Trivia is the plural of trivium Wikipedia

Tiglet, having seen your trivia posts, my son could run rings round you

Second thoughts, it would be wasting your time on trivia. Keep up the good work that you are renowed for.

Go on Michael, I would love it. have a go please. Treat it as a challenge. I have always admired your work here, but this might be a journey too far!

Michael, It grieves we that we lost our human rights to an unelected beurocracy many years ago.

That is a very shallow answer tiglet, flippant at best.

And I always thought that my CP was my own space. Oh to the death of privacy and civil liberties.

Just a couple of arguements to throw into the melting pot.

PEER REVIEW Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts. Peer review is often assumed to be a purification process. There is no such thing as purifying science. Scientific knowledge must continually evolve. Like all truth, no one can arbitrate it; it must speak for itself through the evidence. There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process. Prior criticism is always of value. But the author has to decide what to do with it. Imposing thought onto someone is a guaranteed corruption. The purpose of review should not be to determine fact. Three scientists cannot determine fact for two million others. What should replace peer review is letting editors decide what to publish based on guidelines which are openly and accountably created. Editors don't need to look at technical details. Let all of the scientists evaluate the technicalities instead of three. There is a natural inclination to review and criticize any document before it is published. Everything from fiction to news is handled that way. And it is censorship which restricts all forms of publishing to fit in some type of box. In industry, the owner has a right to do that. But there is no owner for science. Its product is supposed to be an evolving truth which does not fit into a subjective box. Therefore, the reviewing should be limited to suggestions, not a shaping and controlling process. After the suggestions, let scientists include their errors with their worth, particularly since there is seldom agreement as to what is error and what is worth in science. Scientists are so intimidated that they cannot oppose official corruptions in science. One of the main causes is peer review. If peer review were open and accountable, there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity. There is no place for secrecy in science after the research is done. A laboratory needs some protection from interference while it is working through the challenges, but the evaluation process cannot produce truth through secrecy and unaccountability. You might assume that there are no official errors in science. Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it. There is nothing in science entirely free from errors, while a culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed. Relativity was the most obvious and extreme example. It was imposed upon physicists, and none were allowed to dissent, as explained on other pages. A recent parallel in biology is prion proteins as the supposed cause of Scrapies-like diseases. But unlike physics, the evidence in biology is far more available and less abstract. So prions are a much more open defiance of principles and standards. Prion promoters say or imply that the laws of natural selection can be contradicted on the basis of their junk science research. Debunkers of corruption say no one conspires such things. So an explanation of how it works is necessary. The first fact involved is that science research is extremely demanding, because the unknown does not easily yield information to technological gimmickry. The second most significant fact is that there is an extreme deficiency of abstract understanding among the world's elites including scientists. They do stupid things and make stupid statements which conflict with everything they are suppose to know on the subject. They react by demanding that no one question their errors. That demand becomes a rule for power elites in all areas. Scratch each others backs and never oppose the group, or the result is to get shoved out. In science the result is that errors keep getting compounded, while a pretense of normalcy is maintained. Scientists talk around obvious corruptions, as if they could not see an elephant in a bathtub. Ultimately, there has to be external accountability for corruptions. In science, the public needs to be creating accountability through criticism. There is a general assumption that peer review improves publications. Supposedly, deficiencies are corrected, and wording is clarified. It's a pipe dream. Purifying is how complex results are destroyed. It's like redesigning an elm tree or improving the Edsil. It isn't an elm tree or Edsil afterwards. The mentality seems to be developed when students are writing term papers. They quote publications as being fact. So science publications are supposedly quotable fact. They never are. The pretense of fact destroys the process of evolving knowledge. Having two or three experts modify someone else's work assumes that research should be perfected before being presented to everyone else. So the rest of the scientists have two or three persons doing their evaluating for them. Scientists are all supposed to be capable of doing their own evaluating. Scientists need to see the deficiencies as well as the value in research. Because of these forces, there has been a devolution of science publications from a complete description with specifics to something resembling a news article or propaganda sheet. The specifics and details are gone, and all one sees is rehashed opinions. There is no constructive form that peer review could take. Science publications should use their professional staff, which they already have, to evaluate basic standards only. All of the rest of the limitations need to be visible to everyone. Addendum In the arguments over global warming, some persons, such as Monbiot, take the position that if it is not peer reviewed science, it is not relevant to the subject. Since the IPCC represents the peer reviewed science, no one can question the IPCC conclusion that humans are causing global warming. Monbiot's claim that if it is not peer reviewed, it is not science, is an arbitrary and useless way to define science, because science hasn't address many of the questions that people need to address in life. Science cannot prove that water is wet (or anything else), yet people need to know that it is. And science has become at least as corrupt as any power structure in society, which means everything about it needs to be criticized. To eliminate external criticism of science by pretending that peer review purifies science is about the functional equivalent of preventing anyone from questioning Hitler's power. Nothing is supposed to be above external criticism; and the tendency of the public to not criticize science is one of the main reasons why it has become so corrupt. Then, no one with half a brain would define science in terms of peer review. Science is a method of proceeding and a standard which shows evidence for basic questions. Peer review is nothing but an extremely questionable method of publishing. Science needs to be criticized through rationality based on objective reality by nonscientists as well as scientists. To replace rationality with peer review is an extremely debased method of railroading fraud onto society. Perhaps the ultimate, most basic, reason why the claim of peer review is a fraud is because no one can completely represent someone else's reality, and certainly not ill informed persons. It's like the pope determining morality for everyone else. How do you ask the pope if it is moral to cut trees for an oil well, or anything else in question? The persons who shout peer review can't spell the word science, and yet they speak for peer reviewed scientists.

Call it propaganda, not science The IPCC is controlled by political hacks who override the scientists with a predetermined agenda. Calling it science is a fraud upon the public. Tom V. Segalstad: Oceans Regulate CO2. "The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible. Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2. See Global Dynamic page. This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements... Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process. In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world." Original Source of Segalstad's Criticisms Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, calls for abolishing the IPCC. Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case. The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens. I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157. I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles. Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition. The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed. Original Article by Gray Have you ever seen anyone quote the IPCC—the official source—the first, last and only word on the subject allowed by propagandists? It never happens, because the IPCC reports were written as muddled, irrelevant, superficial, opinionated blather with no mention of specifics or relevant evidence, so everything must be based on black-box computer models, which other scientists are not allowed to evaluate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is supposedly the last word on global warming. Those who promote global warming hype declare IPCC reports to be peer reviewed science, and peer reviewed science to be infallible. On that basis, critics are attacked for putting themselves above the unquestionable word of science. But the IPCC is controlled by political hacks who reshape the science for their agenda. There is no place in science for arbitrary authority—least of all a subject as complex as climate change. Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, is a journalist who describes the position of the critics fairly well. He says, "To identify either the government-funded climate modelers or their political shock troops, the IPCC's panelists, with scientific rigor and objectivity is as unrealistic as detecting the same attributes in a craniologist financed by Lombroso studying a murderer's head in a nineteenth-century prison for the criminally insane." http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05122007.html On another page, he adds, "Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html But the problem isn't just the IPCC. The bureaucrats only paid for research which promoted their view of humans causing global warming. This bias is demonstrated by a survey by Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of science articles on global warming and found that 75% indicated humans are the cause, while 25% gave no indication, and none said humans are not the cause. It shows that grants were not issued to scientists who disagreed with the bureaucrats. Propagandists claim it shows all scientists agree with the official hype; but many other surveys show scientists do not all agree. Example of Selective Grants To promote a carbon dioxide agenda propagandists start at the end point of the science—drawing conclusions and picking numbers—and then work backwards to justify the results. They decided that there would be 0.6°C global warming at this time, even though satellite measurements show slight cooling due to increased precipitation and clouds, which reflect away solar energy. There is no way to trace down the logic of the hype, because there is none. Computer models are used, and they have no relation to objective reality. The closest thing to a logic is a scheme called an energy budget. If you search this subject on the internet, you will find as many schemes as promoters of the hype. The budget schemes are nothing but a stab in the dark. They show arrows pointing into the sky, and back to the ground, tracing a supposed flow of energy of myriads of origins. Basically, the energy budget schemes try to show how there can be a significant amount of energy stemming from human activity, when in reality the quantity is too miniscule to show up in the numbers. A common theme is to show as much or more energy flowing from the surface of the earth as striking the earth from the sun, and then coming back down from the atmosphere in approximately the same quantity. This number must be ballooned into a large size, because it is the only thing humans can influence. If there really were that much energy flowing from the earth and atmosphere, your skin would be fried just lying in bed. The amount of radiation given off from matter is strictly determined by its temperature. If for example, the earth and atmosphere were liberating as much or more energy at 80°F as the sun adds, so would every object in a dark room, including a chair or a bed. Sitting or sleeping raises the surrounding temperature to about 98°F. Matter at this temperature producing more energy than the sun adds to the earth's surface would fry a person's skin. In other words, sleeping in bed would be as hot as sleeping on black asphalt on a 98°F day. You would get "sunburned" walking around in a dark room. (The infrared radiation emitted by matter, and picked up by carbon dioxide, is invisible to humans.) Night vision equipment shows how much energy matter gives off at normal temperatures, because the purpose of night vision is to pick up that energy. A flashlight swamps night vision. Moonlight produces more energy than dark objects. How much energy is there in moonlight? Next to none. Normal-temperature matter does not give off significant radiation. So where do those energy budget schemes come from? They are nothing but contrivances in conflict with obvious science. Frauds get by with it, because they have the government grant providers enforcing the scheme; and on this issue, a large group of agitators forces the fraud down everyone's throats. Even if there were such massive amounts of radiation being emitted by normal temperature matter, it would not salvage the propaganda, because there are many additional falsehoods in the rationale. Every point is twisted and stretched for the purpose. And then when using the absurd quantities, they do not add up to a significant effect being produced by humans. Everything about the numbers is contrived including the end result. These estimates show that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. I explain how the numbers are derived on the web page called Crunching the Numbers. claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C 95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C 1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C 8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C 3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C 5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C Authority over reality is never used for any other purpose than fraud, because it replaces evidence. Honest persons use evidence instead of authority. Secret Knowledge Frauds always base their position on something which they claim to know but can't describe. You are supposed to trust them. Constructive persons always describe the evidence, or they don't say it. They expect each person to do his own evaluating. Why should a bunch of idiots who have never taken a science course in their lives tell people what to think about global warming? Do they know something others don't know? Hundreds of years ago, when there was a theocracy, and social structures were frivolous, a religious group tried to institutionalize the standard of secret knowledge and called it gnosticism. The use of secret knowledge didn't begin or end with them; it is the only way corrupt persons present a subject. They will not describe the specifics of evidence and logic, because the evidence and logic contradict their frauds. There is a constructive way to communicate and a destructive way to communicate. Constructive persons always explain. Destructive persons never do. The difference is in personal moral standards. You need to recognize the difference and demand explanations instead of trusting frauds. Has anyone ever explained a single point of the carbon dioxide fraud? They never do. Supposedly the IPCC has it figured out, and all you have to do is go along with their conclusions. If it can't be explained, it is a fraud. External Links: More of Cockburn on Global Warming Dissidents Against Dogma Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded Modeling is Useless for Predicting — Pielke Note: One of Pielke's critics who models says short term errors (as in the recent cool-down) can be expected in modeling, but the long term prediction of global warming is unquestionable. Previously, modelers were saying the opposite—that the short term predictions are the most reliable, while long term predictions are impossible. In other words, rationalizers will rationalize anything, and there is no such thing as proving anything to them regardless of how stark the facts.

Can we have a really controversial post that pushes the boundaries? 1) a rude joke 2) A lighthearted crack at a mod/ site helper 3) Your best cagbotted memory Keep it clean please(*well almost)

Oh and bye the way, I am engineer of 43 years experience. I do not fix my marine engines by consensus. I deal in facts not some new age witchcraft. believe it or not, I have to have a thorough knowledge of thermodynamics and chemistry to be able to do my job. The content of carbon, sulphur, and water vapour in relation to my job are reasonably important.

Thanks for the list. As much as I would like to use these names as evidence, the very fact that Wikepedia has been universally discredited as a source of reliable information, leads me to produce a list of names elsewhere. I will get back to you, when I have the time.

Will these do? Home - Global Warming Petition Project

This is where your arguement falls down. A true scientist does not conform to consensus. If this was so we would all still believe that the earth was the centre of the universe and the planet was flat. A true scientist will always push the boundaries. There are now over 500 well repected scientists that are questioning the kyoto agreement, some of who were not consulted on the political published document and profoundly disagree with it's content. Further to your last post huggles I have just read this article linked to in your last post and it seems that this article linked here has no apparent conclusion. Climate change: some basics

In the beginning (the 70's) Global cooling is bringing on the new Ice age. In the middle (the 90's) Global warming is going to dry out the world. In the end (early 2000's) Oooh it's difficult to argue with all those who are actually coming up with real facts. Ok lets quietly change it to climate change.

However the proponents of global warming/ climate change always conveniently forget to mention is that water vapour is by far and away the most prevalent factor in trapping heat in. When due we start banning/ recycling cloud formations. carbon is miniscule in comparison.

It would seem fair to me that if a person has been cagbotted, then an explanation should be swiftly forthcoming. A newbie cagbotted in such a manner is not going to stay around.

It's now official, climate change has been deferred. Read the reports,

What about DVD dave?

Keep going

I bet you both do

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

Couldn't agree more

WHY YOU SHOULD BE SCEPTICAL OF THE KYOTO CLAIMS: 1. There has been a natural warming and cooling of the earth during its evolution (geologic time), and more recently during the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age Periods. The overall warming of the planet over the last 10,000 years has not been caused by human production of CO2. 2. In the last 100 years temperature increased noticeably from 1905 to 1940, with little change in CO2. From 1940 to 1975 global temperatures cooled while CO2 increased noticeably. The lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature change is clearly evident. 3. Astrophysical factors (the variation of solar radiation reaching the earth), and variations in global deep and shallow ocean currents are in large measure responsible for changes in the planet's climate. 4. The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035 % of the atmosphere. As different scientists have commented, the dominant heat trapping mechanism is water vapour, accounting for 97 % of the so-called greenhouse effect. Moreover, it can be seen in the record of past climates derived from Antarctic ice cores, that increase in CO2 followed temperature increases, rather than preceding them, or causing them. 5. The arguments claiming man as a cause of Global Warming are based on computer programs that are incapable of modelling world climate: many of the millions of parameters can only be defined in ranges with arbitrary skewing. 6. Examination of weather disasters (floods, droughts, etc.) by scientists show no relevance to climate change. 7. Recognition of temperatures recorded by satellites and weather balloons show very minor temperature change in the last 50 years. As well, there is a bias in the geographical distribution of historical surface temperature measurements (so-called "urban heat islands"). It should be noted that the margin of error of temperature field observations is several times that of the average 0.6 degrees Celsius warming that has prevailed since the depth of the Little Ice Age around the year 1700 AD. 8. The Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) with its Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is often quoted as an authoritative source on climate change. However, many climatologists, including scientists working on the IPCC, disagree strongly with some of the conclusions issued in the SPM. It is evident that the SPM information is often political in content. The widely distributed and referenced SPM was compiled by UN bureaucrats that fails to convey the uncertainty of climate change forecasts of the panel scientists. 9. The Kyoto Protocol, by focusing on attempts to curtail CO2 at incredible cost, will not stop or reverse climate change.