* Posts by David Robinson

27 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Jan 2008

Virgin Galactic tests laughing-gas powered rocket motor

David Robinson

missing the point?

If you want a point perhaps the trips could be used to test the rather strange theories about what is happening up in these difficult to get at and strangely behaved areas. It might be a good chance to test some of the more questionable climatic theories!


Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus

David Robinson


If conscensus is important can someone explain how the AGW fans with a 'conscensus' of about 2,500 climate 'scientists' are right when a 'conscensus' of 33,000 leading scientists have signed a petition saying that mankind is not responsible for GW? Even the select committee of the House of Lords, investigating the situation, stated that there was a "healthy majority" of scientists that did not agree with the AGW.

The AGW fans are very selective about their evidence. They ignore anything that does not co-incide with their beliefs, for example, that there have been periods if ice covered earth with far higher Co2 levels than now. Found in ice cores.

The only way of testing programs for accuracy is to 'predict ' a known period from the past and compare it with what happpened. So far the best accuracies have been 35%! Even for the best of computers, the GIGO rule still applies.

If you are going to propose some form of action that is going to cost vast sums of money and degrade a future then you need far more evidence than that supplied by a bunch of political adventurerers.


Fighting Thermageddon just got £1 trillion cheaper

David Robinson

Co2 101

If you are still reading this then I am relieved to see that you do not believe in the reflection back to earth as this was a great part of the AGW propaganda at one time. However, you mention heat being emitted to space, as it is. How is that delayed on its journey to space because it is slightly warmer? Surely the warmer the molecules, the quicker the move to space. It cannot be radiated down toward earth because the temperature gets warmer as you go down and you can only radiate to somewhere cooler. It could well be argued that Co2 improves the heat flow to space, not slows it. Where is the evidence that this happens or does not? Why does convection suddenly get slower when it should get quicker. I suppose that the seemingly mythical 'thermopause' was invented for just this reason, to make an excuse for Co2 to dally in it's journey.

I have used for some forty years infra-red Co2 analysers, even owned one for eight of them.

I have also used chemical analysers and even today can find no more than around 310ppm Co2 just north of London. Funny place to take world samples, on the top of an extinct volcano, surrounded by active volcanos that have increased in activity from the eighties (just like the world Co2 Is claimed to have).

David Robinson

Wait again

I am afraid that your contention is the basis of the misunderstanding. Yes, Co2 does reflect infra red but only high i-f. On an analyser you have to wait until the heaters are at bright red to get a reaction; lower than around 750-800 deg cC the signal virtually disappears and at ambient or lower temperatures is non existant. This is why, as I said, detectors and analysers have a red hot heater coil in them. Not many of those about in the areas of the atmosphere where all this reflection is supposed to take place.

I used the term reflect regarding the so-called re-reflection claim that has it that Co2 rereflects Co2 back to earth, an impossible claim because you cannot re-reflect heat back to it's sourceas heat ONLY moves from warm to cold, not vice versa.

Of course Co2 absorbs more heat than O2 or nitrogen, it is after all a larger molecule. Absorbtion and reflection are totally different processes. Absorbed heat makes the molecule hotter and thus to rise. In fact Co2 is a transporter of heat away from earth. The gas laws indicate that in the atmosphere all gases move toward complete mixing. Thus air as a whole and Co2 with it are, when warmed, transporters of heat away from the earth. Co2 does not hang around like a blanket, it moves with the rest of the air in a process producing weather.


David Robinson


There you go again, trying to kill the messenger because you don't like the messenger.

Do you really know anything about Co2 other than the nonsense behind the AGW propaganda? Well, one thing I can tell you is that it has no reaction to heat until it is subjected to high infra-red i.e. red hot, 800plus degC. radiation. If you took the trouble to look up things like Co2 detectors and analysers you would see that they all have red hot heat sources to excite the Co2. You don't think they are there just for fun do you? They are there because that is the only way to get a signal from the Co2.

As for the scientists involved, most of the climate scientists involved in this appear to have been those that were spending more time studying marxism at college than physics and are now trying to carry out their promise to 'change the world' at vast cost to the rest of us. The 33,000 scientists quoted have among them leading physicists that know how things really work and know a 'con' when they see one. To list the discredited 'evidence' in favour of AGW would take far too long as most of it comes into that category.


David Robinson


Why should we believe a crazy theory, based on misinformation, disinformation and downright lies? The 'science' concerned is based upon a view of Co2 that is in direct conflict with the basic natural, physical laws. The 'evidence' claimed is very often manufactured and is 'cherry picked' to suit.

The claim is that because something like 2,500 'climate scientists' believe in it that it must be right. What about the fact that about 32,000 'leading scientists' have signed a petiition that humans usage has no effect on the climate? Anything against AGW is ignored, never discussed properly and scientifically, but met with personal attacks on people and their motives, claiming that they don't care about destroying the earth, when in fact this is highly unlikely.

Theories are merely speculation without experimental verification with experiments that are repeatable by other scientists. Where are the experiments in situ witnessing the actions claimed to be taking place? Who has gone up to the areas where the processes are claimed to be happening? Who has gone to the edge of space and experienced these 1600 deg C temperatures? Who can explain how these temperatures can exist next to near absolute zero?

Who has been able to demonstrate that Co2 molecules at some unknown site in the air can reflect heat? (this latter being only possible by exposure to high infra red? i.e. bright red heat).

We have spent millions, maybe billions on people claiming this happens without any serious proof or even evidence. We are being committed to spending billions more and facing the destruction of western civilisation because of this stupid claim of AGW. This, it seems, is the objective of the people behind the AGW claims. The people behind all this are those who wish to use it for social engineering, or, the extreme 'greens', destroy humans altogether to make way for 'natural paradise'. Al Gore some time back was overheard to tell the truth when he said that 'If we did'nt have this [ global warming] then we would have to find something else'.


Lights out, Britons told - we're running out of power

David Robinson


It does not seem to be widely known that way back when natural gas was discovered it was realised that it would run out so research was put in hand to produce a gas from coal that could be sufficiently similar to natural gas that it would not be necessary to conduct another 'changeover'. I believe that it was successful and, if it has not been lost in the change of ownership it could be viable quite quickly (as these things go).


Pro-Heathrow demo challenges Carbon Cult killjoys

David Robinson


From the comments one would think that trains don't consume any power! Doesn't anyone realise that they consume electricity at around 12-15% efficiency compared with a modern car at between 38 and (for a diesel) 47%?

Remember that 400 tons of train can take up to about 400 people. But it still has to go even if it has only one person. It has to have a regular service whether needed or not. 400 tons of cars will take at least 400 people and up to 1600. But, most important, if only one person wants to go to say Birmingham from London, then only one ton or so has to be moved. There is also the ancillary travel to the actual destination. Unless you live in Euston and want to go no further than New Street, Birmingham, there is significantly more energy used than going straight from departure to destination by the quickest route.

Regarding the question of Co2 figures, no-one wants them published because they demonstrate the misinfomation, disinformation and downright lies that come from official sources, In around 2003 an independant survey gave the figures for all parts of the total Co2 production of the U.K. Among other things, Co2 from cars was a mere 0.5% of the total. The ridiculous figures being quoted by government and the greens Is after all major sources other than cars have been deducted, leaving 22% of a tiny part of the total. No doubt there will be screams of denial from the anti car brigade but that's par for the course.


Info chief slaps Met on CCTV in pubs

David Robinson


have been over 3600 laws and over 17000 new regulations installed by the Labour regime in the last 12 years. The government has increased its employment of watchers and enforcers by over 700,000,all well paid with enviable pensions. The government of East Germany went broke through their spying on their people and all of the communist countries were poorer and less advanced than the west. You wonder where all our money went? Heres part of the answer.


I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss

David Robinson

What about...

the real basis for all thiscontroversy? The AGW version has radiation from the sun hitting the earth , being reflected back up and re-reflected back to earth by C02. The 2nd law of thermodynamics indicates that heat can only travel one way.. to cold. Thus re-reflection to source is impossible, even less so when you include the law of radiation; it diminishes by the inverse square law, thus it can never be reversed to it's source, in this case, the earth.

Secondly, Co2 is claimed to reflect heat. it does, weakly, but only in the prescence of a high -infra-red heat source. High infra-red is produced by red heat- 800deg c and above. Below that, and at ambient temperatures you get no signals. That is why Co2 detectors have to have a red hot wire to get them to work.

Oh, and to the gentleman of 40 seasons, I saw and enjoyed the 30's that has been shown to be the hottest decade of the 20th century, in spite of Hansen's attempts to ignore this.

For those who believe the propaganda about massive scientific support for AGW among scientists, the House of Lords select committee investigated this and found that the 'deniers' among leading scientists healthily outnumbered it's proponents. Over 32,000 leading scientists signed a petition saying that they did not agree that mankind had any influence on climate, rather more that the much touted '2000' believers.

Toward the end of the 1980's a scientist, with his computer, forecast that by 2010, London would be drowned with the tube flooded. I know that it is not quite 2010 but it seems most unlikely to happen. Last year, another, or possibly the same one with a low learning curve, forecast that London would be drowned and the tubes flooded in 25 years. We have paid out vast sums of money on supercomputers and programmers but supercomputer or desktop, the same law applies...gigo.

As I understand the scientific method, one has a theory, designs and makes experiments to prove or disprove, said experiments to be replicable by any other scientist. We seem to have got no further than a highly questionable theory.


Stop'n'search gets touchy-feely

David Robinson
Paris Hilton

Laws-- and others.

Actually, this government has brought in 3600 plus new laws and still going. It has also brought in over 16000 plus new regulations, in order to bypass parliament, but most still carrying financial or penal penalties.

Oh, we do have a Bill of rights but governments keep quiet about it because so many of the laws and rules they make breach it and are probably illegal.


Paris because she knows all about being stuffed as we are.

NASA: The Moon is not enough

David Robinson


Of course we need space research! How on earth do we otherwise make a Golgofrinchan 'Ark B', already sadly needed.


Jeremy Clarkson tilts at windmills

David Robinson

Among all these letters-

I have not seen one at all that gives the real reason for the current silly situation.

Mr. Blair had his 'expert' advisers... almost all from the RTM union. The balance were one or two greens. The RMT group were lead by a Professor Begg, whose team are even now thinking up more ways to make motoring more difficult. Even if Mr. Brown were to want to be nicer to the motorist (and there is no sign of that) he would be unable to do so because the labour party is now almost entirely reliant on union and green funding. In short, the government have been and are being bought.

The RMT are aiming at doing a Scargil, i.e. get as near a monopoly position in important areas so that it can dictatate policy (communist) to the government.


Trousers Brown: Blighty faces 'food security' threat

David Robinson


From way back we fed waste food to pigs and got a good return. Pigswill was always boiled. Then, the government (naturally to save fuel) lowered the temperature that needed to be used and lo and behold we had foot and mouth that cost milions of pounds more than the fuel that would have killed it. Typical government thinking, but the trouble they caused means that we longer use pigswill, so it goes into landfill.

Bio fuel is no new thing either. 100-120 years ago one third of the country's agriculture was devoted to it. Then the horses were superceded.

Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer

David Robinson

@David Robinson

You say I have no knowledge of how the laws of thermodynamics works. I expect that must be true of some of the textbook writers too.

Many of those workers deserved to be scoffed at.In the mid eighties one climate scientist told us that by 2010 London would be flooded and the tubes full of water. I realise that we have not quite arrived at 2010 but I think that we are near enough to suggest that it is unlikely. A few weeks ago another climate scientist said that in 25 years London would be flooded and the tubes full of water. This is like Billy Bunter's postal order always coming tomorrow but never arriving.

The vicious treatment of people that don't toe the GW line is disgusting. David Bellamy's sacking, not for denying GW but merely for saying that it was perhaps not quite as serious as claimed. Not good enough for the inquisition. Since then he has put out a paper published in The Civil Engineer together with Jack Barrett in which he gives very good evidence that his view that GW is being heavily oversold is valid.

Bjorn Lomborg was insulted left right and centre because, he, an environmentalist had the nerve to point out that the GWs had got their sums wrong about the effects of GW.

We are continually told of the 'overwhelming consensus ' of scientists in favour of AGW theory. Their list included many leading scientists who had asked for their names to be deleted from the list as it did not reflect their views. The House of Lords select committee found that there was a 'healthy majority' of leading scientists that did not agree with the AGWs. Last week over 31,000 scientists signed a petition that stated that human actions were not causing climate change.

The numbers game was started by the AGWs but is against them. This is really a bit meaningless because numbers do not change facts.

The persecution of underlings by local bosses in the BBC for trying to report a story titled "Global Temperatures to decrease shows absolute bias in an organisation supposedly impartial and unbiased.

Oh, on examination a great deal of the evidence you talk about is erroneous and some deliberately 'fiddled'.


David Robinson

Why is it

that the AGW proponents can get away with a theory that contradicts the natural, physical laws? A key point of the Co2=GW theory claims that heat radiation is reflected from earth back into the atmosphere where it is re-reflected back to earth, thereby increasing it's warming. It cannot do that. The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics indicates that heat can only move toward cold. It cannot do the reverse. Since the law of radiation shows that radiation (heat, nuclear or whatever) diminishes by the inverse square of the distance then by the time earth radiation arrives at wherever your Co2 molecule is then it is less than its source and so cannot be reflected back.

As for Co2 itself, the reflective quality has been known for a long time and used in infra red gas analyisers and Co2 detectors. The only snag is (for the AGW's) that this is only aparent and detectable in the presence of high infra red, i.e. at 800-850C, which is why every instrument mentioned has to have a very close source of red heat to make it work. Not a lot of that in the sky! Also, on getting warm, Co2 and the rest of the atmospheric gases head off skyward away from the earth and keep going until they lose their heat. They do not hang around relecting.

I find it interesting that the AGW's always attack the sceptics with abuse, never with real evidence yet what they call evidence in favour is questionable or downright deception.

The real scandal is that they have such a hold of positions of influence that they can stifle proper discussion. For many scientists it is more than their job is worth to show or discuss anything that questions the " absolute truth of the message. The BBC is the worst of all here with daily pro GW propaganda and never allowing any evidence against to be even mentioned.

Climate profs 'can't recommend' enormo-space-parasol

David Robinson

Sunshade is a silly Idea.

I agree about the sunshade, but, while people bang on about greenhouse effect on Venus, they seem to have no idea that radiation follows the inverse square law and Venus is nearer enough to the sun to get it's heat without any greenhouse effect.


Blighty to become old-time Inundation Nation

David Robinson

Why are floods worse now?

In the thirties,forties and fifties there was an ongoing, thorough dredging and cleaning of rivers, dykes and ditches. Then came along the greens and said 'why are you spoiling our beautiful rivers by digging them out? They are much better left to be natural'. And the greens infiltrated the councils in the new environment departments and diverted the money that should be used to keep the rivers free flowing to painting masses of gaudy paints on roads (over the potholes nowadays) and to many other costly but useless council activities. So now our rivers will not carry the amount of water they should because they are silted up and floods occur much worse than they need to. Then, these green leaders get paid magnificent bonuses while their helpless householders have to lose their houses and live in caravans.


Lords linger over extreme porn definition

David Robinson


This is merely one little aspect of the changes in the law that have been made in the last year. Since Labour came to power e have had in excess of 3600 new laws and over 10,000 new regulations ( not even passed by parliament but devised by quangos.

The whole unsavoury process is to get rid of our law and it's presumption of innocent until proved guilty and substitute continental, Napoleonic code, a code made by a dictator, for dictators where you are always guilty of some infringement and may only ever do what is specifically permitted. What an unnecessary waste of life WW2 was for us. We have lost the freedom so expensively bought and are being broken up into divisions as planned by Hitler, when he had suceeded in invading us.

Utter madness?


'Extreme porn' law could criminalise millions

David Robinson

Remember where they came from...

While I agree totally with the anger against the loss of freedom we are suffering, don't forget that the labour party descend from the puritan 'roundheads' by way of methodism, a little quakering and a wonderful excuse (the EU) for changing our law and freedom (that we can do anything that is not expressly forbidden) to the european napoleonic code ( you can only do what the law specifically permits). This means masses of spies (wardens? who report to the police anything you do to the police;) (about that bit of paper you put in the waste bin etc) who then have to follow it up (burglars? sorry we're busy) surveillance every where ( soon in your TV). The law only works on the continent because the police ignore it until someone is suspected of real wrongdoing, then they can hold anybody for as long as they like.

The government are committing treason with their current actions but no-one seems to want to charge them. They know it and one of them let out the other day that the law of treason will be changed soon.

Don't blame me...I didn't vote for them because I have seen them mess up the country every time they took it over!

Al Gore's green job bonanza - can we afford it?

David Robinson

Re Climate models

Yes, they have...and the best have been between 35-40% out.

Give you confidence???


David Robinson

Al Gore

Some ten years ago Al Gore gave a speech. After the speech, when he thought (wrongly) that the microphones were switched off he remarked to a friend onstage " Well, if we did'nt have global warming we would have to think of something else."

This and his lifestyle certainly indicates a true believer! The problem is what it is that he is hiding behind the AGW front?


IPCC's 'evil twin' launches climate change sceptic's creed

David Robinson

Back to basics

I feel that the basis on which the Co2=global warming need a re-examination.

Co2 is claimed to re-reflect heat that was reflected by the earth back to the earth that reflected it in the first place. The second law of thermodynamics does not allow this. Heat can only travel toward cold. Some claim that a different wave length can. If it is heat then it cant. If it is not heat it is irrelevent. Even less, no lesser heat can accrue to a greater one. Heat obeys the laws of radiation and dissipates by the inverse sqaure law.

Co2 is claimed to be able to reflect heat. It can, weakly if the heat source is infra- red. If not, then no. Infra red is 800=C. There are not many sources of that sort of heat in the atmosphere. Infra red Co2 analysers and detectors all use a red hot source to cause the Co2 to reflect. No red heat no reflection. You can check the net for infra -red analysers and detectors to see diagrams if you wish.

Co2 is part of the air and diffused in it. When the air gets warmed it rises until it loses it at higher altitude when it then falls until it is rewarmed. It does not hang about re-reflecting. It is thus a transporter of heat away from the earth, not a blanket. This called convection and forms a major factor in weather.

The British 1992 Antarctic expedition brought back ice cores said to be 100,000 years old having signs of an atmospheric Co2 of twenty times our current Co2. in a colder climate. Surprise, surprise, it was little published or noted. Ice cores have also been found with very much higher still Co2 during a glaciation.

The climate may be getting warmer or cooler (the latter just lately) but Co2 has nothing to do with this.


Die for Gaia, save the planet?

David Robinson


One hears of stories of children at school being fed one sided nonsence about global warming and also about the "reason"; that mankind is an abberration on the earth and without mankind verything would be perfect like the garden of Eden. One wonders if this sort of teaching of children is responsible for the rash of suicides here and in U.S.


Pentagon in $75m electropulse blast-ray programme

David Robinson

Not only U.S.

Perhaps folks are not aware that there is research in U.K. on a smaller scale in order to supply the police with said ray to stop cars by blowing their electronics. The americans want to use it against their enemies, the U.K. against their own people! Figures though with this government.


Cloudy outlook for climate models

David Robinson


Timothy makes the usual AMG claims about the scientific support for people causing global warming. I would point out that, at an IPPC conference for leading world's scientists 3 or 4 years ago, after 5 days of talks given the conference was asked to vote on the motion that 'mankind is affecting the the climate'. The vote was 13% for and 87% against. When giving a resume to the press the IPPC reversed the vote, saying to the press that 87% voted for and only 13% against. Needless to say what got published. Would you trust an organisation that lied like that?

In U.K. last year a House of Lords Select Committee (they don't come higher than that here) investigated the claim that a large majority of leading scientists backed the gloal warming claim. It found that a "healthy majority" in fact did not believe in the claim. It also found that many leading scientists were very angry by being claimed to be in favour by the IPCC against their wishes. The committee also found that GW claims were illfounded. As Paul Reiter of the Pasteur institute said, consensus is for politics not science.

I have still seen no comment about the effect of the misleading data on climate models. No doubt this is yet another case where the truth is inconvenient and will be ignored.


David Robinson

Climate Change Programs.

In the correspondence so far I have seen nothing regarding the fact that all of these that rely on NASA data (almost all of them) are rendered redundant by the disclosure by NASA that the data supplied by Mr James Hansen, head of NASA Geophysics and friend of Al Gore, had made a mistake (?) in it's interpretation. As originally supplied the data for the last century shows a steady rise in both Co2 and temperatures. This was hailed as a decisive indication that there is a tie between temperatures and Co2 with Co2 causing the rise. The last decade of the century was shown to be the hottest of the century. Now, NASA have agreed that this is quite wrong. In fact, the thirties was the hottest decade of the century and had three of the hottest years of the century. Now, the temperature line rises to the thirties, drops from the forties to the seventies from where it rises again to the end of the century, still not quite above the thirties. The temperature line diverts down from the C02 line then rises again. On the previous reasoning that would seem to indicate that Co2 does not influence temperature. To get round this, some (on the BBC) scientists now carefully state that temperatures have risen since the seventies (true) but don't mention that they previously had fallen and that they still have not risen to their previous levels.

Thinking about Co2, this is another area in the charge of Jim Hansen (f.A.G.). Am I alone in thinking that it is strange to take samples from the top of an (hopefully) extinct volcano (Mauna Kea?), surrounded by active volcanoes, in one of the most volcanically active areas in the world, on a site on top of pourous lava, and claim it as representative of the whole world? How come that I, 10 miles north of the M25, can only find around about 310 p.p.m. when 380-90 p.p.m. are claimed to be representative? And, don't anybody come up with the excuse that the results are "adjusted" or"refined" or any other story that allows any figures to be put in that the "adjuster" desires.

So it would now seem that we are in gigo areas with all the programs and prophecies that relied on the NASA original, corrupt data.