Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

yes, there was this also. However, I have read a highly regarded biography of him. I can't remember the author off the top of my head.

 

IPCC atmospheric model warming

please log in to view this image

Actual Radiosonde Measured Warming

please log in to view this image

So not only no greenhouse blanked exists, the hotspot in the atmosphere central to CAGW theory is not there, and explained away by an adjustable factor in their models to cause cooling to keep the fraud going, the fudge factor, aerosols. Each model has it's own adjustment to areosols meaning obviously even to the most uninterested, that if they are using different values for aerosols in their different models, it is not any real climatic factor but just a knob you twist to get the desired effects.
Fraud


More stupid copy and past of reality vs IPCC models

 

It was calculated by Archbishop James Ussher in 17th century who, like you say, calculated the life spans of biblical characters and their lineages backwards to come up with the figure. But it only explains human habitation of the earth [which s by no means correct] and not the age of the earth itself or other life forms. The Bible tells us the earth existed before the 'creation story' begins.

 

That's because it was a lie as you had been told before that so were aware of the truth. Anyway, on that figure in question if you use the 1000 year cycle how do you explain the long term decrease and then rapid rise?

 

How do you know I was aware? Any proof? Have you hacked my eyes and can see what I am reading?

How did you know it was a lie? any proof?

isn't this how you roll, I will keep asking for proof of these accusations until you either apologise or prove them.

 

Here is an Al Gore 2 min meltdown with all the claims he made and the measured facts for each claim

 

Faux are doing the opposite of the IPCC Cold fearmongering just as ludicrous

please log in to view this image

 

Great divetsion this, I had told you previously, might look for that one day but then again maybe you didn't lie maybe you were just naieve enough to believe stuff on the " denier" blogs you love and blinkered enough not to see the easily available evidence to the contrary. Your choice?

Enough of your diversion what about this 1000 year cycle?

 

Here is David Suzuki. Travels around the world getting 30k for speeches on how climate change is real and dangerous and that people shoud be imprisoned for denying. QA session with real people.

This is one of the very rare times you will see any of these people taking questions on the media. The audience asks questions, including one British scientist. This is what happens when you allow rational informed people to ask questions on TV. The clima tard academic is made look like an idiot by average show guests. His answers are bog standard clima tard ones "deniers", appeals to authority and at one point he says one of the official UN data sets is denier science because he didn't understand the IPCC use this data. The usual getout clause, "scientist consensus". "IPCC said it"

 

Yeah yeah I am going to the pub for lunch now, will leave you to copy and paste stuff, please let me know later if you actually answer the question.

 

An example of why they don't know wtf they are talking about, they predict the same thing every few years, it fails and they do it again

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

bombarded with nonsense since 1980 no wonder so many believe this nonsense

 

You can tell that one's ****e as it claims Di Maria had a good game for Utd.

 

For you sir, the Google cached page of the Independent article. The indo has deleted it, but has articles from 1994 so they deleted it to erase their lies. Viva Google Cache

http://web.archive.org/web/20150723...-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

So you don't care if it was true, but you thought you busted me on that

 

Well I was only using it to take the piss out of Utd.
However, my opinions on journos have had plenty of airings on here. Just because a paper runs a stupid headline saying that " Snowfalls are a thing of the past" doesn't that that is the considered opinion of scientists. All they say is that global warming is happening.
When the Met office says that there has been a trend to global warming of 1 degree over the last century I will put my trust in their expertise, as I'm not qualified to argue. How much of that trend is anthropogenic is another argument.

Please don't throw more graphs and charts at me- data is meaningless unless you understand how to process it.

 

Well I was only using it to take the piss out of Utd.
The image is obviously not legit, but I wasn't talking about the image I was talking about predictions of scientists. I don't believe that was your intention, but as I keep saying belief is nothing. My bad if that was the base. I think that because of your little bitchy comment about charts, so there is evidence you are just being an ignorant trolling dick.


However, my opinions on journos have had plenty of airings on here. Just because a paper runs a stupid headline saying that " Snowfalls are a thing of the past" doesn't that that is the considered opinion of scientists. All they say is that global warming is happening.
It was not the opinion of some journo, that's what was coming out of the CAGW centric scientific community in 2000.


When the Met office says that there has been a trend to global warming of 1 degree over the last century I will put my trust in their expertise, as I'm not qualified to argue. How much of that trend is anthropogenic is another argument.

I went to the site of the source of the met data and it says .7 degrees, so your meaningless appeal to deemed authority is fail.
You beleive in the expertise of the Met who gives you a temperature different from the actual data the Met is using/.
All without even researching anything, and then you criticise my actual research by bitching about charts from the very source you are using as an ignorant defence cos you obviously don't know how the met ges it's data

"Please don't throw more graphs and charts at me- data is meaningless unless you understand how to process it.
Which graph did I show you that I cannot explain? I showed scientific results today alone that prove CAGW is not happening.

No wonder you are mad at me, you are an idiot. Not for not knowing climate science, but for making claims out of sheer ignorance

wash the sand out of yer vag and come back with a coherent sensible argument or stop whinging

 

#playingwithfire

 

No at all.

Some people are better suited to bitching about people in little sewing circles because they can't make a sensible objective argument.

No one replies to the scientific results from credible scientists. Accepted there is a margin of errror, but anyone who depends on models and false claims over actual measurement is a ******

In some people's minds 30 years of failed predictions is not enough evidence

 

He's a very bright guy, Sis

 

Venture capital is a fundamental part in the science and technology enterprise sector.

There are a number of incubation Centres for fledging S&T businesses where they can start their enterprises, that have largely been created with the aid of EU and internal investment. However, each and every one of the fledgling businesses requires capital, and largely small scale venture capitalists are the lifeblood of that sector. Not only for the cash but often for their guidance, as most of these science based enterprises lack commercial experience. My other half is a non exec director of 3 such enterprises.

 

PM