 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
johnboy, True, wasn't he the guy caught with his pants down some time back? A proper eejit, but might be right on the issue. It is cyclical just like always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Roy Hockley,
Yip, that's him. To me the jury's out on climate change, however we have a limited amount of fuel reserves and fuel efficiency should be encouraged either way. Apparently Sammy said " There has never been more fossil fuels available than today". Like I said, a total ejit, and I reckon they'll force him out soon.
He is just an embarrasement 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
And placing this advert on NI tv would have saved the planet would it?
Had he objected to us paying for it to go on Chinese tv, the call might have stood. But, really, NI people unplugging their mobile phone chargers, if they didn't know they should already, is seriously not going to save the planet.
If the entire UK stopped using all petrol and diesel vehicles, the saving in CO2 would be negated within 83 days by industrial growth from China. Not India and China, just China.
The bloke's not an ejit at all, he's a realist.
He is saying that an advert telling you to go to the coast with buckets, to collect sea water, will not lower sea levels.
And you are calling him the ejit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
As real scientific thought grows closer to a consensous ... the media interpretation perpetrates this in ever more diverse ways. No wonder the public is confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Scarpa, do tell us how you personally are able to evaluate 'real' scientific thought - and what 'real' scientific thought is. I can see a major treatise coming up. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scarpa wrote: |
| As real scientific thought grows closer to a consensous. |
It isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Scarpa wrote: |
| As real scientific thought grows closer to a consensous. |
It isn't. |
Nowhere near.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
If you read widely most specialists are growing closer to a consensus. The ratio of anthropomorphic causes vs cyclic causes remains up for grabs to a large extent but the rates of change and the effects on the world in the short term are fairly well agreed upon. Most media reporting of this seems to head to both ends of the spectrum. My point was that most reporting of scientific/medical/experimental data is appalling and very subjective.
I am making no claims as to the bulls41t that makes up most governmental self serving propaganda on these issues 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is a complete clown. AsRoy Hockley, says he was photographed running run a French field naked a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Scarpa, I spend more time reading about climate change than on snowHeads, if you can believe that(!), including original papers. Leaving aside the filtering, distortions and sensationalism of the media (and Nobel Prize winning scientist Al Gore), there is a meme put out by a group of climatologists that all serious scientists agree (including quantitatively), on the sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2 concentration, enthusiastically picked up by most of the media, which simply isn't true. If it were true, they wouldn't be a need to say it. Nobody has to say that there is a scientific consensus around Newtonian mechanics (for the movement of everyday things likes apples and planets) and cranks who promote perpetual motion machines are easily ignored.
I would say the polarity between warmists and sceptics is increasing. In my view, this is caused by the actual data of the last 10-12 years. The greenhouse gas mechanism (it's not a particularly good analogy, but we're stuck with it) itself is well accepted. It was first proposed in the 19th century by Arrhenius (a well-known figure to all chemists). In 1988, after a 12-year run of rising temperatures (which had been preceded by a 35-year coolish period) James Hansen proposed that we were beginning to see an enhanced effect, caused by emissions - which was, and remains, a plausible conjecture. The trend continued for another 10-12 years, causing confidence in Hansen's conjecture to increase (reasonable), practically to the status of physical law (unreasonable) in many quarters. However, the 10-12 years since then has not shown any net warming at all - in fact, a small net cooling.
Now, when new data comes in, the proper response of a good scientist is to question the theory that predicted some other outcome, and to at least trim one's scientific sails, if not to change tack altogether. The group around Hansen has not done this, but has adopted an increasingly shrill posture. It's exactly the sort of behaviour described of diehards during paradigm shifts by Thomas Kuhn.
I was very interested to read this article in the Guardian yesterday, in which the Met Office berates scientists for apocalyptic predictions. The Met Office has hitherto been pretty firmly in the "consensus" camp. I suspect that after laughingly inaccurate (warm) seasonal predictions for this winter and the last two summers, it's decided to move cautiously to more neutral ground.
I sense that you and I may actually believe roughly the same thing: that the greenhouse gas effect is real and noticeable, but is hard to quantify and not necessarily dominating other factors that control the climate. There is no consensus around that though, and the consensus that is claimed is around a more extreme position. The whole area though remains perhaps the biggest and most important area of scientific controversy today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| Scarpa wrote: |
| As real scientific thought grows closer to a consensous. |
It isn't. |
Nowhere near.
John. |
That depends on what the consensus is supposed to be on, doesn't it? As Johnboy said, whether you accept 'global warming' (whatever that means to you) or not, what is undeniable is that the fossil fuel supply is limited and will provide us with energy (and the raw materials for a lot of reasonably useful things, such as pharmaceuticals) for a relatively short time only. That needs to be addressed whether global warming is happening or not.
If this politico really said that 'there has never been more fossil fuel available than today', he is a complete eejit and should be removed from office immediately. What he probably is really is a populist, publicity seeking little turd.
Norn Irn's not having a lot of luck with its politicos at the moment; didn't some dopey woman gibber about 'curing arse bandits', or something like that? Always a risk, I suppose, when you conflate religion and politics. I know that we're supposed to get the politicos we deserve, but hell's teeth! Two and a half millenia (or whatever it is) of western civilisation, and we still get people who apparently have the critical abilities of a dollop of primordial slime.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Fri 13-02-09 13:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond, if you'd read Scarpa's post, you'd know what "scientific consensus" he referred to and others commented on.
Nice rant though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
richmond,
Yip Iris Robinson (Wife of the first Minister).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| johnboy wrote: |
| He is a complete clown. he was photographed running run a French field naked a few years ago. |
Why am I starting to like this guy? All Politicos should be made to run around French Fields naked, with the possible exception of "Jacqui" Smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
red 27,
Wot, even the one eyed Scottish Ejit? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
johnboy, especially him - not that's it a sight I wish to see (honest) I just think it would do their over-stuffed egos a world of good. Plus he might get a Thistle in his Big Brown Eye (Geddit?) which would be an obvious bonus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
red 27, nice thinking, but it doesn't sem to have done much for this Wilson guy's ego (although I suppose that it might have been even worse if he'd not run starkers dans les champs). There are obvious problems, two of the biggest probably being A.Widdecombe and M.Beckitt.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 13-02-09 16:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
richmond, I think those two would mean 4 big problems... On reflection I think you're right - I withdraw the suggestion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| richmond wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| Scarpa wrote: |
| As real scientific thought grows closer to a consensous. |
It isn't. |
Nowhere near.
John. |
That depends on what the consensus is supposed to be on, doesn't it? As Johnboy said, whether you accept 'global warming' (whatever that means to you) or not, what is undeniable is that the fossil fuel supply is limited and will provide us with energy (and the raw materials for a lot of reasonably useful things, such as pharmaceuticals) for a relatively short time only. That needs to be addressed whether global warming is happening or not.
If this politico really said that 'there has never been more fossil fuel available than today', he is a complete eejit and should be removed from office immediately. What he probably is really is a populist, publicity seeking little turd.
Norn Irn's not having a lot of luck with its politicos at the moment; didn't some dopey woman gibber about 'curing arse bandits', or something like that? Always a risk, I suppose, when you conflate religion and politics. I know that we're supposed to get the politicos we deserve, but hell's teeth! Two and a half millenia (or whatever it is) of western civilisation, and we still get people who apparently have the critical abilities of a dollop of primordial slime. |
The "concensus" that is being widely forwarded is that mankinds production of CO2 is the primary driving force of accelerated "Global Warming", and if we limit our activities we can slow, and maybe stop, this happening.
There are many who are not convinced by this reasoning (or "fact" as is being promoted by some), myself, on balance, included.
There is a mountain of stuff available to read on this, mainly contradictary, and certainly not conclusive. No-where near.
It is irrefutable that the planet is going through a general warming "phase". But this in itself is a fairly natural, and self repeating process.
This is the only thing I was commenting on.
Laundryman, sensible well reasoned post.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Oul Sammy does come out with some sh!te but while i agree with his personal views on this matter i am not sure that as minister he has any right to prevent this ad being shown - smacks of censorship to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, Fair play to you for reading all that sh1te, there may be a job for you in the republics cabinet. Our finance minister phuqed up by not reading a report he commissioned costing us billions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The scary thing seems to be the fact that the earth does not seem to produce much in the way of evidence of long term stable weather conditions. The last several thousand years have been abnormally stable... at the same time that humans have become rather successful at growing crops and spreading themselves around the globe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
