Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.If you look into the background of those who disagree with the consensus, many are paid by concerns that are only concerned with their own concerns. The oft-viewed no-contest between Cox and the aussie senator who believes the world is a fortnight or so old, and that global temperatures are actually going down make me wish those who do disagree should go into battle with scientist on TV.
By saying 'it's not been proved' is not proof that it is wrong.
Like most on PH, I'm not qualified to make a decision of global warming. The evidence has been shown to me and the majority of scientists have convincing arguments.
I know that many scientific ideas have been shouted down in the past, but the anti-GB lot are voluble. Anyone can read, and see, their arguments, so they can't claim that. Anyone who can read, and see, will be able to see through the arguments of many of those who suggest GB isn't happening.
jshell said:
Derek Smith said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.If you look into the background of those who disagree with the consensus, many are paid by concerns that are only concerned with their own concerns. The oft-viewed no-contest between Cox and the aussie senator who believes the world is a fortnight or so old, and that global temperatures are actually going down make me wish those who do disagree should go into battle with scientist on TV.
By saying 'it's not been proved' is not proof that it is wrong.
Like most on PH, I'm not qualified to make a decision of global warming. The evidence has been shown to me and the majority of scientists have convincing arguments.
I know that many scientific ideas have been shouted down in the past, but the anti-GB lot are voluble. Anyone can read, and see, their arguments, so they can't claim that. Anyone who can read, and see, will be able to see through the arguments of many of those who suggest GB isn't happening.
t, they're heavy duty bullst.Why so many are so gullible on this matter is a fascinating social phenomenon.
Scotty2 said:
When someone convinces me that ALL the factors have been taken into account and verified, I may review my position.
However, Earth has cycles, precession, natural events, slowing rotation chaotic weather behaviour, moving tectonic plates, meteor impacts to name a few in a short time which I do not believe have been modeled.
(A brighter man than me once created a spreadsheet for calculating the depth of a Nitrogen Brine interface at below ground. Densities, temperatures, pressures, flowrate, water content, surface area e.t.c. all factored in to give an answer. Guess what? We had to add an extra "fiddle factor" column into the sheet to get the sheet to be even close to reality!)
Call me a Denier if you like but for me it's a case of "Not Proven" and we should not waste money and resources on Canute type schemes.
By all means develop renewable alternatives because we believe fossil fuels are finite, and we will need to fossil fuels for two generations to allow the alternates to be developed.
Ah, I feel better now.
Scotty2
(CChem, MRSC, by the wa,y for what it's worth so not a complete numpty*)
I never said you were a numpty but our expertise has limits on transferability but I accept you are able to critique what you read in this regard better than most.However, Earth has cycles, precession, natural events, slowing rotation chaotic weather behaviour, moving tectonic plates, meteor impacts to name a few in a short time which I do not believe have been modeled.
(A brighter man than me once created a spreadsheet for calculating the depth of a Nitrogen Brine interface at below ground. Densities, temperatures, pressures, flowrate, water content, surface area e.t.c. all factored in to give an answer. Guess what? We had to add an extra "fiddle factor" column into the sheet to get the sheet to be even close to reality!)
Call me a Denier if you like but for me it's a case of "Not Proven" and we should not waste money and resources on Canute type schemes.
By all means develop renewable alternatives because we believe fossil fuels are finite, and we will need to fossil fuels for two generations to allow the alternates to be developed.
Ah, I feel better now.
Scotty2
(CChem, MRSC, by the wa,y for what it's worth so not a complete numpty*)
- others may disagree
I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
Derek Smith said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.If you look into the background of those who disagree with the consensus, many are paid by concerns that are only concerned with their own concerns. The oft-viewed no-contest between Cox and the aussie senator who believes the world is a fortnight or so old, and that global temperatures are actually going down make me wish those who do disagree should go into battle with scientist on TV.
By saying 'it's not been proved' is not proof that it is wrong.
Like most on PH, I'm not qualified to make a decision of global warming. The evidence has been shown to me and the majority of scientists have convincing arguments.
I know that many scientific ideas have been shouted down in the past, but the anti-GB lot are voluble. Anyone can read, and see, their arguments, so they can't claim that. Anyone who can read, and see, will be able to see through the arguments of many of those who suggest GB isn't happening.
t, they're heavy duty bullst.Why so many are so gullible on this matter is a fascinating social phenomenon.
Climate Modeller Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and IPCC Team fame said:
All the time-limited frames are bullst. Nothing special happens when the 'carbon budget' runs out or we pass whatever temperature target you care about, instead the costs of emissions steadily rise.
That's cool.t. Nothing special happens when the 'carbon budget' runs out or we pass whatever temperature target you care about, instead the costs of emissions steadily rise.jshell said:
Nickgnome said:
jshell said:
Just playing with options for my 35+ yr CETV value from International service. You?
I don’t work anymore.t would be pretty cool too! 
Nickgnome said:
I never said you were a numpty but our expertise has limits on transferability but I accept you are able to critique what you read in this regard better than most.
I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
They are planning on ripping out the whole UK domestic gas supply grid!!!! THAT is potentially catastrophic! No boilers in your house. Electric heating - on smart meters - from renewable generation.I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
Who's retarded here?
Nickgnome said:
jshell said:
Nickgnome said:
jshell said:
Just playing with options for my 35+ yr CETV value from International service. You?
I don’t work anymore.t would be pretty cool too! Nickgnome said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.Stating that there was consensus between the hospital oncology teams would have been wrong.
What's your point?
You have been unclear as to the variance between the diagnoses so impossible to comment. There are known centres of excellence like the Royal Marsden and assume you ascertained the one most local to you and went there.
Coincidentally many years ago my Dad was diagnosed with kidney cancer in his mid 50s. His GP suspected it and the consultant confirmed the diagnosis. This was 1977 so we’ll before some of the technology available today. He took the advice and one kidney was removed completely. He died in 2012 at the age of 87 not from cancer.
Now this is bit of an aside and a definite coincidence..... the difference in diagnoses was for my post operative treatment.
I was originally living in Lincolnshire and was a patient at Addenbrookes in Cambridge. They removed my right kidney and ureter on December 3 2018 and then were not sure whether I was stage 1 or 3 based on the analysis of the removed kidney so suggested chemo to be sure even though that can damage the remaining kidney. I moved to York during this time and had my care moved to York teaching hospital. They looked at the slides and concluded that there was no evidence that I was at anything but stage 1 .
Both oncology tams did agree that there was no sign of metastasis and so York took the view that the risk of chemo to my kidney outweighed the benefit so advised against it.
It's now a year later and my 6 monthly CT scan and cystoscopy have been clear. Funnily enough my second cystoscopy is tomorrow.
I'm very heartened to hear that your dad had a long, and hopefully happy and healthy, life after the cancer. I'm 56 now so it sounds like I'm at the same age as your dad was. I'll be very happy to reach 87
jshell said:
Nickgnome said:
I never said you were a numpty but our expertise has limits on transferability but I accept you are able to critique what you read in this regard better than most.
I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
They are planning on ripping out the whole UK domestic gas supply grid!!!! THAT is potentially catastrophic! No boilers in your house. Electric heating - on smart meters - from renewable generation.I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
Who's retarted here?
Who are they?
I can’t say I’m bothered one way or the other. Unless you have some evidence that it is imminent and that this will be completed within a short time frame then so what?
Personally I’d insist on all new houses being zero heating requirement and optimised to face South with solar panels and no gas. Less need to continually dig up the roads for gas main repairs.
Derek Smith said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.If you look into the background of those who disagree with the consensus, many are paid by concerns that are only concerned with their own concerns. The oft-viewed no-contest between Cox and the aussie senator who believes the world is a fortnight or so old, and that global temperatures are actually going down make me wish those who do disagree should go into battle with scientist on TV.
By saying 'it's not been proved' is not proof that it is wrong.
Like most on PH, I'm not qualified to make a decision of global warming. The evidence has been shown to me and the majority of scientists have convincing arguments.
I know that many scientific ideas have been shouted down in the past, but the anti-GB lot are voluble. Anyone can read, and see, their arguments, so they can't claim that. Anyone who can read, and see, will be able to see through the arguments of many of those who suggest GB isn't happening.
Really? That's some statement!
What, like alcohol?
In excess, perhaps, even yes.
Exactly like eating or drinking 'anything' in excess.
In moderation, no.
And not forgetting too, that there is sugar, and there is sugar.
For example, unrefined raw cane sugar is nothing like the same as refined (crap) sugar.
Nonetheless, I would still prefer that to 'artificial' sugar/sweeteners going inside my body.
Yet, there is no consensus that artificial sweeteners are harmful.
At this point in time!
garyhun said:
If someone can show me that there is real consensus amongst the scientific community then I will happily accept that. I'm not a scientist, I've not got a very good grasp of the science and I'm definitely not arrogant enough to believe that I know better than the experts but what I have read on here is that some say there is a consensus and others say differently. There is also a huge amount of politicising of this subject. Together, these issues make it impossible for me make an informed decision on who is right and what is true. Until someone can unequivocally show me that there is scientific consensus that AGW climate change is a fact, I will remain sceptical. Sceptical but open minded, I view every day as a school day
Now this is bit of an aside and a definite coincidence..... the difference in diagnoses was for my post operative treatment.
I was originally living in Lincolnshire and was a patient at Addenbrookes in Cambridge. They removed my right kidney and ureter on December 3 2018 and then were not sure whether I was stage 1 or 3 based on the analysis of the removed kidney so suggested chemo to be sure even though that can damage the remaining kidney. I moved to York during this time and had my care moved to York teaching hospital. They looked at the slides and concluded that there was no evidence that I was at anything but stage 1 .
Both oncology tams did agree that there was no sign of metastasis and so York took the view that the risk of chemo to my kidney outweighed the benefit so advised against it.
It's now a year later and my 6 monthly CT scan and cystoscopy have been clear. Funnily enough my second cystoscopy is tomorrow.
I'm very heartened to hear that your dad had a long, and hopefully happy and healthy, life after the cancer. I'm 56 now so it sounds like I'm at the same age as your dad was. I'll be very happy to reach 87
I hope and trust the treatment has worked for you and you can live to a ripe old age. I know Dad was monitored for 5 years. He was very fit until about 83 and they spent their time caravanning down through Spain and returning through French vineyards to fill the van with wine. Last trip at 82 If I recall correctly. His reactions were pin sharp even at that age. Now this is bit of an aside and a definite coincidence..... the difference in diagnoses was for my post operative treatment.
I was originally living in Lincolnshire and was a patient at Addenbrookes in Cambridge. They removed my right kidney and ureter on December 3 2018 and then were not sure whether I was stage 1 or 3 based on the analysis of the removed kidney so suggested chemo to be sure even though that can damage the remaining kidney. I moved to York during this time and had my care moved to York teaching hospital. They looked at the slides and concluded that there was no evidence that I was at anything but stage 1 .
Both oncology tams did agree that there was no sign of metastasis and so York took the view that the risk of chemo to my kidney outweighed the benefit so advised against it.
It's now a year later and my 6 monthly CT scan and cystoscopy have been clear. Funnily enough my second cystoscopy is tomorrow.
I'm very heartened to hear that your dad had a long, and hopefully happy and healthy, life after the cancer. I'm 56 now so it sounds like I'm at the same age as your dad was. I'll be very happy to reach 87
Back to topic.
Nickgnome said:
jshell said:
Nickgnome said:
I never said you were a numpty but our expertise has limits on transferability but I accept you are able to critique what you read in this regard better than most.
I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
They are planning on ripping out the whole UK domestic gas supply grid!!!! THAT is potentially catastrophic! No boilers in your house. Electric heating - on smart meters - from renewable generation.I still come back to two points. The depth of consensus is great and the potential risk for ignoring said advice is potentially catastrophic. If it costs a few hundred billion over the next 20 years it’s peanuts compared to the potential cost.
Who's retarted here?
Who are they?
I can’t say I’m bothered one way or the other. Unless you have some evidence that it is imminent and that this will be completed within a short time frame then so what?
Personally I’d insist on all new houses being zero heating requirement and optimised to face South with solar panels and no gas. Less need to continually dig up the roads for gas main repairs.
dandarez said:
There is now consensus that sugar is harmful?
Really? That's some statement!
What, like alcohol?
In excess, perhaps, even yes.
Exactly like eating or drinking 'anything' in excess.
In moderation, no.
And not forgetting too, that there is sugar, and there is sugar.
For example, unrefined raw cane sugar is nothing like the same as refined (crap) sugar.
Nonetheless, I would still prefer that to 'artificial' sugar/sweeteners going inside my body.
Yet, there is no consensus that artificial sweeteners are harmful.
At this point in time!
One can receive all the sugar one requires from a balanced diet. There is no need for sugar to be added to anything or into foods or drinks. Even sweetners cause addictive cravings which for some lead to obesity. Really? That's some statement!
What, like alcohol?
In excess, perhaps, even yes.
Exactly like eating or drinking 'anything' in excess.
In moderation, no.
And not forgetting too, that there is sugar, and there is sugar.
For example, unrefined raw cane sugar is nothing like the same as refined (crap) sugar.
Nonetheless, I would still prefer that to 'artificial' sugar/sweeteners going inside my body.
Yet, there is no consensus that artificial sweeteners are harmful.
At this point in time!
dandarez said:
There is now consensus that sugar is harmful?
Really? That's some statement!
What, like alcohol?
In excess, perhaps, even yes.
Exactly like eating or drinking 'anything' in excess.
In moderation, no.
Quite so. The effects of energy intake also depend on what energy is being expended.Really? That's some statement!
What, like alcohol?
In excess, perhaps, even yes.
Exactly like eating or drinking 'anything' in excess.
In moderation, no.
I'm unaware of what happens on the food side with RN or Army initial officer training. With IOT in the RAF quite a few years ago, the food on offer was deliberately packed with sugar. Custard was so full of the stuff a spoon would stand upright in it. In a conversation with one of the corporals who was involved with the meals side, it transpired that depending on the particular week in the early stages of IOT they were told to make it difficult to have an intake below 6000 kcal per day and equally difficult to get much above 8000 kcal. Normally 2500 would be adequate for an adult male. It was difficult to eat much for two reasons, one because of the sugar and two because extreme exercise dulls the appetite.
At the mo we've learned that bacon isn't lethal - unless you choke on it - but the biggest question mark of all remains over cholesterol. Overfeed a small herbivore (rabbit) with cholesterol and transfer the results to a larger omnivore. What could possibly go wrong.
Of course it's in everyone's interests to seek and follow medical advice. Then there's the parallel freedom to look into things a bit more and decide for yourself.
jshell said:
Yeah, that'll work oop North, at night, in winter and without batteries...
It works in other far more Northern nations.Perhaps you should look to the future and not the, not so good old days of coal fires and smog.
If we finally manage to prefabricate houses in factories we are in with a chance.
Camoradi said:
Seventy said:
Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
Given the past recipients of Time Person of the Year, I wouldn't necessarily this as a win for Greta anyway. She joins Jo Stalin and Richard Nixon...I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
I note that Abu Bakr-al-Baghdhadi was a runner up a few years back, but was beaten by Angela Merkel for her handling of the migrant crisis
Hitler time man of the year 1938
Yes he was, different cover but yes he was.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff