Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

sorry Karl, you're a big boy - how many of those 800 reports were written by climatologists?.....because I've yet to find one - I'll be out all day, so you've got 10 or so hours, please ask Albs and Nickbat for any help, as between 97 to 99% of all publishing climatologists agree on human-induced climate change, so there's bound to be at least one climatologist on that list who thinks its all a big hoax - surely? shouldn't be too difficult 

oh, once you find him, do a little digging on who pays him for his ...ahem....research 

I'll answer that one. Probably very few. Why? Because the first ever climatology degree course was offered by the University of Southern Queensland in 2000. There are not that many climatologists about and those that do exist can only have graduated in the last 7 years (3-year BSc study).

Of course, as anyone should know, climatology is not a natural stand-alone discipline, since it covers meteorology, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geography, glaciology, paleontology, dendrochronology, and much, much, more. No course could offer the in-depth teaching of these disciplines, each of which has a major contribution to make in the debate. Thus, the 800 skeptical papers listed have the merit of being written by authors who have expert knowledge of an area concerned with climate, and probably a far better in-depth subject-specific knowledge than anyone who has merely studied climatology as a general subject. Your argument is as daft as saying that a medical opinion could only be put forward by a General Practitioner, not a specialist.

Incidentally, your response to Albs "Then will you stfu?" is, in my opinion, extremely nasty and not the sort of comment I would expect to read on this forum. 
   

[cem_devecioglu]

from another point of view , oil cartels and many industry owners can hire even 8 million people to write similiar things because their profits are directly related to fossil fuels and co2 

[bigboykarl]

maybe banjax is feeling victimised and struck back at albs...lol..you certainly did own him there nick....still laughing

[Gaffers]

yes, some scientists have behaved appallingly, the truth is really quite bad enough without "sexing" it up - hopefully the science gets tightened up to such a degree its proved beyond reasonable doubt to everyone that we are affecting our climate, a few idiots doesnt wash away decades of solid data - besides, doesn't all that sand get up your nose?

If you're referring to my day job, no.  I left a good career in France to do what I am doing now.  I go where I am told and I do what I am told to do and I love it, so do all my colleagues.  In fact we are queuing up to get out 'in the sand' so I guess that answers your question 

What gets up my nose is people passing judgement on the way forward out there when they haven't the foggiest about what actually happens on the ground, and thats not a dig at you Banjax just at various parts of the public at large 

I suppose there is an element of my frustrations with the public perception of the Armed Forces that correlates to this thread.  If I lie or mislead my guys, I lose their respect and most worryingly their trust.  Once it's gone you cant get it back.  The same can be said with the actions of a few naughty soldiers getting us all tarnished with the same brush we all bear the brunt of that lack of judgement or honesty.  I fear science as a whole will suffer most of this Climate debate. 

Integrity is not what it was 

It was a reference to anyone with their head in the sand Gaffers (from a previous post), not a dig at the forces 

Quite an ironic statement considering your position on the issue.  This thread and my comments on it were about integrity and loss of trust by the public at large. 

I am fairly considerate to my environment especially when I see the damage done to the oceans but I cannot and do not beleive everything reported in the press or published by groups with a political agenda.

[Banjax]

yes, some scientists have behaved appallingly, the truth is really quite bad enough without "sexing" it up - hopefully the science gets tightened up to such a degree its proved beyond reasonable doubt to everyone that we are affecting our climate, a few idiots doesnt wash away decades of solid data - besides, doesn't all that sand get up your nose?

If you're referring to my day job, no.  I left a good career in France to do what I am doing now.  I go where I am told and I do what I am told to do and I love it, so do all my colleagues.  In fact we are queuing up to get out 'in the sand' so I guess that answers your question 

What gets up my nose is people passing judgement on the way forward out there when they haven't the foggiest about what actually happens on the ground, and thats not a dig at you Banjax just at various parts of the public at large 

I suppose there is an element of my frustrations with the public perception of the Armed Forces that correlates to this thread.  If I lie or mislead my guys, I lose their respect and most worryingly their trust.  Once it's gone you cant get it back.  The same can be said with the actions of a few naughty soldiers getting us all tarnished with the same brush we all bear the brunt of that lack of judgement or honesty.  I fear science as a whole will suffer most of this Climate debate. 

Integrity is not what it was 

It was a reference to anyone with their head in the sand Gaffers (from a previous post), not a dig at the forces 

Quite an ironic statement considering your position on the issue.  This thread and my comments on it were about integrity and loss of trust by the public at large. 

I am fairly considerate to my environment especially when I see the damage done to the oceans but I cannot and do not beleive everything reported in the press or published by groups with a political agenda.

now you've lost me - I can't enjoy a good argument if I can't follow your logic.

people with their head in the sand, to me, are deniers.
sand getting up your nose was a reference to having your head in the sand.

kapeesh?


no idea what the armed forces are doing here in this argument, they just go and protect oil wherever and whenever they're told to, surely thats what we all want  :-? 

[Banjax]

sorry Karl, you're a big boy - how many of those 800 reports were written by climatologists?.....because I've yet to find one - I'll be out all day, so you've got 10 or so hours, please ask Albs and Nickbat for any help, as between 97 to 99% of all publishing climatologists agree on human-induced climate change, so there's bound to be at least one climatologist on that list who thinks its all a big hoax - surely? shouldn't be too difficult 

oh, once you find him, do a little digging on who pays him for his ...ahem....research 

I'll answer that one. Probably very few. Why? Because the first ever climatology degree course was offered by the University of Southern Queensland in 2000. There are not that many climatologists about and those that do exist can only have graduated in the last 7 years (3-year BSc study).

Of course, as anyone should know, climatology is not a natural stand-alone discipline, since it covers meteorology, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geography, glaciology, paleontology, dendrochronology, and much, much, more. No course could offer the in-depth teaching of these disciplines, each of which has a major contribution to make in the debate. Thus, the 800 skeptical papers listed have the merit of being written by authors who have expert knowledge of an area concerned with climate, and probably a far better in-depth subject-specific knowledge than anyone who has merely studied climatology as a general subject. Your argument is as daft as saying that a medical opinion could only be put forward by a General Practitioner, not a specialist.

Incidentally, your response to Albs "Then will you stfu?" is, in my opinion, extremely nasty and not the sort of comment I would expect to read on this forum. 
   

so I should consult a chiropodist about an ear infection then? or maybe a dentist should take a look at this rash? this could save the NHS millions


You're right Nickbat - he'll never stfu will he? 

[Banjax]

from another point of view , oil cartels and many industry owners can hire even 8 million people to write similiar things because their profits are directly related to fossil fuels and co2 

Cem!!! How dare you accuse the deniers of being owned lock, stock and barrel..........preposterous, oil companies are among the most honest, environmentally and socially responsible bodies on the planet 

I'll have no truck with this scandalous and libelous reasoning 

[Banjax]

Ive heard some feeble excuses in my time but that...........

It's weird but I think I get why you're so entrenched, I'm willing to bet that you've never read a report that wasn't from a deniers perspective - like most of a narrow-mind you'll only read what you already believe to be true, me posting links to thousands upon thousands of reports would do no good - here's what I do Albs - someone gives you a truth, now metaphorically I take that nugget of truth and bend, shake, stretch, hammer, heat, freeze, sink it in short, test it to destruction - if it holds up it pretty much goes in the truth box. Now with climate change denial - I'd love to think it's all a hoax but every single piece of evidence supporting your stance has been thoroughly debunked as far as I'm aware! Now here's your exercise for today: name one, just one cast-iron fact that proves you're right - I'll show you it's wrong, then you give me another, again - I'll debunk it, you give me another and so on and so forth until there are no excuses left. How about that? Then will you stfu? 

Considering this;

name one, just one cast-iron fact that proves you're right - I'll show you it's wrong, then you give me another, again - I'll debunk it

Can the same not be said for you BJ?

why you're so entrenched

I'm happy to believe that you do in fact keep an open mind BJ but am disturbed somewhat that you seem to accept that the changing climate results solely/mainly from recent human activity.

I have no problem with accepting that there are indeed changes happening to the climatic balance we've all experienced and enjoyed over the recent past.  As far as I’m concerned however this is part of the natural cycle driven by a living planet powered by its sun - the only reason incidentally for earth's ability to support life in the first place -   - our impact in terms of atmospheric pollutants which may contribute to an overall heating (if this does indeed exist in any extensive way) is in my view minimal.

Where we have altered things to the detriment of the planet seems to spring from avarice and the lust for power and influence: The stripping of the rain forest for gain, deforestation of vast swaths of land for the purposes of mining/building, the constant probing of the planet in the search for energy sources.

The list is extensive but always seems to depend on the use, and in some cases the over use, of planetary resources.  This in my view is more worrying than the alleged overheating of the global atmosphere by what we’ve done over the last one hundred years or so.

Aside from this, I’m surprised that many apparently sensible people appear to accept, without question, the assertions of individuals/groups who maintain that the science is ‘settled’ in terms of AGW.  Since when is science ever settled?

There is, undoubtedly, an agenda being formed by these people/groups but I would suggest that it’s concerned more with the desire for power, influence and the acquisition for money than it is for the health of the planet. And, while there have been many comments made about the trenchant nature of the AGW ‘deniers’, I would submit that this tendency pales into insignificance when compared to the evangelical fervour shown by the likes of former VP Gore, the UN, the IPCC, Greenpeace, WWF, FOTE and the EU to name but a few most of whom seem to be satisfied that the science has indeed been settled and no one has the legitimate right to question it and what they plan to do about it.

come on over Zulu, the rebels could use a good pilot like yourself.....no wait, thats Star Wars 

yes, I'm afraid my open mind, my reason, my examination of all sides of the argument from the 80's when I was a nipper studying flood prevention, until now - I've yet to see any evidence disproving the existence of AGW, try as I might - no ones come up with the goods - Nickbats extensive research was our last, best hope....no, wait thats Star Wars again 

[cem_devecioglu]

from another point of view , oil cartels and many industry owners can hire even 8 million people to write similiar things because their profits are directly related to fossil fuels and co2 

Cem!!! How dare you accuse the deniers of being owned lock, stock and barrel..........preposterous, oil companies are among the most honest, environmentally and socially responsible bodies on the planet 

I'll have no truck with this scandalous and libelous reasoning 

  dont know a momentary courage maybe

[Banjax]

maybe banjax is feeling victimised and struck back at albs...lol..you certainly did own him there nick....still laughing

damn, i'll admit it was quite a good comeback 

[Banjax]

from another point of view , oil cartels and many industry owners can hire even 8 million people to write similiar things because their profits are directly related to fossil fuels and co2 

Cem!!! How dare you accuse the deniers of being owned lock, stock and barrel..........preposterous, oil companies are among the most honest, environmentally and socially responsible bodies on the planet 

I'll have no truck with this scandalous and libelous reasoning 

  dont know a momentary courage maybe

stay strong, brave Turk 

[Nickbat]

It is clear to most that the daytime absorption and nighttime release of IR radiation associated with modern building materials radically affects temperature. That's why central London is always hotter than the suburbs.

The urban heat island effect (UHI) mentioned above is noted today in a report from Arizona. Note that temperature data is always over a 24-hour period, thus warmer nights due to the UHI effect may make it appear as if the days are warmer, even if they're not.

"The meteorological summer - June, July and August - ended last week as the ninth-warmest on record in Phoenix, the National Weather Service reported.

The average daytime high of 105.3 degrees was almost normal, but overnight lows averaged 82.8 degrees, almost 3 degrees above normal and the fifth-warmest nighttime average in 114 years of record-keeping.

Phoenix's hot nights are largely the result of the urban heat island, scientists believe. The concrete, asphalt and buildings absorb heat all day and trap it, releasing it far more slowly than the open desert, where nights cool quickly.

So far, most scientists would attribute the warm nights to the heat island rather than a permanent change in the climate."

Precisely. 

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/09/06/20100906phoenix-weather-summer.html

[Nickbat]

When the science doesn't comply, use and abuse the children instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4

Notice the veiled threats of violence?

Despicable. 

[albitz]

Banjax - in the interest of forum harmony, not to mention the admins outgoings on Parecetamol, I will refrain from getting into a slanging match.
You say you have studied the subject since the 80,s and you know that man made climate change is a fact. I ask again, show the proof. If you can show me incontrovertible proof, facts which cant possibly be denied, then I will be convinced.
Time to s**t or get of the pot methinks.

[Banjax]

It is clear to most that the daytime absorption and nighttime release of IR radiation associated with modern building materials radically affects temperature. That's why central London is always hotter than the suburbs.

The urban heat island effect (UHI) mentioned above is noted today in a report from Arizona. Note that temperature data is always over a 24-hour period, thus warmer nights due to the UHI effect may make it appear as if the days are warmer, even if they're not.

"The meteorological summer - June, July and August - ended last week as the ninth-warmest on record in Phoenix, the National Weather Service reported.

The average daytime high of 105.3 degrees was almost normal, but overnight lows averaged 82.8 degrees, almost 3 degrees above normal and the fifth-warmest nighttime average in 114 years of record-keeping.

Phoenix's hot nights are largely the result of the urban heat island, scientists believe. The concrete, asphalt and buildings absorb heat all day and trap it, releasing it far more slowly than the open desert, where nights cool quickly.

So far, most scientists would attribute the warm nights to the heat island rather than a permanent change in the climate."

Precisely. 

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/09/06/20100906phoenix-weather-summer.html

well......d'uh....you think that maybe real scientists take into account these variables, test them, adjust accordingly or even.....gosh.......use sites not in the centre of cities?

You're basic assumptions Nickbat that we're all idiots will be slowly picked apart, piece by little piece until there's nothing......nothing left of your little dream.

Nothing.

Mwahaha-haha


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf