Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Created by CFACT, funded in part by Donors Trust, who are in turn funded by various anonymous contributions and the Koch brothers.
Wow. Didn't expect to see their names in there.
Why does so much of this stuff seem to lead back to exactly the same people every time?

 

This is a science thread, anything to add? No conspiracy theory please. I fail to see what that has to do with CAGW

 

Its clearly because they can't get the wrappers off!

If only they had evolved with opposable thumbs like us eh, they might not have got as far as designing I phones but at least they would be able to have a biscuit with their cup of tea.

Anyway I digress, do you want to talk about global warming now?

 

"Anyway I digress, do you want to talk about global warming now"
Dude we've been talking about this since last year You've been far too busy talking about me personally, full psychological profile, the lot.

Surprised you haven't yet told me what PJs I used to wear as a kid, you have me so figured out

 

You fail to see what crap propaganda being funded by those with a clear interest in misleading the public has to do with it?
I think that your tinfoil hat's slipped over your eyes, then.

 

You dont understand do you? There is a science behind all of this mentally ill progressive left vs mentally ill conservative right types.

I am not political or ideological, I am only interested in the science and records, and theories, not a game of neocultural biased whodunnit.

I take it you know nothing about the science? Ergo you talk about the Conspiracy theory.

Big business has been funding science for ever, and now you have a problem with it?
If I was you I'd worry about those GMOs you are eating that you never got a say on. 90 days of tests on rats is all they did before putting that food into you

 

So big business funding science is good and then when they push through GMOs they're bad?
Is it possible that they're neither and whatever they do should be assessed on a case-by-case basis?

The vast majority of scientists accept that global climate change is influenced by mankind.
A small number that all seem to be funded by people who stand to benefit financially from their results disagree.
It's hard to trust anything that's produced from such sources and they're routinely proven wrong.
That's why they're getting sneakier and trying to hide their funding.

A similarly ****e, but not nearly as well funded, group are trying to alter UK laws on alcohol.
The Institute of Alcohol Studies. Sounds official and sciencey, doesn't it?
They're the ****ing Quakers.
Politicians and journalists are quoting these twats, too. Bloody annoying.

 

Spooky isn't it.

Fossil fuel companies funding anti man made climate change PR, who'd have thought it.

 

So big business funding science is good and then when they push through GMOs they're bad?
Is it possible that they're neither and whatever they do should be assessed on a case-by-case basis?
GMO corps had scientists and universities in their pockets, that's not an idea, it's come out in the open. The science was dodgy, proven, unlike any "denier" science, the term is to shut down actually looking at the science and discussing it
The is an ideological agenda and cultural shift that is driving climate alarmism and 99.999% of what you read is nonsense. I've read the IPCC reports and absolute wads of other papers and studies and such and had a good old fashioned think on it.


The vast majority of scientists accept that global climate change is influenced by mankind.
Quantify this please, "vast majority" is a meaningless label. If you are going to quote the 97% you might be in for a little shock

A small number that all seem to be funded by people who stand to benefit financially from their results disagree.
It's hard to trust anything that's produced from such sources and they're routinely proven wrong.
That's why they're getting sneakier and trying to hide their funding.
So you say, without a shred of evidence or examining the actual scientific arguments, this is no time for "belief" or appealing to authority of white coats. What you dont know, obviously, is that Science is government funded 75%, all science, and if you want to study other causes than CO2, you get no funding, the UK and EU govs and US, none of them are funding any science that might throw doubt on this "consensus" plus you proved that any scientists who dissent are labeled with a nice label so we don't have to listen to them, not how it works in a rational world

So the outcome is, if you cant get government funding, you get it where you can, and that is then used against you. 40 billion the IPCC has burned through, and big business investment in the climate science is not even 30 million quid, so who's mega funded here? Almost 400 billion spent in 2014 on climate stuff globally, which is about 7 times the profit of all oil companies combined.

A similarly ****e, but not nearly as well funded, group are trying to alter UK laws on alcohol.
The Institute of Alcohol Studies. Sounds official and sciencey, doesn't it?
They're the ****ing Quakers.
Politicians and journalists are quoting these twats, too. Bloody annoying

Alcohol is a toxin, scientific fact. It causes so many deaths, and crimes, like the guy in the US who just butchered someone who came to help him in the snow,, drunk as ****.. OK so you think 3% of 0.04%of the atmosphere is dangerous but booze, which kills more than any drug and it a leech on the NHS and destroys lives aplenty.. is not?

There is a raging scientific debate on this, behind the media nonsense hyperbole. But that is hidden.

And I know you understand that calling people "denier" is retarded, yet we have politicians saying it, and saying **** like "You worry about job losses from climate policies... there are no jobs on a dead planet".. That is based on nothing but some novel she read.. there is no danger to us ffs.


The more you research this the more you find it is the creation of a new economy because the banks basically took all of the money out of the world economy, then they took our money to replace it, there is nothing to trade, but now, carbon credits, worth trillions, plus the UN get an undemocratic overarching control over every person in UN states, these pricks talk of wealth distribution.. not the rich's money, yours. All the major banks are so exposed on risks, still, that they need this carbon economy to survive another crash, which is always a **** hair away these days, it only takes on big bank to go under and the arse will fall out

Meanwhile wind farms generated enough juice to power 20 kettles, that is not a joke BTW, without the hikes in your energy bills to pay for them, wind farms would disappear overnight, epic scam

 

Some resort to latching onto those who agree, instead of making logical rational sound arguments

 

Did you really just say that I didn't have any evidence, but you'd come to your conclusions by reading things and thinking about it?
Is that not exactly the same thing, given that you've got no idea what I've read?

Ok, let's see what number that you come up with for the number of scientists that support the current thinking on climate change.
What percentage do you think disagree with the idea that mankind is influencing it?

I think that everyone knows exactly what alcohol is and what it does.
I don't think that groups trying to con the public and pretend that they're something that they're not is good for democracy and debate, though.
If the Quakers want to ban alcohol and try prohibition again, then let them stand up and say so.
Pretending to be scientists and publishing bullshit is dishonest and disreputable.

That thing about 20 kettles is nonsense, by the way. It took a snapshot from a specific point in time.
It's intentionally misleading data by picking one thing out of context in order to "prove" something to those who don't know better.
It would be like saying that your car doesn't use any petrol, if you only measure the consumption when it's off.

 

Carbon shrill, oil shrill.

Not sure how I could possibly be one when I understand the issues fossil fuels are causing

So let's get back to your error in polar bear numbers increasing and the flat refusal to understand the adjusted data for weather stations of varying types, recordings etc.

However I am unsure if you work on nuclear only electricity. Finland has about 40% renewable energy in its grid. Now would nuclear come under renewable?

Picking holes is fun

 

Did you really just say that I didn't have any evidence, but you'd come to your conclusions by reading things and thinking about it?
Is that not exactly the same thing, given that you've got no idea what I've read?
No, I've read the reports and papers from the people who claim it is true and of those who say it isn't. There is bogus as **** science on both sides.
There is honest science on both sides too.
I can list off the scientists for example, and you do know that there is a handful, literally, of people actually qualified to work AGW, and they dont agree.
Any use of the media as a source for climate science is not of use, like the Guardian for example or daily mail or telegraph ect.

Ok, let's see what number that you come up with for the number of scientists that support the current thinking on climate change.
What percentage do you think disagree with the idea that mankind is influencing it?
No, you made a claim, based on what you know, I asked you to quantify that claim, not answer it with another question.
Then I can reply with my breakdown of actual climate scientists who agree or dont, the total number is very small btw, you might be surprised how small.


I think that everyone knows exactly what alcohol is and what it does.
I know that we all do, and I am not in favour of bans, at all, even though I dont drink, I merely pointed out something that actually does cause harm vs CO2 which doesn't cause harm, in fact it is completely beneficial
I don't think that groups trying to con the public and pretend that they're something that they're not is good for democracy and debate, though.
If the Quakers want to ban alcohol and try prohibition again, then let them stand up and say so.
Pretending to be scientists and publishing bullshit is dishonest and disreputable.
Vague to the extreme mate, you think socialists don't want to unfairly level the playing field? The IPCC are socialist and environmentalist and political, and their reports did not reflect the science at all, fact. When a report is written by scientists, it gets condensed and then that condensed report gets reduced to a summary for policy makers, and the latter two stages are done by people who are not scientists. I guess you haven't listened to the rambings of these nutbags, and I quote "we should cut emissions by more than 100%", "no jobs on a dead planet" "I basically want to triple electricity bills" "redistribute wealth to poorer nations" your wealth, not Cameron's.

Come fkn on like

That thing about 20 kettles is nonsense, by the way. It took a snapshot from a specific point in time.
It's intentionally misleading data by picking one thing out of context in order to "prove" something to those who don't know better.
It would be like saying that your car doesn't use any petrol, if you only measure the consumption when it's off.

I posted on this thread max output from wind, and divided it by the average use of a kettle, it was 20. The info came from the UK energy site.. so no, sorry, you are wrong

Picking stuff out of context is the tactics of progressives who want to believe actually.

Now have you any argument that backs your beliefs?

 

He did this earlier when talking about ice cover in Antarctica being its highest this year. However in the 37 years it has been measures it has shown roughly a 3% decrease per decade.

But facts are hard to ignore, but somehow he does and the population of polar bears shows that this is a con.

But his data used for his polar bears prove global cooling is from corrupt data on numbers estimated in the 60's before hunting bans/quotas.

I just pick holes in his points.

 

@PleaseNotPoll

Wind power 0.24GW
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

You subsidise over wind 6000 turbines. So on average each gives 40kw. That's enough to run 20 kettles.

each turbine generates enough juice for 20 kettles. Yeah worth it, especially running them at a massive loss, if it seemed I meant ALL wind power, apologies, that was not what I meant.

 

Me and Pnp talk, and you and Tobes talk to PnP about me.

Why bother? Cant deal with my responses to your weak arguments PJ? So you cuddle up to the first person that agrees, to feel all warm and fuzzy