Climate Change

barjon said:
Hey, ho - back to climate change.

Had some logs delivered yesterday, but no time to get them stacked. Met office reckoned it would come on to rain overnight, but my retired meteorologist pal reckoned it would miss us. Dilemma: should I bugger about getting the tarp out to cover them up or not. Better safe than sorry won so I struggled with the tarp in the wind.

As it turned out I’m glad I did and the met turned out to be right. They may not have been, though, but so what. The risk of having a load of wet logs was high enough to be worth the tarp effort anyway.
Click to expand...

Groan.

We're sposed to be planting more trees not burning our remaining Ones.

Once a remainer, always a remainer. :p
 
Signalcalc said:
The climate emergency is a full on political issue, the scientists do not run the agenda, therefore, using the logic of Brexit, the public should have a referendum on the climae hoax.
Click to expand...


That's just crazy talk. If you have a referendum on a subject that voters cannot understand, what sort of result would that lead do you think?
:)
 
tomorton said:
That's just crazy talk. If you have a referendum on a subject that voters cannot understand, what sort of result would that lead do you think?
:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, we understand it alright. Globalisation not only exports jobs that the elites get rich off, but also ties in nicely with the increased consumption and pollution.

It's all linked ya know !
 
How come everyone has woken from their slumber all of a sudden, has fibnuts left or summink? Or is it Norvern emyschfear cabin fever kicking in as we approach the Pagan Yule?
 
Signalcalc said:
How come everyone has woken from their slumber all of a sudden, has fibnuts left or summink? Or is it Norvern emyschfear cabin fever kicking in as we approach the Pagan Yule?
Click to expand...

By the way, i've been meaning to ask you, which northern mill did you work at back in the day?
When I was between school leaving and college, I did 6 weeks at Olympia Corduroy which paid for my brand new Suzi GT185.

Happy days.
 

Attachments

  • 1979-GT185.jpg
    1979-GT185.jpg
    113.8 KB · Views: 131
Hi Tom,
tomorton said:
The Brexit referendum was a vote on political / conscience lines, not economic (and certainly not scientific). If the deciding criteria re EU membership had been purely economic, there would have been no referendum. It wasn't a matter of lies and truth, it was matter of beliefs, a question of conscience if you like. On such matters, the man in the street's opinion is as valid as anyone else's.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.

tomorton said:
When it comes to specialist subject issues, the unqualified public should have no vote.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree 100%.

tomorton said:
Of course, the public should have a vote on what measures the politicians put in place to respond to the issue.
Click to expand...
And again!

tomorton said:
In a sense, I do always follow the majority in trading. I take only trend-following trades. I assume that in forex the people who can move price are those with most money. And that they can afford better computers and better analysts and have more information than I do. Why would I think I understand the GBP/USD better than Barclays? And of course if more banks put more money into buying GBP/USD than selling it, price will rise and I will be long: a difference of 51% buyers to 49% sellers will in theory do it for me. I don't see any conflict in my approaches to the two different issues.
Click to expand...
Time for a little divergence of opinion. I accept your logic regarding how you trade and that, in the main, you back the majority view. However, the difference is that you've carefully considered all available evidence before making your decision. That's a very different kettle of fish from just opting to back the majority view - simply because they are the majority - without first considering what the minority are saying. Most importantly of all, in the context of climate change, if the supposed minority are being gagged by fair means or foul, then I put it to you that there's probably good reason for that. Namely, that they have sound arguments that the majority can't denounce. It all boils down to them there rats! So, I'm afraid I remain as nonplussed as ever by your position - it makes no sense to me at all.
Tim.
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,

I agree 100%.


Again, I agree 100%.


And again!


Time for a little divergence of opinion. I accept your logic regarding how you trade and that, in the main, you back the majority view. However, the difference is that you've carefully considered all available evidence before making your decision. That's a very different kettle of fish from just opting to back the majority view - simply because they are the majority - without first considering what the minority are saying. Most importantly of all, in the context of climate change, if the supposed minority are being gagged by fair means or foul, then I put it to you that there's probably good reason for that. Namely, that they have sound arguments that the majority can't denounce. It all boils down to them there rats! So, I'm afraid I remain as nonplussed as ever by your position - it makes no sense to me at all.
Tim.
Click to expand...

So would I buy an uptrend if half the banks were suspended from trading? 'course I would, price is still going up.

But the only analysis I do is to work out if there is a majority view and is it buy or sell. I don't attempt to qualify the majority view as to whether they were right or wrong to buy, nor the minority view as to whether they were right or wrong to sell. I just follow what the majority do. Because they can do better analysis than I can.

I don't believe that science has been coerced into an incorrect scientific conclusion by big business.

I do see that climate change deniers have been excluded from talking to the public in the mainstream media because the media accept that there is no scientific argument at this point on the continuum of knowledge on the subject. That does not prevent scientific research and debate on climate change but not on socio-political responses to climate change. And it doesn't stop scientists from dissecting the scientific evidence.
 
counter_violent said:
By the way, i've been meaning to ask you, which northern mill did you work at back in the day?
When I was between school leaving and college, I did 6 weeks at Olympia Corduroy which paid for my brand new Suzi GT185.

Happy days.
Click to expand...

Oh you lucky boy, I only had a Honda CG125 and a Suzie GP100 (still on a provisional in those days), both were crashed and rebuilt, I've survived all motorbike crashes so far with only cracked bones to show for it :D

The mill I worked in has now been turned into swanky apartments, Marriot St Mill, listed in WP here (so many mills in Stockport!)

List of mills in Stockport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Marriott_Street_Mill,_Stockport.jpg
 
cantagril said:
"Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree"
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Pah! Nasa? Whadda they know? Everybody knows that the moon landing was a hoax...
Click to expand...

At face value it's undisputable (and that is what the proponents of human induced climate change need to present to the public), but as we all know the devil is in the detail. The key statement here is: 'actively publishing climate scientists', what about the non-publishing climate scientists, what about the scientists that aren't specifically climate scientists but belong to subject matter areas that relate to the climate?

NASA is as much a political organisation as any other, to dig into the problem area of statistical representation takes effort, there are many questions left outstanding, such as what is the sample size, is it 97% of 100 climate scientists? How are the sample scientists funded, why are they publishing, how many non-publishing climate scientists are there? Why aren't they publishing, would scientists with an opposing view lose funding and therefore do not publish for that reason?

It all comes back to the money, because like everyone else, scientists have to earn it to pay for their holidays, cars, flights, toys, steak and chips. So in the modern world of climate change, without examining the money question we have no real way of evaluating the stats that are presented to us.

Therefore stats remain an organisational opinion, nothing more, you would have thought that NASA, being a scientific organisation would know the rigour needed and due diligence required when producing stats.

Producing stats in isolation by NASA, beggars belief, they even have endorsing messages from participating organisations, it's the sort of thing you see on sales websites, what are NASA selling? Why, it's man-made climate change of course!

And what would happen if they suddenly said, no, wait, our stats are meaningless because we haven't applied enough rigour, we are now not sure? They would lose their own funding of course.

Big boys club, all in bed together, with the banksters.
 
Signalcalc said:
At face value it's undisputable (and that is what the proponents of human induced climate change need to present to the public), but as we all know the devil is in the detail. The key statement here is: 'actively publishing climate scientists', what about the non-publishing climate scientists, what about the scientists that aren't specifically climate scientists but belong to subject matter areas that relate to the climate?

NASA is as much a political organisation as any other, to dig into the problem area of statistical representation takes effort, there are many questions left outstanding, such as what is the sample size, is it 97% of 100 climate scientists? How are the sample scientists funded, why are they publishing, how many non-publishing climate scientists are there? Why aren't they publishing, would scientists with an opposing view lose funding and therefore do not publish for that reason?

It all comes back to the money, because like everyone else, scientists have to earn it to pay for their holidays, cars, flights, toys, steak and chips. So in the modern world of climate change, without examining the money question we have no real way of evaluating the stats that are presented to us.

Therefore stats remain an organisational opinion, nothing more, you would have thought that NASA, being a scientific organisation would know the rigour needed and due diligence required when producing stats.

Producing stats in isolation by NASA, beggars belief, they even have endorsing messages from participating organisations, it's the sort of thing you see on sales websites, what are NASA selling? Why, it's man-made climate change of course!

And what would happen if they suddenly said, no, wait, our stats are meaningless because we haven't applied enough rigour, we are now not sure? They would lose their own funding of course.

Big boys club, all in bed together, with the banksters.
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah...but did we land on the moon or not???
 
No but some say the Chinese have landed on the dark side of the moon.

Who knows????

I no notink!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
7K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top