Off Topic And Now for Something Completely Different

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
DMD said:
That is not true, as the issue is the global change in meteorological conditions over time.

The problem with only using that short time frame is that it misses by far and above the bulk of the context, and would lead to inaccurate conclusions and would be unscientific.

You could also make the mistake of looking at the historic temperatures in Britain, as measured by the Met Office, (which have issues with type, location and heat islands to be taken into account), and assume that there is no increase.

Met office historic data. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/historic-station-data
Click to expand...

So which is it? Are we coming out of an ice age and that's why its getting hotter or is not getting hotter and the measurements are wrong due to heat islands?
 
tigerscanada said:
Carbon dating is a hoax.:emoticon-0100-smile
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you mention carbon dating in this context, but it's only really useful up to around 50,000 years due to the half life of the isotope (around 5,000 years) and it stops in 1945 due to nuclear testing.
 
Stockholm Tiger said:
So which is it? Are we coming out of an ice age and that's why its getting hotter or is not getting hotter and the measurements are wrong due to heat islands?
Click to expand...

Why do you feel it has to be either/or?

It's the timescales that give the bigger picture. If you look at more recent data from say the last ten years, the warming stalled, and in places went backwards. It's not an error, it's just an example that it's not a linear process, and looking at short timescales misses much of the context, and therefore how to tackle the issues.
 
originallambrettaman said:
As human life has only existed on earth for a couple of million years, this is the only bit of that graph that is really relevant...

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
Why do you say that?
IF the data presented is anywhere near accurate then it's quite illuminating.
My view continues to be that the bigger issue is not climate change (which is largely out of our control, as supported by this data) but the way that we are abusing our one and only planet and also our non-human co-inhabitants (pollution, over use of finite resources, deforestation, extinction of species, unsustainable population explosion, etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
Gone For A Walk said:
Why do you say that?
IF the data presented is anywhere near accurate then it's quite illuminating.
My view continues to be that the bigger issue is not climate change (which is largely out of our control, as supported by this data) but the way that we are abusing our one and only planet and also our non-human co-inhabitants (pollution, over use of finite resources, deforestation, extinction of species, unsustainable population explosion, etc).
Click to expand...

I think it's very likely man is having an impact on the rate that the planet is changing, although the extent of that relative to nature is debatable, but claiming that man can use technology to avoid that is along the lines of King Canute.

It needs a transformation in how we interact with the natural environment, and how we build in resilience for the future, as the changes are coming, the only debate is when.

The fear mongering to push for expensive measures that will damage the quality of life of many people and other lifeforms on this planet is not helpful, especially as it pushes discussion to the wrong focus in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber, John Ex Aberdeen now E.R., Shag and 4 others
DMD said:
I'm not sure why you mention carbon dating in this context, but it's only really useful up to around 50,000 years due to the half life of the isotope (around 5,000 years) and it stops in 1945 due to nuclear testing.
Click to expand...
I know. Radiometric measurement ratios etc
 
If this was the funniest joke at the Edinburgh Fringe I'd hate to see the least funny.

Masai Graham was voted the winner with his gag: "I tried to steal spaghetti from the shop, but the female guard saw me and I couldn't get pasta."

I'm sure it was funnier heard live...
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. and Cityzen
x said:
anyway, temporarily ignoring the societal pressure on this thread to be funny, here are a couple of sources that have been helping me not give a toss about the climate change religion. the ice age promised in the 1970s hasn't shown up and my house hasn't become an island in the middle of the tropical humber ocean. one of them is about a gap in data meant to be collected by satellite and how alternative data for the gap was fiddled by what would later become disciples of st greta the unschooled.

You must log in or register to see media

nasa: look, here's some scary data!
heller: yes, and here's what it looked like 50 years ago before you fiddled it.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

Why would you get your information on the climate from a historian/journalist on Youtube? If you have blood in your **** do you consult the postman? If this is how you have chosen to do your research, you have chosen poorly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHH, Stockholm Tiger, originallambrettaman and 1 other person
Des Head said:
Why would you get your information on the climate from a historian/journalist on Youtube? If you have blood in your **** do you consult the postman? If this is how you have chosen to do your research, you have chosen poorly.
Click to expand...

It needs to be on Twitter to be a FACT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHH and Des Head
Des Head said:
Why would you get your information on the climate from a historian/journalist on Youtube? If you have blood in your **** do you consult the postman? If this is how you have chosen to do your research, you have chosen poorly.
Click to expand...

i'll take information on all topics from a variety of sources. i don't want to be stuck in an echo chamber only taking data from one source. the recent pandemic demonstrates blatantly that some sources can't be trusted and i'd rather at least listen to dissenters or to people whose opinions are not the same as mine because some of them may well know more than i do and have valid points to make. like the two sources i cited. lots of people take information from ill-informed journalists on a daily basis. if someone says "this is what current organisation says the data from 1933 was, and i've checked a 1933 source, and the data was different in the 1933 source and here is a copy of the 1933 source", i want to know why.

in the 1970s we were told an ice age was imminent. that didn't happen. twenty years ago we were told sea levels would put low lying cities under water within a decade. all of these predictions from trustworthy source have been wrong. last autumn the experts said there would be no sea ice in the arctic during the winter and shipping would be able to freelt to cross those seas. what happened? they got stuck in sea ice.

the climate debate is riddled with opinions from scientists saying whatever their source of funding wants them to say. perhaps you still believe that smoking is good for you? perhaps you automatically trust experts. good luck with that. recent experience shows experts know sweet fa, or someone is telling them to lie. they said people who'd been jabbed couldn't get c19 but they did. they said keeping six feet away from people would stop you getting c19 but it didn't. they said masks would protect us but they didn't. so pardon me for having doubts about the experts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber
x said:
i'll take information on all topics from a variety of sources. i don't want to be stuck in an echo chamber only taking data from one source. the recent pandemic demonstrates blatantly that some sources can't be trusted and i'd rather at least listen to dissenters or to people whose opinions are not the same as mine because some of them may well know more than i do and have valid points to make. like the two sources i cited. lots of people take information from ill-informed journalists on a daily basis. if someone says "this is what current organisation says the data from 1933 was, and i've checked a 1933 source, and the data was different in the 1933 source and here is a copy of the 1933 source", i want to know why.

in the 1970s we were told an ice age was imminent. that didn't happen. twenty years ago we were told sea levels would put low lying cities under water within a decade. all of these predictions from trustworthy source have been wrong. last autumn the experts said there would be no sea ice in the arctic during the winter and shipping would be able to freelt to cross those seas. what happened? they got stuck in sea ice.

the climate debate is riddled with opinions from scientists saying whatever their source of funding wants them to say. perhaps you still believe that smoking is good for you? perhaps you automatically trust experts. good luck with that. recent experience shows experts know sweet fa, or someone is telling them to lie. they said people who'd been jabbed couldn't get c19 but they did. they said keeping six feet away from people would stop you getting c19 but it didn't. they said masks would protect us but they didn't. so pardon me for having doubts about the experts.
Click to expand...


Eggs Are Among the Most Nutritious Foods on the Planet
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-are-eggs-good-for-you#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4

The fat and cholesterol found in eggs can harm heart health and lead to diabetes, as well as prostate and colorectal cancers.
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition...987WGImAq35dSd-Y52coKdc-5fokgWrsaAkPfEALw_wcB
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE EXCLUSIVE 10% and x
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back