jimsleftfoot Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) I will be blunt with you as many are being blunt with me. Working for a Uni means nothings. Thats a million miles away from being a scientist. I have a degree and I am going to start to study for a PHD soon. So what's your point ? There is tons and tons of evidence of man's contribution to climate change which has been peered reviewed and accepted by MILLIONS of scientist WORLD WIDE. I put it in caps to try and get it into that skull of yours. What research dosent meet the required standards set by the scientific community!! The VAST majority of the scientific community believe current climate change is mostly a man made issue. 60% of my time is spent dealing with the funding of research and I deal with some of the biggest boffins in this country on a daily basis. Written into every contract/agreement is the need for research to be reviewed by scientific peers. If this is not met, the funding can be clawed back by the funder. Anyway, I wasn't arguing with your point. Just didn't like the link you posted as there was nothing substantial in it. This is not to say that the scientific community doesnt belive that climate change is mostly man made and after having a quick look at Rummys links I think that they support your point much better than your link did. Edited December 10, 2008 by jimsleftfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I find it scarily funny how some people cant see the link between the sudden rise in temperatures and the time we started to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels Oh well... IM the crazy fool Ah, good old statistical interpretation. Well, as we all know, you can become cleverer by eating breakfast as a kid. All the Nestle and Kellogs adverts tell us so. And the article linked? Well it says the oceans are getting warmer and it's greenhouse gases causing it. Doesn't nail it to man's activity though, just refers to greenhouse gases and then says their man-made. Time to kill the cows methinks. And what will happen when the oceans get warmer? The activity of the photoplankton will increase, due to raised metabolic activity. And that will lead to increased consumption of Co2 and increased production of 02. Blimey. So, what is the threat? Are we running out of oil? Is there a correllation between the impending loss of oil and the increasing acceptance of the greenhouse/climate change theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 We can dismiss the opinion of millions of scientist and instead go with the opinion of the a couple hundred... And at the same time feel this ok because in history there has been a number of exceptions where the very few where wrong.. aka the world isnt flat etc etc.... Pay your money take your chance.... I know where I am edging my bets... I also know my way dosent involve any dangers to the planet... and I also know the other way cant make that claim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewrat Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Of more importance in this debate is not whether we cause global warming but whether the congestion charge will change anything. Is running more empty buses outside of peak hours not going to increase pollution. Not being a scientist I thought about this on a trip to the doctors this morning. Because the health authority seems to think Royton and Shaw are the same town I have to go from Shaw to Royton. There is no direct bus route from my house to the centre of Royton. The best available route would mean I could not have an appointment until after 10.15. The other route would mean walking some distance to a bus stop which is not an easy thing for me and having to pay because my bus pass cannot be used before 9.30. So I used my fuel efficient diesel car. On such a short journey I would get 45 M.P.G. The bus gets about 4 MPG and so must carry more passengers to be fuel efficient. After visiting the Doctor I saw 3 buses going through Royton. 1 on a service which runs every hour and goes to the hospital had 8 passengers. A single decker on a 15 minute frequency had 1 passenger. A double decker on a 15 minute frequency had no passengers. There is already research which proved that our Inter City electric trains were more polluting per passenger mile than using a car if you factored in all off peak journeys. It would be less polluting for most off peak journeys to be done by taxi than running empty buses. A greater aid to lessening pollution would be to undo all the stupid things our councils have done which increase congestion and pollution. As I have said before if the government was serious about CO2 they would take a none taxing strategy of banning the most polluting cars and setting a timetable for the reduction of emmisions from new cars. They could start by saying every new car purchased after 1st January 2010 must be capable of 50 MPG on urban cycle and yearly increase that figure until the reduction they sought has been achieved. They won't because stealth taxing has kept labour in power. If they had taken the extra money in PAYE they would not have lasted longer than 2 terms at most and may well have been voted out after 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 We can dismiss the opinion of millions of scientist and instead go with the opinion of the a couple hundred Ignoring the fact that your numbers are slightly skewed, since when has science been decided democratically? And given all this stuff about rising temperatures, why have they stopped rising since 1999? And anyway, what is the "right" temperature that should exist on planet earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Ignoring the fact that your numbers are slightly skewed, since when has science been decided democratically? And given all this stuff about rising temperatures, why have they stopped rising since 1999? And anyway, what is the "right" temperature that should exist on planet earth? Most people look at the five year mean values.... Look at the peaks around 1900 and 1940.... Dosent take a genius to see a relationship between them and human activity..... Nothing more I can say to the dim witted and foolish I bid you all a good day Edited December 10, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Most people look at the five year mean values.... Look at the peaks around 1900 and 1940.... Dosent take a genius to see a relationship between them and human activity..... Nothing more I can say to the dim witted and foolish I bid you all a good day If he could see my posts, I’d ask him what human activity happened around 1900 to create the peak. I can’t think of anything obvious off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 "Nothing more I can say to the dim witted and foolish". Stunning response. I now buy your beliefs absolutely. So, despite getting excited about your graph above, a quick check of the axis on the left suggests a temperature anomoly of 0.5 degrees over a century. You could easily suggest that this is down to where we place our thermometers. Fewer in the countryside, more in the cities - collecting the heat emitting from the concrete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 "Nothing more I can say to the dim witted and foolish". Stunning response. I now buy your beliefs absolutely. So, despite getting excited about your graph above, a quick check of the axis on the left suggests a temperature anomoly of 0.5 degrees over a century. You could easily suggest that this is down to where we place our thermometers. Fewer in the countryside, more in the cities - collecting the heat emitting from the concrete. Setting the axis to make the line as steep or shallow as it can be to suit your purpose is taught on the morning of day 1 of the True but Misleading Statistical Reporting module. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 What the feck is all of this about. I'm sure it was ONLY about a letter that most of us have received asking if we WANT to pay the government another tax/charge, so we can then help rundown a new tram system and upgraded public transport. YES or NO will do. Where's the poll 27 pages later and we've discovered OWTB shouldn't have a fans football team- a fans' scientists team would be more apt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Setting the axis to make the line as steep or shallow as it can be to suit your purpose is taught on the morning of day 1 of the True but Misleading Statistical Reporting module. He'll be rolling out the discredited hockey stick chart next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 You're all wrong!!! Gregan is at fault!!! 1) Too much shouting creating hot air forming global warming. 2) Sea levels rising by Big Sean dropping his fat arse in the North Sea at Whitby. I'm bored now with all this!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 You're all wrong!!! Gregan is at fault!!! 1) Too much shouting creating hot air forming global warming. 2) Sea levels rising by Big Sean dropping his fat arse in the North Sea at Whitby. I'm bored now with all this!!! Although aspects of your post may have sarcastic tones, your 'constant' obsession with Gregan and in particular his arse are a bit scary! If there is someone you want to discuss this 'fantasy' with, i'm sure 1 or 2 of the members might be able to help you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Although aspects of your post may have sarcastic tones, your 'constant' obsession with Gregan and in particular his arse are a bit scary! If there is someone you want to discuss this 'fantasy' with, i'm sure 1 or 2 of the members might be able to help you It was meant to bring a note of levity into this increasingly heavy topic. I also wrote it knowing full well that the "humour" would slap me in the face in light of my recent posts. Edited December 10, 2008 by mikejh45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 It was meant to bring a note of levity into this increasingly heavy topic. I also wrote it knowing full well that the "humour" would slap me in the face in light of my recent posts. That's why mine was responded in a similar way, realising the queue awaiting you Anyaway back to topic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 What congestion charge???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Although aspects of your post may have sarcastic tones, your 'constant' obsession with Gregan and in particular his arse are a bit scary! If there is someone you want to discuss this 'fantasy' with, i'm sure 1 or 2 of the members might be able to help you Better if it is his arse, as one more bang in his mouth and he'll be out of the next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Better if it is his arse, as one more bang in his mouth and he'll be out of the next game. Something tells me that one or two people are not taking this thread seriously any more!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Better if it is his arse, as one more bang in his mouth and he'll be out of the next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Something tells me that one or two people are not taking this thread seriously any more!!! No, some would have you believe the charge is about hazardous emissions, we are still on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 No, some would have you believe the charge is about hazardous emissions, we are still on topic. Or what some take in their mouths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Or what some take in their mouths Whatever can you be referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Whatever can you be referring to? Hazardous emissions that anybody frequenting iow chippies may still be breathing in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Well I have read 20 pages of this (in two sittings) and absorbed a number of intelligent posts on the matter, as well as 160+ from oafc0000 (your heart is in the right place mate but ffs read the thread again objectively), and it has certainly changed my once uninformed 'Yes' opinion to a now informed 'No' opinion for the reasons previously explained clearly and at length. One minor question.....how much would it cost (for example) to drive from Lees to Manchester in terms of fuel and congestion and how much would it cost to get a bus and a tram? I expect little would be saved, and any saving would be offset against time taken. Therefore I can't imagine it pricing many out of driving as oafc0000 insists it will, and so it is certainly a form of tax on the unlucky victims. Maybe serious car sharing incentives could cut congestion sooner and at a fraction of the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Well I have read 20 pages of this (in two sittings) and absorbed a number of intelligent posts on the matter, as well as 160+ from oafc0000 (your heart is in the right place mate but ffs read the thread again objectively), and it has certainly changed my once uninformed 'Yes' opinion to a now informed 'No' opinion for the reasons previously explained clearly and at length. One minor question.....how much would it cost (for example) to drive from Lees to Manchester in terms of fuel and congestion and how much would it cost to get a bus and a tram? I expect little would be saved, and any saving would be offset against time taken. Therefore I can't imagine it pricing many out of driving as oafc0000 insists it will, and so it is certainly a form of tax on the unlucky victims. Maybe serious car sharing incentives could cut congestion sooner and at a fraction of the cost? lees to manchester.... Bus... Leaves 7:43 Arrives 8:36 Service 180 Cost £3:50 return Alternative found.....used www.gmpte.com journey planner..... Cost of car £5 charge + £5 parking + petrol ?? i wouldnt know.... You choose...if your happy to pay the charge then great More money to pay for us less selfish people Edited December 10, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts