PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd Sep 2011, 00:11   #9101 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 810
Quote:
Does this mean I can breath out now????
Quote:
Pheeeeewwwww.... Thanks..
Where do you live, we need to work out the tax on that pollution woops you've got your location, sorry
rh200 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2011, 03:57   #9102 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 149
Don't you just love all these researchers?
Here in Oz they've been coming out of the woodwork scrambling for more grant money when somoeone discovered there were collectors of scuba equipment who had air samples stored in scuba tanks from as early as the 1950's. No doubt they will spend millions on much needed research over decades to give us... what? Data which other experts will disagree with or data which we already knew decades before?
osmosis is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2011, 05:27   #9103 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,599
This is why in 2009-2010 green commies, AGW brigades and
other morons kept screaming "must do something NOW!" and
"agree to Copenhagen NOW!" "action NOW" etc, because they
needed to begin initiating the redistribution of global wealth
before CERN's results were published.

CERN is a dirty four-letter acronym to these corrupt left-wing
dicks.
Slasher is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2011, 22:24   #9104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 71
Posts: 247
One of the reasons for my disbelief in the AGW scam was that I considered an ice age to be much more likely.

Seems it might be closer than I thought
Croat scientist warns that ice age could start in five years | Ice Age Now
How could a magnetic reversal trigger an ice age?

Shall we see a sudden insistence on everyone driving SUVs to counteract it? Or a total ban on all magnets in case they damage the Earth's magnetic field?

What do fellow pruners thing would scammers would want to control in order to avoid an ice age?
A A Gruntpuddock is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2011, 22:30   #9105 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
Perhaps we could prevent the Ice Age occurring by pouring millions of tons of Co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Hmm, we could even introduce some kind of international tax to penalise countries that do not produce their fair share of Co2.
tony draper is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 03:50   #9106 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
A.A. Gruntpuddock

Quote:
One of the reasons for my disbelief in the AGW scam was that I considered an ice age to be much more likely.
In the 1970's there were claims that we'd have an ice-age. Until proven otherwise, it's just fear-mongering. They're doing everything to justify their agenda.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 04:19   #9107 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 0
Salt is bad for you. Causes high blood pressure and all sorts of things that could kill you. We use too much.

Salt is not the bogey man that has previously been believed. An increased intake makes no difference.

Eggs are bad for you. They contain high cholestoral and numerous pathogens.

3 to 5 eggs per week is good for you.

Chocolate is bad for you.

Chocolate is good for you.

Red wine in moderation can ward off a heart attack

Red wine is bad for you.

The climate change band wagon, whether frying or freezing, fits neatly into the foodie scares that appear with monotonous regularity in the media. There's some jumped up little twerp seeking to make use of their BSc and wants to get their name in lights.

A pox on the lot of them. Everything in moderation, whether it be eggs, chocolate, red wine, SUV driving, electricity generation or what have you.
sisemen is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 04:34   #9108 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Salt is not the bogey man that has previously been believed. An increased intake makes no difference.
Dunno where you read that Sise - Na is a proven fluid-retainer with
all the health risks, just as tar in ciggies causes cancer and all that
shit.
Slasher is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 06:34   #9109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 227
Quote:
In the 1970's there were claims that we'd have an ice-age. Until proven otherwise, it's just fear-mongering. They're doing everything to justify their agenda.
As has been said the last hundred times this was brought up: The '70's cooling thing was raised by only a handful of scientists and widely criticised by all the others. That didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon though.

So what it really demonstrates is that the media has always had a habit of getting science completely wrong.They managed it in the '70's and, seeing as we now have journalists without brains, they can manage it again today.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 06:57   #9110 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Peterborough
Age: 62
Posts: 182
A A Gruntpuddock

Thanks for the two interesting links. I guess that spells doom for my banana plants, tree ferns, cannas etc. I'll have to change to a tundra garden, moss, lichen and a few stunted firs!!

Simonpro. You mean scientist are always right!! I think most people with brains can see that the world is getting cooler, coolest summer in 18 years, a run of three severe winters, snow in parts of the world where it hasn't snowed for years etc etc. Only Big Al and his cronies believe the world is warming.

We're all doomed I tell yer, doomed.
uffington sb is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 07:28   #9111 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
What do fellow pruners thing would scammers would want to control in order to avoid an ice age?
Gore-Tex is the new gold !
stuckgear is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 07:59   #9112 (permalink)
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 74
Posts: 3,511
Quote:
In the 1970's there were claims that we'd have an ice-age. Until proven otherwise, it's just fear-mongering. They're doing everything to justify their agenda.
Quote:
As has been said the last hundred times this was brought up: The '70's cooling thing was raised by only a handful of scientists and widely criticised by all the others. That didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon though.
Bit like CAGW then.
green granite is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 10:37   #9113 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 0
Quote:
Dunno where you read that Sise
Saw it in either the West Australian or the Australian. Nearest I could find on the net without spending hours and hours is....

Quote:
In conclusion, (1) sodium restriction in hypertensive patients reduces blood pressure, and (2) the long-term impact of reduced salt intake on blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity remains to be defined.
Dietary sodium intake and arterial blood pressure. [J Ren Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Quote:
The effect of salt consumption on long term health outcomes is controversial.[39] Salt reduction appears to have little or no effect on mortality[40] and its effect on morbidity is unknown.[39]
Quote:
Some have asserted that while the risks of consuming too much salt are real, the risks have been exaggerated for most people, or that the studies done on the consumption of salt can be interpreted in many different ways
Salt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sisemen is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 11:53   #9114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 227
Quote:
Bit like CAGW then.
Well there's a few more than just a handful of scientists who think that AGW is a good theory
But the media problem is exactly the same - they go spouting all kinds of bullshit all over the place. It gives people a very skewed perception of what's actually going on.

Sisemen:
Quote:
Salt is bad for you. Causes high blood pressure and all sorts of things that could kill you. We use too much.

Salt is not the bogey man that has previously been believed. An increased intake makes no difference.

Yet if we examine your wikipedia quote (which is dubious, wiki is a terrible source) then the two citations that it gives both state, contrary to your above quote, that salt decreases BP:
Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of ca... [Am J Hypertens. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Dietary sodium intake and arterial blood pressure. [J Ren Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Quote:
Salt reduction was associated with reductions in urinary salt excretion of between 27 and 39 mmol/24 h and reductions in systolic BP between 1 and 4 mm Hg.
and
Quote:
(1) sodium restriction in hypertensive patients reduces blood pressure
You've managed to defeat your own argument there.

Quote:
There's some jumped up little twerp seeking to make use of their BSc and wants to get their name in lights.
Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder there. Anyway, within research a BSc is worthless. The people doing the actual medical research into salt intake - just like those doing the actual climate research - will likely have either MDs or PhDs to their name, so it's not a bunch of early-twenties fresh faced grads thinking that they know it all.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 12:38   #9115 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 0
We're getting into a diversionary argument here. Salt is not the issue. I was making the point about the contrary media reports on ice ages or global frying and the way that "scientists" (or PHds or MDs or whatever) seek to make a name for themselves by producing some 'research' which, later down track, some equal worthy seeks to rubbish by presenting the opposite view once a bit more research is in.

The net result is that it leaves the layman totally confused and, with enough scare stories, eventually loses faith in any message.

And that's the problem with 'climate change'. The scientists with the active help of a willing media have bigged this thing up too much, common sense then intruded, governments wanted to slug everyone with another tax and - BINGO - your pet theories get consigned to the dustbin along with the newspapers that brought you the news. And that's why the Australian government is on the nose with 70% of the population not giving a fat rat's clacker about carbon taxes.

So, nothing to see here. Move along please.
sisemen is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 21:58   #9116 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 71
Posts: 247
Just a couple of points.

The sun comes up in the morning, goes down at night, comes up in the morning, well, you get the general idea.

Ice ages come and go, come and go ......... When something is clearly cyclic, it makes sense to expect it.

One of the posts referred to an increased rate of salt excretion when more salt was ingested. Strangely enough, I excrete more urine when l drink a lot. When I eat more, I also but no, I think you get the picture.

Is that something worthy of a new study or just another example of the body working as expected?

Anyway, forget science and lets get back to name calling and generally obnoxious behaviour, which is much more interesting!
A A Gruntpuddock is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 22:04   #9117 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Strangely enough, I excrete more urine when l drink a lot. When I eat more, I also but no, I think you get the picture.

Is that something worthy of a new study or just another example of the body working as expected?

No, that's weather!

stuckgear is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 22:12   #9118 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 49
Posts: 798
No, it's AGW.

The extra salt in the food makes him eat more, producing more waste which means more methane and other compounds.

The extra salt makes him drink more, meaning more piddling which means more fluids are added to the atmosphere due to not only the evaporation of said liquids once they hit the drains but there is also an "aerosol" effect as the stream hits the porcelain as well as more water vapour being exhaled.

The above means that the increase in gases as well as the fluid in the atmosphere will increase the "greenhouse effect" and therefore increase planetary temperatures.

So, in other words, to "cure" the problem called AGW all we have to do is cut our salt intake drastically.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 02:18   #9119 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 64
Posts: 192
Hmmmm.

"Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4′s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation – though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea"

Kevin Trenberth : Master Of IPCC Junk Science | Real Science
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2011, 03:48   #9120 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Always stick to the core point

- AGW is just a lie to justify carbon-taxing
- Claims of a global ice age is a lie to justify a planetary regime
- This is all for power and global governance
- Some people are for depopulating massive portions of the population, and support eugenics.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:40.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1