SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[TdC]

So firstly it was blaming gays for the weather and now this idiocy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-chances-of-child-being-gay-in-adulthood.html

I guess they're called fags for a reason ...

Pre-birth exposure to both nicotine and amphetamines increases the chance of lesbian daughters

Better not let my lezza friend read this or she'll start smoking and taking amph.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Better not let my lezza friend read this or she'll start smoking and taking amph.

Being gay and hoping your kid turns out gay, kind of worse then being homophobic.

To clarify; seeing as "hope my kid doesn't turn out gay" is a bit off, and gay people knowing the prejudice etc they already get, hoping their kid turns out one way or the other is worse then an ignorant parent hoping their kid turns out one way or other.

 

[DaGaffer]

Being gay and hoping your kid turns out gay, kind of worse then being homophobic.

To clarify; seeing as "hope my kid doesn't turn out gay" is a bit off, and gay people knowing the prejudice etc they already get, hoping their kid turns out one way or the other is worse then an ignorant parent hoping their kid turns out one way or other.

Er, I agree.

 

[DaGaffer]

So firstly it was blaming gays for the weather and now this idiocy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-chances-of-child-being-gay-in-adulthood.html

I guess they're called fags for a reason ...

I'd always been led to believe there was no neurological or genetic basis for rug munching. It was only male homosexuality that has a "gay gene". I'm also dubious about the loads of brothers thing; every gay guy I've ever known has had lots of sisters; the only exception was a friend of mine who was straight and had two older gay brothers.

 

[Scouse]

Almost the entire driver of climate is what I wrote...there are other factors...but fuck all would happen without the Sun.

Variability in output from the sun does not count very much towards climate change according to the science tho Job.

Backtracking by saying "sun runs the climate" when it wasn't what you originally intended is disingenuous.

 

[Job]

http://www.outerra.com/wgallery.html
Nice 3d planet project

Second

Im not backtracking anything..the Sun drives the climate almost entirely and its input far exceeds other factors that they ring their hands about in the endless guessing game of climate science.
That was the point of my original post...the whole discipline seems to have descended into point scoring on either sides and we are seeing the debacle of real scientists claiming right by consensus...which of course is the equivalent of laymen calling each other knobheads.
NO ONE KNOWS....its just too complicated for more than an educated guess..which is all the predictions are.

 

[Scouse]

NO ONE KNOWS....its just too complicated for more than an educated guess..which is all the predictions are.

From the mouth of a layman rather than the 95% accuracy forecast (educated "guess") of scientists...

 

[Job]

Of course..because they are in denial and time will prove me right.

 

[Scouse]

Of course..because they are in denial and time will prove me right.

You're the one in denial...

 

[Fweddy]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/married-gays-to-tour-drought-hit-countries-2014012082721

 

[Nate]

Typing of the dead is pretty fun

 

[old.Tohtori]

Er, I agree.

Scary isn't it? Don't worry, the feeling will pass and if you're feeling confused in the morning still, have a wank and insult Job.

 

[Job]

Have a look at the major models and see how many parameters are guesswork..are they important?
who knows,
but the same modelers will claim huge variances from tiny inputs when they suit the agenda while conveniently brushing under the carpet
other small inputs simply because they don't know the exact parameters and are taking educated guesses.
The climate is chaotic in real time..to suggest we can predict it over decades is pure fantasy and egotistical.
As far as I'M concerned if you're guessing ANY part of such chaos, then you are guessing ALL of it.
They haven't been right once yet, which is actually worse than guessing and all we hear is hindsight enabled
adjustment of a whole load of overlapping predictions which is no better than the idiots who re-interpretate Nostrudamus's babblings.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Where did you copy/paste that from? Should remember to edit/clear formatting before using other peoples things

 

[Scouse]

Have a look at the major models and see how many parameters are guesswork..are they important?
who knows,

They do. You know, the people who've devoted their entire lives to finding out using mankinds most successful structured methodology.

They haven't been right once yet

They have. They predict global temperature rise within a range and it's happening. That's it.

 

[Gwadien]

Who's the other guy from Nottingham is it @Raven ?

Looking for a student house for next year, gonna shop around, try to avoid the beaten path, but wanna know where to avoid.

 

[Mabs]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/01/19/ukip-shipping-forecast/

 

[Raven]

Who's the other guy from Nottingham is it @Raven ?

Looking for a student house for next year, gonna shop around, try to avoid the beaten path, but wanna know where to avoid.

No, I live in a different shithole, Northampton. Well...not "in" only chavs live in towns! But the surrounding area.

 

[Job]

Normally I would agree, but climate and it's temperature direction is a whole magnitude beyond our methodology.
They keep adjusting the parameters that the temps fall between, not because they have found more accurate ways to predict, but simply because they are cherry picking the predictions to tie in with actual measurement.
What I am basically accusing them of here, in a not so subtle way, is the undermining of the scientific process by being open to human failings..this is the undeniable root of the sceptics case and quite simply this is how the politicians see it as well, because NO ONE is doing fuk all about it unless it brings money in.
Do you really think on any level that the worlds politicians think they are saving the planet with windfarms..no they are quite simply a nice little earner for all involved with the added bonus of actually reducing the amount of oil and gas they have to buy at silly prices, plus it gives them a nice green glow.
The second fracking and oil sand brings home the bacon, they'll drop windfarms like a stone.

 

[Raven]

They do. You know, the people who've devoted their entire lives to finding out using mankinds most successful structured methodology.



They have. They predict global temperature rise within a range and it's happening. That's it.

I think his rather poorly laid out point is that all (with the exception of a relatively tiny amount of geo-thermal) heat is generated by the sun, obviously fluctuations in solar output will have an effect on climate, you don't need a multi-billion pound industry to tell you that. All CO2 and other gasses do is keep that heat in.

 

[Scouse]

I think his rather poorly laid out point is that all (with the exception of a relatively tiny amount of geo-thermal) heat is generated by the sun, obviously fluctuations in solar output will have an effect on climate, you don't need a multi-billion pound industry to tell you that. All CO2 and other gasses do is keep that heat in.

That wasn't his point Raven. It was a rebuff to my article from a guy who does solar research (the maunder minimum stuff a few pages back) that says variations in solar output don't add up to much.

If it was his point then he's simply steadfastly refusing to talk about the actual case at hand. Of course the sun is responsible for the energy in the earths climate - but any five year old can tell you that. So why post it?

 

[Job]

Gah, my point was that the changes in the sun were unexpected and if there's holes in your knowledge
of one of the main parameters then everything is questionable.
You can count on most of the parameters, they are basic physics, absorption, radiation, heat loss, but the fact that the Sun has done something unexpected and might well do it again..maybe even a lot more throws the predictions up in the air.

If this was a court of law with that level of uncertainty, the case would be thrown out.

 

[Scouse]

You can count on most of the parameters, they are basic physics, absorption, radiation, heat loss, but the fact that the Sun has done something unexpected and might well do it again..maybe even a lot more throws the predictions up in the air.

Yep. The sun has done something unexpected - so you modify the data to make your model more accurate. And considering the models are pretty accurately describing things and improving all the time then I don't think your skeptisim is based on anything more than an emotional assessment.

If this was a court of law with that level of uncertainty, the case would be thrown out.

This sentence doesn't actually make any sense Job, unless you're once again moving away from the easily measureable additional input to models that solar variation gives (which is what we're talking about) - and back to "climate science" as a whole.

In which case I think the 95% accuracy is much more reliable than any court of law reaches.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You could also take the whole sun discussion and stick it where it doesn't shine

 

[Bahumat]

Wow you solar boys sure know how take a thread boring

 

[mooSe_]

http://noisey.vice.com/blog/grind-goat-will-never-die-but-you-will

 

[Edmond]

Funny


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD6rKhzV_m0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjD6rKhzV_m0&app=desktop

 

[Job]

God that's good.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[caLLous]