Omega Owners Forum - Horizon - Questioning of Science

Nickbat

Omega Lord

Offline

Posts: 7167
London NW7
Gender: male

Drives: 2002 2.6CD Auto

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #90 - 03. Feb 2011 at 10:07

Banjax wrote on 30. Jan 2011 at 14:29:

hmmmm....who to believe...Nickbat or NASA.......tricky one that, my problem is how dare NASA be so arrogant as to dream that they know more on the subject than Nickbat, with his unwavering eye for the truth and access to every website on the net Shocked

you're wasting your time NASA - he'll never buy your lies Thumbs Up!

Dr Bindschadler (NASA) has been asked to provide the source for his claim that anthropogenic emissions outstrip natural sources by 7:1. He has indicated that he got his figures from a graph, but has now admitted that the graph doesn't support the claim he made in the Horizon programme.

Nice to see Nurse spot the error before it was broadcast. Roll Eyes

Nickbat or NASA? Try me! Wink

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/3/emissions.html

Back to top

« Last Edit: 03. Feb 2011 at 10:08 by Nickbat »

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.
Groucho Marx

IP Logged

cem Omega King Offline Posts: 13920 Ankara/Turkey Gender: Drives: 97 2.5 V6 Manual CD- Clio Sport	Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science Reply #91 - 03. Feb 2011 at 10:53 "which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources" these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..
Back to top	IP Logged

Lizzie Zoom

Deleted Member
Offline

The Romantic Emotional
Pink Lady

Posts: 65
Ashford, Kent
Gender: female

Drives: 2000 Omega 3.0 Elite Auto

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #92 - 03. Feb 2011 at 11:11

cem wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 10:53:

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"

[img]

these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

A good find Cem! Agree with your comments as well! Thumbs Up!

We will all learn the truth either way very soon now no matter how long we debate it!! Roll Eyes

On the question of Dr. Robert ("Bob") Bindschadler. , ok Nick he may have made one simple mistake as we all do at work and play. In fact what you do not mention is it has been stated:
"Dr Bindschadler suggests that the 7:1 figure is actually not that far out from the correct figure for net anthropogenic:natural carbon dioxide emissions, so the effect of the mistake is limited."

But anyway have a look at this great Presentation on PDF that he has compiled. An expert in his field amongst a great number who knows what he believes, and believes it well!:

http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/Arctic/Bindschadler_Presentation.pdf

Take note of his clear statement on one of his PP slides:

Global Warming and Sea Level

Global warming
– is a fact and is observed
– is not a “theory” or a “belief”
– is caused by human burning of fossil fuels
• CO well beyond natural variation
2 • Sea level
– will continue to increase and accelerate
– 1 m by 2100 is likely
– Just the beginning
• eventual level dependent on future CO2 emissions

His background and main study area:

http://www.windows2universe.org/people/postcards/pineisland/bob_bindschadler_bio...

Thumbs Up!

Back to top

« Last Edit: 03. Feb 2011 at 11:14 by Lizzie Zoom »

Prev: A40;Escort's 1.1 Mk1's;Cortina's 1.6 Mk2/3/4/5;Cav. 1.6 & 1.8SRi;Carlton's Mk1/2 1.8GL & 2.0CD's; 1968 Wol. Hornet III; 1958 Duple Coach; Senator 3.0CD; Omega 3.0Elite;Carina II 1.6GL;Omega 2.5 CDX

IP Logged

Banjax

Omega Lord

Offline

We're just a virus with
shoes

Posts: 5591
Perth
Gender: male

Drives: '04 Subaru Legacy Sport, '03 406 diesel

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #93 - 03. Feb 2011 at 11:41

thing is.......even if there was any doubt whatsoever, why not just err on the side of caution? thats what i dont understand with the sceptics? i've made this point before but say you moved to a village with a drinking well and 99% of the locals told you not to drink from the well as its polluted and dangerous - why would you drink? you believe the one guy? well 99% of science is saying its real, its a problem and we need to deal with it.

scepticism and questioning of science is laudable and necessary but eventually, when every claim the denier brigade come up with is refuted, when they cherry-pick data, misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) the mounting evidence theres comes a point when the debates finished and we need to look at solutions Sad

Back to top

50 bucks!?! For 50 bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow!!

IP Logged

Nickbat

Omega Lord

Offline

Posts: 7167
London NW7
Gender: male

Drives: 2002 2.6CD Auto

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #94 - 03. Feb 2011 at 11:47

Lizzie Zoom wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 11:11:

On the question of Dr. Robert ("Bob") Bindschadler. , ok Nick he may have made one simple mistake as we all do at work and play. In fact what you do not mention is it has been stated:
"Dr Bindschadler suggests that the 7:1 figure is actually not that far out from the correct figure for net anthropogenic:natural carbon dioxide emissions, so the effect of the mistake is limited."

One simple mistake??!! It was a major gaffe! Grin

"what you do not mention is it has been stated"

Nor do you, Lizzie! Read on a bit.

"what Prof Nurse and Dr Bindschadler were actually talking about in the Horizon show, gross emissions, the 7:1 ratio for anthropogenic to natural becomes, by my reckoning 1:27 (i.e. with natural emissions completely dwarfing anthropogenic)" Thumbs Up!

Pointed out by Professor Aynsley Kellow, if you like appeals to authority. Roll Eyes

Back to top

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.
Groucho Marx

IP Logged

Nickbat

Omega Lord

Offline

Posts: 7167
London NW7
Gender: male

Drives: 2002 2.6CD Auto

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #95 - 03. Feb 2011 at 11:51

Banjax wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 11:41:

thing is.......even if there was any doubt whatsoever, why not just err on the side of caution? thats what i dont understand with the sceptics? i've made this point before but say you moved to a village with a drinking well and 99% of the locals told you not to drink from the well as its polluted and dangerous - why would you drink? you believe the one guy? well 99% of science is saying its real, its a problem and we need to deal with it.

scepticism and questioning of science is laudable and necessary but eventually, when every claim the denier brigade come up with is refuted, when they cherry-pick data, misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) the mounting evidence theres comes a point when the debates finished and we need to look at solutions Sad

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Everyone knows that there are many contrary scientific arguments that have not been, and cannot be, refuted.

And where does the figure of 99% come from?

Plucked from thin air as usual, I expect.

Roll Eyes

Back to top

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.
Groucho Marx

IP Logged

Nickbat

Omega Lord

Offline

Posts: 7167
London NW7
Gender: male

Drives: 2002 2.6CD Auto

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #96 - 03. Feb 2011 at 11:56

Lizzie Zoom wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 11:11:

2 • Sea level[/i]
– will continue to increase and accelerate
– 1 m by 2100 is likely
– Just the beginning
• eventual level dependent on future CO2 emissions

Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/#more-31866

Think I may give "Bob"'s PDF a miss. Roll Eyes

Back to top

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.
Groucho Marx

IP Logged

aaronjb

Omega Baron

Offline

Posts: 3635
Bracknell, Berkshire
Gender: male

Drives: '01 3.2 Elite (was '96 2.5TD CD), '02 MR2 Roadster (plus snail), '92 300ZX 3.0V6 TT

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #97 - 03. Feb 2011 at 13:15

cem wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 10:53:

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"

[img]

these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..

If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.

Back to top

..and it went 'dugga dugga dugga dugga'..

IP Logged

STMO123

Ex Member

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #98 - 03. Feb 2011 at 13:43

aaronjb wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 13:15:

cem wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 10:53:

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"

[img] I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..[/highlight]

Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..
If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.

What is obvious is the amount of money this generates for certain, unscrupulous organisations.

Back to top

IP Logged

Banjax

Omega Lord

Offline

We're just a virus with
shoes

Posts: 5591
Perth
Gender: male

Drives: '04 Subaru Legacy Sport, '03 406 diesel

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #99 - 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then Thumbs Up!

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome Sad

Back to top

« Last Edit: 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46 by Banjax »

50 bucks!?! For 50 bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow!!

IP Logged

STMO123

Ex Member

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #100 - 03. Feb 2011 at 13:56

Banjax wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46:

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then Thumbs Up!

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome Sad

It's people like you and Nick that stop the rest of us giving a sh!t. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Banjax

Omega Lord

Offline

We're just a virus with
shoes

Posts: 5591
Perth
Gender: male

Drives: '04 Subaru Legacy Sport, '03 406 diesel

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #101 - 03. Feb 2011 at 14:06

Quote:

Banjax wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46:

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then Thumbs Up!

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome Sad

It's people like you and Nick that stop the rest of us giving a sh!t. Grin

i've resigned from my care in the community programme - i no longer have to pander to the bewildered Thumbs Up!

Back to top

50 bucks!?! For 50 bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow!!

IP Logged

Desperate Den

Omega King

Offline

Posts: 11881

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #102 - 03. Feb 2011 at 14:09

Banjax wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46:

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then Thumbs Up!

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome Sad

How do you know you are right BJ?

Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Back to top

IP Logged

STMO123

Ex Member

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #103 - 03. Feb 2011 at 14:11

Desperate Den wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 14:09:

Banjax wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46:

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then Thumbs Up!

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome Sad

How do you know you are right BJ?
Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Surely there's no debate about that one, Z? Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Banjax

Omega Lord

Offline

We're just a virus with
shoes

Posts: 5591
Perth
Gender: male

Drives: '04 Subaru Legacy Sport, '03 406 diesel

Re: Horizon - Questioning of Science
Reply #104 - 03. Feb 2011 at 14:33

Desperate Den wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 14:09:

Banjax wrote on 03. Feb 2011 at 13:46:

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then Thumbs Up!

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome Sad

How do you know you are right BJ?

Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

sorry Zulu - the whole "its a big conspiracy involving every government on the planet" schtick doesnt wash with me - its science not belief Shocked

Back to top

50 bucks!?! For 50 bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow!!

IP Logged

This is the old site. Please use the new site.

This is the old site. Please use the new site.

www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php.

This is the old site. Please use the new site.

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login