Jump to content

In case the Eco-Flappers missed it.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent.

 

Can we ban Smart Cars now? And sandals?

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!

CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!

 

FOLLOW ANGLERS' NET ON TWITTER- CLICK HERE - @anglersnet

PLEASE 'LIKE' US ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they can tell us why the UK was once a sub-tropical rain forest. and the climate change is nothing to do with the tilt of the earths axis, we can safely say yes Elton

5460c629-1c4a-480e-b4a4-8faa59fff7d.jpg

 

fishing is nature's medical prescription

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent.

 

Can we ban Smart Cars now? And sandals?

 

And short-sleeved shirts?

http://www.d-das.com/

Lower South Buckland Farm Campsite DT3 4BQ
http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/campsites/uk/dorset/weymouth/southbucklandfarm
Pisces mortui solum cum flumine natant

You get more bites on Anglers Net

 

http://www.fishingtails.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this since it broke on November 20. A large number of emails and documents was leaked or hacked and released on the Internet, including some FORTRAN code for the computer models used to produce climate predictions and a large file of commentary from a frustrated programmer trying to reproduce published results.

 

The allegations amount to:

 

* It is alleged that a group of climate scientists have rigged the peer review process in order to suppress the publication of papers which disagree with the idea that human activity is leading to climate change, or which contain criticisms of their methodology.

 

* It is alleged that these people have manipulated raw data from weather stations in a misleading or biasing way to produce a master data set, and have then lost or destroyed much of the underlying data, making it difficult to audit what they have done. It is also alleged that they have tried to obstruct attempts by scientists unsympathetic to "the cause" to obtain the raw data and validate their results.

 

* It is alleged that they have deliberately issued misleading communications to the mainstream media - essentially crossing the line between scientific communication and propaganda. Issues like deliberately truncating graphs to exclude data which undermines their position. Issues like avoiding filtering the lists of names for the IPCC consensus to get as many names as possible, irrespective of their qualification.

 

* It is alleged that the code for the models which was released is awful, and that the data used is so poor that the outputs of any models it is fed into should be treated with caution.

 

 

I don't know where this leaves the state of climate science. Some people are saying that this is just one dataset and one research group, and that others have come to similar conclusions independently. Others say that those results are also suspect. Personally, my feeling is that whatever the outcome for the climate change debate, if it is proven that these guys have behaved as they are alleged to have done in one of the highest profile and most important areas of science, with a massive effect on public policy and on our standard of living, the rest of the scientific community ought to lynch the bastards for bringing the conduct of science into public disrepute. A full independent public inquiry is the only way to clear the air.

 

Commentary and argument on this issue as it unfolded here:

 

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.a...p;mid=&nmt=

Link to post
Share on other sites

i demonstrated ages ago using "an inconvenient truth" the al gore fantasy was based on crooked facts ,even the IPCC recalculated and its worst case scenario was halved at least

truth is theres money to be made and there's those greedy enough to do anything to get it including using "green" issues, the governments included for raising tax etc.

 

global warming is cyclic and perfectly normal if species go its also normal.

whats the worst we can expect a 3 degree rise ,the regions humans exist in have a 30 degree difference between the hot and cold.

 

researchers care little for truth they pick the bits that support their stance and hide ,push under the carpet or destroy what doesnt ,i expect in a huge number of cases theres more evidence that doesnt support their case than for it but all you will see is the stuff they show you.

research is expensive so is counter research so few challenge it until its doubted by many or its leaked out in the media its dodgy.

 

can we stop global warming ,probably not but we can get rid of the side effects by replanting the rainforests ,perhaps noticing the clearing of the rainforests was related to the slight rise in CO2 happening was too easy for scientists or of course didnt contribute to their funding in the slightest ,far better to get taxes than plant trees.

the BBC have been very quiet as they are a government mouthpiece revealing anything that may cause harm to government fundraising could be bad for future licence raises.

Edited by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

 

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is quite strong assumption that all the people who used to wave red flags before the Soviet Union collapsed, and could no longer afford to fund them, are now waving green flags. Anything but do any wealth producing work.

http://www.d-das.com/

Lower South Buckland Farm Campsite DT3 4BQ
http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/campsites/uk/dorset/weymouth/southbucklandfarm
Pisces mortui solum cum flumine natant

You get more bites on Anglers Net

 

http://www.fishingtails.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there is a David Kelly(deceased/murdered/eliminated/suicide/managed out) character in all this.

http://www.d-das.com/

Lower South Buckland Farm Campsite DT3 4BQ
http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/campsites/uk/dorset/weymouth/southbucklandfarm
Pisces mortui solum cum flumine natant

You get more bites on Anglers Net

 

http://www.fishingtails.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing that they wish to discount the words global warming and change it to climate change as the warmest year was about six years ago. That would upset the calc's if we are now going through a phase of global cooling. Must be about right though as brown has commited himself to global warming. You know what that must mean then. It's a load of tosh. :D

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8395691.stm

 

Mr Brown said the climate was the "greatest challenge" facing the world.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it sickening that man made climate change sceptics are now being treated as social outcasts, in a strikingly similar fashion to that usually reserved for holocaust 'deniers'.

 

Give it a few years, and custodial sentences will be handed down to those undermining the biggest Governmental heist ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...