blonde poker forum

This is pretty awesome and also informative/interesting!  Best bit is when he slams her down with a TSLS regression

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6irdVZkX40

Jeremy who ?

Sandy

Quality.

"I think you'll find that you're addressing a non problem"

Great line. I'm off to burn some trees.

That is legendary, its like a reverse Ali G show, instead of an uniformed youth interviewing the suits, its an informed suit pwning the uninformed.

4:42 she has given up, checks her watch and looks for an excuse to leave

The Least Squares Regression segment was superb.

She's clearly a clueless idiot, I don't understand why she stands there for 10 minutes getting pwned over and over.

That guy just might be as shrewd as Ricky Prewie.

Is all of what he says true though? Without looking at the data ourselves we're just as bad as her   :D

Yeah normally scientists surely grab a bunch of data, perform a statistical analysis on it, come to a conclusion and a consensus and move forward together.
[ ] She's clueless therefore he is right.

"well it's not a weather bureau is it !"  LOLOLOLOLOL

don't care what he says for the purposes of this thread, the way he says it and completely bests her is superb

A few quick searches seem to point to him being right about the fact there has been no global warming for over 11 years

Yer, teh man has skillz. Don't tell her she's wrong and you're right, just reach a consensus and then ask questions.


She reminded me of this ol GreenPeace classic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar

Well we aren't as bad as her because we aren't protesting without knowing a fucking thing

Thats debatable, she could have the very best of intentions at heart while you are merely abusing her. But who knows :)

very good

Would appear that she doesn't know a fucking thing.

Can't wait for one of those Greenpeace fuckers to step into my path once more during a busy shopping trip, see how well they hold up to the Monckton Test.

She was unfailingly polite and he was being a bit of a dousche.

Ah yes, Viscount Monckton, a man so in possession of the facts he called a Jewish climate change campaigner a 'Hitler Youth'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6790953/Former-Tory-peer-calls-Jewish-climate-campaigner-Hitler-Youth.html

I'm not wasting 10 minutes of my life watching that - did all you guys video bullying when you were at school?  It sounds like it.

no but if somebody else did i would love to watch it...

[  ] Bullying.

Agreed, how is it bullying ?

All he does is prove to some deluded housewife that she is protesting about something which she knows fuck all about.

Well, tbf, he's reasoning with a woman = bullying in my book

[  ] Greekstein good at reading

I don't see what relevance anybody's school activities have to this video. If you actually bother to watch it you'll see that she isn't being bullied at all. The guy just asks her sensible questions and also questions her reasons for being a greenpeace protestor.

She answers as best as she can but unfortunately she only has opinion on her side so is always likely to lose in this particular mini discussion which involves science and facts.

At least you know what you are

so are you saying your point about bullying was totally irrelevant.

did you used to make videos of cats eating cheese when you were at school?

In the next video, Monckton plays connect 4 with a 9 year old who just learned the rules yesterday and absolutely destroys.

LOL what a rediculous way to try and bend what you were trying to say.

It's clear that you were trying to imply she is being bullied by the guy. If it genuinely isn't my little sister is preparing for her SATS exams, I'm sure I can ask my parents for the number of her tutor for you.

is it up on youtube yet?

Its clear that you enjoy going ha ha she's stupid in adulthood, so I just concluded that you aslo exhibited this behaviour in childhood.

I just concluded that you probably don't know your arse from your elbow.

isn't that kinda the point? he's showing that the people spending their lives protesting don't understand the game they're playing

that kid knew the rules for a whole day, how thick a 9-year old do you have to be not to have mastered the basics of connect 4 in 24 hours!

apparently claw loses to everyone at it on facebook

Did anyone else not think that she came across well?

I don't give too much of a toss about the will we all die/will we not all die global warming bollox, I just saw nice lady giving more time than I would have to total douchebag.


The game she's playing is protesting in her spare time, not debating on camera vs someone who spends his entire life gearing up for the sole purpose of debating on camera.

Bit of a mismatch.

You seem to be missing the point a little though Tank.

I do agree to an extent that the guy is a bit of a dousche but the whole point of the video is to expose the fact that she knows very very little about what the hell she's doing there.

She might as well just go to an Anti Norweigan women protest.

If that's the best the warming denial lobby has they're fucked. And that people are givinig that guy credit for a patheticaly blatant pseudo intellectual mugging means as a society I'm even more concerned for us.

1 The woman he's haranguing is speaking her second language, but he still uses tricks of language & sneaky little "but we've already agreed"  tricks when there was no agreement to undermine her and put her on the back foot.

2 He writes off Greenpeace as a biased campaigning organisation while he himself is a biased campaigner.

3 I'd love to see his working for the least mean square analysis (or whichever one of many statistacal analyses he claims to have used) - why are there many ways of analysing data? - because misleading results can arise from using the wrong one. Being able to rattle of an analysis method is not an argument without the figures.

4 He makes some ridiculous point about the last 20 years - like the industrial revolution never happened or something. He then picks the wrong temperature highpoint i.e. the wrong year & makes up the no increase for 15 years. There was a high but 10 of the last 20 have been record setting highs.

In effect the guy's a bullying dousche who arrived armed with factual sounding phrases and browbeat an unprepared opponent. It's like turning up to fight someone when they don't expect you & you've got a baseball bat. You may win but all it means is you're a shite. And his supporters have youtubed it as an aid to their argument? They're sadder than I thought

WTF? So no-one's allowed on a protest without being able to memorise a multitude of facts and figures to be able to recite them in the street? GTF

Possibly if you can prove the bombastic turd was right then you can call mismatch. Even then I'm damn confident there's plenty of decent arguments against his 'facts'.

So what next in your eyes? Exams to show your understanding of politics before you can vote?

Rod Paradise >>>>>>> Lord Monckton

and if true, why is that worthwhile?

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

i'm with the no brain scots on this one

still laughing now!

genius

If he is then what's he trying to tell us? ;carlocitrone;

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 ;frustrated;

I haven't checked the study, but regression analysis is an extremely powerful form of statistical analysis and certainly appropriate in this instance.  The conclusions you draw are often an accurate representation of whats going on because statistical instruments for internal/external validity are put in place to decrease/remove bias.

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

If he was to talk directly to camera few people would listen or believe him. By having the audience direct their attention to the protestor he gets his point across unconsciously to the viewer. He is saying to look up some evidence rather than just believing in something because other people believe it.

I particularly enjoyed the bit where he tells us not to trust him but to look up the data instead. This is a wonderful way to get folk to trust you :)

it's 2009, a woman, W, is standing outside parliament with a placard and a bullhorn, handing leaflets to people who wish she'd just get out the way, demanding equal voting rights for women when monckton, M, appears

M- hiya treacle, you've been out here for 2 years protesting, has no-one mentioned to you that women have had equal voting rights for 80 years
W- oh shit. really?
M- yes love, pop round to the interweb cafe and google women's suffrage, all the info's there
W- I'll do that right away

woman looks stupid and has wasted 2 years of her life protesting for something when she had no idea of the facts

now let's move the scene to 1910, same location, same dialogue but with less google and more public libraries or somesuch

it's irrelevant that monckton is now feeding her incorrect info. she still looks stupid and has still wasted 2 years of her life by protesting something without info

it's pretty much irrelevant what he says, he's managing to show up the ignorance of people who disrupt other peoples lives campaigning for things they don't even understand. if his facts also stand up to scrutiny then that's just a brucey bonus

She has chosen to trust someone's opinion on the matter - just like many people do on a wide range of matters.  I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

what a strange thing to say

hahaha that comment made me laugh very hard gatso

Not even the biggest of pricks would dispute the fact that she had cancer though.

Right, we know what he was doing there, what was she doing there?

pretty clear she was clueless on the subject she was protesting against. Some people just like to fight for a cause, any cause, even one they dont understand. It helps give thier lives purpose and meaning in their own eyes. It did go on a little long for my liking, and i compared it too a boxer mouthing off in the weigh in and getting a bloddy good hiding in the ring. However the fight should have been stopped after 3 minutes. I wouldnt go as far as bullying, it was just an embarrassing mauling, however the longer her went on the more compassion the viewer felt for the woman imho. I mean im sure he could have picked someone more adept in discussing the matter at hand, instead of a women whose first tongue is not ours. It just looked like she was cherry picked to get schooled, which is what eventually made it uncomfortable viewing for me.

i agree with rod and actionman but its much of a muchness, she didnt ask for it i suppose and the 10 min thing seemed a bit excessive and some of the stuff was quite low brow but i dont suppose she needed therapy after.

it reminded me of one of my all time favorite p*ss takes where the arena is a bit more suitable and i think illustrates the difference between picking on someone who hasnt really justified the attention and someone begging to get ruined.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_L-gbpKZpo

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent?  ;dingdell; ;dingdell;

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

In a world with many conflicting theories even among the top scientists, if you wish to adhere to a particular camp you cannot just do so on a whim, you have to make a decent attempt to examine the science being presented, the methodology used and the exact claims being made. If you do not wish to do this, or cannot, that is fine, go and sit on the couch. But if you choose one side over another on a whim, but wave a banner around as if there was some rationale behind your conviction........sister, you are going dowwwn
Rod, it looks like she knew nothing, tbf. Looks that way to me anyway  :dontask:

So you are saying people should be encouraged to protest even though they know very little about the subject matter?

The second language thing was unfortunate for the purposes of this particular argument (Whether he knew she couldn't speak English beforehand would be interesting to find out) and I am not saying someone should spend a lifetime in higher education on the topic in hand before they can protest on the subject, but if you are going to impose your opinion on others in such an aggressive way such as protesting then:

A) You should be expected to know your facts a little better beyond 'climate change is bad', if you are there to protest then you are also there to educate people.
B) You should expect to be challenged, now admitted I doubt anyone is going to ever expect to be challenged in this particular way, but you should expect to be forced to argue your corner.

This woman is not an innocent victim here, she isn't someone walking by who has been press ganged, she made a conscious choice to disrupt something/try and persuade people against something, I dare say she would have seized the opportunity to corner someone else and embarrass them with facts about climate change had the chance.

Just for the record, I know nothing about climate change and don't profess to. I also strongly believe that people should protest. I do think if you are going to protest you should do independent research and come to your own conclusions first like Lord Monckton suggests and this woman did not.

Seriously?

So next it'll be David Cameron catching a Labour voter on their way to vote ina by-election & destroying him on economic theory & that'll be a win for the Tories will it?

I don't know the woman, I don't know her depth of knowledge, but I'm not buying the assumption that you have to be an expert to have an opinion, or to be ready for a debate against a prepared opponent to show support for something you care about.

If you do have to be an expert to campaign then I'm within my rights to ask for your degree in Divinity on another thread no?

I think you need to make your analogy more relevant to what's being discussed here. if you labour voter is standing on the street with banners and stuff protesting against the tories then she should be expected to have some idea of what is bad about them surely rather than just doing it because someone told her they were bad for the country

Interesting analogy. If all is said and done I think I probably don't know enough about politics (although I follow it a lot) to make a sufficiently informed choice of political party. However, en masse, the alternative is dictatorship., so I'd rather make any choice rather than none.
Objectors against Greenpeace rightly make the point that they are asking us to make widespread and difficult changes to our way of living, based on theories which many of them don't really understand.
Why go around waving a banner at all? To make yourself feel good? To give yourself a sense of identity because you are part of a political organisation? On the face of it, she's asking people like me to change our minds. Based on something she doesn't have a clue about.
I did start studying Divinity, but dropped out. Didn't drop out of the philosophy one or the psychology one though. Should have gone for a PhD in levelling though, would have aced it. Thank fuck kinbishop isn't here, would have been rumbled ages ago. No vocal theists on blonde, people like me have to speak up on their behalf ;)

People should know enough to have an educated opinion (which there's every chance she did) - but to defend it against a prepared opponent who uses every trick to undermine her? That's unrealistic. You seem to want her to recite statistics to join in a protest.

A protest is just that - it's not a debate. There's usually protests because people are scared their view isn't given enough of a hearing in the debating chambers. The Oil lbby etc are heard plenty in the governments, so people took to the streets in a peaceful protest. If Monckton wants a debate he should challenge one.

For that protest to be undermined by this is deplorable, but I'd love to see if he tried it with others - but as this is a hatchet job, filmed and posted by his campaign supporters, if someone did hand him his arse would we have seen it?

PMSL  ;applause;

I'm sure there's loads that you can teach us all about levelling. Could you maybe answer some questions for us?

What do you think the main ingredients are for a good level?

;indestructable; ;indestructable; ;indestructable; ;indestructable; ;indestructable; ;indestructable;

 STABILA

I think this is an awful example, I do not recall that there is any significant doubt in the scientific community or the public that chemotherapy works.

A better example would have been to take the piss out of a homeopathy patient for not understanding how homeopathy worked.

Copper.
Red and black paint.
Some kind of greenish fluoriding liquid.
A xenon gas bubble.

And a flat surface to measure it on to make sure your level really is level.

what I don't get about getting things perfectly level is that the earth is round and surely if you lay a flat thing on a curved thing it'd be all wobbly wouldn't it?

Not to mention the level sticking to the earth in places like Australia.

Aww, you deleted the part about me being shit :(

lol It didn't say that.

I think this is an awful example, I do not recall that there is any significant doubt level of belief in the scientific community or the public that chemotherapy homeopathy works.

You would think so wouldn't you, but apparantly The NHS spends approximately £4 million a year on homeopathy.

Four NHS homeopathic hospitals have been a part of the NHS since it began in 1948. They currently treat 55,000 patients per year who are referred  by  GPs, PCTs and NHS specialists.

http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/facts_about_homeopathy/nhs_referrals.html (http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/facts_about_homeopathy/nhs_referrals.html)

£4 million pounds is nothing compared to what the NHS waste money on.

They probably spend £4 million every day giving people with colds anti-biotics and treating the resultant SARS virus.

It's another one that dealt with very well by Ben Goldacre in the Bad Science book - Homeopathy has absolutely no medical benefit from the ingredients, but can have a fairly major placebo effect. And the placebo effect is measurably real. So the NHS spending money on it isn't totally out of order IMHO. As long as they're not trying to cure cancer with it. But for stuff like depression (where no brain chemistry cause) it can work ok, if the patient believes in it.

I read this article in New Scientist a while ago which seems to indicate that Homeopathy might not be entirely bollocks:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?page=2

This is the bit that sold me:

"And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial."

You'd think some type of homeopathic remedy would work if

""""Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine.

""""
were true...

Good post.

I'm a big fan of placebo. The really cool thing is you can give someone a placebo without 'tricking' them. i.e. "Take this placebo and you'll get better". Give them placebo+ and they'll get better even faster.

Just use tap water and save 4 million quid.

Homoeopathy is just tap-water and sugar pills.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The amount of water needed to dilute a 'remedy' to 30c would be several million times larger than the planet on what we sit.  There is no science behind it, no scientific evidence, it's plain woo.

As we were on the subject of Ben Goldacre, he mentioned that it's interesting how placebos work in terms of two sugar pills often work better than one, four better than two, and an intravenous saline solution (with no 'active ingredients') tends to work even better.  He also  mentioned in his talk I went to see that not enough money has been spent on the placebo effect and that used correctly, it could actually save the NHS a lot of money.

The problem with homoeopathy is that people are using it instead of tried and tested 'medicines' for serious conditions.  People are peddling it as science and as an 'alternative' to medical treatments that have had to undergo clinical trials, peer-review, strict scrutiny and rule-following before they ever come close to humans.  Homoeopathy doesn't help with serious ailments, and when it is touted as a way of avoiding or treating malaria, AIDS, TB and other fatal illnesses then it's a dangerous thing.

I'll dig out an article that explains how homoeopathy is meant to work.  It's almost comical.

Talking of comedy, this is excellent:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Oh and as for Monckton, his 'science' is fundamentally flawed and his bias is ridiculous. 

I thought that some research had showed that even though homepathic 'water' should have no traces of the other original added chemical, it did not in the end act just as pure water did?
I'm amazed though that people can become better simply by listening to some Indie rock, does this work with any other bands?

I did hear once from some dude who is very big in the Health Psychology field that among those things found to affect the outcome of illnesses 'prayer, and retrospective prayer' were shown to have an effect.

Apart from that, the power of the mind over illness should not be underestimated, maybe at play with homeopathy.

""The latest piece of research tackling this issue is to be presented to a British Psychological Society conference in Winchester.

Professor Leslie Walker, from the University of Hull, looked at 80 women diagnosed with breast cancer.

All received exactly the same treatment and emotional support, but half also received training in relaxation techniques - they were taught to visualise their body's defences "overcoming" the cancer cells.

The women were judged as having a better quality of life than those who only received treatments plus emotional support.

And when their white blood cells were examined, they were found to be significantly different. ""

lol, just watched the vid :D :D

You can't knock that stuff though, people have been using these techniques (especially in China) for literally *thousands* of years.

Gonna start prayin for my great grandad, maybe a bit late tho

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450





Footnote. If we ever find out there is a God, I bet he's some kind of dickhead.

A few looks out the window seems to indicate global warming is bollocks.

Sandy

Gordon Brown and his mugs love "global warming" more easy taxes!!!

Yeah obv but it should all really be finished.
Coldest xmas in 30 years?
So its not just a cycle of ups and downs.

Honestly cant believe Labour didnt implode when they suggested outing the most useless PM we have ever ever had.

LOL @ global warming non-understandaments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Depends on who you listen to and agree with, and to not agree with Brown and his thieving crooks is fine with me....

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."

Explain then c nut

Haha quoted a former geography teacher, a geologist and a chemist.

Why not meteorologists or climate scientists who are actually specialists in this area?  Oh no, because they won't support your side of the (non-existant) debate. Do you not think that lots of very rich and powerful people have a interest in putting arguments out against Anthropogenic Global Warming?  You know these people whose wealth is dependent on fossil fuels such as oil?

Cherry-picking a few dodgy sources as evidence is not a very convincing argument. 

Here's one brief explanation as to why global warming doesn't just mean everywhere gets hotter:

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/gulf_stream.htm

Cliffnotes:
Things might get warm and melt
Then things will get colder
Until things warm up again

Is it not fact though that we are not currently in a 'global warming' period?

Exactly! but goverments just want to use this excuse to tax more....how many times are big business and Labour going to use the "carbon footprint" bumf on us? imo this is a natural change (if any) it has happened thru history and on other planets...where are dont think there are any people with 4x4s.

Seldge, are you a fan of taxation?

Roaly, it has to be done in the modern world obv...but im not a fan of Labour making out they are the world crusaders and thus bringing in "green" taxes to save the world, when it is just to buy a new duck house for the moat...

Seriously, what is a moat without a Duck house ...

Should have claimed for a drawbridge and a couple of Alligators to keep the peasants out imo.

So AGW is a myth created by Labour to get more tax from the people of the UK?

(http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/Mystery%20Machine3.jpg)

Funny how global warming only happens in hot summers. In cold winters it's known as climate change...

Pretty sure the MP expenses is a tiny proportion of the budget

Call a cancer a tumour, and it's still the same thing.

A benign tumour isn't cancer.

A malignant tumour is cancer.

Tumour is not the same as cancer.

Sandy

He never said it was.

Well whatever the deal was at Copenhagen, it certainly worked.

"A snow emergency has been declared in the U.S. capital as the region braces for what may prove to be the largest December snowstorm since 1932.

The National Weather Service predicts more than 30 centimeters of snow will blanket the U.S. northeast by late Saturday.  Forecasters say snow accumulations could reach 60 centimeters around Washington DC.|

In other news:

Japan has surrendered.

(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4636/owlorry6oe.jpg) (http://img97.imageshack.us/i/owlorry6oe.jpg/) (http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/owlorry6oe.jpg/1/w438.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img97/owlorry6oe.jpg/1/)

Please end thread now as I hate agreeing with kinboshi.

lol @ going on google and finding folk with labcoats who back you up when the issue is one with massive economic and socio political ramifications. Funnily enough I could do the same thing if I wanted not to believe something, for instance if I didn't think that lung cancer and smoking were related in any way.

Admittedly, it's harder to find the lung cancer scientists these days, they must have found something more lucrative to deny. ::)

Any systematic review of what the scientific community think on this issue (global warming) and there is very little doubt whatsoever. However, there is a lot of easy bucks to be made if you have a science based phd and want to disagree. Google and cherry pick these boys if you want to believe whatever you want to believe as it won't make much difference to me if your telly is on standby or not.

I know mockton doesn't have one of them (science bases phd), and I'm not entirely sure he has any science based GCSEs, but he does get all his info offa people who do. (They sure don't live in big houses paid for by spouting bullshit about tobacco.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists."

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

"The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise."

"They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’."

"This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics."

I found this by typing in smoking into google... ;topofclass;

Sledge is GOD to all you uneducated minions...agree with the mangod that is sledge and bow to his greater knowledge base and better use of google.....GLOBAL WARMING IS BOLLOCKS.......utter utter utter fkin bullshit!!!...and i have a phd in geology and meterology....its a tax based dream for the worlds  goverments...

 rotflmfao

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

...best put another link on, because it will be blah blah Daily Mail...blah blah...

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. "

"Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."

I cherry picked this on google aswell...

You can also find lots of 'scientists' saying that AIDS isn't caused by the HIV virus, or that planes didn't fly into the World Trade Centre, or that aliens run the world, or that homeopathy isn't just water and the placebo effect.

Doesn't mean they're right.

ZOMG, I give up...

Boshi thats bollocks dude...who the fuck wud deny that planes crashed into the twin towers;-[]??????

sledge13 poster of the year so far

kinboshi cant even get a guinness at 4am, why would we listen to him

only redemption for kin is to explain why it isnt a ocean/solar cycle

The denialists are out there, it's undeniable:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

Kinboshi, my friend you are benighted (adj type2).....and fool to give any credence to that shite from newstatesman.....a "missle wrapped in a hologram"...are you on  fkin drugs!....Firstly every claim you make about 9/11 et al is beyond mental....SECONDLY, and imo more importantly, this debate was about the whole global warming theme being a world wide govt TAX con,its a well known fact that Climate change is natural and has been flipping between hot and cold cycles for the last 1 million plus years...this i think is an area of conversation for which we have sufficient bragging rights as you made no input into this argument other to try and change the subject by stating that lady diana was in fact killed by a croissant through her windscreen!...or something similar in stupidity....so gg wp , now STFU ;-0

To be fair, there was a show on the telly only this past week-end (one of the discovery channels) where a group of peeps were trying to prove the twin towers didn't fall due to air planes crashing into them.  I watched for all of 10 minutes and was so tilted, had to turn it off.

Erm, not sure what point you're making here.

I don't agree with these denialist-loonies who put out these conspiracy theories - I was just saying they're out there.

Also, I didn't realise you were a climate specialist and had the studies to support your argument that climate change hasn't been influenced by man's activities.  Could you give me a link to your scientific, peer-reviewed papers on this please?

kthxbai

Read that:  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

Looking forward to your scientific evidence that you'll put forward as a counter-argument.

I will indeed have my papers put out for review and general peruasl as soon as sombody shows me any cast iron, nailed on proven scientific facts to support any known "therories" regarding global warming!, what is a known 100% FACT is that the earth has been going through continued stages of heating and cooling since its inception, the oceans their currents and in the skys with the jet stream, thats where all the worlds weather is decided, its not affected by a few people leaving their fucking sky boxes on standby overnight or by the fact i /we dont all drive a prius!,,,,The whole Green issue is a mealstrom whipped up by people who believe that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, they have no concept of life or what it entails....they need to get a job and start living instead of following the green dream....there is a plethora of hard facts to support the idea that global warming is bollocks, unfortunately a lot of people choose to believe in "theories"....that will be our downfall...not Co2.

but not approved in detail....said it for me....

For example, as Earth’s average temperature has increased, some weather phenomena have become more frequent and intense (e.g., heat waves and heavy downpours), while others have become less frequent and intense (e.g., extreme cold events)........there has been no rise in the earths surface temprature since 1998......we now going to experience upto 30 years of cooling...

Haha - knew you would mention that and avoid reading the information in the document.  Do you know that the header not on that document actually means?

Still looking forward to seeing your evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjDy8fYJcuw&feature=related

Another example of the Govt, not just from here but on WW scale bullshitting the minions and taxpayers....The swine flu outbreak was a 'false pandemic' driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health expert has claimed.

Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation's decision to declare a pandemic.

This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0cIhxDVRr


All the Goverments round the world want to take as much money from us and backhanders for themselves as they can....we get robbed everyu single day...but they say nothing, the PR experts and spin doctors tell the stupid masses that its right and like sheep or lemmings they follow blindly without thought.....there will be a civil disruption eventually when the mass break, and that point is not far away....for whatever reason, fuel costs,immigration,bullshit like this, expenses scandal.....these will all come to a head soon....

LOL that's fucking BS mate. I work for a pharma company, and believe it or not the Pharma industry has no influence over the experts who advise the UK govt what to do in these scenarios, in fact they will always avoid any such association like the plague. Also the govt has a choice as to whether they they purchase certain drugs or not.

Please keep reading the Daily Mail it educates you well ::)

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about the anti-vax brigade. 

Do you know how many people can die in flu pandemics? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

Next, you'll be on to MMR and autism, and quoting David Icke and Jenny McCarthy as experts in the field.  You do make me smile though.

HaHa...i dont read mail woodentop i read the sun, its all about the pictures!...i digress, you work as a cleaner for glaxo,that doesnt mean you can comment on anything other than the time of day....You dont think the money men and all the power brokers have influence...at all!!.....how deluded are you.....

You couldn't be any more wrong fella, but I cba arguing with uneducated plebs who have no clue, cya...............

LoL woody, stop crying ya big girl...you have no knowledge of my interlectual prowess....there has to be some humour in all debates and thankfully your providing it....gg

Still waiting for your scientific evidence to back up your theory that AGW isn't real.

The s*n and Daily Fail don't count as reputable scientific sources unfortunately.

gg u........peace out

 that has just made me soil myself :D :D :D

Kev being of a certain age that you are ..only a slight fart and and a cough and you can manage that....;-0

I feel a new sig coming on...

so glad you got the com in the statement....it wasn,t wasted...;-0.............




 you have no knowledge of my intellectual prowess....

Did no one else notice that SnipeR won this argument ages ago.

Not with his superior interlectual skills, but because he said FACT.

That's game over as far as I'm concerned.

Im still confuesed. Im not going to go off on a mad one, nor am I going to provide evidence, but i thought it was undeniable that the world has gone through hot and cold cycles as far back as records go.

Unfortuantely im not very interlectewal but would be grateful if someone could explain.

(Swine flu sure was real  ;) The Sun ftw!)

Yes, the earth has gone through numerous climate changes over its history.  However, the data and studies show that the changes that have happened during the second half of the 20th century are more pronounced than would be expected from natural climatic changes.

To quote from that report I linked to:

world is approx 4.5 billion years old( unless yr a god squadder) so not  a great sample size of 1300 years to create comparrisons,the world will continue to change for another 4.5 billion yrs,can we put that down down to global warming?

whose to say we wont have another ice age??

We will, eventually.  The earth's climate will change lots of times over the next million years.  But the climate change that is being caused by human activities is causing climate change that is happening very rapidly and will have an adverse effect on millions of humans - which is why it's so important and such a relevant issue.  If the climate changes dramatically in 10 millions years that might an issue.  But our children and grandchildren won't be around then.

if the ice caps melt cant they ship the water to africa via a big pipe? they need it

but seriously has anyone worked out if both poles melted what would actually happen to the world?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0615_040614_SouthernOcean.html

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/science/conveyor.asp

(http://www.teachersdomain.org/assets/wgbh/ess05/ess05_img_convey/ess05_img_convey.gif)

Or watch this:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZbsMlr9WRI

Thats not good then

best get some extra prawn rings from iceland then just in case

Bernie Ecclestone's plans for a new super F1 circuit said to be 'a bit ambitious'

yah the indian ocean chicane needs some work on it..


so if i followed it correctly we need the ice shelf to melt to keep the conveyor going?

so how much ice melt atm is needed to keep it going?

No, we don't want it to melt.  We need it there to cool the water that reaches it.  If it's not there the water isn't cooled, and the conveyor stops - leading to death and destruction.

ah gotcha thx

but the ice shelf is currently growing?

Its called winter fella ;)

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

Not only shrinking, but thinning too.

Just like my hair...

(http://greencanticle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/0721_jesus_calms_storm_christian_clipart.jpg)

Kin in his boat..

Tiger woods is gonna fall out of that boat !!

I doubt it, he's sandwiched between two women.

That's a crap remake of Titanic imo.

Someone needs to photshop the main man onto a surfboard :D

Someone cliffs notes on whether kin is right or wrong pls? Cba to read his replies as he often tilts me like mad when he argues.

I'm right.

Read that:  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

yeah, this please

are there any posts on this thread worth reading? every time I open it there's just stuff that looks really dull

Sorry about Kins posts... ;D ;D ;D

Bahaha, is that Snipers quote at the bottom of your Sign Kin?

About 80-90% chance he is correct based on available research. Ain't guaranteed, but its a lot more likely than not that global warming is a problem and real.

Im still not convinced.

Would anyone like to partake in an argument about the benefits of DVD upscaling?

Upscaling


IS IT??

is it the opposite of downloading? if not I'm not particularly interested

Norrr

Its the way DVD players make the picture better by 'upscaling' the picture.

PS3's do it, they make DVD's look amazing.

No idea if Matt reads this thread, but if someone starts a 'Is upscaling real?' thread and we all start posting it is he will probably go nuts and possibly explode.

The greatest achievement of the climate change doomsayers is that they have managed to take a theory so far that the burden is now on people to 'deny' it rather than for people to use 'good' science to prove there is a problem.

I'm all in favour of conservation (pretty much for conservation's sake) since being frugal and refusing to massively over consume is in a long tradition of sensible husbandry and good, healthy living.

I think the climate scare mongering and the actonC02 nonsense actually deflects from a much more meaningful debate around how we live our lives and distribute wealth across the world. ie eat like a hog, over consume just about everything, keep the wealth where it is now but just drive 5 miles less a week and switch your lights off and everything will start to be OK again.

The climate thing imo, is about trying to restrict the growth and potential power of emerging nations and preserve the wealth of the already wealthy.

Can anybody, convinced by the global warming disaster scenarios, tell me of a unilateral action, taken by a wealthy nation, which causes some hardship to its citizens today, that is designed to reverse the effects of climate change ?

Of course the real problem about climate change is that unfettered consumption was all well and good when it was just a billion or so people in North America and Europe who were pumping greenhouse gases into the air. The problem is that now 1.3bn Chinese want to join the party, quickly followed by 1.2bn Indians.

Don't they realise they're going to spoil our fun?

They're being so selfish.

I'd like to think I have reasonable general scientific knowledge and an ability to judge evidence objectively, but I have to admit to being a little worried about the evidence on this subject.

1. Is warming happening?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
It worries me a lot that long-term (hah! 150 years out of the last 4.5 billion anyway) temperature data is controlled by a small number of organisations (3 main ones, I believe) , and it appears that there may be a genuine conspiracy to "correct" the numbers for public and IPCC consumption. There also appears to be some cherry picking of data going on. I read an article about dendro-climatology (temperature from tree rings) recently that was fairly damning, and believable. A study used 11 trees from Siberia to "show" that global warming was happening, and those figures have been accepted by the IPCC. It's unscientific crap like that that worries me.
I'm also unconvinced that there has been enough proof shown of how much of climate change is caused by increased greenhouse gases. Given that there was a "scientific consensus" in the 70s that we were heading for an ice age, and humans have been chucking out polluting gases for quite some time, I'm wondering how things have got supposedly so bad in the last 30 years.
I wouldn't say I'm a sceptic or a denier, but is the evidence conclusive enough to spend vast amounts of money dealing with a problem that either may not exist, we may be able to do nothing about, or if it does exist, nobody can clearly say what problems it's going to cause (6 inches or 6 meters of sea level rise - you can find studies that suggest either)?
That said, finding sources of energy that don't involve burning our finite supply of fossil fuels is most definitely a good idea, if we don't want the human race to go back to the middle ages in a couple of hundred years. But forcing that to happen while totally ignoring market forces isn't a good idea either.

My 2p. Normally I agree with most of what Kin says, but I fear he has an entrenched faith-based position in this argument  ;ifm; ;ifm; ;popcorn;
And yes, I've read that IPCC doc. It's graphs like on p100 that scare me. Look - CO2 has risen from nothing to loads in like the last 5 minutes. Scary scary. And then you read the scales. A graph like that seems more about sending a message than actually presenting useful data. Which is what worries me about the IPCC. Then there is the radiative forcing one on the next page. The error bars are huge.

this as well pls, stopped reading at about page 9.

If it helps and you're still talking about the world ending i watched a documentry that said the scientists had made it all up because as soon as you mention a study you'd like to do about climate change the government give you weelbarrows of money to do this as theyre scared shitless so the scientists keep banging on about it and getting PAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID!!!

there was an ice age in europe like 7500 years ago, everything went, it happends now and then, dont panic, look what youve done to kinboshi!

(this was a proper doc btw it was on Ch4 and had a bloke with glasses)

Storm in a D-cup was one of his better films. :)

And this is why (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/19/ippc_glacier_cockup/) I have serious doubts about the IPCC's scientific rigour.

Cliff notes: The IPCC included in their last report a statement that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Except there was no scientific study behind that claim, it was just an off the cuff remark by some bloke, and is total bollox.

The bloke made the comment 10 years ago and has since said he was wrong too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1246404/Scientists-exaggerated-impact-climate-change-says-Governments-chief-advisor-John-Beddington.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

"Scientists have exaggerated the impact of climate change and need to be more honest about how difficult it is to predict, the Government’s chief scientific adviser said today."

"Professor John Beddington also said experts should be less hostile to sceptics who question man-made global warming, and he condemned those who refuse to publish full report data, adding that public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

Professor Beddington was speaking in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) admission that it had made a mistake by claiming that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035."



"And so the whole global warming conspiracy continues to unravel and the truth is slowly but surely exposed.

There will soon be a lot of vicious zealots who will be just a touch embarrased about this and their rabid hostility to anyone who had a different point of view."

- Steve, Coleshill, 27/1/2010 10:34

The IPCC doc was just one piece of 'evidence' that I put forward.  I was waiting for those vehemently opposed to AGW to put forward some evidence that I could read that provides a counter-argument.  Unfortunately, so far I've yet to see any such studies that have been properly undertaken and peer-reviewed. 

Unlike some other subjects where the denialism is just blatantly ignorant (AIDS is one example), I'm sure there are three sides to this global warming debate and that the truth lies somewhere between the two diverse camps.  From the evidence I've read, it just appears to me that the truth lies nearer those who have supported AGW than those who deny it.  However, I'm far from a climate expert and am relying on 'expert' opinion on this one as well as trying to bring an objective mind to the debate.

Steve from Coleshill and others need to distinguish between the words 'sceptic' and 'denialist'.

A sceptic will question a theory, and look for evidence to back up either side of the debate.  The idea here is to be objective and react to the evidence accordingly.  Then form an opinion based on the evidence and the accuracy and validity of it.

A denialist is one who for whatever reason has decided to accept a particular viewpoint, and will ignore any evidence that opposes their view, will launch ad hominem attacks rather than provide any actual evidence to support their view, or will cherry-pick from what they read and only consider reading or using that which supports their initial point.  They are wholly subjective.

We need the world to end soon or I'm going to look silly.

It'll help ease your mind over the recession if it does...

It seems colder this year than last. We will all be ok.

Although isn't the whole thing that you get bigger extremes of temperatures and both ends?

Hotter summers and colder winters going hand in hand. I'll take some of the former before we all die plz dealer.

I watched some expert on the news saying that we were in a natural downswing that occurs every 100 odd years for a few years irrespective of whether or not global warming exists and it takes a bit of of the averages of the summer every year and we're about to come out of it in the next couple of years so the summers will get back to being scorching

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again (never mind what is causing it).

The reason it's an issue is because of the speed of climate change is relatively rapid (it's noticeable within several human generations rather than over periods of thousands or millions of years), and that there are now 7 billion humans on the planet and more and more are living in areas that will be affected by small changes in climate.  Yes, the world will go on regardless.  But maybe not for human civilisation as we know it.

It's not all bad.  Norfolk will probably be one of the first places to vanish if the sea levels rise dramatically...

Are we talking about the UK here?  There are lots of other places in the world experiencing dramatic changes in their climate - either very hot summers or colder and more brutal winters.  We're a very small island amongst the global backdrop.

I'm not sure, they were explaining why we havnt seen the truest effects of global warming in the past few years(probably was for this area thinking about it) because we are in this 100 year cycle downturn thing that lasts for about a decade and that we're about to come out of it so it would no longer suppress the real effects of global warming.

The earths history is also littered with fun times that some of your scientist like to call "mass extinction events"

I'm not worried, I'm insured with the AA

Me too for my home insurance.  They were by far the cheapest.  Not had to make a claim yet though, so can't comment on their service levels or anything like that.

But think about it. How do they know it's rapid compared to past changes? The further back you try and investigate temperature, the more unreliable and long term are the average temperatures you work out. So you can say between 10m and 11m years ago, it was 3 degrees cooler than now. But you can't say between 10400600 and 10400500 it warmed up by 4 degrees and between 10400500 and 10400400 it cooled down by 5 degrees. There is absolutely no way that can be determined. You can just about get vaguely accurate annual temperatures from tree rings for a few thousand years (and even prove it's warmed up if you pick the "right" trees), then your average starts being taken over 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, pretty rapidly.

So sorry, but saying it is rapid is bollox. There is absolutely no way of knowing if it's more rapid than changes over a couple of decades 10m years ago. It's guesswork and politics, not science.

 :)up :)up 100% spot on there Rex.

I'm saying that it may have happened, but like you pointed out if no one is around then it didn't matter (as the effects wouldn't have affected millions or billions of people as they weren't around then).

So really there are two questions. One - is the climate changing rapidly now compared to say the last 500-1000 years?  Then the next question is focused on if there is a marked change recently, is it caused by human activity?

I'm not a climatologist, but the arguments and evidence put forward by those agreeing with the AGW view is more compelling to me than the other side.  Surely the 'other side' have a far greater vested-interest (the oil firms and those who rely on their riches for their own wealth and power) in the debate than those who are providing evidence leaning towards AGW?

Not bothered if we melt or freeze, but can we ban Boshi in the meantime please?

I'll ban the trouble-maker now.  A right pain in the arse he is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

    * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
    * There has been no global warming since 1995
    * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

And if you read the article the quotes you have copy-quoted are shit.

1/10 must try harder.....

And since we're doing quotes - the 'Hero' at the start of this whole thread seems far less willing to admit to his own misquotes and lies.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html)

10/10 I belieeeeeve!

So are you as bad as the Greenpeace supporter at the start?

Probably.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

any chance we could merge this with the autism/mmr thread and then move the thread to another forum and then put that forum on it's own dedicated server with no backup and then put that server on a rocket and blast it into space?

Are they really that hard to resist ?

Sandy

Why does this new forum, to be rocketed into space, require you to merge the threads first?  Seems a bit of a redundant step in your plan tbh.

I assumed that moving a thread to a new forum is more work than merging 2 threads. therefore 1 merge plus 1 thread move will be less work than 2 individual thread moves

if my assumption is incorrect then you're right, we could probably skip the merging part

...at least Global Warming is kicking in this winter... :D :) ;D 8)................... ;applause;

-12 this morning!!! never seen that temp and its November!

Someone doesn't understand climate change.

 rotflmfao I understand that the peeps spouting off about "Global Warming" have rushed the colder winters idea into their theory!

Who unlocked Kin's cage on a Sunday FFS?  Ye know the rules.  He's to be kept locked away from Friday night til Monday morning.  Someone's in huge trouble round here.

Did the daily mail not explain it to you properly?

Sigh.  He got out again.

Not really...so please Kin, when will we be warm again?

You don't understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER, do you?

Go and read about them first and then you might understand a little more. 

Oh, and it's going to be 12° here on Sunday - that's called a change in the weather. 

Ok I will get right on it....never heard of either tbh.

I'd gathered that from your posts.

Here's the basic difference for you, as I know you won't actually do any proper research:

"Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements and their variations over periods up to two weeks."

Source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate)

Ok Global Warming is all true then, that explained it all....


 :)up

Don't think you should try to run before you can actually walk.  How can you argue and discuss the merits of different theories or explanations when you don't even understand the terms being discussed?

Consider yourself patronised :)



I'm sure you can weather it

sigh     same old same old


welcome back Robert

I'm confused, does Sledge fink global warming means no more winters?

I'm all in favour of this

He could acclimatise...

I thought we would be eating Fab lollies in December...

Wouldn't be the first time for you mate...

 rotflmfao rotflmfao Excellent!

That is funny for years they have been telling us that we are getting milder and milder winters because of global warming. If they could just get a single fact right and stick to it instead of constantly twisting it every single time they are proved wrong then we could perhaps have a scientific discussion about this instead of a religious belief in global warming.

- Sarah, Poole, 24/12/2010 20:37

Who are they?

They never told me that, whoever they are.

They are a secretive group called "The Kin Clan"

And if anyone is in the know it would be Sarah from Poole.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

I'm a sceptic, and it still made me laugh :)

rotflmfao, it's like they asked Kin to do an advert.

And then decided that it was boring and too much like a lecture so did it in a sarcastic voice :)