Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Next time, use 'colluding' for what The Team get up to in pal review and gatekeeping, it won't set durbster off on one and it might prevent another attrition loop!
durbster said:
Don't you think?
But anyway, that wasn't the point. I was referring back to turbobloke's (and other's) inconsistency. I use the word conspiracy, he rants and raves. You use it - nothing at all.
you suggest few have read the climategate emails while demonstrating you do not know the generally accepted definition of enquiry. there are many people that would agree that the multiple "enquiries" were nothing of the sort. all imo of course as our opinions are the polar opposite on this occasion.But anyway, that wasn't the point. I was referring back to turbobloke's (and other's) inconsistency. I use the word conspiracy, he rants and raves. You use it - nothing at all.
XM5ER said:
What ever you do, don't mention the Moon landings!
The moon landings? You mean that thing that NASA, and all objective sources says happened because it is fully supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. That thing that a small group of conspiracy theorists fuelled by some blogs and their own fantasies insist did not, despite having no proof that can't easily be dismissed?
Weird you brought it up. It's definitely nothing like this discussion.
wc98 said:
you suggest few have read the climategate emails while demonstrating you do not know the generally accepted definition of enquiry. there are many people that would agree that the multiple "enquiries" were nothing of the sort. all imo of course as our opinions are the polar opposite on this occasion.
If you're so sure fraud was committed, why no criminal charges? Stumbled into this thread by chance. Only thing I can add is:
Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
kurt535 said:
Stumbled into this thread by chance. Only thing I can add is:
Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
Any PROOF of that other than briefing !!!Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
durbster said:
XM5ER said:
What ever you do, don't mention the Moon landings!
The moon landings? You mean that thing that NASA, and all objective sources says happened because it is fully supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. That thing that a small group of conspiracy theorists fuelled by some blogs and their own fantasies insist did not, despite having no proof that can't easily be dismissed?
Weird you brought it up. It's definitely nothing like this discussion.
Dont ever leave Durbster, I think I love you.THIS IS HOW SCIENCE SHOULD BE CONDUCTED
Claim made for hydrogen 'wonder material'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Scientists in the US say they have at last managed to turn hydrogen into a state where it behaves like a metal.
If that is true - and it is a controversial claim - it fulfils a more than 80-year quest to produce what many have said would be a wonder material. "
"It has to be said, however, that news of the Harvard experiment has already attracted a good degree of scepticism. "
"The SCEPTICISM here is probably a GOOD THING, in that it will drive many groups towards attempting to reproduce this experimentMarcus Knudson, Sandia National Laboratories"
Claim made for hydrogen 'wonder material'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Scientists in the US say they have at last managed to turn hydrogen into a state where it behaves like a metal.
If that is true - and it is a controversial claim - it fulfils a more than 80-year quest to produce what many have said would be a wonder material. "
"It has to be said, however, that news of the Harvard experiment has already attracted a good degree of scepticism. "
"The SCEPTICISM here is probably a GOOD THING, in that it will drive many groups towards attempting to reproduce this experimentMarcus Knudson, Sandia National Laboratories"
durbster said:
wc98 said:
you suggest few have read the climategate emails while demonstrating you do not know the generally accepted definition of enquiry. there are many people that would agree that the multiple "enquiries" were nothing of the sort. all imo of course as our opinions are the polar opposite on this occasion.
If you're so sure fraud was committed, why no criminal charges? robinessex said:
THIS IS HOW SCIENCE SHOULD BE CONDUCTED
Claim made for hydrogen 'wonder material'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Scientists in the US say they have at last managed to turn hydrogen into a state where it behaves like a metal.
If that is true - and it is a controversial claim - it fulfils a more than 80-year quest to produce what many have said would be a wonder material. "
"It has to be said, however, that news of the Harvard experiment has already attracted a good degree of scepticism. "
"The SCEPTICISM here is probably a GOOD THING, in that it will drive many groups towards attempting to reproduce this experimentMarcus Knudson, Sandia National Laboratories"
Blimey, if people with 25 years worth of investment in cutting edge science Claim made for hydrogen 'wonder material'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Scientists in the US say they have at last managed to turn hydrogen into a state where it behaves like a metal.
If that is true - and it is a controversial claim - it fulfils a more than 80-year quest to produce what many have said would be a wonder material. "
"It has to be said, however, that news of the Harvard experiment has already attracted a good degree of scepticism. "
"The SCEPTICISM here is probably a GOOD THING, in that it will drive many groups towards attempting to reproduce this experimentMarcus Knudson, Sandia National Laboratories"
need to jealously guard their results from nasty prying eyes, then those with 80 years worth would be well advised to keep them under 24hr armed guard in a pirhana tank in Fort Knox!wc98 said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
you suggest few have read the climategate emails while demonstrating you do not know the generally accepted definition of enquiry. there are many people that would agree that the multiple "enquiries" were nothing of the sort. all imo of course as our opinions are the polar opposite on this occasion.
If you're so sure fraud was committed, why no criminal charges? Tell him to look at the inadequacy of the terms of reference under which those "inquiries" were set up, then maybe he'll understand.
wc98 said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
you suggest few have read the climategate emails while demonstrating you do not know the generally accepted definition of enquiry. there are many people that would agree that the multiple "enquiries" were nothing of the sort. all imo of course as our opinions are the polar opposite on this occasion.
If you're so sure fraud was committed, why no criminal charges? What nefarious deeds did you think happened?
V88Dicky said:
Looks terrifying if you ask me 
No, no, no, you're using the wrong data set. Sea levels are rising, and the only way that can happen is if it rains, a LOT. So if it rains enough to raise sea levels, we Must have more floods, cos he only thing that fills the sea is rivers, and rivers come from land. That's the proof, didn't you get the memo? mondeoman said:
V88Dicky said:
Looks terrifying if you ask me
No, no, no, you're using the wrong data set. Sea levels are rising, and the only way that can happen is if it rains, a LOT. So if it rains enough to raise sea levels, we Must have more floods, cos he only thing that fills the sea is rivers, and rivers come from land. That's the proof, didn't you get the memo? durbster said:
I saw the quotes that had been lifted from the emails and I saw the explanation from UEA that put them into context. None of it looked particularly exciting.
Again, they were investigated and cleared multiple times. I'm fine with that. I don't really have the inclination, time or resources to conduct my own personal inquiry.
Oh, do come on. Again, they were investigated and cleared multiple times. I'm fine with that. I don't really have the inclination, time or resources to conduct my own personal inquiry.
The huge amount of time you spend here, sating your extraordinary zealotry, suggests you have plenty of time and energy on your hands...
Or is it that you're afraid to find something that challenges your Faith?
Einion Yrth said:
mondeoman said:
V88Dicky said:
Looks terrifying if you ask me
No, no, no, you're using the wrong data set. Sea levels are rising, and the only way that can happen is if it rains, a LOT. So if it rains enough to raise sea levels, we Must have more floods, cos he only thing that fills the sea is rivers, and rivers come from land. That's the proof, didn't you get the memo? robinessex said:
kurt535 said:
Stumbled into this thread by chance. Only thing I can add is:
Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
Any PROOF of that other than briefing !!!Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
johnfm said:
durbster said:
But studies into how the sun affects our temperature have not been able to account for the amount of global warming observed in the last century.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Your not a scientist, are you. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff