RogerS
Established Member
DrPhill":3887rcwr said:
But it is still a very important discussion to have in its own right. The planet has too many people.
Filled up with diesel today
- Thread starter Lons
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
But it is still a very important discussion to have in its own right. The planet has too many people.
RogerS
Established Member
Professor Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) has a terse commentary on the SPM
I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.
Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.
In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with their being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.
I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.
Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.
In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with their being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.
DrPhill
Cyber Heretic
Harbo":3lxf3zns said:
Yep, prices of fuel have always gone up and down. The fact that the last two price changes were downward disproves the myth of 'ever rising fuel prices'. In reality fuel prices are no higher than they were twenty years ago. :roll:
"the fact that the last two price changes were downwards disproves the myth of ever increasing rising fuel prices"
Seventeen years of downward temperature changes prove the globe is warming? Just thinkin'
Seventeen years of downward temperature changes prove the globe is warming? Just thinkin'
RogerS
Established Member
MIGNAL":25ho1513 said:
Or a free-thinker :-"
Here's another thought. If we all decided to go vegan because cattle fart too much into the atmosphere and so contribute towards global warming (allegedly) then presumably we would kill all the sheep, cattle, geese, chickens, ducks and turkeys.
nev
Established Member
RogerS":33n2903a said:
but then
a) there wouldn't be enough land to grow all the required vegetables to feed the still ever growing (and now probably sickly due to poor diet) populace, and
b) surely all the vegans farting would create just as much gas as the cattle once did, only with the added disadvantage of not being able to get a decent steak anywhere!
finneyb
Established Member
nev":y1dv7u3v said:
Yes, but it can be managed !! The Govt would construct a network of FCSs (fart capture stations). They would have a slight vacuum to ensure a good seal and that gas didn't escape to the atmosphere. The methane captured would be used to generate power, with the potential to pay the individual for his/her methane.
In fact, I'll work on the design this evening and apply for a patent next week. They will need millions of FCSs across the country, how far can you walk holding a fart in?
Brian
Nev said it right........
The main problem with this is that it is a get rich quick scheme for politicians. They are more full of shiit than everyone else.finneyb":2fyow1aa said:
Fishandchips
Established Member
How's this work then? Just come back from holiday in Portugal and the diesel is 10% cheaper than the petrol?
Here the diesel is 5% more expensive.
Here the diesel is 5% more expensive.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Lindzen is unusual amongst climate change sceptics in that he is a scientist - an "Atmospheric Physicist". But his peer group (many hundreds of scientists and specialists in the climate field) think he is wrong, and also irresponsible - his claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Most sceptics are just ignorant nutters - Lindzen is seen as an informed nutter.RogerS":35gs0242 said:
People like him are rare (scientist and climate change sceptic) so unfortunately he tends to get more publicity then he deserves. There is also a big media bias in that in the interests of "balance" the sceptics get a much bigger proportion exposure than their numbers justify. It's like having the last remaining flat earther on a programme every single time the planetary spheres come up as an issue.
PS the clue to undertanding Lindzen is in the quotation above, supplied by Roger. It is polemical, not scientific. He is appealing to the media. He has not published any detailed refutation of the basic climate change hypothesis. Until he does he should shut up, he has nothing useful to say.
It's usually attributed to demand for heating oil - we use more diesel than warmer countries use.Fishandchips":3nmtmrrb said:
"The sceptics get a much bigger proportion exposure than their numbers justify"
He would say that, wouldn't he!
He would say that, wouldn't he!
DrPhill
Cyber Heretic
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingphil.p":1ds2yzs5 said:"The sceptics get a much bigger proportion exposure than their numbers justify"
He would say that, wouldn't he!
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
It's amazing what scientists will say when their research grants depend on it, isn't it?
RogerS
Established Member
phil.p":1b3z7m4r said:
I don't buy that. Diesel used to be cheaper than petrol. Now it's more expensive. Tax. Nowt to do with heating oil.
Lons
Established Member
RogerS":6szlk213 said:
Me niether!
Europeans historically bought more diesel cars until a number of years ago when manufacturers developed common rail engines (BMW I think were forerunners), which allowed diesels to equal and outperform petrol derivatives. Sales of diesels compared to petrol rocketed and suddenly there was an additional tax imposed on the fuel supposedly "to offset increased emissions". Political opportunity more like!
Bob
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Infantile nonsense. Do you seriously imagine that 95% of the worlds experts are deliberately lying on what could be the major issue of our lifetime , just to get money?Cheshirechappie":3mc23k8c said:
