Stoner to be inducted as legend.

cliché guevara

3640141382092869

well...uhm...if you speed up the footage you can see theyre just walking around.


same thing as the dorna conspiracy btw, if you slowdown the onboard stuff you can see that marquez is no more talented than tommy hill.

Click to expand...

Dare I say it - this just made me spontaneously 'laugh out loud' which in an open plan office is never a good thing.

You all make good points and it makes for an interesting read. So we can all agree HRC will throw their weight about to get their own way and Dorna more often than not yeild.


We have seen Honda threaten to leave the sport on more than one occasion. I remember some years ago Dorna being held to ransom by honda. I can't remember what they wanted but i do remember them reminding Dorna the fielded 8 bikes on the grid . I also remember fans calling motogp "the honda championship" like we are now calling it the spanish championship. This actually backs up your points arrab in some ways. Honda pushed for the 800 formula and more than likely the fuel and engine limit rule. They also managed to force Dorna  to get dani on Bridgstones even though he was still contracted to Michelin. Ducati in wsbk also used similar tactics and threats to field a 1200cc. That like HRC forcing the 800cc backed fired when Honda fielded a V twin using the same rule Ducati brokered. This is the type of backroom dealing i'm talking about. Maybe i point the finger at the wrong people or their lesser players but it still begs the question. Who's running the ....... show ?

chopperman

3640191382107766

You all make good points and it makes for an interesting read. So we can all agree HRC will throw their weight about to get their own way and Dorna more often than not yeild.


We have seen Honda threaten to leave the sport on more than one occasion. I remember some years ago Dorna being held to ransom by honda. I can't remember what they wanted but i do remember them reminding Dorna the fielded 8 bikes on the grid . I also remember fans calling motogp "the honda championship" like we are now calling it the spanish championship. This actually backs up your points arrab in some ways. Honda pushed for the 800 formula and more than likely the fuel and engine limit rule. They also managed to force Dorna  to get dani on Bridgstones even though he was still contracted to Michelin. Ducati in wsbk also used similar tactics and threats to field a 1200cc. That like HRC forcing the 800cc backed fired when Honda fielded a V twin using the same rule Ducati brokered. This is the type of backroom dealing i'm talking about. Maybe i point the finger at the wrong people or their lesser players but it still begs the question. Who's running the ....... show ?

Click to expand...

Not the FIM.

michaelm

3640581382131618

Not the FIM.

Click to expand...

You got that right Mike :whistling:

Present here are some of the best posts PS has ever been graced by, thanks to Arrib, mickm and rog.


The points however whilst being masterfully constructed and eloquently published are also privy to the odd piece of serious conjecture to add mass to the arguement, which of course wonderfully highlights the various authors bias. And this is what makes it great.


Yes stoner is an enigma, of this he himself has almost admitted and most certainly created. Some high profile athletes cop a fair amount of derogatory remark from both the media and public alike. Of those a small percentage kick, buck and stir the nest, effectively placing enough feces in their nest that they have to fly away due to the stench. The other percentage suck it up, respect their lofty positions and naturally gifted attributes and use them to stick it up their detractors, so to speak. Max Biaggi was a good example of both of these, another enigma perhaps?


IMO Stoner is the former, 2011 was the year he experienced amazing success on one hand, whilst acting like a complete pork chop on the other. Of course he did stick around long enough to provide a little evidence of the latter type of sports person above also. But his very premature exit of the sport will always leave us with more questions than answers. How much HRC are really wanting him back now with another title in the bag, and probably the 1-2 as well could only be conveyed by them. A third full factory machine would have been an easy option for HRC to committ to if Stoner had hung around, and I'm sure now seeing the immanent ultimate besting by the rookie replacement, that they are happy to have not spent the extra.


As with Valentino Rossi and now even Marc Marquez, Casey Stoner will always polarize opinion. And all three do so mostly for very different reasons.....

Arrabbiata1

3640011382083648

A well argued response, this is why this forum has missed you.


 


I think as Michael alluded to, Casey was thoroughly disenchanted with the whole circus and was sick of being in the ring. When HRC want something, or someone, they tend to move mountains to get it...(not simply in metaphorical terms...look at the construction of Motegi). Had Stoner elected to stay - yeah, I'm certain it would have been a case of 'come in No.26 your time is up', for Dani - irrespective of his popularity in Spain. The fact that HRC were intent on putting Casey on the bike at Philip Island to Wild Card rather flies in the face of him being paid off as Spanish/Repsol conspiracy, which would have unquesitionably taken points off both Marquez and Pedrosa. The only thing standing in the way of Casey Stoner and a full facotry Honda is Casey Stoner.


 


My issue has always been this. The influence exerted by HRC is far more damaging to the sport than any vested Spanish interests and a few stickers deployed by (in relative terms) a tin pot petrochemical company regardless how massive a sponsor they are. HRC are far more entrenched and in the long term less transient in this championship than any sponsor.


 


We live in a 'cut and paste' society - people take snippets of information which they assemble via a collage of confirmation bias and think they have arrived at the big picture. On the subject of education - far from a formal or classical schooling, relaitvely speaking as Westerners we live in a democracy and are fully at liberty to read widely and educate and inform ourselves - and it is those that are widely read and additionally have the balancing benefit of wisdom and experience (irrespective of age) that I regard as being educated. My experience of truly educated people is that they accept they know nothing...or are always learning and thus have enquiring minds. Uneducated people - and remember I am not framing this in terms of a formal education - tend to think they know it all.


 


Regarding conspiracy theories, the moon landings are indeed a great example. What irritates me so much about its perpetrators is that they accuse those in opposition as being naive, gullible and dumb and taking things at face value whilst overlooking that the basis of scientific fact - which is available to anyone that can be bothered to do their homework - defeats their claims every time, which is why NASA divert very little energy to disproving their allegations of a hoax. the science or rather the conspiracy theorists lack of comprehension of this, speaks for itself.


 


Why spend time learning, reading, amassing experiences in life to develop an independent thought process when you can tap into the artificial world of the web? Afterall, it must be true - cuz the internet sez so.

Click to expand...

There are only two people on this entire forum whos posts I will bother to read if there are more than a few paragraphs of text....you and Sun. Articulate, thought provoking and insightful would be the adjectives that best describe your prose. Bravo yet again Arrab.


 


As far as conspiracy theories go I am again 100% with you.....whilst I love a good conspiracy I believe that maybe less than 5% have any credibility whatsoever - the moon landings being a perfect example.....that doesnt prevent me from enjoying Lexs posts which often have me double taking my own personal beliefs due to the thought process and intelligence behind his essays and the alternative point of view which he often portrays.


 


What I do find most disconcerting is peoples ability to twist language and pervert facts and evidence in such a disingenuous manner to "prove" their own case. Climate change being a perfect example - the latest findings of the IPCC had over 160,000 scientists from all over the planet either submitting or checking over all the accumulated data that has been garnered on the subject. Using scientific methodology and the peer review system, whereby other experts in the same or similar field of expertise analyse and check the calculations and scientific accuracy of these studies they have concluded climate change IS indeed a real threat. This data has been accumulated from meterological records made over the past 100+ years as well as other climate change criteria such as antarctic ice cores which provide datasets from much longer timeframes....as with all science the hypothesis are constantly refined and challenged as new evidence comes to light and better tools such as more powerful computer systems are used to analyse the data that becomes available.


 


At this stage it is with 95% certainty that they can make their claims regarding anthropogenic climate change being a reality - up from 90% certainty from the previous IPCC report. If a medical specialist stated you had a 95% chance of dying from a disease if you didnt follow his advise and receive the treatment he prescibed, would you instead prefer to believe a friend who suggests you can ignore that advise because he managed to find on the internet some fringe dwelling nutter who has a differing opinion about your current predicament - even though they have no formal qulifications in this area? It would be crazy!


 


In much the same way climate change conspiracy theorists, whilst accepting the science that gave them their spanky new HD quadcore smartphone to write their ill-informed drivel, challenge at every opportunity the science behind climate change using dubious tactics like cherry picking random data and at the same time ignoring the accumulated mountain of evidence to the contrary supplied by people who have been studying these very subjects for most of their lives.


 


There are plenty of examples of the same rationale being applied from some of the extremists on this forum...you could supply the most air-tight and well reasoned arguments along with a truckload of substantiated facts (as you have done in your posts), but when it doesnt suit their own personal bias and agenda it will be conveniently ignored.


 


Anyway thanks yet again for taking the time to pen your thoughts...it is much appreciated and one of the reasons I still stay in touch with this forum.


 


Cheers mate.

Talpa

3640711382141145

Present here are some of the best posts PS has ever been graced by, thanks to Arrib, mickm and rog.


The points however whilst being masterfully constructed and eloquently published are also privy to the odd piece of serious conjecture to add mass to the arguement, which of course wonderfully highlights the various authors bias. And this is what makes it great.


Yes stoner is an enigma, of this he himself has almost admitted and most certainly created. Some high profile athletes cop a fair amount of derogatory remark from both the media and public alike. Of those a small percentage kick, buck and stir the nest, effectively placing enough feces in their nest that they have to fly away due to the stench. The other percentage suck it up, respect their lofty positions and naturally gifted attributes and use them to stick it up their detractors, so to speak. Max Biaggi was a good example of both of these, another enigma perhaps?


IMO Stoner is the former, 2011 was the year he experienced amazing success on one hand, whilst acting like a complete pork chop on the other. Of course he did stick around long enough to provide a little evidence of the latter type of sports person above also. But his very premature exit of the sport will always leave us with more questions than answers. How much HRC are really wanting him back now with another title in the bag, and probably the 1-2 as well could only be conveyed by them. A third full factory machine would have been an easy option for HRC to committ to if Stoner had hung around, and I'm sure now seeing the immanent ultimate besting by the rookie replacement, that they are happy to have not spent the extra.


As with Valentino Rossi and now even Marc Marquez, Casey Stoner will always polarize opinion. And all three do so mostly for very different reasons.....

Click to expand...

We get it....


 


Stoner = bad


Rossi = good


 


do you EVER say anythig different. You are a ....... broken record mate....

Mr Squiggle

3640791382147869

There are only two people on this entire forum whos posts I will bother to read if there are more than a few paragraphs of text....you and Sun. Articulate, thought provoking and insightful would be the adjectives that best describe your prose. Bravo yet again Arrab.


 


As far as conspiracy theories go I am again 100% with you.....whilst I love a good conspiracy I believe that maybe less than 5% have any credibility whatsoever - the moon landings being a perfect example.....that doesnt prevent me from enjoying Lexs posts which often have me double taking my own personal beliefs due to the thought process and intelligence behind his essays and the alternative point of view which he often portrays.


 


What I do find most disconcerting is peoples ability to twist language and pervert facts and evidence in such a disingenuous manner to "prove" their own case. Climate change being a perfect example - the latest findings of the IPCC had over 160,000 scientists from all over the planet either submitting or checking over all the accumulated data that has been garnered on the subject. Using scientific methodology and the peer review system, whereby other experts in the same or similar field of expertise analyse and check the calculations and scientific accuracy of these studies they have concluded climate change IS indeed a real threat. This data has been accumulated from meterological records made over the past 100+ years as well as other climate change criteria such as antarctic ice cores which provide datasets from much longer timeframes....as with all science the hypothesis are constantly refined and challenged as new evidence comes to light and better tools such as more powerful computer systems are used to analyse the data that becomes available.


 


At this stage it is with 95% certainty that they can make their claims regarding anthropogenic climate change being a reality - up from 90% certainty from the previous IPCC report. If a medical specialist stated you had a 95% chance of dying from a disease if you didnt follow his advise and receive the treatment he prescibed, would you instead prefer to believe a friend who suggests you can ignore that advise because he managed to find on the internet some fringe dwelling nutter who has a differing opinion about your current predicament - even though they have no formal qulifications in this area? It would be crazy!


 


In much the same way climate change conspiracy theorists, whilst accepting the science that gave them their spanky new HD quadcore smartphone to write their ill-informed drivel, challenge at every opportunity the science behind climate change using dubious tactics like cherry picking random data and at the same time ignoring the accumulated mountain of evidence to the contrary supplied by people who have been studying these very subjects for most of their lives.


 


There are plenty of examples of the same rationale being applied from some of the extremists on this forum...you could supply the most air-tight and well reasoned arguments along with a truckload of substantiated facts (as you have done in your posts), but when it doesnt suit their own personal bias and agenda it will be conveniently ignored.


 


Anyway thanks yet again for taking the time to pen your thoughts...it is much appreciated and one of the reasons I still stay in touch with this forum.


 


Cheers mate.

Click to expand...

Kind of like this


 


Their theory for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;

 

povol

3640821382149178



Kind of like this


 


Their theory for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;

 

Click to expand...

The climate models etc are well beyond my current ken. Putting all the carbon/carbon dioxide/whatever sequestered from past aeons which hasn't been there for 70 million years or more back into the environment over a period of 200 or 300 years is a fairly major experiment by any criterion though, and to be sure it won't have any effect is at least as faith based as any contention to the contrary, imo.

povol

3640821382149178



Kind of like this


 


Their theory for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;

 

Click to expand...

This is exactly what i was referring to POV when I mentioned cherry picking of data...


 


 


As can be seen from the chart of climate records from the past 150 years the "prevailing upward trend" in temperature is undeniable - I have marked this in green.


 


The red bit and the 15 year dataset skeptics latch onto is indeed "proof" that the earth cooled overall in that small timeframe you mention....but you need to take into account ALL of the data...and that indeed shows the globe is warming overall - undeniable.


 


I have tertiary science qualifications which includes spending 1 year on a dissertation researching the effects of sewage outfall on the regression of seagrasses in our local coastlines and am well versed in scientific methodology - however I have limited experience in climatology having only studied the subject for a short stint as part of a science degree. I do tend to believe the experts on the subject but grant you it is extremely complicated and the science is not yet definitive with only a 95% certainty....still that is enough for me to take the word of experts at face value.

Mr Squiggle

3640891382152808

This is exactly what i was referring to POV when I mentioned cherry picking of data...


 


 


As can be seen from the chart of climate records from the past 150 years the "prevailing upward trend" in temperature is undeniable - I have marked this in green.


 


The red bit and the 15 year dataset skeptics latch onto is indeed "proof" that the earth cooled overall in that small timeframe you mention....but you need to take into account ALL of the data...and that indeed shows the globe is warming overall - undeniable.


 


I have tertiary science qualifications which includes spending 1 year on a dissertation researching the effects of sewage outfall on the regression of seagrasses in our local coastlines and am well versed in scientific methodology - however I have limited experience in climatology having only studied the subject for a short stint as part of a science degree. I do tend to believe the experts on the subject but grant you it is extremely complicated and the science is not yet definitive with only a 95% certainty....still that is enough for me to take the word of experts at face value.

Click to expand...

  What else can the earth do besides warm coming out of an ice age. They have NO proof,  its 100% swag based on getting their hands on  trillions of dollars. Everyone, including scientist are corruptible as we have seen in the last decade as they push an agenda that is debunked at every corner. They were caught for Christ sakes , or is that just being conveniently pushed under the rug.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen


This guy is a little more qualified



I think that the latest IPCC report

has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence.  They are proclaiming

increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their

models and observations increase.



Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is

that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.  However, this is simply an

admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between

the surface layers and the deeper oceans.  However, it is this heat

transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of

climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed

to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately

simulate natural internal variability.  Thus, they now, somewhat

obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.



Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that

the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being

nothing to be alarmed about.  It is quite amazing to see the contortions

the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate

agenda going.

Very true.

povol

3640971382157103

   MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen This guy is a little more qualified

Click to expand...

 


He has also said:


 

<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; article,<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif; <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;and offered more support in a 2009 paper,<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; article.<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px; interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."

Click to expand...

 


So, at least he admits when he ..... up, but it looks like a lot of his defence of his skepticism is based on a flawed theory that has been almost universally discredited.


 


I don't doubt he has some rock-solid research behind his theories, but as he himself has shown, mistakes can be made by anyone, no matter how qualified.


 

<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;"If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."

Click to expand...

 


If we keep putting back 50 years and 50 years and 50 years every time someone has a competing theory, we will never do anything.


 


I don't doubt that a lot of current global warming is cyclical in nature and man's influence is fleeting, but what this whole debate has done is to raise awareness and to focus on the huge amount of pollution we humans are responsible for and if nothing else comes out of it it should warn us and push us towards cleaning up our act.


 


You can only .... where you eat for so long before you end up with having to eat a .... sandwich.

kiddyK

3641131382159063

He has also said:


 


 


So, at least he admits when he ..... up, but it looks like a lot of his defence of his skepticism is based on a flawed theory that has been almost universally discredited.


 


I don't doubt he has some rock-solid research behind his theories, but as he himself has shown, mistakes can be made by anyone, no matter how qualified.


 


 


If we keep putting back 50 years and 50 years and 50 years every time someone has a competing theory, we will never do anything.


 


I don't doubt that a lot of current global warming is cyclical in nature and man's influence is fleeting, but what this whole debate has done is to raise awareness and to focus on the huge amount of pollution we humans are responsible for and if nothing else comes out of it it should warn us and push us towards cleaning up our act.


 


You can only .... where you eat for so long before you end up with having to eat a .... sandwich.

Click to expand...

That i can agree with.

povol

3640971382157103

  What else can the earth do besides warm coming out of an ice age. They have NO proof,  its 100% swag based on getting their hands on  trillions of dollars. Everyone, including scientist are corruptible as we have seen in the last decade as they push an agenda that is debunked at every corner. They were caught for Christ sakes , or is that just being conveniently pushed under the rug.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen


This guy is a little more qualified



I think that the latest IPCC report

has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence.  They are proclaiming

increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their

models and observations increase.



Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is

that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.  However, this is simply an

admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between

the surface layers and the deeper oceans.  However, it is this heat

transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of

climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed

to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately

simulate natural internal variability.  Thus, they now, somewhat

obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.



Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that

the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being

nothing to be alarmed about.  It is quite amazing to see the contortions

the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate

agenda going.

Click to expand...

There are a gazillion variables that need to be accounted for (radiation fluctuations from solar max cycles, oceanographic current data, greenhouse gas levels, natural climate variation etc etc)......this is why I stated that they are not 100% certain - only 95%. That is good enough for me.


 


No single scientific organisation on the planet with any credibility (NASA, CSIRO, BOM etc etc) are disputing the science and for every scientist you cite I can point to 1000 that will back the claims of the IPCC. I still have yet to read a single peer reviewed study that disputes the science - because to my knowledge - none actually exists.


 


Anyway you can believe whatever you like. That is entirely your prerogative.


 


Sorry to take the discussion off topic.

Looks like he has been discredited on many things he said....google is your friend ;-)


 


http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm


 


http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/04/climate-scientists-take-on-lindzen/


 


But I am sure I havent got a hope of changing your mind so I wont continue to try. All the best.

Talpa

3640711382141145

Present here are some of the best posts PS has ever been graced by, thanks to Arrib, mickm and rog.


The points however whilst being masterfully constructed and eloquently published are also privy to the odd piece of serious conjecture to add mass to the arguement, which of course wonderfully highlights the various authors bias. And this is what makes it great.


Yes stoner is an enigma, of this he himself has almost admitted and most certainly created. Some high profile athletes cop a fair amount of derogatory remark from both the media and public alike. Of those a small percentage kick, buck and stir the nest, effectively placing enough feces in their nest that they have to fly away due to the stench. The other percentage suck it up, respect their lofty positions and naturally gifted attributes and use them to stick it up their detractors, so to speak. Max Biaggi was a good example of both of these, another enigma perhaps?


IMO Stoner is the former, 2011 was the year he experienced amazing success on one hand, whilst acting like a complete pork chop on the other. Of course he did stick around long enough to provide a little evidence of the latter type of sports person above also. But his very premature exit of the sport will always leave us with more questions than answers. How much HRC are really wanting him back now with another title in the bag, and probably the 1-2 as well could only be conveyed by them. A third full factory machine would have been an easy option for HRC to committ to if Stoner had hung around, and I'm sure now seeing the immanent ultimate besting by the rookie replacement, that they are happy to have not spent the extra.


As with Valentino Rossi and now even Marc Marquez, Casey Stoner will always polarize opinion. And all three do so mostly for very different reasons.....

Click to expand...

 


 


Yeah but ....


 


Stoner is a legend


 


rossi is not.


 

Mr Squiggle

3640891382152808

This is exactly what i was referring to POV when I mentioned cherry picking of data...


 


 


As can be seen from the chart of climate records from the past 150 years the "prevailing upward trend" in temperature is undeniable - I have marked this in green.


 


The red bit and the 15 year dataset skeptics latch onto is indeed "proof" that the earth cooled overall in that small timeframe you mention....but you need to take into account ALL of the data...and that indeed shows the globe is warming overall - undeniable.


 


I have tertiary science qualifications which includes spending 1 year on a dissertation researching the effects of sewage outfall on the regression of seagrasses in our local coastlines and am well versed in scientific methodology - however I have limited experience in climatology having only studied the subject for a short stint as part of a science degree. I do tend to believe the experts on the subject but grant you it is extremely complicated and the science is not yet definitive with only a 95% certainty....still that is enough for me to take the word of experts at face value.

Click to expand...

You're correct about cherry picking data to support your case. The global warming / climate change are two different subjects  conveniently grouped together and debatable.


Climate change.. Yes the climate is changing but the big question is / is it natural or is it man made. The worlds climate has been changing ever since the planet was formed.


Global warming..  If you look at records taken from the mid 1800's it does appear our climate is indeed warming. Go back further in time and that scale will look quite different. A few years ago scientists recovered some 5000 year old perfectly preserved pine trees from a Scandinavian fjord . From these trees they could get accurate data regarding climate and temperature. The findings were that the planets has cooled some 2 or 3 degrees over the past couple of thousand years. The planet rose in temperature after the last ice age but these finding could suggest where headed for another. Also the plants angle of orbit between Zenith and meridian effect the temperature . This can change several degrees over time and is a natural occurrence but with drastic effects. as little as 1.5 can put our planet into an ice age.


Now the other subject which i believe is yet another subject is ,local climate change. This is undeniable and something that effects us all. This is also man's doing. Local climate change is where we .... on our own doorstep put polluting our own habitat. Smog, polluted water course ect ect.

deleted

Discretion, and all that