Gibberish Award

[jethro]

There's soooooo much nonsense published on climate change that I thought I'd open a separate thread. Feel free to post stuff from both sides of the divide, lord knows there's enough of it about.

Today I nominate this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

[Devonian]

There's soooooo much nonsense published on climate change that I thought I'd open a separate thread. Feel free to post stuff from both sides of the divide, lord knows there's enough of it about.

Today I nominate this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

Jethro, when the did definition of gibberish become 'something jethro disagrees with' . Can you explain why you think it is gibberish rather that label something as such with not explanation why you do that.

[mezzacyclone]

"Gaia" theory - sounds good to me,

Well overdue for nature to hand mankind a proper lesson for his greed!

[Gray-Wolf]

Can I nominate me?

I'm sure that there will be plenty of voters in favour of me winning!!!

EDIT: At times I feel I AM the old man in his cave from the Suffi tale of "The day the waters changed" ..........

........but I'm still not going to drink the water!!!

and I am truely at peace with myself (now) to know that I'm destined to live in a world of madmen whilst they treat me as though I'm mad!

[jethro]

Jethro, when the did definition of gibberish become 'something jethro disagrees with' . Can you explain why you think it is gibberish rather that label something as such with not explanation why you do that.

When I opened this thread

Lighten up eh, thought this would be a good place to dump all the non scientific stuff which gets published. Feel free to join in, there's an awful lot of sceptic rubbish which gets published too. We've a thread for the political stuff which helps filter it out of the general discussion area, why not one for speculative gibberish too?

GW: personally, I find it helps to be a little mad...

[Roo]

I think Dev has a point, to be fair: the New Scientist piece is hardly bunkum. If the temperature rises suggested by the majority of current research point to this as a possibility, then it's hardly gibberish to point out exactly what this would mean?

Gibberish is unsubstantiated nonsense like Mr Casey and the SSRC (whatever happened to them, eh?).

Fair enough to have a real gibberish thread, but if it's just going to be yet another 'I don't like AGW so it must be wrong' session, do we really need that?

Right, now I'm off to try to track down Mr Casey.....

Edit: Oh, joy of joys...he does still exist!!!!

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

http://issuepedia.org/Space_and_Science_Research_Center

[jethro]

I think Dev has a point, to be fair: the New Scientist piece is hardly bunkum. If the temperature rises suggested by current research point to this as a possibility, then it's hardly gibberish to point out exactly what this would mean?

Gibberish is unsubstantiated nonsense like Mr Casey and SSRC (whatever happened to them, eh?).

Fair enough to have a real gibberish thread, but if it's just going to be yet another 'I don't like AGW so it must be wrong' session, do we really need that?

Right, now I'm off to try to track down Mr Casey.....

Taken from my opening post

Feel free to post stuff from both sides of the divide, lord knows there's enough of it about.

The entire point of this thread is gibberish, a light-hearted look at some of the stuff which gets passed off as scientific and valid. If my intentions are going to be interpreted as "I don't like AGW so it must be wrong" then I agree entirely, it's utterly pointless. I have no doubt whatsoever that had I opened the thread with an article full of sceptic gibberish, it would have been welcomed, lord knows, enough of you respond along those lines in other threads.

Seems arguing is everything these days, what happened to having a laugh?

I'll pm a mod and request this thread is closed.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think that article is gibberish at all. It's just a lot of speculation which has some evidence to back it up- stuff that might happen, and to be fair to the writer of the article, it doesn't claim to be anything else. Note the qualifiers near the beginning, such as "it might happen".

If it is passed off as scientific fact, then that will be a nonsensical thing to do, but I really don't think that's what the writer intends.

For real gibberish, try out the Climate Change Conspiracy link posted by Laserguy on the other thread.

[grab my graupel]

At the request of the topic starter, this thread has been closed.

Sorry for any inconvenience