Jump to content

BBsq69

Premium Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    25,283

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

  • Points

    0 [ Donate ]

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BBsq69

    BREX(SH)IT

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    Latest is that MPs have rejected everything again. They just will not grow up. So a 5 hour cabinet meeting tomorrow and on Wednesday we have a repeat of Monday before May has a 4th attempt. Europe have lost patience and may say that we either leave with no deal on the 12th or they dictate the terms of any extension.

    • Like 1

    BREX(SH)IT

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    Tomorrow is a YET ANOTHER big day.
    2 years ago we gave in our 2 year notice but our desk is still in the office.

    May has now lost votes on her deal 3 teams. The Speaker may try to block a fourth one but all that comes after Monday.

    On Monday - well nobody quite knows what will happen - MPs will try to push the same votes they lost last week again. This time if they succeed it is likely but not guaranteed that May will have to listen with there now being only 12 days to the new leaving date. However even though there is definitely a majority in the house there is no guarantee EITHER that MPs will actually vote for a softer Brexit because of politics. And I have said I do not want to get into that here as there is another thread for that but the sad thing is we now have a multitude of groups playing a game with Britain's future in order for either their own personal gain, their party's gain or even power playing within their own party. It is very very sad but would probably happen with any other country who went down this route. 

     

    The Climate Change Thread

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    On 3/26/2019 at 5:21 AM, ipiratemedia said:

    More questions, Is climate change an imagined problem promoted by censorship and the media without scientific evidence? Yes, climate change by man is an imagined unproven problem.

    Except the science is real. Now I'm not suggesting we will turn into Venus as some models have once again suggested recently, but to actually pretend that humans are not having a significant effect on the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Of course we know from our experience of the world that certain people will leap upon things and get so fanatical and preachy about it that people do keep silent. I shall not pretend that is not a thing. It comes from both right and left but more recently it has been the left that has been dominant with this bullying. But the fact that that happens does not alter the science and climate experts are pretty much all agreed of the effect mankind has. It's a consensus not a conspiracy. Scientist accept these theories because they have looked at them and rigorously tested both the theory and where possible the actuality. It is a very long way from faith.

    I have probably mentioned this before because although I don't care for the TV series "Friend" - young people struggling to live in Central Park apartment, possibly the most desirable real estate in the world makes it hard to sympathise, Pheobe disputes the age of the Earth. When Ross tells her she's wrong, Pheobe says they should agree to differ, but Ross is not having that informing her it is not a different opinion but a fact. Ross then proceeds to give her a load of evidence about fossils but she remains unconvinced claiming that the mystery is "Who put the fossils there?" I am not sure what happens next but like any scientist Ross is clearly annoyed.

    Science moves on. We all know, Theories are disproved all the time but as time moves on we get closer to the truth. The absorption and reflection of radiation within the gases in the atmosphere is well understood and is certainly what scientists accept as the correct explanation. However if i go on I risk repeating myself because the man made cause of the warming (which has been witnessed statistically and by anyone who has actually noticed the weather over the last decade) is the one part that we can do something about. We can't do anything about orbital perturbations (not without a very large bomb) solar cycles, volcanoes, plate tectonics, algae blooms (although this could be linked to small changes in temperatures) and global weather systems (but again there is some chicken and egg) here. The so called relatively small effect on Carbon Dioxide etc. is not really small.

    This a seperate example but we now know the huge effect plastic is having on our oceans. Before many would have claimed that it only takes up a fraction of  fraction of a percent and yet the more we look into it the more we realise exactly how pervasive it is.

    The real problems with global warming lie in the future but what was being said in the 1980s when I was studying it at university is coming to pass now. The truth is during the time of human civilisation, never has the climate been changing so fast. And those that do not see it are ostriches. 

     
     

    • Like 1

    The Climate Change Thread

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    On 3/19/2019 at 10:00 PM, Thestarider said:

    BB my friends listen the this Nobel Laurate explain climate change.

    As I continually tell my brother who worked in the same area as Giaever, this is about the science. Scientific belief is not religious belief, it is based on theory which people write papers on which are then rigorously tested by their peers. Peers who are the experts in these subjects which incidentally is Astronomy - the subject of my first degree - not by semi-conductor physicists. Darwin doesn't peer review Einstein and Einstein doesn't peer review Darwin. The further back in time you go, the less knowledge there is so in the past you had polymaths. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of the last 2 millennia, wasted much of his life on the nonsense of alchemy. Nowadays it takes a lot to be an expert in a single branch of physics.
    Let's move on to the statistics. Although let me stress in this case it really is about the science and we were expecting the evidence to take quite a few years to start showing up. Now unquestionably it is showing up.  

    Everyone knows there are lies, damn lies and statistics. But this just means that people can misinterpret data. Proper scientists can do so but usually they get called out over it.
    This talk of Giaever was in 2008 - he ignored the science and tried to use statistics. Now I have found myself trying to explain probability (simpler and less controversial than statistics) to Maths professors because some of it is counter-intuitive and has mean heavily misunderstood in some famous court cases. I don't claim to be an expert myself but since I have a top degree in the subject I do have more understanding than the average man, and maybe professor, in the street. Giaever probably does have a good understanding of statistics but in his talk he is misleading about that and does dismiss the scientific theory which is pretty damn shocking for a Nobel Laureate not to mention misleading.in that area as well.

    Now he knows the graph and in the middle of that decade it flattens out and he dismisses the 0.8 rise over 100 years - see my earlier post about that - because by 2019 it his risen by almost 0.9 (and I am not using a rolling average merely because I can't be bothered because you wouldn't believe it anyway but trust me it would be within a few percentage points of that and lets discuss his use of percentages later) in the last 40 years. I have my doubts about some of the extreme claims made in the models myself because of other factors and assumptions but we know putting certain heavier molecules is going to cause an increase in the greenhouse effect because that is what the science tells us. Does that mean a definite increase temperature? NO! Does it mean we are more likely to have a devastating temperature? YES!

    Back to his 288.8/288 = 0.3% nonsense. This is the increase in Kinetic Energy (provided there was no change in the current level of gases) in the lower level of the atmosphere so he's saying that that kind of increase is trivial because it is low percentage. But it tends not be trivial to life which is quite sensitive to temperature plus more heavy gases escape into the atmosphere increasing the problem so the real picture is much more complex than the simple one he presents. During most of the history of the Earth the climate would have been incredibly uncomfortable for humans. What we are in is a window of opportunity and as we get more sophisticated with our understanding of science we can model more accurately. The 0.3% is meant to be "Look there's nothing to worry about" but that 0.3% rise is now over 40 years not 150 years. Yes I'm choosing my period just like he chose his although mine is when the fossil fuel is kicking in whereas he is counting coming out of the mini ice age I talked about last time. Mentioning the human contribution during the 19th century should really have been beneath him and was used to emphasise his point but evidential nonsense. The significant rise in the human contribution started in the 1950s so maybe it would be fairer to look at what has happened since then. Solar cycles also have an effect which can decrease or increase the rate of warming and it could be that affected the period immediately before he gave this talk.

    Too tired to go on but basically the vast majority of climate scientists are clear on the science although naturally you can expect their models to be different, none of them are good.   

    • Like 2

    BREX(SH)IT

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    Quite frankly it gets more complicated every day.

    The UK can now leave on 3 different dates but the situation in almost constant flux. If you ask MPs, they often say "Well this was the situation before I got to the studio, but it could have changed by now."

    The issue which caused May to run off to Europe for her extensions (nobody knew there was going to be more than one) was a piece of parliamentary procedure introduced in 1604, shortly before the Gunpowder plot. It basically says you cannot keep bringing back a motion to the house which is essentially the same as a previous motion which has already been defeated. May's deal has been heavily defeated twice - this is not a thread I wish to discuss the politics of that in - so something must have fundamentally changed for her to try again. She will attempt it this week citing the extension(s) as a reason. The presumption is that the Speaker will let this one go. If he does and it is defeated again then it looks as though other solutions will be voted on but there is no guarantee that any of them will find a majority. However May has continually gone back on her word and as she won a vote to keep control of the process last week then it might be difficult to hold another vote on the same thing again which would mean 1604 would work in her favour.

    This all happened after I wrote the initial post on this thread and at the point I understood everything. Now, who knows?!!!!!!!

×
×
  • Create New...