Not wishing to sideline, but I manipulate and corrupt data very regularly, in order to get the results I need. Months later I alter them to achieve a different result.
You’re entering the realms of self-parody now, old shape. :rolleyes:
I think it’s known as ‘hedging one’s bets’.
Expect to see one order or the other cancelled in the fullness of time.
I appreciate the offer, Grey Area, but I don’t think I am seeing eye to eye with many here so I’ll just rest my case and if we are all still posting here in a decade we can revisit our arguments. I’ll happily eat humble pie, if I am wrong, and assume others will if they are.
That seems fair enough to me.
I’ve put a reminder in my MS Outlook Calendar for 8 December 2019. 🙂
I appreciate the offer, Grey Area, but I don’t think I am seeing eye to eye with many here so I’ll just rest my case and if we are all still posting here in a decade we can revisit our arguments. I’ll happily eat humble pie, if I am wrong, and assume others will if they are.
That seems fair enough to me.
I’ve put a reminder in my MS Outlook Calendar for 8 December 2019. 🙂
How many women of my advanced years do you see on TV,apart from Ann Robinson ?
True, and look at the lengths she has gone to in a vain attempt to look “younger”.
How many women of my advanced years do you see on TV,apart from Ann Robinson ?
True, and look at the lengths she has gone to in a vain attempt to look “younger”.
It would achieve little to pick holes in any number of the points you raise here.
Feel free to attempt to do so.
It would achieve little to pick holes in any number of the points you raise here.
Feel free to attempt to do so.
The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.
One instance out of thousands. Clutching at straws!
Presumably you would have us believe that the “sceptics” are disinterested scientists?
Despite it being a matter of record that a number of the most prominent dissenting voices are funded, to a greater or lesser degree, by petroleum and oil-related companies? No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.
For the record, I’m not convinced that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming.
Nor am I convinced that all of the heat, “greenhouse gasses” and excess carbon dioxide that human activity has added to the atmospheric has had no effect whatsoever.
When we talk glibly about “the climate” we are actually talking about a hugely complex interdependent chaotic system that even those who have spent a lifetime in studying it do not fully understand.
It may well be that human activity only has a small impact on a global scale. Equally, it may well be that a small impact is all that it takes to throw a complex chaotic system out of balance. The last straw, so to speak.
The truth is that we simply do not know for sure. Anyone – from either camp – who claims otherwise is being, at best, disingenuous or, at worst, mendacious,
The polar icecaps do not care about politics (whether of the right or of the left), so they keep on melting – changing the salinity of seawater and altering the direction and temperature of the ocean currents that are the engine that drives the world’s major weather systems and raising sea levels around the world.
Glaciers all over the world don’t give a toss what Jeremy Clarkson thinks, so they keep on melting, too – raising river levels and increasing rates of erosion further downstream and adding to the overall rise in sea levels.
The atmosphere doesn’t give a jot for the grandiose proclamations of Internet Warriors, so the levels of carbon dioxide slowly creep up, contributing to a slow but inexorable rise in global average temperatures.
These things – and many others – are really happening.
Only the cause is in dispute, not the effects. But it is the effects that cause the damage.
Instead of wasting precious time and resources on political posturing, blame shifting and point scoring, together with perpetuating a collective state of denial, the governments of the world should be bending their wills towards concrete action to mitigate the effects of global warming, in both the short and long terms.
Anything else is an irrelevance and a distraction.
The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.
One instance out of thousands. Clutching at straws!
Presumably you would have us believe that the “sceptics” are disinterested scientists?
Despite it being a matter of record that a number of the most prominent dissenting voices are funded, to a greater or lesser degree, by petroleum and oil-related companies? No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.
For the record, I’m not convinced that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming.
Nor am I convinced that all of the heat, “greenhouse gasses” and excess carbon dioxide that human activity has added to the atmospheric has had no effect whatsoever.
When we talk glibly about “the climate” we are actually talking about a hugely complex interdependent chaotic system that even those who have spent a lifetime in studying it do not fully understand.
It may well be that human activity only has a small impact on a global scale. Equally, it may well be that a small impact is all that it takes to throw a complex chaotic system out of balance. The last straw, so to speak.
The truth is that we simply do not know for sure. Anyone – from either camp – who claims otherwise is being, at best, disingenuous or, at worst, mendacious,
The polar icecaps do not care about politics (whether of the right or of the left), so they keep on melting – changing the salinity of seawater and altering the direction and temperature of the ocean currents that are the engine that drives the world’s major weather systems and raising sea levels around the world.
Glaciers all over the world don’t give a toss what Jeremy Clarkson thinks, so they keep on melting, too – raising river levels and increasing rates of erosion further downstream and adding to the overall rise in sea levels.
The atmosphere doesn’t give a jot for the grandiose proclamations of Internet Warriors, so the levels of carbon dioxide slowly creep up, contributing to a slow but inexorable rise in global average temperatures.
These things – and many others – are really happening.
Only the cause is in dispute, not the effects. But it is the effects that cause the damage.
Instead of wasting precious time and resources on political posturing, blame shifting and point scoring, together with perpetuating a collective state of denial, the governments of the world should be bending their wills towards concrete action to mitigate the effects of global warming, in both the short and long terms.
Anything else is an irrelevance and a distraction.
Possibly because none of the”evidence” put forward by the so called experts has been peer reviewed.
A few moment’s research will show you that this is patently not the case, whatever your stance on the issue.
Possibly because none of the”evidence” put forward by the so called experts has been peer reviewed.
A few moment’s research will show you that this is patently not the case, whatever your stance on the issue.
You can pay a lot for wine in supermarkets too these days Steve, I think that was the point.
Quite so.
You can pay a lot for wine in supermarkets too these days Steve, I think that was the point.
Quite so.
Moderator Message
If anyone really wants to discuss all that Moon Landings conspiracy theory nonsense they are welcome to start a thread on General Discussion where, I am sure, Moggy C will express his undying delight and gratitude in highly entertaining terms.
In the meantime, stick to the topic, please.
Thanks
GA