Originally posted by pjclarke
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
I may have been wrong about Global Warming
Collapse
X
-
Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone -
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostI wasn't sure if you were a gibbering fool or simply misinformed.
The oil companies are not suppressing facts you idiot, Royal Dutch Shell has been lobbying against coal, funding 'progressive' think tanks, and promoting carbon capture. Exxon paid four times more to the Stanford Global Climate and Energy project, than they ever gave to sceptics
Exxon Secrets
leading to two Senators drafting an open letter to the CEO asking the corporation to cease and desist inflicting reputational damage on the country … here's an extract
Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every country on the globe.
Where most scientists dispassionate review of the facts has moved past acknowledgement to mitigation strategies, ExxonMobil’s contribution the overall politicization of science has merely bolstered the views of U.S. government officials satisfied to do nothing. Rather than investing in the development of technologies that might see us through this crisis—and which may rival the computer as a wellspring of near-term economic growth around the world—ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years. The net result of this unfortunate campaign has been a diminution of this nation’s ability to act internationally, and not only in environmental matters.My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostThe climate changes all the time. Something you fail to admitMy subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
But everyone doesn't accept man is responsible for Global Warming. Often in these debates warmists simply show graphs of temperatures warming and say "see told you so". This is simply evidence of warming. But because we have warming doesn't mean it must be man made. To prove it was man made you would have to demonstrate that the warming is unprecedented. That's what Michael Mann's paper puportedly did. But there are plenty of published scientific papers that contradict what he published.My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostNo there are not. And even if there were evidence that the current warming is not unprecedented, the argument 'it has happened before naturally therefore it cannot be manmade this time' is an obvious logical fail.(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostAnd the alarrrmists, 'we cant work out what caused it so it must be.....' is so obviously daft, it shouldn't need sayingLet us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyoneComment
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostEvery tyranny is built by instilling fear into people. The word "denier" is very much the type of language to suppress any form of dissent
and they crow about no one writing contradictory paper
scammers, fraudsters and charletans, one and all(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostAnd the alarrrmists, 'we cant work out what caused it so it must be.....' is so obviously daft, it shouldn't need sayingMy subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Posttrue. and their universities are booting even non-sceptics out, if they don't follow the dogma.
lMy subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Postscammers, fraudsters and charletans, one and all
A reader wondered if NASA really did cook the books, so we are checking Doocy’s claim about fudging the numbers.
We asked Fox News for their source and while they didn’t respond, a number of conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a*blog post*from a man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. Goddard charged that until 2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and that the country has been cooling since then.
"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered U.S. climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer," Goddard wrote. […]
All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.
Mark *C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.
"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.
"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote.
.
As for what the blog said, we found that experts across the spectrum found fundamental flaws in its analytic methods. By relying on raw data, it ignored that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80 years.
The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results. The bare bones approach used in the blog post provides no solution to the issues of weaknesses in the raw data.
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
When even Watts says you're wrong, you need to take a good look at yourself, ask who is the real charlatan here ......My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment