The climate issue

gkell1

Apologies men,the issues were meant to be dealt with on the science forum but I was kicked off the boards yesterday so this is a once-off posting to this forum.With climate change legislation ahead affecting many men working the land it is not altogether an issue that farmers don't know about but they are probably not familiar where all these global warming conclusions are coming and why it is all speculation and little interpretation.The scientists today begin with the idea that the planet is a greenhouse,adding carbon dioxide is causing the temperature to go up and that humans can control global temperature this way but no offence to market gardening,the planet is not a greenhouse and the inputs into a given year from many terrestrial and astronomical sources are extremely complicated.The men who are actually doing well are those who are relying on interpreting past seasonal records, what was going on with the solar and lunar cycle and things like that as opposed to these numbskulls who try to speculate and model climate using computers.

The first thing to know is that scientists doing the modeling of climate do not change their minds ,there could be an ice age for the next 20 years and they would still convince themselves that humans can control global temperatures through a minor atmospheric gas like carbon dioxide and that is all there is to it.The same scientists couldn't not tell you how long it takes the Earth to turn once (it takes 24 hours) or how many times it turns in a year (365 1/4 times) as the system they use is from the late 17th century and it is this system that is causing problems today.

When people hear of 'predictions' or 'modeling',and they hear a lot about it today as it applies to science,only really began among a group called the Royal Society in London and they call this way to approach looking at nature the 'scientific method' or empiricism.It really took off with Isaac Newton and what he actually did was try to force the Earth's annual motion into the calendar system which has 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days in it.Now the calendar system is great for predicting when a solar or lunar eclipse occurs as a given date but these late 17th century guys took it too far and started to started to imagine that the behavior of objects at a human level was the same as planetary dynamics of the Earth so that here was the first instance when they went from interpretation to speculation.

Look,anyone who believes that scientists will throw their hands up and tell you that their models are wrong will wait a very long time and certainly not anyone's lifetime here.It is probably difficult for an interested person in the farming community to believe that scientists can't confidently tell you that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,that 24 hours of rotation is the cause of the day/night cycle,and that Feb 29th picks up the 1/4 day and rotation left out in non-leap years based on the idea that the Earth turns 365 1/4 times in an orbital year but I am afraid it is true.If farmers don't mind paying taxes on account of scientists who are having a lot of fun with computer modeling then fair enough but I assure anyone here that what is behind those models is nothing but misty eyed junk.

Again,apologies to this forum,as an Irish person who thinks these things through and has a talent for it,there is no need to be slaves on account of Royal Society empiricism and what is an amazing fraud that stretches back centuries,not the just climate issue, but the way these guys could convince you that black was white while picking your pockets.It is hard to condense a lot of history and technical issues into a few paragraphs but I hope people can see the basic points.

BeeDI

gkell1 wrote: »

Apologies men,the issues were meant to be dealt with on the science forum but I was kicked off the boards yesterday so this is a once-off posting to this forum.With climate change legislation ahead affecting many men working the land it is not altogether an issue that farmers don't know about but they are probably not familiar where all these global warming conclusions are coming and why it is all speculation and little interpretation.The scientists today begin with the idea that the planet is a greenhouse,adding carbon dioxide is causing the temperature to go up and that humans can control global temperature this way but no offence to market gardening,the planet is not a greenhouse and the inputs into a given year from many terrestrial and astronomical sources are extremely complicated.The men who are actually doing well are those who are relying on interpreting past seasonal records, what was going on with the solar and lunar cycle and things like that as opposed to these numbskulls who try to speculate and model climate using computers.

The first thing to know is that scientists doing the modeling of climate do not change their minds ,there could be an ice age for the next 20 years and they would still convince themselves that humans can control global temperatures through a minor atmospheric gas like carbon dioxide and that is all there is to it.The same scientists couldn't not tell you how long it takes the Earth to turn once (it takes 24 hours) or how many times it turns in a year (365 1/4 times) as the system they use is from the late 17th century and it is this system that is causing problems today.

When people hear of 'predictions' or 'modeling',and they hear a lot about it today as it applies to science,only really began among a group called the Royal Society in London and they call this way to approach looking at nature the 'scientific method' or empiricism.It really took off with Isaac Newton and what he actually did was try to force the Earth's annual motion into the calendar system which has 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days in it.Now the calendar system is great for predicting when a solar or lunar eclipse occurs as a given date but these late 17th century guys took it too far and started to started to imagine that the behavior of objects at a human level was the same as planetary dynamics of the Earth so that here was the first instance when they went from interpretation to speculation.

Look,anyone who believes that scientists will throw their hands up and tell you that their models are wrong will wait a very long time and certainly not anyone's lifetime here.It is probably difficult for an interested person in the farming community to believe that scientists can't confidently tell you that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,that 24 hours of rotation is the cause of the day/night cycle,and that Feb 29th picks up the 1/4 day and rotation left out in non-leap years based on the idea that the Earth turns 365 1/4 times in an orbital year but I am afraid it is true.If farmers don't mind paying taxes on account of scientists who are having a lot of fun with computer modeling then fair enough but I assure anyone here that what is behind those models is nothing but misty eyed junk.

Again,apologies to this forum,as an Irish person who thinks these things through and has a talent for it,there is no need to be slaves on account of Royal Society empiricism and what is an amazing fraud that stretches back centuries,not the just climate issue, but the way these guys could convince you that black was white while picking your pockets.It is hard to condense a lot of history and technical issues into a few paragraphs but I hope people can see the basic points.

There's no doubt about it:rolleyes:

The_Conductor

To be perfectly honest with you- my head is spinning trying to get to the bottom of what you're trying to post.......

I'm guessing that you are sceptical about climate change, and don't believe the modelling that is being used to predict it- however even this presumption is far from clear from your post.

Would you care to clearly and concisely explain what your position is on this issue, how your particular position is relevant to the posters of this forum and finally- why you feel its a farming or forestry issue.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

reilig

Would you care to clearly and concisely explain what your position is on this issue, how your particular position is relevant to the posters of this forum and finally- why you feel its a farming or forestry issue.

In 1 sentence cause I fell asleep an hour ago after reading the first 3 lines of what you wrote and I'm just after waking when the phone rang a few minutes ago

Also, you got kicked off the science forum and arrived in the farming and forestry forum. Is that like getting kicked out of one pub because you were drunk and misbehaving and then just going into the one next door???????

pakalasa

Right, I read you post.
Firstly, as the label says, this is a farming forum. Most guys on here flick through posts, either between slices of toasts at breakfast or while Eastenders is on in the evening. To be fair, it's a bit on the long side:rolleyes:.

Dont know exactly what you are trying to ask us, couldnt even find a question mark:D....and I did look.

Kinda got the jist of what you are saying though. A sceptic on conventional global warming theory. I wonder about this a lot lately with the extreme weather patterns we are getting, extreme cold this winter & 3 previous very wet summers. Maybe the lunar cycles do play a bigger role than people realise, Michael Ring , the weather guy in New Zealand uses these with amazing results. Older people near me swear by them.

Who knows?
Sh1t it's 4.30 , gotto go home and feed the cattle......

BeeDI

reilig wrote: »

In 1 sentence cause I fell asleep an hour ago after reading the first 3 lines of what you wrote and I'm just after waking when the phone rang a few minutes ago

Also, you got kicked off the science forum and arrived in the farming and forestry forum. Is that like getting kicked out of one pub because you were drunk and misbehaving and then just going into the one next door???????

Kicked out of the science forum and into the farming forum, is a promotion:D Well done to the OP:cool:

gkell1

smccarrick wrote: »

To be perfectly honest with you- my head is spinning trying to get to the bottom of what you're trying to post.......

To be fair to you,were I to hear a conversation between two farmers on some technical point of farming,the chances are I would be lost as to what they were saying even though it made perfect sense to them.The technical issues which I tried to bring up are tangled and complicated but I can afford to be looser here in this forum than a forum dedicated to the stupid belief that humans can control global temperatures by the cars and tractors they drive.

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm guessing that you are sceptical about climate change, and don't believe the modelling that is being used to predict it- however even this presumption is far from clear from your post.

This 'prediction' business had a beginning in the late 17th century by people who can't tell you how long it takes the planet to turn once in a day or how many times in a year,that is not an opinion but a fact.I don't expect anyone here to be familiar with the technical details of what went badly wrong but I give people enough credit to at least understand that they are having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Go to Paddy Power and you get the odds of a horse winning a race as the experts call it using the horse's form,the racecourse condition and so on,that would be roughly the same as predicting short term weather,predicting the odds of a horse winning the race 5 years from now is a mug's business yet these guys can convince people that their climate models can do it.The bookies ,like the weathermen,can only give a tendency for an outcome and many times it works,sometimes it doesn't but at least you get the drift.

smccarrick wrote: »

why you feel its a farming or forestry issue.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

I rest my case, maybe when you end up paying carbon tax or some other scam to 'save the greenhouse planet',you may understand that it is all done with smoke and mirrors.The climate issue is not the problem itself,it is only part of a much bigger problem and while a few readers here might understand the difficulty involved in explaining something that is really complicated in a simple way,I hope the idea that the main idea that we need people who can interpret things like climate rather than people who speculate about it as the computer modelers do.

Thanks for listening anyway,I felt I owe it to people who might be taxed into oblivion in future for no good reason.

irishh_bob

pakalasa wrote: »

Right, I read you post.
Firstly, as the label says, this is a farming forum. Most guys on here flick through posts, either between slices of toasts at breakfast or while Eastenders is on in the evening. To be fair, it's a bit on the long side:rolleyes:.

Dont know exactly what you are trying to ask us, couldnt even find a question mark:D....and I did look.

Kinda got the jist of what you are saying though. A sceptic on conventional global warming theory. I wonder about this a lot lately with the extreme weather patterns we are getting, extreme cold this winter & 3 previous very wet summers. Maybe the lunar cycles do play a bigger role than people realise, Michael Ring , the weather guy in New Zealand uses these with amazing results. Older people near me swear by them.

Who knows?
Sh1t it's 4.30 , gotto go home and feed the cattle......

that ring guy while having a pretty good track record at predicting our wet summers ( likes thats so hard :rolleyes:) hasnt predicted one of the last three ( yes the winter of 08 - 09 was cold too ) very cold winters

gkell1

pakalasa wrote: »

Right, I read you post.
Firstly, as the label says, this is a farming forum. Most guys on here flick through posts, either between slices of toasts at breakfast or while Eastenders is on in the evening. To be fair, it's a bit on the long side:rolleyes:.

Dont know exactly what you are trying to ask us, couldnt even find a question mark:D....and I did look.

Kinda got the jist of what you are saying though. A sceptic on conventional global warming theory. I wonder about this a lot lately with the extreme weather patterns we are getting, extreme cold this winter & 3 previous very wet summers. Maybe the lunar cycles do play a bigger role than people realise, Michael Ring , the weather guy in New Zealand uses these with amazing results. Older people near me swear by them.

Who knows?
Sh1t it's 4.30 , gotto go home and feed the cattle......

I don't have a problem with global warming,climate change or any other name they call that junk,I don't even have a problem how it affects your livelihood and those of your families,if you are happy to pay then that is fine.I actually did read a few articles this last few weeks which definitely made me post on this topic in this forum -

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0112/1224287328480.html

I do shake my head in knowing how the 'prediction' business works and boy is it clever,they don't even have to prove 'global warming' ,all they need to do is keep it in the news.You know those celebrities who make a living whether the news about them is good or bad,well it is something like that only the guys pushing 'climate change' their methods are more refined but they get paid anyway.

Good luck to you.

The_Conductor

smccarrick wrote:

Would you care to clearly and concisely explain what your position is on this issue, how your particular position is relevant to the posters of this forum and finally- why you feel its a farming or forestry issue.

gkell1 wrote: »

I rest my case, maybe when you end up paying carbon tax or some other scam to 'save the greenhouse planet',you may understand that it is all done with smoke and mirrors.The climate issue is not the problem itself,it is only part of a much bigger problem and while a few readers here might understand the difficulty involved in explaining something that is really complicated in a simple way,I hope the idea that the main idea that we need people who can interpret things like climate rather than people who speculate about it as the computer modelers do.

I'll rephrase my question.

Why do you feel that your thread here is pertinent to this forum, over and above other fora?

This is the farming and forestry forum, for discussing issues as they pertain to farming and forestry. You may, or may not, have a valid argument or theory regarding climate change, quite frankly I'm not commenting on it- but your explanations thus far are, quite frankly, irrelevant to this forum.

For this reason I am closing this thread. I am happy to move the thread for you elsewhere, if you PM me where you'd like it, and if the moderators of the destination forum are satisfied to host your discussion there.

Regards,

SMcCarrick