• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Hot and Moist

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    So 15 years then.

    Comment


      #22
      Interesting to look back further than the last 100 years (an absurdly short, although convenient for promulgators of hysteria, time period to draw any conclusions from).

      Like, lets say, 1766 to now. Pick the top 20 annual rainfalls. Plot a graph. What does it look like?

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
        Interesting to look back further than the last 100 years (an absurdly short, although convenient for promulgators of hysteria, time period to draw any conclusions from).

        Like, lets say, 1766 to now. Pick the top 20 annual rainfalls. Plot a graph. What does it look like?
        He is not interested in the science or the facts. He is interested in faith and religious mumbo jumbo.

        We all know that warm air travels from the equator to the poles. One of the main transports is storms and no one disputes that.
        According to the CAGW theory, the planet warms up, but the poles warm more than the rest. Therefore the number and ferocity of storms decreases.

        The fact that they point to the dry winters of a couple of years ago as proof of their theory, and now these storms and flooding as proof of their theory just shows what crooks and shysters they are.

        the lot of them. liars and con men , one and all
        (\__/)
        (>'.'<)
        ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

        Comment


          #24
          Philadelphia’s Climate in the Early Days | Watts Up With That?

          JANUARY 1790 The average or medium temperature of this month was 44 degrees This is the mildest month of January on record. Fogs prevailed very much in the morning but a hot sun soon dispersed them and the mercury often ran up to 70 in the shade at mid day. Boys were often seen swimming in the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. There were frequent showers as in April some of which were accompanied by thunder and lightning The uncommon mildness of the weather continued until the 7th of February.
          December 2010 second coldest on Record in the UK

          Last month was the coldest December documented for the UK since nationwide records began 100 years ago, the Met Office has confirmed.
          For central England, it was the second coldest December since 1659.
          Last edited by BlasterBates; 1 January 2016, 21:52.
          I'm alright Jack

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
            Interesting to look back further than the last 100 years (an absurdly short, although convenient for promulgators of hysteria, time period to draw any conclusions from).

            Like, lets say, 1766 to now. Pick the top 20 annual rainfalls. Plot a graph. What does it look like?
            Why pick those parameters? Reminds me of priests cherry picking parts of the bible. I bet whatever conclusion you attempt to draw, I can cherry pick other data to show the opposite.

            Its all just random nonsense.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

              Its all just random nonsense.
              Yep. Climate has to be looked at in the 1000's of years timeframe, the rest is random weather cycles.

              Comment


                #27
                Always thought the scientific rationale behind climate change was pretty convincing but it's facts that should matter most and there seem to be so many contradictions, with each side accusing the other of rigging figures, it's hard to know what to think anymore.

                Pity mankind is so irrational, even things that should be science get turned into religion in all but name. Bring on the mass extinction and the resultant emergence of slugs as the world's dominant creature. Sensible little creatures, slugs are.
                bloggoth

                If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
                John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
                  Always thought the scientific rationale behind climate change was pretty convincing but it's facts that should matter most and there seem to be so many contradictions, with each side accusing the other of rigging figures, it's hard to know what to think anymore.

                  Pity mankind is so irrational, even things that should be science get turned into religion in all but name. Bring on the mass extinction and the resultant emergence of slugs as the world's dominant creature. Sensible little creatures, slugs are.
                  I have a couple of facts that are not in dispute.

                  #1 I believe the whole scare is a con, therefore I fly and drive my car.

                  #2 They want me to stop flying and drive my car, yet 40,000 of them flew into Paris last month.
                  Greens go by air.


                  so on one hand you have people who are true to their principles, on the other, a group who are not
                  (\__/)
                  (>'.'<)
                  ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
                    Yep. Climate has to be looked at in the 1000's of years timeframe, the rest is random weather cycles.
                    So only Zeity can comment with any authority then?

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
                      Yep. Climate has to be looked at in the 1000's of years timeframe, the rest is random weather cycles.
                      To be fair, *if* the models actually worked accurately, in both directions, there would be some credibility. There's nothing wrong with trying to discern whether something is due to chaotic weather cycles, or is caused by something else.

                      The problem is when you start with the idea that something else is to blame, and then set out to prove it, with no inclination to disprove it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X