[glebe digital]

Got plenty of free fuel up on the peat-hill........[Orcadians stopped cutting when the lightbulb arrived]..........so when it all goes to Hell in a handcart, bring your spades.

[ivox3]

Thanks for the invite, ..now to just figure that little jaunt across the Atlantic. lol..

[JDHill]

My perception of that area is pretty much that it's the definition of the so-called rugged highlands. I have always had a highly-romanticized version of this in my mind's eye, so if it's really not so...let's just not try to wreck that for me, eh?

[glebe digital]

Nah I won't spoil the romance JD.........yes we all wear Kilts everyday, toss cabers at weekends & down copious amounts of Haggis & grog every mealtime.
Ivox, I'm sure when the ice creeps in you could walk across?

[Hervé]

Chris....

[iker]

I'm gonna shut up now, but in conclusion, here's the very latest temp data:

It's global warming, so heck, the temperatures going UP, right?

Erm, wrong:

Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies

...theres too many of this graphicals, but I think is better to compare more than 6 years


For me it is clear that in these times, we believe (...or not) in those rumours, considering the bussiness and the quantity of money that this rumour is able to generate.
The posibility of big bussiness together with the tons of information sources, makes very difficult to see reality, but I still don't see what kind of bussiness GW can generate ..¿? ...maybe electrical cars , selling potato bags?
Personally I see more bussiness in the negation of GW ...consuming is our life engine today.

[glebe digital]

You're right Iker there are no easy answers, lot's of people riding various gravy trains & lots of very uncomfortable graphs.

Here's one:


Also....I have been writing poetry today.... ....no wait, it must be 'anti poetry' now that I read it back......surely it is a banning offence [on any forum] to publish intollerably bad poetic dribbling.......ah shit here goes anyway.....

I'm a global kind of guy
I like homespun Indian sheets,
My dinner bowl's from Delft
Filled with Turkish sweetmeats.

Can't hide my admiration
For workers 'cross the land,
Who keep their shoulders high
Though they're working for the Man.

World's in shit and needs the medics?
It just don't rock my boat
You're also selling carbon credits
And our future keeping banks afloat.

We're just apes in fancy drapes
And dollars in our eyes,
When the horror of the universe
Is written in the skies.

I didn't ask to join this world
Might've been nice in the fire,
So you can't ask any more o' me
Than to shit, eat and perspire.

'Qui Bono' said the Roman voice
Who's quid's-in when things change?
Easy to sell a warm fur hat
If you control the temperature range.

When I hear the world 'culture'
I just want to get my gun,
I hate the mold we're cooking up
Let's tip it in the sun.

And while you wait the end of days
Or for Sol to torch the place,
I'll be sat here not mending my ways
While you breed for the master race.

So don't be listening to the Man
He's shined the shit since time began'
Puts the world in a neat wee can
And has got you down for an also ran.

[Bubbaloo]

We're just apes in fancy drapes

So true!

[JDHill]

Heh Stu...I hear you. Thoreau said, I recall, 'I came into this world, not chiefly to make it a better place to live in, but to live in it.'

Iker - the problem is that graphs alone have no inherent meaning. It's what you must do to make the graph that matters. In this case:

1. you form a hypothesis: that a global warming trend exists, and that it is due to man-made emissions.
2. you collect data; temp data is good for the last 60Y, fair for the 60Y prior, and virtually non-existent prior to that.
3. you normalize the various data sets you've collected so that they all fit on the same scale.
4. you identify all variables external to the hypothesis, then measure and compensate for them.
5. you can now make a graph which either confirms or denies your hypothesis.

The researchers want me to believe the graph they made in step 5. The skeptics are currently telling me that the researchers engaged in fraud in step 3. My main concern, however, is what takes place in step 4, and as such, I am hardly concerned with human bias or error. I am simply not convinced that it is technically possible to remove all other mitigating factors (think for a second, about the magnitude of that statement), especially when the resulting data must be an accurate representation of fluctuations on the order of less than +/- 0.1° C in order to convey any useful information. And my faith is too weak to allow me to believe that it is possible to overcome this problem.

As such, the current wave of global-warming alarmism just appears to me to be a rather blatant example of Pascal's Wager being put into wide practice, albeit via the standard Chicken Little model, rather than a reasoned consideration of the actual probabilities involved.

[Hervé]

We're just apes in fancy drapes

So true!

Hypnotized chicken...

[mashium123]

[Hervé]

[iker]

...the current wave of global-warming alarmism just appears to me to be a rather blatant example of Pascal's Wager being put into wide practice, albeit via the standard Chicken Little model, rather than a reasoned consideration of the actual probabilities involved.

Well, I also think that we're never going to know what's the exact probability of a catastrophic situation like some propheshy, but you're never know if you're going to die because you smoke, but when you smoke, you know there's a risk and you know there's a better standard of living without smoking, so what's the point in not reduce the number of cigarettes per day? ...not just because you can die but because you can live in a healthier way.

I mean, I really don't know what to believe in this kind of "global movements", but the "caution" or "moderation" seems a great place to be in.

[JDHill]

Yes, of course - disbelief in global warming theory does not require that one also be anti-conservation. There is a big difference between behaving sensibly with regards to the environment and enacting sweeping new laws based on a young and unprovable theory; imho, the global warming movement has nothing to do with the first and everything to do with the second.

[Micha]

I think, we shouldn't ignore, that our life style is a problem for future generations. Last I have seen this film:

http://www.home-2009.com

I have two children and I hope, living on earth will be good or better in the future. Global warming isn't the only problem. Last I heared a radio feature about atomic test in the atmosphere. The higher general radiation is one problem that can be corrected anymore. I think it good to think about ways to get less environment polution. Some times I must think on people who live in germany from 1933-1945, who says "I didn't know it". If our children will ask us, we can't say it anymore, we got the infos about how we destroy our environment. It's not easy to change the living style, but little steps can be done day by day.