Jag82 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Not really. In this case, it is impossible to be 100% certain, but the evidence certainly points to Dellingpole being wrong. Maybe, the two contributors understand more about uncertainty than you. In any case, you did very well to watch a five minute vid clip and write a comment about it in less than four minutes. Does Dellingpole have anything to say about the non-linear nature of time? Does he have anything to say about the non-linearity whatsoever? The interactions between Man, the sun,the atmosphere, the oceans, the biomass and all the other inputs into the model that is the 'Climate' are all non-linear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Chuck another polar bear on the barbie, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Chuck another polar bear on the barbie, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html The 92-year-old, speaking about climate change, said: 'I'm not worried about sea-level rises.' Why would he be worried, at 92 he’s not going to be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Not really. In this case, it is impossible to be 100% certain, but the evidence certainly points to Dellingpole being wrong. Maybe, the two contributors understand more about uncertainty than you. In any case, you did very well to watch a five minute vid clip and write a comment about it in less than four minutes. Does Dellingpole have anything to say about the non-linear nature of time? It was fairly boring though. Maybe 4 minutes was enough to get the jist and form an opinion. I lost interest at around the 2 minute mark when I saw how messy the guy's office was. Can't stand slovenliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Why would he be worried, at 92 he’s not going to be here. If you're worried you could always try here, http://www.laver.co.uk/sheffield.asp Don't forget to seperate the carnivores from the ruminants, can't imagine it being easy to milk a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Watch this failing to answer a simple question. Then you will know why he is very likely to be wrong. His understanding of science and of the naturre of science is flawed to say the least. Sir Paul Nurse is a Nobel Laureate in medicine, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society, I believe he was President of the Royal Society, he is an expert Geneticist. He pulled the consensus trick on Dellingpole re cancer treatment, a field in which Nurse is expert. He didn't tell Dellingpole that the consensus amongst clinicians treating Dellingpole's hypothetical cancer would have been based on repeatable and repeated studies and trials, he didn't Dellingpole that the drugs/treatment protocols would have been tested in double-blind studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 If you're worried you could always try here, http://www.laver.co.uk/sheffield.asp Don't forget to seperate the carnivores from the ruminants, can't imagine it being easy to milk a lion. Thanks for the info, it’s not use to me so I will pass the info onto the Maldivians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyn1949 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Due to the co2 emissions, there will be World wide floods and by the year 2020 the sea levels will have risen by seven metres, after that if the co2 isn't reduced, by the year 3000 the sea will have risen by 175 metres. Surely, this is a job for the United Nations and a very urgent one at that, if civilisation is to survive I have read some inaccurate nonsense in my time, but this beats all. By 2020, the sea will have risen (if at all, as there is NO global warming measurable) by 7 MILLIMETRES, not metres! Pu-lease! In years to come, people will look back and wonder what sort of illogical panic overwhelmed so many people - just as we lo0ok back 400 years and wonder what all that stuff about witchcraft was about? Let's PLEASE have some sense about this...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Thanks for the info, it’s not use to me so I will pass the info onto the Maldivians. They'll be okay a bit of topsoil over the top and they'll be living on a mountain, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16072020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 I am puzzeled by all the hype and excitement around this global warming thing. I understand that the physics of why it will (may/will not) take place is complex so let's just assume that the temperature will rise by as much as the most extreme case the IPCC puts out. Can anybody describe, in their own words, what they think is the single most scary aspect that will hapen due to this temperature rise? Then describe the mechanism which will do it. Support this with a link to some science please or some such. Then explain why it will be more costly than any local council spends of traffic lights to get around. Excluding councils around the world that don't have any traffic lights. The single scary thing needs to do all these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now