Nonthaburi: Man Caught on CCTV Stealing Sandals for Sexual Gratification

[Aussie999]

On 11/23/2018 at 5:51 PM, bristolboy said:

Got any evidence that "they've been testing this technique for decades on smaller scale."

The only link that  supports your contention is the last one which claims this testing is being done via.....wait for it...contrails. In other words... Chemtrails.

What's word would you prefer to be assigned to categorize the gullible and paranoid?

 

Contrails are not all "Chemtrails," many are also due to air pressure changes as a plane moves.

[Aussie999]

On 11/23/2018 at 7:54 PM, Dumbastheycome said:

I think you perhaps  meant to say  tropical  forests in Ant .arctica?

And  yes...warming/cooling plus  geographical  movements and upheavals  area matter of  demonstrable fact. 

What we humans  have done in the course of  less than 2 centuries is  to have decimated the  natural recycling system of  carbon dioxide at the same time as releasing millions of years of storage of hydrocarbons nature  put aside. To not believe that has not had a massive accelerative impact on natural cycles in climatic conditions in spite  of the obvious let alone the majority of valid scientific research  conclusion is denialistic. 

Even so if it is accepted  that climate change is occurring  rapidly regardless of human activity the fact remains that  it is becoming urgent  to make rational  decisions about  how to  cope and maintain 

worldly existence as we currently  know it.

At this point in time there is  no real shortage of food production  for the total  human population.

But as has been  for  decades  now  a  major  problem in the  distribution and waste of food. 

Climate  change is increasingly demonstrating the potential to  make food production in itself insufficient.

Not a pretty  picture for  humanity  when that  occurs!

and let's not forget, when there were tropical forests, in the Antarctic, it was still moving south from Gondwana.

[simoh1490]

7 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Contrails are not all "Chemtrails," many are also due to air pressure changes as a plane moves.

Not 100% so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

[Aussie999]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Not 100% so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

From the very first line "Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") are line-shaped clouds produced by aircraft engine exhaust or changes in air pressure

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, Aussie999 said:

From the very first line "Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") are line-shaped clouds produced by aircraft engine exhaust or changes in air pressure

Yes, which is why I wrote, "not 100%" because, the second line on reads:

 

"Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that exist at high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the engine exhaust from the fuel, including sulfurcompounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail"

 

The word "or" in the first line suggests air pressure is the cause where the contrail is derived from the wing tips, but where the contrail is seen from the engines the cause is something else.

[Aussie999]

5 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Yes, which is why I wrote, "not 100%" because, the second line on reads:

 

"Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that exist at high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the engine exhaust from the fuel, including sulfurcompounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail"

 

The word "or" in the first line suggests air pressure is the cause where the contrail is derived from the wing tips, but where the contrail is seen from the engines the cause is something else.

Then Mr know it all... how do you explain the contrails formed at the wing tips... I suggest you do not understand a very simple definition.

[Srinivas]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Does the government report advocate spraying sulfides into the atmosphere?

doesn't need to but we can comment on the absurdity of both in one post.

 

It's not as,if these alarmist reports are not used for advancing their projects.

Do gooder industry needs constant funding. Alarmist reporting is their marketing.

some extra curricular reading says they do make stuff up 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

56 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

doesn't need to but we can comment on the absurdity of both in one post.

 

It's not as,if these alarmist reports are not used for advancing their projects.

Do gooder industry needs constant funding. Alarmist reporting is their marketing.

some extra curricular reading says they do make stuff up 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember the original climategate story broken by The  Sunday Times. Ultimately, they had to retract it as mostly lies via selective editing.

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

As for the second climategate referenced in your first leak, the leaks come from an anonymous Russian server. No chance at all that they are cherrypicked or even manufactured, right?

There's nothing really new in a second massive cache of e-mails that hackers have released from the University of East Anglia's (UEA's) Climate Research Unit, U.K. scientists at the center of the controversy said today...

The new cache of 5000 e-mails (apparently 39,000 pages when printed) was released yesterday as a torrent hosted anonymously on a Russian server and is now available on a searchable database. It's being touted as more smoking gun evidence that UEA's Jones and colleagues working in climate science conspired to cover up data, engineer which papers made it through peer review, and, most damningly, avoid Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. But Jones described the released e-mails as "heavily cherrypicked."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/11/son-climategate-5000-new-uea-e-mails-released-jones-responds

It's built around 5,000 blurbs culled from more than 220,000 e-mails that were stolen two years ago from servers at the University of East Anglia.  These old and ill-gotten snippets were dumped on the world last week via an obscure Russian web site, and they've been showing up across the Internet ever since – usually devoid of context but embedded instead in blobs of paranoid fluff designed to portray decades of peer-reviewed research as the product of what one blogger called "an insular cadre of climate scientists coordinating efforts to place advocacy ahead of science, stifle dissent, and conceal information which detracts from a preconceived, ideologically driven, global warming narrative."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-more-like-climatefluff-3-12/#3ae049f52c1e

 

As for the link to the John Bates flap:

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

 

Bates went on to say he feared climate deniers would misuse his objections:

 

Misuse it people did – and how! Bates’ complaints boiled down to the fact that the paper didn’t have “a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures.” The Mail on Sunday (just banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source) warped that minor procedural criticism into the sensationalist headline “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” 

The story then spread through the international conservative media like a global warming-intensified wildfire - to Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, and more.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science

 

On Sunday, the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday alleged a seemingly juicy (if unoriginal) climate science scandal. At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

 

 

 

 

[attrayant]

7 hours ago, Srinivas said:

some extra curricular reading says they do make stuff up 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

 

And this is why it gets so tiresome in these climate change discussions with people who don't want to remember/admit to their mistakes from past discussions.  Both if these non-items have come up time and time again and have been explained thoroughly.  I suppose the silver lining is the fact that you keep repeating debunked "scandals" means you really have nothing better to stand on.  

 

Fact Check: No Data Manipulation at NOAA

 

The Republican press release was issued a day after John Bates, a former NOAA scientist not involved with the study, published a blog post that accused the paper’s lead author, Thomas R. Karl, former director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, of having “his ‘thumb on the scale’— in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus.”

 

[snip]

 

 

But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.

 

 

I look forward to you digging up this "scandal" again in the next climate change discussion, pretending like you haven't already been told it's nonsense.

 

[tingtongtourist]

why it take these "engine company" another 15 years for the technology??

its only 20kms up.

 

didnt they go to the moon 6 times?

 

if they had shuttles etc. go to moon and must carry the huge load of fuel for a return journey,

then WHY is this so hard? 

 

something doesnt add up.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic, troll and questionable posts and replies removed.