The great thing about science is that there is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions. Science does not equal truth.
Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Seriously mate, this is not really a banter discussion and you come out with that ****. There is ample evidence of Climate change being a fraud, it was initiated as a fraud by Thatcher. There are a lot of facts you are just not aware of, like policy makers writing the report summaries, literally, depending on what economic policies they wish to influence, this is a fact, their chief report write at the IPCC quit and that is what he has said himself. Postgrads who did a lot of work on the reports saying that their results are not what is reflected in the reports, but cannot actually go public because it would be career suicide, this is very real lad, hold a career over a postgrad's head and they'll agree to anything ffs.
There have been multiple defections from the alarmist view by senior scientists, that is not conspiracy, and your analogy is ridiculous in the extreme, but I am actually talking facts when talking the history of CO2 and you are lacking in said information so you resort to a childish comeback with no basis in reality and then attempt to slate me with conspiracy nonsense. Thatcher did instigate this fraud to destroy the coal unions, she did give money and a disproved report to the Hadley centre and East Anglia to propagate this lie, those are facts Astro. It just so happens that those are the epicentre of the UN fraud, coincidence? hardly
The fact that the earth was frozen with over 2000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. You left that one well alone didn't you(and the IPCC won't touch it with a barge pole) and came up with your forrestry analogy, you won't even mention that termites create 10 times more CO2 than man or that man.
It's not conspiracy theory that NASA and NOAA altered temp data to make 1998 the hottest year on record when 1935 is the hottest year on record (They had both charts up for 8 days), the EPA never altered their data you see, they still have that year as the hottest on record as well as 1922 being the the year the hottest ever day was recorded on earth.
it is not conspiracy that the IPCC tried to hide global cooling trends for the last 10 years. It is no conspiracy that hte famous hockeystick chart left out the most important bit, the last few years of increases because the correlation between temp and CO2 was totally and utterly broken.
Not conspiracy, Scientific FACT!! that CO2 increase follows temperature, and not the other way around.
Not conspiracy that the IPCC were caught lying exlusing data and scientists and caught discussing the problem with the public copping on to the earth not actually warming at all, the emaisl were leaked FFS and the IPCC never denied their authenticity.
You see as soon as I get into it in a meanging ful way you just put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala consiracy" and if you cannot understand how stupid your analogy with trees is then it is small wonder you cannot actually discuss this because you don't understand it mate, which ultimately means you are going on what you just believe whereas I am basing my assumptions on data and factual information.
Sadly the IPCC when talking CO2 doesn't talk about factor or model natural CO2 sources and given they make up over 95% of CO2 input into the system, hello, ridiculous fraud.
The sheer arrogance to say they have modelled the entire climate system from top to bottom(whislt excluding significant factors) is astounding no wonder they were 400% in some cases off the mark, also a fact by the way, they did also say no snow by 2010 in hte UK, record snows that year lad, also a fact. Those snows were predicted too, not by the IPCC but by weather action, and they do not use CO2 in any of their modelling at all, yes they deal in climate, they have several countries as customers because the IPCC's best guess is 84% accuracy 4 days in advance, I can do 66% 4 days in advance just looking at the ****ing sky ffs Weather action have predicted hurricanes and their paths 80 days in advance!
Last edited:
If you think there is no domga in science you need to read more. If you think that in certain disciplines that coming up with different assumptions wont get you ostracised you must be living under a rock. If you think science is not "political" in some areas, you are having a laugh.
Just to even think black holes do not exist immediately irks millions of people, and none of them have physics degrees
It's called committing heresy. Not talkig about me saying it, am talking about people with phsyics degrees saying it and people with no degrees telling them they are madin science the truth does come out, like with Longitude, the Royal society said it "cant be true" for 30 years before the Royal Navy FORCED them to acept it because they were losing ships at sea, so there is a total debunking of that comment in just one reference.
97% of sceintists agree, consensus, 99.9% of scientists said Neils Bohr was talking bollocks when he cottoned on to atoms, 99.9% of scientists were WRONG
You said we had Cern to thank for the internet we have today, I proved that to be wrong. packet switching ( networking is part of my job) is what made the internet possible in the manner we use it today. You are talking about throughput. CERN if I am correct worked on the first gigabit network, which was a natural progression, without Cern we were always going in that direction. You see probably almost no one else needed that kind of data transfer at the time, if they had, it would have been worked on, CERN needed it and they used the pre existing technologies and improved upon them as well as using already established protocols to develop from and so on as well as working off of existing standards.
Without the IEEE CERN wouldn't have been able to do it
You really need to be clear about what you mean lad.
We have surpassed those speeds and then some without the help of CERN, go figure.
Without packet switching CERN would be decades behind
Last edited:
If you think there is no domga in science you need to read more. If you think that in certain disciplines that coming up with different assumptions wont get you ostracised you must be living under a rock. If you think science is not "political" in some areas, you are having a laugh.
Just to even think black holes do not exist immediately irks millions of people, and none of them have physics degrees
in science the truth does come out, like with Longitude, the Royal society said it "cant be true" for 30 years before the Royal Navy FORCED them to acept it because they were losing ships at sea, so there is a total debunking of that comment in just one reference.
97% of sceintists agree, consensus, 99.9% of scientists said Neils Bohr was talking bollocks when he cottoned on to atoms, 99.9% of scientists were WRONG
This kind of argument is ******ed though. It doesn't matter one single **** what some zookeeper thinks about atoms just because he can give himself the label "scientist" and claim to know anything. What matters is evidence.
And guess what, no one could refute Bohr so he won.
If you come out and say you don't believe in black holes because you don't like them, yes you will be though of as a moron and rightly so. And people will be pissed that you waste their time. If you give a logical reason why they shouldn't exist AND listen to the reponse of experts to your argument AND still have unaddressed and self-consistent arguments, you will not be treated like a moron.
I didn't talk about possible I talked about what actually provided a compelling need to develop the technology
Computer scientists were happy with there only being 10 computers in the world
Astro, they called Bohr "mad" "insane" "a nutcase", scientists called him that be cause they "believed differnetly" irony given your responses to alternate theories, you just hammer at the messenger instead of the message.
I started this discussion on here because of alternate theories and observational evidence that challenges the accepted views, I can understand the accepted theories and the contractions as well as understanding the alternate theories and observational evidence, none of this requires calling anyone who debates it with me "a moron". I am basing my opinions on the work of scientists not what I feel is right, my opinons change as I absorb new info. Some of the stuff in the start of this thread has actually had some reent findings that support my original posts. As well as the recent BBC link I posted of new "scientific" results, not opinions
You've taken a scientific theory debate and turned it into a stupid childish point scoring exercise and NOT discussed any of the points mate. That's a little ****ing annoying and tbh it's fun watching you do that with Tobes but rather annoying on a subject like c*lie)mate change and astrophysics, just cos your name is in the title, doesn't mean you can act the bollocks
You skirt around the subject with these opinions on opinions rather than taking part in the subject, and slate me while you are at it, stop being ****ing childish, I've long established and repeated that this is all opinion, I openly admit I do not have the qualifications to be absolute in my assumptions. FFS like
Last edited:
I didn't talk about possible I talked about what actually provided a compelling need to develop the technology
Computer scientists were happy with there only being 10 computers in the world
Of course I can agree, but as the need arose for the rest of us the technology would have been developed. Our own gigabit networks are not modelled off of the CERN ones FYI.
And imagine Bohr actually listened to the people who said he was a "moron"? Science would be held back and this is why it should not be a crime or you should be a nut to question accepted theories. When I say "you" I mean the sceintists that have the balls to go against accepted views, not me, I am not a scientist.
With people like you slating the **** out of anyone that has an alternate view, it only prevents progress not advances it!
Dunno about that, but I remember Ben Elton's old joke that if it wasn't for that third vertebrae women would not be needed by men....
As to the cost of Cern, I don't begrudge it. But all that global military spending - and all the trained personnel such as pilots and rocket engineers - well we could have humans on Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn by now. Future generations will look back at this age and say it was like Colombus going to the Americas or Cook to Australasia; and then no-one went back for half a century.
Dunno about that, but I remember Ben Elton's old joke that if it wasn't for that third vertebrae women would not be needed by men....
As to the cost of Cern, I don't begrudge it. But all that global military spending - and all the trained personnel such as pilots and rocket engineers - well we could have humans on Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn by now. Future generations will look back at this age and say it was like Colombus going to the Americas or Cook to Australasia; and then no-one went back for half a century.
or Armstrong going to the moon and no one going back for half a century
fyi the chinese were there before Cook and Columbus, Columbus def used Chinese maps
Ex Royal navy sub commander, and historian Gavin Menzies, his book is well worth a read. His evidence is compelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies
The Data released from the EU comet mission is pretty damn interesting. have you checked out the photos n stuff. Not what you would expect on a comet. Supposed to be a soft landing too the thing bounced like a skinny whore on a fat dude, which shows the composition of the surface was not what they thought it would be, it was solid rather than layers of dust and ice
Last edited:
Menzies work has long been refuted by numerous historians. The 'Chinese' map was: a dual-hemisphere map, a cartographic tradition exclusively European; the inland detail couldn't possibly have been noted by maritime explorers; California is represented as an island, copied straight from European maps of the 17th century; The Himalayas are marked as the highest mountains in the world. This fact was only discovered in the 19th century ..... Columbus may not have got there first but he definitely didn't use 'Chinese maps'.
I thought an English bloke invented the WWW/internet and just gave it to the world for free. ****ing typical really.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
WWW is the system of making documents available on internet through linked hypertext methods. Hypertext are what hyperlinks are made up of, hyperlinks are on the flipside of the clickable stuff. So you can click an image but the address on the flipside is used to hyperlink that image to the page that loads when you click it. It's an intuitive system that in conjunction with the hypertext transfer protocol(Http) creates a logical easy to remember and easy to use www through a browser.
That English block worked for CERN at the time I think. He gave us the world wide web but the networks it runs on and the protocols used by said networks were created by others. he made not606 possible in it's current format, otherwise we'd all have to type in every single document location address individually, and\or be using the this
You must log in or register to see images
Poor Tobes wouldn't be able to post his images god bless him.
Last edited:
or Armstrong going to the moon and no one going back for half a century
Well Conrad and bean went back four months later, but I'll not labour the point as I was referring to Apollo and the fact that since Cernan, actually (
fyi the chinese were there before Cook and Columbus, Columbus def used Chinese
It was a metaphor, really. Think Erikson was in Greenland 400 years before Columbus, and isn't there evidence that Irish/celtic fishermen were operating off the coast of Labrador on the Grand Banks before even that?
Ex Royal navy sub commander, and historian Gavin Menzies, his book is well worth a read. His evidence is compelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies
Does he say the Chinese were in NZ before Cook? And before you add the obvious, I do recognise the local aboriginal natives were the first in these places! As said, it was an analogy regarding human exploration.
The Data released from the EU comet mission is pretty damn interesting. have you checked out the photos n stuff. Not what you would expect on a comet. Supposed to be a soft landing too the thing bounced like a skinny whore on a fat dude, which shows the composition of the surface was not what they thought it would be, it was solid rather than layers of dust and ice
they admitted that. There's an awful lot about comets that we've got wrong - all the more reason why the mission was a success and we need to follow up with manned missions.
Yeah I read the wiki and it's been called Pseudohistory
If you've read the book, he details the evidence which includes carvings on rock in places like Sacremento up one of it's rivers, the remains of Chinese junks or ships found also, aborigine accounts from god knows when about strange people that resemble Chinese of the time, Asian chickens in the US and Mexico as well as similar laquer work and many other things. I read the book some years ago so can't comment on the maps but I don't doubt the reaction from historians who have had their whole careers questioned.
Both of use said definately, but really, neither of us have any business of saying it.
Last edited:
Yeah I read the wiki and it's been called Pseudohistory
If you've read the book, he details the evidence which includes carvings on rock in places like Sacremento up one of it's rivers, the remains of Chinese junks or ships found also, aborigine accounts from god knows when about strange people that resemble Chinese of the time, Asian chickens in the US and Mexico as well as similar laquer work and many other things. I read the book some years ago so can't comment on the maps but I don't doubt the reaction from historians who have had their whole careers.
Both of use said definately, but really, neither of us have any business of saying it.
Shades of Eric Von Daniken then? That was a bandwagon I jumped on when I was 13 and naïve. I remember Horizon dismantling him page by embarrassing page - after I'd told all my schoolmates, teachers and family to watch on tv as my hero would 'prove' the existence of aliens throughout our history.
Been a cynic ever since.
I see our IT dudes using that **** every time they come in to fix some programme or other that they said would fix forever all the problems with the previous programme that they said would never fail.
I think it bounced three times.
Not that I am accusing them of concealing anything.Some of the findings are very interesting, especially the abundance of hydrocarbons, they will certainly not exist on a rock that formed from dust in space, it just is not possible. They require temperature and pressure as well as an organic source, ergo any comet with an abundance of hydroarbons would have to have come from a planet, most likely one obliterated or.. as speculated on, when the planets were in closer orbits they stripped massive amounts of material from each other through plasma interaction between bodies, both are a good explanations. One thing is clear, all comets and asteroids are not just lumps or rock or ice rock and those asumptions are pretty recent and entirely wrong.
The comets and asteroids are also electrical too, something recently accepted in the past couple of years which explains the reactions of them and that the tail of a comet is not actually made entirely of ice melting as it approaces a sun, one comet blew up to to a size bigger than jupiter, as it went past saturn. That event could only be electrical. NASA also tell us that there is an electrical circuit between saturn and it's moons.
Also, Saturn's rings have got to be held in place by electrical forces, othewise they would be all over the shop from every gravitational infleunce that has effected them over the millions of years, yet they settle back into that uniform tidy ring formation
There is much speculation that Venus was a comet that got caught by the solar system.
Lets get to the moon first eh before we start talking landing people on comets
Not looking to get into that whole fiasco, not something I am interested in though I will say this, anyone who travels through the 2 sometimes 3 radiation belts around the earth (twice - there and back) without any protection as well as the rest of the journey, will not live as long as those astronauts did. Any moon mission needs to have radiation shielding, and that is mainly why all of our missions even today are low orbit missions, and even there in lower orbit Astronauts still see flashing lights from particles penetrating their eyes, and that's with Earth's protective EM shielding. That type of shielding is too heavy for earth launched craft, today even, it would have to be brought up bit by bit and assembled in space, something not possible back then.That's just imo btw but I do have valid reasons for having that opinion.
Last edited:
- Status