http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.



Well this lot for starters

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...nt-happen.html

Apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change are
'overstated', according to a new study.

Experts have found that the UN's worst case scenario, that the world
could warm by up to 6°C (10.8°F) by 2100, is unlikely to happen.

New calculations worked out the probable impact of greenhouse gases on
global warming and found that more extreme scenarios will almost
certainly not occur.

They reduce the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than
half, researchers said, including the best and worst case scenarios.

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz54YW9YG9T



--
Chris B (News)

On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes of
equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even if
they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the law
of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will fall.
Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes of
equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even if
they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the law
of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will fall.
Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 18/01/2018 21:50, RJH wrote:


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

It helps if they don't discard the modelling results that don't fit the
pet theory of the day.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the reason, can
we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of years we have been
pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse before it gets better. Is
anyone out there planning long term for the resettlement of people in low
lying areas, the growing of crops in areas which will still be temperate and
protecting infrastructure against the severe weather and fires etc which are
to come?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

On 18/01/18 21:50, RJH wrote:
On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.


Not really, no it cant.

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate




--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 21:50, RJH wrote:
On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent
margin of error, predicted.


Not really, no it cant.

Really. In Birmingham, hot in summer, cold in winter? There you are :-)


Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate


No. It's one of those things - more data, better modelling. Time gives
you access to more data. Not, of course, necessarily better models.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 19/01/18 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , alan_m
wrote:

On 18/01/2018 21:50, RJH wrote:

Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent
margin of error, predicted.

Weather can be modelled too, its what the MetOffice does for a living.
But beyond a few days, the forecasts can be less and less useful.


Indeed.

All you can say with weather AND climate is there must be a lot of
negative feedback to keep it within reasonable limits.

AGW of course says that in fact there is positive feedback to make the
effects of CO2 scary enough to justify harry's ****ing solar panels.

Mind you, they aren't justifiable, even then.

It helps if they don't discard the modelling results that don't fit
the pet theory of the day.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes of
equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even if
they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the law
of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will fall.
Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/18 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.

No one is entirely clear what 'caused' the ice ages, their ends, the
mediaeval warm period, the little ice age, the Holocene optimum etc.

There are theories, but none of them seem to work well, and none of
course involve CO2 which has been remarkable stable (unlike the climate
for the last 10,000 years...

--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:19:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Isn't that like asking football pundits to state who's going to win the league or world cup or whatever.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On Friday, 19 January 2018 08:21:06 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Not really, no it cant.

Really. In Birmingham, hot in summer, cold in winter? There you are :-)

I was told that in winter it rains a lot and it summer the rain is a few Cs warmer.

On 19-Jan-18 11:10 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:19:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Isn't that like asking football pundits to state who's going to win the league or world cup or whatever.

Except that governments don't set their policies on the basis of
football predictions.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

Just read The Express. Each year they predict a scorcher summer and a very
hard winter. And are wrong most of the time.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/01/18 11:49, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Jan-18 11:10 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:19:35 UTC, NightjarÂ* wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Isn't that like asking football pundits to state who's going to win
the league or world cup or whatever.

Except that governments don't set their policies on the basis of
football predictions.


No, far worse. They set them on the basis of narrow self interest and
political expediency.


The New Left are fundamentally gullible idiots and actually Believe In
Socialism.

For the rest of us 'Idiocracy' is on Film 4 at 9pm tonight. Dont miss it.




--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 19/01/2018 13:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

Just read The Express. Each year they predict a scorcher summer and a very
hard winter. And are wrong most of the time.


Isn't the Express in some kind of time warp where they just recycle the
same predictions each year and Princess Di died last week?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/01/18 15:11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/01/2018 13:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* RJH wrote:
Â* Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

Just read The Express. Each year they predict a scorcher summer and a
very
hard winter. And are wrong most of the time.


Isn't the Express in some kind of time warp where they just recycle the
same predictions each year and Princess Di died last week?

No, te Express just writes sensationalsit rubbish by and large that
appeals to a tabloid audience.

The ony people who believe that express readers beleve it, are guardian
readers, because they are stuoid enough to believe the guardian.


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No, far worse. They set them on the basis of narrow self interest and
political expediency.


The New Left are fundamentally gullible idiots and actually Believe In
Socialism.

No surprise you prefer narrow self interest, then.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 19 January 2018 07:42:01 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 21:50, RJH wrote:
On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.


Not really, no it cant.

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate


Trends can be predicted.

On Friday, 19 January 2018 07:29:35 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the reason, can
we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of years we have been
pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse before it gets better.



The very reason for swift action as soon as possible.

On 19/01/2018 07:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the
reason, can we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of
years we have been pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse
before it gets better.

What new climate mechanism ae you going to use to prove that erroneous
assumption?
The energy exchange mechanisms in the climate models don't require years
to reach equilibrium.


Is anyone out there planning long term for the resettlement of
people in low lying areas, the growing of crops in areas which will
still be temperate and protecting infrastructure against the severe
weather and fires etc which are to come? Brian


What sever weather?
There hasn't been any more sever weather so far, just more reporting of it.

On 19/01/2018 08:21, RJH wrote:

8


Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate


No. It's one of those things - more data, better modelling. Time gives
you access to more data. Not, of course, necessarily better models.



more data is good but you don't get more data over time for the weather
system. You still only have the same amount of valid data recorded by
the weather instruments even if you wait a day.
The problem with weather forecasting is not knowing the starting
conditions which makes it hard to model.
The best you can do is divide the planet into cells and fit some best
guesses into the cells based on nearby observations, nearby can be a
long way especially over the oceans.

Weather models are pretty good unlike climate models, weather models can
predict the future for a useful period.
Climate models have all failed to predict the future so are pretty
useless for actual science.

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

On 19/01/2018 20:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/01/2018 07:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the
reason, can we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of
years we have been pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse
before it gets better.

What new climate mechanism ae you going to use to prove that erroneous
assumption?
The energy exchange mechanisms in the climate models don't require years
to reach equilibrium.


Is anyone out there planning long term for theÂ* resettlement of
people in low lying areas, the growing of crops in areas which will
still be temperate and protecting infrastructure against the severe
weather and fires etc which are to come? Brian


What sever weather?
There hasn't been any more sever weather so far, just more reporting of it.

Yep, flood plains tend to flood each year in spite of building housing
on them.

Many (all) of the often reported forest fires are not due to climate change.

For many hundred thousand years fire has been natures way of
regenerating itself.

More recently, in many hot dry areas the practice of grazing domestic
animals, or wild populations of native animals, in woodlands has
declined leading to a lot more dry materials to fuel a fire when it does
break out.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/01/2018 21:12, dennis@home wrote:


Weather models are pretty good unlike climate models, weather models can
predict the future for a useful period.
Climate models have all failed to predict the future so are pretty
useless for actual science.

By just predicting that tomorrow is going to have the same weather as
today is possibly more accurate than the models.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate

I can't predict what you'll roll on a die. Roll it enough times and the
average is pretty clear.

Andy

On 19/01/18 22:44, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate

I can't predict what you'll roll on a die. Roll it enough times and the
average is pretty clear.


Indeed. But the rollong of dice is not chaotic

Lets say you have a video camera hooked up, and if it detects that 12
sixes are rolled in a row, a switch will close and you will be
electrocuted. Now predict in a year of dice rolling, whether or not you
will be killed, and when...

Andy


--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear on
the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 20/01/2018 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/


I've just read the first three of those 'revelations'. Each one is a
childlike misrepresentation.

For example, the first (1990 IPCC report) fails to mention the margin of
error. Or the most fundamental projection (+1C by 2025). It's not as if
the report didn't contain enough errors elsewhere ;-)

I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

--
Cheers, Rob

On 20/01/2018 08:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:19:10 +0000, RJH wrote:


I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?


I have to accept that very few 'climate alarmists' on this NG will
read, much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists who
hold alternative views (and there are plenty of them).


Ouch :-)

I'm not an alarmist - I certainly wouldn't present my view on
anthropogenic climate change as fact, link to very dubious sources to
support anything I say, or claim any expertise.

Anyhoo, meta-reviews are putting the ratio as, at very best 10:1
(supporter: denier). And of those deniers that I've read, and do manage
to scrape through to publication, are usually discredited pretty quickly
and retract.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 20/01/18 08:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:19:10 +0000, RJH wrote:


I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?


I have to accept that very few 'climate alarmists' on this NG will
read, much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists who
hold alternative views (and there are plenty of them).

+1

In essence you can tell a climate alarmist because in the end all they
understand is what someone in 'authority' has told them. So they talk
about 98%, consensus, peer reviewed papers etc etc.

This is not the language of science, but of propaganda. This is Bandar
Log "we all say it, so it must be true".


The so called 'deniers' talk about the science, and appeal to the data
and the facts and the maths and the statistics and shake their heads.

This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s. And yet all the thermometers in
places where towns have grown up around them will tell scientists who
weren't even BORN in the 50s that its warmer!



--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 20/01/18 08:57, RJH wrote:
I'm not an alarmist - I certainly wouldn't present my view on
anthropogenic climate change as fact, link to very dubious sources to
support anything I say, or claim any expertise.

Then why are you cpommenting at all.


Anyhoo, meta-reviews are putting the ratio as, at very best 10:1
(supporter: denier). And of those deniers that I've read, and do manage
to scrape through to publication, are usually discredited pretty quickly
and retract.

Well no, they are not.

That is just more faklse news.

I put a monograph out about renewable energy using a name I had *never
used before on the internet* .

Back in around 2011.

Within a day a blog reported thet the 'well known climate demnier author
XXX XXX had been thoroughly discredited years before'

That was enough to tell me that there exist on te internet people whose
JOBS are to discredit anyone who isn't singing from their hymn sheet.

Sites like skeptikalscience.com and desmogblog are sites set up to do
just that.

Shout down and lie about what is going on. Ther is big big money in
climate change - trillions of dollars worldwide, and there is plenty of
loose change to buy bloggers and scientists up.

A professor admitted to me 'we actually wanted to do the job of
researching efficient coal combustion, but we couldnt get a grant till
we mentioned that it would enable 'carbon capture' to be done more
easily, if next to impossible is easier than completely impossible, anyway'

The money flows into 'climate change'. No one funds the truth. Who gives
a **** about the truth, what we want is profits and to rape consumers?

http://vps.templar.co.uk/slideshow.p...achine-800.gif



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 20/01/2018 08:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear on
the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

Educated? PPE and Media Studies hardly prepare you for anything other
than a job at the BBC and/or in politics.

....and you wonder why anyone who can do and/or understand anything more
complicated that 2+2 is automatically believed and referred to as a
Maths (or just general science) "genius" by the media.

On 20/01/18 09:13, JoeJoe wrote:
On 20/01/2018 08:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear
on the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

Educated?Â* PPE and Media Studies hardly prepare you for anything other
than a job at the BBC and/or in politics.


Well exactly. Educated as in 'bin 2 uni' doesnt mean you are even worth
having sex with.

...and you wonder why anyone who can do and/or understand anything more
complicated that 2+2 is automatically believed and referred to as a
Maths (or just general science) "genius" by the media.

The great leap forward of postwar socialism was to give money to the
lower middle class irrespective of whether they could do anything useful
or not.

Naturally the corporations mounted huge advertising campaigns to tell
them what to think and what to buy.

And how clever they were.

It was in the end a wonderful way to control the masses. Buy off the
leaders and give them knighthoods etc and get them to talk utter
******** (in the right sort of regional accents) to the plebs, who would
believe it all, especially if they were told that believing it was
fahionable, or smart, whilst you raked in money from them by selling
tham tat, which you then used to buy politicians and more 'working
class heroes*' and ensured that all science was in the end government
funded, or funded by big corporations, so all scientists' jobs depended
on them getting the 'right answers'.

Once upon a time 'natural philosophers' were either educated gentlemen
of independent means, parsons with livings, or people who did science as
a hobby.

Whilst they risked their reputaions, they didnt risk their livelihoods.

Narurally socialism's first target was gentlemen of inependent means,
followed by parsons...

....and persons who do science for a hobby,m are dismissted as 'not being
professionals' Or something.



*"You think your so clever and classless and free, but you're all
****ing peasants, as far as I can see" (John Lennon: Working Class Hero)

--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear on
the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

And even more who think by looking out of the window they know what the
climate is doing world wide.

--
*England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
....
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier': Somebody who rejects the fact that
the climate is changing or do you include somebody, like me, who knows
that the climate is changing but doesn't think that anybody has provided
adequate evidence that their particular hypothesis explains why?

--
--

Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/18 09:13, JoeJoe wrote:
On 20/01/2018 08:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear
on the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

Educated? PPE and Media Studies hardly prepare you for anything other
than a job at the BBC and/or in politics.


Well exactly. Educated as in 'bin 2 uni' doesnt mean you are even worth
having sex with.

...and you wonder why anyone who can do and/or understand anything more
complicated that 2+2 is automatically believed and referred to as a
Maths (or just general science) "genius" by the media.

The great leap forward of postwar socialism was to give money to the
lower middle class irrespective of whether they could do anything useful
or not.

Naturally the corporations mounted huge advertising campaigns to tell
them what to think and what to buy.

And how clever they were.

It was in the end a wonderful way to control the masses. Buy off the
leaders and give them knighthoods etc and get them to talk utter
******** (in the right sort of regional accents) to the plebs, who would
believe it all, especially if they were told that believing it was
fahionable, or smart, whilst you raked in money from them by selling
tham tat, which you then used to buy politicians and more 'working
class heroes*' and ensured that all science was in the end government
funded, or funded by big corporations, so all scientists' jobs depended
on them getting the 'right answers'.

Once upon a time 'natural philosophers' were either educated gentlemen
of independent means, parsons with livings, or people who did science as
a hobby.

Whilst they risked their reputaions, they didnt risk their livelihoods.

Narurally socialism's first target was gentlemen of inependent means,
followed by parsons...

...and persons who do science for a hobby,m are dismissted as 'not being
professionals' Or something.



*"You think your so clever and classless and free, but you're all
****ing peasants, as far as I can see" (John Lennon: Working Class Hero)

Your use of the word 'socialism' is remarkably idiosyncratic. The
blessed Thatcher did more than anyone to advance the process you
describe, and was largely following America. You can call
globalisation and worship of the "free" market socialism if you want to,
but all it proves is that you think socialism is impossible.


--

Roger Hayter

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/18 08:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:19:10 +0000, RJH wrote:


I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?


I have to accept that very few 'climate alarmists' on this NG will
read, much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists who
hold alternative views (and there are plenty of them).

+1

In essence you can tell a climate alarmist because in the end all they
understand is what someone in 'authority' has told them. So they talk
about 98%, consensus, peer reviewed papers etc etc.

This is not the language of science, but of propaganda. This is Bandar
Log "we all say it, so it must be true".


The so called 'deniers' talk about the science, and appeal to the data
and the facts and the maths and the statistics and shake their heads.

This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s. And yet all the thermometers in
places where towns have grown up around them will tell scientists who
weren't even BORN in the 50s that its warmer!

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather. Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us. I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year. Then again, it
varies too much by region to make subjective evidence useful for those
of us who have moved.

--

Roger Hayter