Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":14gy69nb said:
What would you do if your income and career depended on it?
Filled up with diesel today
- Thread starter Lons
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
What would you do if your income and career depended on it?
Cheshirechappie":aqrrklhr said:
Have you any proof that they are supporting their position because of financial interest? You know, something a bit more 'scientific'.
Or is it just an unfounded accusation?
Let's have your proof. We are waiting.
RogerS
Established Member
Lons
Established Member
RogerS
Established Member
And Jacob
:lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol:
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
MIGNAL":ikelrot7 said:
The University of East Anglia emails scandal, for one.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
MIGNAL":1yt56bqh said:Is that it?
:shock:
I don't need to do better than that. Feel free to research the event - it blew the credibility of both the much-vaunted computer models, and several prominent climate scientists out of the water. It explained why scientists not following the creed of 'man-made global warming' were unable to get their research papers published in the leading journals - because the cabal of 'leading scientists' colluded with the editor of said journal to prevent their publication.
You didn't hear about this on the BBC? Well - there's a surprise....
You don't need to do better than that Cheshirechappy because you know you can't.
If that's all you have on the WORLDS climate scientists, it's pathetic.
Supply us with more proof/ examples please. Surely you have more? We are waiting.
If that's all you have on the WORLDS climate scientists, it's pathetic.
Supply us with more proof/ examples please. Surely you have more? We are waiting.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
MIGNAL":2jpf85rm said:
I would respectfully suggest that you read up on the event. It explains much about the world's climate scientists - or at least, some very influential ones.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
You need to read something other than the Mail and the Telegraph. These papers are written by clowns, for clowns.Cheshirechappie":286h3iwg said:
Difficult for you I see, as you will no doubt dismiss anything you don't want to believe as part of an evil plot by avaricious scientists, but you could have a look at New Scientist or Scientific American and their websites.
A lot of people need to wake up and start taking notice of the world around them. And it's much more interesting than the rubbish media would have you believe.
RogerS
Established Member
Lons
Established Member
POT - KETTLE - BLACK? :lol: :lol:Jacob":106bwbtr said:
DrPhill
Cyber Heretic
Cheshirechappie":3ot50o88 said:
OK, I started here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Where should I research next?
Don't know but this is a great one for Cheshirechappie and RodgerS.
http://www.divinecaroline.com/entertain ... 9t-go-away
:roll: :roll: :roll: All the worlds climate scientists are bent, on the make. Backhanders. Secret rendezvous, brown paper bags. You know the type of thing. They are all at it. Don't know why it just applies to climate scientists. Why not any other type of scientist? Don't they get paid?
You've got to be one huge gullible fool to even contemplate the thought. :shock:
http://www.divinecaroline.com/entertain ... 9t-go-away
:roll: :roll: :roll: All the worlds climate scientists are bent, on the make. Backhanders. Secret rendezvous, brown paper bags. You know the type of thing. They are all at it. Don't know why it just applies to climate scientists. Why not any other type of scientist? Don't they get paid?
You've got to be one huge gullible fool to even contemplate the thought. :shock:
RogerS
Established Member
MIGNAL":p9wbwy63 said:Don't know but this is a great one for Cheshirechappie and RodgerS.
http://www.divinecaroline.com/entertain ... 9t-go-away
:roll: :roll: :roll: All the worlds climate scientists are bent, on the make. Backhanders. Secret rendezvous, brown paper bags. You know the type of thing. They are all at it. Don't know why it just applies to climate scientists. Why not any other type of scientist? Don't they get paid?
You've got to be one huge gullible fool to even contemplate the thought. :shock:
Hang on a minute. I don't think I have said that I don't believe in climate change etc. Devil's Advocate maybe.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":d2ktvl27 said:
It's not 95% of the worlds experts.
The IPCC are saying that they are 95% sure.
The IPCC are made up of approx 2000 'scientists' (or they were when I last showed an interest subject).
I prefer to listen to the opinions of genuine experts who's grants are not dependent on the new 'industry' called man made global warming.
This is a great example.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0
It blows the con trick out of existence.
Jacob, I suggest you give it a good viewing.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob and Mignal - hurling insults will not strengthen your arguments.
Dr Phill - try the link above.
On climate change - we know the climate is changing. It always has, and it (probably) always will. We know from historical temperature data that climate is currently warming. Since thermometers have only been around since the 17th century, actual temperature data (in climate history terms) is very recent. However, we know from historical, environmental, archaelogical and geological research that climate has been both warmer and cooler than it is today - it was warmer during the Roman occupation (they had vineyards in Northumberland), then cooled during the Dark Ages, then warmed during the early Middle Ages, then cooled (regular ice fairs on the Thames in the 17th century - the last was in 1805) and is currently warming. Overlaying this cycle is a thirty-year warm-cool cycle, in which we are currently in a cooling part of the cycle. We also know that, on a more geological timescale, we are in a warm inter-glacial period, and the current one is longer than some others have been. So far, we do not fully understand what drives these overlaying cycles of climate change.
If the cycles above continue (and we don't know whether they will or not) climate will continue to warm for about a century or so, then flatten out and cool to a low in the middle to end of this millenium, and then start warming again. We don't know when we will slip into another ice age, though I remember this being the 'climate scare' of choice when I was a nipper. We may still be heading towards another ice age, for all I know.
How much, if at all, mankind's activities are influencing climate (either locally or globally) is not proven. Evidence is put forward supporting both the 'yes' and 'no' camps, the former receiving the majority of the publicity, research funding and political support at present. Hence the comment about scientists saying the 'right' things to get their funding - I don't believe scientists are telling outright lies, but in order to stay in a job, and hence pay the mortgage, they have to toe the current political line, since that's where the majority of the funding comes from, and it's allocated on the basis of supporting the proposition that the climate is being driven by man's activities. I suspect that will gradually change as the evidence to support that proposition is balanced by evidence that doesn't, but it may take a while.
Some people have called the climate science 'concensus' a scam. I'm not sure this is right - I suspect that early scientific research, imperfect as it was bound to be in the early stages, showed cause for concern. As the science has progressed, the evidence is showing that the depth of concern is less warranted. There have been some notable mistakes along the way - the 'hockey-stick' graph, for example - which arguably shouldn't have happened.
Current climate changes are not outside known historical norms (despite shrill assertions to the contrary from some quarters). We do not know all the factors that drive those changes, or understand their interactions. Consequently, the computer models currently used to predict the climate's future have to viewed with some caution. The predictions they made some years ago have already been shown to be wrong by actual subsequent events (they predicted accelerated warming, but the climate cooled instead), and the scientists cannot explain why. It would be unwise (as Dr Phill poined out in a previous post) to rely on such small time-scales to prove points, but if the models are so spectacularly wrong in the very short term, what confidence can one have in their long-term accuracy?
In summary - climate has always changed, and probably always will. We do not know (yet) what drives these changes. We do know that the changes we are currently noticing are not historically unusual (despite shrill claims from some quarters), and we do not know whether mankind's activities are having an effect. Many people choose to believe various scenarios, but nobody actually knows.
Dr Phill - try the link above.
On climate change - we know the climate is changing. It always has, and it (probably) always will. We know from historical temperature data that climate is currently warming. Since thermometers have only been around since the 17th century, actual temperature data (in climate history terms) is very recent. However, we know from historical, environmental, archaelogical and geological research that climate has been both warmer and cooler than it is today - it was warmer during the Roman occupation (they had vineyards in Northumberland), then cooled during the Dark Ages, then warmed during the early Middle Ages, then cooled (regular ice fairs on the Thames in the 17th century - the last was in 1805) and is currently warming. Overlaying this cycle is a thirty-year warm-cool cycle, in which we are currently in a cooling part of the cycle. We also know that, on a more geological timescale, we are in a warm inter-glacial period, and the current one is longer than some others have been. So far, we do not fully understand what drives these overlaying cycles of climate change.
If the cycles above continue (and we don't know whether they will or not) climate will continue to warm for about a century or so, then flatten out and cool to a low in the middle to end of this millenium, and then start warming again. We don't know when we will slip into another ice age, though I remember this being the 'climate scare' of choice when I was a nipper. We may still be heading towards another ice age, for all I know.
How much, if at all, mankind's activities are influencing climate (either locally or globally) is not proven. Evidence is put forward supporting both the 'yes' and 'no' camps, the former receiving the majority of the publicity, research funding and political support at present. Hence the comment about scientists saying the 'right' things to get their funding - I don't believe scientists are telling outright lies, but in order to stay in a job, and hence pay the mortgage, they have to toe the current political line, since that's where the majority of the funding comes from, and it's allocated on the basis of supporting the proposition that the climate is being driven by man's activities. I suspect that will gradually change as the evidence to support that proposition is balanced by evidence that doesn't, but it may take a while.
Some people have called the climate science 'concensus' a scam. I'm not sure this is right - I suspect that early scientific research, imperfect as it was bound to be in the early stages, showed cause for concern. As the science has progressed, the evidence is showing that the depth of concern is less warranted. There have been some notable mistakes along the way - the 'hockey-stick' graph, for example - which arguably shouldn't have happened.
Current climate changes are not outside known historical norms (despite shrill assertions to the contrary from some quarters). We do not know all the factors that drive those changes, or understand their interactions. Consequently, the computer models currently used to predict the climate's future have to viewed with some caution. The predictions they made some years ago have already been shown to be wrong by actual subsequent events (they predicted accelerated warming, but the climate cooled instead), and the scientists cannot explain why. It would be unwise (as Dr Phill poined out in a previous post) to rely on such small time-scales to prove points, but if the models are so spectacularly wrong in the very short term, what confidence can one have in their long-term accuracy?
In summary - climate has always changed, and probably always will. We do not know (yet) what drives these changes. We do know that the changes we are currently noticing are not historically unusual (despite shrill claims from some quarters), and we do not know whether mankind's activities are having an effect. Many people choose to believe various scenarios, but nobody actually knows.
Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.
