|
|
Opinion
Topic has 397 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 18/04/2009, 6:54 PM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18/04/2009, 10:10 PM
|
GreenBlue
 
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,602
|
|
|
 ironsmad wrote: | Warming, cooling,warming,cooling cyclic-able patterns of climate, its nothing to be scared of!!!!!!!!
htt
|
|
Last 50 years, its man's input, beyond the cycling, downward natural.. Face realiti, and the consequences! Action needed!
A better way of life n livin.
There is indeed nothing to be scared of, other than doin nowt, thumb up bum!!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
19/04/2009, 12:12 AM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
|
|
|
| GreenBlue wrote: | | ironsmad wrote: | Warming, cooling,warming,cooling cyclic-able patterns of climate, its nothing to be scared of!!!!!!!!
htt
|
|
Last 50 years, its man's input, beyond the cycling, downward natural.. Face realiti, and the consequences! Action needed!
A better way of life n livin.
There is indeed nothing to be scared of, other than doin nowt, thumb up bum!!
|
|
Charming !!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
19/04/2009, 12:26 AM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009, 6:08 PM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009, 10:59 PM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,602
|
|
|
|
| ironsmad wrote: | |
Porritt is probably correct that obese folk add to climate change, but is nutritionlly wrong on why they contribute to climate change.
Anyone who has followed an Atkins diet knows that protein and meat doesn't make folk fat; indeed folks lose weight eating a high protein diet. Expert D,Adimo.. in his research prove that folks with blood group O, 60% in the UK benefit from meat in their diet.
What makes folks fat is bringing on high carbohydrate and glucose foods with high fat content, such as refined flour wheat in bread, pizzas, crisps, french fries, rolls, milk chocolate, cakes, biscuits, pastry, pudding and cheesecakes; and a slug life with no exercise. Folk who eat rice (methane) and soya mily/vegies (rainforest destruction) are high climate changes
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
15/06/2009, 12:10 AM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009, 10:29 PM
|
E Nuff
Joined on 26/05/2009
Nobbs Loke not nr Shidham
Posts 776
|
|
|
|
Cool on the outside:
To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside.
There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009, 10:42 PM
|
Hide the decline
Joined on 12/03/2008
Posts 1,356
|
|
|
|
| Norton wrote: | | Cool on the outside:
To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside. |
|
Have they let you out Norton or did you escape from the funny farm.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
13/08/2009, 12:29 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,602
|
|
|
|
|
Shows MMGW spectic dross is not science; but a strange mix of science fiction with lashings of religous conspiracy lar lar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer
Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic
Ian Plimer's work of climate fiction is riddled with schoolboy errors the Spectator appears prepared to believe
The Spectator tells the planet to take it easy. Photograph: The Spectator Seldom has a book been more cleanly murdered by scientists than Ian Plimer's Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth, which purports to show that manmade climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data. Here is what the reviews have said.
Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences:
"Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear."
Michael Ashley, professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW:
"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. "
Professor Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and President of the Australian Academy of Science:
"If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!"
Here are a few examples of the nonsense in this book (thanks mostly to Tim Lambert at Scienceblogs):
1. Plimer uses a graph, without attribution, produced for the Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4. The programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940. After an outcry by scientists, subsequent editions of the programme corrected the timeline. But Plimer leaves the graph – and its convenient error – intact.
2. He claims that Arctic sea ice is growing. Oh no it isn't.
3. He claims that Mount Pinatubo released "very large quantities of chloroflourocarbons, the gases that destroy the ozone layer." It didn't.
4. Like the Great Global Warming Swindle (from which several of the claims in his book appear to originate), he claims that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. In fact humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
5. He claims that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. In fact the pre-industrial concentration was roughly 280 parts per million. Human activities have now raised this to 387ppm. Work it out for yourself.
6. He says "it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity". As David Karoly points out, "burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen": in other words you can ascribe the increase directly to human activity.
7. Professor Michael Ashley noticed in Plimer's book: "an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite. It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."
8. He confuses the Sun's rotation with orbital motion around the solar system's centre of gravity.
There are dozens like this. Ian Enting shows that Plimer:
- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 13 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
- has at least 17 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
- has at least 6 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.
You'd think all this would be enough to bury the book. You'd be wrong. In one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year, today the Spectator has made the book's British publication its cover story, with the headline "Relax: Global Warming is all a myth". Its story consists of a hagiography of Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows – and cares - less about science than I do about Formula One. Plimer's book, he says, is "going to change forever the way we think about climate change", as it demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming "is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history." Delingpole takes the opportunity to cite the usual conspiracy theories about the "powerful and very extensive body of vested interests" working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and The Sun to Science magazine. That took some organising.
I have come to expect this sort of rubbish from Delingpole but I'm amazed that the Spectator is prepared to run a story like this on its cover when a quick check would have shown that it's utter nonsense.
What this story shows is that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction. The quality of the evidence has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how comprehensively the sources have been discredited, or how ridiculous the claims are. People like Plimer and Delingpole will cling onto anything, however improbable, that allows them to maintain their view of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
13/08/2009, 1:04 PM
|
Urban heat island
Joined on 08/07/2009
sometimes in the pub or in front of the screen
Posts 1,221
|
|
|
|
| GreenBlue wrote: | Shows MMGW spectic dross is not science; but a strange mix of science fiction with lashings of religous conspiracy lar lar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer
Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic
Ian Plimer's work of climate fiction is riddled with schoolboy errors the Spectator appears prepared to believe
The Spectator tells the planet to take it easy. Photograph: The Spectator
Seldom has a book been more cleanly murdered by scientists than Ian Plimer's Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth, which purports to show that manmade climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data. Here is what the reviews have said.
Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences:
"Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear."
Michael Ashley, professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW:
"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. "
Professor Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and President of the Australian Academy of Science:
"If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!"
Here are a few examples of the nonsense in this book (thanks mostly to Tim Lambert at Scienceblogs):
1. Plimer uses a graph, without attribution, produced for the Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4. The programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940. After an outcry by scientists, subsequent editions of the programme corrected the timeline. But Plimer leaves the graph – and its convenient error – intact.
2. He claims that Arctic sea ice is growing. Oh no it isn't.
3. He claims that Mount Pinatubo released "very large quantities of chloroflourocarbons, the gases that destroy the ozone layer." It didn't.
4. Like the Great Global Warming Swindle (from which several of the claims in his book appear to originate), he claims that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. In fact humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
5. He claims that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. In fact the pre-industrial concentration was roughly 280 parts per million. Human activities have now raised this to 387ppm. Work it out for yourself.
6. He says "it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity". As David Karoly points out, "burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen": in other words you can ascribe the increase directly to human activity.
7. Professor Michael Ashley noticed in Plimer's book: "an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite. It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."
8. He confuses the Sun's rotation with orbital motion around the solar system's centre of gravity.
There are dozens like this. Ian Enting shows that Plimer:
- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 13 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
- has at least 17 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
- has at least 6 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.
You'd think all this would be enough to bury the book. You'd be wrong. In one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year, today the Spectator has made the book's British publication its cover story, with the headline "Relax: Global Warming is all a myth". Its story consists of a hagiography of Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows – and cares - less about science than I do about Formula One. Plimer's book, he says, is "going to change forever the way we think about climate change", as it demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming "is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history." Delingpole takes the opportunity to cite the usual conspiracy theories about the "powerful and very extensive body of vested interests" working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and The Sun to Science magazine. That took some organising.
I have come to expect this sort of rubbish from Delingpole but I'm amazed that the Spectator is prepared to run a story like this on its cover when a quick check would have shown that it's utter nonsense.
What this story shows is that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction. The quality of the evidence has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how comprehensively the sources have been discredited, or how ridiculous the claims are. People like Plimer and Delingpole will cling onto anything, however improbable, that allows them to maintain their view of the world. |
|
Seems that warmers are now worried that there scam is over. – “If someone is
hiding something, they have something to hide.” 
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03)
Your request for information received on 26 June 2009 has now been
considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet all of your
request.
In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a partial Refusal Notice, and I am
not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption
are as stated below:
| Exception |
Reason |
| Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information |
Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement |
Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was
received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission
to non-academics
Regulation 12(1)(b) mandates that we consider the public interest in
any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4).
In this case, we feel that there is a strong public interest in
upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To
not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data
in future.
I apologise that not all of your request will be met but if you have
any further information needs in the future then please contact me.
If you have any queries or concerns, or, if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at:
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
Telephone: 0160 393 523
E-mail: foi AT uea.ac.uk
You also have the right of appeal against the decision. If you wish
to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to
me at the same address as noted above.
Subsequent to our determination of your appeal, you also have a further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 700
www.ico.gov.uk
Yours sincerely
David Palmer
Information Policy and Compliance Manager
University of East Anglia
KEEP ON ROCKIN! IN THE FREE WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
14/08/2009, 6:53 AM
|
GreenBlue
Joined on 01/06/2008
Posts 1,602
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerating Glacier melting 4X
Sceptics; they're nuts. SIMPLES
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm
|
Antarctic glacier 'thinning fast' |
|
By David Shukman
Science and environment correspondent, BBC News | 
The changes to the glacier are described as "unprecedented" in this part of Antarctica
One of the largest glaciers in Antarctica is thinning four times faster than it was 10 years ago, according to research seen by the BBC.
A study of satellite measurements of Pine Island glacier in west Antarctica reveals the surface of the ice is now dropping at a rate of up to 16m a year.
Since 1994, the glacier has lowered by as much as 90m, which has serious implications for sea-level rise.
The work by British scientists appears in Geophysical Research Letters.
The team was led by Professor Duncan Wingham of University College London (UCL).
Calculations based on the rate of melting 15 years ago had suggested the glacier would last for 600 years. But the new data points to a lifespan for the vast ice stream of only another 100 years.
The rate of loss is fastest in the centre of the glacier and the concern is that if the process continues, the glacier may break up and start to affect the ice sheet further inland.
One of the authors, Professor Andrew Shepherd of Leeds University, said that the melting from the centre of the glacier would add about 3cm to global sea level.
"But the ice trapped behind it is about 20-30cm of sea level rise and as soon as we destabilise or remove the middle of the glacier we don't know really know what's going to happen to the ice behind it," he told BBC News.
BBC News visited the Pine Island glacier five years ago |
"This is unprecedented in this area of Antarctica. We've known that it's been out of balance for some time, but nothing in the natural world is lost at an accelerating exponential rate like this glacier."
Pine Island glacier has been the subject of an intense research effort in recent years amid fears that its collapse could lead to a rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet.
Five years ago, I joined a flight by the Chilean Navy and Nasa to survey Pine Island glacier with radar and laser equipment.
The 11-hour round-trip from Punta Arenas included a series of low-level passes over the massive ice stream which is 20 miles wide and in places more than one mile thick.
Back then, the researchers on board were concerned at the speed of change they were detecting. This latest study of the satellite data will add to the alarm among polar specialists.
This comes as scientists in the Arctic are finding evidence of dramatic change. Researchers on board a Greenpeace vessel have been studying the northwestern part of Greenland.
One of those taking part, Professor Jason Box of Ohio State University, has been surprised by how little sea ice they encountered in the Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada.
He has also set up time lapse cameras to monitor the massive Petermann glacier. Huge new cracks have been observed and it's expected that a major part of it could break off imminently.
Professor Box told BBC News: "The science community has been surprised by how sensitive these large glaciers are to climate warming. First it was the glaciers in south Greenland and now as we move further north in Greenland we find retreat at major glaciers. It's like removing a cork from a bottle." |
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Evening News 24 » You Say » Opinion » Re: Climate Camp
|
|
|
|