RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Lindsay Joyce

extremely Alarming

Recommended Posts

Come on Philcon, don't be naive. Those glaciers have never been trustworthy and are clearly in on the conspiracy. Plotting and planning amongst themselves. The fact they all look the same and are retreating equally, leads me to conclude they are probably communist glaciers.

You could be on to something there, nature itself in on the conspiracy now that's scary. Come to think of it, they do move ever so slowly and quietly. They have crept up and fooled us all with their stealth and it's such a cunning plan, even Baldrick would be proud of it; and one that Blackadder would for once have to take seriously. I hope you have warned Lord Monckton of this alarming discovery. Now if only Chicken Licken was still around....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be on to something there, nature itself in on the conspiracy now that's scary. Come to think of it, they do move ever so slowly and quietly. They have crept up and fooled us all with their stealth and it's such a cunning plan, even Baldrick would be proud of it]

Stop being a party pooper Phil :) everyone loves a conspiracy theory. It is much fun than a reality theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Owen which scientists should we agree with?

Those that go along with the global warming hysteria or those that dont.

Suit yourself,zak.Most people do according to their level of intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Lindsay , Zac and co the guy running this site is doing a great job of following the "Climategate" story

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/

He's obviously a computer programmer and is highlighting alot about how the numbers have been played with.

Also it looks like NIWA may have similar issues with NZ data

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..fudged propogated figures of research, that've been the basis of the 'science' quoted all the way through this jackup.

..i can't quite recall where i read or heard it., . .i Think i heard it on Alan Jones's latest audio bites around Tuesday..i think it was., but it was Quite specific that incumbent sicientists used, variously, are 'up on' criminal charges.

..a dirty filthy conspiracy of unison, and Still nobody pays heed'n'creedence to the fact that the extreme weather Symptoms...are in fact being electromagnetically, Gerrymandered...from time to time., instance to instance., so as to help the apparency of Sale!

When the bloody ice melts into the oceans! . .the Sea level does Not rise!..it merely lowers the ocean temperature a little.."Der!" :rolleyes::e:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Owen which scientists should we agree with?

Those that go along with the global warming hysteria or those that dont.

Your last sentence indicates that you are not really open to influence with your first question. It indicates you have already made up your mind and chosen who to follow irrespective of the logic of the case or facts.

There is no hysteria but a debate. However it is not uncommon for one side of a debate to accuse the other of hysteria when they are not making much headway on the issue or struggle to get sufficient facts to support their argument.

However Owen's reply summed it up but also look at the facts provided by the research not putting your hand out the window to test the temperature and deciding it's getting cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..fudged propogated figures of research, that've been the basis of the 'science' quoted all the way through this jackup.

..i can't quite recall where i read or heard it., . .i Think i heard it on Alan Jones's latest audio bites around Tuesday..i think it was., but it was Quite specific that incumbent sicientists used, variously, are 'up on' criminal charges.

..a dirty filthy conspiracy of unison, and Still nobody pays heed'n'creedence to the fact that the extreme weather Symptoms...are in fact being electromagnetically, Gerrymandered...from time to time., instance to instance., so as to help the apparency of Sale!

When the bloody ice melts into the oceans! . .the Sea level does Not rise!..it merely lowers the ocean temperature a little.."Der!" :rolleyes::e:

What are incumbent scientists? how do they differ from other types of scientists? Which ones are up on criminal charges? How does some scientists whatever type they are being up on criminal charges have to do with the validity of date and information collected by various research agencies around the world acting independently of each other? How does one electromagnetically, gerrymander weather? Perhaps you are referring to the claim by climate change sceptics and Lord Monckton in particular they are suing Al Gore because they believe he is manipulating the data to make money for himself from it.Problem with that claim is they have been making it for ages but so far nothing has eventuated, no evidence has been produced and no lawyers have come forward stating they are acting on the case. Nor has any jurisdiction been named to file such charges.

What is your last comment based on? It's been shown that melting ice caps has as well as lowering ocean temps also along with other factors contributed to sea level rise. Try telling the inhabitants& govts of Maldives, Kiribati, Niue, Tokalau and other Pacific Islands it hasn't. Fresh water and farmlands have been contaminated in parts of Asia and elsewhere by rising seawater levels already.

I anticipate your reply if you choose to respond will be wonderfully fluid with some lovely eloquent language & phrasing for us to enjoy but I cannot guarantee we will all easily understand it. But hey that's never stopped us in the past so why now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Lindsay , Zac and co the guy running this site is doing a great job of following the "Climategate" story

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/

He's obviously a computer programmer and is highlighting alot about how the numbers have been played with.

Also it looks like NIWA may have similar issues with NZ data

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=1

They are not following the "climategate story" they are part of it.

Claims they make that those arguing for climate change etc have invested interests in the issue ignore the fact that many of those opposing the data released to date have a greater vested interest in debunking it. Corporates and other groups & individuls interested only in their short term interests who don't want to make changes that could affect their profits or comfort zones/levels have a vested interest in denying the changes.

Even putting aside the human influence in the accumulation of greenhouse gases and the long bows drawn on such things as the leaked emails etc the data collected shows there is a consistent and concerning change happening that if we want to survive into the future we have to take some action in advance to avert it or at least ameliorate it.

The so called "sceptics" are often making claims that the naturally occurring greenhouse gases are our friends especially CO2.

However this relies on the fallacy that you cannot have too much of a good thing. Hydrochloric acid is present in the human stomach and is an important tool in the digestive process. But I wouldn't recommend drinking a pint of it a day to improve digestion.

Yes those gases are essential to supporting life and the health of the planet but it's the excess of them that's the problem. Then there's the not so naturally occurring gases such as hydrofluorocarbons that come from, human activity.

If the fatalistic attitude of the change deniers had been taken centuries or more ago many of the things we rely on today would not be available to us including improved health care etc. Then again maybe some of the negative aspects of modern society could have been averted too, but that's another argument.

Besides if we reduce the human production of excess greenhouse gases and the deniers are later proven right - no harm is done and it would not be a bad thing to have only the gases etc that nature itself produces. However if they are wrong ...well that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil does waffling on like you do make you feel more important?

Just answer me one question, seeing as you seem to be so convinced about global warming,why has it been so cold??

Dont quote me this scientist or that scientist,I am more interested in your opinion. You seem to have one on everything so dont be bashful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil does waffling on like you do make you feel more important?

Just answer me one question, seeing as you seem to be so convinced about global warming,why has it been so cold??

Dont quote me this scientist or that scientist,I am more interested in your opinion. You seem to have one on everything so dont be bashful.

You say you want one question answered and I am doing that here but I will also respond to your other comments on another post.

You are simply confusing weather with climate. Weather is the conditions for a short period, climate is over a long term.

Someone can be shivering at one side of the world while someone else is sweltering at the other. That's weather and weather patterns over a few years are not an indication of global cooling or warming.

Global climate warming trends are recorded over long periods. Yes last year was a bit cooler than the year before but it was still the 10th warmest year overall since temperatures were first recorded in the mid 1800s.

It is not the short term pattern that indicates climate change but the long term ones and the data collected by various research stations at various sites around the world. That long term data collected shows a definite warming from my reading of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil does waffling on like you do make you feel more important?

Just answer me one question, seeing as you seem to be so convinced about global warming,why has it been so cold??

Dont quote me this scientist or that scientist,I am more interested in your opinion. You seem to have one on everything so dont be bashful.

As I mentioned your comments accompanying your questions are not going unchallenged.

You contradict yourself in your own questions & comments. If you really believe everything I say and do is waffle why on earth would you want to hear more.

You ask two totally unrelated questions and demand one answer to both of them which is ridiculous it is not possible to coherently & sensibly combine in one answer global warming and a generic comment on writing posts. Belittling the messenger doesn't refute the message.

But answering your first question - no expressing an opinion or drawing attention to facts doesn't make me feel any more or less important & why should it? And it shouldn't make anyone else feel so either. I enjoy debating issues but prefer to base opinions on facts and science & bona fide research, judgement and logic not gut feelings and suspicions or guesses.

Single byte answers of no more than a few words may satisfy the short attention span of some but they are often inadequate in trying to answer or debate major & complex issues.

To say you want someones opinion but it must be without reference to science or data or facts is asking someone to make a judgement or express an opinion based on ignorance. Along with many other things, facts, knowledge and science influence and change our opinions everyday and to do otherwise is to choose to to live in ignorance.

Everyone, you and me included has an opinion on everything, it is just whether, if, when,how and where they choose to express them. Also whether they chose to allow logic, facts, knowledge, data etc to influence them; or other factors only, such as superstition, gut feelings, personal suspicions etc. Don't know about you but I know which option I choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil does waffling on like you do make you feel more important?

Just answer me one question, seeing as you seem to be so convinced about global warming,why has it been so cold??

Dont quote me this scientist or that scientist,I am more interested in your opinion. You seem to have one on everything so dont be bashful.

I don't think i've seen you post a reasoned opinion yourself,zak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owen my opinion on global warming is based on the temperature.

I thought it was quite reasonable to take the temperature into account in this matter.

And your reasoned opinion is??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owen my opinion on global warming is based on the temperature.

I thought it was quite reasonable to take the temperature into account in this matter.

And your reasoned opinion is??

But you are still only talking about weather not climate. Weather changes daily & temperature goes up and down daily. Climate measures a much longer period. Weather can be unseasonal or unusual for that time of year without signalling any change in climate. However continued changes from the usual pattern over decades can be a signal of climate change which is what the trends have shown.

If you kept a record of the temperatures over decades and could show they have been going down not up you might have a point and then you'd be able to show the data collection agencies have got it all wrong but that is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,when I was at school and uni in the 60,s every November was bloody hot and studying for exams was a pain in the butt due to the heat.

When my kids were growing up we used to swim in our pool every year at the start of October.Now you wouldnt even contemplate taking the cover off the pool.

Just had the coldest October for 60 years and I am sure the November figures will be interesting.

I am sure you will continue to believe what certain scientists want you to believe, and I will continue to judge global warming by the temperature and I guess we will both be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,when I was at school and uni in the 60,s every November was bloody hot and studying for exams was a pain in the butt due to the heat.

When my kids were growing up we used to swim in our pool every year at the start of October.Now you wouldnt even contemplate taking the cover off the pool.

Just had the coldest October for 60 years and I am sure the November figures will be interesting.

I am sure you will continue to believe what certain scientists want you to believe, and I will continue to judge global warming by the temperature and I guess we will both be happy.

No I don't believe what any scientist wants me to believe any more than I'll believe what you want me to.

However I do believe that data collected by accurate and reliable measuring instruments specifically developed for that purpose by many different independent agencies and stations world wide are more credible than your guesses based on how hot it was or wasn't when you were sitting some exams at uni many years ago or whether you plan to use the swimming pool or not tomorrow.

Do you still read the tea leaves left in the cup to plan major decisions around as well rather than take professional advice?

Your post shows that no matter what, you still can't tell the difference between climate & weather. It also seems, judging by your comments that perhaps you really do prefer to look out the window and make a snap judgement looking at the beach before putting out to sea in a small boat rather than place any credence in the met offices's forecast or any storm & gale warnings.

Those exams you sat, I hope geography wasn't one of them, as despite my not taking the subject beyond year 12 and certainly not at tertiary level, in my recollection of fourth form (year 10) geography, it made the difference pretty clear, even back then between climate and weather especially in relation to NZ where we have such a range of climate types in such small areas and often large variation in daily weather also within small areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point Zak is that no matter what temperatures you collect to support your theory they are all localised to wherever you happen to live at the time. The stats that global warming climatic change assessments are based on (and they are but part of the picture) are collected worldwide and we have seen heat waves in parts of Europe, melting of the ice caps (water doesn't freeze when you heat it and ice don't freeze when you cool it). the Greenland ice cvap is slowly melting. Coral reefs are bleaching and disintegrating in the Caribbean due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and predictions are that at this rate there won't be any in 50yrs. Increased incidence of prolonged drought conditions in parts of the USA and other places, receding snowlines on the Himalayas, mountain ranges in Peru and many other places. The glacier that Sir Ed Hilary & Tensing Norgay set out from to climb Everest has now retreated 3 miles up the mountain. The glaciers in NZ have declined by 26% between 1990 - 1998 and this is continuing. There is numerous evidence available to show clear trends and more reliable than you not putting on sunscreen to see how badly burned you get or reading the tea leaves after smoko.

The range of tropical diseases like dengue and yellow fever is spreading to more areas such as the Pacific. Recent studies by by researchers & doctors at Wellington School of Medicine found outbreaks of dengue fever in South Pacific islands are directly related to the climate warming. These diseases and their carriers are not adapting to new climatic conditions but those conditions are adapting to accommodate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However I do believe that data collected by accurate and reliable measuring instruments specifically developed for that purpose by many different independent agencies and stations world wide are more credible than your guesses based on how hot it was or wasn't when you were sitting some exams at uni many years ago or whether you plan to use the swimming pool or not tomorrow.

There is no reason whatsoever for you to rubbish zaks method for determining the presence or absence of climate change. He is using a tried and tested scientific methodology. He has made some observations and formulated a hypothesis based on those observations. A tried and tested way in which mankind has increased knowledge and learned about his/her environment through the ages. Of course part of that process has also been other groups or individuals challenging the hypothesis based on either the conclusions drawn being incorrect based on the observations or the observations (data) being incorrect or in appropriate. The methodology however, is sound.

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to be fairly gullible to accept the above as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Next you will be telling us the polar bear population is in danger because of AGW.

It

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coral reefs are bleaching and disintegrating in the Caribbean due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and predictions are that at this rate there won't be any in 50yrs. Increased incidence of prolonged drought conditions in parts of the USA and other places, receding snowlines on the Himalayas, mountain ranges in Peru and many other places. The glacier that Sir Ed Hilary & Tensing Norgay set out from to climb Everest has now retreated 3 miles up the mountain. The glaciers in NZ have declined by 26% between 1990 - 1998 and this is continuing.

You have to be fairly gullible to accept the above as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Next you will be telling us the polar bear population is in danger because of AGW.

It

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your claim that theories of global warming have been disproved just because there is evidence of CO2 stabilising or possibly reducing in the last tens years is false.

Nowhere did I state that CO2 had stabilised or was reducing. AGW is disproved because despite CO2 increasing temperatures have not. Historically, any increases in CO2 have lagged significantly behind rises in temperature.

Claims of temperatures dropping & CO2 reductions you cite are based on recent 10 year periods whereas the pace of global warming requires more than 10 years of data to be properly measured. Data showed that1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term warming combined with a naturally strong El Ni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interested in this link:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/a-crime-against-humanity

About the author:

http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm

My husband and I are what I believe are called 'deniers'. Unfortunately my husband is the one who has done all the research for a long period of time but he will not be coaxed onto message boards to debate the issues unless they are scientific ones :):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.