badgerx16

G, all this proves is that where there is money available, there will always be some bent b'stard, in all probability a 'Casino Capitalist', willing to dip his ( or her ) snout in the trough. It does not serve to disprove any science, just to show the complete lack of morals that some people exhibit. IMHO, simply following America's lead in the 'gimme, gimme, gimme', 'grab all you can' stakes, and in the best tradition of the banking sector. ( And by the way, given your persistent poor spelling and grammar, I am more and more convinced you are really a skate on a wind-up ).

Is this St G ? "Target 1: Older, less educated males" I also think this bit is brilliant ; "But people behind these campaigns know that their claims are untrue. One of the biggest was run by the Global Climate Coalition, which represented ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute and several big motor manufacturers. In 1995 the coalition's own scientists reported that "the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well-established and cannot be denied". The coalition hid this finding from the public, and spent millions of dollars seeking to persuade people that the opposite was true." However, being in the Grauniad, it's bound to be just another bit of the Great Climate Change Swindle. Isn't it G ?

The methods used for deriving temperature data from ice cores use many factors ; "The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. In a general sense, the thickness of each annual layer tells how much snow accumulated at that location during the year. Differences in cores taken from the same area can reveal local wind patterns by showing where the snow drifted. More importantly, the make-up of the snow itself can tell scientists about past temperatures. As with marine fossils, the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the snow reveals temperature, though in this case, the ratio tells how cold the air was at the time the snow fell. In snow, colder temperatures result in higher concentrations of light oxygen." ( From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ ) Which links to... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/oxygen_balance.php And there is also this alternative route of research..... http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html Which includes the following "Like ice cores, deep sea cores have also provided information about climate, but from accumulated sediments on the ocean floor. Unlike ice cores, which provide direct climate information, sediment cores provide indirect information. An example of this indirect evidence is the method for determining temperature. When sediment cores are analyzed researchers painstakingly sort out plankton shells which twist in different directions depending on the temperature of the water they grew in. By counting the number of shells that twist each way the temperature of the surface water at the time that they grew can be determined. Understanding the behavior of these plankton in the modern world is necessary to produce a historical record of temperature for the ocean." From these ( and other ) alternative measures, it is possible to correlate the relationship between CO2 trapped in the ice and temperatures, and hence this can be extrapolated to assist in modern reports. ( With many thanks to GOOGLE )

So if you miss an 's' it doesn't count, but if I miss a ' ' it does - double standards or what ?

But would he have noticed ?

Have you yet addressed the Margaret Thatcher conundrum, or given your view on the ACCCE issue ? Also, can you give us your esteemed opinion of the theory of Global Dimming - I'm sure you would have some enlightening insights into that one.

Two mods ganging up on me when I try to educate a skate, foul play I fear !

I don't understand p00pey speak, would you mind translating that into English, and correcting the punctuation ? Thankyou.

#1) If you read back through the posts you WILL FIND that there is mention of water vapour ( note the spelling ! ) as a greenhouse gas; together with methane, chloro-flourocarbons, etc. So you score NUL POINTS on that one. #2) The given view of Canute, ( or possibly Knut ), a Danish king of the southern part of Britain, is that the scenario with the tide was actually him proving to the sycophants around him that he was in no way capable of influencing nature,- in fact he was merely a man. ( Oh, and the most likely location was the Solent, so a nice bit of local history for you ). #3) Please, please, stay on that side of the pond, we are much better off without the likes of you. Stay over there with the Colombian drug gangs, the rednecks in their bed linen burning crosses in front of negro Baptist churches, and the Creationists trying to deny reality. You deserve each other. By all means, please do have a nice day old bean.

I await St G's response with interest

Dune, two simple tasks for you, no traps or tricks ; 1) which of the options in post#329 do you subscribe to ? 2) Read post #266 and give your considered opinion on the bits highlighted in red. Thanks B

I presume this will be viewed as a whitewash in some quarters ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8393449.stm Interesting that the Saudi delegate is sceptical, who would have thought that ? Also, for St G's benefit, here is a list of data sets and other international resources related to the analysis of the relationship between human emissions and climate change; http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Keywords.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|HUMAN+DIMENSIONS|ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTS|FOSSIL+FUEL+BURNING&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb1 All of these MUST be part of the 'con'.

Once again you completely MISS THE POINT about MMGW/AGW. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY (!!!!!!!), disuptes the points you have highlighted, so that's hardly proved his argument, has it ? As has been stated so many times already, the issue is not solely about CO2, or even the other greenhouse gases, it's the combination of pumping out such products into the atmosphere at the same time as we are destroying the natural routes for CO2 to be absorbed, the rain forests and the marine algal blooms. It's the totality of mankind's abuse of the planet that affects the climate, unless, of course, you can PROVE otherwise,- and that's your problem, you can't ! Also, you might want to read these, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/14/climate-change-denial http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/denialist-ark-a-wobbly-craft/story-e6frg6xo-1225710263980 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/23/spectator-plimer-climate-change-sceptic Oh. and since when were the Conservative Party 'loony lefties' ? May I refer you back to the "Maggie Thatcher question", posted earlier, I presume you're a fan.

I don't see too much wrong with that !

The established view of the BofB is that the Luftwaffe scored their major own goal when they stopped blitzing the sector stations, they didn't realise that the RAF was on it's knees. The major 'what if' is how effective the Home Fleet might have been in blocking an invasion if the enemy had air superiority. As for the Eyeties, etc, the Balkans campaign and Barbarossa weren't until 1941; the original start date for the invasion of the USSR was 15 May 1941, but because the Italians got screwed over in Greece & Albania, the Germans had to divert through Yugoslavia to assist them. The consequences of this were (1) the British diverted troops to Greece and Crete who would otherwise have been involved in North Africa, which took the pressure of the Axis there, ( the Afrika Korps having started arriving in February 1941 ), and (2) the start date for Barbarossa went back to the end of June, which meant that winter had set in before they reached Moscow & Leningrad;- what if they had kicked off on the original date, 5 weeks earlier, would the Russians have folded had they lost those 2 cities ?

Found it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPvU1vJ29C4&feature=player_embedded Fonzie does his St G impression at about 1:47

More St G b0ll0x and biased reporting misrepresenting the truth - what a surprise ! http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35233_Did_Climate_Scientists_Destroy_Data_A-_No.#rss "the article at The Times, oddly enough, just happens to leave out that part of Phil Jones’ explanation. According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency. The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. “When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.” Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”"

I wouldn't mind losing at home to a prem side, but FFS, NOT the effing Skates ! :confused::confused::confused:

That's the sort of 'new manager' syndrome that I hope continues for another few weeks at least

Consider that you have a funnel held over a bucket and into which you are pouring water. The water you are pouring in represents the rainfall on the hills and fells, the funnel is the streams and rivers draining down towards the sea, the funnel spout is the estuary, and the bucket is the sea. You can increase the amount of flow into the bucket by using a bigger bored spout, seemingly analagous to dredging the river mouth in your argument, but if you pour the water fast enough into the funnel, it will still overflow and wet your boots. The flooding in the lake District occurred because over 310mm, that is over 12 inches, of rain fell in one day onto already sodden hillsides, the equivalent of emptying a bath into the funnel in the analogy. As a result, the river Derwent increased it's level by over 8 feet. No river system in Cumbria could have coped with that, and no amount of dredging in Workington would have prevented it. .................................... What is missing from this list of 'purposes for dredging' ? ( Admittedly copied from Wiki ) Capital: dredging carried out to create a new harbour, berth or waterway, or to deepen existing facilities in order to allow larger ships access. Because capital works usually involve hard material or high-volume works, the work is usually done using a cutter suction dredge or large trailing suction hopper dredge, but for rock works drilling and blasting along with mechanical excavation may be used. Preparatory: work and excavation for future bridges, piers or docks/wharves, often connected with foundation work. Maintenance: dredging to deepen or maintain navigable waterways or channels which are threatened to become silted with the passage of time, due to sedimented sand and mud, possibly making them too shallow for navigation. This is often carried out with a trailing suction hopper dredge. Most dredging is for this purpose, and it may also be done to maintain the holding capacity of reservoirs or lakes. Land reclamation: dredging to mine sand, clay or rock from the seabed and using it to construct new land elsewhere. This is typically performed by a cutter-suction dredge or trailing suction hopper dredge. The material may also be used for flood or erosion control. Beach nourishment: mining sand offshore and placing on a beach to replace sand eroded by storms or wave action. This is done to enhance the recreational and protective function of the beaches, which can be eroded by human activity or by storms. This is typically performed by a cutter-suction dredge or trailing suction hopper dredge. Harvesting materials: dredging sediment for elements like gold or other valuable trace substances. Seabed mining: a possible future use, recovering natural metal ore nodules from the sea's abyssal plains. Construction materials: dredging sand and gravels from offshore licensed areas for use in construction industry, principally for use in concrete. Very specialist industry focused in NW Europe using specialized trailing suction hopper dredgers self discharging dry cargo ashore. Anti-eutrophication: Dredging is an expensive option for the remediation of eutrophied (or de-oxygenated) water bodies. However, as artificially elevated phosphorus levels in the sediment aggravate the eutrophication process, controlled sediment removal is occasionally the only option for the reclamation of still waters. Contaminant remediation: to reclaim areas affected by chemical spills, storm water surges (with urban runoff), and other soil contaminations. Disposal becomes a proportionally large factor in these operations. Removing trash and debris: often done in combination with maintenance dredging, this process removes non-natural matter from the bottoms of rivers and canals and harbors. Answer, improving inland drainage. Paradoxically, the increased level of sediment carried downstream by inland flood waters can actually necessitate additional dredging of estuaries as it increases the rate at which they silt up, affecting navigation and wildlife.

I can state quite categorically that you are most certainly not !

I think you have the right to challenge a valuation, but you need some evidence of your estimate. In our case their offer was quite a bit higher than I had worked out from the guides, so I kept schtum.

When my son wrote off my wife's 2 year-old car earlier this year the insurance paid up the current value on the basis that the outstanding finance was paid off directly and we got what was left. The other thing to watch out for is that a lot of insurance companies, even though they have declared the car a write-off, won't cancel the insurance policy, so they will keep on taking the money. ( In our case, we notified them that we wanted the policy cancelling and cancelled the direct debit. We then received a letter confirming the cancellation, plus a cheque refunding the overpayment. However, this was followed 2 weeks later by a letter saying that they had failed to collect the latest payment and were considering going through a recovery process to chase us for the money ! ) Shysters.

Basically it's a straight choice ; Option 1) All the major scientific institutions and universities in the world are colluding with the vast majority of governments, ( of all parts of the political spectrum ), to create huge quantities of fabricated or manipulated evidence which is then force fed to the public, with the willing co-operation of national and independant media organisations, with the intention of artificially controlling the world's fuel markets, and giving justification for additional taxes. In opposition to this conspiracy, those major corporations with huge vested interests in hydrocarbon fuels, whether gas, coal, or oil, are desperately fighting a valiant, selfless, and honourable rearguard action to expose this con and save the planet from political and social disaster. Option 2) Through mankinds wanton over-exploitation of the planet's natural resources, we are causing a shift in climate which exacerbates the natural cycle of heating and cooling which has gone on since life began, almost a billion years ago. The scientists and academics have evidenced this, have managed to persuade sceptical politicians that action is needed, and the fuel industries are fighting a desperate, self-interested, rearguard action against justified new processes which will have to be introduced, and as a consequence will hit their profits. Option 3) I don't know, and I don't care. I don't trust politicians, the media, or scientists, they are all in it for themselves, and any possible consequences will happen long after I am dead, so it won't affect me. I'm going to enjoy life to the full while I can. "Load up the SUV, let's go burn some rainforest".

I like the poll on the side bar of http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking/comments/page/2/#comments, the link St G has posted. It gives 2 choices 1) Yes, I am sure that climate change is most likely man made 2) No, climate change is mostly natural. This is interesting, because all those who accept MMCC/AGW would actually select the second option - it IS mostly natural, it's just the extra bit that we add on top that screws the planet. Also, try looking at this for an explanation of why the data was 'manipulated'. See G, the truth is out there, just open your eyes. http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington