to treat deniers,

http://www.thesavvystreet.com/another-c ... r-stomped/



> I believe a climate science story that must be told is the degree of difference in nastiness directed at those who questioned the prevailing AGW wisdom. People who have not experienced it cannot imagine how vile and intimidating it gets,


*
A Climate Story That Must be Told*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/04/ ... t-be-told/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I believe a climate science story that must be told is the degree of difference in nastiness directed at those who questioned the prevailing AGW wisdom. People who have not experienced it cannot imagine how vile and intimidating it gets,
> 
> 
> 
> *
> A Climate Story That Must be Told*
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/04/ ... t-be-told/
Click to expand...

Poor little snowflakes...


----------



## bobclive22

Spandex said,



> Yes BobBot, I remember the vast majority of the medical community saying the MMR vaccine was safe, and a handful of wackos saying it wasn't, and it turns out all the experts were correct.
> 
> By the way, I have no idea what point you're actually trying to make, because I have absolutely no intention of watching an hour and a half of video in order to find out. I feel like I've wasted enough time just reading the drivel you write here without adding to it by reading/watching all the spam links you post too.


Just for you Spandex Trusting the experts,

In medical studies relative risk statistic is ALWAYS used never absolute risk, PROFIT is the motive, relative risk amplifies the result, it makes the result look better than it actually is, it has enabled drug companies to make vast profits especially from statins, example,
A group of 100 is split in two, 50 take the trial drug 50 take a placebo, over a 2-year trial period 2 die in the placebo group and 1 dies in the drug group, the drug companies press release will be (new drug improves death rate from X decease by 50%). The absolute risk reduction to the individual is *1 extra death in 100*, The point I was trying to make should now be obviouse even to you Spandex.


----------



## bobclive22

*Final call to save the world from 'climate catastrophe'*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... M-down.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... M-down.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... M-down.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... shadow.png

*Looks a bit like project fear, *

Arctic sea ice extent for September 2018 averaged 4.71 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles), tying with 2008.

Bit more History,

https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/reso ... lorers.pdf

Proxy data cannot be trusted in the past if it cannot be trusted in the present.

https://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming ... ecline.asp

*Hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller*








> The fact that from the middle of the 20th century tree ring growth was less than might have been expected from the temperature record, as seen in the records for the US but general in the Northern Hemisphere, brings into question the reliability of tree rings as a proxy for temperature.* If they do not accurately represent late 20th century temperatures how can we be sure they accurately represent temperatures in earlier times for which we have no instrumental corroboration? *Whilst this phenomenon is well known among tree ring experts and has been described in the scientific literature, the fact that the discrepancy between narrower tree rings and higher temperatures has not always been made clear has led to lively debate.


http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/tree-rings/

Do you understand that Spandex.


----------



## leopard

Of course he does but you're dealing with a contrarian [smiley=clown.gif]


----------



## bobclive22

Tree ring proxies show a decline in temperature from 1960-80`s, a list of 285 science papers discussing that decline in recorded temperatures from 1960 are listed below,

*285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus.*

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/mass ... consensus/

*Do the Adjustments to Land Surface Air Temperature Data Increase the Global Warming Rate?*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/16/ ... ming-rate/

The comments are interesting.

*Are the proxies correct,* have the temperature data sets been adjusted to show higher warming.

*Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural*

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/rec ... g-natural/

Here is the normal Guardian hit piece just for Spandex.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nk-science


----------



## John-H

:lol:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Of course he does but you're dealing with a contrarian [smiley=clown.gif]


When your desire to insult me means you're forced to take sides with BobBot... Ouch. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Just for you Spandex Trusting the experts,
> 
> In medical studies relative risk statistic is ALWAYS used never absolute risk, PROFIT is the motive, relative risk amplifies the result, it makes the result look better than it actually is, it has enabled drug companies to make vast profits especially from statins, example,
> A group of 100 is split in two, 50 take the trial drug 50 take a placebo, over a 2-year trial period 2 die in the placebo group and 1 dies in the drug group, the drug companies press release will be (new drug improves death rate from X decease by 50%). The absolute risk reduction to the individual is *1 extra death in 100*, The point I was trying to make should now be obviouse even to you Spandex.


Thanks for the GCSE statistics lesson, but nope, I still have no idea what point you were allegedly trying to make.

Try going outside and shouting it at a pigeon. That might help (us).


----------



## bobclive22

Spandex, I believe a Troll is someone that is intent in trashing another persons statements or comments without producing anything of substance by his/her self.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, I believe a Troll is someone that is intent in trashing another persons statements or comments without producing anything of substance by his/her self.


My 'substantial' posts are scattered throughout the earlier parts of this thread. If you want to know what I think, please re-read.

At this stage however, having grown bored of your constant spamming and stupidity, I am mainly just making fun of you for my own entertainment. In my defence, I saw you making a fool of yourself, and just joined in.


----------



## bobclive22

> But we've not reached the predicted tipping point of catastrophe yet and the corroborating trend evidence mounts confirming what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying.


Tipping point, do you mean temperature John,

The problem you have is believing in consensus science which is probably wrong and not investigating the subject you believe is so important now and in the future.

*This modern warming is unprecedented and due to humans causes you hear this constantly from the mainstream media,* 
John, for this statement to be valid you need to know the temperature of the past, as there were no thermometers in that time frame proxy's are used, the most well known are the tree ring studies by Prof Keith Briffa of UEA who was a world renound expert in that field. The problem John is that Professor Briffa`s tree ring studies which supposedly tracked the temperature of the past with some accuracy showed around 1960 a temperature decline against the themometers that were indicating an increase, this is now known as the divergence problem and has NOT been resolved. Either these proxies cannot track the temperature of the past or the thermometer record has been adjusted to show higher present temperatures than actually exist. These land and sea temperature data sets are controlled by government funded scientists and as you must be aware this subject has been politicised and billions are now involved.

The question is, do you trash your economies over a problem that probably does not exist and cannot be proven to exist. John, keep reading the Guardian but perhaps venture to the other side occasionally.

*Hide the decline,*

https://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming ... al-proxies

https://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming ... ecline.asp

A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on *Non-Treering Proxy Data*. Energy & Environment

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/ ... ndication/

History, the Medieval warm period and climate change.

http://www.esmg.mcgill.ca/bschonorsthesis.pdf

*Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses*

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/cro ... 00-077.htm

CO2 ENRICHMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS has been used since the 1960`S that`s over 50 years and it is still widely used today.

https://www.actahort.org/books/162/162_21.htm


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does but you're dealing with a contrarian [smiley=clown.gif]
> 
> 
> 
> When your desire to insult me means you're forced to take sides with BobBot... Ouch. :lol:
Click to expand...

Bollocks lol [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The question is, do you trash your economies over a problem that probably does not exist and cannot be proven to exist.


That's ironic, coming from a leave voter. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> But we've not reached the predicted tipping point of catastrophe yet and the corroborating trend evidence mounts confirming what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying.


Tipping point, do you mean temperature tipping point John.

The problem you have is believing in consensus science which is probably wrong and not investigating the subject you believe is so important now and in the future.

*This modern warming is unprecedented and due to human causes you here this constantly from the mainstream media*, 
For this statement to be *valid* you need to know the temperature of the past, as there were no thermometers in that time frame proxy's are used, the most well known are the tree ring studies by *Prof Keith Briffa of UEA who was a world renound expert in that field.* The problem John is that Professor Briffa`s tree rings which supposedly tracked the temperature of the past with some accuracy showed around 1950/60 a temperature decline against the themometers that were indicating an increase, this is now known as the divergence problem and has NOT been resolved. Either these proxies cannot track the temperature of the past or the thermometer record has been adjusted to show higher present temperatures than actually exist, this is more likely, These temperature data sets are controlled by government funded scientists and as you must be aware this subject has become politicised and billions are now involved.

The question is, do you trash your economies over a problem that probably does not exist and cannot be proven to exist. John, keep reading the Guardian but perhaps venture to the other side occasionally.



> _"It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it." _


 Jacob Bronowski.

This study below is by three of the main AGW players,

*Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review
K.R. Briffaa,*, T.J. Osborna
, F.H. Schweingruberb
*
However, in many tree-ring chronologies, *we do not observe the expected rate of ring density increases that would be compatible with observed late 20th century warming.* This changing climate sensitivity may be the result of other environmental factors that have, since the 1950s, increasingly acted to reduce tree-ring density below the level expected on the basis of summer temperature changes. *This prevents us from claiming unprecedented hemispheric warming during recent decades on the basis of these tree-ring density data alone.* Here we show very preliminary results of an investigation of the links between recent changes in MXD and ozone (the latter assumed to be associated with the incidence of UV radiation at the ground).

Tree ring proxies track thermometer temperatures from around the 1770`S to around the 1950`S then they diverge, keep in mind that this study was produced in 2004 when the temperature set had been *massively adjusted by Hanson of Nasa Giss.*
They can`t even contemplate that it might be the adjusted data sets that have caused the divergence, if the data set can be adjusted in the US why not globaly, same players, see link below.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.c ... =500&h=355

https://gvc.gu.se/digitalAssets/1351/13 ... b_2004.pdf

*Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America*

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... h-america/

*Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999*

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... 0-to-1999/

It appears John that tree ring proxies *do track the raw uncorrupted data.*


----------



## bobclive22

*Is there an elephant in the greenhouse, probably not.
*
For there to be catostrophic warming we need to know the temperature of the past, according to the IPPC and the EU the supposed 1 degree of warming since 1880 is unpresidented.

*This modern warming is unprecedented and due to humans causes you here this constantly from the mainstream media,* for this statement to be valid you need to know the temperature of the past, as there were no thermometers in that time frame proxy`s are used, the most well known are tree ring studies by Prof Keith Briffa of UEA who was a world renowned expert in that field. The problem is that Professor Briffa`s tree rings supposedly tracked the temperature of the past with some accuracy *but around 1960 started to show a temperature decline against the themometers that were showing an increase, this is known as the divergence problem and has NOT been solved.* Now either the proxies cannot track the temperature or the thermometer record has been adjusted to show higher present temperatures that don`t actually exist. These temperature data sets are controlled by government funded scientists and have been systematically adjusted regularly, I believe the adjustments are not made publically available, as you must be aware this subject has been politicised and billions are involved.

It appears the climatologists are very reluctant to consider that the temperature sets may be at fault even though tree ring s do appear to track the raw unajusted temperature data with some accuracy.

The link below discusses these adjustments and gives examples, worth a read instead of relying on the Guardian,

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com ... 062717.pdf

This link from an EU funded study discusses tree rings, 2015.

_In conclusion, the 'Tree rings and climate' project reported evidences to support the statement that applying dendrochronological methods can provide a long-term context back in time from several centuries to millennia *with an annual resolution only available when using paleorecord such as tree rings.* At present, dendroclimatology, based on the assumption that it is possible to extract climatic information registered in tree-rings formed in the past,* face significant challenges in understanding and attributing the causes of phenomena such as the "divergence problem"*, and in finding the correct way to estimate past climate successfully dealing with these temporal instabilities. _

https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/164218_en.html


----------



## Slemp

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, I believe these are the best online casinos and a Troll is someone that is intent in trashing another persons statements or comments without producing anything of substance by his/her self.


I know, let's just throw more money at the scientists and make them even more dependent on the government dough. That'll solve everything, right?


----------



## Spandex

Slemp said:


> I know, let's just throw more money at the scientists and make them even more dependent on the government dough. That'll solve everything, right?


Well, either they work for free, or they get accused of being biased towards whoever funds them.

Maybe if they won't work for free, we should just get rid of them. They're not telling you what you want to hear anyway, so you'll be better off without them, yeah?


----------



## bobclive22

> They're not telling you what you want to hear anyway, so you'll be better off without them, yeah?


No Spandex the data is not telling you what* YOU *want here, that data appears to indicate nothing to fear.

*The C.R.U. researchers, leaders in that type of work,* were trying in 1999 to produce a long-term temperature chart that could be used in a United Nations publication.

But they were dogged by a problem: *Since around 1960, for mysterious reasons, trees have stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries.* If plotted on a chart, tree rings from 1960 forward appear to show declining temperatures,* something that scientists know from thermometer readings is not accurate.*

*Most scientific papers have dealt with this problem by ending their charts in 1960 or by grafting modern thermometer measurements onto the historical reconstructions.*

In the 1999 chart, the C.R.U. researchers chose the latter course for one especially significant line on their graph. *This technique was what Dr. Jones characterized as a "trick."*

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/scie ... r=1&src=mv

They use Proxy`s for the past and graft thermometer measurements on the end when the proxys don`t deliver what they want to see, why would they do that.

*They know the adjusted temperature sets are correct*, of cause they do, *THEY ADJUSTED THEM*.

You believe this without question Spandex :? :?



> richard verney October 11, 2018 at 2:07 am
> Have you ever considered the possibility that the tree ring data is a better reconstruction of temperatures than is the heavily adjusted and bastardised thermometer record.
> 
> Everyone rushes to dismiss tree rings as good temperature proxies because of the divergence issue. Whilst tree rings do not respond exclusively to temperatures, perhaps the divergence issue is primarily the fault of our thermometer temperature reconstructions, which themselves are not a good proxy for global temperature, Perhaps even given the warts of tree ring proxies, they may be a better proxy for temperatures than the heavily adjusted and bastardised thermometer record.
> 
> In my opinion we need to test the thermometer record by identifying say the best 200 sited stations which are completely free of environmental changes and have good historic records and practices, and then retrofit these stations with the same type of LIG thermometer and the same type of enclosure painted with the same type of paint as was used by each individual station back in the 1930s/1940s and then take readings using the same TOB as used at each station.
> 
> One would then get a series of 200 individual records of modern day unadjusted RAW temperature data that could be directly compared to the stations own past historic unadjusted RAW data. One would not try and make some hemispherical or global construct, just compare each station with itself and see what changes had occurred from that station's historic highs of the 1930s/1940.
> 
> We would quickly know whether there has been significant change. Further since about 97% of all manmade CO2 emissions have arisen since the 1930s, this would cover the most useful period to see what impact rising CO2 may have had on temperature.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/ ... e-proxies/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You believe this without question Spandex :? :?


I'm not a climate scientist BobBot. I don't have any external frame of reference for what is 'believeable'. Neither do you.

So we come back to (once again) the question of how do people who aren't experts in the field decide which information to believe? I know how I decide. I've explained it over and over. It's a simple method that requires no knowledge of climate science from myself (fortunately).

Your method for choosing, unfortunately, requires you to convince yourself that you have the knowledge and intelligence to work out what's true.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm not a climate scientist BobBot. I don't have any external frame of reference for what is 'believeable'. Neither do you.


Well Spandex, you don`t need to be a scientist to have an opinion on a scientific subject, you just need common sense and a open mind, in your case that`s obviousely lacking.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I'm not a climate scientist BobBot. I don't have any external frame of reference for what is 'believeable'. Neither do you.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Spandex, you don`t need to be a scientist to have an opinion on a scientific subject, you just need common sense and a open mind, in your case that`s obviousely lacking.
Click to expand...

I have an opinion. But not all opinions are equal. Your opinion on climate science carries very little weight, whereas a climate scientists opinion on climate science carries a great deal of weight.

Your mistake is believing that your opinion matters to anyone other than you.


----------



## bobclive22

> Spandex, I have an opinion. But not all opinions are equal. Your opinion on climate science carries very little weight, whereas a climate scientists opinion on climate science carries a great deal of weight.


If you don`t want to debate the subject why do you comment, only trolls do that.



> Your mistake is believing that your opinion matters to anyone other than you.


So you vote for your MP and have no opinion, three monkeys I believe.

*Apollo 17 moonwalker Harrison Schmitt stirs up a buzz with climate change views*

Normally, we have always assumed up until the Industrial Revolution that climate change is a function of the solar cycles - and indeed, there is still very strong evidence that's the case. So, no, there is no irony in that. *I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy.* And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the United States government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/apollo-17 ... nge-views/


----------



## Spandex

Why do I comment? I've explained numerous times in this thread and others that I'm happy to debate the logic of how we choose to believe what we believe. I've also stated numerous times that it's pointless two completely unqualified non-experts debating the actual science. I'm not going to be dragged down to your level, but if you ever want to explain how you choose who to believe, I'm all ears.

As for your article, as I've said many times (it does take a while for things to sink into that head of yours, doesn't it) presenting individuals that agree with your view doesn't make any difference whatsoever. They are still the minority, and that's the issue you need to address.

See what I mean about debating the science being pointless? The problem you have to surmount is the fact that almost every single climate expert in the world says you're wrong. You can post as many links as you want, but that won't make that problem go away.

But you can't address that problem, so you just ignore it. Every time I bring it up, you waffle around it, then post more links.


----------



## bobclive22

> As for your article, as I've said many times (it does take a while for things to sink into that head of yours, doesn't it) presenting individuals that agree with your view doesn't make any difference whatsoever. They are still the minority, and that's the issue you need to address.


You have it the wrong way round as usual Spandex.

*Minorities*

*Two Australians win Nobel Prize in medicine*

Nearly 20 years ago, 2 Australian physician researchers made a discovery that initially was widely ridiculed in the medical community. In the January 1983 issue of the British medical journal The Lancet, Australian physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren claimed that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori and not by excessive acidity in the stomach.

'No one believed it' 
Warren, a retired pathologist, said it took a decade for others to accept their findings.
*The long-standard teaching in medicine was that "the stomach was sterile and nothing grew there because of corrosive gastric juices," *he said. "So everybody believed there were no bacteria in the stomach."

"When I said they were there, *no one believed it*," he added.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... md/2000-04

*Minorities*



> Judge upholds landmark glyphosate-cancer verdict, even though the *company funded scientific studies *appear to show no link with cancer


It appears the EU is OK with Roundup for another 5 years, perhaps because Bayer now owns Monsanto.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ies-appeal


----------



## Spandex

You're doing it again BobBot. We all know scientists have been wrong in the past. Im sure they'll be wrong in the future too. But that isn't evidence that they're wrong NOW, is it.

But it's even worse than that. You are literally using the *current* scientific consensus on what causes stomach ulcers to demonstrate why you don't believe scientific consensus. Mental, isn't it? In order to triumphantly show me how the scientific community got it wrong in the past, you have to trust that that very scientific community is right now. I know you're generally blind to your constant hypocrisy, but surely even you can see how paradoxical your argument is?

And if you can't follow that simple logical flow, how do you honestly think you're intellectually equipped to analyse the incredibly complex science involved in this??


----------



## bobclive22

Roman Warming (was it global?)

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl= ... GXoECAcQCQ

*Ancient Maya civilisation was destroyed by massive drought, scientists find.* Thursday 2 August 2018

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 75121.html

*Medieval Warm Period*

Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes-The Past is the Key to the Future

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ea ... arm-period

Gisp 2 Greenland ice core temperatures.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iwlghkzum2o69 ... s.jpg?dl=0


----------



## bobclive22

> You're doing it again BobBot. We all know scientists have been wrong in the past. Im sure they'll be wrong in the future too. But that isn't evidence that they're wrong NOW, is it.
> 
> But it's even worse than that. You are literally using the current scientific consensus on what causes stomach ulcers to demonstrate why you don't believe scientific consensus.


No Spandex I am using that example to show you that consensus science is not science, in the case of stomach ulcers there were *2 doctors* against the rest of the medical profession and the pharmacutical industry.

If you were studying a drug reaction on humans would it be correct to add in at the end (and not inform anyone) part of a similar study on rats because by doing that it gave you the required result.

Below is an example of just that in climate science, this is a graph of proxy temperatures the *BLACK trace *at the end are thermometer temperatures, all other colours are proxys, note how at the end of the graph the proxys go down and temps go up. Now why would a researcher use proxys to indicate past temperatures then when the proxys go in a different direction to that needed graft on a totally different data set namely thermometer temps and don`t tell anyone.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... arison.png


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No Spandex I am using that example to show you that consensus science is not science, in the case of stomach ulcers there were *2 doctors* against the rest of the medical profession and the pharmacutical industry.


So how do *you* know that the rest of the medical profession were wrong?


----------



## bobclive22

> So how do you know that the rest of the medical profession were wrong?


Well Spandex before the discovery around 1990 that Helicobacter pylori was the common cause of stomach ulcers Tagamet and Zantac were the only drugs available and had to be used continuously, unfortunately those drugs just eased the symptoms but did not cure the problem, ie you *took the drug for life*, today *one treatment* of antibiotics with bismuth and you are cured, so yes the medical profession were wrong prior to the discovery that Helicobacter pylori was the cause.


----------



## Spandex

You've not answered my question. How do *you* know?


----------



## Spandex

Just to save you missing the point for another few days, I'll explain it. The only way you know is because you now trust that the majority of the medical community are right on this particular issue.

It's a paradox. All your examples that (you believe) show we can't trust science require us to trust science.

But honestly, if when faced with the question "why do you believe the minority view?" your best answer is "because occasionally in history the minority has been right", I think it's time to take a long hard look at yourself.


----------



## bobclive22

> But honestly, if when faced with the question "why do you believe the minority view?" your best answer is "because *occasionally in history the minority has been right*", I think it's time to take a long hard look at yourself.


I should check that statement Spandex, forget about the creation bit,

https://creation.com/why-consensus-scie ... ti-science



> Just to save you missing the point for another few days, I'll explain it. The only way you know is because you now trust that the majority of the medical community are right on this particular issue.


No, the consensus was wrong, science proved them wrong


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No, the consensus was wrong, science proved them wrong


And why do you believe the current science? Have you done your own experiments, or are you trusting someone else's work? If it's the latter, how did you decide who to trust?

You do realise that you now believe the current consensus on what causes stomach ulcers, don't you?



bobclive22 said:


> [I should check that statement Spandex, forget about the creation bit,
> 
> https://creation.com/why-consensus-scie ... ti-science


That 'article' opens with the following statement:

"A major argument against opposition to Darwinism is the claim that evolutionary naturalism is the consensus of the science	community, therefore not open to debate"

And the entire thing relies on the reader taking that statement at face value. Unfortunately, it is just bollocks.

But this sums up a lot of the problems with how you look at this whole problem. You're battling away at the fact that there's a consensus, but you're not addressing WHY there's a consensus.

Take Darwinism for example. There is a consensus because there is a vast amount of evidence that supports the theory, and every other competing theory has either been disproved, or has very little supporting evidence. So moaning about what 'consensus' means and how it doesn't guarantee a theory is correct is completely missing gone point.


----------



## bobclive22

> And why do you believe the current science? Have you done your own experiments.


Yes and Yes.


----------



## bobclive22

> That 'article' opens with the following statement:
> 
> "A major argument against opposition to Darwinism is the claim that evolutionary naturalism is the consensus of the science	community, therefore not open to debate"
> 
> And the entire thing relies on the reader taking that statement at face value. Unfortunately, it is just bollocks.


Spandex, Did I or did I not say forget about the creationist bit. just read the examples in the main article.


----------



## bobclive22

*Drilling to begin at UK's first geothermal power plant,*

*I wonder if we will see the green blob demonstrating at this site, *

£10.6 million funding from the *European Regional Development Fund,*

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-06/dri ... wer-plant/

*Separate studies offer evidence of geothermal plant causing Pohang earthquake*

Geothermal plants such as the one proposed in Pohang (it has since been shut down) involve drilling two holes into the ground and then forcing water down them, causing the ground between them to crack. ( It`s called Fracking ).

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-evidence- ... e.html#jCp

*Geothermal power facility induces earthquakes, study finds*

An analysis of earthquakes in the area around the Salton Sea Geothermal Field in southern California has found a strong correlation between seismic activity and operations for production of geothermal power, which involve pumping water into and out of an underground reservoir.

The vast majority of the induced earthquakes are small, and the same is true of earthquakes in general. The key question is what is the biggest earthquake that could occur in the area, Brodsky said. The largest earthquake in the region of the Salton Sea Geothermal Field during the 30-year study period was a *magnitude 5.1 earthquake.
*
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-07-geotherma ... s.html#jCp

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-evidence- ... quake.html

What the Greens say,

*4. Minor Seismic Activity*
Another disadvantage of geothermal energy arises when building large scale exploration plants. This is due to the injection of high pressure water into the ground, which causes a small earthquake.It can pose a challenge, especially in developing countries where infrastructure and pipeline systems are not very sophisticated.* However none of these quakes have registered a magnitude above 3; and mostly, they are not noticed by public, ( odd the public noticed a 0.8 tremor in Lancashire*
Overall, geothermal energy has a lot of potential and new technologies will make it easier to explore and* minimize risks. *There is no perfect source of energy so far and in the case of geothermal energy, the pros outweigh the cons.

*Not just an earth tremor but quakes, Fracking 0.8 tremor, Geothermal 5.8 quake*

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/ ... mal-energy

*Fracking in Lancashire:* Second* 0.8 tremor *in 24 hours. A second tremor of 0.8 magnitude has been recorded within 24 hours at the UK's only active site for fracking.

The Green demonstrate over a *0.8 tremor* in Lancashire yet accept geothermal *quakes of between 3 and 5.4.*

http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/correlati ... uth-korea/

*South Korea's most-destructive quake probably triggered by geothermal plant*

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04963-y


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> And why do you believe the current science? Have you done your own experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and Yes.
Click to expand...

Lol.

No you haven't. The fact that you think your personal experience comes even close to counting as 'an experiment' is frankly hilarious, and underlines your complete lack of understanding of what science involves.

The only reason you (or whoever your laughable 'experiment' involved) were offered antibiotics is because the consensus changed. The only reason you accepted that new treatment is because the consensus said it was safe and that it would cure the ulcers. You trust scientific consensus every day of your life, and if you think you don't then you're kidding yourself (one of the few things you seem good at, I suppose). The ONLY reason you're ranting about consensus when it comes to AGW is because you don't believe it and you're grasping at any and every argument you can find.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> That 'article' opens with the following statement:
> 
> "A major argument against opposition to Darwinism is the claim that evolutionary naturalism is the consensus of the science	community, therefore not open to debate"
> 
> And the entire thing relies on the reader taking that statement at face value. Unfortunately, it is just bollocks.
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex, Did I or did I not say forget about the creationist bit. just read the examples in the main article.
Click to expand...

Oh god, did you think I was going to read that whole article? Are you on crack? :lol:

That being said, my response (which you've conveniently edited out and ignored) says it all. Your assumptions about what consensus means are wrong. Consensus doesn't mean anything is 'settled' or that debate is no longer allowed, or that none of the scientists are still looking at the competing theories.

There will still be scientists looking at stomach ulcers, for example. They will be trying to improve our understanding of them, and they may even find out that their current theory is wrong - maybe the cure worked but not for the reasons they thought. But in your pea brain, it's settled, isn't it? Because you're a hypocrite.


----------



## Spandex

Oh, and just FYI, I'm completely ignoring that earthquakes post. Too long, too dull. Just letting you know in case you assume I've read any of it.


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh, and just FYI, I'm completely ignoring that earthquakes post. Too long, too dull. Just letting you know in case you assume I've read any of it.


It doesn`t matter whether you read it or not Spandex, the restriction on shale gas fracking is 0.5 yet the Greens like yourself accept 3 and above for fracking geothermal, same fracking for both, but greens are blinded by their religion, they don`t stop using fossil fuels though.


----------



## bobclive22

> The only reason you (or whoever your laughable 'experiment' involved) were offered antibiotics is because the consensus changed.


The consensus was proven wrong by scientific experiment, consensus is NOT science it is an erelevance mostly used for finacial gain, follow the money, Statins and the Flu vacine come to mind.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It doesn`t matter whether you read it or not Spandex


Excellent!


bobclive22 said:


> The consensus was proven wrong by scientific experiment, consensus is NOT science it is an erelevance mostly used for finacial gain, follow the money, Statins and the Flu vacine come to mind.


BobBot, the consensus changed. There is a new consensus now - one you also believe.

Consensus is not irrelevant. But you're correct that it's not science, no one said it was though.


----------



## John-H

Earthquakes?

I guess the claim is one of hypocrisy but one difference worth protesting about is more fossil fuel to damage the planet with one industry as opposed to saving the use of fossil fuel with the other industry.

The fact that both can use the same methods to fracture rock with high pressure water, one to create a reservoir and one to release gas leading to the same hazard, is hardly surprising. The choice to do it on a fault line explains the size of the quake.


----------



## Spandex

But more importantly, what the hell is BobBots point? Does he think if he can show that some 'green' organisations are hypocritical, it will somehow prove his point about AGW?

This is the problem with the BobBots brain. He sees this purely as a partisan issue. There are only two sides and to win the 'war' he thinks he just has to keep attacking the 'other side', any way he can. That's why he keeps calling me a green - he only understands this in terms of 'them' and 'us'. If you believe AGW, you're a green, lefty, liberal, etc. You read the Guardian and you have a smart meter. You must fit every one of his stereotypes because his little mind can't cope with anything more nuanced than that.


----------



## Spandex

Let me ask you this about stomach ulcers BobBot. Do you think they now know the cause and therefore don't need to research this anymore? Do you think it's impossible that they could be wrong about the cause? Do you think the science is 'settled' on this subject?

Don't post links, or write vague, meaningless phrases that leave me to work out what you might mean. Just answer the question(s) clearly.


----------



## FJ1000

Bob

2 questions:

1. What are your qualifications related to sciences?

2. Do you know what "confirmation bias" is?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> I guess the claim is one of hypocrisy but one difference worth protesting about is more fossil fuel to damage the planet with one industry as opposed to saving the use of fossil fuel with the other industry.


How does fossil fuel damage the planet John.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340-1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/cro ... 00-077.htm

Didn`t the UK run short of that nasty CO2 this summer,

What is CO2 used for?
CO2 is widely used in the food processing and drinks industries. It puts the fizz into beer, cider and soft drinks, and is used in food packaging to extend the shelf life of salads, fresh meat and poultry.

The gas is also seen as the most humane way to stun pigs and chickens before slaughter.

Carbon dioxide is also needed to create dry ice, another product extensively used in the food industry to help keeps things chilled in transit.

The gas is also widely used outside the food and drinks sectors. CO2 is needed for certain medical procedures, and is used in the manufacture of semiconductor devices and by oil companies to improve the extraction of crude.

Used in green house to grow plants.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44613652


----------



## Spandex

Hands up who wants to humanely stun BobBot with CO2...


----------



## bobclive22

Is this your green energy Spandex.

https://www.clarke-energy.com/2018/ashf ... ing-plant/


----------



## Spandex

I'll pay for the CO2. We just need to lure him into a sealed room.


----------



## FJ1000

FJ1000 said:


> Bob
> 
> 2 questions:
> 
> 1. What are your qualifications related to sciences?
> 
> 2. Do you know what "confirmation bias" is?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bob. Perhaps you missed my post?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I guess the claim is one of hypocrisy but one difference worth protesting about is more fossil fuel to damage the planet with one industry as opposed to saving the use of fossil fuel with the other industry.
> 
> 
> 
> How does fossil fuel damage the planet John.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

By releasing CO2 stored from millions of years ago trapped from past cycles and not part of the present sustainable cycle.

You do talk a lot of greenhouse gas Bob. I think if you went in Spanex's sealed room and kept the door shut there would be no need for further assistance and it just might save the planet.


----------



## bobclive22

A growing world population needs more food, by the way more people die of cold than warmth, seems more positives than negatives with extra CO2 in the real world.

https://www.easy-grow.co.uk/the-importa ... grow-room/


----------



## John-H

More people die of cold than warmth so we need more C02? You are very odd Bob.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> by the way more people die of cold than warmth, seems more positives than negatives with extra CO2 in the real world.


Let me get this straight BobBot. Are you saying that us producing CO2 is having a warming effect on the planet?


----------



## FJ1000

FJ1000 said:


> FJ1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 2 questions:
> 
> 1. What are your qualifications related to sciences?
> 
> 2. Do you know what "confirmation bias" is?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Bob. Perhaps you missed my post?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bob - I'm starting to think you're avoiding my 2 (very simple) questions...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.


Anything to do with religion, like the religion of global warming based entirely on computer models, would that be you FJ1000.


----------



## bobclive22

It wouldn`t be the EU`s misguided push for diesel for fear that nasty gas of life CO2 would destroy the wold sometime in the far distant future far far away would it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46233560


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It wouldn`t be the EU`s misguided push for diesel for fear that nasty gas of life CO2 would destroy the wold sometime in the far distant future far far away would it.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46233560


Going for the Chewbacca defense again, BobBot?


----------



## FJ1000

Great, so you've successfully googled confirmation bias.

Getting there.

And the other question, Bob?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

*THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT AT TEN*
History's most expensive virtue signal

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... rs-CCA.pdf


----------



## FJ1000

bobclive22 said:


> *THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT AT TEN*
> History's most expensive virtue signal
> 
> https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... rs-CCA.pdf


Not going to answer my question Bob?

What are your sciences qualifications?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

Fj1000,

You need common sense and just follow the money, we all know million and billionairs don`t like paying tax and try every which way to keep all their earned wealth, to ensure their cash and investments grow they make very calculated financial decisions especially regarding their propertys, now either many of them have lost it or they appear to know something most of you green leaning types don`t, might it be that the MSM`s constant propaganda regarding global warming caused by that trace gas CO2 that you types actually swallow is garbage and only meant to *unsettle the peasants.*

An example is Sandbanks, according to the press and the Met office Sandbanks will likely be under the sea in a few years time, now as the sea rises these million pound investment properties will start to devalue rather rapidly which is not what an astute businessman wants to see happen. The question is why would these savvy businessmen flock to an area that is according to the met office rapidly sinking beneath the waves.

_And the Environment Agency has forecast sea flooding on the peninsula within 60 years, as higher seas make the coastline from Purbeck to Christchurch 30 times more at risk than it is today._

It appears that as the sea supposedly rises so do the property prices in that area, odd that.

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... aires-woe/ *July 2007*

The Moorings on Sandbanks peninsula sells for £8.09m *21 Aug 2018 *

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... -for-809m/


----------



## Spandex

Once again, BobBots scalpel-like intellect has cut right to the heart of the issue. How can all those scientists possibly be right, if some millionaires that might not be around in 100 years time have bought properties that also might not be around in 100 years time?

All those wasted years of education and research, when all they had to do was find a beach with a posh house on it and watch to see who bought it. Fools.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Fj1000,
> 
> You need common sense and just follow the money


I love this. The BobBot genuinely thinks he's just as well equipped to understand global climate change as all the climate scientists put together. And I mean GENUINELY. He really is convinced of it. Quality.


----------



## John-H

It is quite something.


----------



## FJ1000

bobclive22 said:


> Fj1000,
> 
> You need common sense and just follow the money, we all know million and billionairs don`t like paying tax and try every which way to keep all their earned wealth, to ensure their cash and investments grow they make very calculated financial decisions especially regarding their propertys, now either many of them have lost it or they appear to know something most of you green leaning types don`t, might it be that the MSM`s constant propaganda regarding global warming caused by that trace gas CO2 that you types actually swallow is garbage and only meant to *unsettle the peasants.*
> 
> An example is Sandbanks, according to the press and the Met office Sandbanks will likely be under the sea in a few years time, now as the sea rises these million pound investment properties will start to devalue rather rapidly which is not what an astute businessman wants to see happen. The question is why would these savvy businessmen flock to an area that is according to the met office rapidly sinking beneath the waves.
> 
> _And the Environment Agency has forecast sea flooding on the peninsula within 60 years, as higher seas make the coastline from Purbeck to Christchurch 30 times more at risk than it is today._
> 
> It appears that as the sea supposedly rises so do the property prices in that area, odd that.
> 
> https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... aires-woe/ *July 2007*
> 
> The Moorings on Sandbanks peninsula sells for £8.09m *21 Aug 2018 *
> 
> https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... -for-809m/


So what are your qualifications in sciences?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> So what are your qualifications in sciences?


Common sense and the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially the fake news (chaff) from the MSM.

Gove's Climate Nonsense

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-36429


----------



## FJ1000

bobclive22 said:


> So what are your qualifications in sciences?
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially the fake news (chaff) from the MSM.
> 
> Gove's Climate Nonsense
> 
> https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-36429
Click to expand...

So....none?

An O-level/GCSE at least, perhaps?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> So....none?
> 
> An O-level/GCSE at least, perhaps?


FJ1000, you don`t need a college degree to come to a rational decision, In my case just 78 years of experience, common sense, an enquiring mind and being able to smell bullsh**t when it`s placed in front of you.

*55 School Drop Out Billionaires Without College Degrees*

https://www.profitableventure.com/schoo ... epreneurs/


----------



## John-H

I'm sure NASA employs qualified scientists and engineers don't they? When they were recruiting to land a man on the moon I'm sure they didn't just say, "Must have common sense and a keen sense of smell". Perhaps they also said, "A head in the clouds considered an advantage because we'd be half way there." Think of all the money they could have saved recruiting 78 year olds with such insight and life experience.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> In my case just 78 years of experience


Lol.

Are you including 'experience of building' and/or 'experience of being alive' in those 78 years, or is that all solid climate science?


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm sure NASA employs qualified scientists and engineers don't they? When they were recruiting to land a man on the moon I'm sure they didn't just say,


The Time NASA Lost a Mars Orbiter Because of a Metric System Mixup.

From the Viking landers to our now more than ten years of continual roving on the red planet, NASA has had a lot of success exploring Mars. But one instance sticks out as an unfortunate blemish on NASA's Martian record: the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter, which was chalked up to an unfortunate mixup between imperial and metric units of measurement.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... stem-mixup


----------



## bobclive22

> Lol.
> 
> Are you including 'experience of building' and/or 'experience of being alive' in those 78 years, or is that all solid climate science?


Well Spandex, all the houses are still standing, what have you achieved, still at the bottom of the pile.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm sure NASA employs qualified scientists and engineers


Actually I am a qualified engineer.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I'm sure NASA employs qualified scientists and engineers
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am a qualified engineer.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well Spandex, all the houses are still standing, what have you achieved, still at the bottom of the pile.


Fair enough BobBot. I was foolishly making fun of you for claiming your years of being alive and building houses had any relevance to your ability to understand climate science, but you've really put me in my place there. It simply hadn't occcured to me that (cue dramatic music) THE HOUSES WERE STILL STANDING(!!).

I mean, that incredible statistic must put you in, what, the top 99.5% of builders? I can now see your ability to successfully follow simple instructions would probably make you a valuable asset to climate science. You should send them your CV. Make sure to mention the houses are still standing!


----------



## bobclive22

> Fair enough BobBot. I was foolishly making fun of you for claiming your years of being alive and building houses had any relevance to your ability to understand climate science, but you've really put me in my place there. It simply hadn't occcured to me that (cue dramatic music) THE HOUSES WERE STILL STANDING(!!).


And your achievements Spandex, it appears you make your decisions from reading an article in the Guardian scripted by Greenpeace, where I make mine reading the actual scientific journals. It`s all about money and data.

*Statins,*

Two inherent flaws would eventually emerge in CTT's arrangement with the clinical trialists (in the context of all but one of the studies having been largely or entirely commercially funded). Firstly, the CTT agreed that the patient-level data upon which their analyses would be based "will be held in strict confidence", meaning that it would *NOT *be shared without the permission of those who conducted the studies.* So the CTT, part of the Clinical Trial Service Unit of Oxford, which is heavily dependent on pharmaceutical company money for its research, was given sole access to patient-level data without allowing for review by independent experts or even the possibility of adequate peer review of its published meta-analyses.*

The 2013 Cochrane review relied upon the 2012 CTT meta-analysis and published articles, but did not have access to the patient-level data.* Similarly, the NICE guideline expert panel (8 out of 12 of whom had financial ties to statin manufacturers[10]) did not have access to patient-level data.* In fact, even the CTT did not have patient-level data for most adverse events.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS, by the way the CTT is led by prof Sir Roy Collins.

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/ ... Pass=false

*Climate scientists shut out sceptics by turning down data requests*

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... mation-act

The emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests from climate sceptics who wanted access to emails, documents and data. These moves were not only contrary to the spirit of scientific openness, but according to the government body that administers the FoI act were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".

https://www.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... mation-act

Access to the data is the smell test Spandex.


----------



## bobclive22

life expectancy in secondary prevention trials for those who adhered to taking statins every day for several years was an extra *4DAYS.*

There also appears to be no clear reduction in coronary heart disease mortality in western European countries from statins for primary and secondary prevention[9]. More recently, a post-hoc analysis showed no benefit of statins (pravastatin) in elderly people with moderate hyperlipidaemia and hypertension in primary prevention, and a non-significant direction toward increased all-cause mortality among adults 75 years and older[10]. *Alarmingly, an assessment of industry-sponsored RCTs showed the median increase in life expectancy for selected participants in secondary prevention trials who adhered to taking statins every day for several years was a mere four days[11].*

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/ ... 46.article


----------



## John-H

You've not answered my question Bob.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I make mine reading the actual scientific journals.


No you don't, you little nut job. You occasionally read the summary sections of scientific papers which agree with your preconceived ideas. And the only reason you find those papers is because you're specifically searching for things to back up your beliefs.

Laughingly, you call this research.


----------



## bobclive22

> No you don't, you little nut job. You occasionally read the summary sections of scientific papers which agree with your preconceived ideas. And the only reason you find those papers is because you're specifically searching for things to back up your beliefs.
> 
> Laughingly, you call this research


.

Well Spandex I put my money where my mouth is, I have felt the severe side effects of statins as I have taken them twice in my life, for three weeks last year and for about the same length of time 20 years ago, in both instances I was invalided.

Sir Rory Collins the gate keeper of the statin data whose Oxford group has recieved over £260 million from drug companies and who states there are *little or no side effects from taking statins* has filed a patent in the US.

In 2009, he and three co- inventors filed the patent for a genetic marker that identifies patients at increased risk of *myopathy (muscular pain)*. The patent says the incidence of myopathy is around *one in 10,000* patients per year on a standard statin dose.

The trials show there is a very small increase in the risks of muscle problems, but it's absolutely tiny when you look at it in an entirely objective way," says Professor Sever. The chance of anyone getting muscle problems was between *one in a thousand and one in ten thousand*

If it was that small no need for a patent to check for it is there, in fact it now appears Prof Collins has never tested for adverse effects.

The test, branded as Statin-Smart, is sold online for $99 (£76) on a website that claims 29% of statin users will suffer muscle pain, weakness or cramps. *The marketing material also claims that 58% of patients on statins stop taking them within a year, mostly because of muscle pain.*[/i]

https://bostonheartdiagnostics.com/test ... t/?tcat=21

https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g33 ... -responses


----------



## Spandex

I have a feeling I'll regret asking, but what the hell do statins have to do with anything? Is this another of your "scientists have changed their mind about something, so I'll use that as an excuse to pick and choose which science I want to believe"?


----------



## FJ1000

bobclive22 said:


> I'm sure NASA employs qualified scientists and engineers
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am a qualified engineer.
Click to expand...

Hmm

The term "engineer" gets used too often by people that really shouldn't be allowed to; it ought to be a protected title to stop builders and plumbers calling themselves "engineers". Nothing against tradespeople, and they're just using commonly accepted language- but they are not really engineers.

Engineers have a-levels in maths and sciences, degrees in engineering and go on to be chartered by a recognised body (e.g. Institute of civil engineering).

Bob - with no science qualifications, to call yourself an engineer is disingenuous, and to think you know better than climate experts is laughable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJ1000

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make mine reading the actual scientific journals.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't, you little nut job. You occasionally read the summary sections of scientific papers which agree with your preconceived ideas. And the only reason you find those papers is because you're specifically searching for things to back up your beliefs.
> 
> Laughingly, you call this research.
Click to expand...

This is the confirmation bias I was talking about. Seeking out articles/"data" that confirms your existing bias.

It's the same kind of nonsense flat-earthers and other conspiracists do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

FJ1000 said:


> to think you know better than climate experts is laughable.


The way BobBot sees this can be summed up in this one quote:


bobclive22 said:


> Access to the data is the smell test Spandex.


That's right. 'The smell test'. If it doesn't smell right to the BobBot, it's not right. It's probably one of the most complex, wide-ranging pieces of science in history, but the BobBot genuinely believes he can cut right through all that by just using a bit of common sense.

His whole approach is structured around mitigating his own incompetence. He doesn't really understand the science (so he's subconsciously convinced himself he doesn't need to - all he needs is, conveniently, 'experience' and common sense), so he focuses on attacking the opposition. It's not obvious at first, but when you take a step back and look at his methods, you soon realise that he always tries to discredit the 'other sides' position, rather than putting one forward himself. Until you realise he's doing it, it's actually quite effective, because you find yourself constantly defending your position while he leaves very little to attack.

You'll notice that when you press him on things that require an actual personal response (i.e. stuff where he can't just copy and paste someone elses thoughts and ideas) he struggles. He will tend to avoid the question for a while, then write a long 'spam' post full of quotes and links unrelated to the previous conversation. It's a form of deflection, but I'm not entirely sure he even knows he's doing it.

A side effect of this is that he has applied very little thought to the fundamental basis for his beliefs because instead he spends all his time looking for ****** in the oppositions armour. He knows what he believes but he couldn't explain _why_ he believes it. The closest he can get is to try to demonstrate why he doesn't believe the opposition, but he doesn't really understand why that's not the same thing.

As you can see, my main interest in these threads is trying to work out how BobBots brain (such as it is) works. I always find it fascinating to see how people rationalise fringe theories and BobBot is an extreme example - I suspect he believes quite a few of the wackier conspiracy theories (faked moon landings, chemtrails, etc) but doesn't post them here because despite believing them he understands how they will affect the credibility he believes he has here.


----------



## John-H

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure NASA employs qualified scientists and engineers
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am a qualified engineer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

I still want to know why, if he thinks common sense and a sense of smell is all you need, he felt it necessary to become "qualified".


----------



## bobclive22

> That's right. 'The smell test'. If it doesn't smell right to the BobBot, it's not right. It's probably one of the most complex, wide-ranging pieces of science in history, but the BobBot genuinely believes he can cut right through all that by just using a bit of common sense.


As I said Spandex, the smell test is the data, it`s about proof, if a mathematician puts forward a new theory it will not be accepted without the mathematical proof backing it up. It`s all about the data, without the data being freely available the theory cannot be tested. Surely that`s not to hard to grasp.



> It's probably one of the most complex, wide-ranging pieces of science in history,


It may be, but if the data backing it up is not made available to other scientists wishing to test it then it cannot be accepted as reliable. Simple really.


----------



## bobclive22

> I still want to know why, if he thinks common sense and a sense of smell is all you need,


Perhaps Smell-a-rat is more apt John, like your involvement with smart meters, roll them out to everone else but not to me thankyou very much.


----------



## bobclive22

The BBC was pushing it`s global warming bulls**t last night spouting the old last 10 years are the warmist, I am not sure how many 0.01`s of a degree was involved they didn`t say.

According to Hansons Giss Graph the US appears to have missed out.

With all the increase in CO2 since 1934 the maximum temperature in the US has not exeeded (as of 2018) that of 1934, now I know these are not global temps but you would surely expect with all this catostophic man made global warming around to see at least a small increase in temperature in that country over the last 84 years.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As I said Spandex, the smell test is the data, it`s about proof, if a mathematician puts forward a new theory it will not be accepted without the mathematical proof backing it up. It`s all about the data, without the data being freely available the theory cannot be tested. Surely that`s not to hard to grasp.


Ahh.. my little lab rat is back.

BobBot, at the risk of repeating myself, that story is from over 8 years ago. The data upon which the current theories are based is available.

You should download all the data and test the theory yourself. With your impressive experience and common sense, that should be a walk in the park.


----------



## FJ1000

bobclive22 said:


> The BBC was pushing it`s global warming bulls**t last night spouting the old last 10 years are the warmist, I am not sure how many 0.01`s of a degree was involved they didn`t say.
> 
> According to Hansons Giss Graph the US appears to have missed out.
> 
> With all the increase in CO2 since 1934 the maximum temperature in the US has not exeeded (as of 2018) that of 1934, now I know these are not global temps but you would surely expect with all this catostophic man made global warming around to see at least a small increase in temperature in that country over the last 84 years.


Brilliant! Well - you've convinced me.

Tell me the one about the earth being flat

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

FJ1000,



> This is the confirmation bias I was talking about. Seeking out articles/"data" that confirms your existing bias.
> 
> It's the same kind of nonsense flat-earthers and other conspiracists do.


I believe it was the consensus in the past,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Every single drug company study uses the RELATIVE RISK statistic, read below and even you will get it FJ1000.

Absolute risk is the chance that you will experience the outcome over some period of time.

Relative risk is the chance that you will experience the outcome compared to someone else, based on individual risk factors or circumstances.

The absolute risk that you might develop, say, melanoma, is 1 in 50 in your lifetime, or 2%. If you have had 5 or more sunburns in your lifetime, your risk of melanoma is 80% higher than someone who has not. So your relative risk, if you have had 5 or more sunburns, is *80% *higher relative to someone who has not had the sunburns.

It seems obvious that we would not confuse these risks. No one would think that having had 5 sunburns gives you an 80% absolute risk of developing melanoma. If the baseline absolute risk of melanoma were 2% (it actually isn't because that number includes both those who have had five or more sunburns and those who have not), then your adjusted risk, if you have been burnt 5 times, is now *3.6% *(80% higher than the baseline). Still a relatively *low risk,* but nevertheless increased by 80%.

Seems simple.

It is not confirmation bias it`s reviewing the data, if that above fictional study appeared as a press release it would say,

Study shows you have an 80% chance of getting a melanoma if you have 5 or more sunburns. They then show their new sunstop lotion.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> With all the increase in CO2 since 1934 the maximum temperature in the US has not exeeded (as of 2018) that of 1934, now I know these are not global temps but you would surely expect with all this catostophic man made global warming around to see at least a small increase in temperature in that country over the last 84 years.


Is that how trends work? You pick the highest value in the past, and as long as subsequent years don't exceed that, you can claim it's not getting warmer?

I'm starting to think your 78 years of experience aren't as impressive as I first thought...


----------



## bobclive22

> BobBot, at the risk of repeating myself, that story is from over 8 years ago. The data upon which the current theories are based is available.
> 
> You should download all the data and test the theory yourself. With your impressive experience and common sense, that should be a walk in the park.


That Nasa data was correct at 1999, does 1934 still hold the highest US temperature record or not, are the dust bowl years the dryest in US history or not, help below Spandex.

NASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand years

A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium. Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America.

"*It was the worst by a large margin, falling pretty far outside the normal range of variability that we see in the record*," said climate scientist Ben Cook at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

CO2 Spandex, so it`s never been as bad since and 1934 is still the hottest year.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150749.htm


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Absolute risk is the chance that you will experience the outcome over some period of time....


Ok, you keep banging on about this, but you've never actually explained what point you think you're making.

Maybe you should...


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> so it`s never been as bad since and 1934 is still the hottest year.


Again BobBot, what's your point?

<edit> Oh, and just to help out your addled brain, my post about 8 year old data was in reply to a different comment (I thought the quote made that obvious?). It was not a response to your subsequent '1934' rant. You seem to have got mixed up a bit.


----------



## bobclive22

> Is that how trends work?


I am not talking about trends, trends can be fiddled with start and end dates, temperatures and droughts Spandex.
Even with many weather stations situated at major airports the 1934 high temps have still not been exceeded.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Is that how trends work?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not talking about trends, trends can be fiddled with start and end dates, temperatures and droughts Spandex.
> Even with many weather stations situated at major airports the 1934 high temps have still not been exceeded.
Click to expand...

Lol.

So because trends can be 'fiddled', you've decided to use an entirely inappropriate and arbitrary metric to determine if the US temperatures are increasing?

It really is hilarious watching you struggle with concepts that kids learn for their GCSEs...


----------



## bobclive22

Do yourself a favour Spandex read the article and view the video, the guys a vegan like you.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Do yourself a favour Spandex read the article and view the video, the guys a vegan like you.
> 
> https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace


No thanks!


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I still want to know why, if he thinks common sense and a sense of smell is all you need,
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Smell-a-rat is more apt John, like your involvement with smart meters, roll them out to everone else but not to me thankyou very much.
Click to expand...

You define yourself to others when you demonstrate your biased selective quoting of data.

I actually said:



John-H said:


> I still want to know why, if he thinks common sense and a sense of smell is all you need, he felt it necessary to become "qualified".


So being "qualified" was necessary for doing your job and you cite your qualification to demonstrate authority in your area of expertise, yet you dismiss the authority and qualification of others in their field without any relevant qualification or demonstrated understanding of the subject yourself and you expect us to trust what you say.

You can not see the massive hypocrisy you demonstrate in yourself. You are a lost cause.


----------



## FJ1000

Let's be clear - it's going to be a building qualification- not an engineering one.

No chance someone with as unscientific a mind as the Bob, would get through an engineering degree.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

Hello FJ1000,

Here is some modern global warming bulls**t aimed at the plebs, are you one FJ1000.



> The more global warming pollution that
> is emitted into the atmosphere, the more
> wildfires we can expect to see in California.


*The Union of concerned scientists.*

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fi ... ires-1.pdf

Here is a more scientifically balanced opinion written before the subject became politicised.



> BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.
> Dr. Stine, who reported his findings last month in the British journal Nature, says that California, like Tiwanaku, presents "a classic case of people building themselves beyond the carrying capacity of the land," which is determined not by wet times but by dry ones. "What we've done in California is fail to recognize that there are lean times ahead," said Dr. Stine, "and they are a lot leaner than anything we've come up against" in the modern era.





> There appears to be little doubt that the epic dry spells of the past did occur, he said, adding that "what has happened can happen."


https://www.nature.com/articles/369546a0

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/scie ... ornia.html

Now we get this garbage from the Guardian.



> Three decades later, California has been ravaged by just this sort of weather whiplash. The state experienced its worst drought in over a millennium from 2012 to 2016,


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... to-stop-it

Is this what you call confirmation bias.


----------



## bobclive22

> So being "qualified" was necessary for doing your job and you cite your qualification to demonstrate authority in your area of expertise, yet you dismiss the authority and qualification of others in their field without any relevant qualification or demonstrated understanding of the subject yourself and you expect us to trust what you say.


John, my opinion is my own, I don`t need to be qualified in a specific subject to form an opinion, I initially had No interest in global warming or Statins, It was only when I was made aware that warmist scientists would not share their data with other scientists wishing to replicate their studies I started to become interested in the subject, then came along Climate Gate.

As for statins, I had never heard of them before I had a heart attack some 20 years ago, after taking them for a short time I found I could not walk without chest pain, I became an invalid, to ease the pain I was given an angina spray, I decided to research statins and became aware of the severe side effects this drug can cause, once off statins I was back to normal and back to work building houses.

This is worth a read, if you google statins and BMJ there is more, follow the money, drug company study data unobtainable, Billions involved, 8 out of the 12 NHS NICE panel receive drug company money.

How statin drugs really lower cholesterol & kill you one cell at a time,

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/10/how- ... at-a-time/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I don`t need to be qualified in a specific subject to form an opinion


But you *do* need to be qualified in order for you opinion to be taken as seriously as someone who *is* qualified.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don`t need to be qualified in a specific subject to form an opinion
> 
> 
> 
> But you *do* need to be qualified in order for you opinion to be taken as seriously as someone who *is* qualified.
Click to expand...

Precisely


----------



## bobclive22

> But you do need to be qualified in order for you opinion to be taken as seriously as someone who is qualified.


Perhaps John if you actually gained your knowledge from actual scientists instead of the left wing press you might understand the subject a little better.

Professor Richard Lindzen Climate Lecture 8th Oct 2018

Professor Richard Lindzen is probably the most distinguished living climate scientist.






Debate for and against.






Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy - FOS Steve Goreham


----------



## bobclive22

> But you do need to be qualified in order for you opinion to be taken as seriously as someone who is qualified.


Do you mean like this expert Spandex,

*By Roger Harrabin*

Harrabin was born and raised in Coventry, England where his father ran a building firm with his wife and brother.[2] He attended Stivichall Primary School and King Henry VIII School.[3] He then studied English at St Catharine's College, Cambridge,[4] where he was *president of the Junior Common Room.* He started a college newspaper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44634122


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Do you mean like this expert Spandex,
> 
> *By Roger Harrabin*
> 
> Harrabin was born and raised in Coventry, England where his father ran a building firm with his wife and brother.[2] He attended Stivichall Primary School and King Henry VIII School.[3] He then studied English at St Catharine's College, Cambridge,[4] where he was *president of the Junior Common Room.* He started a college newspaper.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44634122


No.


----------



## John-H

Perhaps Bob if you didn't often obtain your information from obvious crackpot and dubious internet sources, answered a question put to you instead of changing the subject and could appreciate with some humility that qualified experts in a field trump your unqualified level of understanding, then your opinion would have more credibility.


----------



## bobclive22

> Perhaps Bob if you didn't often obtain your information from obvious crackpot and dubious internet sources,


Do you mean like these crackpot and dubious internet sources John,

https://motls.blogspot.com/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/
https://judithcurry.com/
http://drtimball.com/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://www.icecap.us/
http://notrickszone.com/
http://notrickszone.com/
https://climateaudit.org/

Perhaps you get your information from the Guardian and Wickipedia, yes. :roll: :roll:

*#Climategate continues *- first look at the Mann-Hughes hockey stick emails
Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago *December 10, 2018*
Evaluation of the Hughes emails

*David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/10/ ... es-emails/


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> Do you mean like this expert Spandex,
> 
> By Roger Harrabin
> 
> Harrabin was born and raised in Coventry, England where his father ran a building firm with his wife and brother.[2] He attended Stivichall Primary School and King Henry VIII School.[3] He then studied English at St Catharine's College, Cambridge,[4] where he was president of the Junior Common Room. He started a college newspaper.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44634122
> 
> No.


You appear Spandex to be such a true believer perhaps you might enlighten me as to where you were indoctrinated.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You appear Spandex to be such a true believer perhaps you might enlighten me as to where you were indoctrinated.


You appear to be speaking gibberish again. Do we need to up your meds?


----------



## bobclive22

> Perhaps Bob if you didn't often obtain your information from obvious crackpot and dubious internet sources,


Some more crackpot sources for you John,

*Wintertime Arctic Sea Ice Growth Slows Long-term Decline: NASA
*
These model simulations showed that in the 1980s, when Arctic sea ice was on average 6.6 feet thick in October, about 3.3 extra feet of ice would form over the winter. That rate of growth has increased and may continue to do so for several more decades in some regions of the Arctic; in the coming decades, we could have an ice pack that would on average be only around 3.3 feet thick in October, but could experience up to 5 feet of ice growth over the winter.

It seems counterintuitive: how does a weakening ice cover manage to grow at a faster rate during the winter than it did when the Arctic was colder and the ice was thicker and stronger?

Note they use computer models.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... cline-nasa

*Now actual real world on the ground facts for you John,*

*Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
G.M MacDonald,* K.V Kremenetski, and D.W Beilman*

However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800-1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000-3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position.

All that nasty CO2 warming yet the tree lines have not reach the same levels as in the medieval warm period.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/

*In Alaska's Thawing Permafrost*

A decade later, Jensen was visiting Utqiagvik before settling there, and she fielded a request to examine a new find at the site. Declining sea ice and an increase in storms had eroded the area further, exposing another mystery. This time, it began with the hood of a bird-skin parka that was sticking out of the ground.

The parka covered the body of a young girl-the best-preserved ever recovered in Alaska-who had lived there sometime in the *1200s.* Genetic testing revealed that the girl had suffered from a disease that made her an invalid, but that she was cared for by her community. At the request of the elders in the community, she was treated as a person, not a scientific specimen, so her autopsy and reburial was fast-tracked. She was buried with a letter from local children, who addressed her as "Agnaiyaaq," or "Dear Young Girl."

Obviously there was no permafrost in the medieval warm period.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3011 ... traditions

http://sciencenordic.com/greenland%E2%8 ... ate-change

Time is running out. The Tasilikulooq excavation yielded well-preserved artifacts including wooden spoons, bowls, and a small wooden horse. But McGovern fears that its success may not be repeated. Thirty years ago most sites in the Eastern Settlement contained preserved bone, hair, feathers, and cloth. A NABO survey of 90 sites has found, however, that most organic samples "had pretty much turned to mush" as the permafrost thawed, Smiarowski says. Tasilikulooq was one of only three sites spared.

Must have been warmer before the permafrost formed.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11 ... -disappear


----------



## Spandex

Where the worlds scientists have failed, BobBot the ex-builder and a bit of unsupervised googling has succeeded.

What I can't work out is why no one takes him seriously... Perhaps they haven't heard that NONE OF THE HOUSES HAVE FALLEN OVER.


----------



## bobclive22

> Where the worlds scientists have failed, BobBot the ex-builder and a bit of unsupervised googling has succeeded.
> 
> What I can't work out is why no one takes him seriously... Perhaps they haven't heard that NONE OF THE HOUSES HAVE FALLEN OVER.


Never a constructive comment Spandex, you appear to be a very sad individual.  

*Norse Medieval Greenland and Historical Realities*

A bit of Viking history for you John or anyone that is interested, don`t be put off by the WUWT link, the essay is very enlightening and well written and the comments lead to many historical and scientific links, the main point made is that the *temperature in Greenland today needs to be at least* *5 degrees higher* for the Vikings to have farmed Greenland, it appears that about 620 Norse farms in the Greenland settlements have so far been discovered.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/ ... mate-myth/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Never a constructive comment Spandex, you appear to be a very sad individual.


Constructive comment? What's the point BobBot? You don't listen anyway. I gave up that thankless task long ago. I'll leave it to other people to post questions for you to ignore.


----------



## bobclive22

> Constructive comment? What's the point BobBot? You don't listen anyway. I gave up that thankless task long ago. I'll leave it to other people to post questions for you to ignore.


Just a simple question Spandex, how did Viking burials and artifacts get under the permafrost in Greenland if it is warmer now than then, this is not a trick question Spandex. :? :?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Just a simple question Spandex, how did Viking burials and artifacts get under the permafrost in Greenland if it is warmer now than then, this is not a trick question Spandex. :? :?


Squirrels? [smiley=book2.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]

Out of interest BobBot, why do you say "this is not a trick question", when the question includes the statement "if it is warmer now than then"? I've never said it's warmer now in Greenland than it was then in Greenland. I don't think anyone has said that, have they? So really, it WAS a trick question, albeit a bit of a crap one.


----------



## bobclive22

> Out of interest BobBot, why do you say "this is not a trick question", when the question includes the statement "if it is warmer now than then"? I've never said it's warmer now in Greenland than it was then in Greenland. I don't think anyone has said that, have they? So really, it WAS a trick question, albeit a bit of a crap one.


If we agree that the medieval warm period in greenland was warmer than today and the latest scientific studies conclude the warming was global, where has all the catastrophic man made global warming gone, has this all been fiction Spandex or has it just missed Greenland. :?

Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers
By P Gosselin on 30. March 2011



> A neat collection of contradictory reports. No matter if it's hot-cold, wet-dry, green-brown, windy-calm, bad-nice - its all due to manmade climate change.


Links to studies :lol: :lol:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robu ... ed-papers/

LIST
Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner

Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease - wet snow more though [?]

Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion

Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing

Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler

Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world

Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? - ?]

Earth's rotation to slow down
Earth's rotation to speed up

East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain - pdf

Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow

Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream speeds up a little

Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter

Indian rice yields to decrease - full paper
Indian rice yields to increase

Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!

Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]

Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing

Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]

North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive

North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease - full pdf

North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty

Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? - ? - ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]

Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant

Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill [?]

Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain

San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy

Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated - full pdf

Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more

Squids get smaller
Squids get larger

Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling

Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume

UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain

Wind speed to go up [?]
Wind speed slows down [?]
Wind speed to speed up then slow down

Winters maybe warmer [? - ?]
Winters maybe colder ;O)

-END-


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Out of interest BobBot, why do you say "this is not a trick question", when the question includes the statement "if it is warmer now than then"? I've never said it's warmer now in Greenland than it was then in Greenland. I don't think anyone has said that, have they? So really, it WAS a trick question, albeit a bit of a crap one.
> 
> 
> 
> If we agree that the medieval warm period in greenland was warmer than today and the latest scientific studies conclude the warming was global, where has all the catastrophic man made global warming gone, has this all been fiction Spandex or has it just missed Greenland. :?
Click to expand...

If we agree?? When did we agree? Just because I don't want to engage in your gibberish doesn't mean you can just assume what I think.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I tell you I'm not going to get into a mind numbing and ultimately meaningless discussion on the finer details of the science (when neither of us are climate scientists, what would be the point?), you keep on ignoring the real question and posting that dribbling nonsense above.

<edit>oh, and if you think the existence of contradictory papers is meaningful, or even notable, in any way whatsoever, you truely are an idiot. There should be an IQ test before people are allowed on the internet.


----------



## Iceblue

"As you can see, my main interest in these threads is trying to work out how BobBots brain (such as it is) works. I always find it fascinating to see how people rationalise fringe theories and BobBot is an extreme example - I suspect he believes quite a few of the wackier conspiracy theories (faked moon landings, chemtrails, etc) but doesn't post them here because despite believing them he understands how they will affect the credibility he believes he has here."

After reading 30 odd pages of this (over several sessions/months - I know I need to get a life) I think Spandex is in love with you Bob. :lol:

BTW, humans and scientists in particular, would not have come as far as they have without questioning so called accepted theory. The world is changing, things are heading in a more sustainable direction, Bob is just saying the world may not end as soon as the alarmists may think. Not sure that qualifies you as following wacky consipiracy theories but I guess you just have to roll with punches Bob and stop playing hard to get.


----------



## Spandex

Iceblue said:


> After reading 30 odd pages of this (over several sessions/months - I know I need to get a life) I think Spandex is in love with you Bob. :lol:


It's a complex relationship...



Iceblue said:


> BTW, humans and scientists in particular, would not have come as far as they have without questioning so called accepted theory. The world is changing, things are heading in a more sustainable direction, Bob is just saying the world may not end as soon as the alarmists may think. Not sure that qualifies you as following wacky consipiracy theories but I guess you just have to roll with punches Bob and stop playing hard to get.


Oh, absolutely. I think scientists definitely should continue questioning accepted theories. I would go so far as to say it was essential. I'm a little less clear what benefit there is in a retired builder with half a brain and too much time on his hands questioning accepted theories.

But The BobBot isn't really questioning it as such. He's just disagreeing with it. You'll notice he doesn't present alternative explanations, (and even if he did, he'd just copy and paste someone else's thoughts), because he doesn't care about advancing his understanding, he just wants to try to disprove the theory because he hates it.


----------



## Iceblue

Sadly, I look forward to the next round of this discussion when new information one way ore the other arises. In the meatime you should take Bob out for a DeCat. :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Iceblue, I always find it fascinating to see how people rationalise fringe theories and BobBot is an extreme example - I suspect he believes quite a few of the wackier conspiracy theories (faked moon landings, chemtrails, etc)


Sorry to disappoint ice blue only 2, statins will probable kill you and CO2 won`t, Iceblue, if the subject is important do some research, the headlines are there to sell advertising not educate you.

Iceblue, as CO2 is classed as a pollutant by the US EPA how many deaths has it caused worldwide since that ruling, we know the banning of of DDT has caused over 40 million deaths manly in Africa therefore there must be a figure relating to deaths from the increase of that killer trace gas CO2, there is from NOX.

Here is a clue, 60,000 PPM is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct, at present it stands at 410 ppm.

https://principia-scientific.org/at-wha ... to-humans/

*Disentangling the effects of acidic air pollution, atmospheric CO2, and climate change on recent growth of red spruce trees in the Central Appalachian Mountains*

*Extra Atmospheric CO2 Increased Red Spruce Forest Growth 106% Since 1989*

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /gcb.14273



> It was acknowledged that the *major decrease in CHD mortality rates in "Western" countries started well before statin therapy became available*, an important point that I have made in several posts. The study looked only at data between 2000 and 2012. The peak of CHD deaths was in about 1970 (the onset of the pandemic in about 1924), and statins started on just a small scale in about 1990. *The death rate from CHD had dropped by more than half between 1970 and 1990*


http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/01/th ... tatin.html

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e010500


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Here is a clue, 60,000 PPM is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct, at present it stands at 410 ppm.


BobBot, why do you feel the need to be deliberately misleading? Should we assume you've lost the argument because you're resorting to the above?


----------



## bobclive22

*Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records*


----------



## John-H

Bob, I don't think any of us are going to waste our time ploughing through a long video looking for the crumb of rubbish logic you have given us about C02 which would only prove your error or that the source is equally as unsound as your understanding, or that you've ignored the challenge and changed subject. Sorry to be blunt but you keep doing this.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, I don't think any of us are going to waste our time ploughing through a long video looking for the crumb of rubbish logic you have given us about C02 which would only prove your error or that the source is equally as unsound as your understanding, or that you've ignored the challenge and changed subject. Sorry to be blunt but you keep doing this.


Well John check the numbers, try Nasa.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year ???.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

*THE DDT BAN TURNS 30 - Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban, More Deaths
Likely*

Now, thirty years later, it is vividly apparent that DDT was not hazardous to human health and that the banning of its
domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States - and less availability of DDT for the developing world.
The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives
needlessly lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since there was hope of eradicating the disease
altogether when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/Twimberley ... TPaper.pdf

You are a blind follower John.


----------



## Spandex

BobBot, do you have an actual point? And if so, do you really feel you're coherently putting it across?

I suspect you often convince yourself that people don't understand you because they're not as clever as you, and it never occurs to you that it might actually be your fault for being so bad at making a point because you just scattergun a load of information at them, then make vague, sweeping statements like 'follow the money' in the hope that they'll join the dots for you.

From now on, if you don't explicitly state your point, I'm just going to assume you don't have one. If it's all as obvious and simple as you imply, it shouldn't be beyond you to explain it properly.


----------



## Iceblue

"Iceblue, as CO2 is classed as a pollutant by the US EPA how many deaths has it caused worldwide since that ruling, we know the banning of of DDT has caused over 40 million deaths manly in Africa therefore there must be a figure relating to deaths from the increase of that killer trace gas CO2, there is from NOX.

Here is a clue, 60,000 PPM is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct, at present it stands at 410 ppm."

I accept this unanswered question Bob, although CO2 rise could have a butterfly effect that wipes man out a lot earlier for another reason. Who really knows? Just as long as sustainablility is a balanced transition and not a revolution and the power bills go down soon.

Agree the DDT/Malaria thing really sucks but thought it was generally accepted that excessive DDT exposure is linked to certain cancers. Not much incentive for a company to keep producing it unless the effected Africans make it for themselves regardless of the consequences.


----------



## bobclive22

> Agree the DDT/Malaria thing really sucks but thought it was generally accepted that excessive DDT exposure is linked to certain cancers.


One small scale study I believe and a tenuos link to DDT.

Wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying *less than* 1 per cent of global energy demand.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/win ... al-energy/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying *less than* 1 per cent of global energy demand.
> 
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/win ... al-energy/


That article states that it supplies less than 1% of ALL energy used. A metric which bizarrely includes every form of energy including solid and liquid fuels - so all air travel, for example is included (makes sense, yeah?). A more sensible measurement would be the percentage of actual electricity demand met by solar/wind generation, wouldn't it?

So, the question I'm sure you're asking BobBot, is why did they choose that metric? You're probably wondering if they did so because they're biased. You're probably thinking, "can I trust the rest of this article" aren't you BobBot?

Only messing BobBot.. So, what's next in the chaotic stream of consciousness?


----------



## bobclive22

> So, the question I'm sure you're asking BobBot, is why did they choose that metric? You're probably wondering if they did so because they're biased. You're probably thinking, "can I trust the rest of this article" aren't you BobBot?
> 
> Only messing BobBot.. So, what's next in the chaotic stream of consciousness?


So what is it Spandex?

Here is the green view.

Renewables continue to grow at a torrid pace. Global solar power consumption increased by 35%, while wind power consumption rose 17% over 2016.
But the growth of renewables wasn't enough to prevent a new record for total fossil fuel consumption.

Increased from what Spandex,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 163f76752d

*Solar and wind power combined will generate less than 3 percent of the world's energy needs by 2040, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).*

*Currently, wind and solar power generate 0.45 and 0.12 percent of the world's energy.* By 2040, that will only rise to 1.88 and 1.03 percent respectively.

https://dailycaller.com/2017/06/13/sola ... 040-graph/

The number of electric cars and plug-in hybrids rose *54% in 2017, topping 3 million globally, *, sounds good until you put that against total global cars sold.

In 2016 the number of cars produced world wide was *72,105,435 million*

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/recor ... 2018-08-06


----------



## Spandex

What's your point?


----------



## John-H

Bob is like a broken pencil.


----------



## Spandex

Tell you what BobBot, here's a little New Years challenge for you: Write a forum post.

Now, I don't just mean 'post anything', I mean actually write the whole post yourself, in your own words. No links. No copy/paste from other articles, comments, blogs, etc. All in your own words. It should also have a point - which means it's not enough to simply list a load of facts. It needs to say what your beliefs are, what any facts included mean and how they back up your beliefs.

You believe you're a clever guy. You built houses that haven't fallen down yet. You soldered a little strip board amp. You're basically a genius. A couple of paragraphs should be a walk in the park.


----------



## bobclive22

> You believe you're a clever guy. You built houses that haven't fallen down yet. You soldered a little strip board amp. You're basically a genius. A couple of paragraphs should be a walk in the park.


I also have a way of deactivating stop/start on a Mercedes 2012 onwards, all that`s needed is a small screwdriver.

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdn ... -trick.jpg


----------



## John-H

Epic fail [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I also have a way of deactivating stop/start on a Mercedes 2012 onwards, all that`s needed is a small screwdriver.


If this was coming from anyone else, I'd think it was quite a well aimed self-deprecating joke. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you have a massive ego and no sense of humour so, terrifyingly, I have to assume you're serious...

Where's that facepalm emoticon?


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> I also have a way of deactivating stop/start on a Mercedes 2012 onwards, all that`s needed is a small screwdriver.
> 
> If this was coming from anyone else, I'd think it was quite a well aimed self-deprecating joke. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you have a massive ego and no sense of humour so, terrifyingly, I have to assume you're serious...
> 
> Where's that facepalm emoticon?


Spandex dear, guys on the Merc forum have been seeking to perminently get rid of stop/start since it first appeared, seems I am the first to provide a simple hack that works for the Merc which is *free*, it works on all c class cars with stop/start up to present, probably will work on the other models, have only tested it on the C class and SLK. Merc past it`s MOT today with hack still in place. 

https://www.benzworld.org/forums/w205-c ... start.html


----------



## bobclive22

> Epic fail [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]
> Window stick


Well John the hack works, Epic Pass [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... shadow.jpg

Weatherwatch: climate change cooks up ideal conditions for snow
Record-breaking dumps of snow across Europe most likely have a worrying cause

Look at all that snow in the Alps; has global warming taken a break? Alas, no, *it turns out that the recent record-breaking dumps of snow across much of southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria are more likely a consequence of global warming. *Why? Balmy temperatures in the North Sea and Baltic Sea are cooking up the ideal conditions to create snow.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/j ... tions-snow

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6Â°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

*However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold *than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

*"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.*

https://web.archive.org/web/20110124020 ... 24017.html

Here is the PDF complete with comments, priceless

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... endent.pdf

*COLDEST MONTREAL SNOWSTORM FOR A CENTURY AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S EMBARRASSING "EXPLAIN-AWAY"
JANUARY 21, 2019 CAP ALLON*

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/thou ... -1.4255343

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: global warming :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Epic fail [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]
> Window stick
> 
> 
> 
> Well John the hack works, Epic Pass [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Click to expand...

Ironic that the cut and paste didn't on this occasion :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Ironic that the cut and paste didn't on this occasion :roll:


Sorry, lost you there.


----------



## bobclive22

*CLIMATE HOAXER PLAGUED BY CONFLICT OF INTEREST SCANDAL*

http://www.headlineoftheday.com/2019/02 ... t-scandal/

The tweets are priceless.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... esses.html

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... -payments/

The same currupt Debden and a remainer John, who would have thunk it.

Former Cabinet ministers Lord Heseltine, Lord Patten, *Lord Deben* (formerly John Gummer) and Lord Willetts were among 19 Tory peers to vote against the Government. Whitehall sources said *it was the 'most dangerous' attempt yet to derail Brexit.*


----------



## bobclive22

> The figures come as SMMT publishes data showing the UK new car fleet average CO2 rose for a second successive year, by 2.9% to 124.5g/km. This is despite huge investment by manufacturers to deliver ever more efficient cars, with the average new or updated model emitting -8.3% less CO2 than that it replaced. While part of this fleet average CO2 increase was due to segment shift and the introduction of the new, more onerous WLTP test which produces higher figures, the move away from diesels is having a significant impact.
> 
> Diesels are, on average, 15-20% more efficient than petrol equivalents and so have a substantial role to play in addressing climate change.* The hard won gains made by the sector since CO2 records began in 1997 (when the new car fleet average was 189.8g/km) are being undermined by the shift away from diesel* and disappointing growth in alternatively fuelled vehicles. This only underscores the challenge both industry and government face in meeting ambitious climate change targets.


So they reduce CO2 a trace gas essential for life and replace it with the killer gas NOX and call this progress. :? :?

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2019/01/fall-in- ... s-at-risk/


----------



## bobclive22

Manns Nature trick which fooled the IPCC, if the science is solid no need to fiddle the numbers.

https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/kei ... ils-combo/

*Scott Adams: 'The hockey stick is literally a symbol of lying'*

https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1gqGvnVYBYBGB

Dr. Patrick Michaels,


----------



## John-H

Do you think you are convincing all the scientific community here Bob? This is a car forum you know and not a climate science forum. Don't you think they will know all about it even if they found you here via Google? Being experts don't you think they will have a better idea about it than you? Or do you think they will be all excited with the informative contents of your posts here? Or are you not trying to convince them? Are you trying to convince us instead precisely because we are not climate scientists? Won't that only work if we respected you as an expert? Can I just point out that we are more likely to be impressed by the fact that all the experts talk to each other and that assuredly will have come across the information you keep peddling already - but that the fact they are not convinced by it impresses us also too. It convinces us that we shouldn't listen to you because you are not qualified in this field and if there was any truth in what you say then it would be known by all the experts already and be public knowledge. Such a big scientific community wouldn't keep it a secret :wink: Why would they?

What we are left with here is you and a conspiracy theory. That's all.


----------



## bobclive22

> Do you think you are convincing all the scientific community here Bob? This is a car forum you know and not a climate science forum.


John, I understood this was *Off Topic*, there are two sides to this debate, just check the data John and you may be enlightened.





.


----------



## bobclive22

> Are you trying to convince us instead precisely because we are not climate scientists? Won't that only work if we respected you as an expert?


John I am NOT trying to convince readers here,I am trying to enlighten them, you have to look at the data and not have total belief in the left wing press and polititions, start with history. The wonderful thing about the internet is the fact that even the printed documents of years past are being digitised and made available on line.

Unfortunately individuals like yourself can`t think outside of the box.

Click the temperature graph, how can the same graph from the same source using the same data be so different.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... shadow.png

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... adow-1.png The Guardian January 1974.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... M-down.gif

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... adow-1.png

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... AALsob.jpg

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-conte ... down-1.gif

History John does not lie, but statistics do, so do graphs.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/o ... denver.pdf

Read the link below, if its Bulls**T just say so and explain why, it`s called educating yourself John.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/11/ ... e-science/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ... John I am NOT trying to convince readers here,I am trying to enlighten them, ...


Errrr... :lol: are you trying to give us a laugh?

The next lecture I give - should I be convincing or unenlightening. Or perhaps enlightening but unconvincing? Oh you've got me so confused I can't decide what's best anymore.

You are silly. And you are not an expert and rather unconvincing. But keep it up. This is off topic - in a car forum :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Errrr... :lol: are you trying to give us a laugh?
> 
> The next lecture I give - should I be convincing or unenlightening. Or perhaps enlightening but unconvincing?


No lecture John just Historical facts which can all be easily checked.

Steven Goddard just presents facts that can be readliy checked then discussed, unfortunately John you don`t appear to have the intellect to offer anything other than pointless comments.

John, explain how the Vikings buried their dead under the permafrost In Greenland. All this CO2 warming and we still have not reached the temperatures enjoyed by the Greenland Vikings.

https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/the-v ... greenland/

*April 10, 2015 - 06:25
Rising temperatures and heat producing bacteria threaten the remains of three major Greenlandic cultures preserved in the permafrost.*

I presume there was no permafrost when these three major Greenlandic cultures walked the earth.

http://sciencenordic.com/climate-change ... st-history


----------



## John-H

No Bob, I have the intellect and I would hope everyone else reading this thread would have too, to come to the simple conclusion that you are a conspiracy theorist and have no expertise in climatology. So we ignore you


----------



## bobclive22

> (3) Perhaps you've not picked up the latest news - the fact that the test of the "will of the people" (the 2016 referendum) has been accepted in court as being obtained through "corrupt and illegal practices"


And the majority of motorists that purchased a diesel car bought it *not because diesel delivered better MPG* but that diesel emmitted less CO2 and would save the world. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Get in the real world John.



> (4) If we leave we lose our current favorable deal and would have to re-read apply for a worse deal. So given the above why should we do this and accept the risk?


Remember all those unfortunate firms that manufactured soley for M & S, it`s called having all your eggs in one basket.


----------



## John-H

Keep comments on the right topic Bob


----------



## bobclive22

> Keep comments on the right topic Bob


Sorry, mistake.

Now on topic, The Green New Deal and Climate change history you won`t see in the MSM.

It appears the most extreme weather occured not at the present CO2 levels 410 ppm but at the lower level of around 300 ppm in the 1930`s, all facts are easily verified, you have to see the full picture John.


----------



## bobclive22

*Bill Gates totally believes the climate change scare story but even he can see that renewables are not the answer, it's not about the cost, it's the reliability.*

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/vueG ... tes_hd.mp4

https://stopthesethings.com/2019/02/18/ ... batteries/


----------



## John-H

A solution for you Bob

https://cosmosmagazine.com/chemistry/sc ... emperature


----------



## bobclive22

> A solution for you Bob
> 
> https://cosmosmagazine.com/chemistry/sc ... emperature


So you believe these gigo computer models then john.

Here is the Mogg in 2013, the planets greening John, forget the GIGO climate models.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politi ... rices.html


----------



## John-H

Did you click the link and read what it was on about Bob? It's a way of turning carbon dioxide back into coal.


----------



## bobclive22

> Did you click the link and read what it was on about Bob? It's a way of turning carbon dioxide back into coal.


What for john plants need it, the more they get the bigger they grow. John, 40 years ago before this Global warming aka climate disruption aka climate change became political the saying was at every budget, ( they will tax the air you breath next), we are nearly there.

This should please the greenies.

Cumbria County Council has backed plans for a £175m metallurgical coal mine on a brownfield site near Whitehaven with work set to get under way by the end of the year.

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/a ... coal-mine/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Did you click the link and read what it was on about Bob? It's a way of turning carbon dioxide back into coal.
> 
> 
> 
> What for john plants need it, the more they get the bigger they grow. John, 40 years ago before this Global warming aka climate disruption aka climate change became political the saying was at every budget, ( they will tax the air you breath next), we are nearly there.
> 
> This should please the greenies.
> 
> Cumbria County Council has backed plans for a £175m metallurgical coal mine on a brownfield site near Whitehaven with work set to get under way by the end of the year.
> 
> https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/a ... coal-mine/
Click to expand...

Oh I forgot you are a climate changes denier like Nigel Lawson.


----------



## bobclive22

> Oh I forgot you are a climate changes denier like Nigel Lawson.


John, you do understand that CO2 is logarithmic the more you put in the less effect it has, explanation below.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/ ... entration/

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/07 ... 7-bp-data/


----------



## John-H

Bob is back, 
Bob is back,
Bob is zzzzzzzzz .... too much carbon dioxide ... zzz zzz ......


----------



## bobclive22

Netflix's Our Planet shows heartbreaking moment 'desperate' walruses fall to their deaths from cliff after their natural habitat is destroyed BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, or is it.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8 ... tbreaking/

*Why Attenborough's Walrus Claims Are Fake.*

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -are-fake/


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... eenInc.pdf


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Netflix's Our Planet shows heartbreaking moment 'desperate' walruses fall to their deaths from cliff after their natural habitat is destroyed BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, or is it.
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8 ... tbreaking/
> 
> *Why Attenborough's Walrus Claims Are Fake.*
> 
> https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -are-fake/


Now you are having a pop at David Attenburough? You should know that the public's trust lies with Attenborough, not climate change deniers.

Five minutes with Google finds out what's really going on. The claim about polar bears driving the walruses off the cliffs is the fake claim. It's been put about on social media by the propaganda machine of the *Global Warming Policy Foundation*. That's one of the right wing think tank lobby groups in Tufton Street with Nigel Lawson as its chairman. It's these right wing think tanks at this address that lobbied for years and brought about Brexit funded from dubious dark money sources from the Robert Mercer's Atlas group and the oil industry. You can read about them *here*

You can read specifically about the facts behind the walrus filming and confirmation from the film producers that polar bears did not cause the walruses to fall off the cliff *here*.

You really should not believe stuff from Nigel Lawson and the groups in Tufton Street Bob.



bobclive22 said:


> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BigGreenInc.pdf


Bob that link rubbishing "left wing" claims about global warming brings up a document from the IER (Institute for Energy Reseach) which is a front group for the fossil fuel industry. The Institute's CEO and founder, Robert L. Bradley Jr., is a visiting fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs - you guessed it - also one of the right wing think tanks at Tufton Street.

They really have you dangling on a string don't they Bob :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

Perhaps you should obtain you information from a world class climate scientist instead of a BBC journalist John.

Richard Lindzen is one of the most esteemed climate scientists in the world, and one to whom you should pay attention.


----------



## John-H

You should be embarrassed Bob. You'r nonsense has been comprehensively disproved. Have you no shame :roll:



bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps you should obtain you information from a world class climate scientist instead of a BBC journalist John.
> 
> Richard Lindzen is one of the most esteemed climate scientists in the world, and one to whom you should pay attention.


According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,*"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."*

You must be "nutty" Bob :lol: Thanks for the valuable information!


----------



## bobclive22

> Now you are having a pop at David Attenburough? You should know that the public's trust lies with Attenborough, not climate change deniers.
> 
> *Five minutes with Google finds out what's really going on*. The claim about polar bears driving the walruses off the cliffs is the fake claim. It's been put about on social media by the propaganda machine of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.


John, as I have already said try to obtain your information from scientists not journalist,

https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/ Dr Susan Crockford,






By The Siberian Times reporter19 October 2017
Village besieged by polar bears as hundreds of terrorised walruses fall 38 metres to their deaths
The polar bears were attracted by 5,000 walruses that appeared this year at a special protection zone in Chukotka.
Many of the frightened flippered marine mammals fell off cliffs at Kozhevnikova Cape as they sought to flee the invaders.
Several hundred fell to their deaths, and the polar bears then ate the carcasses.

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others ... ir-deaths/

Not the first time David Attenburough has faked it John.

*BBC feels the commercial chill of 'fake' documentary*

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 76155.html


----------



## John-H

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You've obviously not read the link I gave you where Dr Susan Crockford was shown to have no proof to back up her allegation which is being pushed by the Global Warming Policy Foundation - and the films producers gave the actual details of the filming. Follow the money Bob. Realise you are being manipulated and why.

This may help to explain your situation Bob - give it a click - it's worth a listen!


----------



## bobclive22

> You must be "nutty" Bob :lol: Thanks for the valuable information!


You can`t debate with a true believer no matter how solid the evidence, Did the The Siberian Times make it up John, read the comment Num 3 of that paper.


----------



## John-H

Good grief do I have to click the link for you?

They were different incidents!

"*Our Planet crew sets the record straight*

However, Dr Crockford's speculations, which were reported prominently in The Daily Telegraph on 9 April, have been conclusively disproven by the producer who oversaw the filming of the walruses.

Sophie Lanfear of Silverback Films told the Telegraph: "We filmed Pacific walrus falling from high cliffs. They were not being driven off the cliffs by the polar bears and we know this because we had two team members watching the cliffs from afar who could see the polar bears and were in radio communications with us to warn us about any bears approaching the crew closer to the walrus and the cliffs.

"Once the walrus had rested at the top for a few days they wanted to return to sea when all the others below started to leave. We would watch them for hours teetering back and forth on the edge before finally, falling off.

"Fundamentally, the reason walrus used this haulout location is because of a lack of sea ice in the region, meaning they are coming ashore more frequently than they did in the past. Especially mothers with their pups. And at this particular site, once the beach below the cliffs was full, they spread out and up the cliffs and were unable to find their way safely down, with tragic consequences."

*The public's trust lies with Attenborough, not the deniers*

It is clear that Dr Crockford's dismissal of the role of climate change and retreating Arctic sea ice lacks any scientific credibility. Nonetheless, her false allegations about the programme have been pushed widely by climate change deniers.

The Global Warming Policy Forum, which set up by the Global Warming Policy Foundation to circumvent Charity Commission rules about political lobbying, distributed a press release quoting Dr Crockford's blog at length. The Foundation has promoted Dr Crockford's false claims about polar bears many times over the past few years, through pamphlets and a book.

The press release fooled journalists at The Daily Telegraph and the Mail Online into covering Dr Crockford's discredited claims. Her blog was also hyped in a daft article for The Spectator magazine by Andrew Montford, the deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Mr Montford suggested wrongly that the programme had not made clear where or when the walruses had been filmed. In fact, he need only to have consulted the *programme's website* to find a video explaining that the footage was taken in Chukotka in 2017.

Mr Montford's further attempt at myth-making was faithfully publicised on Twitter by Viscount Ridley, a member of the Foundation's 'Academic Advisory Council', and Andrew Neil, the BBC television presenter who is also chairman of Press Holdings Media Group, owner of The Spectator.

This attempt by climate change deniers to confuse the public with false propaganda about Our Planet is an obvious act of desperation. The public trusts Sir David Attenborough far more than it trusts the deniers, and the deniers know it. And the public can see the overwhelming evidence of climate change all around them, including in the Arctic, where the sea ice extent is currently at the lowest level since records began for this time of year."

It's quite obvious Bob that if you look at the footage in the link above that the walruses are on the land because the ice has retreated. These nonsense claims that they fell off the rocks due to a polar bear for that film are just trying to discredit the film makers who said it was due to overcrowding. The claims at the same time are also trying to discredit global warming as being the cause of the overcrowding and lack of ice. The local scientist studying the walruses says the ice has gone over the last 30 years.

Think about the right wing groups at Tufton Street and the money from Atlas and Exon Mobil and why they are feeding you misinformation. I think it's worth repeating this again:


----------



## badger64

Jeremy corbyn's brother. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html


----------



## John-H

badger64 said:


> Jeremy corbyn's brother.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html


Oh dear...


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l#comments

Love the comments.

Global warming and sea levels rising, those plebs actually believe this :lol: :lol:,

Exclusive Sandbanks street is 'world's most expensive coastal real estate' with 13 waterfront mansions worth £93M

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/e ... t-13399185


----------



## John-H

That's because they believe the world's majority scientific view Bob, unlike yourself who'd rather dangle on the strings controlled by Tufton Street.


----------



## bobclive22

Hi John,


----------



## John-H

That's nonsense Bob as climate change denial is being driven by big money from the fossil fuel industry and other sources who are also behind Brexit. All you are doing is trying to muddy the water and divert attention from your masters motivating interests. You'd chop the last tree down wouldn't you? Have you heard of the Koch brothers? How about Mathew and Sarah Elliott? You must have heard of Robert Mercer - the man who bankrolled Trump's election campaign and founded Cambridge Analytica? Have a read of how this is all connected: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/18/m ... sts-brexit


----------



## bobclive22

> That's nonsense Bob as climate change denial is being driven by big money from the fossil fuel industry and other sources who are also behind Brexit


Open your eyes John.

https://www.facebook.com/foundconscious ... 729919508/

13,055 viewsNov 17, 2013, 09:00am
*The Markets Think Al Gore's 'Settled' Global Warming Science Is Bunk*

Despite this truth, that we're not going to do anything substantial when it comes to the supposed causes of global warming, *coastal properties in the U.S. continue to fetch enormous prices.*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/ ... dc2b0240cb

While warning us of 'rising oceans' in SOTU, did Obama just buy a beachfront mansion?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/21/ ... t-mansion/

New German Study Shocks Electric Cars: "Considerably" Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars, Up To 25% More CO2!

https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/19/new ... -more-co2/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hi ... te-change/


----------



## bobclive22

History John, it`s all happened before.

CLlMATIC CHANGE AND WITCH-HUNTING:
THE IMPACT OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE ON MENTALITIES

On 3 August 1562 a thunderstorm hit central Europe. The sky darkened at
noontime as if it were night and a severe storm began, destroying roofs and
windows. Some hours later the thunderstorm turned into a hai1 storm which lasted
unti1 midnight. The hailstorm destroyed crops and vineyards, killed birds and
other animals, including some unprotected horses and cows. The next day trees
stripped of their leaves and branches were observed and the fields were a picture
of *devastation* (Wahrhafftiger und gruendlicher Bericht, 1562). Travellers
recognized the *unusual strength of the hai1storm*. A nobleman on a journey from
Vienna to Brussels reported seeing severe storm damage whilst travelling the
postal route (Weyer, 1586). The meteorological front must have covered an area
of *several hundred kilometers in diameter*. A printed newsletter reported that
many people feared the beginning of the Last Judgement.
Since observers of the period had *no recollection of similar climatic disasters
"for a 100 years,*" many considered this thunderstorm as "*unnatural*" and looked
for explanations.

Three possible interpretations arose: the hai1storm could be a
*sign from God*, the *work of the Devil* or a *result of witchcraft*. Although a
number of official councils' decisions since the early Middle Ages had
anathemized the idea of weather-making by human beings, there had always
been *reluctance to accept this negation of human influence on c1imate*

http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchg ... entalities


----------



## John-H

I don't think anybody is listening Sandy. I'm not because you never stick to the point or address anything that's put back to you which might at least make an interesting discussion but instead post yet more stuff from Tufton Street as you avoid answering questions about the last lot. Yawn [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## bobclive22

Hi John, this is what happens to scientists when they question the consensus view of climate science, and one reason you should never visit Wickipedia for information on any controversial subject, nasty piece of garbage with no way to reply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon


----------



## bobclive22

John-H said:


> I don't think anybody is listening Sandy. I'm not because you never stick to the point or address anything that's put back to you which might at least make an interesting discussion but instead post yet more stuff from Tufton Street as you avoid answering questions about the last lot. Yawn [smiley=zzz.gif]


By keeping the subject live other forum members might just drop by and have a read, the history piece is interesting.


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.facebook.com/cciscrap.com.a ... n__=EEHH-R

*Child miners aged four living a hell on Earth so YOU can drive an electric car: Awful human cost in squalid Congo cobalt mine that Michael Gove didn't consider in his 'clean' energy crusade*

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l#comments

*Greenpeace Co-Founder: Global Warming 'Is A Complete Hoax And Scam'*

http://www.technocracy.news/greenpeace- ... -and-scam/

*Fabricated Warming: NASA Altering 'Unadjusted' Data To Create Warmer 'Unadjusted' Data*

https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa- ... GfEgAfS8u8


----------



## bobclive22

*'Welcome to Neo-Stalinism': Google promptly vanishes Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Moore from enviro group's history after Trump tweets his skeptical climate views*

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/16 ... pPSxuRtpmY

If you can`t win the augment kill the messenger.


----------



## bobclive22

*David Attenborough,* dead bats and how radical Green propaganda relies on tragedy porn

https://reaction.life/david-attenboroug ... gedy-porn/

History shows It`s all Green bulls**t John, see below.

*December 28th 1790.*

At 8 a.m. 86 10 a.m. 93 11 a.m. 101 At noon 103 1/2 Half an hour past noon 104 1/2 At one p.m. 102 At 5 p.m. 73 At sunset 69 1/2

But even this heat was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February, when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days. At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of what I have just recorded: but at Rose Hill, it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world. Unluckily they had no thermometer to ascertain its precise height. It must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced. *An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state,* unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the 'perroquettes', though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tench/ ... ter17.html


----------



## bobclive22

*The Trouble With Carbon Taxes: Lessons For Asian Policymakers*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi ... f8bae16a9f


----------



## bobclive22

Dr. Patrick Moore,


----------



## bobclive22

*How Google splashed the cash and created an 800-tonne carbon footprint flying 'hypocritical' celebrities to environmental talking shop on 114 private jets to watch Coldplay and hang out on mega-yachts *

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html


----------



## bobclive22

Alarmism Exposed, not Brexit but similar type of message, bit like the shortage of drugs because of Brexit.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... faster.mp4


----------



## John-H

Ban fracking in England....
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... 2019-10-07


----------



## bobclive22

*The unintended consequences of promoting diesel.*

This piece in the times today says it all, this is what happens when politicians who have drunk the green aid and take advice only from green leaning experts who receive most of their grant funding from governments.

This leads on to the severe flooding in the Midlands and Yorkshire, same green politicians and same green experts, these floods are *nothing *to do with global warming/ climate disruption/ climate change and *everything* to do with land and river management. Lets get Brexit done, get rid of the EU environmental directive and start dredging our rivers and *****.

This *garbage* also made the front page of the Times today.

In a separate study, scientists from 35 universities warned that *CLIMATE CHANGE* and air pollution threatened lifelong damage to the health of children born today. Air pollution yes, the only link climate change has to the health of our children is the heading of this post.



> _What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison._


*Richard Lindzen*


----------



## John-H

:lol:

You are challenging Bob on who's best at swallowing climate denial myths and right wing propaganda. You should read this:

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/su ... oundation/


----------



## Iceblue

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Great quote Bob but they won't wonder. It is an obvious function of the vested interests of the lefts long march through the institutions. Climate change is the best snake oil of all, as no one really knows whats going to happen and its a perfect vehicle for socialists to undermine capitalism under the cloak of saving the world. You can't get more virtuous than that.

In my day we were taught that socialism was as bad or the same as fascism with 20 million killed by Stalin and many more by Mao. Dwarfs Hitlers efforts, but you won't get that emphasis taught in Schools today. Most kids these days would not even know who Stalin and Mao were, let alone being the poster boys of how socialism does not work.

BTW I believe in climate change, its always changing as geological records verify. I just don't believe in the latest catch cry adopted by the left, "catastrophic". I'd be more worried about the long march of socialism than climate change as man cannot really change the latter.


----------



## John-H

Isn't that sweet. Bob's made a friend :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> Isn't that sweet. Bob's made a friend :wink:


I understand this subject is a bit beyond the level of your intellect John but give it a try, you may surprise yourself. :roll:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Isn't that sweet. Bob's made a friend :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand this subject is a bit beyond the level of your intellect John but give it a try, you may surprise yourself. :roll:
Click to expand...

The vast majority of scientists and climate change experts say you are wrong and the evidence for this is mounting.

Your continued inability to accept the implication of this says more about your cognitive grasp of reality.


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that sweet. Bob's made a friend :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand this subject is a bit beyond the level of your intellect John but give it a try, you may surprise yourself. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The vast majority of scientists and climate change experts say you are wrong and the evidence for this is mounting.
> 
> Your continued inability to accept the implication of this says more about your cognitive grasp of reality.
Click to expand...

John you know this is not true. The evidence to date has been inconclusive in many key areas and has failed to meet their initial model outcomes. What do they do, adjust one of the variables in the model. Its fraught with uncertainty and easily manipulated (consciously or otherwise) and any expert in modelling can tell you that. In the financial world if you placed a discount rate on a model like this it would be in the vicinity of 50%. No one would risk an investment on that basis unless you are a venture capitalist and even then it would be diificult.

Yes we should and are doing things more sustainably but don't agree based on the current "evidence", that we should destroy our economies and competitive advantages and hand China and India a faster route whilst all our standards of living drop. Politically very difficult and Trump and others are proof of that. Hopefully technology will come to the rescue shortly so all this devisiveness can be a thing of the past.


----------



## John-H

Well, I'd make the same point to you that was made to Bob:

All the world's climate experts and scientists have access to all the information you mention and despite that, the vast majority all agree that man made climate change is real and we need to do something about it to save the planet.

(1) What then qualifies _you_, taking a contrary view, to be more of a climate expert than the vast majority of the world's best experts and scientists?

If you don't know yourself and are merely repeating the view of someone else who is also clearly in a minority compared to the majority of experts, then again, (2) what qualifies you to champion their minority view over the judgement of the majority of experts who will also no doubt have heard and dismissed it?

Bob couldn't answer those questions either, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that Bob was just repeating what he _wanted_ to believe and had no valid or convincing justification to be believed.

I don't envy your position, like Bob's, trying to justify why we should believe you over the accumulated expertise of the world's best climate experts and scientists? However I don't know your qualifications to be fair.

Don't be put off though but please answer questions (1) and (2). Bob kept avoiding :wink:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Experts. Please. :roll:

The minute anyone tosses that word out there it's a tip off they're frauds -

https://electroverse.net/the-top-climat ... as-frauds/

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... /1469.full


----------



## John-H

Same logic applies :roll:


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> The vast *majority* of scientists and climate change experts say you are wrong and the evidence for this is mounting.


Seems odd to see you go along with a _*majority*_ John. Unless of course, it fits _your_ views.
Basically, what your saying is that _you're_ right and anyone who has another opinion is wrong when it comes to this subject, yes?
Bob's 'friend' puts some very valid points across and SJP posted a couple of very interesting links. There are a fair few others too when you dig into it. Here's just one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... al_warming
Yes, there is evidence out there for climate change but it's certainly not actual proof that it's anthropogenic and I'm dubious as to the severity that's being bandied about. I think we've been down the 'scaremongering' route before haven't we?
I guess it's one of those subjects where nobody knows *for sure* what's going to happen and only (a long) time will tell so it's fruitless exercise - beating chests, confidently claiming superiority with that 'higher than thou' attitude. It's not becoming of you John. Especially those condescending 'winks' at the end of your posts. Talk about coming across as smug and sanctimonious


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> ...
> Basically, what your saying is that _you're_ right and anyone who has another opinion is wrong when it comes to this subject, yes? ...


No. The same logic applies -
and for the avoidance of doubt and to help you out stiff - *majority* means most people, or in this case most climate scientists. And we are not talking half and half in an even debate - it's a "consensus" - the *vast majority* view.

To further help you out stiff; I'm not a climate scientist and my opinion on the science is therefore immaterial. But I am capable of pointing out what a majority is and that in this case the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists all reinforce each other to confirm their own point of view. Nothing to do with me.

It's up to anyone proposing a contrary view to explain why they and/or their evidence has not convinced the vast majority of experts.

It's very simple logic.


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Well, I'd make the same point to you that was made to Bob:
> 
> All the world's climate experts and scientists have access to all the information you mention and despite that, the vast majority all agree that man made climate change is real and we need to do something about it to save the planet.
> 
> (1) What then qualifies _you_, taking a contrary view, to be more of a climate expert than the vast majority of the world's best experts and scientists?
> 
> If you don't know yourself and are merely repeating the view of someone else who is also clearly in a minority compared to the majority of experts, then again, (2) what qualifies you to champion their minority view over the judgement of the majority of experts who will also no doubt have heard and dismissed it?
> 
> Bob couldn't answer those questions either, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that Bob was just repeating what he _wanted_ to believe and had no valid or convincing justification to be believed.
> 
> I don't envy your position, like Bob's, trying to justify why we should believe you over the accumulated expertise of the world's best climate experts and scientists? However I don't know your qualifications to be fair.
> 
> Don't be put off though but please answer questions (1) and (2). Bob kept avoiding :wink:


Sorry its taken a while to respond but not enough time on my hands.

1. I agree that the majority of sicentists agree with the IPCC view that there is a link between man made production of carbon dioxide and the potential to exacerbate pre-existing climate change.That does not mean we cannot question the science behind the model variables, inputs and the risk assumptions around algorithms, and the way they can be manipulated (unconsciously or otherwise) to produce a certain outcome. The majority of scientists are not continuously signing off on this level of detail, and in most cases would not have the expertise or experience to do so.

Questioning the science btw is what science is all about. Our current advanced economies and high standards of living are proof of that. There are many areas where science is not settled and the impact on pre-existing climate change through the production of man made carbon dioxide is one of them. It can and should continue to be stretch tested as better data points and other real time information goes through the model.

So to answer your question once and for all John, there is nothing wrong with scientists and others with relevant expertise to continue to test the science until the risk of the model being wrong is lowered to a more probable level. The majority of scientists can still hold their view whilst this goes on, without the name calling, fake news and other hysteria that the politisisation of the issue by the minority, activist left has caused.

2. To answer your second question for the first time ever, "You don't need my, or any other qualifications to understand my answer to question 1. Its just common sense, and science has been doing this one way or another for centuries.


----------



## John-H

There's nothing wrong with questioning. As you say that is the scientific process, which comes to a consensus of an accepted view by application of the pooled expertise, understanding and research building on existing knowledge. That's how the accepted view evolves and becomes established. However it would be wrong to to concur with or hold up as "truth" a minority view with no basis of that majority consensus and especially when one is not qualified or trained judge the science. Holding a minority view or belief in such circumstances remains unproven and a matter only of faith until it has consensus.


----------



## Iceblue

Great, and now that you concede that anthropogenic climate change is just "faith" , given the risk level in the modelling, you have now made the logical extension that it is more akin to a religion than accepted science. :lol:

Bob, you have won the arguement at last. And where is Spandex in all this, I miss him/her/it


----------



## John-H

Iceblue said:


> Great, and now that you concede that anthropogenic climate change is just "faith" , given the risk level in the modelling, you have now made the logical extension that it is more akin to a religion than accepted science. :lol:
> 
> Bob, you have won the arguement at last. And where is Spandex in all this, I miss him/her/it


What an utter load of clap trap :lol:

You are one of these people that argues black is white and gets run over on the next zebra crossing aren't you?

Newtonian physics is just a theory but backed up by so much practical example to the point that the vast majority apart from a few nut jobs accept its "truth" and have faith that its application can deliver satellites into orbit and even land is on other planets.

The science behind climate change is also accepted by a vast majority and accepted as truth until something else gains the crown of majority acceptance - which has certainly not happened yet and might never happen. Of course there are a few nut jobs who believe differently but they are in a minority and are not believed by the majority.

To ignore the scientific community majority and instead align yourself with minority nut jobs and declare what they say to be "truth", without proof (as clearly there is none otherwise it would be accepted as a majority view) and not even having any climate science qualification or experience yourself just puts _you_ in the bracket of blind faith believer of demonstrable untruths.


----------



## Iceblue

John I have plenty of experience and qualificatiuons to understand that the science is not settled enough as I have shown you above. You agreed. The fact that there are many well regarded nut jobs out there saying we are all going to die in ten years is proof that the science is not settled. I was also around when Y2K happened and understand the bigger picture enough to know what poltical forces are at play combined with associated vested interests pushing this wealth re-distribution exercise at the UN level.

I don't think you are that naive John. You know whats going on here and climate change alarmism is the only strong suit of the left, now that they have walked away from their core worker base. It suits your political narrative and goals.

BTW I have been paid alot of money to argue black is white successfully and there is a whole profession donated to this exercise. The one insight that profession has drummed into them everyday is the "balance of proof" applied to many different areas of expertise that you don't need to be qualified in to form a reasonable view. That combined with the fact that I have many years experience in managing and pricing risk also provides a decent platform for my well supported cynicism. Not is all what it seems John.


----------



## John-H

But most climate experts disagree with you and I really doubt you are either more clever or privy to better information than them. I'd rather believe them - sorry, you are unconvincing.


----------



## bobclive22

> But most climate experts disagree with you and I really doubt you are either more clever or privy to better information than them. I'd rather believe them - sorry, you are unconvincing.


Follow the money John, grant money that is. When you have a 16 old school girl lecturing the UN and that same girl receives Time magazines person of the year that to me smells of propaganda, BBC are masters of this. The thing is John, so called climate science relies on statistics, but climate scientists appear to have a poor grasp of that subject, the saying is, lies damn lies and statistics, the other thing is they don`t like parting with their data, that means other scientists cannot replicate, an example is the temperature adjustment algorithms used by Bom,Giss,Noaa, met office which cool the past and warm the present.

Lies, dam lies and statistics,

How effective are statins in preventing heart attacks?

This is how statistics can be used to turn an insignificant benefit into a large one, its called relative risk reduction and makes billions for the drug companies.

The studies on statins also report *"relative risk," not "absolute risk" or "real risk.*" The relative risk reduction is highly misleading[7,8,9,10,11] if not deceptive. An example of relative risk is: if you have four people in a study who die in the placebo group (no drug) compared to three people who die in the drug treatment group - that is, four were expected to die, but with the drug only three did - then there is a *25% relative risk reduction.* However, to get this effect of saving one life you would have to treat *1,000 people* and the *real risk reduction is 0.1%.* Relative risk is like adding 1+1 to get 11 or 2+5 to get 25 or more.

Millions of people have been taken in by statin news paper headlines, you John have been taken in by global warming/ climate disruption/climate change propaganda, you are reading from the same hymn book, try another author John.

http://www.positivehealth.com/article/h ... -deception


----------



## John-H

But most climate experts disagree with you and I really doubt you are either more clever or privy to better information than them. I'd rather believe them - sorry, you are unconvincing.


----------



## Iceblue

But the science is not settled John as you have conceded above. You have faith though John which no one can argue with.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Climate science is now a religion, and we're all heretics! But it's a religion of greed, corruption and hypocrisy that even the Vatican can't match. Yes, of course the climate is changing. It has been since the planet came into existence and it will continue to do so - with or without us.

But what I'd like to see is St. Gretta peddle her non-carbon emitting bicycle to China and India and scream at them. Last time I checked, no one in America or Europe was dumping their plastics or industrial waste into their rivers. In case you missed it, the Mississippi, Thames and Rhein rivers all got cleaned up without her blessing. Maybe she could do us all a favor and have a nice swim in the Ganges and Yangtze and see how that works out for her.

St. Gretta will be the first to be martyred on the altar of climate "science", she just doesn't know it yet -

_"She will begin to tire of abstractions when as the flag bearer for an ideology, she has to continue to endure weeks' long journeys by sail boats while those who photograph her fly off in carbon emitting planes. She will find assiduously adhering to the strict demands of veganism coupled with the expectation she will remain childless lest she contribute to the despoliation of the planet exhausting. In short, she will find the expectations of the fundamentalists adhering to a sere climate change ideology impossible to keep. In the meantime, the ideologues will watch for every minute transgression. She will never be good or pure enough for fanatics demanding perfection. Saints are allowed no sins."_
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... nberg.html

Time magazine's person of the year!? - OMG that's hilarious. From the same publication that had Aldof Hitler as their Person of the Year in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1942, Nikita Krushchev in 1957 and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

St. Gretta is in good company!


----------



## bobclive22

*History shows that the warmest US decade on record was the 1930s.*

Now unless the US is somehow totally insulated from the rest of the planet how can this have occurred.

https://newsblaze.com/issues/environmen ... ge_158005/


----------



## Iceblue

SwissJetPilot said:


> Climate science is now a religion, and we're all heretics! But it's a religion of greed, corruption and hypocrisy that even the Vatican can't match. Yes, of course the climate is changing. It has been since the planet came into existence and it will continue to do so - with or without us.
> 
> But what I'd like to see is St. Gretta peddle her non-carbon emitting bicycle to China and India and scream at them. Last time I checked, no one in America or Europe was dumping their plastics or industrial waste into their rivers. In case you missed it, the Mississippi, Thames and Rhein rivers all got cleaned up without her blessing. Maybe she could do us all a favor and have a nice swim in the Ganges and Yangtze and see how that works out for her.
> 
> St. Gretta will be the first to be martyred on the altar of climate "science", she just doesn't know it yet -
> 
> _"She will begin to tire of abstractions when as the flag bearer for an ideology, she has to continue to endure weeks' long journeys by sail boats while those who photograph her fly off in carbon emitting planes. She will find assiduously adhering to the strict demands of veganism coupled with the expectation she will remain childless lest she contribute to the despoliation of the planet exhausting. In short, she will find the expectations of the fundamentalists adhering to a sere climate change ideology impossible to keep. In the meantime, the ideologues will watch for every minute transgression. She will never be good or pure enough for fanatics demanding perfection. Saints are allowed no sins."_
> https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... nberg.html
> 
> Time magazine's person of the year!? - OMG that's hilarious. From the same publication that had Aldof Hitler as their Person of the Year in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1942, Nikita Krushchev in 1957 and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.
> 
> St. Gretta is in good company!


Well called out Swiss. How dare she scare the bejesus out of my kids without any experience, context or reasonable basis to do this. Unbelieveable the extent to which the left will politisize climate change and use children to hide behind.


----------



## John-H




----------



## SwissJetPilot

I'm not a fan of either of these two politicians, but I give them credit here -

_"At the milder end of the reaction spectrum, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has disagreed with Thunberg about the urgency of radical climate action, saying technological advances would give humanity some extra time. French President Emmanuel Macron criticized Thunberg for "radical positions" that, he said, would only "antagonize" our societies, and said the environmentally aware governments of France and Germany aren't the ones she should be attacking".
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... radicalism

Note the use of the word "attacking", because that's exactly what she and her puppet masters are all about. It's always interesting how when normal people don't like something, like eating meat or buying plastic, they simply don't do it and mind their own business. But when radicals don't like something, they want to make sure NO ONE does it - ever. And they're quite happy to get in your face about it and demonize anyone who disagrees. Like spoiled children having a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

With regards to the article, I find it ironic that Macron would make the comment about "antagonizing societies". He'd know better than anyone about that subject!_


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


>


Great cartoon John and captures the reality of climate change. Just as it is not possible to stop that asteroid, it is also not possible to reverse or stop natural climate change with the technology that currenty exists. It is possible to reduce our footprint which most countires are endeavouring to do without blowing up their economies. Unfortunately some of the top emitters such as China and India are increasing their footprint and for some reason the alarmists don't seem to focus their attacks on them, regardless of what was given away at the Paris meeting.


----------



## John-H

I think the cartoon was more aimed at unwillingness to change and fund the effort to do much about it.

Also I think what's going to antagonise our societies most will be the effects of climate change - but by then it might be too late.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

And now the mask is removed and the truth exposed -

In a recent interview Gretta said she _"...feared the summit alone would not lead to adequate climate action, and that activists should continue to take world leaders to task." and "World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities, but we have to make sure they cannot do that," she said. "We will make sure that we put them against the wall, and they will have to do their job to protect our futures."_

So just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so many other fascists (persons of the year) she too wants to put anyone who opposes her agenda against a wall. And in case you missed the point, she's talking about leaders who were put in office by their citizens in free, democratic elections.

EDIT - She just came out with this apology -

_After some initial concern over her use of the phrase - which usually means to execute people by firing squad, against a wall - she tweeted a clarification. "Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said 'put them against the wall'," she wrote. "That's Swenglish: 'att ställa någon mot väggen' (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable."_
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50799233

Again, hilarious! Nice try. We're not as stupid as you think we are my dear. Anyone with any knowledge of history and an IQ above that of a french fry, knows EXACTLY what "put them against the wall" means. It is a reference to execution by firing squad, in which the condemned person is stood against a wall and shot. The phrase is suggesting that the in the coming revolution whoever is being mentioned will be the first to be executed.

Of course in typical Orwellian style, the left media will quickly re-define the term to mean something completely harmless. It was all just a misunderstanding. She is, after all, only a child. How could she possibly know what she said?

_'Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'_ - G. Orwell


----------



## John-H

Ridiculous :roll:

The phrase "ställa mot väggen" is very common in newspapers and political speeches in Sweden.

In Saturday's edition of the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, for instance, the therapist Carina Bång said that when dealing with a drug addict, it seldom works to "ställa honom mot väggen" and try and force him to confess to his problems.

https://www.dn.se/insidan/min-bror-ar-s ... ssbrukare/

Five minutes with Google. If only others were so diligent and less quick to judge to suit a pre conceived view.


----------



## bobclive22

> It is possible to reduce our footprint which most countries are endeavouring to do without blowing up their economies.


Carbon footprint, that`s from the perspective within Western society, how does a third world citizen respond to the fact that they will remain in near poverty infinitem without cheap energy provided by fossil fuels. The world bank will not provide funding for those much needed coal fired power stations but the Chinese have stepped into that void and are providing both the funding and construction. Giving grants to those third world counties only perpetuates poverty as has been shown, a prime example is fair trade. Cheap energy provided by coal is the only route, without industrialisation these countries stay where they are.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

There's only one reason someone would use this phrase and we all know what it implies. Even the Swedes aren't THAT naive. There's enough people in Europe who saw the Nazi's put innocent civilians against a wall and shoot them. So they know EXACTLY what it means. Don't you dare defend anyone who uses that expression and then tries to excuse it.









_When World War II began on Sept. 1, 1939, Hannie Schaft and the sisters Truus and Freddie Oversteegen were just 18, 16 and 13 years old. "While I was biking, I saw Germans picking up innocent people from the streets, putting them against a wall and shooting them. I was forced to watch, which aroused such an enormous anger in me, such a disgust, a feeling of 'dirty bastards.' You can have any political conviction or be totally against war, but at that moment you are just a human being confronted with something very cruel._

https://time.com/5661142/dutch-resistance-friendship/

.


----------



## John-H

Oh come on you're just being silly now :roll:


----------



## Iceblue

bobclive22 said:


> It is possible to reduce our footprint which most countries are endeavouring to do without blowing up their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon footprint, that`s from the perspective within Western society, how does a third world citizen respond to the fact that they will remain in near poverty infinitem without cheap energy provided by fossil fuels. The world bank will not provide funding for those much needed coal fired power stations but the Chinese have stepped into that void and are providing both the funding and construction. Giving grants to those third world counties only perpetuates poverty as has been shown, a prime example is fair trade. Cheap energy provided by coal is the only route, without industrialisation these countries stay where they are.
Click to expand...

Agree with what your saying Bob as it applies to undeveloped countries. Coal is definitely the cheapest way to go with net emission benefit, particularly if they use Austrlia's high quality thermal coal and the latest carbon capture coal technology which is being used in Japan. For India and China however (2nd & 4th largest economies in the world) they are quite capable of bringing the balance of their populations out of poverty without the need for the rest of us to subsidise them based on their Paris agreement non targets.


----------



## Iceblue

SwissJetPilot said:


> There's only one reason someone would use this phrase and we all know what it implies. Even the Swedes aren't THAT naive. There's enough people in Europe who saw the Nazi's put innocent civilians against a wall and shoot them. So they know EXACTLY what it means. Don't you dare defend anyone who uses that expression and then tries to excuse it.
> 
> 
> _When World War II began on Sept. 1, 1939, Hannie Schaft and the sisters Truus and Freddie Oversteegen were just 18, 16 and 13 years old. "While I was biking, I saw Germans picking up innocent people from the streets, putting them against a wall and shooting them. I was forced to watch, which aroused such an enormous anger in me, such a disgust, a feeling of 'dirty bastards.' You can have any political conviction or be totally against war, but at that moment you are just a human being confronted with something very cruel._
> 
> https://time.com/5661142/dutch-resistance-friendship/
> 
> .


Even if she did make an uncharacteristic mistake which I doubt, can you imagine the reaction of the left if it was a swedish 16 yr old boy from the right making a similar comment supporting a conservative view. He would be de-platformed for life.
We had a recent example when a conservative commentator on a live show said that Jacinta Adhern (NZ Prime Minister) should choke on sock over some issue she was not qualified to comment on instead of the usual "put a sock in it" . He was accused of wanting her to die and almost lost his job over it.


----------



## John-H

Wearing blinkers and a lack of empathy can also be a problem don't you think?


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Wearing blinkers and a lack of empathy can also be a problem don't you think?


I think the empathy balance has gone too far with a little more resilience and tolerance required rather than seeking offence so you can become famous for 15 minutes following a social media post. There should be more to life don't you think?


----------



## John-H

Not really. She's a young girl with a vision and communicating through aspergers - it's we that need to show some empathy rather than demonising the messenger for telling the truth.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

So what are you going to do about climate change?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> So what are you going to do about climate change?


What is who going to do about climate change?


----------



## bobclive22

> So what are you going to do about climate change?


What climate change John, do you mean this special climate change that only climate scientists can observe with their special climate change computers.

GREAT BRITONS: WILLIAM TYNDALE - THE MAN WHO TRANSLATED THE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH



> A key issue was access to the Scriptures by *ordinary people*. For historic reasons the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and these languages were *only understood by a small educated elite*, chiefly in the priesthood. So all biblical knowledge passed through the filter of the Church and dissidents became increasingly frustrated with this.


All climate change knowledge *passed through the filter of *the Guardian and the high priests of the climate change religion


----------



## John-H

The one you are denying. As I thought. Nothing.


----------



## ashfinlayson

SwissJetPilot said:


> I'm not a fan of either of these two politicians, but I give them credit here -
> 
> _"At the milder end of the reaction spectrum, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has disagreed with Thunberg about the urgency of radical climate action, saying technological advances would give humanity some extra time. French President Emmanuel Macron criticized Thunberg for "radical positions" that, he said, would only "antagonize" our societies, and said the environmentally aware governments of France and Germany aren't the ones she should be attacking".
> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... radicalism
> 
> Note the use of the word "attacking", because that's exactly what she and her puppet masters are all about. It's always interesting how when normal people don't like something, like eating meat or buying plastic, they simply don't do it and mind their own business. But when radicals don't like something, they want to make sure NO ONE does it - ever. And they're quite happy to get in your face about it and demonize anyone who disagrees. Like spoiled children having a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.
> 
> With regards to the article, I find it ironic that Macron would make the comment about "antagonizing societies". He'd know better than anyone about that subject!_


_

The radicals argument is bang on and the uk election is the most recent example of that - Being shouted at/heckled in the street by angry far left radicals then to go on social media to a barrage of online abuse from them is no way to gather support for an issue; anyone who isn't far-left just switches off. Parading a child with Asperger's around to shout at people until they agree is going to have the opposite desired affect on world view and ultimately cause her mental harm, poor kid probably already has a messiah complex._


----------



## John-H

Well if everyone reacts that way then we are all doomed and going to Hell in a handcart.


----------



## bobclive22

This is the danger of a left wing controlled MSM.

RIP David Bellamy - Nature TV Star Cancelled by BBC for Climate Change Wrongthink

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/1 ... rongthink/


----------



## John-H

Shoot the messenger, deny the message and ignore the evidence. Good job most scientists don't do that otherwise there would be no agreed understanding about reality and we'd make no progress. This thread is quite a showcase :?


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Back in August St. Greta sailed to America on an environmentally-friendly racing yacht instead of flying. On the way home on November 12, however, she hitched a ride with an Australian couple that sails around the world in a 48-foot catamaran called La Vagabonde. According to The Daily Mail, Nikki Henderson flew from Britain to America in order to be the skipper bringing her home on the yacht, thus nullifying the carbon-cost of Greta Thunberg simply taking a flight home.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... antic.html

Oddly, no one mentioned that the yachts were not traditional wooden sailing ships, meaning they're built from fiberglass and resin that comes from - wait for it - PETROLEUM products! Gasp! And horror of horrors, they're also outfitted with diesel engines. :lol:


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> So what are you going to do about climate change?


I am going to continue to support a government that does not believe the alarmist spin on hypothetical tipping points ocurring over the short term and that balances the transition to a lower cabon dioxide emission economy without destroying that economy and my and my childrens standard of living. I am optimistic that new technologies will overcome the current inadequacy of renewables in supplying cheap and reliable power. I would also support a nuclear industry in our country like that which Britain and many other European nations rely upon.

I am also relunctantly having to pay 250% more in power bills to achieve the foregoing whilst the left keeps pushing us to subsidised renewable energy. I believe based upon the your last election result John, that this is the sensible view and action of the majority of people which should be respected rather than sneared at by wealthy elites who can afford more virtuous and unecessary climate change action or left leaning public servants and academics with their highly paid, guranteed jobs.

Next question?


----------



## John-H

It was by no means a majority of voters. As usual it we a minority. Besides, When did voters decide reality, I thought that was realitie's job.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Shoot the messenger, deny the message and ignore the evidence. Good job most scientists don't do that otherwise there would be no agreed understanding about reality and we'd make no progress. This thread is quite a showcase :?


Don't misunderstand me, I care deeply about global warming and what is happening to the rainforests. But regarding extreme leftwing activism and the environment, it is more of a case of the messenger shooting the recipient.


----------



## bobclive22

Now that Brexit is not main stream news back comes Global Warming that morphed into Climate change. Australia is now big news. The left wing media NEVER give balanced information, it`s always spin.

There are fires in Australia at present with the MSM spin, the worst ever, it`s man made climate change etc, then there is this.

https://soundcloud.com/davepellowe/1911 ... as-in-1851

The Devastating Black Thursday Bushfires of 1851

http://www.fire.bmwhi.org.au/?page_id=58

http://chig.asn.au/the-devastating-blac ... s-of-1851/

Blue Mountains fires NSW 2 December 1957 to 14 January 1958


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_Deutsche Bahn (DB) was quick to respond to Greta's tweet about her train ride home, apologizing to the 16-year-old schoolgirl for the inconvenience and saying it was working on improving its trains.

But on Sunday DB went on the defensive, deleting its initial tweet, and chiding Greta for failing to acknowledge the lengths its onboard staff apparently went to lead her to a seat in first class.

"Dear Greta, Thank you for supporting us railroaders in the fight against climate change! We were happy that you travelled with us on Saturday in the ICE 74 ... but it would have been even nicer, had you also reported how friendly and competently you were looked after by our team at your seat in the first class."

DB confirmed that Greta had traveled first class between the cities of Kassel and Hamburg. Greta responded swiftly, suggesting that DB had overreacted to her tweet by inferring that she had criticized the company for running an overcrowded service.

Contrary to their claim that she had spent the entire journey in a seat in first class, Greta said in a tweet on Sunday afternoon she had only been able to sit in a seat after Göttingen, more than four hours into her journey, and for the remaining two hours, before having to change in Hamburg for a further connection towards Scandinavia._

Evidently St. Greta is too f-ing stupid to pre-order and reserve a first class seat so she could have ridden the entire trip in the comfort of first class. Instead, she chose to sit on the floor and inconvenience other passengers with her luggage that partially blocked the aisleway. But like most liberal fascists, she never fails to find an opportunity to twist the truth to suit her puppet masters agenda while making a nuisance of herself at the same time.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

For those of you who were aware of the devastating fires in California, it might be interesting to note those fires had nothing to do with global warming or any climate related incidents. The fires were caused due to the power company not doing it's job of maintaining it's equipment.

_Investigators with the California Public Utilities Commission found that the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (PG&E) failed to inspect and repair its power lines for years before a faulty transmission line started last year's series of wildfires including the Camp Fire, the deadliest fire in state history, which killed 85 people.

The 700-page report released last week goes further than previous findings, showing the company violated state rules for maintaining electric lines and systemic problems with how the company looked after its oldest lines. The Caribou-Palermo transmission line, which PG&E admitted was responsible for the Camp Fire, had maintenance work deferred as did many other older power lines.

The report found, "the identified shortcomings in PG&E's inspection and maintenance of the incident tower were not isolated, but rather indicative of an overall pattern of inadequate inspection and maintenance of PG&E's transmission facilities. Wednesday afternoon reports from Bloomberg that PG&E was close to a deal to pay only $13.5 billion in damages._


----------



## John-H

Australia is the hottest it's ever been and predicted to reach 48°C this week.

California might have been sparked by power faults but it was unusually tinder dry.

It's funny, your posts all seem to be making a case to deny global warming, apart from Ash who does seem to care about it. I feel the need to make the alternative case.

This is a picture of the Arctic burning:










The planet hasn't seen anything like it in 10,000 years apparently -- and this summer had the hottest month ever recorded and it's going to get worse.

We CAN still turn this around though - if not for us, for the sake of our children and grandchildren:

Push governments to drastically cut emissions and commit to 100% clean energy.

Support climate protests across the planet.

Face down the fossil fuel industry and climate change deniers wherever they threaten to take power like they are doing through Brexit.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Australia is the hottest it's ever been and predicted to reach 48°C this week.


No, it's just the hottest since records began, which, in the grand scale of time, is miniscule.



John-H said:


> California might have been sparked by power faults but it was unusually tinder dry.


There's always a 'but' isn't there. Clutching at straws springs to mind again.



John-H said:


> It's funny, your posts all seem to be making a case to deny global warming, apart from Ash who does seem to care about it.


There are many who care John, most people do about their planet, and it's not necessarily being denied, it's just the whole 'man made' thing.



John-H said:


> The planet hasn't seen anything like it in 10,000 years apparently -- and this summer had the hottest month ever recorded and it's going to get worse.


'Apparently'. 
10,000 years is a very long time to be making claims like that. Even if it _were_ true (which I doubt) it's still not forced to be anthropogenic. That's my whole point.



John-H said:


> We CAN still turn this around though - if not for us, for the sake of our children and grandchildren:
> 
> Push governments to drastically cut emissions and commit to 100% clean energy.


The main governments already are playing their part but there are other countries who are not listening and don't care. They are the ones you need to be complaining to, not a bunch of car guys on a forum.



John-H said:


> Support climate protests across the planet.


No, certainly not. What does protesting ever do? It causes headaches for all the services involved, disruption to people who the protest isn't aimed at, gains absolutely nothing and makes all involved look like total and utter dickwads with nothing better to do in life. There are better ways to put forward points and arguments.



John-H said:


> Face down the fossil fuel industry and climate change deniers wherever they threaten to take power like they are doing through Brexit.


Oh dear, here we go again with the Brexit thing.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Australia is the hottest it's ever been and predicted to reach 48°C this week.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just the hottest since records began, which, in the grand scale of time, is miniscule....
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face down the fossil fuel industry and climate change deniers wherever they threaten to take power like they are doing through Brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear, here we go again with the Brexit thing.
Click to expand...

Here you go again - doing everything to support denial. I'm not going through the whole lot but I thought your first point was funny. Err .. Since records began is a bit of a given :roll: how else would you be able to present a measurement? Unless you include when the earth first cooled because it was so hot obviously but then it wasn't called Australia then :lol:

Seriously though, even if you are making out you are only arguing about the man made bit - if you accept we can do something about it by reducing greenhouse gases etc then why add your voice to climate change deniers?

Oh and many of the Tufton Street lobbyists have fossil fuel connections to bring about de-regulation and you must know Nigel Lawson and his climate change denial. Now you are denying the denial :roll:


----------



## Iceblue

The quote about Australia is fake news in the sense that the statistic has been concocted and only applies a spurious average from one city that often gets over 40 degrees. We had 42.5 in outer suburbs of Sydney today which whilst unusual, lasted about four hours before a southerly change occurred and temps went back to normal. Heatwaves and bushfires are a normal thing in Australia and we have experienced much worse bush fire seasons in the past. Over 80% of bushfires in Australia are caused by man with 50% by arsonists. Also green policies at State government level have reduced back burning in winter in national parks and government bushland with lock ups preventing the clearance and maintenance of fire trails. As a result fuel loads have built up to dangerous levels during a bad drought period the combined effect of which have made the fires very intense. For thousands of years the Aboriginals undertook regular back burning to minimise bush fire impact and we have forgotten that this is best practice.

So rather than focus on real solutions to stop or minimise the impact of bush fires duruing drought periods the left takes the cynical opportunity to blame it on man made climate change. Sad really.


----------



## John-H

So everything is normal and natural? You must be really confused as to why the rest of the world is bothering to take action to tackle climate change by altering the things mankind does.


----------



## bobclive22

> Here you go again - doing everything to support denial.


This vid below will not alter your perception of this subject John, unfortunately you appear to be to entrenched in your belief.

This vid is a bit lengthy but extremely informative, it provides the basis for further study and discussion. The bit about China`s honesty regarding CFC`s and carbon emissions is interesting.

Myron Ebell states it takes 500 tons of concrete for the base of 1 wind turbine, NextEra Energy, one of the largest wind and solar energy developers in North America states it uses 800 metric tons for one base, millions of turbins would be needed, then there are the rare earths for the magnets, total garbage John and you buy into this.
Cement production is one of the world's most carbon-polluting industries.






Here is a BBC piece, note that wind Turbines and electric cars are almost an after thought.

One of Baotou's other main exports is neodymium, another rare earth with a variety of applications. Again it is used to dye glass, especially for making lasers, but perhaps its most important use is in making powerful yet lightweight magnets. Neodymium magnets are used in consumer electronics items such as in-ear headphones, cellphone microphones, and computer hard-drives. At the other end of the scale they are a vital component in large equipment that requires powerful magnetic fields, such as wind farm turbines and the motors that power the new generation of electric cars.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2015 ... e-on-earth

"Billions"of birds die while many more
do everything to survive the
overwhelming and terrific 1932 Australian heatwave. ( now if this had happened today)

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/59308062

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/bird% ... 201932.pdf


----------



## leopard

Hey John, are you going to lead by example with this climate change malarkey per chance ?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Err .. Since records began is a bit of a given :roll: how else would you be able to present a measurement? Unless you include when the earth first cooled because it was so hot obviously but then it wasn't called Australia then :lol:


 That's the whole point John. 'Since records began' is hardly an accurate enough measurement to say that "Australia is the hottest it's ever been". Not by a long shot. Records began in 1910, how long do you think Australia has been around for? Tens of thousands of years? More? How you can say that is an 'accurate' measurement is beyond laughable and only a fool would take it for granted. Those with a bit of savvy would take it with a pinch of salt.



John-H said:


> Seriously though, even if you are making out you are only arguing about the man made bit - if you accept we can do something about it by reducing greenhouse gases etc then why add your voice to climate change deniers?


I'm not 'adding my voice to climate change _deniers_'. And I doubt very much that whatever _*I*_ do by being greener will have any effect whatsoever on the climate when you look at the bigger picture of what, and who, are causing the most pollution. They are the ones you need to be aiming your vitriol at.


----------



## bobclive22

History John, always do some solid historical research before you swallow the hook.

You can check every statement in this vid below.






This Blog below is what you John would call a denier blog, the one thing denier blogs do is publish science and opinion and allow anyone of any persuasion to comment. Many of the commentators provide links to solid science and the data that underpins that science, that gives the reader the opportunity to come to a rational decision having had access to all the relevant information. Warming blogs don`t do that, they expect you to believe their statements without question.

The Australian Bom start their temperature records from 1910 hiding the earlier hotter years.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/12/hottes ... e-history/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/the-he ... ustralian/


----------



## John-H

Well we should all do our bit and encourage our governments to take the bigger measures. I was looking forward to government provided better insulation and a new boiler etc but I'm making do at the moment by improving my loft insulation myself. For the record I think it's pretty obvious from examples around the world that we have a climate problem and I'm guided by the majority of climate scientists who agree that it's a man made influence and we need to do something about it urgently. None of us here have any authority in the subject save to recognise the majority accepted view of scientists.


----------



## Iceblue

A quick update on the real facts. Australia's hottest day was in 1909 (03/01/1909) with a recorded temp of 51.06 degrees celcius. This was in an outback town called Bourke in New South Wales and was excluded by the bureau because it was recorded on a Sunday when they werent meant to do so. But the record has been checked and the reason it was recorded on the Sunday because the person responsible for recording it did not want to miss what he knew was the highest temperature ever recorded in Australia. it was also recorded on a stevenson paper (not just a mercury thermometer).

Apparently our bureau of meteorology have also been playing with the historical records to make previous records cooler and to remove outliers so that they can overegg the averages as I alluded to above. Another example of the long march of the left through the institutions. How they get away with this stuff is frightening and hence my scepticism in the modelling of man made production of CO2 significantly impacting pre-existing climate change.

Nothing to do "with the majority of scientists" tripe that the left keeps rolling out. Its a lot more nuanced than that John as you have conceded many times


----------



## Iceblue

I was looking forward to government provided better insulation and a new boiler etc but I'm making do at the moment

Why would you wait for a governement subsidy John. You should be leading the charge, giving up a few grand for your alarmist claims. Clearly man made CO2 production is not that important for you. I think the "H" word may apply here John.


----------



## John-H

Utter tripe! So you have better knowledge than all the world scientists? They don't have access to the sources of information you have?

I'd suggest they do and they don't take your sources seriously because they are cleverer, better trained and use more reliable sources of information than you. I'd expect that to be the case because they are climate scientists and the vast majority have reached an agreed consensus whereas you are a climate change denier reflecting views of a tiny minority, on a car forum. Sorry to be blunt.


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Utter tripe! So you have better knowledge than all the world scientists? They don't have access to the sources of information you have?
> 
> I'd suggest they do and they don't take your sources seriously because they are cleverer, better trained and use more reliable sources of information than you. I'd expect that to be the case because they are climate scientists and the vast majority have reached an agreed consensus whereas you are a climate change denier reflecting views of a tiny minority, on a car forum. Sorry to be blunt.


No apologies required, this is an adult conversation and I respect your right to any view and faith. This is off topic so whether it is recorded on a car forum or not should not matter. I addressed the climate scientist stuff in earlier posts above so won't get involved in re-explaining that which you previously agreed. BTW I am not denying climate change as you know, just the alarmist carry on that man made CO2 production will make a significant difference to reversing natural climate change from other sources. Keep cool. [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> For the record I think it's pretty obvious from examples around the world that we have a climate problem and I'm guided by the majority of climate scientists who agree that it's a man made influence and we need to do something about it urgently.


Yep, you can get rid of that Smokey mk1 for starters and buy yourself a push bike :lol:

Meanwhile I'm doing my bit by enjoying carbon neutral warmth this afternoon - stick that in your pipe


----------



## SwissJetPilot

While John and St. Greta are riding-sharing a horse drawing buggy to the next Brexit/Climate rally, he could use his writing skills to help her with her script. Goodness knows she could use it.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record I think it's pretty obvious from examples around the world that we have a climate problem and I'm guided by the majority of climate scientists who agree that it's a man made influence and we need to do something about it urgently.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you can get rid of that Smokey mk1 for starters and buy yourself a push bike :lol:
> 
> Meanwhile I'm doing my bit by enjoying carbon neutral warmth this afternoon - stick that in your pipe
Click to expand...

I always thought electric would be next.

And what carbon neural warmth is that you got?

You still sniping from the climate change denial battlements Andrew?


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"And what carbon neural warmth is that you got?"_ Yes, John. We'd all love to know how you keep your house toasty in winter and remain carbon neutral while doing it. Stoking the furnace with magical pixie dust are you? Or do you have your garden gnomes down in the basement running a treadmill-powered generator?

I totally agree that the climate is changing. It always has and always will. I don't need some so-called "climate expert" to tell me the obvious. And I certainly don't need a child like St. Greta ranting at adults nor do I need or want the liberal politicians (who have even less of a clue) trying to "solve" the issue by taxing us.

The whole St. Greta show is just another pathetic, self aggrandizing, hypocritical leftist side show. Like so much of modern youth culture's narcissistic behavior her approach, and that of her puppet masters, makes the whole thing so unserious, at least to adults with an IQ above that of a french fry.

Let look at the facts. The industrialized west is the safest and cleanest place on the planet despite producing and consuming most of the worlds energy, including renewables and nuclear. I can safely drink the water in US and Europe and swim in any US or European river. Try that in China, India or Africa.

In the US at least, sorting out the environment was done by legislation against polluters via the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They have existed long before the EU and St. Greta showed up. Here's short list of things the EPA has accomplished through legislation against industry, and not taxation on the public -

1971 - Ban the use of lead-based interior paints for private residence
1972 - Ban the use of DDT
1973 - Phased out lead in gasoline, resulting in a 98% reduction in lead levels in the air
1974 - Implemented the Safe Drinking Water Act
1975 - Required car makers to install catalytic converters in new motor vehicles
1980 - Developed a nationwide program for toxic waste site cleanups under the new Superfund law
1987 - The United States is one of 24 nations that sign the Montreal Protocol, pledging to phase out production of CFCs.

The list goes on. And oddly enough, the EPA managed all these accomplishments without putting a child with Asperger syndrome out in public to scream at people about climate change and then finding a way for liberal politicians to stick their hands in my pockets.

If St. Greta wants to ride around the world on yachts or in a first class cabin on DB trains, I'm totally cool with that. But as long as it's legal to do so, I'll continue to drive my TT Roadster at 220-kph through the German countryside, gleefully watching the fuel gauge drop to "E" and she can STFU about it.


----------



## John-H

So many words to say so little of any merit. If you deny man-made climate change - that defines you more succinctly.

*"...gleefully watching the fuel gauge drop to "E" "*

Are you aware of the story of Easter Island?


----------



## LesRSV

I am going to risk jumping in here and say this seems to have turned into a "lets bash Greta" thread. She is only a young girl standing up for what she believes in, what's wrong with that? You have the option to agree or ignore her as you wish.
I probably have an IQ a little above a french fry, but if Sir David Frederick Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FRSA FLS FZS FSA says the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, that's good enough for me. [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

It's just a case of people not wanting to change. They want to carry on as normal and so deny their actions are having an effect on the climate in order to sooth their conscience in the face of all the evidence of damage being done, so they lash out at anyone pointing out the truth and championing change with every available bit of distributable nonsense fed to them through social media by the fossil fuel industry whose interest it is to feed the climate change deniers. And boy do they lap it up. They even shamelessly turn their anger onto protesting children. I've not seen them attack Sir David Attenborough yet. Perhaps because he has so much earned respect and they know they will lose face if they try.

It's quite clear that we need governmental action in order to coordinate and drive through change with incentives and assistance. It would be best if we could all agree to help in ways that we can too, even in small ways. We will need to change if we are to survive. Change can have its own rewards - there's a whole green industry springing up with renewable technology, clean electrified transport, insulation standards etc - it could be and quite probably has to be a new industrial revolution. We should embrace it.


----------



## Iceblue

Not true again John. As Swiss correctly pointed out things have been changing for a long time and efforts are continuing. But don't let us stop you and others who feel more needs to be done to fund your own efforts to reduce climate change without us subsidising you.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Tell me, what exactly are St. Greta's professional credentials or list of scientific accomplishments? So far, the only thing St. Greta has managed to do is prove she's nothing more than an ignorant little big mouthed hypocrite who needs to go back to school and learn some actual science, do some real research and then maybe she can present some facts rather than parroting other peoples questionable work.

And throwing David Attenborough's name out there, really? The guy is a professional broadcaster. Yes, he has a degree in natural sciences but he never even finished his postgraduate degree in social anthropology because he favored broadcasting. So what real scientific research has he done? The answer is none. Narrating a TV show on animals, while entertaining, is NOT science, it's journalism. Hey, don't get me wrong. I love his shows too. But don't toss his name out there and proclaim it like he's the modern day Einstein of climate change.

And let's be very clear - no one is stopping her, or David, from giving up all the benefits of modern western industrial society they believe is killing the planet. In fact, if these people, and those like them, really believe humans are the cause of all our climate problems, I would love to see them shut off the gas, water and electricity at their house and start growing a vegetable garden to show us all how it can be done. Let's see them (and all those who think like her) lead by example.

But until that happens, my advice to those people is put up or shut up. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk. When these people are all off the grid and have returned to an agrarian carbon-neutral lifestyle, then I might listen. Until then, it's just more hypocrisy and hack journalism.

Obviously you weren't paying attention to Brexit. Part of the reason the Brits voted out of the EU was to show they're sick and tired of having their lives affected by governments they have no control over. And yet you think we need more government? Seriously? These are just a few of the ones we have in the US and you think we need more?

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Forest Service (USDA)
Geological Survey (USGS)
Department of the Interior
National Science Foundation 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Here's your homework assignment - show me one scientific paper on climate change researched and written by either Greta Thunberg or David Attenborough which was then peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

Good luck with that!


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Ah, sorry John. I forgot to address your comment about Easter Island.

Evidently the latest THEORY (not proven fact) is the inhabitants chopped down all the trees on the island and then they starved to death and died. Odd that never happened on any of the Hawaiian islands, Rorotonga, Tahiti, etc, etc.

The depopulation of the island couldn't have possibly been a result of a tsunami, famine, plague, etc. Obviously it was a man made event because the "experts" said so. :roll:

I'm just wondering if these guys were from the same body of "scientific experts" who also had no clue that the Easter Island heads were actually statues that had bodies until about 10-years ago. Just looking at my old highs school natural science text book from 1976...well what do you know, here it is - Easter Island. Yep, just heads. :lol:

Has anyone considered that it might have just been a sacred island set aside just for religious purposes and no one actually lived there? Oh, sorry, I'm not an "scientific expert" so that theory is total nonsense. My bad.


----------



## John-H

Your response is entirely predictable and I'm not going to waste my time taking assignments from a climate change denier when by definition it's not me that has a problem with learning. Your attacks on a 14 year old girl don't do you any favors. You know she's telling the truth so you attack her personally despite her age. Yes sure, David Attenborough in reporting is a journalistic role but his qualifications and vast experience of witnessing change in nature and his connections with scientific research is just so far ahead in reliability and respectability as a professional broadcaster - as an adjudicator and balanced presenter of the evidence, than your biased and selective musings on a car forum, that there simply is no contest.

Brexit is reversible, catastrophic climate change isn't. Reality will be the judge and executioner.

Have a great Christmas while you can


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Oh, so this post has gone from 'global warming', to 'climate change' to 'catastrophic climate change'. Wow, there's a leap. You know what John, I totally agree with you. It's not you that has a problem with learning, it's you not being able support your arguments by providing factual evidence to support it.

And that's what I like about you John. You're consistent. 

Just like the Brexit/Remain topic, every time someone challenges your position and asks for evidence to back it up, you default to your standards; "I can't be bothered..." or "I won't waste my time..." and the good old "If they [fill in the blank] say so that's good enough for me" replies. And when facts are provided, especially inconvenient facts that fly in the face of your position, you simply discount or ignore them as right wing propaganda.

Unfortunately, that's not how a debate works, that is how an emotional exchange works. So clearly all these attempts at serious discussions are nothing more than you having a place to express your feelings rather than debate facts.

And just as an example of exactly what I'm talking about, here's the type of BS journalism from Attenborough that needs to stop -

*Sir David Attenborough: "Plastic killing up to one million people a year"*
_The report, a joint collaboration between Flora and Fauna and Tearfund, found that one person is dying every 30 seconds in developing countries from diseases and illnesses caused by plastic pollution and uncollected rubbish dumped or burnt near homes._ https://www.e-mc2.gr/el/news/sir-david- ... ead-report

You know what David should had said? He should have said "HEY IDIOTS! HOW ABOUT PICKING UP THE PLASTIC AND RECYCLING IT AND NOT TOSSING IT, OR YOUR POO, INTO THE STREETS, FIELDS AND RIVERS WHERE YOU LIVE OR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH!"

Yet through the twisted logic of leftist journalism, the mess shown in this photo is somehow the fault of the west? :roll:

And just to wrap this up, here's 50 years of failed environmental predictions on one nice package -
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... redictions


----------



## John-H

No. I'm afraid Andrew that you are massively misrepresenting what I have said in regard to climate change and Brexit.

I'm not a climate scientist and have not made a detailed study, so don't profess to be an expert - but what I do say is that anyone who holds to be true, an argument against the accepted scientific view of experts in the field, should be able to explain why their judgement should be considered seriously and if they have no qualifications on the subject should expect no serious consideration because they are in no position to judge - especially when you consider that the vast majority of climate change scientists are united in their view to the contrary.

As regards Brexit I have provided detailed arguments and have made a study of the consequences of leaving the EU. There's no need to have a degree or years of study - just perseverance to read through the detail which is more than most people can be bothered to do because they think they know the answer before being fully aware of the question.

As I say reality will be the final judge. One subject is reversible, one will be too late to do much about.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> As regards Brexit I have provided detailed arguments and have made a study of the consequences of leaving the EU. There's no need to have a degree or years of study - just perseverance to read through the detail which is more than most people can be bothered to do because they think they know the answer before being fully aware of the question.


But those arguments that you and your fellow cohorts espoused was time wasted and irrelevant, contrary to your way of thinking because they didn't make one iota of difference to the outcome of the General Election anyhow :lol:

Perseverance to read through the detail and and comment is just opinion, it holds no weight or influence to any other than yourself.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regards Brexit I have provided detailed arguments and have made a study of the consequences of leaving the EU. There's no need to have a degree or years of study - just perseverance to read through the detail which is more than most people can be bothered to do because they think they know the answer before being fully aware of the question.
> 
> 
> 
> But those arguments that you and your fellow cohorts espoused was time wasted and irrelevant, contrary to your way of thinking because they didn't make one iota of difference to the outcome of the General Election anyhow :lol:
> 
> Perseverance to read through the detail and and comment is just opinion, it holds no weight or influence to any other than yourself.
Click to expand...

Tish tish oh furry one - the outcome of the general election had no bearing on the veracity of EU membership facts - if people choose to ignore them that's theirs and a separate issue. The facts will be biting bottoms during the trade talks and after that if the softest of Brexits isn't enacted for the rest of the country. Then the anger will be directed at those responsible for not telling the truth. But such talk would be off topic here :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> But such talk would be off topic here :wink:


Well, re-open the topic you locked up, simples :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> *It's just a case of people not wanting to change*. They want to carry on as normal and so deny their actions are having an effect on the climate in order to sooth their conscience in the face of all the evidence of damage being done,


John I had to smile when I saw this, Smart meters are part of the drive to control the energy of the masses, you stated that you were part of the initial implementation of these meters but would not agree to have one fitted on your property as it was to inconvenient. :? :?


----------



## Danny1

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> But such talk would be off topic here :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, re-open the topic you locked up, simples :lol:
Click to expand...

Dont you know by now this is now Johns Forum and not the TT forum, if he doesnt like it its the work of the devil and all life as we know it will cease to exist!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Stiff

So why *was* it locked?


----------



## John-H

It could be opened again if people want and WW3 doesn't break out but it seemed to have reached a natural end at the time after the electron result. I was wondering if a new thread along the lines of ... Is Brexit living up to expectations? ...would be more appropriate? Or is it too early yet?


----------



## Iceblue

I say reopen it and include the persons thread who you had blocked. I read it all and it did not appear to be WW3. Transparency is a good thing as you often tell us all. It also gives us the opportunity to gloat more on how we were all right and we have not had sufficient time to keep kicking you about it :lol:


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> . I was wondering if a new thread along the lines of ... Is Brexit living up to expectations? ...would be more appropriate? Or is it too early yet?


That's certainly an option, although as you state, it might be a little too early at this stage.


----------



## leopard

Iceblue said:


> I say reopen it and include the persons thread who you had blocked. I read it all and it did not appear to be WW3. Transparency is a good thing as you often tell us all. It also gives us the opportunity to gloat more on how we were all right and we have not had sufficient time to keep kicking you about it :lol:


 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## bobclive22

Bobs global warming/smart meter whinge-a-thon

*Archaeological Finds in Retreating Swiss Glacier*

Lest we forget, as the propaganda goes forward with Greta,when glaciers melt they often reveal artifacfs of a bygone age.

_Stone Age trade routes yield spectacular finds on alpine pass - clothes, weapons and devices also from Roman time and the Middle Ages_

https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/arc ... s-glacier/


----------



## bobclive22

This is the same Canadian talking head that tried to undermine Brexit, it appears he is now the UN`s special envoy for climate action and finance. He is interviewed on the BBC`s flagship *propaganda* program Radio 4 today which is edited by none other than *Greta Thungberg*, you could not make this up.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ... BBC`s flagship *propaganda* program Radio 4 today which is edited by none other than *Greta Thungberg*, you could not make this up. ...


Just in interests of balance, Greta Thunberg was guest editor on Today this morning (not permanent as implied) and the climate change denier supporter Charles Moore was guest editor on Saturday.

Guest editors are a tradition this time of year.


----------



## bobclive22

> climate change denier supporter Charles Moore was guest editor on Saturday.


Is this climate change denying John, *Australian bush fires*.



> I lived on a farm in the Eighties and our Labor party teamed up with the Greenies to win Government, and when they got in power they stopped us from clearing our undergrowth, so that has led to 40 years of leaves,bark etc. to pile up on the ground, the Greenies closed National Parks and State Forest and Farmers were not allowed to cut trees down or backburn their own properties and these Bushfires should be blamed on Labor and the Greenies





> David Packham is an expert bushfire scientist. Read his submission, 2016, on "fire season preparedness" to the Victorian Parliament. He highlights the lack of fuel reduction in Victoria, especially East Gippsland, and possible "mega fires" - where the infernos are now. In 2015, he made another submission to Parliament. He warned "We have a failed fire management policy and practice in Southern Australia especially Victoria. ... South East and South West Australian fuel levels have risen over the last three decades as *mismanagement has been imposed on our environment by misguided green ideology, political failure and vested interests *... Unless the 5% target [of hazard reduction] is doubled or preferably tripled a massive bushfire disaster will occur, the forest and Alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people incinerated." In fact, Victoria has done much less than 5% since then.


Here is the history behind this present fire, it`s all down to *green ideology and nothing else*, research John not MSM headlines.



> Conclusion
> 
> Unless the *5%* target is *doubled or preferably tripled* a
> massive bushfire disaster will occur, the forest and
> Alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly
> beyond repair and homes and people incinerated. david Packham 2015.


https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/image ... ment_3.pdf

David Packham expert bushfire scientist, submission in 2016, on "fire season preparedness" to the Victorian Parliament.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/image ... ackham.pdf


----------



## John-H




----------



## bobclive22

As said many times John, the skeptic`s provide the science behind their claims, you John are wedded to the green garbage refered to in the first link below. Private managed forests referred to in that link below appeared not to have burned, read the piece John and learn.

https://canadafreepress.com/article/ca- ... -ca-burned

While the FAA acted for the greater good in this instance, the same can't be expected from California's authorities. Luckily, other states have been taking note. *Oregon, a state equally prone to wildfires, has successfully prevented the outbreak of large-scale fires since it implemented comprehensive thinning and pruning measures in the 1990s. * Meanwhile, citizens in New Mexico are petitioning the state legislature to facilitate forest management so that fires at the scale of those in California can be prevented.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... worse.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevor ... y-tell-us/

Here is another link, Sceptical blog but all statements are linked to actual data.



> Finally California has begun to address reality in dealing with the state wildfire debacle by acknowledging its role in building this huge problem instead of continuing to make phony "climate change" excuses for these wildfires.
> 
> This action should never have taken so long to occur but instead should have been initiated many years ago.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/24/ ... e-excuses/



> California's wildfires are due to several factors, *none of them pertaining to climate change*, according to University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass. California is getting crowded, leading to higher probabilities of wildfires, he told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
> 
> "Poorly maintained electrical infrastructure" and strong, dry winds are playing a significant role, Mass said, adding: Anyone who is citing climate change as a major factor is merely shifting the blame.


https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/02/cali ... blackouts/


----------



## John-H

Well we know you are a climate change denier conspiracy theorist etc Bob so there you go 

Thing is they couldn't do the fire prevention measures because it was too dry for too long due to the climate :?


----------



## bobclive22

> Well we know you are a climate change denier conspiracy theorist etc Bob so there you go
> 
> Thing is they couldn't do the fire prevention measures because it was too dry for too long due to the climate


It`s always been dry in Australia John, do some homework, you burn off in the winter, the article below is from *2009,* I am not a climate denier just a realist.



> They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.
> 
> But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break - an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised - they feel vindicated. *Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.*





> The Sheahans' 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.
> 
> Do Victoria's native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?





> Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.


https://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-f ... -85bd.html


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212353574056923136
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.w ... 903458.png


----------



## bobclive22

Brain washed green activists stopped the winter burning John not the Australian weather.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/ ... -burns.jpg

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-de ... wildfires/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... res-worse/


----------



## bobclive22

*Australian Geographic *

*The worst bushfires in Australia's history*, they then state,


> Bushfires have long been part of the Australian landscape but some of the worst will always stay in our minds.


They then list the five deadliest bushfires on record, not by the amount of burn and loss of habitat but by the number of fatalities, what total garbage, in 1926 there were 2.1 million residents, in 2009 there were 21.5 million residents.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au ... s-history/


----------



## Roller Skate

This is why you don't give people with ADHD Ritalin.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

At the end of the day, none of this matters anyway. We are just a speck in time and space. Try to wrap your head around the scale of all this...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR9sFz ... XJhfxtFMBA


----------



## bobclive22

> This is why you don't give people with ADHD Ritalin.


Never heard of Ritalin, Statins I know as I was prescribed them 20 years ago, almost turned me into an invalid so trashed them. I know what Ticagrelor together with Aspirin do, I take them daily. I am aware of these medications because I was prescribed them for a health issue.

Are you a doctor or a patient.


----------



## Roller Skate

bobclive22 said:


> This is why you don't give people with ADHD Ritalin.
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of Ritalin, Statins I know as I was prescribed them 20 years ago, almost turned me into an invalid so trashed them. I know what Ticagrelor together with Aspirin do, I take them daily. I am aware of these medications because I was prescribed them for a health issue.
> 
> Are you a doctor or a patient.
Click to expand...

I'm the voice in your head.


----------



## jimwise68

ahh the good old man-made global warming debate.

I think the topic has been muddied and intertwined.

Is our environment warming? yes it is.

What is man's contribution? That is the question. My take is that a lot of people fail to remember the impact that the sun has on our planet, which is much greater than man's impact on warming our environment. It has its own cycle which is greater than 365 days. Its 26,000 years apparently, so it is going through its warming cycle after which it will go through its cooling cycle and another ice age will come, but that will be about 13,000 years from now, as science tells us. Science tells us that the sun is reaching/has reached its warmest part of the cycle (as it pulses, and the pulse takes 26,000 years)

Is man damaging our environment? Well hell yes. This to me is the biggest issue that needs to be tackled. Carbon monoxide release is a greater damage than CO2. If you're worried about CO2 then plant more trees. As trees need it to create oxygen for us all to breathe. Win/Win.

Stop using plastics, stop buying stuff you don't need. Stop importing goods, live a simpler life. If you're really that concerned about man's contribution to damaging the environment then that is a good start IMO, and it is only my opinion.


----------



## Iceblue

One would expect that if you can "seriously" model the impact of man made carbon dioxide on the weather over the next 100 years then it would be possible to measure the impact of the sun on the weather over the same period. I wonder if this has been taken into account in "the model" and would be interested to know the relative impact of each. This could then assist countries in determining how quickly they want to blow up their carbon dependent economies and shift focus from carbon dioxide targets to focusing on how to manage and fund the transition to a warmer world.


----------



## bobclive22

> ahh the good old man-made global warming debate.
> 
> I think the topic has been muddied and intertwined.
> 
> Is our environment warming? yes it is.


But but the hottest decade in the US was in the 1930`s,



> The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world.


http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/oc ... orms.shtml



> The 1930s saw natural disasters as well as manmade ones: For most of the decade, people in the
> 
> 
> 
> Plains states suffered through the worst drought in American history,
> 
> 
> 
> as well as hundreds of severe dust storms, or "black blizzards," that carried away the soil and made it all but impossible to plant crops. By 1940, 2.5 million people had abandoned their farms in this "Dust Bowl" and headed West to California.
Click to expand...

*The-heat-waves-of-the-1930s/*

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... the-1930s/

https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/1930s

According to Nasa Giss the 1930`s were cool.


----------



## jimwise68

Apart from a couple of blips between 1915-1920 and 1940-1950 its been pretty much a nice even curve from hot to cold to hot since 1880 (which is also interesting in its own right).Indicating a cycle larger than a calendar year (seasons).


----------



## bobclive22

It`s logarithmic






It`s plant food






It`s the sun


----------



## bobclive22

Looks like we got out just in time.

*EU urged to adopt meat tax to tackle climate emergency*



> A "sustainability charge" on meat to cover its environmental damage could raise billions to help farmers and consumers produce and eat better food, according to a report.
> 
> The levy, which would increase the price of a steak by about 25%,


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -emergency


----------



## Iceblue

Australias longest drought in the last 50 years ended today. Dought breaking rains are falling across most of eastern Australia with related bush fires extinguished. As we knew not just climate change related but the land of "drought and flooded rains - Dorothy Mckellar"- written in 1908 when she was 19 whilst in London yearning for home -


----------



## John-H

https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/09/ign ... s-n1132326?


----------



## SwissJetPilot

In the US alone, wind turbines kill over 500,000 birds per year, with no account for the total number of bats which are also killed by wind turbines. This includes predatory birds (e.g. hawks, eagles) and carrion feeders (e.g. buzzards, vultures). It has also been observed that the location of wind turbines also impacts migratory paths for both birds and land animals.

https://letstalkscience.ca/educational- ... t-wildlife


----------



## John-H

Interesting. I keep meaning to work out why wind turbines are three bladed. I checked that figure and it seems to be somewhat exaggerated but more importantly very misleading as there's no perspective as to what else kills birds.

Cats kill far more birds apparently (55 million in UK p.a. Billions in the USA) and collisions with other high objects and vehicles do too and far more birds are killed by the fossil fuel industry from power production and the biggest killer is habitat degradation and loss due to human activity and, you guessed it, climate change:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... /15683843/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cleantechn ... erall/amp/

Also about 8.5 billion chickens were killed by Americans in 2014 - they are birds too but somehow that's Ok.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Cats do kill more birds. True. But what's not mentioned, is they're only killing garden variety birds like sparrows, larks, etc.

Cats are not killing birds of prey which are on the top of the avian food chain and are important for controlling rodent populations. Cats are also not killing Vultures either, which are necessary to clear the dead and help minimize the spread disease.

The argument about cars killing upper echelon birds overlooks the fact these birds (hawks and vultures) are attracted to road kill for which cars are directly responsible.

When you lose the upper levels of the food chain, it impacts natures natural population control, and bad things start to happen.


----------



## John-H

Yes, everything has an effect and we have choices I suppose.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The number of blades is a compromise -

https://interestingengineering.com/the- ... e-3-blades

Which results in yet another problem; how to dispose of them at end of life -

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -landfills

_"Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can't easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That's created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under."

"The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever," said Bob Cappadona, chief operating officer for the North American unit of Paris-based Veolia Environnement SA, which is searching for better ways to deal with the massive waste. "Most landfills are considered a dry tomb."

"The last thing we want to do is create even more environmental challenges."_


----------



## John-H

Do you think the terracotta army was actually landfill for unwanted lifesize garden ornaments? I can see archaeologists scratching their heads.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

:lol: Exactly!! Yeah, can you imagine them finding that landfill 1,000 years from now? Crazy!


----------



## bobclive22

*The Race For Arctic Oil Is Heating Up,* Feb 05, 2020



> Despite climate concerns and environmentalist backlash against exploration for oil and gas in pristine sensitive regions of the Arctic, companies continue to explore for hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic Circle, in Russia and Norway in particular.


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... ng-Up.html


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> :lol: Exactly!! Yeah, can you imagine them finding that landfill 1,000 years from now? Crazy!


If we haven't gone to Hell in a hand cart by then....



bobclive22 said:


> *The Race For Arctic Oil Is Heating Up,* Feb 05, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite climate concerns and environmentalist backlash against exploration for oil and gas in pristine sensitive regions of the Arctic, companies continue to explore for hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic Circle, in Russia and Norway in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... ng-Up.html
Click to expand...

Oops too late... :?


----------



## bobclive22

Guardian fake news,

Giant dams enclosing North Sea could protect millions from rising waters
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -north-sea

It appears the wealthy owners of these property`s are unaware of rising sea levels or do they like me consider it all bull.

http://www.overseaspropertymall.com/wp- ... l-view.jpg

http://www.overseaspropertymall.com/pro ... ks-dorset/

http://southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Sandbanks.htm

No sea level rise seen from 2007 to 2020.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-S ... nend-m.jpg


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Guardian fake news,
> 
> Giant dams enclosing North Sea could protect millions from rising waters
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -north-sea
> 
> It appears the wealthy owners of these property`s are unaware of rising sea levels or do they like me consider it all bull.
> 
> http://www.overseaspropertymall.com/wp- ... l-view.jpg
> 
> http://www.overseaspropertymall.com/pro ... ks-dorset/
> 
> http://southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Sandbanks.htm
> 
> No sea level rise seen from 2007 to 2020.
> 
> http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-S ... nend-m.jpg


"No sea level rise between 2007 to 2020" ???? You are incorrect as can be seen from this NASA satellite data:










As measured from the ground over the last 100 years here and you can see how it's accelerating - caused both by thermal expansion and melting ice:









Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Where did you get your information from?


----------



## bobclive22

> No sea level rise between 2007 to 2020" ???? You are incorrect as can be seen from this NASA satellite data:


Isn`t it odd John, the highest temps recorded in the US are STILL in the 1930`s and if sea level rise has actually occured it appears to have missed Sandbanks and the UK.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/environm ... 4920070913

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180940704/ 2004



> There are two tide gauges in Tuvalu. One, operated by the University of Hawaii until 1999, sits on a small concrete wharf behind the three-storey Taiwanese-built government building. In 1993, the NTC installed a more modern and accurate gauge a few kilometres north at the country's only deepwater wharf. One of twelve in the South Pacific, this gauge should in theory provide quantitative confirmation that Tuvalu is being engulfed, as the king tides and the wet cuffs of my trousers suggest.
> 
> *But in 2000 an NTC analysis reported a negligible increase of 0.07 mm a year over the past two decades from the University of Hawaii gauge,* and a drop in sea level from the seven years of NTC data1. It was clear that the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which drives down sea level in the western Pacific, affected both of these records. And the international environmental group Greenpeace asked John Hunter, a climatologist at the University of Tasmania, to have another look at the data. When he adjusted for ENSO and the vertical movement of the Hawaii gauge, which is thought to be sinking, Hunter found a sea-level rise of around 1.2 mm a year2.


Hunter's figure is consistent with the global *estimate* of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

SO THEY relied on an estimate instead of an actual reading, The thing is Tuvalu is still there and so is the air strip built in the *1940`s*


----------



## Iceblue

This is the truth from where I live. An undisputed historical record next to the largest ocean on the planet. The sea level in sydney harbour has risen by the size of a match box over the last 138 years. Does not fit with those satelite images and estimates under the IPCC model. Also geologically, Australia as the oldest continent in the world is possibly the most benign in terms of techtonic plate movement. We have almost eroded away, hence all those fossil fuels.


----------



## bobclive22

The problem is the greens *don`t do history,* perhaps she can help.

*Meet the anti-Greta:*






https://outline.com/Yju327

"Billions"of birds die while many more
do everything to survive the
overwhelming and terrific 1932 heatwave."

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/bird% ... 201932.pdf

The problem is the greens *don`t do history they actually erase it.

A century of Queensland weather.* 

Original link doesn`t work, odd that. http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/pub ... sec-02.pdf

This link from the wayback machine does, inconvenient for some init.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304224 ... sec-02.pdf

Hear is another data link, oops its gone, wonder why.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltren ... id=170-011

Not gone just hiding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170504064 ... id=170-011


----------



## SwissJetPilot




----------



## Iceblue

Great meme and says it all.


----------



## StuartDB

just wonder whether Boris dropped a "Corona-Bomb" on Bristol Yesterday - on the 15,000 kids bunking off school "protesting" - that'll sort out climate change and the pension crisis in a few weeks 

they have stopped 20 men playing behind closed doors against 20 men in international sport but it's okay to have 15,000 kids squashed in the west-country, shame it wasn't in Newport Wales, then they could have blown the bridge to keep them in quarantine


----------



## bobclive22

Great meme


----------



## John-H

Not really fair. The spread of this new virus is a lot quicker than global warming. You'll have to pay for both too don't you know?


----------



## SwissJetPilot




----------



## John-H

Is that supposed to be a quote? No? Ah... Oh I see.. It's meant to be ironic - if the supposition were true. Fair enough. Only it isn't true is it? It's putting words in a genuine and passionate teenagers mouth that really don't belong there. The climate scientists have been been predicting temperature and sea level rise for quite some time now and it's happening. We need to do something about it rather than pretend it's not happening.

Here's a meme:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Not even close! :lol:

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... redictions 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years ... -are-0-50/


----------



## bobclive22

*No Flooding In Somerset Levels, Thanks To Owen Paterson*

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -paterson/

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles says the government "made a mistake" and should have dredged the flood-hit Somerset Levels.
He said *it may have relied too much on Environment Agency advice.*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26106290

JAMES DELINGPOLE



> What the evidence shows is that dredging works. One of the areas hardest hit by the floods of six years ago was the Somerset Levels. The problem, it emerged, was lack of dredging and poor maintenance. This was remedied thanks to the intervention of then Environment Secretary Owen Paterson - who was subsequently sacked by Prime Minister David Cameron for being insufficiently on message with the government's green agenda.
> 
> Ironically, as Paul Homewood points out, *the flood-prone Somerset Levels are now one of the few regions that have escaped the worst of this year's floods.*


https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/0 ... te-change/


----------



## bobclive22

> The climate scientists have been been predicting temperature and sea level rise for quite some time now and it's happening.


Where John, hottest US temp ever since records began is still the 1930`s.
Sandbanks UK is still I believe on dry land.


----------



## John-H

It's amazing. All the world's scientists could save themselves a lot of time and trouble. All they need to do is come and read the opinions of the climate experts on the TT forum who are obviously far more knowledgeable :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not that I profess to be an expert on climate change you understand. Unlike you lot, bless :lol:


----------



## Iceblue

No one is professing to be a climate expert John, we are just providing fact based evidence that the model outcomes are yet to be proven it terms of past predictions. In this respect the science (the model) is not settled and you agreed to this earlier. Yes the majority of climate scientists believe in a range of variables and a treatment of them in an algorithm within a model, but the model, as in most models, is being refined or input data changed to better reflect the real world information. The veracity of the changes to past measured data is also open to debate and this is also material that has been put forward here. Accordingly your assumption that we are climate scientists for doing this is not reasonable, regardless of how many funny faces you put up to divert attention from this.


----------



## John-H

I'm notsaying I'm a climate expert either. It's just that I recognise that there are climate experts and that you have to be one to have a valid argument to put with any authority on the subject and therefore the only sensible thing a non expert can do is accept the generally accepted expert view. A non expert is not in a position to differ with any authority and if they hold up a minority "expert" arguing to the contrary can only ask why and not confirm such a minority view with any authority either because they are not in a position to judge.


----------



## Iceblue

Garbage. Just because your not a climate change expert does not mean you cannot assess and query the validity of what their model is saying or not saying as the case may be. Lawyers and Judges do it every day, hearing expert evidence their not qualified in and forming judgements that are reasonable. You can stick your head in the sand and follow the herd, but not sure that adds any value in case their wrong which so far seems to be the case.


----------



## John-H

No it's not garbage - you're talking about two different things. I didn't say that you couldn't assess it, question it or talk about it - that's fine - everyone is entitled to an opinion and to ask questions. I said that you couldn't speak with any authority on the subject in answering them. That's what experts and qualifications are for.

As for your point about judges, they too do not make their own expert judgement on science - that's what the expert witness opinion is providing for them - judges give an opinion of the law which is what they are qualified to judge - not the science. Your example is fundamentally flawed for the point you were trying to make but serves very well to illustrate jurisdiction of expertise and qualification of opinion.


----------



## Iceblue

If the climate change model was assessed by a judge on the "balance of probabilities" for the civil juristdiction and of course "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal jurisdiction, guess what, the verdict would be not guilty or a verdict for the Respondent. The chance that the climate change model being wrong is very high based upon established risk management discount rates. Because it has become politisized about saving the planet then any chance that it may be right is paramount and almost beyond question. Thats why it is the perfect snake oil of the left which has institutionalized the solution through the UN (EU in disguise) to result in countries whose economies rely on the export of fossil fuels becoming impoverished by countries who rely on nuclear power. Not fair, given fossils fuels gave and continue to provide most of the base load power in developing countries which on a net basis actually reduces carbon emissions as the burning of wood for cooking becomes unnecessary when modern electricity is powered by the cheapest form of electricity generation, coal fired power stations.

If the UN was geniune, it should focus its efforts on criticising the largest emitters such as China, India and the US. This is not happening because all three have put the standards of living of their own people ahead of the climate change modelling and politisized dogma. Like the Judge above, they believe that reversing normal and ongoing climate change is not of a sufficient probability for them to change their policies and sign up to a wealth redistribution exercise driven by socialists. Just sayin


----------



## John-H

Well OK regarding the political judgement of governments.

But the law only comes into it if legislation is passed to the effect of a legally defined issue and a judge has a case brought before them to judge that legal issue.

Hence the recent judicial review in the UK which the third runway at Heathrow was ruled inconsistent with legislation passed regarding the government's climate change objectives. The government is not going to appeal - a political decision. It only came before the judge on a matter of law. Not an assessment of climate change theory. That's left to scientists and action is something different still and one of politics.

A climate change model is not a legal issue so would never be assessed in that way.


----------



## bobclive22

Prince Harry talks to Greta and her dad.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Thanks to the C-Virus, the air quality is rapidly improving in China. Oh, like that was a big surprise.

Anyone seen St. Gretta? Would love to hear her opinion on this one. (Not really :roll: )

https://www.latimes.com/environment/sto ... -emissions

_"Satellite images published online by NASA on Monday show the noxious cloud hanging over much of China virtually disappearing between Jan. 1 and Feb. 25.

For the moment, residents of many of China's cities are breathing clearer air.

Nationwide, the level of nitrogen dioxide was down 42%, and the level of PM2.5 - tiny particle pollution that can penetrate lungs and other organs - was down 27%, according to government monitoring stations"._


----------



## John-H

Amazing what you can do when you put your mind to it:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -emissions?


----------



## bobclive22

> Amazing what you can do when you put your mind to it:


Have you actually thought that through John.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Amazing what you can do when you put your mind to it:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually thought that through John.
Click to expand...

Yes, and obviously you have too, although I suspect to different aims.


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes, and obviously you have too, although I suspect to different aims.


Well there are citizens in the third world that have a different perspective.


----------



## John-H

Bob, I'm shocked. You were once asked if you were a Russian bot account. Your crawls obviously go deep. Careful you may convince others they've been told porkies :lol:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

If we go with the current mortality rate of 3%, and a projected infection rate of 70% of the entire world's population that puts the total death at roughly 231,000,000 people. I'm sure once those people stop driving to work every day, stop using electricity and stop consuming the things they usually do, the levels of CO2 emissions will be much lower.

I'd bet St. Greta and her like minded minions will be thrilled.

She commented "_We young people are the least affected by this virus_". If so, I hope she and her friends know how to run power plants, waste treatment plants, water pumping stations and how to farm. Because many of the people who actually know how to do all those things she takes for granted may not be around.


----------



## John-H

How disingenuous. What dodgy website came up with that? She was asking her fellow protesters not to mass gather to prevent the spread of the virus. The full quote was;

_*"I personally recommend that we do as the experts say. We young people are the least affected by this virus but it's essential that we act in solidarity with the most vulnerable and that we act in the best interest of our common society."
*_


----------



## Iceblue

The recessions we are all about to have with its associated job losses and lack of confidence, should be a reminder to the socialists driving the climate change hysteria about what happens when you dial down carbon dioxide emissions too quickly.


----------



## John-H

Perhaps this should be looked at the other way round - how is it we can take drastic action for a pandemic and yet be so slow to act over climate change which is far more important with the potential to kill a lot more? Perhaps we'll get more panic when the tipping point is reached and we all get swamped?

The UN Secretary General, António Guterres says the fight against climate change is far more important than the pandemic and yet globally fossil fuel companies are still subsidised with £300bn each year. Guterres said,

_"I call on everyone ― from government, civil society and business leaders to individual citizens - to heed these facts and take urgent action to halt the worst effects of climate change._

We have to keep the pressure on world leaders. Not only should the virus not distract them from the bigger threat to humanity but they should also ensure that pandemic stimulus packages drive the green transition rather than yet again handing taxpayer's money to the most polluting corporations.


----------



## bobclive22

> Perhaps this should be looked at the other way round - how is it we can take drastic action for a pandemic and yet be so slow to act over climate change which is far more important with the potential to kill a lot more? Perhaps we'll get more panic when the tipping point is reached and we all get swamped?
> 
> The UN Secretary General, António Guterres says the fight against climate change is far more important than the pandemic and yet globally fossil fuel companies are still subsidised with £300bn each year. Guterres said


,

Give it a rest John, you have your piece of cake, don`t you think the third world should have theirs, it`s all bull***t anyway.


----------



## ashfinlayson

It is standard procedure for any organisation whether it be business big, small or government not to act until the last minute (usually due to financiers failing to justify the cost of acting), getting a half-arsed MVP solution out the door in the nick of time, unfortunately that will not work with climate change because last minute would be too late. Digressing the other way, this approach is essentially what Hancock is saying when he _urges manufacturers to make respirators_, the tit probably hasn't even sorted out the funds to pay for them.

Personally I would rather see a lock down and recession than a shedload more people dying. People have a habit of picking them selves up after a financial setback which they can't do when they're dead, and I expect post recession Britain will do rather well outside of European legislation.


----------



## bobclive22

> Personally I would rather see a lock down and recession than a shedload more people dying. People have a habit of picking them selves up after a financial setback which they can't do when they're dead, and I expect post recession Britain will do rather well outside of European legislation.


Latest numbers for UK,

UK Population 67,886,000
Confirmed Cases 1,551 
Total Deaths 37

Lets say we double the confirmed cases to 3,100, that means there is still only a *0.005%* chance of catching it in the first place. 3,100/67,886,000 x 100 = 0.005%
If we double the deaths to 74 that means you have a 2.3% chance of dying from it but you have to catch it in the first place.

It`s a bit like relative risk with Statin studies.


----------



## John-H

Total UK deaths is 55 now tonight up 18 since you posted less than five hours ago Bob.

A calculator and reality are easily parted but at least you seem to have invented a way of freezing time and stopping the spread of the virus when it's convenient. You mustn't keep this secret to yourself. Please let us know how it's done.

Ash you are correct, whilst there's money to be made things will be left until the last minute and possibly too late.

This time it came in from left field and there's the sobering shock of a lot to lose.

For us it's a taster for a no deal Brexit without even one queuing lorry at Dover. We'll have more than loo rolls to worry about.

But before I digress - I still say; regarding climate change (back on topic!) it's amazing what we can do when we put our minds to it. I was hoping for a little bit more planning and care however but it does go to show.


----------



## bobclive22

> Unread postPosted: Yesterday, 23:12
> Total UK deaths is 55 now tonight up 18 since you posted less than five hours ago Bob.
> 
> A calculator and reality are easily parted but at least you seem to have invented a way of freezing time and stopping the spread of the virus when it's convenient. You mustn't keep this secret to yourself. Please let us know how it's done.


Still at 55 John, that`s still only a 2.8% chance of popping your clogs, that`s after the 0.0029% chance of actually catching it.

Even at 50,000 confirmed cases it is still only a 0.074% chance of getting it.

Why are the elderly getting hit, maybe it`s the cocktail of drugs given and mostly readily accepted by the elderly, not me or the wife though.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... -risk.html


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Unread postPosted: Yesterday, 23:12
> Total UK deaths is 55 now tonight up 18 since you posted less than five hours ago Bob.
> 
> A calculator and reality are easily parted but at least you seem to have invented a way of freezing time and stopping the spread of the virus when it's convenient. You mustn't keep this secret to yourself. Please let us know how it's done.
> 
> 
> 
> Still at 55 John, that`s still only a 2.8% chance of popping your clogs, that`s after the 0.0029% chance of actually catching it.
> 
> Even at 50,000 confirmed cases it is still only a 0.074% chance of getting it.
> 
> Why are the elderly getting hit, maybe it`s the cocktail of drugs given and mostly readily accepted by the elderly, not me or the wife though.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... -risk.html
Click to expand...

Six hours before you posted the above Bob the death toll had already been announced as 71 (up 16). I think it proves the point that you can't extrapolate a current death toll as a static term to the whole population and try to express it as a probability of death without taking into account that the number of infections is dynamic and exponentially increasing.

Yes of course more people die each year from flu than the current death toll from COVID-19 but let's wait a year and see if that's still the case.


----------



## John-H

_Irish planners reject Trump golf resort's plan to build wall_

President Trump's golf complex at Doonbeg Ireland has had its planning application to build sea defences against rising sea levels due to climate change rejected.

President Trump had previously claimed that climate change was a hoax.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... eg-ireland


----------



## bobclive22

> Planners in Clare County Council have granted permission for coastal erosion management works at a golf course owned by US President Donald Trump.


I believe it is erosion John.



> Trump International Golf Links (TIGL) sought permission to carry out works around the resort in Doonbeg.
> 
> The application to Clare County Council envisaged the construction of two new structures at dunes bordering the links course.
> 
> This will involve the use of backstops to prevent further erosion, which would run for around 1km in total, on two stretches of coastline to the west of the property.
> 
> In a statement Clare County Council said: "Clare County Council has today issued a decision to grant permission for the development of coastal erosion management works at, and adjacent to, Carrowmore Dunes, White Strand, Doughmore Bay and Trump International Golf Links and Hotel, Doonbeg, Co. Clare."
> 
> "As per the provisions of the planning acts, any decision made may be subject to a First or Third Party appeal to An Bord Pleanála within four weeks of the decision date."


https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2017/12 ... beg-clare/


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Perhaps this should be looked at the other way round - how is it we can take drastic action for a pandemic and yet be so slow to act over climate change which is far more important with the potential to kill a lot more? Perhaps we'll get more panic when the tipping point is reached and we all get swamped?
> 
> The UN Secretary General, António Guterres says the fight against climate change is far more important than the pandemic and yet globally fossil fuel companies are still subsidised with £300bn each year. Guterres said,
> 
> _"I call on everyone ― from government, civil society and business leaders to individual citizens - to heed these facts and take urgent action to halt the worst effects of climate change._
> 
> We have to keep the pressure on world leaders. Not only should the virus not distract them from the bigger threat to humanity but they should also ensure that pandemic stimulus packages drive the green transition rather than yet again handing taxpayer's money to the most polluting corporations.


We are not being slow to act. Many who have signed up to Paris & Kyoto are achieving their targets and the participants agreed to let two of the largest emitters off the hook. Billions have already been spent on climate change measures and no doubt more will be spent once the world has found a cure for, and has paid off, the effects of this pandemic. I would not blindly follow the UN either. They have no particular skill set over expertise in most modern countries and have been shown in the past to be influenced by vested interests (read China). Look at their declaration of a pandemic two weeks after it was obvious to any expert in the area. Not sure the Italians will be looking to the UN for further expert guidance in the future.
Regardless, no one will be trying to politicize man made climate change over the next year to 18 months as this pandemic is going to consume billions more that the GFC whilst already heavily borrowed governments print money so people and business can survive. The long term economic effects of this will be far more serious than the death toll from the virus. For the first time in many people's lives, they are going to witness and experience real hardship and loss that really is a crisis. This is possibly the only benefit of this pandemic as it may show the climate change virtue signallers and outspoken elites that have been manipulated by the left what a real crisis is. 
I would also be careful what you wish for Ash. I would be more worried about the next pandemic where instead of the death rate being 10 x that of flu it becomes 20 times. Before climate change, billions should be poured into a germ reaction/management body that funds research and has a ready to move army of first responders to shut down and help manage any area where a virus starts as suggested by Bill Gates 5 years ago.


----------



## John-H

Just two points in favour of the UN - that it is less likely to be biased than any single country due to its makeup. Also hindsight is a wonderful thing when declaring things are obvious once the outcome has been reached. At the time there were also plenty dismissing it as overblown or even a hoax. It's certainly very significant now and will get worse and it's clear more investment and preparation for tackling these things would be welcome. Climate change is still bigger in the long run though and the past targets inadequate if we are to act quickly enough knowing what we do now.


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Just two points in favour of the UN - that it is less likely to be biased than any single country due to its makeup. Also hindsight is a wonderful thing when declaring things are obvious once the outcome has been reached. At the time there were also plenty dismissing it as overblown or even a hoax. It's certainly very significant now and will get worse and it's clear more investment and preparation for tackling these things would be welcome. Climate change is still bigger in the long run though and the past targets inadequate if we are to act quickly enough knowing what we do now.


BS John. The UN has become corrupt like the EU IMO. As we know from history, any power structure that is not accountable to the people becomes corrupt. Look at the IOC and the International Soccer Federation.

BTW Australia declared a pandemic two weeks before the WHO so it is not hindsight but another inconvenient truth. I would believe your UK experts before anyone from the UN.


----------



## John-H

Well you are entitled to an opinion of course my friendly fellow debater even if it is dismissive of the obvious and claimant of the unevidenced :wink:

Is the UN directed by only one country? No. So it is influenced by more than one country. Yes. Therefore it is less likely to be biased than any one country. Simple point.

Same with the EU which is a democratic organisation influenced directly by 27 democraticaly elected member state governments with veto and directly influenced by a parliament directly elected by the people of those member states.

No doubt there is some corruption as there is in any body.

Are you saying that any one country is free of corruption and unbiased to the extent that it acts fairly and without self interest in its dealings with others? I think not.

By the way the WHO declares pandemics not the UN - let's both not get them mixed up - or are they corrupt too?


----------



## bobclive22

> John-H wrote:
> Just two points in favour of the UN - that it is less likely to be biased than any single country due to its makeup.


----------



## John-H

Bob that's completely nuts. Who was it that left the Paris agreement? Who is into big oil and denying climate change? More conspiracy theories at odds with reality?

What do you think of flat earth?


----------



## Iceblue

bobclive22 said:


> John-H wrote:
> Just two points in favour of the UN - that it is less likely to be biased than any single country due to its makeup.
Click to expand...

Point well made Bob. It is outrageous that two of the largest socialist countries in the world do not take climate change and fossil fuel production seriously.


----------



## Iceblue

Bob where art thou. At last the climate alarmist myth has been busted by one of their own. Read "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenburger. The science of the modelling is not settled.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The best thing about the CV-19 pandemic is not having to hear the shrill voice of St. Thunberg! :lol:

_"New data suggests that Sweden might have one of the highest Covid-19 deaths-per-capita rate in Europe."_ BBC 21 May

Well done Sweden! Odd she hasn't been out screaming "HOW DARE YOU NOT WEAR A MASK!"


----------



## Iceblue

Fortunately she has largely been ignored by the main stream in our country although the schools are making sure the alarmism dogma is alive and well without any objectivity.


----------



## John-H

_
*"There's no longer any equivocating - it's us."*_










BBC News - Climate change: Five things we have learned from the IPCC report
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58138714


----------



## StuartDB

Didn't the sea level rise by about 80 meters 12000 to 7000 years ago? Blame them !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_H ... level_rise










They have found tools and metal cogs etc under the sea - in the area of a land mass which was wiped out - as part of an investigation into a lost civilisation...

I would probably be tempted to blame the moon slowly moving away from the earth having an effect on tides and humans (we are 70% water) probably why we are so obese and suicidal...


----------



## John-H

The "suicidal" bit would appear to be true given that we know - _"The late Holocene warming was indeed caused by the increase in greenhouse gases, as predicted by climate models, and that eliminates any doubts about the key role of carbon dioxide in global warming."_
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/n ... nhouse.amp


----------



## StuartDB

The global warming during that period also saved us from another ice age 10,000 years ago which would have wiped out 95% of homos - just after we started moving on a bit.

Didn't global warming also create the gulf stream - without that, we would have Canada Nova Scotia climate -30°c

BTW- my point wasn't 'what God give us, God take away' eg I know global warming is risking desalination and impacting the Gulf Stream.. my query was, was it created by global warming in the first place?


----------



## John-H

Apparently it was first discovered or recorded in 1512 but obviously existed a lot longer. It's just a major flow of equalisation through the ocean caused by heat and salinity differences from the equator to the poles bounded by land mass. It's driven by heat in the first instance but as part of a chaotic weather system can be prone to more extreme change resulting from a smaller change across a boundary level acting like a switch. If it might switch to a different state with rising temperature, as has been suggested, it might well have switched from a different state in the past due to increasing temperature (I'm not sure) but may just have slowly increased in flow in the past as temperatures rose with less chaos.

What we consider normal climate with seasonal variation due to the wobble of the earth's axis has changed significantly in the past when you consider things like the fact that the Themes used to freeze over, although that has also been reduced due to built embankment changes and removal of restrictive bridges etc. but there was the "little ice age" coinciding with more severe frosts recorded at the time.










If you look at average global temperatures you can see where this occurred in the small dip in temperature and see the difference it made in the history books and illustrations of skaters and "frost fairs" on rivers etc. But look where we are heading now and the more extreme weather recorded. All coinciding with the industrial revolution with a very sharp spike. Expect extreme change unless we can bring it down again.


----------



## StuartDB

Don't need any of that artsy documented nonsense..... just cut down a 400 year oak tree and measure the rings..

The earth wobble is a funny thing, I'm looking forward to getting a new North Star.. in about 18000 years


----------



## Iceblue

Thats a a fake chart John


----------



## Iceblue

This is a more representative chart. Get your context correct and stop misleading people with your alarmism.


----------



## John-H

Iceblue said:


> This is a more representative chart. Get your context correct and stop misleading people with your alarmism.


Stop being a man-made climate change denier and conspiracy theorist.

Your graph:










... is on a completely different scale and omits the modern record of instrument measurements. When you add them and plot to the same scale you get something very similar to the graph I provided which I can assure you is not fake:










Both your graph and the above are from the same Nasa web page: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu ... /page3.php

They included both graphs to show the previous norm and the alarming present trend of temperature increase. You missed that out and only showed the normal graph omitting the present tend.

NASA conclude by saying: _"it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."_

Get your context and scales right, don't use selective and misleading data and avoid promoting rubbish conspiracy theories about climate change - would be my advice.


----------



## StuartDB

Lol... like I said earlier, you should get into politics... talk is easy.. that's why the opposition have been talking for about 12 years now. Yes we created too much carbon, there's far too many people in the planet... if only there was something that could reduce the population. Hmmmm that hasn't worked the next thing is 'inferno' or 'uptopia' both low impact both effective, and a way of 10 generations of only 10% fertility, in 150 years will be down to 2.5 billion and by then all the naturally survived population will be those 10% of 10% of 10% etc


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Iceblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a more representative chart. Get your context correct and stop misleading people with your alarmism.
Click to expand...

Stop being a man-made climate change denier and conspiracy theorist.

Your graph:










... is on a completely different scale and omits the modern record of instrument measurements. When you add them and plot to the same scale you get something very similar to the graph I provided which I can assure you is not fake:










John

You know from earlier posts I am not a climate change denier so please do not take the easy way out and revert to the the leftist handbook of playing the man and not the ball trying to pigoen hole people by accussing them of this or that. I have never denied climate change is occurring and the table I quoted is fact. You just choose to show a table that is not representative of the real story over geological time. Thats all. I agree the climate is warming and thank god it is going up and not down. More rainfall and more crop yields to feed the growing populations of China and India. Your alarmist theories have been discredited so stop with the fake charts that are out of context.


----------



## John-H

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember you denied man was the cause of this recent increase in temperature.

You posted a partial graph which omitted the recent temperature rise and previous geological record with the purpose of claiming temperatures normally go up and down and global warming is nothing to worry about. You even claim global warming is a benefit.

You accuse me of being alarmist but science agrees with me (or the other way round) that global warming is a major man made problem we have to deal with if we are going to survive.

You clearly have your head in the sand of denial QED.


----------



## Iceblue

No John. I never denied that man made production of CO2 may cause climate change. My point, as the chart I quoted shows, was you cannot stop climate change and reverse what nature has been doing over the long term. The idea that we all stop carbon dioxide emissions by de-industrialising the west so China can take on that role is ridiculous and not in our childrens interest. Unlike you, I do not want to live under a communist/socialist regime because it does not work.


----------



## John-H

You speak with fork tongue. You are still in denial of the problem. The problem is caused by man not nature. The chart you quote excludes the industrial revolution.

You also bring politics into it when it's a physics problem. You are allowing your politics to determine your science when it should be the other way round because only one is reality the other is a mindset.


----------



## Iceblue

Whether man made climate change is impacting 1% or 40% on natural climate change is not the point. It cannot be reversed over the long term. I agree, more nuclear power over the short term should be adopted as relied upon by Europe and the UK, to power the move to electric cars etc. Problem is, not every one has access to nuclear power and coal fired power is the cheapest for "developing nations" hence their focus on this source.

Your side of politics has politicised man made climate change to the point where the practical effect is you are passing the economic power of the democratically elected governments of the west (that has been hard won by our forebears) to the communist regime of China. That is fact beyond any dispute. So is the fact that despite all your alarmism, no one has yet to convince China or India of any urgency to change. They are literally laughing at us over this climate change paranoia that you and your like have perpetrated. China's CO2 emissions (30% of the worlds gobal emissions) have gone up by 30% since 2005. Australia's (1.3% of global emissions) has gone down by 30% and our power prices have doubled so we can subsidise renewable energy. Its not rationale John and thats why I push back.


----------



## John-H

No that's entirely the point. We have to accept we are the cause otherwise certain people will find excuses to deny and "push back".



Iceblue said:


> Climate change is the best snake oil of all, as no one really knows whats going to happen and its a perfect vehicle for socialists to undermine capitalism under the cloak of saving the world. You can't get more virtuous than that.


Forget the politics. Accept the science. Then support doing something about it.


----------



## Iceblue

[smiley=cheers.gif] Thats a great quote and glad you have remembered it lol


----------



## jeebsy

Iceblue said:


> The idea that we all stop carbon dioxide emissions by de-industrialising the west so China can take on that role is ridiculous and not in our childrens interest.


It'll be within your children's lifetime that large parts of the planet become uninhabitable, resulting in mass migration (which will make the current refugee situation seem like nothing), and people will probably start fighting over basic needs like water and food. That may or may not be worse than being a socialist depending on your viewpoint.


----------



## StuartDB

Did the UK have Vineyards in 100AD and 1300AD ?

IS IT CYCLICAL? excuse the caps..


----------



## Barmybob

Beer rant - DELETED


----------



## Iceblue

jeebsy said:


> It'll be within your children's lifetime that large parts of the planet become uninhabitable, resulting in mass migration (which will make the current refugee situation seem like nothing), and people will probably start fighting over basic needs like water and food. That may or may not be worse than being a socialist depending on your viewpoint.


BS. Climate change alarmism is accepting the worst case scanario on the modelling. I believe they are up to number 142 in the models they have created as the others could not prove the case. This is not science by the way. To prove something scientifically requires corroborating tests that prove the case. This has yet to occur with any climate change modelling hence the need to continuously change the assumptions and recreate favourable data points. This is why its the perfect snake oil to be politised by the left. It canot be proved and can be manipulated to scare people into irrational decisions that undermine teh economic power of western democracies. Look at the unecessary grief it is causing the UK now with your reliance on unsustainable renewable power. Watch your power prices jump but of course that only efffects the poorer people of which you are not one.


----------



## RobUK

CO2 is bad, 

Crops grown in commercial class houses across the world have on average an atmosphere containing 1000ppm of CO2, at this level the crops provide around a 40% increased yield and need less water. The global average amount of carbon dioxide hit a new record high in 2020 at 412.5 parts per million. More CO2 more food, not all bad.

Tuvalu, no sea level rise there, or at Sandbanks Dorset UK.
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3554388, link works in TOR browser.


----------



## Spandex

This isn't the 'gotcha' you think it is. Proving that CO2 has it's positive uses (as though we didn't know already) isn't going to change the fact that it also causes climate change which negatively impacts humans. Plants will manage fine if we reduce CO2 levels and we will be better off.

As for that paper, did you actually read it? Firstly, it's from over 15 years ago, secondly, it's primarily about the impact of the reporting of climate change and the reporting of sea level rises in Tuvulu, not about the sea level rises themselves and thirdly, they don't say there is no sea level rise, they simply say that the data is currently (as of 2004) inconclusive - hence them questioning the over-dramatic reporting at the time.

And finally Sandbanks. One from The BobBot back-catalogue... BobBot's point always seemed to be that Sandbanks was absolute proof that sea levels can't be rising, because millionaires wouldn't buy a house there if they were. Basically, as an argument, it relied on BobBot's hero-worship of the wealthy - rich people are amazingly clever and they must know sea levels aren't rising. Now, rich people do make mistakes, but rich people also like getting offshore companies to buy the houses they live in, in order to pay less tax, and that presumably makes it easier to write off the loss if it does happen to end up with more of a sea view than they bargained for. Assuming they're still alive to care about it when it happens. Or maybe they just have amazing insurance policies. Or maybe they're just as susceptible to falling for climate sceptic nonsense as 'normal' people. Who knows.


----------



## RobUK

Spandex said:


> This isn't the 'gotcha' you think it is. Proving that CO2 has it's positive uses (as though we didn't know already) isn't going to change the fact that it also causes climate change which negatively impacts humans. Plants will manage fine if we reduce CO2 levels and we will be better off.
> 
> As for that paper, did you actually read it? Firstly, it's from over 15 years ago, secondly, it's primarily about the impact of the reporting of climate change and the reporting of sea level rises in Tuvulu, not about the sea level rises themselves and thirdly, they don't say there is no sea level rise, they simply say that the data is currently (as of 2004) inconclusive - hence them questioning the over-dramatic reporting at the time.
> 
> And finally Sandbanks. One from The BobBot back-catalogue... BobBot's point always seemed to be that Sandbanks was absolute proof that sea levels can't be rising, because millionaires wouldn't buy a house there if they were. Basically, as an argument, it relied on BobBot's hero-worship of the wealthy - rich people are amazingly clever and they must know sea levels aren't rising. Now, rich people do make mistakes, but rich people also like getting offshore companies to buy the houses they live in, in order to pay less tax, and that presumably makes it easier to write off the loss if it does happen to end up with more of a sea view than they bargained for. Assuming they're still alive to care about it when it happens. Or maybe they just have amazing insurance policies. Or maybe they're just as susceptible to falling for climate sceptic nonsense as 'normal' people. Who knows.


Tuvalu, the canary in the coalmine of global warming, I just wonder why the population still keeps growing as the islands sinks beneath the waves or will it. You might need Tor to view study.
Tuvalu Population (2021) - Worldometer 



Sci-Hub: article not found


----------



## Spandex

Why wouldn’t the population grow? Firstly they’re not “sinking beneath the waves” yet, but regardless, the fact that people are still shagging there isn’t a magical sign that climate change isn’t happening.

As for the paper, just based on the abstract it seems to be about a theory that islands based on coral reefs will be able to ‘grow’ fast enough to offset the effects of sea level rises. It doesn’t say that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t causing sea level rises, just that the effect on reef islands may not be as severe as first thought. So I’m not sure I get the relevance.


----------



## Iceblue

The sea level in Sydney Harbour has risen by the length of a match box in the last 200 years from daily records kept at Fort Denison. Sure it may be climate change, which is happening all the time, part of which may be man made CO2. Not sure anything the world will do will reverse that particulary as three of the largest nations and emitters in the world have looked at all the evidence and have diplomatically said "you cannot be serious". Many normal people believe this too but are too afraid to speak up given the cancel culture and identity politics that the left leaning media and tech giants have weaponsised.

Also Volvo has released a Report that effectively says it will take a 145,000 kilometers for an electric car to be run before it produces less CO2 than an equivalent ICE vehicle. This of course does not take into account that most of the power to generate the extra electricity to power the new fleets of electric cars will be carbon based. As stated, alarmism leads to irrational policies which will delay the reverse even further. The world has gone mad.


----------



## vanp

Carbon dioxide forms just 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere - and of that 0.04%, it is estimated (modelled / guessed) that humans contribute just 4%.

At many points in pre-Industrial human history and throughout the life of the planet, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher than what we see now. Many times in Earth's history, the average temperature has been more than 15 degrees higher than it is now, life thrived and it will continue to do so.

Man-made climate change is a fallacy and as a hoax is up there with some of the biggest ever concocted, and I include the last 2 years of garbage - it's a ponzi scheme. 

Solar activity is by far the biggest driver of climate change and temperature rise and fall, if not the only driver. If you believe you are getting real science and truth from the collection of media clowns and personalities that are trotted out to push the latest narrative (Ukraine anyone - _yawn_) then you're in for a rude awakening by 2030.


----------



## RobUK

Don`t have blind faith in your leaders, do your own research, that goes for the last 2 years of propaganda which is continuing with Ukraine. Remember the reaction of the US when Russia placed missiles in Cuba.


----------



## RobUK

Anyone see a problem with this.


----------



## bobclive22

"A drought has been declared in most of southern and eastern England and parts of the Midlands after the driest year since 1976 and the driest summer in 50 years". 

So Global warming has taken *50 to achieve a similar level of dryness as that in 1976. wow.*









Drought declared in eight areas of England after driest year since 1976


Millions of households are already banned from using hosepipes to wash cars or water gardens, and restrictions are expected in more areas from next week - but water companies have reassured ministers that essential supplies are safe




inews.co.uk





*Snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past*









Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past


Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.




web.archive.org


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> "A drought has been declared in most of southern and eastern England and parts of the Midlands after the driest year since 1976 and the driest summer in 50 years".
> 
> So Global warming has taken *50 to achieve a similar level of dryness as that in 1976. wow.*


You should get a primary school kid to explain averages and trends to you... lt’s gonna blow your mind.


----------



## Patricketxx

I bet, I've seen over quite some time how kids now with all of these internet resources and all kinds of new technology devices can have great math and statistics knowledge at such short age. The other day for example I was watching how my nephew was getting instant help from this statistics tutor service app which highly contrasts with my time back in high school,

Although I don't fully agree with bobclive22's comment, the article is pretty straightforward, we're experiencing mayor changes all around unfortunately.


----------



## Spandex

Patricketxx said:


> Although I don't fully agree with bobclive22's comment, the article is pretty straightforward, we're experiencing mayor changes all around unfortunately.


The article isn’t the issue. BobBots idiotic interpretation of it is though.


----------

