Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Neil · Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject:

If in one post you claim "essentially the whole country will be lost" by an 11 inch sea level rise & then say that 80-93% of the population will be able to stay the inconsistency is obvious.

Waht you said of acid rain (off topic but you brought it up) was that "As a result entire ecosystems across Europe have been lost" which does require it to be something like the Sahara. Since these winter scenes, which are the worst you can come up with, obviously do not depict what you postdicted we have another inconsistency.

Checking out the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in Edinburgh's website, for which you work, unpaid, I notice it seems to devote more time to liasing with teachers to help them teach children about the importance of the things you have misinformed us about here. At its best this does not seem to be the white heat of scientific research your credentialism here implied.

SLG might reasonably disapprove if I said what I think propagandising the minds of the yoing with such untruths was. I note the organisation is government funded - since the government os making a very good thing of supporting the warming scare & thereby raising taxes & increasing regulations it is difficult to believe that somebody who told the kids the evidence I have produced here about the warming scare would, even if unpaid, retain their position.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject:

I have been away for a few days on importnat errands.

Neil · Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:50 am Post subject:

OK
In normal English usage when an eco-system or anything else is lost it is no longer there. You are using "lost" to mean "changed". The ecosystems you mentioned have obviously not been "lost".

If you would care to use English properly it would make debate more fruitful.

In any case, by your own definition there is not a piece of farmland or garden anywhere in Britian whose ecosystem has not been changed, or as you put it "lost". If you are sincerely concerned about that you will have posted at least 1,000 times as much about farmers & gardeners "destroying" eco-systema as acid rain - links please.

I take it when yous said the whole of Namgladesh was to be "lost" you were equally using a purely personal form of English.

So the CEH doesn't just lie to children it also makes pollution maps in which, I assume, it details, areas where the eco-system has been entirely "lost", such as all the farmland in Europe? Such would appear to me to be more a propaganda organisation than serious science.

I note that we have your word that you are able to keep your impartiality in what you say because you are unpaid.
I note that we have your word that we should take what you say seriously because you are paid.

I note that you have "yet to see" any evidence that the catastrophic warming predicted isn't happening. I note that your own graph shows the warming up to 1998 has basicly plateaued.

That means you didn't see the C4 programme last night & (more extraordinary for a "scientist" or even somebody teaching eco-catastrophe to children) you weren't already aware of it.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SouthernJock · Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:43 am Post subject:

After watching Channel 4's documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I feel very angry with the government, all the other political parties in this country, especially the Greens an all those environmentalist who put down the Global Warming to the rise in CO2 emissions, which is now shown to be a complete and blatant lie.
I have always felt that the planets climate is cyclical and is more influenced by the Sun as well as the planet itself and not mankind. This belief was more than vindictated by what I saw on the documentary.
Its a fact that the planet was actually warmer in medieval times, yet we didnt have 4 x 4's roaming over the countryside and no one flew.
It also transpires that the planets co2 levels increase as a result from warming not the other way around.
It was amazing to listen to scientists talk about the global climate changes , one of which had his name used by the IPCC, but which he had to take legal action to have his name removed as the IPCC report was flawed. It turns out that the bulk of the IPCC report was written by people with no scientific background.
Im angry that we have politicians jumping on the 'green' bandwagon, without actually finding out what its all about, but then again Im not surprised as the 'green' issue is an easy way of getting more taxes from the citizens of this country.
We need to stand up to these 'green' lobby groups and tell them and the politicains that we will not put up with this crap any more

Neil · Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:53 am Post subject:

I hadn't seen the graphs correlating solar flux with warmth before & the correlation was clearly extremely close.

Though I generally believe it I wouldn't suggest that anybody should automatically accept this documentary as gospel any more than we should automaticaly accept everything punted at us by the BBC etc over the years. Nonetheless it is quite obvious that the mainstream media has been censroing & lying for years on this with claims such as that "the scientific debate is over".

As my signature under suggests politicians, media & lobby groups have a strong incentive to frighten us with stuff like this.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:14 am Post subject:

Haha,
Well the channel 4 program was complete rubbish - the same rubbish that is being spouted here.

I would like to inform you of the fact that some scientists shown in that program are seeking further action, for editting what they were saying etc. The film maker was already previously discreditted for previous editting of interviewers answers etc.

The graphs they used were wrong.
eg They stated global CO2 levels decreased after world war 2, due to recession - and showed a graph of UK data (which did decrease) - however globally it was still increasing.

The science they used was absent. I saw no evidence, just quotes from scientists and showing discredited theories.

I refer you to this article.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2...s-problem-with-science/#more-1047

There is now talk of Channel 4 making an offical apology for misrepresenting the scientists being shown in that film.

Screegor · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:19 am Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:41 am Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:08 am Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject:

I'm glad you have finally accepted the term 'lost', it will help you if you converse with scientists. I see you can learn. It just takes a lot of work.

Also, I have organised 4 people to show you round CEH, I am just awaiting your details to be sent. You visiting one of the leading research stations in the UK, may help you understand the world of 'science' more and the reason there isn't this political indoctination that you believe to exist.

Neil · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:23 am Post subject:

That I have not bothered to answer your rather silly point about your unusual definition of the word "lost" in connection with ecosystems does not imply acceptance. If you knew anything whatsoever, not about science but merely about logic you would recognise this.

By comparison you have ceased discussing your claims that an 11 inch sea level rise will endanger the lives of 44% of the world's population, that the last IPCC report also predicted an 11 inch rise, that 2005 was hotter than 1998, that an 11 inch sea level rise would raise sea levels many metres above London, that the Russian scientists who predict cooling are thereby proven fraudulent, that there has been a continuous temperature increase since the mid 60s, that all of Bangladesh is going to be lost to the sea, that 80% of the population of Bangladesh is going to be able to stay put, that the 1960s saw the start of the fastest temperature rise in 2000 years (when genuine scientists say temp was still declining), that the Medieval warming was cooler than now, that Britain is responsible for less than 2% of world envisions, that 1000 years (data points) have passed between the start of the present warming in 1975 & today, that you are working unpaid & that is only up to page 2.

All of these are things you have claimed & while no longer discussing them have not retracted. Until you specificly do so the proper conclusion is that you are still maintaining them & that these claims represent the very highest standard of "scientific" accuracy of which you are capable. It would be wrong of me to imply that you have retracted any of them & for the same reasons it is wrong of you to say that I accept your unusual definition of ecosystems being "lost" though they are still there.

I do not dispute that we also have your word that you are paid but accept that that does not detract from the level of honesty you have demonstrated generally by saying that you are unpaid.

In the same way that I do not dispute your use of the word "disaster" to describe gardening but not the Black Death does not mean that I agree with it.

Yesterday I emailed your CEH to ask when the organisation was formed but apparently, from the lack of response there was nobody in.

The reason for this was that you assured us earlier that the disappearance of London smog was due to the CEH producing maps which "actualy detail all pollutants in teh UK and Europe, without those maps etc, we would still have smogs in London and Glasgow". My suspicion is the these maps & indeed the CEH as an organisation post date the Clean Air Act of 1956 which is the real cause of ending smog. Possibly the most basic rule in all of science is that that cause precedes effect (by comparison the Law of Gravity is a mere modern & partly disproven hypothesis). If the maps of "all pollutants" do indeed post-date 1956 then it proves that not merely have you been continuously & overwhelmingly non-factual in your numerous assertions but that you, as a "scientist" do not understand even the most basic rudiment of what science is.

I await hearing from 1 of the 4 people you have put at my disposal.

Now if you could confirm which, if any, assertion in your latest post is at least 1000 times closer to terminological exactitude than all the previous ones you are maintaining I will respond to it.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject:

Your link to a Wikipedia graph is not a primary source, all it proves is that somebody unknown put it there. In fact the graph is wrong in that it clearly states that 2004 was 0.4C warmer than 1998 whereas even you seem to have accepted that it was cooler. I assume you didn't notice this.

On your other points you are clearly still wrong

I note you chose not to answer my question as to whether CEH was in fact founded prior to 1956 as it must have been if your statement was truthful or even of you understand the basic time relationship between cause & effect. I must assume therefore that you don't.

"As I say I WILL GET YOU A TOUR OF CEH. Send me your details. Your lack of taking me up on this offer says a lot."

What does it say? Apart from the fact that I feel life rather to short to bother. Obviously if you honestly consider that a serious argument then you will assure us all that you have visited the laboratiry of the Russian scientists you critcise. That is not how real scientists work.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject:

So the ancestors of your group go back to 1972 & their maps of "all pollutants" were responsible for bringing in the Clean Air Act of 1956. I am not sure what sort of "evidence" you would require to accept that that that cannot possibly be true?

If you admit that your graph is not a record of global warming then it seems not to be evidence of global warming.

I am glad you have changed your views of the scientists who predict cooling in the next decade on the basis of solar activity. I am sure that they will be pleased to hear that you would be "honoured" to meet gentlemen you previously called "dodgy".

You are perfectly entitled to feel "sorry for you" because I have better things to do than visit, though I appreciate the honour, with all these world renowned scientists queuing up for the same honour.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Neil · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

This is going back a while but at the time Screegor here made a big point of how acid rain was a, well pretty much the, instance where an eco-fascist catastrophe story had turned out to be at least partly true.

As somebody whose scientific institute (actually a bunch of semi-literates in Edinburgh being paid to scare children with eco-fascist lies) had allegedly been "studying" the subject & preparing maps of the damage, he should certainly have known.

Well it turns out acid raiin damaging the environment is a lie too. It is a net fertiliser rather than killer.

I saw this care of http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ Greeniewatch. I had not heard it before & must admit to some surprise, having thought that this at least was a scare which made sense & wasn't really claiming it would destroy the world (at least most proponents didn't.

Once again, like all eco alarmist stories (& to be fair alarmist stories from other sources too) this [url]http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&ned=&q=acid+rain&btnG=Search+News [/url] has not had media coverage which remotely matches the coverage of the initial scare story. In fact at the time of writing the main story thrown up by that term is "THE scientist who coined the term acid rain says the world is close to a [global warming} tipping point" which rather misses the point that he was wrong first time round.

http://web.archive.org/web/200406...?xml=/news/2002/08/03/wrain03.xml

Blackleaf · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject:

If there's Global Warming, why aren't we experiencing it?

Why is this going to be the wettest August on record rather than the hottest?

A lot of these Global Warming environMENTALists have noticed this, so that's why they now use the term "Climate Change" instead.

And if there IS Global Warming, why do people assume it's caused by human activity? There was Global Warming thousands, and millions, of years ago when there were no people or not many people.

It must have been Global Warming that ended every ice age - and that most certainly wasn't due to human activity.
_________________
[img]http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/black_sabbath/black-sabbath-1970.jpg
[/img]
Black Sabbath - 1970