[Marty Bonnar]

See what I keep telling you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7666809.stm

You have been warned.

cheers,
FBD.

[Bob_Huntley]

Martin,

I just read that in The Telegraph and I must say she sounds like a nutter.

The bit about Rangers and Celtic sharing carbon neutral something or other sounds like a Monty Python skit.

Bob

[Marty Bonnar]

Bob,
nutter or not, if I were you (and we'd all love to be!!! ) I think I'd be calling the clubhouse and having them move my favourite Vintage Ports, ehm, 'upstairs'
best aye,
MB.

[Rick Shefchik]

Better start practicing the American style of golf, Melvyn.

[Mike Benham]

How does something flat "crumble into the North Sea"?

And also interesting that the quote used in the title does not appear in the article, which I find is poor journalism.

[Kalen Braley]

Lol...this stuff is always some humorous reading.  Must be one of Al Gores "scientists" that got lose.

The global sea rise thing has been refutted so many times, its not even worth my effort to post all the real scientific links here.

[Ian Andrew]

I wrote this comment of Geoff's site:

I don't deny that we are doing damage to the planet - but I'm having trouble finding an accurate source to understand the truth.

On one side you have the "business" of research and lobbying which needs dramatic headlines to achieve funding. They attract attention through doom and gloom scenarios based upon plaing with data in a way that a high school student would receive a fail for. Research says you don't get to choose the data that suits your arguement.

On the other side you have researchers who are paid by industry. They inevitably will provide any answer that their employer would benefit from.

Saccharine remains my favourite example of manipulation of the facts.

The facts are lost somewhere in between. Look at the data on ocean levels over the last 50 years if you want reality - at least that can't be manipulated.

I won't cancel my tee time for 2050.


OT - For those interested:

My brother was a research chemist during the attempts to ban saccharine. He has often the flaws in what was being done.

Many studies were performed on saccharin. A few showed a correlation between saccharin consumption and increased frequency of cancer in rats (especially bladder cancer) Others found no such correlation. The problem stemmed from the fact that some of the animal studies were procedurally flawed. No study has ever shown a clear causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks in humans at normal doses.

Concerns over saccharin's safety were first raised after a study administered huge quantities of the sweetener to laboratory rats that produced bladder tumors in rats. New research has decisively shown that the earlier rat studies are not at all applicable to humans."

Eventually the FDA formally withdrew its 1977 proposal to ban the use of saccharin. It's still banned here in Canada.

The replacement Aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety and the circumstances of its approval. Negative effects such as headaches, brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma. These findings, combined with possible conflicts of interest involving HHS employees in the approval process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the possible risks of aspartame.

For those who believe in conspiricy theory - look into who got this done - you"ll be stunned who it was.

[Bob_Huntley]

Ian,

I can't wait. WHO?

Bob

[JSPayne]

Kalen and others,

If you haven't read "State of Fear" yet, by Michael Crichton, you should.

I'm not saying the guy's an expert, but he appeals to me because he strikes me as an average citizen, just like you and I, albiet with the time to do the necessary research to look into such hot topics as this. His writing is not conclusive, but I agree with his ponderances: There is very little, if any, evidence of what most describe as "global warming" or "global climate change." However, the presence or lack of evidence of such phenomenom should by no means curtail us from seeking to find a more balanced existance with nature and this planet.

The book, if not a little hokey in spots, will open your mind to the non-mainstream media viewpoint and it's a pretty fun and easy read as well!

[Neil_Crafter]

The BBC have drunk the apocalyptic global warming kool-aid by the gallon and love putting out this kind of rubbish.
The sea level rise has slowed the last few years and the global temperatures have actually cooled since 2000. Reports like these are self interested alarmist junk and should never see the light of day, but the BBC and our ABC in Australia seem to love this sort of thing.

And Ian, don't believe the data is not 'manipulated'. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) puts out one of the 4 main global temperature datasets and GISS is headed by James Hansen who happens to be one of the most virulent global warming proponents (along with big Al Gore). The fox is in charge of the henhouse and the GISS temperature dataset is the most adjusted and manipulated datasets you could ever see. The original data is long lost below a sea of adjustments, most of which cool the past temperatures so that today's look warmer in comparison.

I'd suggest anyone interested in information from a skeptical viewpoint visit the Watts Up With That website run by meteorologist Anthony Watts  www.wattsupwiththat.com

He has his Surfacestations project that is logging the very dubious quality of the temperature stations across the US, and some from other countries. You will see the very poor quality of some of these stations that are sited in car parks and next to air conditioner exhausts. They have surveyed at least 40% of the US stations so far and less than 20% of these do not have significant siting issues that bring in temperature biases (mostly warm). So Ian, the 'records' are not what they seem on the face of it.

Martin and Melvyn, I don't think you need to invest in scuba gear for a while yet. However, the land where TOC is now would have been inundated at various times in the past during warm periods (ice at the poles has not been the normal state of the planet for most of its history) and been a long way from the ocean in the past during ice ages. So change is a given. It will go under again, just not for a while yet!

cheers Neil

[Rory Connaughton]

 Rumsfeld and aspartame. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Rick

Do you think that will stop us play golf in Scotland, you certainly do not know or understand us.

The real story is as follows –

If Golf is left in the hands of the R&A, this is what you can expect. Inaction, dithering and no advanced planning has resulted in the Members Toilets flooding, causing some considerable disruption to Melvyn Hunter Morrow’s afternoon game on TOC.

A visiting group from BUDA had been reported in the Lounge Bar a few hours before the incident.  The Environmental Agency is seeking this group in connection with their enquiries, as the R&A Stewards reported that large volumes of alcohol have been consumed on the premises. Police have advised that this group whose general disposition and appearance could be very dangerous, so should not be approached as they had been spotted in St Andrews last year when they were reported to have left a trail of Grandmothers in tears muttering words similar to ‘I want Bill’s Baby’ & Richard may be small but what a Lover. These poor old women are still undergoing physiological examinations and doctors are at a total loss to explain their condition. Apparently the only know fact is that The BUDA Group apparently have large bladders which if used indiscriminately can cause distress and is the major cause of slow golfing rounds.  Therefore the Police have warned the Public not to approach this group, but to report them to their nearest Water Installation Plant.

The Result of this flooding will be short lived as other Scientist are reporting that Scotland is actually rising now that the Ice Age has receded.

News just in :- Golf Course Designers are not to apply to modify the Courses at St Andrews, as it will be some months before the damage can be confirmed, however they should apply to The Links Trust for the urgent remodelling work required to return the Castle Course to arable land.

[Ian Andrew]

Ian,

I can't wait. WHO?

Bob

Rumsfeld and aspartame. 

Bob,

I'm not a conspiracy guy - but you can see how some may have fun. I knew this group would get this one inside of 5 minutes.

[TEPaul]

What is that French phrase that essentially means "After Me THE DELUGE."

I guess it's gist is---"When I'm Gone what do I care what happens?"

Well, even though I'll be gone in 2050, I do care. But if the eternal home of golf is swept away by the sea after about six hundred years one could certainly never say that's not symbolic!

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I agree, all that science stuff is crap. Remember what they said about cigarette smoke? What a bunch of lunatics? And fat in your diet, how did that turn out?  I think they were also the ones that said the color of your skin has not bearing on your intelligence. Oh yeah, that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Yeah, right. Where do these "men of science come from?"

Anthony

[Chuck Brown]

So that'll make Gleneagles a links course?

[Mark Pearce]

Now that even George W Bush has accepted that climate change is real does this thread prove that GCA is the last bastion of flat earthism?  There sceptism and ignoring the facts.  Really, really good sceptics can even distort statistics.  I'm no climate expert but when the vast majority of them (and even the ones representing vested interests of the oil industry) agree that climate change is happening, I'll believe them and not the silent, slightly loopy minority.

Of course whether that means TOC will be underwater in 40 years time is another thing altogether but then those that have read the BBC report know that this was an exercise in exploring possible futures, not predicting the actual future with an accuracy which is not possible.

Anyone buying property for the long term near sea level is taking a big risk, though, and I certainly won't be.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
That's your argument is it? George Bush has accepted it so it must be real? So which facts are we ignoring - that global temperatures have been cooling since 2000? Please don't go on about "oil interests" when the scientists that do believe in anthropogenic global warming are dependent upon government grants every few years for their existence - it's in their own pecuniary interests to keep that gravy train going. And there are many scientists, and especially geologists who do not agree with the "accepted wisdom". Please do not suggest that those who are skeptical of AGW are 'flat-earthers' as it can just as easily be said that the AGW believers are 'religious zealots'. Do you like that?

While it is understood the exercise that the professor (who is an accountant by the way) participated in was one of "possible futures" and not predictions, she still looked into her crystal ball and foresaw St Andrews under water, while she could have just as easily foresaw a future where St Andrews was covered by a glacier (again) and there was a land bridge connecting Scotland to Europe. I wonder why she didn't foresee that future? Because it would not have got picked up on the BBC that's why.

I'm sure all owners of seaside property are relieved you won't be moving in next to them!

[Neil_Crafter]

Oh, and there was also one other possible future that someone predicted - that Martin Bonnar and Melvyn Morrow were the new owners of the Old Course and were going to close it to public access and keep it open just for their friends.

[Kalen Braley]

I agree, all that science stuff is crap. Remember what they said about cigarette smoke? What a bunch of lunatics? And fat in your diet, how did that turn out?  I think they were also the ones that said the color of your skin has not bearing on your intelligence. Oh yeah, that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Yeah, right. Where do these "men of science come from?"

Anthony

Anthony,

This statement couldn't be more ironic.  Its the guys like Al Gore and these nutty professors who are putting themselves in front of the cameras and lights to get publicity in the name of science who are spewing thier trash and rhetoric.

Meanwhile the true foot soldiers are working in the field behind the scenes to get the real data and post thier findings in legit acredited and fact checked scientific journals, not running around looking to be the next dog and pony show for the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN.

All this stuff is out there to find and analyze, its just everyone is looking in all the wrong places like E! Channel and Extra! rags and getting mis-informed.

If anyone here is really interested, please take a look at this.  This guy has been studying this stuff for over 35 years.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

[Jason Topp]

Neil:

I have no dog in this fight other than accuracy.  Do you think Wikipedia gives a reasonable description of the issue? 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Kalen Braley]

Neil:

I have no dog in this fight other than accuracy.  Do you think Wikipedia gives a reasonable description of the issue? 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Jason,

Do you know where that data comes from?

The IPCC. 

Did you know the IPCC doesn't even do its own work.  Take a look at this, straight from thier site:  http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

So how does on validate thier findings?  Once again, straight from thier site.

When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content

They have got to be kidding right?  When govt's put a rubber stamp to it, its legitimate? 

Furthermore, despite all thier attempts to claim nuetrality and objectivity, they say on the same page.

The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

So thier goal is follow UN human development goals?  And who sets these goals?  What happened to getting the facts and basing decisions around the findings?

This whole thing is madness, and reflects very little of what the scienctific process is all about. 
 

[Tom Birkert]

A pound to a penny St Andrews is not like that in 2010.

I've done a fair amount of reading on this, and I'm a healthy sceptic. No one can deny that the temperature of the planet is changing, but no one can say with certainty what is causing it either. I also think it's arrogant in the extreme to think that Man can control the temperature of the planet like it's an air conditioning control panel.

The temperature of the planet has changed throughout time, and will continue to do so. It was only 30 years ago that the planet was heading for another Ice Age.

Quite frankly, the whole debate is not about science but politics now. The models used by the IPCC would not gain scientific approval in any peer review journal.

A very good book on global warming, and other such scares, is "Scared to Death".

[Jason Topp]

Neil:

I have no dog in this fight other than accuracy.  Do you think Wikipedia gives a reasonable description of the issue? 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Jason,

Do you know where that data comes from?

The IPCC. 

Did you know the IPCC doesn't even do its own work.  Take a look at this, straight from thier site:  http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

So how does on validate thier findings?  Once again, straight from thier site.

When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content

They have got to be kidding right?  When govt's put a rubber stamp to it, its legitimate? 

Furthermore, despite all thier attempts to claim nuetrality and objectivity, they say on the same page.

The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

So thier goal is follow UN human development goals?  And who sets these goals?  What happened to getting the facts and basing decisions around the findings?

This whole thing is madness, and reflects very little of what the scienctific process is all about. 
 

Kalen:

Here is a partial quote from a caption in the article you linked:

  "A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers."

I have no idea if sea levels are rising.  Nonetheless, language such as this undercuts the credibility of the article.

[Neil_Crafter]

Jason, so its Ok for skeptics to be called 'deniers' and 'flat earthers' but the AGW proponents can't be called 'swindlers'?

And the man who 'administrates' the Wikipedia entries on all subjects, including global warming (now called climate change so that all weather events can be encapsulated) is someone by the name of William Connelly - see below:

WIKIPROPAGANDA ON GLOBAL WARMING

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media continue to get away with their claim of a "scientific consensus" confirming their doomsday view of global warming?  Look no further than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, says Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of "The Deniers."

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.  But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

For instance:

Solomon attempted to correct a Wikipedia page on the global warming controversy that contained an untrue statement about British scientist Bennie Peiser.
Surprisingly, Solomon's edits were quickly deleted by site managers.
Each subsequent time that Solomon tried to make corrections to Wikipedia pages relating to global warming issues, his editions were eliminated.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others, says Solomon.  Wikipedia "administrator," William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see.  Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia's ideological biases limited to global warming, says Solomon.  There is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left.  Try out Wikipedia's entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

Source: Lawrence Solomon, "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming," CBS News, July 8, 2008.


Its pretty clear that Wikipedia entries on global warming all toe the party line - no dissenting voices can be heard! So Jason, no, I don't think Wikipedia gives a reasonable description of the issue, just a one-sided one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()