21

Just Chat! / Re: Was faking of tempreture data about global warming, a Malthusian project?

« on: 11/02/2017 22:52:28 »

Nobody has any idea what 97% of scientists believe.

Isnt that the point the 97% stat is comming from those scientist invloved in a survey- and not all scientists.

Quite a few are regular churchgoers and the like, so their beliefs are not necessarily based on evidence anyway. But it is clear that over 90% of "climate scientsts" need you to believe in AGW, or their funding will cease.

Nothing new here. A previous Archbishop of York said he didn't necessarily believe in god, at least not in the same way as his flock. Now there's an appropriate word.

In fact it was a previous co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who made me a skeptic by opening his lecture on the first IPCC report with "I am a committed christian..." Anyone who says he knows the answer before studying the question is not to be trusted, and that is exactly what CO2-based climate change modellers do. Later in  the same lecture he admitted "we know that water is the most important parameter, but as we can't measure it, we have ignored it - see the footnote on page 21"  so I'll give him a point for honesty.

Yeah its clear some have an interest in maintaining certain ideas fro grants and funding.

22

Just Chat! / Re: Was faking of tempreture data about global warming, a Malthusian project?

« on: 11/02/2017 00:42:52 »

Well itīs not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree.

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Maunder Minimum:Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in 2030, scientists warns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMuvaEpdaqQ

So why are you even asking the question?

I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse and scientists have been faking the data- yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance.

So its a question about wether that has been done on purpose, if we come into a mini Ice age crops are going to fail. Currently the main stream are panicing about Warming, when its possible the planet is going in the other direction- So I ponder and ask if people think that might be a conspiracy- there has clearly been an conspiracy about Warming, I just ponder if itīs a bigger conspiracy then simply people looking for funds.

"Well itīs not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree."
No, it seems that it's 3 blokes
On the other hand, something like 97 %  of scientists are on the other side

O.K Chemists, ecologists if you wanna call them scientists, Botantists, Just becuase lots of Scientists say they believe in the theory. I mean William Happer makes the point that most scientists he knows Quote:- "most of my academic Colleagues do not know that much(about Global warming theory)"

So wow 97% of scientist apparetly believe in global warming- I debate if that is a true statement- sounds more like consenus propoganda to me- too little skepticism- For science.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/23/97-global-warming-consensus-paper-surpasses-half-a-million-downloads

The guardian really?
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/24942-biggest-fake-news-story-global-warming-and-phony-consensus
"The New American has repeatedly reported on the fraudulent methodology used by Oreskes and Cook to arrive at their ludicrous near-unanimous consensus claims. Prof. Richard S. J. Tol and Dr. Benny Peiser are but two of the experts who have called out Oreskes and Cook, showing that only one percent of climate research papers — not 97 percent — support the “consensus” view claimed by the AGW alarmists."
 

"I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse"
There's no evidence for that.
 "and scientists have been faking the data-"
There's no evidence for that.

Yes there is some evidence for that you just choose to ignore it.

" yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance. "

http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

Sound more like a utopian dream, then a science project. You wanna better enviroment, fight for the rain forest to not get cut down by farmers who want to grow soya and graze cattle so we can eat beef and drink milk- Habitat distruction, and water use and pollution from farming is a far bigger problem then CO2. 

23

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why are there no depressant medications?

« on: 10/02/2017 02:27:38 »

We recognize a problem with people who are so sad that they can't function, and often do things like self-medicate and commit suicide. We have medications to help deal with such people. But what about people who are insufferably cheerful? Being too happy too often, like being too sad too often, is obviously unhealthy. On both sides of the Atlantic there is a strenuous War on Melancholy. I would lobby my government to to start a new war- a War on Exuberance.  I think we need to erase the stigma of getting chirpy people help.

I think you have no right to dictate to people. What exactly is wrong with people being happy? Apparently there isnt enought depression in the world- go figure.

Is this some negative freedom from happy people thing?

24

Just Chat! / Re: Do we have a collective mind?

« on: 10/02/2017 02:20:34 »

You know you made three topics for the same question?

This guy says yes

25

General Science / Re: Can terrorism activity trigger our collective consciousness?

« on: 10/02/2017 02:17:41 »

The Quebec terrorist attack has affected my collective consciousness.

How do you know?

Might be good to explain what you mean by collective consciousness, I mean how can it be "Yours" if its collective?

I felt sad about how one can radicalise itself to commit violent acts on its own people. 

Can terrorism activity provoke a strong emotional response to awaken the "collective consciousness"?

Interesting I saw a little film the other day that suggested that 9-11 was carried out inorder to wake everyone up.

8,20 - on.

Or can the medias amplify the phenomenon?

Of feeling sad about an attack- Sure if you dont know, if the media didnt tell you, then naturally you wouldnt. 

Do we have a "collective mind" and is this evidence of brain-to-brain connectivity ?

Michael Persinger on No More Secrets

26

New Theories / Re: Difference between nonconformism and anarchism

« on: 10/02/2017 02:01:30 »

A nonconformist is someone who reject society but respect authority. An anarchist have no respect for authority
and civic values. A free thinker is by definition a nonconformist.

Is there a question here?

27

Just Chat! / Re: Was faking of tempreture data about global warming, a Malthusian project?

« on: 10/02/2017 00:11:39 »

...Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

Try telling that to the Aussies ...

"It's so hot in Australia that they've had to use purple on their weather maps"

The independent- really? Itīs like the most Fake news newspaper I know of.

28

Just Chat! / Re: Was faking of tempreture data about global warming, a Malthusian project?

« on: 10/02/2017 00:09:55 »

So we have seen in the news recently that scientist have been faking the tempreture data make it look like the planet was getting hotter.

Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

If all true- could this have been an Malthusian agenda to prevent the populations of the earth from preparing?

NASA Scientist John L. Casey Warns of the Coming Cold Crisis 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQanWtkSDHEhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

It doesn't make any sense to assume that one bloke (especially writing to the Torygraph) is right and all the other scientists are wrong.

Well itīs not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree.

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux

Maunder Minimum:Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in 2030, scientists warns

So why are you even asking the question?

I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse and scientists have been faking the data- yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance.

So its a question about wether that has been done on purpose, if we come into a mini Ice age crops are going to fail. Currently the main stream are panicing about Warming, when its possible the planet is going in the other direction- So I ponder and ask if people think that might be a conspiracy- there has clearly been an conspiracy about Warming, I just ponder if itīs a bigger conspiracy then simply people looking for funds.

29

Just Chat! / Re: Was faking of tempreture data about global warming, a Malthusian project?

« on: 09/02/2017 23:59:21 »

Science advances by scepticism and revolution, not  consensus.

Yeah I have seen this repeatdly stated by scientists that do not agree with the claims made about Global warming, Ofcourse by making those Claims the scientific consensus community attack them.

When people "adjust" other people's data to fit their hypotheses, it may be called fraud, deception, politics, propaganda....anything except science. One day, anthropogenic global warming may be cast onto the same intellectual midden as caloric, aether and phlogiston.  Meanwhile, if it is going to survive even the teensiest test of scientific plausibility, it will have to start making some accurate predictions and stop fiddling with the facts.

Well apparently they have not simply been fiddling with the tempreture data, they have also been fiddling with the models to garentee they project highier tempretures.  Discussed here ans stated by Lord Monckton:-

But even before that, someone is going to have to define global mean temperature and explain how it is and will be measured, by an absolutely consistent method. 

Is that even possible?

Failing that, I will have to publish my groundbreaking and politically convenient hypothesis. Hair loss causes ageing.  There is a clear correlation between male pattern baldness and age. This has been demonstrated with masses of (adjusted) historic data and the consensus is 110%. Cutting hair reduces the amount on your head. This is known as anthropogenic hair loss and is clearly responsible for premature death.  We must take action now.  I propose a barber tax.

Thatīs an interesting theory. How are the Barder tax monies to be spent? And could the whole idea just cause a hairy population explosion.   

30

Just Chat! / Was faking of temperature data about global warming a Malthusian project?

« on: 08/02/2017 21:49:19 »

So we have seen in the news recently that scientist have been faking the tempreture data make it look like the planet was getting hotter.

Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

If all true- could this have been an Malthusian agenda to prevent the populations of the earth from preparing?

NASA Scientist John L. Casey Warns of the Coming Cold Crisis 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQanWtkSDHEhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

31

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 07/02/2017 22:51:27 »

So what does everyone think about this:-

"The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

32

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 07/02/2017 22:41:57 »

Clandestine geoengineering activity seems to have intensified since Bush/Obama were elected. What do you think Trump is going to do? Is a reform of the CIA possible to prohibit geoengineering?

They had this very discussion:- Alex Jones on the Joe show
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhueGQHTU-o

That's not a discussion, it's a rant.
There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence involved- just some DJ's uninformed opinion.

Until someone actually shows that there is any actual geoengineering happening, there's no real point in this thread.
Trump's opinion of it will be the same as it is of everything else: "Can I get votes out of this?"

  there is no rant there.

This is a RANT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGgN-uk5o9w

Although I perfer this one:-

33

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why do I weigh less after a shower?

« on: 07/02/2017 22:18:24 »

Jolly, I repeated your experiment with a hot plate and a cool one and the hot one certainly hit the ground first

Interesting isnt it- Probably because mass and energy- by adding heat you are adding energy, so the object therefore has more weight or more energy. Things are slightly heavier when you touch them

34

Just Chat! / Re: Did the US Government plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks?

« on: 07/02/2017 22:12:46 »

"15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition"
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/#eD5z0sA5RIYqmMRU.99

35

The Environment / Re: Fukushima:- How bad is the current situation? and what can be done to solve it?

« on: 07/02/2017 22:08:27 »

"Meltdown" means exactly what it says. It is as irrecoverable as  a radioactive omelette.

Yeah and there are three, Question is what can be done to prevent any futher radiation release? Apparently they plan to bury the whole area after they have removed all the fuel from the ponds, and then cleaned up the rest of the area. Although some of the fuel rods apparently started to melt in reactor four after when the power went out, So some of those rods are damaged.   

36

The Environment / Fukushima:- How bad is the current situation? and what can be done to solve it?

« on: 07/02/2017 01:00:53 »

Fukushima:- How bad is the current situation? and what can be done to solve it?

So there was this article in the Guardian:- Friday 3 February 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown

"The facility’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said atmospheric readings as high as 530 sieverts an hour had been recorded inside the containment vessel of reactor No 2"

We know today that all three working reactors, went into full meltdown and it is too dangerous to go near them, so they do not actually know what is happening with the melted fuel inside those reactors.

Any thoughts or comments?

37

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why do I weigh less after a shower?

« on: 04/02/2017 02:54:51 »

Donald Edward  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
I've noticed that if I weigh myself before and after my morning shower
(or bath), I always weigh LESS after the shower (or bath), whether it's
a short or long shower, hot or tepid.  As far as I'm concerned, I should
weigh more after a shower, since my body should have retained some
moisture. I originally weighed myself before and after to see if the
moisture would be apparent in my weight, but once I noticed that I would
consistently get two different measurements, it became impossible to
weigh myself only once, I always weight myself before and after, and the
after reading is ALWAYS less.

I Googled for this and found a lot of other people with exactly the
same question, and I've read a lot of silly explanations.  I don't urinate
in the shower, I don't wash off 1 pound of dirty and I'm not a hot air
balloon, so I don't believe I weigh less because I am hotter.

I have an "electronic" scale with a glass surface located 2 rooms
away from the shower.

I have the same mass after the shower, the only difference being
that I contain a little more outer moisture and, my body outer
skin should conduct more electricity, but I can't see how that
would affect the scale's reading of my weight.

Aside from the fact that you probably think I'm a little crazy, would
you have an explanation for this phenomenon ?

Thank you for your time.

Donald Edward.
What do you think?

Well you do loose dead skin, hair and dirt during a shower, so there would just with that, be some loss, a minimal one.

Still heat probably does change weight because atoms vibrate more when they are hot compared to when they are cold. 

I once did an experiment with two chocolate bars dropping them at the same time- the one heated fell faster.

38

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 04/02/2017 02:31:58 »

Clandestine geoengineering activity seems to have intensified since Bush/Obama were elected. What do you think Trump is going to do? Is a reform of the CIA possible to prohibit geoengineering?

They had this very discussion:- Alex Jones on the Joe show
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhueGQHTU-o

39

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 31/01/2017 21:39:40 »

Alex Jones on Trump apparently maybe yeah, but Alex does now have a contract to sell pentagon stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZaD-H_j3pU

40

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 31/01/2017 21:14:07 »

Clandestine geoengineering activity seems to have intensified since Bush/Obama were elected. What do you think Trump is going to do? Is a reform of the CIA possible to prohibit geoengineering?

Apparently Trump is a Big Alex Jones fan and a 9-11 truther- So maybe he also believes in the whole chemtrial thingy(whatever that is); But, I doubt heīll be able to do that much about the CIA, he might try, it was afterall the CIA that drove the Russian hacking story. But that is all basically because too many big military corporations and the CIA also have a vested interests in keeping tencions between Russia and America high, so they can sell arms to Poland along with the other nations in the area.

All in all I have no idea what Trump will do about chemtrials or the CIA involvement in it- if there even is any: Surely it would be the Air force more then the CIA. JFK tried to destroy the CIA, but I dont think Trump will.