wandringstar Posted March 29, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) pseudo science as opposed to junk Edited March 29, 2017 by wandringstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 When was the last time many of u read a scientific paper which didn't tend to find in favour of who was funding the study?? Very few of the more pure honest scienists out there now.which could be said with many walks of life too, not many people will stand up for wot is right even if it upsets the applecart/bosses When i was at uni, which granted was 20 odd years ago now,, 2 reknowed hydrologists took the exact same data from a river monitoring station and managed to argue the exact oppisate (harvesting timber increases silt/has no effect on silt in rivers) of each other throu manipulating the data set and clever statistical analaysis.to prove there side of the argument Both studies were peer reviewed and published in scientific papers around the same time. And surprise surprise both found in favour of who was funding the studies (u don't bite that hand that feeds u) My point is if scientist can take the same relatively accurate and small data set and argue the oppisate u could do it with all most anything and esp with something so complex as global warming/climate change, and even more so when predicting the future as most folk tend to forget wot u actually forecast a few years later I do not consider myself much of a scientist but some of the dodgy half hearted stuff out there nowadays even i could rip holes in the null hypothesis never mind the methodology of it. There is some very educated clever people out there putting forward a case that the climate change is not man made or man is only having minimal effects. I seriously doubt very many people in the world actually have enough unbaised info to actually know1 way or other and probably the cleverest would stick there hands up and say they haven't a clue and there is no way of ever knowing for sure.. Around me over the last few years a lot of midi hydro schemes have been put in on estates and farms, while i apprecaite the costs involved for the massive scale set ups where u have to dam whole valleysare massive as well as the ecological costs too... But for a 18" to 3ft pipe the set ups should be fairly small there is many many places where u have the flow and the head esp in winter time when more power is needed and is 24/7 (more so even than tidal with the ebb tide period) Really just a case of a smallish dam and getting a digger in to lay the pipe, the generators are pretty simple and easily mantained too. Plenty of these sites where they have stuck up turbines they could easily have sunk pipes for hydro far cheaper and ended up with something that will last decades and decades. Few years ago stayed in a cracking self caerting farm house near Oban and u could see the new modern turbine built into the same victorian? pumphouse from 1 of the earliest hydro schemes. The principle and even mechanics of it haven't changed that much since electricity was discovered With a modern alky pipe ;aid it is a fairly simple job to replace turbines as they age or technology improves and the system could feasably last for 50-100 years with minimal maintanence In those 2 cold winters we had a few years ago when -10's or colder for 4-6 weeks all those wind turbines hardly turned a blade the whole time when demand would be very high Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 so if there's any more pseudo science you heard down the pub that you want me to put to my teenagers to clarify for you then let me know Sorry general but the only pseudo science comes from the human activity=carbon dioxide=greenhouse gas=global warming brigade. There is not one single shred of solid scientific proof anywhere or from any organisation that supports the 'Man Made Global Warming' aka Climate Change agenda. It's all estimates, guesswork and assumptions based on the mistaken philosophy that climate change only began with the industrial revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 You sounded so good until the bit about the Vikings! Didn't the planet tilt in the last millennium ? (That's 1,000 years) What's a "particularly strong greenhouse gas"? I'll ask the kids tomorrow. I'm good for another 10 minutes then I'm going to bed so if there's any more pseudo science you heard down the pub that you want me to put to my teenagers to clarify for you then let me know You sounded good until you said 'Ill ask the kids' YOU are the teacher, YOU should know the answer. But unfortunately I dont think you have a clue what you're talking about. The planet tilted around the first millennium? If it did (unproven) move enough to make Greenland a viable farming settlement ( assuming todays temperatures) it would have needed to tilt 3-4 lines of longitude. Around 1000 miles, which would have put Britain in the same climes as Southern Spain! And the Antarctic land mass would'nt be at the South Pole any more. Good job its bunkum really, as we are constantly told what will happen when the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt ! Ever heard of the Romans growing grapes in Northumbria? Ever heard of Admiral Zhengs voyage to the (non existent ) Arctic ice cap? I would hope my teenagers don't end up with such a condescending, cynical teacher as the likes of you. Whats a good greenhouse gas? You are producing it right now,and its not coming out your mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 If you believe the "Naked scientist" a volcano euruption makes more pollution than all the cars ever produced. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15196.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general grievous Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 You sounded good until you said 'Ill ask the kids' YOU are the teacher, YOU should know the answer. But unfortunately I dont think you have a clue what you're talking about. The planet tilted around the first millennium? If it did (unproven) move enough to make Greenland a viable farming settlement ( assuming todays temperatures) it would have needed to tilt 3-4 lines of longitude. Around 1000 miles, which would have put Britain in the same climes as Southern Spain! And the Antarctic land mass would'nt be at the South Pole any more. Good job its bunkum really, as we are constantly told what will happen when the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt ! Ever heard of the Romans growing grapes in Northumbria? Ever heard of Admiral Zhengs voyage to the (non existent ) Arctic ice cap? I would hope my teenagers don't end up with such a condescending, cynical teacher as the likes of you. Whats a good greenhouse gas? You are producing it right now,and its not coming out your mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general grievous Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Please tell me you tried to be this funny, my face actually hurts you sound so angry! Add some upward inflection to the end of my line about the Earth tilting and it takes on a different meaning to the way you seem to have interpreted it. The point I was making was that maybe the reason why the Vikings were able to farm in Greenland was because of the seasonal variations in temperatures rather than the global temperature being so much different to today. You're right though, I do like to think I do a good job of being condescending but believe me, I save it for here. If I tried that at work, the kids would have me on toast! I actually think Wanderingstar is a hero for raising his head above the parapet in the first place and playing along with the rest of us for so long. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted March 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Well, I am what I am, a product of a much more realistic time in society, I don't follow herds, I only listen to what I perceive to be sensible, whoever is saying it, if things seem fantastical and too good to be true, then I am afraid they are not true. I don't insult people for their views, if you are a lefty, great, I am not, all I would ask is that people in positions of influence over the young mind, should always balance any political statement, which I am afraid is not the case, and yes, I have seen much evidence of this brainwashing. I am no hero, I am certainly not playing along with people, I remember a time 30 years ago when much of the baloney spouted today would have been laughed at and not taken seriously, the minority fringes have become mainstream and its a sad sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peck Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 I know i said i have nothing more to say but have a read of this, chapter 1.1 says it all http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=87932& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted March 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 I know i said i have nothing more to say but have a read of this, chapter 1.1 says it all http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=87932& I thought you weren't prepared to debate with idiots, you made a huge statement..............but now you are back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 The point I was making was that maybe the reason why the Vikings were able to farm in Greenland was because of the seasonal variations in temperatures rather than the global temperature being so much different to today. Might I suggest that you do some actual research as opposed to just being sanctimonious. There have been several warming phases and several cooling phases in recorded history but you seem to be unwilling to accept any information that doesn't support your position, even to the extent of making patronising comments. Are you afraid that your cosy certainties might actually be incorrect. The climate change/carbon dioxide religion is the biggest and richest scam in the history of the world, surpassing any conventional religion and one that degrades the standard of living of almost everyone on the planet. CO2 is minute proportion of the atmosphere, it varies naturally with the seasons and despite all the ballyhoo from the Prius driving self appointed guardians of our grandchildren's future, there is not one piece of verifiable scientific proof that CO2 causes global warming. It's all conjecture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted March 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) Might I suggest that you do some actual research as opposed to just being sanctimonious. There have been several warming phases and several cooling phases in recorded history but you seem to be unwilling to accept any information that doesn't support your position, even to the extent of making patronising comments. Are you afraid that your cosy certainties might actually be incorrect. The climate change/carbon dioxide religion is the biggest and richest scam in the history of the world, surpassing any conventional religion and one that degrades the standard of living of almost everyone on the planet. CO2 is minute proportion of the atmosphere, it varies naturally with the seasons and despite all the ballyhoo from the Prius driving self appointed guardians of our grandchildren's future, there is not one piece of verifiable scientific proof that CO2 causes global warming. It's all conjecture. just a great post I will never forget how they went direct to the schoolkids, via the free dvd 'an inconvenient truth'. no counter dvd, just that, free of charge and promoted as pure fact Edited March 30, 2017 by wandringstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Please tell me you tried to be this funny, my face actually hurts you sound so angry! Add some upward inflection to the end of my line about the Earth tilting and it takes on a different meaning to the way you seem to have interpreted it. The point I was making was that maybe the reason why the Vikings were able to farm in Greenland was because of the seasonal variations in temperatures rather than the global temperature being so much different to today. You're right though, I do like to think I do a good job of being condescending but believe me, I save it for here. If I tried that at work, the kids would have me on toast! I actually think Wanderingstar is a hero for raising his head above the parapet in the first place and playing along with the rest of us for so long. Enjoy. Like you, that makes no sense whatsoever. You are just waffling and backtracking now, and its a bit pathetic to be honest. Angry? Nope just despairing of the standard of education those kids are getting. You probably believe class 9/Sc1 think you're really cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general grievous Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Hell yes, I even let them use my first name and smoke my fags! (Low tar though, I'm not stupid) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 oh dear, you fell for it aswell, its the bold italics that give it away. remember, the fanatics changed the name from global warming 6 or 7 years ago, to climate change, to cover all bases as there was a danger of them getting found out. As plain as the nose on my face, sorry no global warming, its called weather, it changes all the time, 300 years we had a mini ice age, way before the industrial revolution. if you don't believe me, read up on the vostok ice samples. Explane the rise in CO2 mirroring the increase in world industrial output and the prime , but not the only cause of climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 To be honest for me the jury's out, I do believe we've had an impact on the environment but it's also been used as an excuse to tax everyone, that makes me suspicious as it's not outside the realms of possibility for the powers that be to create all this to turn a fast buck. When China and India are pumping out as much pollution as they do are we even going to make an impact? All that said I'd rather be safe than sorry on this one, I hate the way this country has been built all over already, if we don't protect what we have there'll be nothing left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) Explane the rise in CO2 mirroring the increase in world industrial output and the prime , but not the only cause of climate change. You have to appreciate that CO2 is not some sort of evil poison about to destroy everything, It's a necessity for all life on the planet and a vital plant nutrient. Currently, CO2 represenst about 0.04% of the atmosphere. As I've said, a thousand years ago the climate in the northern hemisphere was much hotter than now, hotter than even the most dire predictions for the next century from today's climate change evangelists. By about the year 1200 things had returned to what they'd been before and Greenland was no longer inhabitable. After this there was a cooling period, coloquially known as the 'Little Ice Age' but officially named the Maunder Minimum during which the Greenland ice cap regenerated to what it is today. There are many drawings and paintings of people skating on the Thames which froze every winter for most of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Despite general grievous' sneering condecension about mates down the pub, this is all readily available historical infromation. What the tree huggers always miss, is that the planet has several natural mechanisms besides the rain forests which alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both up and down and with respect to your point above - and as irrefutably proven scientifically from Antarctic ice core samples - the increase in CO2 lags behind the rise in global temperature, it doesn't precede it. Edited March 31, 2017 by Westward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Ill add just a little to Westward excellent explanation. Despite the fact that the powers that be are subscribing to ridiculous notions of 'tonnage of carbon' and 'carbon credits' the reality is, we are not talking about the black stuff! Its CO2 ,essential to plant life (via photosynthesis) and therefore essential to us. There is a balance in nature whereby, the CO2 we breathe out is converted to O2 by plant life. The population of the planet before the industrial age was 10 x smaller than what it is today, and its not just about people, livestock and deforestation for housing,agriculture and industrial use, all impact upon that natural balance. Methane, a 10x worse 'greenhouse ' gas produced by said livestock, doesnt seem to produce any fire from the global warming brigade, who you would think were all vegans anyway, who ride bicycles and have sawdust toilets. One of the biggest things that locks heat into a planets surface are the big white fluffy things floating above your head. Try living without them. So will they start reducing population soon,and farm animals,and clouds ? Or find a way of taxing birth? The planet isnt dying, and was here long, long before us,and will be here long long after we have gone. Its about energy companies, tax and profit. If you want to subscribe to the 'My little gesture will help save the world lobby' then get the oil and gas producing multinationals to stop polluting the earth in the name of profit. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Scotslad`s description if the whole charade could not be more accurate ! And, I was told we actually import biomass in ships from Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Wow! I'm going to show this lot to 9Sc1 tomorrow morning, they'll be falling off their chairs! Fortunately, the future of the planet is in the hands of intelligent young people who know "How Science Works " and can gather data, understand reliability and bias and evaluate evidence. Be nice to them and look after their planet because in 10 or 20 years time they will be the ones looking after you, protecting you, keeping you well, producing your food and mending the things you break and don't understand how to mend yourself. Donald Trump will be dead. Sadly they will not? They might think they are, as you seem so convinced? The truth is they will be governed and controlled by the same elitist powers that control us now? Smoke and mirrors? Divide, conquer and make more profit in any way possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 The problem is ether way you look at it we all rely on EXPERTS so which one do you believe over the years there have been so many experts who got it wrong I have come to the conclusion that I do not believe anyone really knows anything for shore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted March 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 You have to appreciate that CO2 is not some sort of evil poison about to destroy everything, It's a necessity for all life on the planet and a vital plant nutrient. Currently, CO2 represenst about 0.04% of the atmosphere. As I've said, a thousand years ago the climate in the northern hemisphere was much hotter than now, hotter than even the most dire predictions for the next century from today's climate change evangelists. By about the year 1200 things had returned to what they'd been before and Greenland was no longer inhabitable. After this there was a cooling period, coloquially known as the 'Little Ice Age' but officially named the Maunder Minimum during which the Greenland ice cap regenerated to what it is today. There are many drawings and paintings of people skating on the Thames which froze every winter for most of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Despite general grievous' sneering condecension about mates down the pub, this is all readily available historical infromation. What the tree huggers always miss, is that the planet has several natural mechanisms besides the rain forests which alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both up and down and with respect to your point above - and as irrefutably proven scientifically from Antarctic ice core samples - the increase in CO2 lags behind the rise in global temperature, it doesn't precede it. again, a great post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general grievous Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 I give in, and I don't even think my dad's bigger than your dad so I'm moving on. 4 Wold Golds are in the fridge waiting so happy Friday everyone. GG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted April 2, 2017 Report Share Posted April 2, 2017 FWIW,a politician once said that he could prove anything with statistics but not the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.