I don't have a sycophantic attitude towards anything. I do however recognise that the world is somewhat more complicated than you do and also that it is essential to judge things in their historical context.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I don't have a sycophantic attitude towards anything. I do however recognise that the world is somewhat more complicated than you do and also that it is essential to judge things in their historical context.
It has been remarked more than once that they took their time about it.
How about the terrible suffering of the people of so many countries that were part of the defeat of Nazism. Don't they count? Obviously they are children of a lesser God, or at the very least not as "exceptional" as the United States.
Do you really think that Nazism in Europe would have been defeated without the terrible sacrifice of the former Soviet Union? More than 20 million dead.
While Britain and the US were carpet bombing German cities and civilians, Russians were fighting the Nazi military machine on the ground, ultimately fatally wounding it. Without this, there would have been no D-day landings.
And no, I am not unaware of the war in Nth Africa, Italy, Greece, the pacific, IndoChina and on and on.
Why do you feel it necessary to invent opinions for me? Be so good as to point out where I have belittled the contributions of other nations, or denied the vital significance of Russia's vast manpower.
The Russians were fighting on the ground because that is where they were being attacked by Hitler. The combined assault from East and West fatally wounded the National Socialist regime, not the Russian attack on its own.
Anyway, this thread is supposed to be for arguing about global warming. We should start another one if we feel like arguing about America and World War II.
Last edited:
I come back to the same thing, maiden22, the doubling of population in a half century. No one is talking about the next half century!
Fifty years is no time at all. I can remember walking with my friend along the sea front, worrying about the millenium bug! It seems impossible that the time has passed so quickly and the problem is that there is no time left for humanity, in general.
We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.
The millennium bug scare - yes indeed. As Conan Doyle puts it (more or less), the old wheel turns, the same spoke comes up again.
Prawnsandwich
Well-known member
- Messages
- 339
- Likes
- 30
Im not sure that it saved that many Japanese lives - Japan was already beaten, with what remained of its army fallen back to defend the mainland, and probably would have surrendered albeit conditionally...so if conventional war had continued many more Japanese troops would have died and also civilians from bombing etc....but as many civilians as from two nuclear detonations? Dont think so.
The main reason was to limit further American troop losses. Many argue also that the second bomb was not needed, that Japan was ready to surrender anyway...
Not saying that the Japanese behave impeccably by any means - look at the rape of Nanking and the way it treated its POWs, just dont like sugar coating the reality of what happened....
It was believed that millions of Japanese civilians could be expected to fight. The government had already approved an order to draft pretty much everyone between late teens and late middle age - women as well as men.
Add to this the severe casualties the Americans would suffer, and those dying in their thousands every month in Asia as a result of the Japanese penchant for cruelty and slave labour that you alluded to. It adds up to millions.[/QUOTE]
"The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a close. By August 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy effectively ceased to exist, and an Allied invasion of Japan was imminent. While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme War Council (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese. The Soviets, meanwhile, were preparing to attack the Japanese, in fulfillment of their promise to the Americans and the British made at the Yalta Conference."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
They were prepared to surrender alright, just that the Allies wanted unconditional surrender....
sahajtrader
Junior member
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 4
I would like her to be "accidentally" run over by a heavy vehicle (one which emits lots of pollutants would be ideal!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/20/wallstreet.banking
My long standing wish of Berlusconi getting his head ripped off nearly came true. Bless him! (the person with the metal idol 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/20/wallstreet.banking
My long standing wish of Berlusconi getting his head ripped off nearly came true. Bless him! (the person with the metal idol 🙂
B
Black Swan
Mayon
Their prayers are answered; govt. 'friendly' climapologists get ready to blame the cooling over the next couple of years on the Mayon volcano exploding....can almost smell it already..
"Well if we discount the Mayon affect (and the millions of tonnes of poisonous sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere), that directly caused temperatures to be neutral (-1) for the decade and had an adverse affect on El Nino, then the climate change factor would have actually been as high as +2 for the decade..."
"The fact that temperatures havn't risen is no cause for celebration... oh and all your money belong to us"....😉
Their prayers are answered; govt. 'friendly' climapologists get ready to blame the cooling over the next couple of years on the Mayon volcano exploding....can almost smell it already..
"Well if we discount the Mayon affect (and the millions of tonnes of poisonous sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere), that directly caused temperatures to be neutral (-1) for the decade and had an adverse affect on El Nino, then the climate change factor would have actually been as high as +2 for the decade..."
"The fact that temperatures havn't risen is no cause for celebration... oh and all your money belong to us"....😉
montmorencyt2w
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,619
- Likes
- 294
Re: Mayon
Don't forget that the models are correct. It's the world that's all wrong.
Their prayers are answered; govt. 'friendly' climapologists get ready to blame the cooling over the next couple of years on the Mayon volcano exploding....can almost smell it already..
"Well if we discount the Mayon affect (and the millions of tonnes of poisonous sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere), that directly caused temperatures to be neutral (-1) for the decade and had an adverse affect on El Nino, then the climate change factor would have actually been as high as +2 for the decade..."
"The fact that temperatures havn't risen is no cause for celebration... oh and all your money belong to us"....😉
Don't forget that the models are correct. It's the world that's all wrong.
B
Black Swan
Re: Mayon
Yep and us humans have the power to stop the planet's temperature moving, just get The Lord our God Barack to turn down the thermostat, like it's fookin central heating...
Anyone got the world's smallest violin handy for the inhabitants of Tuvalu? Their inbred stupidity makes Shannon Matthews (foiled kidnap) clan in Deswbury look like mensa candidates...
"The tides gonna come in, let's use some of the millions we got for the .tv domain extensions to move somwhere drier..." Has there been any time in history when humans believed they somehow had the divine right to stop the world from turning as opposed to simply migrating? Fook me as a speices we'd never have moved out of Africa millions of years back if that attitude had been prevalent.
I'd despair, if I really cared...😀
Don't forget that the models are correct. It's the world that's all wrong.
Yep and us humans have the power to stop the planet's temperature moving, just get The Lord our God Barack to turn down the thermostat, like it's fookin central heating...
Anyone got the world's smallest violin handy for the inhabitants of Tuvalu? Their inbred stupidity makes Shannon Matthews (foiled kidnap) clan in Deswbury look like mensa candidates...
"The tides gonna come in, let's use some of the millions we got for the .tv domain extensions to move somwhere drier..." Has there been any time in history when humans believed they somehow had the divine right to stop the world from turning as opposed to simply migrating? Fook me as a speices we'd never have moved out of Africa millions of years back if that attitude had been prevalent.
I'd despair, if I really cared...😀
Here is a couple of questions that deserve a serious answer
1. How many governments represented in Copenhagen dispute the reality of AGW? (And a clue if you are struggling - it is the additive identity of ordinary arithmetic)
2. How many governments dispute the importance of AGW? For a clue see Q1.
3. How do you explain this unanimity in terms other than acceptance of the validity the IPCC reports? Keep in mind that all of these delegations are informed by the best scientific advice they can get their hands on.
This concordance surely must be something of a first in international relations. If there was any mileage to be gained in denialism surely some party amongst the shambles would have jumped on it. But we see no dispute between natural enemies whatsoever over the science or indeed the need for action.
1. How many governments represented in Copenhagen dispute the reality of AGW? (And a clue if you are struggling - it is the additive identity of ordinary arithmetic)
2. How many governments dispute the importance of AGW? For a clue see Q1.
3. How do you explain this unanimity in terms other than acceptance of the validity the IPCC reports? Keep in mind that all of these delegations are informed by the best scientific advice they can get their hands on.
This concordance surely must be something of a first in international relations. If there was any mileage to be gained in denialism surely some party amongst the shambles would have jumped on it. But we see no dispute between natural enemies whatsoever over the science or indeed the need for action.
Re: Mayon
So you are suggesting that the aerosols emitted by volcanoes are not a valid subject of study in climate science or you are asserting that they don't affect climate?
If it is an attempt at humor, then is not even funny. Might be good for the reader comments on the Daily Express though.
Their prayers are answered; govt. 'friendly' climapologists get ready to blame the cooling over the next couple of years on the Mayon volcano exploding....can almost smell it already..
"Well if we discount the Mayon affect (and the millions of tonnes of poisonous sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere), that directly caused temperatures to be neutral (-1) for the decade and had an adverse affect on El Nino, then the climate change factor would have actually been as high as +2 for the decade..."
"The fact that temperatures havn't risen is no cause for celebration... oh and all your money belong to us"....😉
So you are suggesting that the aerosols emitted by volcanoes are not a valid subject of study in climate science or you are asserting that they don't affect climate?
If it is an attempt at humor, then is not even funny. Might be good for the reader comments on the Daily Express though.
B
Black Swan
Re: Mayon
sigh...🙄 The devestation a full blown volcano eruption can cause to the atmosphere (for decades) throws into sharp relief the puny amounts of CO2 'civilisation' has pumped into the air over the past century or more wouldn't you say? My suggestion is that if/when Mayon pops the clima apologists will blame the cooling (which is what we're experiencing) on that event...in fact they may attempt, over the next few days, to clumsily link Mayon to fossil fuel use..."the continual extraction of fossil fuels has caused faults to emerge which may..." Oh 'ang on, no they won't...big business wouldn't like that link...
Whilst you're 'ere, riddle me this joker, how much C02 is actually in the atmosphere at any given time, in % terms...? You know, we have x amount of Nitrogen, x amount of oxygen.....? 🙂
So you are suggesting that the aerosols emitted by volcanoes are not a valid subject of study in climate science or you are asserting that they don't affect climate?
If it is an attempt at humor, then is not even funny. Might be good for the reader comments on the Daily Express though.
sigh...🙄 The devestation a full blown volcano eruption can cause to the atmosphere (for decades) throws into sharp relief the puny amounts of CO2 'civilisation' has pumped into the air over the past century or more wouldn't you say? My suggestion is that if/when Mayon pops the clima apologists will blame the cooling (which is what we're experiencing) on that event...in fact they may attempt, over the next few days, to clumsily link Mayon to fossil fuel use..."the continual extraction of fossil fuels has caused faults to emerge which may..." Oh 'ang on, no they won't...big business wouldn't like that link...
Whilst you're 'ere, riddle me this joker, how much C02 is actually in the atmosphere at any given time, in % terms...? You know, we have x amount of Nitrogen, x amount of oxygen.....? 🙂
Re: Mayon
You may roll your eyes as much as you like, but the facts as stated by the US Geological Survey are:
"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Also in case you want to cite the nonsense sprouted by Ian Plimer:
"This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes"
It's currently around 385 parts per million - and growing.
sigh...🙄 The devestation a full blown volcano eruption can cause to the atmosphere (for decades) throws into sharp relief the puny amounts of CO2 'civilisation' has pumped into the air over the past century or more wouldn't you say? My suggestion is that if/when Mayon pops the clima apologists will blame the cooling (which is what we're experiencing) on that event...in fact they may attempt, over the next few days, to clumsily link Mayon to fossil fuel use..."the continual extraction of fossil fuels has caused faults to emerge which may..." Oh 'ang on, no they won't...big business wouldn't like that link...
You may roll your eyes as much as you like, but the facts as stated by the US Geological Survey are:
"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Also in case you want to cite the nonsense sprouted by Ian Plimer:
"This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes"
Whilst you're 'ere, riddle me this joker, how much C02 is actually in the atmosphere at any given time, in % terms...? You know, we have x amount of Nitrogen, x amount of oxygen.....? 🙂
It's currently around 385 parts per million - and growing.
B
Black Swan
Re: Mayon
... in percentage terms that's what...? 😏
It's currently around 385 parts per million - and growing.
... in percentage terms that's what...? 😏
Re: Mayon
As a special favour - here it is 0.0385%. And I know where this silliness is leading. Ohhh ... those silly scientists don't know how small the amount really is. They've overlooked it. It couldn't possibly be a factor.
Of all the uninformed anti AGW arguments, this one just about takes the prize.
It is equivalent of a person suffering a viral infection saying
* The viral mass in my body is negligible compared to my body weight
* And in any case viruses contain DNA and RNA. These are the stuff of life for chrissake!
You damed doctors don't know anything, just like those conspiratorial climatologists and the CO2 nonsense.
... in percentage terms that's what...? 😏
As a special favour - here it is 0.0385%. And I know where this silliness is leading. Ohhh ... those silly scientists don't know how small the amount really is. They've overlooked it. It couldn't possibly be a factor.
Of all the uninformed anti AGW arguments, this one just about takes the prize.
It is equivalent of a person suffering a viral infection saying
* The viral mass in my body is negligible compared to my body weight
* And in any case viruses contain DNA and RNA. These are the stuff of life for chrissake!
You damed doctors don't know anything, just like those conspiratorial climatologists and the CO2 nonsense.
Last edited:
Re: Mayon
Your analogies leave something to be desired.
That aside, what did you make of the Russian accusations about the very selective choice of measuring stations?
As a special favour - here it is 0.0385%. And I know where this silliness is leading. Ohhh ... those silly scientists don't know how small the amount really is. They've overlooked it. It couldn't possibly be a factor.
Of all the uninformed anti AGW arguments, this one just about takes the prize.
It is equivalent of a person suffering a viral infection saying
* The viral mass in my body is negligible compared to my body weight
* And in any case viruses contain DNA and RNA. These are the stuff of life for chrissake!
You damed doctors don't know anything, just like those conspiratorial climatologists and the CO2 nonsense.
Your analogies leave something to be desired.
That aside, what did you make of the Russian accusations about the very selective choice of measuring stations?
Re: Mayon
How about this then. "CO2 is only 0.0385% of the atmosphere. You're kidding if you expect me to believe that's enough for photosynthesis!" It's just as good an argument as the denialist nonsense that that much C02 couldn't affect anything. Arguments that appeal to ignorance deserve ridicule.
The Russian stuff - it is in all likelihood complete crap. It is no secret that some stations have been dropped from the temperature records compiled independently by CRU, NASA and NOAA. It is also no secret that adjustments have been made. These sort of things happen all the time in experimental and observational science - and to do that in a proper fashion is part of the skill of being a good scientist. With 150 years of temperature data gathered from lots of countries, expecting anything else makes no sense.
I'll repeat it again - if you want to show falsification, you need to show a lot more than the dropping of some data (which can well have been for perfectly valid reasons) or adjustment to some data (the reasons for which can be equally valid). You have to show that the resulting temperature record was knowingly and deliberately skewed to falsely indicate global warming. As nearly all the raw data is available (aside from a small amount "owned" by some NMS's - and negotiations are under way on that), anybody is free to do this type of analysis. Nobody has produced a study showing any evidence of falsification. The studies that have been done have shown no bias. How much clearer can this be put? Cut all the innuendo and crap and show us the money.
The CRU, GISS and NOAA instrumental surface temperature records are in close agreement. One of the ironies of all the beatup about CRU is that the CRU data shows 1998 as the hottest (something much beloved by cherry picking denialists) where as the GISS temperature record shows 2005.
Your analogies leave something to be desired.
That aside, what did you make of the Russian accusations about the very selective choice of measuring stations?
How about this then. "CO2 is only 0.0385% of the atmosphere. You're kidding if you expect me to believe that's enough for photosynthesis!" It's just as good an argument as the denialist nonsense that that much C02 couldn't affect anything. Arguments that appeal to ignorance deserve ridicule.
The Russian stuff - it is in all likelihood complete crap. It is no secret that some stations have been dropped from the temperature records compiled independently by CRU, NASA and NOAA. It is also no secret that adjustments have been made. These sort of things happen all the time in experimental and observational science - and to do that in a proper fashion is part of the skill of being a good scientist. With 150 years of temperature data gathered from lots of countries, expecting anything else makes no sense.
I'll repeat it again - if you want to show falsification, you need to show a lot more than the dropping of some data (which can well have been for perfectly valid reasons) or adjustment to some data (the reasons for which can be equally valid). You have to show that the resulting temperature record was knowingly and deliberately skewed to falsely indicate global warming. As nearly all the raw data is available (aside from a small amount "owned" by some NMS's - and negotiations are under way on that), anybody is free to do this type of analysis. Nobody has produced a study showing any evidence of falsification. The studies that have been done have shown no bias. How much clearer can this be put? Cut all the innuendo and crap and show us the money.
The CRU, GISS and NOAA instrumental surface temperature records are in close agreement. One of the ironies of all the beatup about CRU is that the CRU data shows 1998 as the hottest (something much beloved by cherry picking denialists) where as the GISS temperature record shows 2005.
Last edited:
Re: Mayon
😆😆😆
The analogies just keep getting worse. If you can't see the difference between the two, you are beyond hope.
How about this then. "CO2 is only 0.0385% of the atmosphere. You're kidding if you expect me to believe that's enough for photosynthesis!" It's just as good an argument as the denialist nonsense that that much C02 couldn't affect anything. Arguments that appeal to ignorance deserve ridicule.
😆😆😆
The analogies just keep getting worse. If you can't see the difference between the two, you are beyond hope.
Re: Mayon
The allegations are actually very serious and cast doubt on the the probity of those compiling the record, and upon their outputs. They include:
1. That 75% of the temperature data was ignored.
2. That stations that showed warming were cherry-picked - no wonder (if your assertion is true) that different compilers dropped the same stations. The zealots chose their data carefully to match their theories.
3. Stations with incomplete records were favoured over those with complete records, allowing missing data to be filled in - or, to put it another way, made up.
4. Stations affected by urban heat island effect were disproportionately represented, while rural stations were disproportionately under-represented.
Russian data represents temperature data for around one eighth of the world's landmass. This is very serious indeed - your lofty dismissal is ridiculous.
And we don't have to show deliberate skewing - just that the record is woefully unreliable. This may be hard for you to understand, but accuracy is not determined by intent.
That aside, this does not amount to normal selection and adjustment - this is fraud.
The Russian stuff - it is in all likelihood complete crap. It is no secret that some stations have been dropped from the temperature records compiled independently by CRU, NASA and NOAA. It is also no secret that adjustments have been made. These sort of things happen all the time in experimental and observational science - and to do that in a proper fashion is part of the skill of being a good scientist. With 150 years of temperature data gathered from lots of countries, expecting anything else makes no sense.
I'll repeat it again - if you want to show falsification, you need to show a lot more than the dropping of some data (which can well have been for perfectly valid reasons) or adjustment to some data (the reasons for which can be equally valid). You have to show that the resulting temperature record was knowingly and deliberately skewed to falsely indicate global warming. As nearly all the raw data is available (aside from a small amount "owned" by some NMS's - and negotiations are under way on that), anybody is free to do this type of analysis. Nobody has produced a study showing any evidence of falsification. The studies that have been done have shown no bias. How much clearer can this be put? Cut all the innuendo and crap and show us the money.
The CRU, GISS and NOAA instrumental surface temperature records are in close agreement. One of the ironies of all the beatup about CRU is that the CRU data shows 1998 as the hottest (something much beloved by cherry picking denialists) where as the GISS temperature record shows 2005.
The allegations are actually very serious and cast doubt on the the probity of those compiling the record, and upon their outputs. They include:
1. That 75% of the temperature data was ignored.
2. That stations that showed warming were cherry-picked - no wonder (if your assertion is true) that different compilers dropped the same stations. The zealots chose their data carefully to match their theories.
3. Stations with incomplete records were favoured over those with complete records, allowing missing data to be filled in - or, to put it another way, made up.
4. Stations affected by urban heat island effect were disproportionately represented, while rural stations were disproportionately under-represented.
Russian data represents temperature data for around one eighth of the world's landmass. This is very serious indeed - your lofty dismissal is ridiculous.
And we don't have to show deliberate skewing - just that the record is woefully unreliable. This may be hard for you to understand, but accuracy is not determined by intent.
That aside, this does not amount to normal selection and adjustment - this is fraud.
This episode demonstrates another hole in your argument. You clain that the destruction of data by CRU does not matter, as it is all out there anyway. This is wrong, but passing on, we need to know what their calculations are based on if we are to be able to assess their results - in other words we need to know exactly which sets of data they used. It is no use at all presenting the finished article and nothing else.
More misinformation:
1. THE DATA IS NOT LOST. Where did you think CRU got all the station data from in the first place? It came from the National Meteorological Services from over 150 countries. Who else have been accumulating station temperature data for the last 150 years? Do you think after giving a copy of the data to CRU they then burned their own records? They are ultimately the curators of the data. Why this is so difficult to understand is utterly beyond my comprehension.
95% of the data is available through the Global Historical Climatology Network and has been long before the current nonsense.
The remaining data is subject to non-disclosure agreements with NMS's and will be made available when these IPR issues are resolved.
If anybody want to claim that these centralized repositories are cooked, they are absolutely free to go and ask the NMS's individually. But that would mean real work. Slander and innuendo is much easier.
I have pointed all this out before on this thread.
Now that is just nonsense. You don't need that at all. If you want to show they are wrong proceed from the raw data and show it by your own research. Demonstrate that your methodology is correct and get it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Confirmation or lack of it through independent research is one of the foundations of science.
Trial by comments in code (that may not be in current use or even has ever been used) or private emails is not the way science is done.
You would like science to become a slanging match on internet blogs, because confusion is so easily generated.
This episode demonstrates another hole in your argument. You clain that the destruction of data by CRU does not matter, as it is all out there anyway. This is wrong, but passing on, we need to know what their calculations are based on if we are to be able to assess their results - in other words we need to know exactly which sets of data they used. It is no use at all presenting the finished article and nothing else.
1. THE DATA IS NOT LOST. Where did you think CRU got all the station data from in the first place? It came from the National Meteorological Services from over 150 countries. Who else have been accumulating station temperature data for the last 150 years? Do you think after giving a copy of the data to CRU they then burned their own records? They are ultimately the curators of the data. Why this is so difficult to understand is utterly beyond my comprehension.
95% of the data is available through the Global Historical Climatology Network and has been long before the current nonsense.
The remaining data is subject to non-disclosure agreements with NMS's and will be made available when these IPR issues are resolved.
If anybody want to claim that these centralized repositories are cooked, they are absolutely free to go and ask the NMS's individually. But that would mean real work. Slander and innuendo is much easier.
I have pointed all this out before on this thread.
we need to know what their calculations are based on if we are to be able to assess their results - in other words we need to know exactly which sets of data they used. It is no use at all presenting the finished article and nothing else.
Now that is just nonsense. You don't need that at all. If you want to show they are wrong proceed from the raw data and show it by your own research. Demonstrate that your methodology is correct and get it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Confirmation or lack of it through independent research is one of the foundations of science.
Trial by comments in code (that may not be in current use or even has ever been used) or private emails is not the way science is done.
You would like science to become a slanging match on internet blogs, because confusion is so easily generated.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 1K
