Mr. Antifrank, I think it's ridiculous to put the Holocaust alongside the contentious issue of global warming, and the contentious issue of the politics relating to the Ukraine/Russia situation.
It's a small step away from the uncouth 'denier' language.
Lol.
Conspiracy theories are nuts, unless it's my conspiracy theory.
Climate science denial, Holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, all the same.
Politically / ideologically motivated delusion.
Out of interest, what odds are you willing to bet that next year's global air temperatures will be higher than, say, 2003?
Which temperature data set? Calendar year or Meteorological year?
NASA's Land-Ocean temperature index. On reflection, let's pick 2005 so it's a ten year period.
2005 was warmer than 2003.
The probability of 2015 being warmer than 2005 is about 1-in-5 in my view, so the appropriate odds would be - I think - 4/1 warmer and 1/4 colder, perhaps adjusted slightly to produce an overround, so 7/2 warmer and 1/5 colder?
So you think it's highly unlikely the Earth will have warmed in the underlying trend over the last decade?
No, not at all.
It's because on a ten-year time scale the size of the interannual variations is still larger than the trend and your base year of 2005 was a record warm year at the time, so was above trend.
You only need a rudimentary understanding to see that those two things combined mean that it makes it less likely that 2015 will be warmer than 2005 - consider whether a random year x would be warmer than the year x-10, or a random year y being warmer than the year y-20.
That's like saying it's a mug's game to bet on individual football matches or elections. It's not a mug's game: you bet on the odds. What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought.
Strangely I'm not going to wait to 2020 to collect my winnings.
Individual years of climate vary so much is what makes it a mugs bet.
Who knows which way the dog is going to go next year, but the 10 year running average shows the rise.
That is I'm willing to bet that 2004-2014 is warmer than 1993-2003.
You're going to bet on a ten year average when you know the data for nine years already? How brave of you. I guess you won't ever bet on Manchester United to beat West Ham, but only on their average result across ten seasons?
Which claim in that video are you saying counters mine? If it's the bit about not melting steel, that's true. You don't need to melt steel, you just need to weaken it to the point the building will collapse.
Mr. (or Miss?) S, whether it's occurring and, if it is, whether that's due to the natural change in the climate which has always happened or largely/wholly due to human industrial activity.
What changes have caused past natural changes in the climate and which is responsible now?
ooh there are lots
mini ice ages, volcanoes, supervolcanoes, changes in the earth's rotation, milankovitch cycles...
That's the answer to the first question. The second question is which of these has happened recently to cause the recent climate change?
Try a peak in the activity of the sun which reached its maximum in the early part of the millennium and has since declined.
Nothing about the warming period which ended in the early part of this millennium is unusual when compared with previous warming periods - maximum temperatures, rate of change or extent are all comparable with previous warming periods. In fact they all compare on the low side with previous major warming periods such as in the Mid 2nd millenium BC or the Roman period.
The highest temperatures seen in the post glacial period were around 6-8000 BP in a period known as the Holocene Climactic Optimum. We have not come close to approaching the temperatures of that period at the moment. Not surprisingly it coincided with the foundations of our agriculture and the birth of civilisations.
With a few blips like those I have mentioned it has all been pretty much downhill since then.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
Climate is hugely complex with big holes in our knowledge to produce really accurate models that would work on a year by year basis. However really simple models work at large scales - like simply plotting atmospheric concentration of CO2 vs Global mean temperature as seen on the second graph on this page
Mr. Antifrank, I think it's ridiculous to put the Holocaust alongside the contentious issue of global warming, and the contentious issue of the politics relating to the Ukraine/Russia situation.
It's a small step away from the uncouth 'denier' language.
Lol.
Conspiracy theories are nuts, unless it's my conspiracy theory.
Climate science denial, Holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, all the same.
Politically / ideologically motivated delusion.
Out of interest, what odds are you willing to bet that next year's global air temperatures will be higher than, say, 2003?
Which temperature data set? Calendar year or Meteorological year?
NASA's Land-Ocean temperature index. On reflection, let's pick 2005 so it's a ten year period.
2005 was warmer than 2003.
The probability of 2015 being warmer than 2005 is about 1-in-5 in my view, so the appropriate odds would be - I think - 4/1 warmer and 1/4 colder, perhaps adjusted slightly to produce an overround, so 7/2 warmer and 1/5 colder?
So you think it's highly unlikely the Earth will have warmed in the underlying trend over the last decade?
No, not at all.
It's because on a ten-year time scale the size of the interannual variations is still larger than the trend and your base year of 2005 was a record warm year at the time, so was above trend.
You only need a rudimentary understanding to see that those two things combined mean that it makes it less likely that 2015 will be warmer than 2005 - consider whether a random year x would be warmer than the year x-10, or a random year y being warmer than the year y-20.
Ok, so what odds will you offer me that 2015 will be above the 2003-2007 average? Over the last five years, the variability has been a maximum of 0.07 around the average. Considering the global temperature increased by 0.1 per decade over the last century, it would be almost certain that next year's would be above the 2003-2007 average, if you believe global warming is continuing.
That's like saying it's a mug's game to bet on individual football matches or elections. It's not a mug's game: you bet on the odds. What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought.
Strangely I'm not going to wait to 2020 to collect my winnings.
Individual years of climate vary so much is what makes it a mugs bet.
Who knows which way the dog is going to go next year, but the 10 year running average shows the rise.
That is I'm willing to bet that 2004-2014 is warmer than 1993-2003.
You're going to bet on a ten year average when you know the data for nine years already? How brave of you. I guess you won't ever bet on Manchester United to beat West Ham, but only on their average result across ten seasons?
I never bet on football, rugby all the way when it comes to sports - bookies are atrocious at the oval ball game.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
More general question: has anyone produced a model of any unique complex system like the earth which is better than necromancy when it comes to making predictions? It should be child's play to predict the outcome of a race between a dozen horses, given the limited number of outcomes, the non-unique nature of horses and races and the sheer volume of data available on both. If it isn't, why is it such a doddle predicting the climate?
That's like saying it's a mug's game to bet on individual football matches or elections. It's not a mug's game: you bet on the odds. What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought.
Strangely I'm not going to wait to 2020 to collect my winnings.
Individual years of climate vary so much is what makes it a mugs bet.
Who knows which way the dog is going to go next year, but the 10 year running average shows the rise.
That is I'm willing to bet that 2004-2014 is warmer than 1993-2003.
You're going to bet on a ten year average when you know the data for nine years already? How brave of you. I guess you won't ever bet on Manchester United to beat West Ham, but only on their average result across ten seasons?
I never bet on football, rugby all the way when it comes to sports - bookies are atrocious at the oval ball game.
In the decade to 2005, average temperatures rose by 0.25. Meanwhile variability over the last decade has been a MAXIMUM of 0.08 off the 5-year mean. Yet you're too scared to bet on 2015 being above 2005?
Mr. (or Miss?) S, whether it's occurring and, if it is, whether that's due to the natural change in the climate which has always happened or largely/wholly due to human industrial activity.
What changes have caused past natural changes in the climate and which is responsible now?
ooh there are lots
mini ice ages, volcanoes, supervolcanoes, changes in the earth's rotation, milankovitch cycles...
That's the answer to the first question. The second question is which of these has happened recently to cause the recent climate change?
Well, given tonight's topics it's obvious. The more conspiracy theories there are, the more the climate warms. From JFK's assassination to 9/11 and MH17, the climate warms whenever a new conspiracy is espoused, and accelerates whenever Michael Moore makes a film.
People! Believe the government and the Earth will live!
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
Climate is hugely complex with big holes in our knowledge to produce really accurate models that would work on a year by year basis. However really simple models work at large scales - like simply plotting atmospheric concentration of CO2 vs Global mean temperature as seen on the second graph on this page
As the first graph show, not much connection on a short time frame but on the longer scale the trend is blatantly and clearly obvious.
I am afraid using the Skeptical Science blog as support for any position on climate change is a non starter given its atrocious bias. It was after all founded specifically with the aim of politicizing the climate debate.
If you want to use references then you should always use peer reviewed papers.
...What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought....
Your reasoning is faulty because you have to know two further things to judge good odds. (1) How large the inter-annual variability is. (2) Whether the base year was above or below trend.
Ok, let's take the inter-annual variability out. What odds will you offer 2015 is above the 2003-2007 average?
That's a much more interesting question.
A five-year average isn't sufficient to take all the inter-annual variability, neither is ten years, but it would be better.
So, let's say comparing 2015 with the ten-year average of 2001-2010. The probabilities I'd assign to this question would be something like: Warmer 80% Colder 20%
Cameron, Clegg, Major, Lawson, Brown, Blair, Thatcher, Bush, Gorbachev have been sent up in the flames, where was the outrage? Laurie Penny might be remembered this time next year, might help shift a couple of books, perhaps Milband will be given the treatment.
Laurie Penny @PennyRed 21m21 minutes ago I'm actually from Lewes. I grew up there and went to Bonfire Night every year. I'm appalled by the Salmond effigy. #LewesBonfire
She does have a point - the effigy as far too flattering.
Lewes does have an appalling history of selecting bonfire effigies. IIRC it's not so long that they used the Pope.
I'm not a Catholic, or even a Christian, but .....
I believe Lewes is staunchly Protestant and every year there is a procession of burning crosses. So an effigy of the Pope being burnt is not in the least bit surprising quite honestly - Over the years, many establishment figures at home and abroad have gone up in flames; tis very democratic as everyone is fair game – long may it continue.
Mandela was very, very relaxed about poor blacks being burnt alive by "necklacing" if they happened to be his political opponents, so burning the pious old fraud in effigy would be fairly reasonable.
Nope, as Hurst Llama points out.
The whole Lewes effigy thing is unpleasant nonsense, whoever the target is - one of those offensive gestures which tries to get away with being "only a bit of fun". But it's best ignored, as you would a kid shouting a rude word.
I find the Labour party offensive, can we ban that?
World oil refining capacity is growing far faster than world oil production, so it's no great surprise that old refineries, that struggle with heavier blends of oil, are shutting down.
World oil refining capacity might be growing but UK oil refining capacity is reducing.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
The IPCC models do quite well with the last 150 years, but they struggle with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
Interestingly, they are undersensitive when used to model the LGM - that is the models really want to model a stable climate, rather than changing it dramatically.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
The IPCC models do quite well with the last 150 years, but they struggle with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
Interestingly, they are undersensitive when used to model the LGM - that is the models really want to model a stable climate, rather than changing it dramatically.
Have they produced a model that deals with the 'pause'? This at a time when they were predicting runaway global warming?
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
Climate is hugely complex with big holes in our knowledge to produce really accurate models that would work on a year by year basis. However really simple models work at large scales - like simply plotting atmospheric concentration of CO2 vs Global mean temperature as seen on the second graph on this page
As the first graph show, not much connection on a short time frame but on the longer scale the trend is blatantly and clearly obvious.
Climate is always changing on Earth it always has, it always will. The changes can be long and drawn out, like the 12,000 years it took for the ice melt in the Great Thaw. It can be sudden as in the less than 50 years that it took the North Sea to fill Doggerland and then in a few terrible days the breach into the Channel was made.
Things that make our Climate and weather: 1. Distance from Sol to Earth (roughly 93 million miles) but varies 2. Earth orbit disturbance caused by anything such as impact from space and long periods of volcanic or plate actions. The moon is slowly distancing itself from us. 3. The earth wobbles on it's axis, It also changes it's magnetic pole every 100k years or so. Be prepared! 4. The destruction of the forests by man will have some effect on the content of atmosphere, but don't forget that all plants produce Oxygen and CO2. 5 . At the moment the Atlantic is widening the mediterranean is shrinking and the Red Sea is closing.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
The IPCC models do quite well with the last 150 years, but they struggle with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
Interestingly, they are undersensitive when used to model the LGM - that is the models really want to model a stable climate, rather than changing it dramatically.
No that is not why they do it. The models are predicated on a very limited set of variables influencing climate change and that is why they fail, not only looking back at the LGM but at almost everything in prehistory and the historical period prior to the last 150 years. Given that they have been calibrated to the temperature record of the last 150 years as a basis for the modelling they show no predictive quality at all
Funnily enough as an aside this is fresh in my mind as I was chairing a conference of 140 archaeologists, geologists and geomorphologists on the LGM and the succeeding late upper palaeolithic interstadial last Saturday.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Mr. Antifrank, I think it's ridiculous to put the Holocaust alongside the contentious issue of global warming, and the contentious issue of the politics relating to the Ukraine/Russia situation.
It's a small step away from the uncouth 'denier' language.
Lol.
Conspiracy theories are nuts, unless it's my conspiracy theory.
Climate science denial, Holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, all the same.
Politically / ideologically motivated delusion.
Out of interest, what odds are you willing to bet that next year's global air temperatures will be higher than, say, 2003?
Individual year bets are a mugs game when it comes to climate.
10 Year running average I'd be happy to go with.
That's like saying it's a mug's game to bet on individual football matches or elections. It's not a mug's game: you bet on the odds. What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought.
Strangely I'm not going to wait to 2020 to collect my winnings.
It's pointless trying to argue with people on PB about climate change, they have opinions. It's OK to have opinions about political parties and events, but nobody here is a climate scientist whose work is subject to peer review. You may get some pseudo scientific stuff cherry picked to back up their opinions but I prefer to believe the scientific consensus from scientists who are getting the big picture from real measurements of many variables. The fact that we are getting measurements of ice growth in the Antarctic or sun spot activity is great. Science will progress and models will improve, but the consensus is there for a reason. Betting on whether one year is going to be hotter than another is just daft, that's not climate, that's weather. Is there a correlation between voting Kipper and believing in conspiracy theories?
...What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought....
Your reasoning is faulty because you have to know two further things to judge good odds. (1) How large the inter-annual variability is. (2) Whether the base year was above or below trend.
Ok, let's take the inter-annual variability out. What odds will you offer 2015 is above the 2003-2007 average?
That's a much more interesting question.
A five-year average isn't sufficient to take all the inter-annual variability, neither is ten years, but it would be better.
So, let's say comparing 2015 with the ten-year average of 2001-2010. The probabilities I'd assign to this question would be something like: Warmer 80% Colder 20%
Laurie Penny @PennyRed 21m21 minutes ago I'm actually from Lewes. I grew up there and went to Bonfire Night every year. I'm appalled by the Salmond effigy. #LewesBonfire
She does have a point - the effigy as far too flattering.
Lewes does have an appalling history of selecting bonfire effigies. IIRC it's not so long that they used the Pope.
I'm not a Catholic, or even a Christian, but .....
I believe Lewes is staunchly Protestant and every year there is a procession of burning crosses. So an effigy of the Pope being burnt is not in the least bit surprising quite honestly - Over the years, many establishment figures at home and abroad have gone up in flames; tis very democratic as everyone is fair game – long may it continue.
Mandela was very, very relaxed about poor blacks being burnt alive by "necklacing" if they happened to be his political opponents, so burning the pious old fraud in effigy would be fairly reasonable.
Nope, as Hurst Llama points out.
The whole Lewes effigy thing is unpleasant nonsense, whoever the target is - one of those offensive gestures which tries to get away with being "only a bit of fun". But it's best ignored, as you would a kid shouting a rude word.
I find the Labour party offensive, can we ban that?
Well if you burnt it in effigy then you should be ignored.
Salmond too should of course have laughed it off... but as a potential Westminster candidate who would be able to vote on English matters but not the same ones in his own constituency he should surely expect some harsh criticism.
The Lewes effigies seem a bit crude to me, but this is what you get when blokey types try to run things from the public bar.
It's pointless trying to argue with people on PB about climate change, they have opinions. It's OK to have opinions about political parties and events, but nobody here is a climate scientist whose work is subject to peer review. You may get some pseudo scientific stuff cherry picked to back up their opinions but I prefer to believe the scientific consensus from scientists who are getting the big picture from real measurements of many variables. The fact that we are getting measurements of ice growth in the Antarctic or sun spot activity is great. Science will progress and models will improve, but the consensus is there for a reason. Betting on whether one year is going to be hotter than another is just daft, that's not climate, that's weather. Is there a correlation between voting Kipper and believing in conspiracy theories?
Not peer reviewed as I work for a living rather than just doing pure research but I would refute that the work I do is either pseudo science or based on cherry picking. Indeed I would reckon that the dozens of clients I have worked for in both archaeology and geology doing palaeo-environment work over the last 25 or so years would also dispute that idea.
I can link to plenty of peer reviewed papers to support what I have said this evening.
And for the record I don't believe anyone other than those blamed for it in the official accounts perpetrated 9/11.
It's certainly starting to appear that we are looking at a battle between Tory and Labour for most seats, with the winner on 280-290 max, and below 35% of the vote.
Then it will be about deals and alliances.
If the polls carry on this way, it's inevitable that the five main leaders - Cameron, Ed, Clegg, Sturgeon, Farage - will have to spell out, in advance, their respective positions in terms of alliances and red lines.
it would be good if they did but I doubt they will. The Libdems (in the form of Lynne Featherstone) have already indicated they are not inclined to give away their negotiating position in advance.....
Generally parties don't like to be pinned down without knowing the figures. But it's probably true of the LibDems in particular that it'll be hard to go through an election without giving a clear signal. It's easier for Tories and Labour - "We hope to govern, compromising with others if necessary".
By the way, whether we agree with it or not, that's a particularly entertainingly-written lead piece by David.
Thanks, Nick. I do try to amuse as well as inform, where possible.
Salmond too should of course have laughed it off... but as a potential Westminster candidate who would be able to vote on English matters but not the same ones in his own constituency he should surely expect some harsh criticism.
The Lewes effigies seem a bit crude to me, but this is what you get when blokey types try to run things from the public bar.
God, it's bad enough when you think it's a generic Scots MP voting on English-only matters. Thinking of Alex Salmond doing it is just appalling.
Bottom line, all the explanations of how the planes brought down the towers (including the third one they didn't even hit), are taking an existing scenario, and explaining how that could have happened. NOT assessing what is most likely to have happened.
Which claim in that video are you saying counters mine? If it's the bit about not melting steel, that's true. You don't need to melt steel, you just need to weaken it to the point the building will collapse.
I also note that the video has a go at the cover-up investigation for not examining for explosive residue (they admit to it). Given they went to such lengths to set up explosives in the tower, and arranged for the investigating team to hide this fact, why didn't the team just lie and say they tested for explosive residue and it was negative? Sounds like a pretty bad cover-up to me.
Obviously, I'm not an expert, or a scientist, but I've seen a fair few fires, when I'm not on strike/drinking tea/playing snooker, and I can tell you that I've seen buildings that you'd think were bomb proof bought down by fairly middling fires. Portal framed factories all twisted and warped, steel framed barns demolished by a bit o'burning straw. I hate to think what destruction a few tons of Jet-A, fanned by the chimney effect would have on a highrise.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
Climate is hugely complex with big holes in our knowledge to produce really accurate models that would work on a year by year basis. However really simple models work at large scales - like simply plotting atmospheric concentration of CO2 vs Global mean temperature as seen on the second graph on this page
As the first graph show, not much connection on a short time frame but on the longer scale the trend is blatantly and clearly obvious.
I am afraid using the Skeptical Science blog as support for any position on climate change is a non starter given its atrocious bias. It was after all founded specifically with the aim of politicizing the climate debate.
If you want to use references then you should always use peer reviewed papers.
On a 'large scale' it seems to me impossible to argue one way or the other that temperature rises follow rises in CO2 or the other way around.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
The IPCC models do quite well with the last 150 years, but they struggle with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
Interestingly, they are undersensitive when used to model the LGM - that is the models really want to model a stable climate, rather than changing it dramatically.
No that is not why they do it. The models are predicated on a very limited set of variables influencing climate change and that is why they fail, not only looking back at the LGM but at almost everything in prehistory and the historical period prior to the last 150 years. Given that they have been calibrated to the temperature record of the last 150 years as a basis for the modelling they show no predictive quality at all
Funnily enough as an aside this is fresh in my mind as I was chairing a conference of 140 archaeologists, geologists and geomorphologists on the LGM and the succeeding late upper palaeolithic interstadial last Saturday.
You make two factual errors.
(1) You say that the models are calibrated to the temperature record of the last 150 years. This isn't true. Climate models are tested against the temperature record of the last 150 years, but it would be pretty controversial if they were calibrated against them (which would be hard to do in a technical sense). Brohan, P. wrote a paper on why the development of climate models using only the satellite record to evaluate progress during the development process was likely to lead to models that were invariant to change. You could also look at some of the papers in the newish Geoscientific Model Development journal to find out more about the development process.
(2) The climate models are still missing some processes, but it's ludicrous to say that they have a limited set of variables that influence climate. The solar cycle is there. Volcanoes are there. Clouds, etc. The main things I can think of is that some of that atmospheric chemistry is not fully included yet, because the computing power hasn't been there, and interactive ice sheets are also missing, because the assumption has been that they won't change much by 2100, which is the normal end date for most future runs.
Bottom line, all the explanations of how the planes brought down the towers (including the third one they didn't even hit), are taking an existing scenario, and explaining how that could have happened. NOT assessing what is most likely to have happened.
Which claim in that video are you saying counters mine? If it's the bit about not melting steel, that's true. You don't need to melt steel, you just need to weaken it to the point the building will collapse.
I also note that the video has a go at the cover-up investigation for not examining for explosive residue (they admit to it). Given they went to such lengths to set up explosives in the tower, and arranged for the investigating team to hide this fact, why didn't the team just lie and say they tested for explosive residue and it was negative? Sounds like a pretty bad cover-up to me.
To melt it equally, in all the girders supporting the structure, at one time. Otherwise it will (obviously) tip over rather than fall into its own footprint.
So your best argument in favour of the official version of events is that their cover up should have been better? I may as well post you your conspiraloon sign up form with complimentary tinfoil hat.
Mr. (or Miss?) S, whether it's occurring and, if it is, whether that's due to the natural change in the climate which has always happened or largely/wholly due to human industrial activity.
What changes have caused past natural changes in the climate and which is responsible now?
ooh there are lots
mini ice ages, volcanoes, supervolcanoes, changes in the earth's rotation, milankovitch cycles...
That's the answer to the first question. The second question is which of these has happened recently to cause the recent climate change?
Try a peak in the activity of the sun which reached its maximum in the early part of the millennium and has since declined.
Nothing about the warming period which ended in the early part of this millennium is unusual when compared with previous warming periods - maximum temperatures, rate of change or extent are all comparable with previous warming periods. In fact they all compare on the low side with previous major warming periods such as in the Mid 2nd millenium BC or the Roman period.
The highest temperatures seen in the post glacial period were around 6-8000 BP in a period known as the Holocene Climactic Optimum. We have not come close to approaching the temperatures of that period at the moment. Not surprisingly it coincided with the foundations of our agriculture and the birth of civilisations.
With a few blips like those I have mentioned it has all been pretty much downhill since then.
Bottom line, all the explanations of how the planes brought down the towers (including the third one they didn't even hit), are taking an existing scenario, and explaining how that could have happened. NOT assessing what is most likely to have happened.
Which claim in that video are you saying counters mine? If it's the bit about not melting steel, that's true. You don't need to melt steel, you just need to weaken it to the point the building will collapse.
I also note that the video has a go at the cover-up investigation for not examining for explosive residue (they admit to it). Given they went to such lengths to set up explosives in the tower, and arranged for the investigating team to hide this fact, why didn't the team just lie and say they tested for explosive residue and it was negative? Sounds like a pretty bad cover-up to me.
So your best argument in favour of the official version of events is that their cover up should have been better? I may as well post you your conspiraloon sign up form with complimentary tinfoil hat.
That's not my best argument. My best argument depends on whatever is the crux of your conspiracy theory. It sounds like it's the claim that steel doesn't melt in office fires. Is that correct?
...What do you think the chance is that next year will have a higher temperature than a decade ago? Let's bear in mind that the average growth over the last century has been 0.01 degrees celsius each year, surely the underlying trend will suggest it's highly likely that next year's is higher than a decade ago. 0.1 degrees higher, I'd have thought....
Your reasoning is faulty because you have to know two further things to judge good odds. (1) How large the inter-annual variability is. (2) Whether the base year was above or below trend.
Ok, let's take the inter-annual variability out. What odds will you offer 2015 is above the 2003-2007 average?
That's a much more interesting question.
A five-year average isn't sufficient to take all the inter-annual variability, neither is ten years, but it would be better.
So, let's say comparing 2015 with the ten-year average of 2001-2010. The probabilities I'd assign to this question would be something like: Warmer 80% Colder 20%
I'll take those odds if you do 2003-2007.
Like I said, five years isn't long enough. The five year period 2008-2012 was colder on average than the five year period 2003-2007.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Mr. (or Miss?) S, whether it's occurring and, if it is, whether that's due to the natural change in the climate which has always happened or largely/wholly due to human industrial activity.
What changes have caused past natural changes in the climate and which is responsible now?
ooh there are lots
mini ice ages, volcanoes, supervolcanoes, changes in the earth's rotation, milankovitch cycles...
That's the answer to the first question. The second question is which of these has happened recently to cause the recent climate change?
Try a peak in the activity of the sun which reached its maximum in the early part of the millennium and has since declined.
Nothing about the warming period which ended in the early part of this millennium is unusual when compared with previous warming periods - maximum temperatures, rate of change or extent are all comparable with previous warming periods. In fact they all compare on the low side with previous major warming periods such as in the Mid 2nd millenium BC or the Roman period.
The highest temperatures seen in the post glacial period were around 6-8000 BP in a period known as the Holocene Climactic Optimum. We have not come close to approaching the temperatures of that period at the moment. Not surprisingly it coincided with the foundations of our agriculture and the birth of civilisations.
With a few blips like those I have mentioned it has all been pretty much downhill since then.
There is no money in solar cycle research. There is in CO2/global warming.
That's not true - the government have just paid for the Met Office to open a Space Weather Operations Centre, so there is plenty of interest - and money - in solar cycles, etc.
Betting on whether one year is going to be hotter than another is just daft, that's not climate, that's weather.
No, it's not. Weather is location specific. Something global over the course of a whole year is not weather.
Yes Which is why you cannot say that 2014 will be the warmest year on record. That might be true of a specific place (in fact October here was the 11th warmest) - but not the globe. The people quoting records are quoting ground based recordings. Satellites have been showing no global increases for 18 years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/ ''thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.'' ''The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998: ...there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.'' ''a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.''
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
Bottom line, all the explanations of how the planes brought down the towers (including the third one they didn't even hit), are taking an existing scenario, and explaining how that could have happened. NOT assessing what is most likely to have happened.
Which claim in that video are you saying counters mine? If it's the bit about not melting steel, that's true. You don't need to melt steel, you just need to weaken it to the point the building will collapse.
I also note that the video has a go at the cover-up investigation for not examining for explosive residue (they admit to it). Given they went to such lengths to set up explosives in the tower, and arranged for the investigating team to hide this fact, why didn't the team just lie and say they tested for explosive residue and it was negative? Sounds like a pretty bad cover-up to me.
To melt it equally, in all the girders supporting the structure, at one time. Otherwise it will (obviously) tip over rather than fall into its own footprint.
So your best argument in favour of the official version of events is that their cover up should have been better? I may as well post you your conspiraloon sign up form with complimentary tinfoil hat.
"To melt it equally, in all the girders supporting the structure, at one time. Otherwise it will (obviously) tip over rather than fall into its own footprint. "
There is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. There is an explanation which fits with all the known facts and the evidence. Your video - like all conspiracy theorists - ignores the evidence and asks a silly question. And when that question is answered, they move onto something else.
A fool's errand trying to answer a conspiracy theory with facts and evidence.
Richard Tyndall, anti climate-science fossil fuel lobbyist, always calls for* peer reviewed papers
So just for him, here one of the greatest exercises in peer-review synthesis that humanity has ever conducted.
ww.ipcc.ch
*(usually posting a link to one or two that don't even undermine the scientific consensus, and are sometimes even cited by the IPCC, but "look" "sciency" enough to make people think he's some sort of impartial expert)
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Great to see the Adam Smith Institute getting back to first principles on immigration.
"And the Adam Smith Institute’s Sam Bowman called Boris’ plan “barking mad.”
“However the UK’s relationship with the EU ends up, it is vital that we preserve the freedom for people to work where they can find the best deal,” Bowman said.
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
Hugh I know you know absolutely nothing about the subject so I will excuse your ignorant rantings. Needless to say I have made a very successful carer out of my knowledge of palaeo-environment modelling - most of it unconnected with the oil industry - and am happy to talk about it as a subject for ever and a day.
And since you ask (okay I know you didn't but I am taking the opportunity educate you a little), my personal opinion is that we should not be burning fossil fuels for energy as it is a finite resource which has far more important applications than energy. If we could devise a successful stable replacement that shut down every hydrocarbon powered station and replaced every petrol driven car then not only would I welcome it but I can assure you it wouldn't lose me any money either.
So unsurprisingly you are wrong on every salient point in your posting.
That's not my best argument. My best argument depends on whatever is the crux of your conspiracy theory. It sounds like it's the claim that steel doesn't melt in office fires. Is that correct?
There is no 'crux' of 'my' theory. Here are some of the manifold 'cruxes' -and this is only physical, not circumstantial.
Twin Towers:
Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
-Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration -Improbable symmetry of debris distribution -Extremely rapid onset of destruction -Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes -Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally -Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking -Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds -1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found -Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front -Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame -Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises -Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples -Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: -Slow onset with large visible deformations -Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) -Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel -High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
In WTC 7 (the building that collapsed without being hit -pre-announced by the BBC)
-Rapid onset of collapse -Sounds of explosions -Symmetrical structural failure -Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance -Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint -Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds -Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered: -FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples -Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses -Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: -Slow onset with large visible deformations -Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) -Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel -High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed
If someone had rigged the building with demolition charges. Something that needs a lot of work to for example drill into the structure in numerous places to place the charges and then wire them up, I think the people working there might just have noticed.
Global Warming. The warmists claim that nothing can be drawn in less than 30 years. Well nearly 18 years since the last warming now and if anything temperatures are forming.
They claim less arctic ice means warming, they claim more antarctic ice means warming, they claim that the warmings hiding in the deep bits of the sea.
In truth I think there are so many variables, including so many that we don't yet know about, ad we have so little accurate data (about a century worldwide - but not everywhere by any means, in England since 1650 and about 30 years of satellite measurements that anyone who can claim to predict future climate is deluded and anyone who bases government energy policy on such claims is utterly deluded.
The whole thing is based on computer models, none of which predicted the current 18 year pause so why should anything else about them be accurate? Frankly its like saying that if you entered all sorts of data into a very powerful computer and modelled the future you could predict the next election or the 14.00 at Kempton Park. If it were possible, someone would have done it and cleaned out the bookies.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
What utter rubbish. We're well aware that this happens: it's happened all too often in recent history. See, for instance, Pol Pot or Stalin or Mao or Hitler or Pinochet or Rwanda.
What we find hard to understand is people who ignore the facts and evidence, start with a theory then work backwards ignoring every single fact no matter how verified by however many people and then claim that all those people and those who believe them are the delusional ones.
Out of interest, what's the record for a bet to come home at on pb?
I have a few pence on with Stan James from earlier in the year on UKIP taking Blackpool North & Cleveleys at 250/1. UKIP are currently 12/1 with Ladbrokes on this seat, having polled 27% today with Lord Ashcroft, only 6% behind the Conservatives in first place.
As there seem to be some knowledgeable people on here tonight, has anyone produced a model of the Earth's climate that matches history? I only ask because if a model can't explain past data I am not sure how much use it is in predicting the future.
Climate is hugely complex with big holes in our knowledge to produce really accurate models that would work on a year by year basis. However really simple models work at large scales - like simply plotting atmospheric concentration of CO2 vs Global mean temperature as seen on the second graph on this page
As the first graph show, not much connection on a short time frame but on the longer scale the trend is blatantly and clearly obvious.
I am afraid using the Skeptical Science blog as support for any position on climate change is a non starter given its atrocious bias. It was after all founded specifically with the aim of politicizing the climate debate.
If you want to use references then you should always use peer reviewed papers.
On a 'large scale' it seems to me impossible to argue one way or the other that temperature rises follow rises in CO2 or the other way around.
Sorry Flightpath but in the interests of fairness, just as I called out Alistair for using Skeptical Science as a source I also have to call you out for using WUWT or Forbes. Blogs, however much you might agree with them, have no place in a scientific argument given that they are self proclaimed supporters of one side or another.
And I say that even though I agree with your basic position.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Well certainly not the sane ones anyway.
What is so sane about believing things that are patently not true? If the evidence points to a single possible conclusion, it is merely weak-minded to want to believe something else.
I'll be honest, David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbour book, foreworded by Michael Meacher, is fascinating. And worrying.
I don't and won't allow myself to believe a word of it, but his LIHOP theory (let it happen on purpose) is actually a good argument. Because Griffin details the enormous number of security failures that day and then invites you to consider whether the richest, most heavily armed, most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world can be that incompetent.
I'm sure they can and that they were. And I'm also sure no government could ever organise something like that against their own citizens, something which would inevitably involve a huge amount of planning and people, and keep it quiet.
Still a good read though. The conspiracy stuff about the put options on the American Airlines stocks and those Israeli's arrested in New Jersey filming the attacks are particularly intriguing.
A horrible day for mankind though. My God, those poor people in those Towers.
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
Hugh I know you know absolutely nothing about the subject so I will excuse your ignorant rantings. Needless to say I have made a very successful carer out of my knowledge of palaeo-environment modelling - most of it unconnected with the oil industry - and am happy to talk about it as a subject for ever and a day.
And since you ask (okay I know you didn't but I am taking the opportunity educate you a little), my personal opinion is that we should not be burning fossil fuels for energy as it is a finite resource which has far more important applications than energy. If we could devise a successful stable replacement that shut down every hydrocarbon powered station and replaced every petrol driven car then not only would I welcome it but I can assure you it wouldn't lose me any money either.
So unsurprisingly you are wrong on every salient point in your posting.
Tobacco companies are hedging their bets too. They know the game will eventually be up.
They kept up the anti-science obfuscation for long enough to consolidate, but the tide turned, then along came e-fags, and they got sh*t scared so decided to put resources into those "renewable" sources of nicotine addicition.
I hope you fossil fuel lobbyists do the same before it's too late for the planet.
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
We know the health risks of smoking from statistics. So if we had records of 100s of 1000s of earths and a Richard Doll to look at them, we could approach the same degree of certainty as we have about smoking. So climate change has very little in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Do you think of scientists as "the boffins", incidentally?
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
We know the health risks of smoking from statistics. So if we had records of 100s of 1000s of earths and a Richard Doll to look at them, we could approach the same degree of certainty as we have about smoking. So climate change has very little in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Do you think of scientists as "the boffins", incidentally?
Global Warming. The warmists claim that nothing can be drawn in less than 30 years. Well nearly 18 years since the last warming now and if anything temperatures are forming.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Well certainly not the sane ones anyway.
Calling people insane is just a way of anaesthetising oneself and justifying lack of further investigation.
9/11 is thirteen years old. War has always been assisted into occurring by false flag attacks. Pearl Harbour. Gulf Of Tonkin. The 7/7 London bombing. Just a few of the more recent examples. As people get it into their consciousness that most of what they see and hear in the media is tripe, they begin to disengage. This is now happening, and the coming few months will demonstrate that, as described on Telegraph blogs -
At root, this is about the rise of Ukip, anti-politics feeling, looming insurgency, the fragmentation of the old party system, more turmoil in Scotland and the sense that across the UK there is electoral chaos coming. Many of those involved give the impression that they would now rather just get on with it. Then, when they have seen how the pieces fall, the party leaders (who will that be?) can set about making the best of it, or perhaps (unintentionally) the worst of it. What comes next in British politics certainly won't be dull.
Meanwhile, in the real world (not to be confused with the alternate universe inhabited by PB Tory loons), 2014 is on course to be warmest year ever recorded.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
What utter rubbish. We're well aware that this happens: it's happened all too often in recent history. See, for instance, Pol Pot or Stalin or Mao or Hitler or Pinochet or Rwanda.
What we find hard to understand is people who ignore the facts and evidence, start with a theory then work backwards ignoring every single fact no matter how verified by however many people and then claim that all those people and those who believe them are the delusional ones.
On the contrary, I have prevented facts and evidence. And I have shown that it is in fact the official conspiracy theory that has been assumed and the facts found to fit around it, not the other way around.
However, it's not something we'll agree on, so I'm going to stop talking about it. It's an endless discussion and certainly not worth falling out over.
(1) You say that the models are calibrated to the temperature record of the last 150 years. This isn't true. Climate models are tested against the temperature record of the last 150 years, but it would be pretty controversial if they were calibrated against them (which would be hard to do in a technical sense). Brohan, P. wrote a paper on why the development of climate models using only the satellite record to evaluate progress during the development process was likely to lead to models that were invariant to change. You could also look at some of the papers in the newish Geoscientific Model Development journal to find out more about the development process.
(2) The climate models are still missing some processes, but it's ludicrous to say that they have a limited set of variables that influence climate. The solar cycle is there. Volcanoes are there. Clouds, etc. The main things I can think of is that some of that atmospheric chemistry is not fully included yet, because the computing power hasn't been there, and interactive ice sheets are also missing, because the assumption has been that they won't change much by 2100, which is the normal end date for most future runs.
Not so. The climate models are indeed calibrated against the existing temperature record. It is how they were devised in the first place. And whilst individual models may attempt to incorporate various factors, they have no way of measuring the effect of the different inputs directly and so they accentuate some forcings whilst downplaying others. Indeed a number of the leading models still include no element of solar variation and no one has yet been able to properly model the variation of cloud cover or the influences on cloud cover, which is why the CERN experiments are ongoing.
Oh dear - a whole thread destroyed by masses of really hot air on climate change - it's like being put inside Miliband's head for an hour and yes there really is nothing there either.
@iainmartin1: Lucy Powell, new Labour election supremo: "I am going to get Ed Miliband out there more because he is a fantastic asset out in the country"
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Well certainly not the sane ones anyway.
Calling people insane is just a way of anaesthetising oneself and justifying lack of further investigation.
Or the people concerned are barking. What's your position on the moon landings?
That's not my best argument. My best argument depends on whatever is the crux of your conspiracy theory. It sounds like it's the claim that steel doesn't melt in office fires. Is that correct?
There is no 'crux' of 'my' theory. Here are some of the manifold 'cruxes' -and this is only physical, not circumstantial.
....
There are counter-arguments to all your points, but you miss one fundamental issue of all....
WHY?
Why collapse the buildings? If it all was a conspiracy to get Americans to support a war, then flying the planes into the buildings (witnessed by many) would have been enough.
Why on earth go to the risk of bringing them down as well? The conspiracy makes no sense.
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
We know the health risks of smoking from statistics. So if we had records of 100s of 1000s of earths and a Richard Doll to look at them, we could approach the same degree of certainty as we have about smoking. So climate change has very little in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Do you think of scientists as "the boffins", incidentally?
"From statistics".
Lol.
The lung cancer risk was established by an epidemiologist (type of boffin). Epidemiology is an application of statistics.
You really do manage to disqualify yourself from every single discussion you take part in, in a maximum of about 4 posts.
Meanwhile, in the real world (not to be confused with the alternate universe inhabited by PB Tory loons), 2014 is on course to be warmest year ever recorded.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Well certainly not the sane ones anyway.
Calling people insane is just a way of anaesthetising oneself and justifying lack of further investigation.
Or the people concerned are barking. What's your position on the moon landings?
There have been no moon landings since 1972
That completely disproves the theory of man-made moon landings
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
Hugh I know you know absolutely nothing about the subject so I will excuse your ignorant rantings. Needless to say I have made a very successful carer out of my knowledge of palaeo-environment modelling - most of it unconnected with the oil industry - and am happy to talk about it as a subject for ever and a day.
And since you ask (okay I know you didn't but I am taking the opportunity educate you a little), my personal opinion is that we should not be burning fossil fuels for energy as it is a finite resource which has far more important applications than energy. If we could devise a successful stable replacement that shut down every hydrocarbon powered station and replaced every petrol driven car then not only would I welcome it but I can assure you it wouldn't lose me any money either.
So unsurprisingly you are wrong on every salient point in your posting.
Tobacco companies are hedging their bets too. They know the game will eventually be up.
They kept up the anti-science obfuscation for long enough to consolidate, but the tide turned, then along came e-fags, and they got sh*t scared so decided to put resources into those "renewable" sources of nicotine addicition.
I hope you fossil fuel lobbyists do the same before it's too late for the planet.
But I doubt you will.
What I do love is the way that when you can make no contribution to the discussion - as you clearly know nothing at all about it - you simply fall back on smearing those you disagree with. It is fun as it does rather highlight your ignorance.
A discussion on climate change starts, and up pops fossil fuel industry lobbyist and pseudo-science peddler Richard Tyndall to obfuscate and divert. It's like he's got a big red alarm on his desk or something. But the fossil fuel industry are of course well resourced and will not lie down.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
We know the health risks of smoking from statistics. So if we had records of 100s of 1000s of earths and a Richard Doll to look at them, we could approach the same degree of certainty as we have about smoking. So climate change has very little in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Do you think of scientists as "the boffins", incidentally?
"From statistics".
Lol.
The lung cancer risk was established by an epidemiologist (type of boffin). Epidemiology is an application of statistics.
You really do manage to disqualify yourself from every single discussion you take part in, in a maximum of about 4 posts.
Meanwhile, in the real world (not to be confused with the alternate universe inhabited by PB Tory loons), 2014 is on course to be warmest year ever recorded.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
What utter rubbish. We're well aware that this happens: it's happened all too often in recent history. See, for instance, Pol Pot or Stalin or Mao or Hitler or Pinochet or Rwanda.
What we find hard to understand is people who ignore the facts and evidence, start with a theory then work backwards ignoring every single fact no matter how verified by however many people and then claim that all those people and those who believe them are the delusional ones.
On the contrary, I have prevented facts and evidence. And I have shown that it is in fact the official conspiracy theory that has been assumed and the facts found to fit around it, not the other way around.
However, it's not something we'll agree on, so I'm going to stop talking about it. It's an endless discussion and certainly not worth falling out over.
Well I agree that not worth falling out over (not that I thought we were!) But I can tell you - as someone who is a professional investigator - that the last thing you have presented (not "prevented" though that did make me laugh) is facts and evidence.
The election of SLAB leader needs to promote a vision that will stem the flow of blood from Labour in Scotland.There are still large majorities for the SNP to overcome but at this stage the best possible hope is to minimise losses to single figures.If it gets it wrong,it is in the same territory as the once mighty Pasok in Greece,currently polling at 4.8%.Scottish Labour is on life support and will it recover or will it die?
Meanwhile, in the real world (not to be confused with the alternate universe inhabited by PB Tory loons), 2014 is on course to be warmest year ever recorded.
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Well certainly not the sane ones anyway.
Calling people insane is just a way of anaesthetising oneself and justifying lack of further investigation.
Or the people concerned are barking. What's your position on the moon landings?
But you're not barking are you? You're quite capable of investigating away without being swayed by loony theories -so on you go.
@iainmartin1: Lucy Powell, new Labour election supremo: "I am going to get Ed Miliband out there more because he is a fantastic asset out in the country"
It's a spoof right? Lucy Powell one of the girls from Made in Chelsea no? Didn't she shag Spencer? How'd she get to be a Labour MP? Oh - lives in North London - went to the local comp.............
Global Warming. The warmists claim that nothing can be drawn in less than 30 years. Well nearly 18 years since the last warming now and if anything temperatures are forming.
World oil refining capacity is growing far faster than world oil production, so it's no great surprise that old refineries, that struggle with heavier blends of oil, are shutting down.
World oil refining capacity might be growing but UK oil refining capacity is reducing.
Yes.
All 'at destination' refining capacity is in decline because there are bigger, specialised refineries near source. Jaipur, in India, is the world's largest refinery. It wasn't built for the Indian market, it was built to take heavy, sour crude from the Gulf and efficiently convert in to middle distallate, petrol, etc.
And so the trade in refined products rises, and the role of local refiners declines. If you are running a chain of petrol stations in the UK, and you have the choice of paying 99p for product refined in Jaipur, or 100p for something refined in Milford Haven, you'll choose the latter.
This is not a trend that's going to be reversed. Refined product demand is stagnant in the UK. Our refineries are old, upgrading them is expensive, and the world has too much refining capacity. Even worse, relentless debottlenecking and increased fuel efficiency means UK refining capacity is greater than UK demand for refined products.
Milford Haven was not economic to run. No government, and no policy could change that.
Comments
It's because on a ten-year time scale the size of the interannual variations is still larger than the trend and your base year of 2005 was a record warm year at the time, so was above trend.
You only need a rudimentary understanding to see that those two things combined mean that it makes it less likely that 2015 will be warmer than 2005 - consider whether a random year x would be warmer than the year x-10, or a random year y being warmer than the year y-20.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediate.htm
As the first graph show, not much connection on a short time frame but on the longer scale the trend is blatantly and clearly obvious.
Labour
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-labour-battleground-in-october-2014.html
Conservatives
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-conservative-battleground-in.html
Lib Dem
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lib-dem-battleground-in-november.html
UKIP
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-ukip-battleground-in-november-2014.html
SNP
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-snp-battleground-in-november-2014.html
Greens, Plaid Cymru, Respect and NHA
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/other-parties-battlegrounds-in-november.html
Next I'm taking stock of what these all mean together.
People! Believe the government and the Earth will live!
If you want to use references then you should always use peer reviewed papers.
A five-year average isn't sufficient to take all the inter-annual variability, neither is ten years, but it would be better.
So, let's say comparing 2015 with the ten-year average of 2001-2010. The probabilities I'd assign to this question would be something like:
Warmer 80%
Colder 20%
Interestingly, they are undersensitive when used to model the LGM - that is the models really want to model a stable climate, rather than changing it dramatically.
Things that make our Climate and weather:
1. Distance from Sol to Earth (roughly 93 million miles) but varies
2. Earth orbit disturbance caused by anything such as impact from space and long periods of volcanic or plate actions. The moon is slowly distancing itself from us.
3. The earth wobbles on it's axis, It also changes it's magnetic pole every 100k years or so. Be prepared!
4. The destruction of the forests by man will have some effect on the content of atmosphere, but don't forget that all plants produce Oxygen and CO2.
5 . At the moment the Atlantic is widening the mediterranean is shrinking and the Red Sea is closing.
Therein ends this short lesson.
Funnily enough as an aside this is fresh in my mind as I was chairing a conference of 140 archaeologists, geologists and geomorphologists on the LGM and the succeeding late upper palaeolithic interstadial last Saturday.
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
Betting on whether one year is going to be hotter than another is just daft, that's not climate, that's weather.
Is there a correlation between voting Kipper and believing in conspiracy theories?
Salmond too should of course have laughed it off... but as a potential Westminster candidate who would be able to vote on English matters but not the same ones in his own constituency he should surely expect some harsh criticism.
The Lewes effigies seem a bit crude to me, but this is what you get when blokey types try to run things from the public bar.
I can link to plenty of peer reviewed papers to support what I have said this evening.
And for the record I don't believe anyone other than those blamed for it in the official accounts perpetrated 9/11.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
''Abstract
Differentiating the CO2 measurements over the last thirty years produces a pattern that matches the temperature anomaly measured by satellites in extreme detail. That this correlation includes El Niño years, and shows that the temperature rise is causing the rise in CO2, rather than the other way around. ''
and,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/
''New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.''
''Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all.''
(1) You say that the models are calibrated to the temperature record of the last 150 years. This isn't true. Climate models are tested against the temperature record of the last 150 years, but it would be pretty controversial if they were calibrated against them (which would be hard to do in a technical sense). Brohan, P. wrote a paper on why the development of climate models using only the satellite record to evaluate progress during the development process was likely to lead to models that were invariant to change. You could also look at some of the papers in the newish Geoscientific Model Development journal to find out more about the development process.
(2) The climate models are still missing some processes, but it's ludicrous to say that they have a limited set of variables that influence climate. The solar cycle is there. Volcanoes are there. Clouds, etc. The main things I can think of is that some of that atmospheric chemistry is not fully included yet, because the computing power hasn't been there, and interactive ice sheets are also missing, because the assumption has been that they won't change much by 2100, which is the normal end date for most future runs.
I'm happy to take 1.7:1 (i.e. 0.7:1) on just the ocean temperature being warmer than the average of the last 10 years.
Essentially I'll take slightly better than even odds on something that is probably very slightly more than 50% probability...
So your best argument in favour of the official version of events is that their cover up should have been better? I may as well post you your conspiraloon sign up form with complimentary tinfoil hat.
The BBC - Why the way it is.
Let Spurs back in and we'll show you how to do it!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1rEODhIQAAy4-L.jpg:large
Which is why you cannot say that 2014 will be the warmest year on record. That might be true of a specific place (in fact October here was the 11th warmest) - but not the globe.
The people quoting records are quoting ground based recordings. Satellites have been showing no global increases for 18 years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/
''thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.''
''The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998: ...there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.''
''a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.''
So think again.
Climate change has a lot in common with the health risks of smoking actually.
Rich and powerful lobbyists muddying the waters and smearing, versus facts and science, even when they looked increasingly ridiculous, it didn't matter as long as they sowed enough doubt with enough people to keep their crazy anti-science views afloat.
They won't stop until it's no longer in the ideological / economic interests. Sadly, that will be far too late for the planet. But the good news for us it that it's only our kids and grandkids who will really suffer the worst!
There is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. There is an explanation which fits with all the known facts and the evidence. Your video - like all conspiracy theorists - ignores the evidence and asks a silly question. And when that question is answered, they move onto something else.
A fool's errand trying to answer a conspiracy theory with facts and evidence.
So just for him, here one of the greatest exercises in peer-review synthesis that humanity has ever conducted.
ww.ipcc.ch
*(usually posting a link to one or two that don't even undermine the scientific consensus, and are sometimes even cited by the IPCC, but "look" "sciency" enough to make people think he's some sort of impartial expert)
"And the Adam Smith Institute’s Sam Bowman called Boris’ plan “barking mad.”
“However the UK’s relationship with the EU ends up, it is vital that we preserve the freedom for people to work where they can find the best deal,” Bowman said.
And since you ask (okay I know you didn't but I am taking the opportunity educate you a little), my personal opinion is that we should not be burning fossil fuels for energy as it is a finite resource which has far more important applications than energy. If we could devise a successful stable replacement that shut down every hydrocarbon powered station and replaced every petrol driven car then not only would I welcome it but I can assure you it wouldn't lose me any money either.
So unsurprisingly you are wrong on every salient point in your posting.
9/11 conspiracies and climate change?
Twin Towers:
Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
-Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
-Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
-Extremely rapid onset of destruction
-Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
-Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
-Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
-Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
-1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
-Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
-Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
-Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
-Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
-Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
-Slow onset with large visible deformations
-Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
-Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
-High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
In WTC 7 (the building that collapsed without being hit -pre-announced by the BBC)
-Rapid onset of collapse
-Sounds of explosions
-Symmetrical structural failure
-Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
-Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
-Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
-Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:
-FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
-Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
-Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
-Slow onset with large visible deformations
-Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
-Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
-High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
If someone had rigged the building with demolition charges. Something that needs a lot of work to for example drill into the structure in numerous places to place the charges and then wire them up, I think the people working there might just have noticed.
Global Warming. The warmists claim that nothing can be drawn in less than 30 years. Well nearly 18 years since the last warming now and if anything temperatures are forming.
They claim less arctic ice means warming, they claim more antarctic ice means warming, they claim that the warmings hiding in the deep bits of the sea.
In truth I think there are so many variables, including so many that we don't yet know about, ad we have so little accurate data (about a century worldwide - but not everywhere by any means, in England since 1650 and about 30 years of satellite measurements that anyone who can claim to predict future climate is deluded and anyone who bases government energy policy on such claims is utterly deluded.
The whole thing is based on computer models, none of which predicted the current 18 year pause so why should anything else about them be accurate? Frankly its like saying that if you entered all sorts of data into a very powerful computer and modelled the future you could predict the next election or the 14.00 at Kempton Park. If it were possible, someone would have done it and cleaned out the bookies.
What we find hard to understand is people who ignore the facts and evidence, start with a theory then work backwards ignoring every single fact no matter how verified by however many people and then claim that all those people and those who believe them are the delusional ones.
I have a few pence on with Stan James from earlier in the year on UKIP taking Blackpool North & Cleveleys at 250/1. UKIP are currently 12/1 with Ladbrokes on this seat, having polled 27% today with Lord Ashcroft, only 6% behind the Conservatives in first place.
And I say that even though I agree with your basic position.
Because to believe that figures of authority can be inhumane enough to deliberately kill a large number of its own population requires a massive paradigm shift in people's thinking, that most do not want to contemplate.
Well certainly not the sane ones anyway.
What is so sane about believing things that are patently not true? If the evidence points to a single possible conclusion, it is merely weak-minded to want to believe something else.
I'll be honest, David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbour book, foreworded by Michael Meacher, is fascinating. And worrying.
I don't and won't allow myself to believe a word of it, but his LIHOP theory (let it happen on purpose) is actually a good argument. Because Griffin details the enormous number of security failures that day and then invites you to consider whether the richest, most heavily armed, most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world can be that incompetent.
I'm sure they can and that they were. And I'm also sure no government could ever organise something like that against their own citizens, something which would inevitably involve a huge amount of planning and people, and keep it quiet.
Still a good read though. The conspiracy stuff about the put options on the American Airlines stocks and those Israeli's arrested in New Jersey filming the attacks are particularly intriguing.
A horrible day for mankind though. My God, those poor people in those Towers.
They kept up the anti-science obfuscation for long enough to consolidate, but the tide turned, then along came e-fags, and they got sh*t scared so decided to put resources into those "renewable" sources of nicotine addicition.
I hope you fossil fuel lobbyists do the same before it's too late for the planet.
But I doubt you will.
Do you think of scientists as "the boffins", incidentally?
Lol.
At root, this is about the rise of Ukip, anti-politics feeling, looming insurgency, the fragmentation of the old party system, more turmoil in Scotland and the sense that across the UK there is electoral chaos coming. Many of those involved give the impression that they would now rather just get on with it. Then, when they have seen how the pieces fall, the party leaders (who will that be?) can set about making the best of it, or perhaps (unintentionally) the worst of it. What comes next in British politics certainly won't be dull.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11210928/This-Parliament-is-done.-Time-for-a-general-election.html
However, it's not something we'll agree on, so I'm going to stop talking about it. It's an endless discussion and certainly not worth falling out over.
A good paper on Solar cycles by the way:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full:
Quite. - makes you long for a re-run of the Sindy referendum - well. almost.
100/1 accumulator all coming in apart from them.
WHY?
Why collapse the buildings? If it all was a conspiracy to get Americans to support a war, then flying the planes into the buildings (witnessed by many) would have been enough.
Why on earth go to the risk of bringing them down as well? The conspiracy makes no sense.
You really do manage to disqualify yourself from every single discussion you take part in, in a maximum of about 4 posts.
That completely disproves the theory of man-made moon landings
Well I agree that not worth falling out over (not that I thought we were!) But I can tell you - as someone who is a professional investigator - that the last thing you have presented (not "prevented" though that did make me laugh) is facts and evidence.
Anyway, am off. Have a good evening all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html
http://www.stevebaker.info/2014/10/today-no-global-warming-for-18-years/
http://order-order.com/2014/10/01/there-has-been-no-global-warming-for-past-18-years/
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/ipcc-calculations-show-global-warming-wont-be-harmful-if-it-resumes/story-e6frg6zo-1227083037892?nk=b8a6483ffc3918f0665141daa65b3b4d
http://humanevents.com/2014/10/07/no-global-warming-for-18-years/
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/07/Bad-news-for-the-alarmists-missing-heat-from-non-existent-global-warming-isn-t-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean-after-all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2804727/There-NO-climate-crisis-Man-global-warming-lie-not-backed-science-claims-leading-meteorologist.html
All 'at destination' refining capacity is in decline because there are bigger, specialised refineries near source. Jaipur, in India, is the world's largest refinery. It wasn't built for the Indian market, it was built to take heavy, sour crude from the Gulf and efficiently convert in to middle distallate, petrol, etc.
And so the trade in refined products rises, and the role of local refiners declines. If you are running a chain of petrol stations in the UK, and you have the choice of paying 99p for product refined in Jaipur, or 100p for something refined in Milford Haven, you'll choose the latter.
This is not a trend that's going to be reversed. Refined product demand is stagnant in the UK. Our refineries are old, upgrading them is expensive, and the world has too much refining capacity. Even worse, relentless debottlenecking and increased fuel efficiency means UK refining capacity is greater than UK demand for refined products.
Milford Haven was not economic to run. No government, and no policy could change that.
WHERE WILL FARAGE RUN NOW?