Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

That was the upper floors I was talking about, there were restaurants on the top floors, and the owners compained about noise in them from the mall, so they layed a load of concrete on the floors, which given the narrowing of support columns, collapsed, I would imagine those doing the floor laying never even factored in the changes to load bearing structures, or didn't have the altered plans, just the original ones. Either way there should have been calculations when adding so much extra weight, if htey were carried out, they were in error, that much is certain.

If one is an engineer and is called to add a lot of weight to the top of a structure, there is a bunch of due diligence to be carrried out, and it was not in this case

 

No matter how good or bad an engineer is, they can only ever work with the information they are give

Safety factors would have been applied in all cases... But were the correct loadings given to the engineer. Did these allow for people in the place, stock.....cars in the car park etc?

it could easily been something as trivial as resonance cause by people walking in certain unpredicted paths - Millennium Bridge London is an example.

Or the next time you are in your local out of town shopping centre, go upstairs......sit down and feel the structure bounce

 

here is come IPCC fanatic tactics. This against Heartland institute, who are also working on the global warming issue but without the alarmist cack of the IPCC>
Apart from indoctrination school and the mass media machine, they also actively attack other institutions and scientists. #crazyactivists
++++++
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/
IPCC fake gate - pretending to be someone and stealing information and distributiing it.

"This is the essential background to understanding “Fakegate,” the strange and still being written story of the decline and fall of political activist Peter Gleick, who had successfully engineered a long career posing as an objective climate scientist. Gleick, who has announced he is taking a “temporary, short-term leave of absence” as president of the Pacific Institute, also served until recently as chairman of the science integrity task force of the American Geophysical Union.

Gleick has publicly confessed that he contacted The Heartland Institute fraudulently pretending to be a member of the Board of Directors. Emails released by The Heartland Institute show that he created an email address similar to that of a board member and used it to convince a staff member to send him confidential board materials. Gleick then forwarded the documents to 15 global warming alarmist advocacy organizations and sympathetic journalists, who immediately posted them online and blogged and wrote about them.

Their expectation apparently was that the documents would be as embarrassing and damaging to the global warming skeptics as were the emails revealed in the “Climategate” scandal to the alarmist side. The Climategate revelations showed scientific leaders of the UN’s IPCC and global warming alarmist movement plotting to falsify climate data and exclude those raising doubts about their theories from scientific publications, while coordinating their message with supposedly objective mainstream journalists.

But the stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed, the skeptic movement. They demonstrate only an interest at Heartland in getting the truth out on the actual objective science. They revealed little funding from oil companies and other self interested commercial enterprises, who actually contribute heavily to global warming alarmists as protection money instead. The documents also show how poorly funded the global warming skeptics at Heartland are, managing on a shoestring to raise a shockingly successful global challenge to the heavily overfunded UN and politicized government science."

 

Sounds like a really unbiased piece

 

It's been a long day and I'm too tired to read all this stuff so I'll just quote this part which is a proven lie.

I have never used this argument and a while back I even showed my post history which proved that the only time I even mentioned 97% was in other posts that I yet again had to refute you lie about it.

 

It seems to be a standard tactic of his, harp on about something you haven't even said and then claim you are dodging his points when you ask him for proof!

 

I can quote you if you wish, you claimed this was relative to who was right, you openely stated consensus matters over proof by stating that because x amount of people agree that they must be right, you were explicit in this. It was a different thread about this subject, you then went on to claim the minority report was part of an oil conspiracy, the reason they were actually dismissed is because the IPCC said "They are not climate scientists) yet they use the 97% argument which is made of of mostly "non climate scientist's" papers, and it turns out that they never asked one of them anything and just interpreted their papers any way they seen fit, even with hte disagreement of the scientist who has done the work, that is fraud my friend. Clear as day.

The guy who helped carry out that fraud is also of the skeptical science team and also a teacher at "learn to combat climate change deniers" school. The amount of dissent is enormous, and the media labels them as #conspiracy theorists, when the truth is the vast majority are skeptics and for good reasons, thousands of them are scientists but the thing is with you types, you ignore what they say and go looking for the slightest thing you can find to tarnish their rep.

You have banged on about one link I posted, from Nature, but ignored the excellent source that came with it, the scientist himself doing the work. I post work by a world renounded psysicist and engineer, you call the work a meltdown. I mean, wtf is the point?

But lets recap.
I started this thread talking about new theories and the merit of them and some things that they can explain that mainstream theory cannot, mainly with new discoveries in plasma physics ect, science is "dynamic" after all (or ore accurately more wrong than right over time. (Whether I believe them or not is irrelevant)
You started by first looking up the members of the Thunderbolts project and then slating them. That was your initial argument.
I post some work by Ben Davidson and you attack him, and ignore what I was posting about

I post a source, you attack the source and me
I cite a phsyicist, you say he's had a meltdown and attack the physicist.

The way it goes usually is, I post a source, and you go look for a way to attack the source, not the info within.
If you cannot find something that confirms your suspiciouns of a source (Without even bothering with the content the source provides) you will ignore the post or throw your usual labels about and launch into some irrelevant point.
If you see something you can try use in your silly game, like an incorrect assumption, you go off on a rant about "agenda" "#conspiracy" when in reality, there just may the possibility I was just wrong on some point\s or other. I can be wrong on something without having an "agenda".


It's all in this thread like, but if I post a few of the many quotes to back up my points you'll come back with "i'm spamming" as you did last time I backed up my point with some posts, you then attack the validity of the source providing the information, and avoid the information.

My biggest failure in all of this is sinking to the level of the likes of you and engaging in the stupid to and fro #fail #meltdown crap. I seem to be able to reply to others without getting into this load of cack.

 

I'm not scientifically minded so my views on anything science related are very simplistic.

Can we say with any certainty whether or not the polar ice caps are melting and sea level rising? Like a lot of things there are 2 very different takes and each side can offer evidence to 'prove' their case. Isn't it more about choosing to be either calm or alarmist.

 

There is no argument on those issues would you believe.

The seas are rising within historical norms, there has been no significant rises that relate to IPCC forecasts and modelling. We all agree the levels are increasing.
The ice is melting, everyone accepts that. The issues are how much recovers in winter and the inaccurate estimates of how much ice there actually is. Also an issue is the Antarctic ice sheet, it was heralded as proof of AGW, but recently a group of active volcanoes have been discovered underneath the ice sheet, which obviously needs consideration.

No one with a sound mind refutes the climate is changing, that is a language trick "climate change deniers", the IPCC side use to label people who are skeptical of the IPCC because of the ample evidence of fraud and lies and the consistent failure to back up their claims, and then the following irrifutable proof they are wrong, that being the temps and sea levels and cold weather events they said would be all but gone in 50 years. Of course their story is different now, it's like the doomsday loonies, oh the world will end in 2012, world deosnt end, loonies make excuses and set another doomsday prophecy in the future.

Being alarmist is the only way IPCC got to its current level of funding and influence. The world was literally fear mongered into handing control to the UN. A bureaucracy that is non scientific at all.

There are many sceintists, and a lot of them in "the 97%" agree camp that are utterly against the IPCC alarmist cack. People have left the IPCC, including senior scientists, because of the intentional fraudulent summaries of reports with stuff like Scientists "We believe humans do have an impact on climate" < gets changed by three bureaucratic edits to "Humans are responsible for 90% of global warming".

Dissenting science doesn't get media exposure. It's an utterly one sided argument. Any dissent is categorised as conspiracy, stupidity or influenced by oil. No movement of truthful factual science needs to sink to such levels, you only do such things to protect a blatant lie.

I honestly couldn't care about the IPCC at all if we didn't have actual problems with toxins and pollution, real pollution. Then I couldn't give a monkeys. It would just be yet another fraud in operation.

 

It's no secret my issue with the IPCC is their crystal ball gazing, they can't even model last year's weather.

There is so much being done or has been done on solar influence on earth. All of it ignored because of the low variability of solar irradiance.
There are actually meteorologists predicting weather far ahead of IPCC hurricanes 80 days in advance, that's climate understanding not just weather.

The same team predicted floods in India and the UK 2010 snows. Piers Corbyn was meant to go on to the BBC in 2010 because he predicted the snows which was opposite of IPCC predictions, but he was replaced at the last minute by the "government's chief science officer". Basically the BBC found out he did his work without CO2, and there was no way the climate camp were going to allow a man who can predict weather in accuracy without the AGW bollocks to speak on air.

Proof that government interfere in actual science to maintain a bogus narrative pushed on the public. That "everyone agrees except the denier nut cases".

Piers Corbyn is the brother of some labour politician apparently

 

Then do it

 

I tend to go for academic sources when researching science related topics if I want to find out what the story 'really' is although quick searches to gain an initial understanding always throw up some science or pseudo-science site. It always seems that almost any subject you can come up with has a pro and a con side. I've dipped into this book - Global Warming - Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology - By Marcel Leroux - a couple of times. He's very scathing of climatology, saying things like '' ...they found a slogan and repeated it over and over 'it's getting warmer and sea levels are rising' ....and everything revolved around the slogan ... could it be that predictions of a big rise in temperature at high latitudes were invented just to melt the ice and provoke the sea rising? However, the rise is not observed, except locally as a result of meridional exchanges....'' He's also an IPCC sceptic!

 

Unfortunately there is a lot of garbage out there, and a lot of loonies on both sides of the fence. I haven't read Marcel Leroux book though the problems for me with the IPCC and the climatologists are the following
* A complete failure of climate modelling
* Predictions and forecasts and even economic policy resulting from this totally calamitous modelling.
* Use of same failed modelling used as proof of global warming.
* Massive propaganda machine that costs billions of £
* Silencing and attacking of dissenting scientists
* Totally 100% unscientific one sided narrative where any critical dissent is labeled and dismissed regardless of the source
* Totally fraudulent Report summeries that are used set economic policies through carbon controls.
* Patently false claims like the "97%"
* Dismissal of abundant scientific evidence that the sun has an effect on our climate, with significant historical geological events lining up nicely with solar state.
* The attacks on non climate alarmist organisations
* Bureaucratic non scientific governance (politics controlling science) < Never ever good
* The leaked emails that put IPCC scientists in a poor light indeed. Openly discussing frauding data results, excluding dissenting view points and the intentional re calssification of "global warming" to "man made climate change" because of growing public awareness that the planet was not warming as IPCC was claiming. The planet has warmed just over half a degree in 100 years after all, and of that .56 degrees, how much is man? .2? .1? .3? So lets be really generous and say .3 is down to the CO2 amount but keep in mind that we produce less, some say far less than 5% of total CO2, So that would be 5% or less of .3 degrees. .015 degrees to be exact is what we have caused and that is only IF AGW is actually accurate science, there is certainly no empirical proof and only one body that can do the research though the results are disputed and in some cases, there is out and out fraud like the new NASA temp charts post year 2000.

Other than that I am sure they are pretty nice

NOTE: The only reason the public became aware of the truth about global temperatures was becaue of dissenting voices, the very ones the IPCC climatards try to silence. The IPCC have denied it for a decade, then admitted it, and are back to denying it again.

Only a liar needs to stop the opposing viewpoint frm being heard

 

''Dismissal of abundant scientific evidence that the sun has an effect on our climate, with significant historical geological events lining up nicely with solar state.''

I'm not au fait with what they've said but isn't there a difference between the sun effecting the climate and effecting climate change?

Edit: I put affecting the climate and the autocorrect changed it, what's going on.

 

The correlation of solar activity with events on Earth is like a new kind of astrology. The sunspot number has been correlated with all kinds of things such as the number of Republicans in the US Senate, the stock market, the number of people catching flu, etc. It's all BS (and some of it knowingly) but people see patterns everywhere, especially those who want to see patterns.

All this also ignores the fact that the sunpot number itself is a poor scientific metric. It is mainly useful because sunspots have been observed for thousands of years, but it's basically just a count made by eye of spots. It doesn't take size or intensity into account. (And yet another limitation is that the effect of sunspots on the energy output from the Sun also seems to be very small anyway.) So the Maunder minimum is famous as being a period with no sunspots, but this means no sunspots large enough to be visible by eye, and does not imply a lack of magnetic activity on the Sun.

Of course this doesn't exclude someone producing a genuine theory with logic backed up by observations and predictions. But most of the anti-climate change discussion surrounding the Sun is just vague handwaving and hoping, the same trick fraud spiritualists use about quantum theory.

tl;dr there is no evidence for the Sun's impact on climate change.

BTW Sisu where are those quotes of me you said you'd post?

 

Not being funny but why sun with capital 'S'? Sends shivers down my spine. Is that a science-y thing?

Too simplistic a view maybe but wouldn't the sun need to have shown a significant change in activity for it to be linked with global warming?

 

It's the name of our star so should have a capital letter when talking specifically about it

 

How would there be a difference between the two as having an effect on the climate is causing the climate to change. If Chicago gets more vortex in the face for another few years, that will be the winter climate there pretty much.

We are still all "theory" on the sun, Climate science is new, Meteorology has been around a long time tho and they still don't understand a bunch of things.
Yet somehow people can claim the IPCC are right, given every claim they ever made is wrong (I get jumped on for one perceived inaccuracy) but the same people will give the IPCC a pass on well over a decade of pure horse ****

 

You see this is where language is important, there has been no proof that CO2 causes AGW and no proof of any kind that the sun does not interfere with our climate.
The modelling and accurate results would have been the "proof" but they failed over and over Oh and you say there is no proof the theory is correct, yet you literally rant in defence of other theories, mainly because of the number of people also believe them, because they are not proven after all.

As for your second bit, if I bother I will go look when I'm arsed, but I am not in the habbit of making **** up and pretending you said it, that's actually what you do, repeatedly remember?

 

Yes language is imporant.

I didn't say proof I said evidence.

There is evidence for CO2's role in global warming in the form of its known role as a greenhouse gas.

Since I have already posted evidence that I never used the 97% argument your refusal to give the quotes is yet another nail in the "Sisu is a liar" coffin.