Thank god for global warming. I we did'nt have,just think how bad the weather would be at the moment.
There is of course another theory that weather is affected by sunspots. They have been very active for the past few years but in the last 18 months the have declined in fact there have been very few in the last 3 months. It is claimed ( I dont know how they know this) but during the mini ice age when the thames used to freeze sun spots stopped for about 100 years.
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]Two news stories this week seem to have some bearing on this debate:
In Bolivia, the Chacaltaya glacier looks set to disappear completely year. Scientists had originally predicted that it would last until 2015 but it has melted much more quickly. So far those who argue that scientists are being deliberately pessimistic as part of some worldwide funding conspiracy, there is a worrying counter argument. In this case, at least, it seems that the scientists predictions on climate change were rather too optimistic. Things have gone tits up five years quicker than they said. What if the generally cautious nature of science as a discipline means that all climate change predictions are similarly optimistic? Things could be worse than we think.
In Germany, nearly half of the country's credit cards have not been working this week following a new year bug where the year 2010 is not recognised. For those who were arguing that the YK2 bug was some sort of overhyped fiction and (somewhat inexplicably) linking this to climate change science there is an answer. Such problems can and do occur in the real world and it is only by being vigilant that we can deal with them.
Hmm, IPCC/ UN now apologising as when they said the himalayas would be ice free by 2035, they had not a shred of evidence to back it up. Notice that the recent claims of al gore on Greenland ice were all a crock of shite too.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Hmm, IPCC/ UN now apologising as when they said the himalayas would be ice free by 2035, they had not a shred of evidence to back it up. Notice that the recent claims of al gore on Greenland ice were all a crock of shite too.
Great so the galciers aren't retreating in the Himalayas and the Polar ice caps aren't shrinking either.
Since you are now in favour of 100% accuracy in climate change reporting and journalism will you be demanding that shills for the power compnaies and climate change deniers also speak the truth? Will we be seeing a list of posts from you condemning right-wing hacks who lie?
Well, there you go. Conclusive proof that climate change is all nonsense. I'm all turned around on the issue - if it weren't for the informative views of the valiant climatologists on this board I'd have still been living with my head in the sand and relying on the approximately 99.999% of evidence which appears to empirically state that climate change is real and presents a grave threat to the stability of the planet - instead of tackling the cold hard facts that the two instances (so far!!!) of data being mismanaged or ponced up for the press clearly point to there being a massive global conspiracy to push 'climate change' as an excuse to take more tax off of us.
Cheers for all your sterling work thus far chaps.
Next week on the 'Charlton Internet Messageboard Blog To Unmask Massive Global Conspiracies':
"We never went to the moon - it was all a soundstage in Arizona"
Shocking new evidence (a moody photo of an astronaut with his flies appearing to be undone) uncovered by the hardy internet warriors of Charlton Life which PROVE that the moon landings were faked.
Its used as an agenda for weath distribution from the developed to the developing or un developed --- thats the real agenda. Nonething wrong with wanting a better distribution of SOME of the worlds wealth, rather that they admitted it though.
BBC long range whether forcast may get the boot as they predicted a"bar-b-q summer" then it would be a "mild winter" when asked where they got their statistics from to help come up with this forecast they wouldnt say ? mmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe (and its just a guess) it was someone from the climate change mafia.
We should be more concerned about the numbers of humans on the panet and their impact on its resourses. Food, fuel,raw materials, water, space. Mind you the twat Johnson from the Labour party dont seem to think that our tiny isalands population exploding is of concern even if it reaches 70+million.
You can't really blame those on the right for highlighting some foolish reporting (which highlights inaccuracies) of those on the left. We'd do it if it was the other way around. And I think some people are just confused as to why some appear to be 'spinning' a topic which doesn't require any spin.
As a wider issue though, climate change (denial) is just another of those many things that people have made their mind up on. It's like god, ghosts, etc. Despite all the evidence to the contrary there will always be (often worryingly significant) numbers of people who believe in them anyway. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]
Next week on the 'Charlton Internet Messageboard Blog To Unmask Massive Global Conspiracies':
"We never went to the moon - it was all a soundstage in Arizona"
Arizona? I don't even believe Arizona exists. I have not been there and nor has anyone I know. I think Arizona is actually a soundstage in Hollywood.
You forgot SARS and AIDS in your list. Don't shoot the messengers, but the one sided nature of the climate change is what bugs me, dissenters are shot down and called flat earthers, even scientists who dare question the findings are put upon for not toeing the party line. I don't claim to have any scientific knowledge, never have done, personally I am more agnostic than atheist, but it is the scientists and politicians that have been misleading people, not me.
lol watch it guys the watchers will be coming for you.........true ever week we have stories of lack of data or poor data......the 2000 computer bug my lot here spent a kings ransom on that..........planes dropping out the sky etc...........its the in thing to support climate change..we all had to and i mean had to watch the Al Gore film on climate change and then sign a form saying we had seen it......its all smoke and mirrors
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]You forgot SARS and AIDS in your list. Don't shoot the messengers, but the one sided nature of the climate change is what bugs me, dissenters are shot down and called flat earthers, even scientists who dare question the findings are put upon for not toeing the party line. I don't claim to have any scientific knowledge, never have done, personally I am more agnostic than atheist, but it is the scientists and politicians that have been misleading people, not me.
The scientists and politicians misleading people regarding climate change have been in a significant minority. Considering how many scientists etc have published on the topic. Obviously you would accept that. The ones that do have their own agenda, as people who make stuff up always have. But that doesn't detract from the facts and the evdience.
It's perfectly fine to debate things, and to take the other side of the argument without being called 'flat-earthers'.
The main difference in this case is quite astounding though:
With SARS/SWINE/2000 BUG etc, IT WAS ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL THREAT. There was no evidence it was happening to any great extent, just evidence that suggested it would or might.
With climate change there is already HUGE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE that it is and has happened. You see the difference?
By arguing against evidence of fact rather than evidence of potential does, i'm afraid, make you more of a 'flat earther'.
The bird who organises all the climate change riots drinks down my local. Honestly, if you sexist pigs saw how large her breasts are you'd believe every word she says, science or no science.
I don't know the exact size, but there are lots of photos of them (from when she was a porn model 20 years ago) on the internet. Do a Google Images search for "Marina Baker" (NSFW) - her face is older now but her breasts are more or less the same.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]Quoting myself from Dec 8th:
"The one thing we do know is that reducing the carbon footprint can do no harm, can it?"
No one in the "it's all made up by Gordon Brown" camp has bothered to offer an opinion on that as yet...
All depends on how it is done.
The fact that the "warmists" are proved to be resorting to lies, ironically something they have regularly accused what they refer to as the "pro oil" lobby of, suggests that mans' effect on climate change is problematic.
It is therefore unreasonable to oppress people on the basis of a possibility through fines for putting things in the wrong bin when the whole lot ends up in a landfill in China for instance. It is also galling to see jetsetting politicians and "warmist" lobbyists on the TV trying to guilt trip us into not usuing our cars when they fly thousands of miles round the world to climate change and other conferences. If they are that concerned why not have a conference call on skype?
That said I read somewhere that 50% of car journeys are under a mile so I would advocate a policy of suggesting that people get some exercise and thus health benefits by walking or cycling such journeys where practicable. Businesses should receive real tax incentives to set their employees up for home working too removing or reducing the need to commute for many people.
These are practical suggestions which do not inconvenience the majority yet cut the carbon footprint.
As we know though the real agenda is social control and oppression and "save the planet" is just a fluffy way of justifying it.
"fear mongering right wing press" lol lol lol lol there we have it when all else fails the left wing no nothings blame someone else. Of course couldnt have been the Guardianistas kakin it again could it ? or the Browm/Blair/Herperson shit geting it wrong noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo it was the fault of the right wing press and the Daily mail. Get back behind your sofas -- first make sure they are a "fare trade" ones !
If they said "sorry we are talking our usual bollox, but dont we all agree that reducing waste, saving resourses, better distribution of wealth, better opertunitys for the have nots of the world is a good thing " then at least if would be honest and more justified.
The reason why the 2000 bug didn't materialise is that companies, governments and councils spent shedloads of money on developers and testers to wade through their code and correct it. Resources were generally concentrated on the most critical systems, and some things slipped through the net, but the public didn't notice those because it had little or no impact on them. If all that money hadn't been spent, then you'd all be talking about how your pay had got screwed up, or you couldn't use your debit cards, or the shops had run out of food because their stock control systems had got confused by the sell by dates appearing to be nearly 100 years old. I don't know enough about computer systems on planes to say whether the "dropping out of the sky" thing was likely or just a "very worst case scenario".
The big problem with all these kinds of stories is that
a) Most journalists are arts graduates, so really don't get science, and the concept of probability and risk
b) Even if they do, to explain it properly requires at least a 30 minute documentary rather than a 3 minute news report
and c) The worst case scenario makes a better story than the more probable one, so the editor will probably go for that one every time. (There was a good illustration of that on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe this week)
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]"fear mongering right wing press" lol lol lol lol there we have it when all else fails the left wing no nothings blame someone else. Of course couldnt have been the Guardianistas kakin it again could it ? or the Browm/Blair/Herperson shit geting it wrong noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo it was the fault of the right wing press and the Daily mail. Get back behind your sofas -- first make sure they are a "fare trade" ones !
If they said "sorry we are talking our usual bollox, but dont we all agree that reducing waste, saving resourses, better distribution of wealth, better opertunitys for the have nots of the world is a good thing " then at least if would be honest and more justified.
I was talking about the way they package it, rather than the actual content. Newspapers carry the same stories, but some spin and exaggerate things for effect. A little bit how you write your posts.
To answer your original point (as you seem to have ignored the response - I've noticed you only respond to things that you have a ready-made diatribe for):
With SARS/SWINE/2000 BUG etc, IT WAS ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL THREAT. There was no evidence it was happening to any great extent, just evidence that suggested it would or might.
With climate change there is already HUGE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE that it is and has happened.
You're comparing reported threats and reported facts. You can see the difference?
ATTENTION - All luddite plebs who are too f***ing stupid to operate a computer, let alone understand the potential implications of ignoring 2 digit dates in computer systems.
If your firm hadn't spent 'a king's ransom' on fixing the problems that were inherent in their systems due to these programming oversights, then you either wouldn't have had a job to return to on 2nd January 2000, or (perhaps more worryingly for the population at large) no-one would have had a job to return to on the 2nd January 2000 because there would have been no power, no transportation, no manufacturing, no tourism, no hospitality well... no nothign really.
Just for the excerptionally docile amongst you, let me spell this out for you:
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that anyone making money out of it is a piss-taking chancer
Honestly - you do your 'side' of discussions on here no favours at all. There are plenty of erudite, intelligent people on this board who put forth excellent contrary opinions to the accepted view. They use rational, well thought out points of argument, humour, sarcasm and, where necessary, quanitifiable research to back up their point. Simply illustrating that you believe that because you don't understand something 'it's all bollocks, innit?' just highlights your own infirmities.
Comments
There is of course another theory that weather is affected by sunspots. They have been very active for the past few years but in the last 18 months the have declined in fact there have been very few in the last 3 months. It is claimed ( I dont know how they know this) but during the mini ice age when the thames used to freeze sun spots stopped for about 100 years.
Panic over ,I've found the missing glacier.
In my garden.
December one of the warmest months ever. The clue is in the first word in Global Warming.
Great so the galciers aren't retreating in the Himalayas and the Polar ice caps aren't shrinking either.
Since you are now in favour of 100% accuracy in climate change reporting and journalism will you be demanding that shills for the power compnaies and climate change deniers also speak the truth? Will we be seeing a list of posts from you condemning right-wing hacks who lie?
I thought not...
Cheers for all your sterling work thus far chaps.
Next week on the 'Charlton Internet Messageboard Blog To Unmask Massive Global Conspiracies':
"We never went to the moon - it was all a soundstage in Arizona"
Shocking new evidence (a moody photo of an astronaut with his flies appearing to be undone) uncovered by the hardy internet warriors of Charlton Life which PROVE that the moon landings were faked.
BBC long range whether forcast may get the boot as they predicted a"bar-b-q summer" then it would be a "mild winter" when asked where they got their statistics from to help come up with this forecast they wouldnt say ? mmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe (and its just a guess) it was someone from the climate change mafia.
We should be more concerned about the numbers of humans on the panet and their impact on its resourses. Food, fuel,raw materials, water, space. Mind you the twat Johnson from the Labour party dont seem to think that our tiny isalands population exploding is of concern even if it reaches 70+million.
As a wider issue though, climate change (denial) is just another of those many things that people have made their mind up on. It's like god, ghosts, etc. Despite all the evidence to the contrary there will always be (often worryingly significant) numbers of people who believe in them anyway. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
Arizona? I don't even believe Arizona exists. I have not been there and nor has anyone I know. I think Arizona is actually a soundstage in Hollywood.
everyone was going to die re mad cow
everyone was going to die from bird flu
everyone was going to die from pig flu
and the people who question climate change are seen as nieve ???????????????????????
Sadly you are wasting your time Si the Daily Mail knows all :-)
It's perfectly fine to debate things, and to take the other side of the argument without being called 'flat-earthers'.
The main difference in this case is quite astounding though:
With SARS/SWINE/2000 BUG etc, IT WAS ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL THREAT. There was no evidence it was happening to any great extent, just evidence that suggested it would or might.
With climate change there is already HUGE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE that it is and has happened. You see the difference?
By arguing against evidence of fact rather than evidence of potential does, i'm afraid, make you more of a 'flat earther'.
As I remember it the BBC had a large part to play and they can hardly be described as right wing...
TV is more powerful than the print media in that it reaches more people I reckon.
"The one thing we do know is that reducing the carbon footprint can do no harm, can it?"
No one in the "it's all made up by Gordon Brown" camp has bothered to offer an opinion on that as yet...
All depends on how it is done.
The fact that the "warmists" are proved to be resorting to lies, ironically something they have regularly accused what they refer to as the "pro oil" lobby of, suggests that mans' effect on climate change is problematic.
It is therefore unreasonable to oppress people on the basis of a possibility through fines for putting things in the wrong bin when the whole lot ends up in a landfill in China for instance. It is also galling to see jetsetting politicians and "warmist" lobbyists on the TV trying to guilt trip us into not usuing our cars when they fly thousands of miles round the world to climate change and other conferences. If they are that concerned why not have a conference call on skype?
That said I read somewhere that 50% of car journeys are under a mile so I would advocate a policy of suggesting that people get some exercise and thus health benefits by walking or cycling such journeys where practicable. Businesses should receive real tax incentives to set their employees up for home working too removing or reducing the need to commute for many people.
These are practical suggestions which do not inconvenience the majority yet cut the carbon footprint.
As we know though the real agenda is social control and oppression and "save the planet" is just a fluffy way of justifying it.
If they said "sorry we are talking our usual bollox, but dont we all agree that reducing waste, saving resourses, better distribution of wealth, better opertunitys for the have nots of the world is a good thing " then at least if would be honest and more justified.
The big problem with all these kinds of stories is that
a) Most journalists are arts graduates, so really don't get science, and the concept of probability and risk
b) Even if they do, to explain it properly requires at least a 30 minute documentary rather than a 3 minute news report
and c) The worst case scenario makes a better story than the more probable one, so the editor will probably go for that one every time. (There was a good illustration of that on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe this week)
To answer your original point (as you seem to have ignored the response - I've noticed you only respond to things that you have a ready-made diatribe for):
With SARS/SWINE/2000 BUG etc, IT WAS ALL ABOUT POTENTIAL THREAT. There was no evidence it was happening to any great extent, just evidence that suggested it would or might.
With climate change there is already HUGE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE that it is and has happened.
You're comparing reported threats and reported facts. You can see the difference?
If your firm hadn't spent 'a king's ransom' on fixing the problems that were inherent in their systems due to these programming oversights, then you either wouldn't have had a job to return to on 2nd January 2000, or (perhaps more worryingly for the population at large) no-one would have had a job to return to on the 2nd January 2000 because there would have been no power, no transportation, no manufacturing, no tourism, no hospitality well... no nothign really.
Just for the excerptionally docile amongst you, let me spell this out for you:
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that anyone making money out of it is a piss-taking chancer
Honestly - you do your 'side' of discussions on here no favours at all. There are plenty of erudite, intelligent people on this board who put forth excellent contrary opinions to the accepted view. They use rational, well thought out points of argument, humour, sarcasm and, where necessary, quanitifiable research to back up their point. Simply illustrating that you believe that because you don't understand something 'it's all bollocks, innit?' just highlights your own infirmities.