KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650
E
EMP Offline
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
E
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650
freedom caucus news lol.. freedom from senses

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 8,564
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 8,564
After reading the article, I'm not really convinced with its claim. They're only able to talk about a 16 year period, and this is something that's been going on for coming on hundreds of years.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-1252-7_8

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,084
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,084
Originally Posted By TiredReds
Originally Posted By Pickles
The second study, by Hodgkins et al, published in the Journal of Hydrology, concerns flooding in North America and Europe.

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216941730478X#%21

What it shows is that, contrary to the claims often made by climate alarmists, there has been NO increase in flooding due to “global warming” or “climate change.”

Flooding events, it shows, have more to do with chance than any noticeable long term trend. It finds no link between flooding and “global warming.”

Abstract

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.

A few take-home points from these studies.

One, they explode – yet again – the myth that there is a consensus among scientists about catastrophic man-made climate change. In fact, as I reported earlier this year, there are dozens of papers produced every year by reputable, honest scientists which call into question the great man-made climate change scare.

Two, the alarmists hate it when you point this out. After my Breitbart piece Global Warming is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017, an alarmist website published a supposed expert rebuttal by leading climate scientists. The problem was, of course, that all the “experts” involved were members of the alarmist cabal who pal-review one another’s papers and who ruthlessly shut out of the debate any scientists who dare to disagree with them.

Three, the alarmists know the jig is up and have done for some time. But in the interests of damage limitation they’re trying to drip out their corrections (aka admissions of error) slowly – and on their terms – rather than allow any hated skeptics (like yours truly) the chance to crow.

This is what happened after that bombshell paper released in Nature Geoscience last month by leading climate alarmists including Oxford University’s Myles Allen. Buried beneath its misleading and dull abstract was an extraordinary admission: that their computer models had wildly overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming.

Which in turn means, of course, that the entire AGW scare (which relies above all else on those computer models) is bunk and that really – “Big Mac meal with Coke, 5 chicken select, curry dip and two large teas, thanks Myles” – it’s about time these taxpayer-funded Chicken Littles did something useful with their lives for a change.

But when journalists pointed this out, the alarmists responded by attacking the journalists, supposedly for having misrepresented their paper. Yeah right. Look guys, if a dodgy company – say Enron Inc – releases its annual report with a summary that says: “Good news. Our profits are up again and our prospects are better than ever” but on closer examination of the company accounts this turns out to be drivel, it is not the job of journalists to report that rosy executive summary, however much Enron/Global Warming Inc might prefer it.

Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.

And that’s just the scientists.

The parasitic industry profiting from all that junk-science nonsense the alarmists keep pumping into the ether is even worse.

Just one brief example. The other week, the British press was chock full of stories about this incredible advance which had been made in the offshore wind turbine industry whereby costs had fallen so markedly that suddenly those sea-based bat-chomping, bird-slicing, whale-killing eco-crucifixes were more competitive than ever before. There was barely a newspaper that didn’t fall for this “good news” propaganda story.

The story had been heavily promoted by a number of vested interests: a “coalition of companies and civil society organisations” (including Dong Energy, GE, ScottishPower Renewables, Siemens Gamesa, SSE, Vattenfall, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and WWF.”

Look at that list and marvel and the range and influence and financial muscle of those co-conspirators. Mighty, global NGOs and vast industrial conglomerates with a combined income running into the many billions. Environmentalism is not some gentle, bunny-hugging Mom and Pop operation. It’s a ginormous, many tentacled, spectacularly greedy and corrupt Green Blob.

And guess what? That story – repeated unquestioningly by the MSM, crowed about by the BBC – was horse [oops]. Actually, it was worse than that: it was fox [oops], which – as anyone who has smelt it will know – is an altogether more noisome, pungent, vile substance.

Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has reported these liars to the Advertising Standards Authority.

And Paul Homewood has done the numbers and worked out that actually, far from being a bargain, this is yet another massive taxpayer rip off.

Never forget this next time you hear anyone bleating about Trump doing something sensible like pulling out of the Paris climate accord or scrapping the Clean Power Plan. The global warming scare is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It cannot be killed off soon enough.

(by James Delingpole - 10 OCT 2017)


And who did the study? Some lobby groups funded by those in the fossil fuel industry? Do you know that less than 50 years ago lobby groups claimed that cigarette was not harmful? You probably still think so.
Cigarettes are harmful??


That job interview was going so well until I realized I was fukked up on acid in the middle of a cornfield naked and talking to a scarecrow.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By lumba
Originally Posted By TiredReds
Originally Posted By Pickles
The second study, by Hodgkins et al, published in the Journal of Hydrology, concerns flooding in North America and Europe.

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216941730478X#%21

What it shows is that, contrary to the claims often made by climate alarmists, there has been NO increase in flooding due to “global warming” or “climate change.”

Flooding events, it shows, have more to do with chance than any noticeable long term trend. It finds no link between flooding and “global warming.”

Abstract

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.

A few take-home points from these studies.

One, they explode – yet again – the myth that there is a consensus among scientists about catastrophic man-made climate change. In fact, as I reported earlier this year, there are dozens of papers produced every year by reputable, honest scientists which call into question the great man-made climate change scare.

Two, the alarmists hate it when you point this out. After my Breitbart piece Global Warming is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017, an alarmist website published a supposed expert rebuttal by leading climate scientists. The problem was, of course, that all the “experts” involved were members of the alarmist cabal who pal-review one another’s papers and who ruthlessly shut out of the debate any scientists who dare to disagree with them.

Three, the alarmists know the jig is up and have done for some time. But in the interests of damage limitation they’re trying to drip out their corrections (aka admissions of error) slowly – and on their terms – rather than allow any hated skeptics (like yours truly) the chance to crow.

This is what happened after that bombshell paper released in Nature Geoscience last month by leading climate alarmists including Oxford University’s Myles Allen. Buried beneath its misleading and dull abstract was an extraordinary admission: that their computer models had wildly overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming.

Which in turn means, of course, that the entire AGW scare (which relies above all else on those computer models) is bunk and that really – “Big Mac meal with Coke, 5 chicken select, curry dip and two large teas, thanks Myles” – it’s about time these taxpayer-funded Chicken Littles did something useful with their lives for a change.

But when journalists pointed this out, the alarmists responded by attacking the journalists, supposedly for having misrepresented their paper. Yeah right. Look guys, if a dodgy company – say Enron Inc – releases its annual report with a summary that says: “Good news. Our profits are up again and our prospects are better than ever” but on closer examination of the company accounts this turns out to be drivel, it is not the job of journalists to report that rosy executive summary, however much Enron/Global Warming Inc might prefer it.

Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.

And that’s just the scientists.

The parasitic industry profiting from all that junk-science nonsense the alarmists keep pumping into the ether is even worse.

Just one brief example. The other week, the British press was chock full of stories about this incredible advance which had been made in the offshore wind turbine industry whereby costs had fallen so markedly that suddenly those sea-based bat-chomping, bird-slicing, whale-killing eco-crucifixes were more competitive than ever before. There was barely a newspaper that didn’t fall for this “good news” propaganda story.

The story had been heavily promoted by a number of vested interests: a “coalition of companies and civil society organisations” (including Dong Energy, GE, ScottishPower Renewables, Siemens Gamesa, SSE, Vattenfall, Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and WWF.”

Look at that list and marvel and the range and influence and financial muscle of those co-conspirators. Mighty, global NGOs and vast industrial conglomerates with a combined income running into the many billions. Environmentalism is not some gentle, bunny-hugging Mom and Pop operation. It’s a ginormous, many tentacled, spectacularly greedy and corrupt Green Blob.

And guess what? That story – repeated unquestioningly by the MSM, crowed about by the BBC – was horse [oops]. Actually, it was worse than that: it was fox [oops], which – as anyone who has smelt it will know – is an altogether more noisome, pungent, vile substance.

Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has reported these liars to the Advertising Standards Authority.

And Paul Homewood has done the numbers and worked out that actually, far from being a bargain, this is yet another massive taxpayer rip off.

Never forget this next time you hear anyone bleating about Trump doing something sensible like pulling out of the Paris climate accord or scrapping the Clean Power Plan. The global warming scare is the biggest scam in the history of the world. It cannot be killed off soon enough.

(by James Delingpole - 10 OCT 2017)


And who did the study? Some lobby groups funded by those in the fossil fuel industry? Do you know that less than 50 years ago lobby groups claimed that cigarette was not harmful? You probably still think so.
Cigarettes are harmful??


Ask the redneckpickles

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
Pickles Offline OP
1st Team Squad
OP Offline
1st Team Squad
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
Originally Posted By TiredReds
[/quote]Ask the redneckpickles


nah, ask the England hater - sid VISHious!

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Pickles
Originally Posted By TiredReds
Ask the redneckpickles


nah, ask the England hater - sid VISHious! [/quote]

I don't hate England but idiots, from wherever they are.

Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 548
R
Under 18 Player
Offline
Under 18 Player
R
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 548
Wiki, conspiracy means that more than 1 person, I think you are trying to shoot down Pickles theory...

I do not see pickles in this topic conspiring with anyone...

As I believe climate change....oops, global warming or is it ozone layer hole, I just cannot keep up with the term changes every time TPTB decide to call it, until it's ripped apart cos their facts turn out to be non proven facts.. Am I conspiring with pickles, are we forming as you call it a Conspiracy theory??


Rafa B,
Freeman of the land,
UKColoumn news,Russia today news.
Getoutofdebtfree.co.uk
YNWA....
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 548
R
Under 18 Player
Offline
Under 18 Player
R
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 548
May I suggest people do a search on cloud seeding... Also search companies that will guarantee sun for you wedding day, there is at least 1 in France...whom want to move into the uk...

Search HAARP, although it now allegedly shut down, it means they have newer toy to do the same job..

If it's a conspiracy theory - why did 50-60 countries, in the 1960's sign a UN agreement NOT to use weather as a weapon?? Please note the signatories DID NOT sign to NOT use the weather as a weapon against their OWN people... ALL of the above is documented...


Rafa B,
Freeman of the land,
UKColoumn news,Russia today news.
Getoutofdebtfree.co.uk
YNWA....
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By RafaB
May I suggest people do a search on cloud seeding... Also search companies that will guarantee sun for you wedding day, there is at least 1 in France...whom want to move into the uk...

Search HAARP, although it now allegedly shut down, it means they have newer toy to do the same job..

If it's a conspiracy theory - why did 50-60 countries, in the 1960's sign a UN agreement NOT to use weather as a weapon?? Please note the signatories DID NOT sign to NOT use the weather as a weapon against their OWN people... ALL of the above is documented...



You know what, I don't need to go on the internet to see the erosion that has been happening over the last few years on beaches in my country due to rising sea levels.

Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 548
R
Under 18 Player
Offline
Under 18 Player
R
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 548
TReds, how much has the sea risen where you live?.. Where is that? I have not heard on tv about any considerable sea rise by paid actors (scientists)...

Are you sure that your location is not sinking?? It does explain the sea rise you claim..


Rafa B,
Freeman of the land,
UKColoumn news,Russia today news.
Getoutofdebtfree.co.uk
YNWA....
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion