50 YEARS of cold winters
-
No, but in Cydonia there are some knights :)
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011:) Not a bad song that either!
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Osirian
FTFY! :)
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" -Pascal
-
I don't discuss it because I know enough to know that I don't know enough about the science behind the global warming debate to be able to have a reasoned discussion on it; so I leave the topic well alone.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Unlike other areas of science I think climate science is so imature that it can be discussed by laymen. After all, amateurs have historically had a massive impact on science. Sachs for example with his study of botany. And, not only that, the topic of GW is not only one of science, but of politics, fraud, and propaganda. Those surely are fit meat for discussion! :)
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
-
Unlike other areas of science I think climate science is so imature that it can be discussed by laymen. After all, amateurs have historically had a massive impact on science. Sachs for example with his study of botany. And, not only that, the topic of GW is not only one of science, but of politics, fraud, and propaganda. Those surely are fit meat for discussion! :)
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
fat__boy wrote:
the topic of GW is not only one of science, but of politics, fraud, and propaganda
But I don't know enough about which is which to contribute in any meaningful way. Without the background in the science, I have to rely on others to try and sort out the various parts - and the problem is, there are so many vested interests that it's hard to find any impartial information. Everybody has an agenda here.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
fat__boy wrote:
the topic of GW is not only one of science, but of politics, fraud, and propaganda
But I don't know enough about which is which to contribute in any meaningful way. Without the background in the science, I have to rely on others to try and sort out the various parts - and the problem is, there are so many vested interests that it's hard to find any impartial information. Everybody has an agenda here.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
My agenda is for truth. Science has a strict methodology, and climate change abandons that in favour of headlines designed to engineer funding and fear for the purposes of human control and taxation. In no cases at all ever has there been peer reviewed unequivocal proof, or even evidence of , AGW. That the climate changes is accepted, it always has and always will. But to say we are responsible is just scientifically fraudulent.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
fat__boy wrote:
the topic of GW is not only one of science, but of politics, fraud, and propaganda
But I don't know enough about which is which to contribute in any meaningful way. Without the background in the science, I have to rely on others to try and sort out the various parts - and the problem is, there are so many vested interests that it's hard to find any impartial information. Everybody has an agenda here.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Yes, thats true. When I first started getting suspicious of AGW, purely because I stumbled across a few sites on the net that grabbed my interest, it took a long time to wade through the massive amount of stuff written anout it, and to understand the science behind it. Years in fact. As for vested interests, well, it gets partisan at this point, but I dont think the sceptics are funded by the oil industry in any significant way compared to the AGE funding received by the pro AGW camp. Instead I think many sceptics are driven entirely by a respect for truth and a desire not to see science abused. Which is where I come from.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
-
My agenda is for truth. Science has a strict methodology, and climate change abandons that in favour of headlines designed to engineer funding and fear for the purposes of human control and taxation. In no cases at all ever has there been peer reviewed unequivocal proof, or even evidence of , AGW. That the climate changes is accepted, it always has and always will. But to say we are responsible is just scientifically fraudulent.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
In no cases at all ever has there been peer reviewed unequivocal proof, or even evidence of , AGW.
Sounds just like String Theory, yet a lot of physics funding goes into that!
-
This Gem just appeared: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cold-winters-set-to-continue-for-50-years-509342.html
Ger
Well, as long as the Irish keep it to themselves, i don't have a problem with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
There are pyramids and an ancient Osiran God.
Well, as long as there's someone there to keep Elvis company...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
In no cases at all ever has there been peer reviewed unequivocal proof, or even evidence of , AGW.
Sounds just like String Theory, yet a lot of physics funding goes into that!
viaducting wrote:
Sounds just like String Theory
And black holes. There's no convincing proof that they exist as anything but mathematical models.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
This Gem just appeared: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cold-winters-set-to-continue-for-50-years-509342.html
Ger