Shiner's world

Discussion about what\'s going on outside of Cornwall
PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:32 pm

And to think I was taking you seriously, Shiner the Hoax Master.Shiner's laws so far:

1) The (Government conspiracy people of Shiner's choice) organised to fly two aeroplanes into the Twin Towers

2) They then made them fall down with explosives to finish the job

3) And used a massive laser to do stuff to some cars on the ground

4) And then went "nah, not us, terrorists"

5) SARS is a hoax

6) Avian 'flu is a hoax

7) Swine 'flu is a hoax

9) Cervical Cancer Jabs is a hoax

10) Global Warming is a hoax, tens of thousands of scientists "debunked"

11) There is no oil depletion. The stuff just makes itself underground.

12) Nobody ever landed on the Moon, another hoax

13) Shiner is always right, of sorry, that's not a hoaxThis might be a good place to explain your mad theories.

Leave the rest to the grownups.

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:25 pm
Location: Nowhere in England

Post by Mark » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:25 pm

And this has got what to do with Cornwall?Betterf't you take your petty squabbles into real life or private emails etc. etc. ect.This, I'm sure is not the place for it.Mods where are you? This thread should be x'd.Sad, very sad...
As long as a hundred of us remain alive, we shall never give in to the domination of the English. We fight not for glory, not for wealth nor honours but only and alone for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life...

Shiner
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:26 am

Post by Shiner » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:41 pm

It's just Paul giving himself some distraction therapy after finding out the sacred IPCC was basing glacier melting theories on magazine clippings. He couldn't face it so went a bit daft cut n pasting Judge Mali's previous posts.


He'll recover after a while. Like Jehovah Witnesses do after you cane the arse off their daft theories at your doorstep. 


User avatar
Mark
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:25 pm
Location: Nowhere in England

Post by Mark » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:46 pm

Best everyone can do now is ignore this post...
As long as a hundred of us remain alive, we shall never give in to the domination of the English. We fight not for glory, not for wealth nor honours but only and alone for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life...

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:19 am

OK, here is Shiners first point: IPCC was basing glacier melting theories on magazine clippings.The media has been giving climatologists are hard time, recently. Mistakes have been made. The mistakes made were not of any great significance, in terms of our overall understanding of the role of CO2.Here is the famous glacier part of the report:"Himalayan glaciers cover about three million hectares or 17% of the mountain area as compared to 2.2% in the Swiss Alps. They form the largest body of ice outside the polar caps and are the source of water for the innumerable rivers that flow across the Indo-Gangetic plains. Himalayan glacial snowfields store about 12,000 km3 of freshwater. About 15,000 Himalayan glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra which, in turn, are the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries (Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh). The Gangetic basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the total human population in the region. Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."Here is the link: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication.....0-6-2.htmlThe sub-sentence being disputed is this: "likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high"

AS you can see, it talks about 'likelihood', not certainty. Nevertheless, it appears that a correct date for complete disappearance should have been around 2130, so it was an error.Further down it states its best estimate of remaining glazier size 100,000 km2 at year 2035, based on the observed retreat record for the major glaciers. I do not think this is being disputed.In any case, the principle of disappearing glaciers is not being disputed by anyone of repute. It is merely the rate of retreat that was not correctFurther down the report states:

"The current trends of glacial melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change and could likely affect the economies in the region. Some other glaciers in Asia – such as glaciers shorter than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau – are projected to disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than 60% (Shen et al., 2002)." You will notice that this statement is properly referenced to originating scientific paper and is not disputed by anyone. So the consequences of the glacier retreat are not disputed either, only the rate.On the other hand the link, below, will take you to a lecture delivered by Richard B. Alley of Penn State, an important member of the IPCC whose work centres on the historical/geological record i.e. the last few million years.The historical/geological record indicates that increasing CO2, increases global temperatures and that we can find no alternative causal agent that can explain away past periods when the Earth's temperature was higher – or lower. It's worth watching, not just because of this clear message, but also because of the clear exposition of the scientific method that Alley includes, within his delivery. He repeats that there is no absolute proof but that the correlations are too close to be ignored. The argument that there is no absolute and final proof is often used but so much of what we learn from science is bounded by the same proviso, we examine the evidence and derive a theory that gives the closest approximation to the data. The only real test is to burn all of the fossil carbon and see what happens. There are those who apparently want to try this……. Generally, they have no idea what they are talking about or they work for oil and coal companies!http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm.....A23A.shtmlDo you have any supplementaries on this specific issue?

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:50 pm

OK, that's settled then.Anything else I can enlighten you on?

Shiner
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:26 am

Post by Shiner » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:23 am

"OK, that's settled then."


'Settled' -  buzzword in post normal science.
Gets around the niggling truths that don't fit the CC/AGW models, whereas in Einstein's world of science the slightest hole in the model and the model is rendered useless and sent back for more investigation. No policy made - model incomplete. 
And this attitude...
"Anything else I can enlighten you on?"
Floats the god boat.
Paul has made himself a winner on his own alter without realising that what he actually done was carefully point out the parts that Einstein would have rejected and therefore cancelled all validity of the model being proposed. Climatology lets you patch it over, and allows it to be wrong. It OK's an untruth and the model roles on regardless. 


Climatology gets you around newly found holes in the model with buzzwords like 'likelihood'. When used to promote the climate change model, or just try to scare people, likelihood'  comes across as "almost definitely going to happen", or "pretty much going to happen".
When it turns out to be wrong: 'likelyhood' is used as a cop out. "It never said it would happen, it only said there was a 'likelyhood' of it happening."
Einstein would be bloody furious if he read what the IPCC are putting out as evidence to substantiate massive global policy changes based on crumbling models that keep crumbling.




MaliAft4
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:17 pm

Post by MaliAft4 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:42 am

This would be the same Einstein that invented and added a constant to his theory of general relativity to counteract gravity to explain why the universe didn't collapse in on itself, to make the model work, then?Shiner, you being the defender of science is both amusing and unsettling, especially as you think that all vaccines are a waste of time and a money spinning idea dreamt up by drug companies.

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:49 am

More Shinerisms:


"Paul is wearing his green dog collar while on this thread.


He's gone all 'brown cords and clipboardy' while on survey duties.


Distraction therapy while the IPCC approaches the point of 'peak crumble'?


INTERNATIONAL scientists have called for the world's peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months."I don't normally read The Australian, but I looked it up, and of course, its nonsense again:- how many scientists, which scientists, what are their names – it does not say. It quotes two scientists agreeing with that view and two others disagreeing with it. So perhaps it is these TWO scientists the headline refers to.

Yet again Shiner proves his arguments can't be relied upon.


But he is much better at personal attacks. He mentions several in practically every single one of his posts in reply to mine. Oh well, sure sign of having little to contribute.

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:46 am

Shiner's laws so far:

1) The (Government conspiracy people of Shiner's choice) organised to fly two aeroplanes into the Twin Towers

2) They then made them fall down with explosives to finish the job

3) And used a massive laser to do stuff to some cars on the ground

4) And then went "nah, not us, terrorists"

5) SARS is a hoax

6) Avian 'flu is a hoax

7) Swine 'flu is a hoax

9) Cervical Cancer Jabs is a hoax

10) Global Warming is a hoax, tens of thousands of scientists "debunked"

11) There is no oil depletion. The stuff just makes itself underground.

12) Nobody ever landed on the Moon, another hoax

13) and a new one: Tree rings are a hoaxBril

Shiner
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:26 am

Post by Shiner » Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:55 am

You seem to have ran out of brain power Paul.
You've reduced yourself to (re)cut and pasting something that Mali posted rather tongue in cheek, and after promising to do some PaulS style 'advanced debunking'.. Tut tut.


Oh well.. As they say truth will always prevail.


Bye Paul..

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:09 am

Yeah, nice collection of Shiner's hoaxes.

Did you want to add some more?

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:38 am

Here is another one of Shiner's points:

-----------------------------------------------

Interview with climate researcher Phil Jones of the UEA CRU."Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

So in fact, according to Phil Jones (who strongly believes in the AGW hypothesis) there is nothing unusual about the recent warming either. It is not statistically different from two earlier modern periods of warming. Since these warming periods were before the modern rise in CO2, greenhouse gases cannot have been responsible for those rises.

-------------------------------------------------------------------Actually no.First, here are couple of questions and answers from the same interview, which were somehow left out:How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?No – see again my answer aboveAs is clear from these answers and contrary to the impression Shiner was attempting to convey in his post, Prof Jones has not changed his mind about climate change or if it is predominantly manmade.Secondly, a point made by Prof Jones himself: the Global Warming trend is, as the name implies, global. There is little point in comparing the modern trends with data from any one particular place from the past as each such place would have been subject to local variations, which obviously do not represent the global average.

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:10 am

Shinerism no 4:

Shiner says:

"Is wind power as green as it seems? Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is "expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green", says Lodge."

-------------------------------------------------------

The reality is:Examining the Danish Energy Agency’s report, Energy Statistics 2007, it is clear that Denmark had very little wind power in 1980, but significant wind power in 2007 (output of 38 terajoules in 1980 and 25,823 terajoules in 2007). On the other hand, consumption of oil for electric power production has fallen (from over 47,000 TJ in 1980 to just over 11,000 TJ in 2007); as has consumption of coal (from near 214,000 TJ in 1980 to almost 167,000 TJ in 2007). So Danmark's use of oil for electricity has fallen by about 80% and its use of coal for electricity has fallen by about 30%.Consumption of coal has increased in one just one year: 2006. However, the Energinet “Environmental Report 2007“, dated July 2007, does indicate that coal use and CO2 emissions increased in 2006 over 2005, but the report attributes the increases to the dry year (low hydro power condition) in the Nordic countries rather than to “under performing wind farms.”Even the claim regarding closing of coal plants is wrong! The same report indicates that Denmark has closed several coal and oil fired plants in the last 10 years.

-----------------------------------------So, yet again Shiners just copies the highly misleading reports on deniers website without any attempt at verification.

Yet again the report is completely wrong.This is what happens when you are guided by beliefs rather than facts.

PaulS
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Post by PaulS » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:24 am

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by EVERY national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of ALL of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, NO remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.What a lot of loonies, hey , Shiner. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests