Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
wc98 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Talking of torturing data, now it's obvious beyond all reasonable doubt that the temperature record is mangled, and the sea level data is mangled, can we even trust the ice data?
When the lowest ever Arctic max. stories were being pushed a short while back I was perplexed that the NSIDC multi-year ice data had not increased as expected. I had a graph from last summer and clearly none of this could have vanished over winter and it would have passed its birthday and aged, but there was no increase. Very peculiar, I had a brief look and NSIDC seemed to have switched how they were calculating it, but I forgot about it until this.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-caught...
There's no room for doubt here, this is a deliberate attempt by NSIDC to paint an ever alarming picture, regardless of the facts.
it will be interesting to see their response, if they give one, to that accusation . it certainly looks very ,very dodgy. could well be yet another case where the method used to estimate the ice has changed and they do not want to highlight it.When the lowest ever Arctic max. stories were being pushed a short while back I was perplexed that the NSIDC multi-year ice data had not increased as expected. I had a graph from last summer and clearly none of this could have vanished over winter and it would have passed its birthday and aged, but there was no increase. Very peculiar, I had a brief look and NSIDC seemed to have switched how they were calculating it, but I forgot about it until this.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-caught...
There's no room for doubt here, this is a deliberate attempt by NSIDC to paint an ever alarming picture, regardless of the facts.
edit to add follow up post where the original chart has been added , wtf ,climastrology at its finest.https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/nsidc-busted/#comment-579757
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 23 April 09:01
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-busted...
Looking at a news video on the internet I was forced to sit through a puff advert for GSK.
The gist of the piece was that magnanimous GSK was going to help the UK train/educate 1.3 Million "scientists" between now and 2020. If that did not happen the UK would not have enough "scientists" to do anything. (I may have lost interest in what it was they said would not be possible ......)
So they expect to create 1.3 million scientists out of the education system in the next 4 years. That's a tad over 300,000 trained and monitored "scientists per year for 4 years. So they have those in university education now plus some who will be starting this autumn - if they don't take a gap year.
If we assume the requirement for being a "scientist" does not always have to mean a degree has been awarded, then there are, potentially, some more kids in pre-university years who might be counted in. (Although who would train them without diluting the numbers in the existing workforce?
Is the advert suggesting something that is even vaguely possible or have they lost their numerate literacy?
Should the ad be reported to the ASA?
SHould we be worried about the sort of products that GSK might come out with in the next decade or so?
Where do they stand on human induced threats to the world population?
The gist of the piece was that magnanimous GSK was going to help the UK train/educate 1.3 Million "scientists" between now and 2020. If that did not happen the UK would not have enough "scientists" to do anything. (I may have lost interest in what it was they said would not be possible ......)
So they expect to create 1.3 million scientists out of the education system in the next 4 years. That's a tad over 300,000 trained and monitored "scientists per year for 4 years. So they have those in university education now plus some who will be starting this autumn - if they don't take a gap year.
If we assume the requirement for being a "scientist" does not always have to mean a degree has been awarded, then there are, potentially, some more kids in pre-university years who might be counted in. (Although who would train them without diluting the numbers in the existing workforce?
Is the advert suggesting something that is even vaguely possible or have they lost their numerate literacy?
Should the ad be reported to the ASA?
SHould we be worried about the sort of products that GSK might come out with in the next decade or so?
Where do they stand on human induced threats to the world population?
LongQ said:
Looking at a news video on the internet I was forced to sit through a puff advert for GSK.
The gist of the piece was that magnanimous GSK was going to help the UK train/educate 1.3 Million "scientists" between now and 2020. If that did not happen the UK would not have enough "scientists" to do anything. (I may have lost interest in what it was they said would not be possible ......)
So they expect to create 1.3 million scientists out of the education system in the next 4 years. That's a tad over 300,000 trained and monitored "scientists per year for 4 years. So they have those in university education now plus some who will be starting this autumn - if they don't take a gap year.
If we assume the requirement for being a "scientist" does not always have to mean a degree has been awarded, then there are, potentially, some more kids in pre-university years who might be counted in. (Although who would train them without diluting the numbers in the existing workforce?
Is the advert suggesting something that is even vaguely possible or have they lost their numerate literacy?
Should the ad be reported to the ASA?
SHould we be worried about the sort of products that GSK might come out with in the next decade or so?
Where do they stand on human induced threats to the world population?
In terms of numbers, and while it will vary from year to year, the last I read on this was a year or so ago and at that time there were approx 100,000 students accepted to study STEM at university level (science, or technology, or engineering, or maths for those unfamiliar with STEM).The gist of the piece was that magnanimous GSK was going to help the UK train/educate 1.3 Million "scientists" between now and 2020. If that did not happen the UK would not have enough "scientists" to do anything. (I may have lost interest in what it was they said would not be possible ......)
So they expect to create 1.3 million scientists out of the education system in the next 4 years. That's a tad over 300,000 trained and monitored "scientists per year for 4 years. So they have those in university education now plus some who will be starting this autumn - if they don't take a gap year.
If we assume the requirement for being a "scientist" does not always have to mean a degree has been awarded, then there are, potentially, some more kids in pre-university years who might be counted in. (Although who would train them without diluting the numbers in the existing workforce?
Is the advert suggesting something that is even vaguely possible or have they lost their numerate literacy?
Should the ad be reported to the ASA?
SHould we be worried about the sort of products that GSK might come out with in the next decade or so?
Where do they stand on human induced threats to the world population?
The advert would make more sense if it's referring to help with educating kids at school to help them with 'Beattie' qualifications, i.e. "you got an ology, you're a scientist". Not that many of the young keenies at GSK will be aware of this benchmark
Jasandjules said:
How long before some t**t claims the increase in celeb deaths is due to Global Warming?
Well, I was building up to the idea of making such a post - but obviously from an ironic POV.I note that a "record" number of "world leaders" turned up for the Paris agreement signing in New York.
Amazing. What a waste of "carbon".
Still, given an all expenses paid trip to NY for yet another ego massaging boondoggle I suppose it was only to be expected that people would turn up.
For some I would guess the only way they can get into the USA would be on the pretext of attending a UN event.
Now, of course, they have to deliver something. That could become interesting.
Out of interest - has any heard of any scientists being involved with the "signing"?
brenflys777 said:
Indoctrinate them early!
Sadly in terms of cars and global warming, and in general, that's typical of what's going on in schools these days.Add this to the list, it's from back in 2004.
“Our aim is to brainwash a new generation.”
George Callaghan, Schools Travel Plan Officer, Stockton On Tees Borough Council.
Many if not most school travel plans are full of AGW-based propaganda presented as fact.
Good grief. Why are they being encouraged to fight? That's not very PC.
I thought I would help out with a few ideas.
1. We could save electricity by not paying the bill so that the supplier cuts us off.
2. Cars usually get hotter than people so that will save some heat. Also many journeys will take longer so there will be less time to to use electricity for doing work.
3. Trees cause global warming by being dark and absorbing energy. White trees should be encouraged.
4. Allergies
5. Conserves are usually fond in jars so all we need to do is bottle energy.
6. God knows.
7. It means to stop it and risk the world returning to an ice age according to theory. In practice it means to chase and imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.
8. It is important to save the world from getting any warmer so that people with large egos can feel important and rich people can continue to afford large yachts.
I assume this is all part of English Fiction studies?
I thought I would help out with a few ideas.
1. We could save electricity by not paying the bill so that the supplier cuts us off.
2. Cars usually get hotter than people so that will save some heat. Also many journeys will take longer so there will be less time to to use electricity for doing work.
3. Trees cause global warming by being dark and absorbing energy. White trees should be encouraged.
4. Allergies
5. Conserves are usually fond in jars so all we need to do is bottle energy.
6. God knows.
7. It means to stop it and risk the world returning to an ice age according to theory. In practice it means to chase and imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.
8. It is important to save the world from getting any warmer so that people with large egos can feel important and rich people can continue to afford large yachts.
I assume this is all part of English Fiction studies?
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 24th April 19:52
brenflys777 said:
Indoctrinate them early!
My 7 year old daughters English homework. In fairness I'm pleased they want to encourage reduced energy consumption and planting trees, but global warming & CO2....
my youngest is 15 . they started getting the co2 is a pollutant nonsense years ago .i made sure both her and her elder sister informed their teachers of the facts surrounding co2 and that it is essential for all life on earth, including the trees. the simple statement of no co2 , no trees, tends to work wonders with those that have not taken a look at the issue.My 7 year old daughters English homework. In fairness I'm pleased they want to encourage reduced energy consumption and planting trees, but global warming & CO2....
Video showing no link between CO2 and sea level whatsoever in the tide gauge data, and the absurdity of the projected sea level rise scenarios by 2100 that will obviously never happen (you don't have to watch it all, you get the idea after the first dozen graphs!).
Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
wc98 said:
my youngest is 15 . they started getting the co2 is a pollutant nonsense years ago .i made sure both her and her elder sister informed their teachers of the facts surrounding co2 and that it is essential for all life on earth, including the trees. the simple statement of no co2 , no trees, tends to work wonders with those that have not taken a look at the issue.
Little Ex (9) was discussing this with me last week. In class his teacher had declared CO2 to be polluting the planet.[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
I've been battling to explain to him that teachers aren't always right, even scientists can get it wrong. Drumming in to him that it's really important that you keep an open mind about all aspects of life and do your best to understand both sides of any argument.
Having read that English paper posted above I'm on the verge of writing a similar one for the teachers.
Q1. What is Carbon Dioxide?
Q2. Explain photosynthesis?
Q3. Where on the planet is the majority of CO2?
Q4. Assuming CO2 is the cause of warming how do you account for CO2 lagging temperature change?
....
Q10. How many coal fired power stations do China currently run and how many more are they planning to build in the next twelve months?
Q11. What effect do you believe our Country adopting 'Green Energy' will actually have?
I'll probably chuck in a bit of reading. Maybe Vincent Gray, did this get refuted? (Before I submit and look like an idiot?)
Link
Mr GrimNasty said:
Video showing no link between CO2 and sea level whatsoever in the tide gauge data, and the absurdity of the projected sea level rise scenarios by 2100 that will obviously never happen (you don't have to watch it all, you get the idea after the first dozen graphs!).
Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
I kind of love and also hate these graphs. How the juddering fvck anyone can claim to measure sea level to one, two or three and then point anything of a millimetre is just insane. Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
Utter nonsense. There's no error bars on the graphs, so sorry - I'm oot. Nothing to sea [sic] here.
turbobloke said:
brenflys777 said:
Indoctrinate them early!
Sadly in terms of cars and global warming, and in general, that's typical of what's going on in schools these days.Add this to the list, it's from back in 2004.
“Our aim is to brainwash a new generation.”
George Callaghan, Schools Travel Plan Officer, Stockton On Tees Borough Council.
Many if not most school travel plans are full of AGW-based propaganda presented as fact.
I think we should turn the clock back.j
As a `5 to 8 year old living in south London I used to walk to school and back every school day carrying a satchel.
For some time I used to travel home for lunch, albeit that by bus on the basis that it was a mile and mostly up a steep hill. Walked back though, as I recall.
Telly stopped at around 11pm - not that I was still up by then. I remember, when off school with one illness or another, there was sometimes horse racing to watch in the afternoon.
A holiday might be a week at Butlins in Kent. (Tried it once iirc.)
I think there is plenty of opportunity to indoctrinate the youngsters of tomorrow.
For example - school should only happen 3 days a week. So much electricity and other travel energy would be saved it would probably plunge us into an ice age.
Holidays should be severely limited and never take place more than 50 miles from home.
Electronic devices used for entertainment (and propaganda retailing) should be banned.
Heating should be turned off unless the temperature drops below zero. Absolutely NO aircon.
Lights off by 9pm. 1 light per room.
Baths should be banned. Showers allowed once per week. Clothes should be washed no more than once per month.
No pets. The carbon overheads of producing feed and bedding for the critters must far exceed any benefit.
Hot food allowed 3 days per week. Maximum food heating time 30 mins. Meat allowed once per month but no food at all that have been brought in more than 50 miles from the point of origin.
No refrigerators.
No washing machines and certainly no tumble dryers.
There's a start. What can we add to the list?
TheExcession said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Video showing no link between CO2 and sea level whatsoever in the tide gauge data, and the absurdity of the projected sea level rise scenarios by 2100 that will obviously never happen (you don't have to watch it all, you get the idea after the first dozen graphs!).
Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
I kind of love and also hate these graphs. How the juddering fvck anyone can claim to measure sea level to one, two or three and then point anything of a millimetre is just insane. Lotus50 especially should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I
Utter nonsense. There's no error bars on the graphs, so sorry - I'm oot. Nothing to sea [sic] here.
The fact is sea level has been rising consistently and constantly and has no relation to CO2 and is never going to reach alarmist claims.
You are right that it is insane to claim that satellites can measure sea level to fractions of a mm - which is where the 4mm+ accelerating claims come from, in fact satellites can't measure sea level at the coast AT ALL!
So if you were dismissing the video/facts, your dismissal was on vacuous grounds.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Sunday 24th April 20:43
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's just tide gauge data. If there was error in the readings, it would be 'self cancelling', like reading a set of thermometer readings.
Yep, and I can blow across a cup of hot tea and raise a tide/wave bigger than 1-5mm. Mr GrimNasty said:
The fact is sea level has been rising consistently and constantly and has no relation to CO2 and is never going to reach alarmist claims.
Some of those graphs show the sea level falling. I have no problem with sea level rising, or falling, our planet has been doing this for eons. And I agree CO2 isn't in the game.Mr GrimNasty said:
You are right that it is insane to claim that satellites can measure sea level to fractions of a mm - which is where the 4mm+ accelerating claims come from, in fact satellites can't measure sea level at the coast AT ALL!
My knowledge and edumacation tells me very little on a planetary scale can be measured to a few mm or tenths of Kelvin.Mr GrimNasty said:
So if you were dismissing the video/facts, your dismissal was on vacuous grounds.
I dismiss most of what I see/read/hear regarding popular mainstream climate science propaganda. Mostly because it is all full of could/might/maybe conjecture, after that it's mainly presented as a 0.1mm change or a 0.03 temperature change promoted as FACT and sold in the mainstream media as worrying/unprecedented/worse than previously thought.I might be wrong, perhaps these few mm or degree K really do matter.
But I assure you my dismissal is not vacuous.
TheExcession said:
Little Ex (9) was discussing this with me last week. In class his teacher had declared CO2 to be polluting the planet.
[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
I've been battling to explain to him that teachers aren't always right, even scientists can get it wrong. Drumming in to him that it's really important that you keep an open mind about all aspects of life and do your best to understand both sides of any argument.
Having read that English paper posted above I'm on the verge of writing a similar one for the teachers.
Q1. What is Carbon Dioxide?
Q2. Explain photosynthesis?
Q3. Where on the planet is the majority of CO2?
Q4. Assuming CO2 is the cause of warming how do you account for CO2 lagging temperature change?
....
Q10. How many coal fired power stations do China currently run and how many more are they planning to build in the next twelve months?
Q11. What effect do you believe our Country adopting 'Green Energy' will actually have?
I'll probably chuck in a bit of reading. Maybe Vincent Gray, did this get refuted? (Before I submit and look like an idiot?)
Link
[He's told me] he put his hand up with a 'Please Miss, carbon dioxide is plant food gas, it's essential for photosynthesis... that's where plants and trees make sugar to grow and turn CO2 into oxygen which we need to survive....'.
He told me he was cut short, corrected and told in no uncertain terms he was wrong and CO2 is a polluant. This in front of all his peers.
I've been battling to explain to him that teachers aren't always right, even scientists can get it wrong. Drumming in to him that it's really important that you keep an open mind about all aspects of life and do your best to understand both sides of any argument.
Having read that English paper posted above I'm on the verge of writing a similar one for the teachers.
Q1. What is Carbon Dioxide?
Q2. Explain photosynthesis?
Q3. Where on the planet is the majority of CO2?
Q4. Assuming CO2 is the cause of warming how do you account for CO2 lagging temperature change?
....
Q10. How many coal fired power stations do China currently run and how many more are they planning to build in the next twelve months?
Q11. What effect do you believe our Country adopting 'Green Energy' will actually have?
I'll probably chuck in a bit of reading. Maybe Vincent Gray, did this get refuted? (Before I submit and look like an idiot?)
Link
i think i might print that off .Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff