The K M Links Game - June 2024 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
What are they frightened of?
18 Answers
http://www.timesonlin...nt/article6945445.ece
/// The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.///
/// Mr Brown told the Guardian: ''With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics.///
What a cheek.
///'We know the science. We must act now and close the 5billion-tonne gap. That will seal the deal.'///
"Seal the deal" where have I heard that before? Given their track record, why should we believe the politicians?
Now if all the scientists instead of the politicians were having a summit meeting over this issue, then I think the masses would tend to go along more with them.
/// The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.///
/// Mr Brown told the Guardian: ''With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics.///
What a cheek.
///'We know the science. We must act now and close the 5billion-tonne gap. That will seal the deal.'///
"Seal the deal" where have I heard that before? Given their track record, why should we believe the politicians?
Now if all the scientists instead of the politicians were having a summit meeting over this issue, then I think the masses would tend to go along more with them.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/// This is not only because they open the way for those deluded souls who still deny there is a man-made aspect to global warming to press their case with extra vigour,///
//// People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”, Gordon Brown has said. ////
"Deluded souls", "Flat-earthers" "Anti science"
Once again get the "Nasty Left" worried in any way and out come the insults, they never fail.
Brown also criticised Cameron for being educated at Eton College, imagine what would have been said if Cameron criticised another for being educated at a comprehensive school?
The multitude of un-washed protesters in London today,
http://i.dailymail.co...005DC-767_468x692.jpg
//// People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”, Gordon Brown has said. ////
"Deluded souls", "Flat-earthers" "Anti science"
Once again get the "Nasty Left" worried in any way and out come the insults, they never fail.
Brown also criticised Cameron for being educated at Eton College, imagine what would have been said if Cameron criticised another for being educated at a comprehensive school?
The multitude of un-washed protesters in London today,
http://i.dailymail.co...005DC-767_468x692.jpg
I read somewhere that it will take another 3 years to collect all the data again. What a sham? They have fooled most of the people for most of the time, but now this revelation. How are some of the scientists on this site,notably Jake going to live it down? They have stressed time and time again we must listen to our climate scientists and why should we question them. The doubters have been proved right, once again.
Re-examination of the data from the last 160 years won't prove anything. We all know that if this exercise is done, the result will be the same – the temperature will be shown to be rising. Why? Because 160 years ago we were in the grip of the Little Ice Age.
2009 – 160 = 1849
From wikipedia, “... It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you draw a line on on a graph starting at approximately 1850 to present, there will obviously be a warming trend. This does not prove that global warming is happening as it is simply too small a data sample. You have to use proxy data stretching back over millennia to get any sort of accurate temperature trend.
And all this of course, does not even attempt to answer THE most fundamental question of all –
Is the climate being adversely affected by man?
Typical smoke and mirrors from the the Met Office.
2009 – 160 = 1849
From wikipedia, “... It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you draw a line on on a graph starting at approximately 1850 to present, there will obviously be a warming trend. This does not prove that global warming is happening as it is simply too small a data sample. You have to use proxy data stretching back over millennia to get any sort of accurate temperature trend.
And all this of course, does not even attempt to answer THE most fundamental question of all –
Is the climate being adversely affected by man?
Typical smoke and mirrors from the the Met Office.
I think even the sceptics believe the planet is getting warmer but thats not the point. The truth thats being glossed over is the cyclical nature of the climate and we are currently in an upward swing. The climate scientists downplay this.
A US expert non believer said it could cost the country dearly to the tune of $triilions if they decide to take unnecessary action to deal with climate change.
Also if the UK government really believed their own spiel why are they not spending £bns to prop up our sea defences? Its obvious its all done for tax raising measures.
A US expert non believer said it could cost the country dearly to the tune of $triilions if they decide to take unnecessary action to deal with climate change.
Also if the UK government really believed their own spiel why are they not spending £bns to prop up our sea defences? Its obvious its all done for tax raising measures.
Rov – As Nigel Lawson says in his book, A Cool Look At Global Warming, “Doing nothing is better than doing something stupid”.
He's right. Committing to spending £trillions on an unproven and somewhat shakey theory is madness. We need to have a really serious look at whether mankind is really affecting climate or if what we're seeing is simply natural variation.
Some real facts are -
1) No one can say with any certainty if the global temperature is increasing at the moment;
2) No one can say with any certainty if sea levels are rising (the Maldives is the one place that gets mentioned frequently when this matter crops up and yet tidal gauges and satellite data suggest that sea levels in this area haven't risen at all in the last 30 years and there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that they have actually fallen. And yet, regular as clockwork, the news reports from the BBC and the like repeatedly tell us the Maldives are sinking – they are not);
3) Temperature reconstructions show temperature increase FOLLOWED by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (with an approximate 700-800 year lag) strongly suggesting that CO2 is a consequence of warming, not the cause;
4) Water vapour is far and away the most important greenhouse gas – not CO2;
5) It has been known for some time that scientists are prepared to lie through their teeth on this matter. Take Michael Mann (no, please take him). The infamous inventor of the Hockey-stick Graph – possibly the most demolished piece of 'science' ever produced. This graph attempted to rewrite history by pretending that neither the Little Ice Age nor the Medieval Warm Period ever existed;
6) No one can say if CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to rise.
I could go on and often do...
He's right. Committing to spending £trillions on an unproven and somewhat shakey theory is madness. We need to have a really serious look at whether mankind is really affecting climate or if what we're seeing is simply natural variation.
Some real facts are -
1) No one can say with any certainty if the global temperature is increasing at the moment;
2) No one can say with any certainty if sea levels are rising (the Maldives is the one place that gets mentioned frequently when this matter crops up and yet tidal gauges and satellite data suggest that sea levels in this area haven't risen at all in the last 30 years and there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that they have actually fallen. And yet, regular as clockwork, the news reports from the BBC and the like repeatedly tell us the Maldives are sinking – they are not);
3) Temperature reconstructions show temperature increase FOLLOWED by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (with an approximate 700-800 year lag) strongly suggesting that CO2 is a consequence of warming, not the cause;
4) Water vapour is far and away the most important greenhouse gas – not CO2;
5) It has been known for some time that scientists are prepared to lie through their teeth on this matter. Take Michael Mann (no, please take him). The infamous inventor of the Hockey-stick Graph – possibly the most demolished piece of 'science' ever produced. This graph attempted to rewrite history by pretending that neither the Little Ice Age nor the Medieval Warm Period ever existed;
6) No one can say if CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to rise.
I could go on and often do...
Continued...
This whole issue is replete with lies from people on both sides of the argument. But the biggest travesty in all this is that science itself has been devalued.
The scientific method which has been used to produce some of the most wonderful innovations mankind has ever seen is being debased by the charlatans who believe that the scientific method is optional when conducting science.
Any scientist found to have manipulated data to 'prove' their theories are correct should be routed out and never allowed back into the scientific community. Top of this list should be Michael Mann.
Scientific research has to be wrested from the hands of politicians and political organisations and given back to the true scientists – the ones who let the true results speak for themselves and who are free from political and financial influence to produce any one particular result.
This whole issue is replete with lies from people on both sides of the argument. But the biggest travesty in all this is that science itself has been devalued.
The scientific method which has been used to produce some of the most wonderful innovations mankind has ever seen is being debased by the charlatans who believe that the scientific method is optional when conducting science.
Any scientist found to have manipulated data to 'prove' their theories are correct should be routed out and never allowed back into the scientific community. Top of this list should be Michael Mann.
Scientific research has to be wrested from the hands of politicians and political organisations and given back to the true scientists – the ones who let the true results speak for themselves and who are free from political and financial influence to produce any one particular result.
I don't have a great deal of time to waste with this rot today but lets just take one or two of birdies regurgitated pieces of misinformation
1/ No one can say for sure if temperatures are rising at the moment
- most of you klnow this is rubbish - that climate change is happening - there are accurate measurements showing it and for the innumerate amoungst you - where are all the goddam glaciers going?
4/ yes we know water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas but when its concentration gets too high it is regulated by something we call "rain" - CO2 does not rain out it just keeps going up
5/ nobody says that temperatures did not rise and fall in the past - it's warmer now though than in the medieval period.
OK bored now because I've gone over this so many times before
Just on the off chance you might read something from people who actually know what they're talking about here is the Royal Society's page pulling down all these myths
I think you'll find it cover most of your objections under where it says misleading arguments
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/
I don't for a moment think it will dispell your arrogance of thinking that your common sense is more powerful than the many years of careful trained work of scientists throughout the planet.
How clever you must think you are!
1/ No one can say for sure if temperatures are rising at the moment
- most of you klnow this is rubbish - that climate change is happening - there are accurate measurements showing it and for the innumerate amoungst you - where are all the goddam glaciers going?
4/ yes we know water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas but when its concentration gets too high it is regulated by something we call "rain" - CO2 does not rain out it just keeps going up
5/ nobody says that temperatures did not rise and fall in the past - it's warmer now though than in the medieval period.
OK bored now because I've gone over this so many times before
Just on the off chance you might read something from people who actually know what they're talking about here is the Royal Society's page pulling down all these myths
I think you'll find it cover most of your objections under where it says misleading arguments
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/
I don't for a moment think it will dispell your arrogance of thinking that your common sense is more powerful than the many years of careful trained work of scientists throughout the planet.
How clever you must think you are!
Jake The Peg - from your link - one of the first myth busters:
///It is true that the world has experienced warmer or colder periods in the past without any interference from humans.....
However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three-quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted for by natural factors alone.////
Amazing - how accurate we are now - .74 degrees in a century.
Do you really think that we were that accurate 100 years ago?
How about 200 years ago. Do you really think that if say the average temperature in 20005 was 20 degrees that the temperate in 1905 was accurately taken at 19.26 degrees?
Still, the Royal Society says its true, so it must be!
///It is true that the world has experienced warmer or colder periods in the past without any interference from humans.....
However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three-quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted for by natural factors alone.////
Amazing - how accurate we are now - .74 degrees in a century.
Do you really think that we were that accurate 100 years ago?
How about 200 years ago. Do you really think that if say the average temperature in 20005 was 20 degrees that the temperate in 1905 was accurately taken at 19.26 degrees?
Still, the Royal Society says its true, so it must be!
You know birdies list looks remarkably like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../sci/tech/8376286.stm
I wonder why we didn't get the list?
Possibly because the well known counters to it are all listed along side it!
This is the thing about climate change skeptics - no evidence will ever convince them - it is a political and not scientific arguent with them.
This is why they are now being ignored and not being allowed to continually muddy the waters with old arguments that have been countered time and time again.
There is a conspiracy all right - but it is a conspiracy of certain people to desperately try to stop the world taking action on climate change because it affects their profitability - how do they do it? by appealing to the paranoia of the gulible
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../sci/tech/8376286.stm
I wonder why we didn't get the list?
Possibly because the well known counters to it are all listed along side it!
This is the thing about climate change skeptics - no evidence will ever convince them - it is a political and not scientific arguent with them.
This is why they are now being ignored and not being allowed to continually muddy the waters with old arguments that have been countered time and time again.
There is a conspiracy all right - but it is a conspiracy of certain people to desperately try to stop the world taking action on climate change because it affects their profitability - how do they do it? by appealing to the paranoia of the gulible
oh, I also like argument 4:
///It is true that in the early 1990s initial estimates of temperatures in the lowest part of the earth's atmosphere, based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons, did not mirror the temperature rises seen at the earth's surface. However these discrepancies have been found to be related to problems with how the data was gathered and analysed and have now largely been resolved. ///
Ah, so we got it wrong in the 1990s, but luckily we know for a fact that in the previous century that everything was all okay - otherwise we wouldn't have any comparative data, would we.....
Don't you also love the words 'have now largely been resolved'. So not accurately, but largely sorted. But we know to the .74 degree that we are right!
The more I read about Climate change, the more cynical I become.
///It is true that in the early 1990s initial estimates of temperatures in the lowest part of the earth's atmosphere, based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons, did not mirror the temperature rises seen at the earth's surface. However these discrepancies have been found to be related to problems with how the data was gathered and analysed and have now largely been resolved. ///
Ah, so we got it wrong in the 1990s, but luckily we know for a fact that in the previous century that everything was all okay - otherwise we wouldn't have any comparative data, would we.....
Don't you also love the words 'have now largely been resolved'. So not accurately, but largely sorted. But we know to the .74 degree that we are right!
The more I read about Climate change, the more cynical I become.
Jaket - ///This is the thing about climate change skeptics - no evidence will ever convince them - it is a political and not scientific arguent with them. ///
Reverse could be said to be true. This is from your link to the Royal Society:
///It is fair to note that in tropical regions of the world there are still some discrepancies between what computer models lead us to expect regarding temperatures at the surface and in the troposphere and what we actually see. However, these disagreements are within the bounds of the likely remaining errors in the observations and uncertainties in the models.///
So, where as you keep telling us it is a fact, it appears that even the Royal Society will agree that it is not certain.
Reverse could be said to be true. This is from your link to the Royal Society:
///It is fair to note that in tropical regions of the world there are still some discrepancies between what computer models lead us to expect regarding temperatures at the surface and in the troposphere and what we actually see. However, these disagreements are within the bounds of the likely remaining errors in the observations and uncertainties in the models.///
So, where as you keep telling us it is a fact, it appears that even the Royal Society will agree that it is not certain.
Jake - “You know birdies list looks remarkably like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../sci/tech/8376286.stm
I wonder why we didn't get the list?”
Your accusation being that I simply copied the list and posted it up as my own arguments? Sorry, incorrect. And I resent the implication that I am passing other people's work off as my own.
The reason my list looks not dissimilar to the list posted by the BBC is because these are the fundamental objections to the official theory that this whole argument rests upon. And as usual, the BBC tries to discredit them. But they do so in such a pathetic manner that it barely deserves comment.
However, this is interesting – When THE question of causation comes up (ie. does CO2 cause warming or does warming cause CO2 increase?), the BBC say this,
“This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a time-scale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, this time, CO2 is leading temperature.”
Oh is it really? Well, thanks for clearing that up Mr BBC. So let me get this straight. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have never driven temperature rises in the past according to every piece of proxy data we have. But now we're told that CO2 is forcing temperature increase contrary to all historical data.
Where's the evidence that this is true? Models? Don't get me started on models...
Jake – believe what you want to believe. But in 30 years time the Maldives will still be above sea level and a lovely holiday destination.
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../sci/tech/8376286.stm
I wonder why we didn't get the list?”
Your accusation being that I simply copied the list and posted it up as my own arguments? Sorry, incorrect. And I resent the implication that I am passing other people's work off as my own.
The reason my list looks not dissimilar to the list posted by the BBC is because these are the fundamental objections to the official theory that this whole argument rests upon. And as usual, the BBC tries to discredit them. But they do so in such a pathetic manner that it barely deserves comment.
However, this is interesting – When THE question of causation comes up (ie. does CO2 cause warming or does warming cause CO2 increase?), the BBC say this,
“This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a time-scale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, this time, CO2 is leading temperature.”
Oh is it really? Well, thanks for clearing that up Mr BBC. So let me get this straight. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have never driven temperature rises in the past according to every piece of proxy data we have. But now we're told that CO2 is forcing temperature increase contrary to all historical data.
Where's the evidence that this is true? Models? Don't get me started on models...
Jake – believe what you want to believe. But in 30 years time the Maldives will still be above sea level and a lovely holiday destination.
Ignoring the fact that the scientific community, bar a few cranks, has long since agreed on man made climate change, the sceptics positions strikes me as a pointless and reckless stance on the issue.
If in 50 years it turns out the believers are wrong... so what, really? We've recycled, we've cut down on fuel consumption, we've investigated alternative fuels, and - oh please god no - we've paid more 'green taxes'. Boo hoo. Their crime? Naivety.
If in 50 years the deniers are wrong, they've irreversibly obstructed action that could have saved our existing climate, they've ushered in what most credible geophysicists are calling a globally catastrophic level of change. Their crime? Laziness, tight-fistedness, reckless short-termism.
You know what, I'd quite happily be proved wrong on climate change. What have I lost, really? Barely anything. The deniers, if proved wrong, will have f*cked up the world because they're clinging to a niche scientific view and hatching conspiracy theories to avoid doing things differently to how they've always done them. I call that short-sighted. And these people think they're the voice of reason.
If in 50 years it turns out the believers are wrong... so what, really? We've recycled, we've cut down on fuel consumption, we've investigated alternative fuels, and - oh please god no - we've paid more 'green taxes'. Boo hoo. Their crime? Naivety.
If in 50 years the deniers are wrong, they've irreversibly obstructed action that could have saved our existing climate, they've ushered in what most credible geophysicists are calling a globally catastrophic level of change. Their crime? Laziness, tight-fistedness, reckless short-termism.
You know what, I'd quite happily be proved wrong on climate change. What have I lost, really? Barely anything. The deniers, if proved wrong, will have f*cked up the world because they're clinging to a niche scientific view and hatching conspiracy theories to avoid doing things differently to how they've always done them. I call that short-sighted. And these people think they're the voice of reason.
Quinlad -
I can understand your position a bit better now. You want the world to be a cleaner and better place. Good for you. And I totally agree with you. I've already said that I'm a bit of a tree hugger and believe you me when I say that few things annoy me more than unnecessary waste (be that fiscal or other).
But the whole GW debate really sticks in my craw because I believe it is built on lies. And anything built on lies, no matter how altruistic its intentions are, is unacceptable to me on a deeply personal level.
Maybe I'm a weird guy but I find dishonesty abhorrent. I detest those who knowingly tell ties.
You don't agree with me – that's clear. But, surely, you must accept that there is something deeply troubling about the leaked emails from the CRU.
Directors of the CRU instructing people to delete emails and other documents (after a FOI request);
Scientists openly discussing ways to stop anyone with a descenting view from being published;
Deliberately deleting source data so that research cannot be checked;
Do none of these revelations worry you?
Do you think that the means always justify the ends?
What if the ends are mearly computer projections that may or may not come to pass?
I can understand your position a bit better now. You want the world to be a cleaner and better place. Good for you. And I totally agree with you. I've already said that I'm a bit of a tree hugger and believe you me when I say that few things annoy me more than unnecessary waste (be that fiscal or other).
But the whole GW debate really sticks in my craw because I believe it is built on lies. And anything built on lies, no matter how altruistic its intentions are, is unacceptable to me on a deeply personal level.
Maybe I'm a weird guy but I find dishonesty abhorrent. I detest those who knowingly tell ties.
You don't agree with me – that's clear. But, surely, you must accept that there is something deeply troubling about the leaked emails from the CRU.
Directors of the CRU instructing people to delete emails and other documents (after a FOI request);
Scientists openly discussing ways to stop anyone with a descenting view from being published;
Deliberately deleting source data so that research cannot be checked;
Do none of these revelations worry you?
Do you think that the means always justify the ends?
What if the ends are mearly computer projections that may or may not come to pass?
1 to 18 of 18
