• 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!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "there is no proof humans cause climate change"

Collapse

  • pjclarke
    replied
    That image is blocked, here's one from NASA



    Weatherbell of course, is the company set up by Bastardi and fellow nutter Joe D'Aleo when Accuweather showed him the door for being a nutter.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    You clearly aren't aware that

    (a) That was NOT global, just land only, probably influenced by the polar vortex in the US.

    (b) NCEP is not observations, it is a re-analysis, in other words, a model. Glad to see you trust the models now.

    (c) Bastardi is a bit of a nutter

    Really ? just the land cool

    http://models.weatherbell.com/climat...r_t2m_anom.png





    Shouldn't necessarily believe everything a "cartoonist" tells you.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 2 March 2014, 09:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    PS

    For anyone interested in what the Royal Society and The US National Academy of Science are saying, they've just issued a jointly-authored document

    http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...nce-causes.pdf

    Or you could stick with blogs from washed-up weathermen, and corporate PR from ex-evironmentalists. Tough choice.
    Last edited by pjclarke; 2 March 2014, 00:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    So the scientists who believe (praise be) are better than those that don't is what you are saying?
    Not even close. Whether I like a scientist or not is utterly irrelevant, the point is - are they correct? David Appell's criticism of Moore seems compelling, what did you think he got wrong?

    The Moore piece was just propaganda, absent a science case, it's all they have. The Greenpeace link was tenuous at best, he left nearly thirty years ago and I'm not sure I would describe him as a scientist, these days he makes his living in PR for various industries ....
    Last edited by pjclarke; 1 March 2014, 15:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    NCEP: February 0.10°C Below Normal. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Astounded By Climatologists “Making Up Excuses”
    You clearly aren't aware that

    (a) That was NOT global, just land only, probably influenced by the polar vortex in the US.

    (b) NCEP is not observations, it is a re-analysis, in other words, a model. Glad to see you trust the models now.

    (c) Bastardi is a bit of a nutter
    Last edited by pjclarke; 1 March 2014, 15:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    And the point sails over the heads of the assembled. A tar saturated lung is strong evidence of a causal link, but it is not proof. There's a small but finite chance that the cancer was caused by something else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zero Liability
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    Well done! The most stupid comment in CUK ever. Remove a lung from any smoker and it will be saturated with tar and nicotine like you can never imagine. (I watched an autopsy in the 60s) Tar is cacogenic. I won’t bother to explain about viruses as its beyond your capability
    The beauty of spamming links and graphs is that people will rarely follow them up and look behind them. Goes for both sides of the debate, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bunk View Post
    You don't even need to dig very deeply.
    It just kind of oozes out like in oil sands.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Greens have proclaimed that scientific debate on climate change is over:

    BBC News - Climate change: Greens say scientific debate 'is over'

    So I don't know why you even bothered to start a thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    He's right. There's also no proof that cigarettes cause cancer or the HIV virus causes AIDS.Hell of a lot of evidence, though.

    Quark Soup by David Appell: Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress
    HotWhopper: WUWT Sticky: Patrick Moore yearns for the "good old days" 500 million years ago
    Well done! The most stupid comment in CUK ever. Remove a lung from any smoker and it will be saturated with tar and nicotine like you can never imagine. (I watched an autopsy in the 60s) Tar is cacogenic. I won’t bother to explain about viruses as its beyond your capability

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Another humiliating year in store for the "warmists"

    NCEP: February 0.10°C Below Normal. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Astounded By Climatologists “Making Up Excuses”


    There is indeed a lot of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and that smoking causes cancer, but if the global temperatures go down any further there won't be any evidence at all for global warming.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by GB9 View Post
    So the scientists who believe (praise be) are better than those that don't is what you are saying?

    "The king is in the altogether".....
    true dat.

    In the olden days, being sceptical was a virtue in science

    Leave a comment:


  • GB9
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    He's right. There's also no proof that cigarettes cause cancer or the HIV virus causes AIDS.

    Hell of a lot of evidence, though.

    Quark Soup by David Appell: Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress
    HotWhopper: WUWT Sticky: Patrick Moore yearns for the "good old days" 500 million years ago
    So the scientists who believe (praise be) are better than those that don't is what you are saying?

    "The king is in the altogether".....

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    I am sure if we dig deep enough we can find that you are a paid stooge of the climate change industry
    I dont think so. The other day I made a comment about Moore and pj wasnt too bothered. Went away and read the party line and came back all aggressive.
    So I would say tribal definately, not a free independant thinker, and very green. but not a paid hack

    Leave a comment:


  • Bunk
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    I am sure if we dig deep enough we can find that you are a paid stooge of the climate change industry
    You don't even need to dig very deeply.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X