Metal certification falsified in Japan

No. Because its incomplete and ignores the cyclic patterns to assert its "warming" trend. If what it was saying is remotely true, we have entered a runaway greenhouse effect. We will in a billion years time, but that's because the Sun will slowly start to move off the main phase of its G class stellar evolution and its luminosity increases towards its Red Giant phase. The oceans start to boil away. (But Earth is screwed at any rate when that happens. We had a good run, but all things must come to an end.)

It also fails to explain natural climate change events when the polar ice caps froze and melted. It doesn't mention the Sahara being a lush fertile paradise, or explore the hypothesis that the Giza Pyramids were originally made by an older civilization that used them as pumping stations to irrigate all the vast farmland. (its fascinating, I suggest you read up on it) It doesn't factor in disastrous eruptions, or events that led up to or caused the Bronze Age collapse.

But then again, its just a webcomic. I didn't expect to.

 

Industrial policy was is and will be a domestic issue within the EU. The standard MO of UK governments of all flavours has been to use EU directives as little more than a fig leaf. To suggest every 'i' is dotted and every 't' crossed within Brussels output is simply wrong. Domestic industries (steel, coal and shipbuilding to name but three) were on the skids long before we joined the the then EEC. Regarding individual trade spats, these are as likely between two (or more) UK companies as between those from different countries, in or out of the EU. Perhaps I just imagined the long court case between Virgin Atlantic and British Airways over restrictive practices?

Regarding climate change, I'm not about to deny the existance of natural cycles, but to extrapolate no man made component is a leap too far. When I referred to publications, I was referring to scientific papers and journals which are consistently publishing report after report containing verifiable data all pointing the same way. Please don't assume I trust the broadsheets any more than the redtops. Short version, I don't. I'll stick with the science thanks.

Where I do agree with you is regarding Tina's abuse of statistics to suit her policies to massacre ... sorry, restructure (into near oblivion) the UK manufacturing sector. The info thus manipulated has been appearing in increasing quantity since before that one was an MP, let alone a PM. Unfortunately, she was (and remains) hardly the only politico to do that.

 

That's because it's just a temperature chart, not a history of the earth. I fail to see what the hypothesis of the pyramids being a pumping house has to do with climate change.

Climate change scientists agree that temperatures have been at the level we are being warned about in the past. The problem is not the temperature per se, but the speed at which it changes. It may well be that the earth is naturally warming up at the moment, but we are speeding it up to dangerous levels.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Yep....I got that too!

 

Yet another interesting and relevant thread descends into political and other arguments. Gentlemen, can I respectfully suggest that if you want to discuss climate change, the E.U., the decline of traditional British industry or the pyramids you open a new thread under New General Chat.
Ray.

 

It's a shame that this thread has been partially hijacked into an argument about the reality or otherwise of mankind-induced climate change. This series of posts ought to be moved elsewhere.

I am very tempted to continue that argument but it would be futile. People believe what they want to believe, take note of any evidence (however weak) that supports their belief and find excuses to ignore any evidence (however strong) against their belief. In the case of mankind-induced climate change there are powerful interests involved. Just remember the tobacco industry's decades-long campaign to resist restrictions.

 

Perfectly correct of course, Ray. With apologies to those sticking to the thread subject!

 

Let me modify this.
I think you refer to the situation when we extended our 600 mm railway from 3 to 11 km in length along a closed std gauge line (on a 200 k GBP budget). Then we had a few, or should I say one, neighbour who wanted extend his real estate to get access to the lake shore. In the following 15 year debacle he used all available arguments, and these are today mainly environmental, to oppose our plans. And he efficiently used media in this process. The similarities to the long term work with the Lynton Barnstaple are obvious. After the final verdict in the supreme environmental court we could start the rebuild and our opponent sold his property and in selling the broker used "the cute little steam train" as a selling argument.
After establishing the new line we have a very good relation to our neighbours and they use our line as local transport. Building companies exploring new residential areas close to Mariefred are insisting they want to pay for new halts at the railway with easy access for their future customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Östra_Södermanlands_Järnväg

But you have a point that we have to be on our toes and handle the new times that are coming in a serious and professional way. Because the times they are a-changing, weather we like it or not.

 

@Dag Bonnedal Well fought and well won! Our own Mrs G (sworn enemy of the L&B) and the East Suffolk Flat Earth Society would do well to take note ..... which they won't!

 

{Apologies to all for continuing the off-topic, but I must reply.}

Ironic that you should mention 'science'.

In science, we have this simple concept: when a model makes predictions, and later observation shows that the reality does not match the predictions, the model is ................... wrong. Climate models have been making predictions of rapidly increasing temperatures for over a decade now (starting around 2000). The actual temperatures during that decade-plus have been basically flat - way below what the models predicted. Those climate models are ........ wrong.

Specifically, it is basically impossible for the prediction made in the much-vaunted last IPCC Assessment Report, of warming of 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2022, to come true. For that, temperatures would have to go up by about 0.5 degrees C in five years - bearing in mind that the total warming from the mid-nineteenth century to now is about 0.9 C.

Which is not to say that there is not more C02 in the atmosphere (there is), that humans did not put it there (they did), or that it probably won't cause a temperature rise (it probably will). But it's not going to be the huge rise that the climate science alarmists have been predicting for decades now.

I don't want to take the space to explain why the models are wrong (it's about water vapour), but they are. Anyone can compare their predictions from 10 years ago, and see that they don't match.

Noel

 

Seems like this one was pretty close though. And doesn't that 0.9 figure miss out some figures from the Arctic, which has experienced more warming than the rest of the world?

 

If we're going to continue this one folks, can we please do so somewhere more appropriate? I've already found myself having to apologise for thread hijacking once today.