5 years from now . . . - Page 2

Per Ardua · 31st October 2008, 10:33

As a military man I am preparing myself for the coming energy crisis:

I have a full leather suit ready and have been working on my anti-biker-gang warfare tactics. I have plans for minor modifications to the ZT-T including ultra long-range petrol tanks in lieu of the boot space, matt-black paint work and a huge supercharger poking out of the bonnet. In addition I have been practicing my gruff Australian accent...

Petrow · 31st October 2008, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Petrow that's a very interesting summary set of comments you have made. If you have some further information that can be shared amongst fellow members then I think it would make for fascinating reading. Like many others I often get a bit irritated by the constant brow beating we are exposed to by pressure groups who have the ears of the media and the almost one-sided nature of the debate does get on a lot of people's nerves I think.

Thank you for your kind comment, Pete. I will chip in now and again, but I don't want to overdo it at the risk of boring everyone. I could fill many pages with information that doesn't find its way into the very one-sided media 'debate'. You are right to be sceptical of the media and pressure groups, and I'll be doing my little best to offset the bias from time to time. Thank you, again.

Peter

Simon · 31st October 2008, 19:01

You wont bore me - I like reading scientific stuff. The other night, for example, I spent a good couple of ours browsing the JET research facility and nuclear fusion as an electrical energy producing alternative. Very interesting reading it was too.

Petrow · 17th November 2008, 21:40

Temperatures - up and down.

These are graphs of surface temperatures for the US issued by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), published in 1999 and again in 2008. They are - supposedly- the same data, with an update. The guy in charge of the records is Dr. Hansen, who seems to have a yen for fiddling the figures to suit his own strong global warmist leanings. Note how the results change over the time range. Why? Well, one excuse is that they have been adjusted to allow for the urban heat island effect (UHI). But why should that make earlier results lower and recent results higher? You think that more urbanisation and more people would increase the UHI, so the "adjustment" should, if anything, be made to reduce the recent results relative to the older ones to give a "fair comparison".
Here, in fact is an example of things you are told which you should definitely not believe. When scientists fiddle results to make them agree with their preconceived ideas then there's something disturbingly amiss.
The trouble is I have found this sort of misinformation in almost everything the global warming scaremongers push out to unsuspecting Joe public, uncritical journalists, and dimwit politicians.

Here's another piece that may amuse you, and make you think on:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

Petrow · 17th November 2008, 21:45

Oops, sorry. I should have said credit to the blog "Watts up with that?", for the temperature blink graph. Anthony Watts is a former TV meteorologist and, like many of his ilk, is sceptical of the global warming scam.

mach1rob · 18th November 2008, 19:55

But I thought they had a serious rethink about this "Global WARMING" malarky when it was shown the temperature wasn't going up like stated, so slowly without anyone really paying much notice changed it to "CLIMATE CHANGE"!

I can't believe people swallowed it!

But then I suppose people believe everything they're told when they want to! Me? I think it's a load of old poppyc0ck! Just glad there are people like Petrow here to say to the ecomentalists erm hang on a minute...

Keep up the good work

17th November 2008, 21:45	#15
Petrow Avid contributor 75 V8 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brentwood Posts: 179 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Oops, sorry. I should have said credit to the blog "Watts up with that?", for the temperature blink graph. Anthony Watts is a former TV meteorologist and, like many of his ilk, is sceptical of the global warming scam. Last edited by Petrow; 17th November 2008 at 21:58..

31st October 2008, 10:33	#11
Per Ardua Loves to post ZT-T 190+ Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sipping fine port in a drawing room in Sleaford, Lincs. Posts: 373 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	As a military man I am preparing myself for the coming energy crisis: I have a full leather suit ready and have been working on my anti-biker-gang warfare tactics. I have plans for minor modifications to the ZT-T including ultra long-range petrol tanks in lieu of the boot space, matt-black paint work and a huge supercharger poking out of the bonnet. In addition I have been practicing my gruff Australian accent...

31st October 2008, 19:01	#13
Simon Banned - Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: - Posts: 10,318 Thanks: 0 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	You wont bore me - I like reading scientific stuff. The other night, for example, I spent a good couple of ours browsing the JET research facility and nuclear fusion as an electrical energy producing alternative. Very interesting reading it was too.

17th November 2008, 21:40	#14
Petrow Avid contributor 75 V8 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brentwood Posts: 179 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Temperatures - up and down. These are graphs of surface temperatures for the US issued by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), published in 1999 and again in 2008. They are - supposedly- the same data, with an update. The guy in charge of the records is Dr. Hansen, who seems to have a yen for fiddling the figures to suit his own strong global warmist leanings. Note how the results change over the time range. Why? Well, one excuse is that they have been adjusted to allow for the urban heat island effect (UHI). But why should that make earlier results lower and recent results higher? You think that more urbanisation and more people would increase the UHI, so the "adjustment" should, if anything, be made to reduce the recent results relative to the older ones to give a "fair comparison". Here, in fact is an example of things you are told which you should definitely not believe. When scientists fiddle results to make them agree with their preconceived ideas then there's something disturbingly amiss. The trouble is I have found this sort of misinformation in almost everything the global warming scaremongers push out to unsuspecting Joe public, uncritical journalists, and dimwit politicians. Here's another piece that may amuse you, and make you think on:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

18th November 2008, 19:55	#16
mach1rob Gets stuck in Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	But I thought they had a serious rethink about this "Global WARMING" malarky when it was shown the temperature wasn't going up like stated, so slowly without anyone really paying much notice changed it to "CLIMATE CHANGE"! I can't believe people swallowed it! But then I suppose people believe everything they're told when they want to! Me? I think it's a load of old poppyc0ck! Just glad there are people like Petrow here to say to the ecomentalists erm hang on a minute... Keep up the good work