‘Consensus’? What ‘consensus’?

This is the view of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a lobby group, onthe imagined “scientific consensus” that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade:

Pies-Public-Science

This, however, is what the published, peer-reviewed science actually shows:

legates-chart

Over and over again, we hear that “97% of scientists endorse global warming theory”. This number has been around for some time.  It’s almost as though there’s a Green Propaganda Control Centre somewhere, with “97%” written into the Mission Statement, and every study designed to confirm it.

The most recent example is an article published in The Guardian on 6 January 2013 by the accident-prone John Abraham and the paid propagandist Dana Nuccitelli, which repeats the “97%” claim over and over again, as though mere repetition will somehow make it true.

Yet a detailed examination of the studies on which it is based fails to support the claim. Nuccitelli was a co-author of a paper, Quantifying the Consensus, published in the propaganda journal Environmental Research Letters in April 2013.

Nuccitelli adopts the IPCC’s definition of “scientific consensus”, that “human activity is the very likely causing most of the current Global Warming” (my emphasis).  Yet in his analysis of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers he also adopts a much broader definition.  In fact, he and his co-authors established seven or eight categories of endorsement of the consensus. But only the authors’ first category explicitly reflects the official consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

In that category, the authors marked just 64 papers out of 11,944 as endorsing the official consensus.That’s not 97%.It’s just half of one per cent.

The numbers are as follows:

1Explicit: humans are the primary cause of global warming                  64

2 Explicit endorsement without saying how much warming we cause                   922

3 Implicit endorsement that perhaps we cause some warming                                2910

4a No opinion on how much warming we cause, if any                                              7930

4b Uncertain about how much warming we cause, if any                                          40

5 Implicit rejection of the notion that we cause any warming                                   50

6 Explicit rejection without saying how much warming we do not cause               15

7 Explicit rejection, saying we do not cause any global warming at all                    9

TOTAL                                                                                                                           11,944

These figures are not surprising.Many scientific papers in the climate area deal with fairly arcane, detailed and specialist areas that may have little to say about the broader question of manmade global warming, and are therefore rather likely to fall into the “No Opinion” category of this analysis.

Mr.Nuccitelli’s very broaddefinition of consensus includes anyone who agrees that human activity may have some effect on climate.  But on that basis, surely everyone would agree with the “consensus”.  Even I agree that human activity may have some effect on climate – I just believe that any such effect is trivial against the main drivers of climate, which are solar and astronomical cycles, attested by correlations over thousands of years.  As Professor Fred Singer puts it, “Any signal from man-made CO2 is lost in the noise”.

I am not entirely clear where Mr.Nuccitelli gets his 97% “consensus”.None of his numbers seems to add up to 97%.  But the conclusions from these almost 12,000 papers is that the great majority (7930, or 66%) reach no conclusion at all on our contribution to global warming, and most of the rest are prepared to nod to the current orthodoxy, but don’t make a big deal of it.

The fact is that most of the published peer-reviewed papers expressed no view at all.  The “97% consensus” figure is an engineered piece of green propaganda, not a scientific consensus. Not that science is done by pusillanimous headcount anyway.

The 97% figure reminds me of another well-worn but totally specious claim that “3½ million British jobs depend on British Membership of the EU”.  This is another figure which has been absorbed into the media orthodoxy and is constantly repeated.  Based on a flawed study more than ten years ago by NIESR, this interpretation was angrily rejected by their Chief Executive within 24 hours – yet it is still trotted out by Brussels apologists today.  Sometimes falsehood seems indestructible.

Besides, there has been less than 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. Not exactly enough to bring the world to an end. And remember that the “official” definition of “consensus”, explicitly supported by only 0.5% of all 11,944 scientific papers on climate published since 1991, says no more than at least half of the global warming since 1950 was caused by us. On the basis of that IPCC definition, we may have caused little more than a third of a Celsius degree of warming since 1950.

In central England, where we have been keeping a regional temperature record since 1659, a record which faithfully tracks global temperature change to the nearest hundredth of a degree over the past 120 years, there has been no global warming for 25 full calendar years. A quarter of a century. And have you heard that surely not uninteresting fact in any mainstream news medium? The answer, of course, is No.

chartc-640-3

CO2 continues to rise at a record rate. But, for a quarter of a century, there has been not a flicker of temperature increase. It has not happened. So if anyone tries to tell you this year’s floods were caused by global warming, just show them this graph.

“Consensus”?What “consensus”? “Global warming”? What “global warming”?

 

 

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to ‘Consensus’? What ‘consensus’?

  1. omanuel says:

    The consensus is manufactured and the glue is public funds.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Boom…right on the button

    • David H. Walker says:

      The glue is also government force for manipulating private funds.

    • omanuel says:

      Steven Goddard recently realized NASA’s actions do not match NASA’s image.

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/nasa-caught-lying-yet-again/

      This is NASA’s track record:

      1. Analysis of lunar soil samples that NASA collected on the Moon in 1969 revealed severe mass fractionation in the Sun:

      http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

      2. Analysis of gas samples collected and analyzed by the Jupiter probe in 1995 confirmed 1983 predictions of “strange xenon” in Jupiter and severely mass fractionated elements and isotopes in the Sun:

      http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1998Data.htm

      3. Here’s a report of Jupiter findings:

      http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

      4. This CSPAN video shows NASA administrator ordering the release of incriminating data in 1998:

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco

      With deep regrets,
      Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo

      • Me_Again says:

        Oliver, with deepest respect for your obvious knowledge of astrophysics and chemistry, this is not a scientific blog. Most people on here will not realise that mass fractionation has to do with isotope separation, but more importantly, won’t understand its relevance to your postulation.

        Please explain, it’s plainly something that has a bee under your bonnet so to speak, but when you do, keep it simple for us non-astrophysicist types.

      • omanuel says:

        Thank you for the inquiry.

        In the closing days of WWII, Stalin’s troops apparently captured Japan’s atomic bomb production plant at Konan, Korea on 24 Aug 1945 – twelve days after it’s first test detonation on 12 Aug 1945.

        FEAR of possible worldwide nuclear annihilation, as described in the last paragraph of Aston’s Nobel Prize Lecture on 12 Dec 1923, scared world leaders into:

        1. Uniting Nations on 24 Oct 1945

        2. Hiding the source of energy in cores of
        _ a.) Heavy atoms like Uranium
        _ b.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
        _ c.) Galaxies like the Milky Way

        Etc., etc.

        3. In 1946, a British writer of scientific fiction started writing a futuristic novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Another published two papers that changed mainstream opinions about the internal composition of the Sun:
        _ d.) From iron (Fe) in 1945 to
        _ e.) Hydrogen (H) in 1946

        These changes in the Sun were adopted unanimously, without discussion or debate, to establish the Standard Solar Model.

        See pages 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s 1994 autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows” and nine pages of precise experimental data on pages 19-27 of my biography that FALSIFY post-1945 models of heavy nuclei and stars!

        I will add links to these publications below.

      • Me_Again says:

        Still, what is the relevance of mass fractionation.
        Second some of the things you list are your own linkage with no external reference/evidence.

      • omanuel says:

        What is the relevance of mass fractionation?”

        Hydrogen (H) is the lightest element.
        Helium (He) is the next lightest one.
        Iron (Fe) is 56 times heavier than H.

        The top of the Sun’s atmosphere is 91% H and 9% He. Prior to 1946, astronomers and astrophysicists believed atoms are separated by mass in the Sun; Lightweight elements accumulate at the top of the Sun’s atmosphere.

        Analysis of lunar soils from the 1969 Apollo mission to the Moon and of the Jupiter atmosphere from the 1995 Galileo mission to Jupiter both confirmed:

        1. Elements are sorted by mass in the Sun, with H & He highly enriched at the top of the Sun’s photosphere.

        2. The Sun makes and discards H & He as waste products of, not fuel for, the solar engine.

        The source of energy at the core of the Sun is the same as the source of energy in the core of the uranium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima.

        FEAR of nuclear annihilation of the world in 1945 was driven by the last paragraph of Aston’s Nobel Lecture from 12 Dec 1922:

        F. W. Aston, “Mass spectra and isotopes,” Nobel Lecture (12 Dec 1922), last paragraph:

        “Should the research worker of the future discover some means of releasing this energy in a form which could be employed, the human race will have at its command powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction; but the remote possibility must always be considered that the energy once liberated will be completely uncontrollable and by its intense violence detonate all neighbouring substances. In this event the whole of the hydrogen on the earth might be transformed at once and the success of the experiment published at large to the universe as a new star.”

        http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1922/astonlecture.pdf

      • omanuel says:

        Correction:

        FEAR of possible worldwide nuclear annihilation, as described in the last paragraph of Aston’s Nobel Prize Lecture on 12 Dec 1923, scared world leaders =>

        FEAR of possible worldwide nuclear annihilation, as described in the last paragraph of Aston’s Nobel Prize Lecture on 12 Dec 1922, scared world leaders

  2. At my tender age, my only concern is for my grandchildren and what is in store for them, too late for me to worry about as I will be converted to ashes before too long, oh, and would that cause a problem with Carbon Release????

  3. David H. Walker says:

    I’m still waiting to hear the alarmists tell us the correct temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Met Office maybe?

      Radar
      Satellites
      Balloons (instrumentation various)
      Aircraft (various)
      RAF/Navy stations/ships

      Super Computer to finger a result

      Loads of people managing/IT/programming/talking/typing to bring us a prediction . Not necessarily the daily one…includes the 100 yr ahead stuff

      Anything else?

      Quick answer = anything between -50C to +50C (give or take a bit per second/hour/day…etc). Not necessarily the same at any time globally.

      People pay for this stuff…and its often very wrong.

  4. omanuel says:

    The joke is on those so arrogant as to believe they could manipulate reality.

    We live in a pulsar-centered solar system that ancients recognized as the Great Fact, Mother Nature, the Spirit of the Universe, Father of Light, the Great Reality, or God.

    • Geraint Thomas says:

      Erm…no…even if you were correct about the sun not working to the standard model then the sun is simply too large, the magnetic field too low and the radiation emmitted too intense or it to be a pulsar.

      As for the “ancients”, they mostly thought that the sun was a ball of fire that went around the earth being carried by or being the physical embodiment of a god. Honestly this paragraph to me throws into doubt your claims, also the fact that, while several papers cite your papers, the vast majority of those citing papers have you as an author.

  5. habitat21 says:

    Good article, Roger.

  6. Thomas Fox says:

    This social media is the best way for people to obtain up to date political and scientific information that they would not be able to obtain through the slow moving and somewhat biased national TV

  7. Me_Again says:

    Roger, this sort of info should be promulgated by the UKIP forum and by the weekly/monthly bulletins and, to all branch chairmen, for those who don’t do email and internet.

    We also pay a former newshound, who is supposed to have many contacts on what was fleet street, to get this sort of stuff on the BBC, Sky, ITV news, radio……

    Why is it not happening?
    From being deniers we become the reality if enough can see or hear this information. I just find it frustrating when we have a newspaper which is friendly to us, that we don’t have this factual analysis for all to see.

    • It is a legendary problem to get air-time for any view that challenges the consensus. This blog is up everywhere we can put it — UKIP MEPs, UKIP Daily etc.

      • Me_Again says:

        Yes, I know. Anyway I went looking for answers to why it isn’t more widely known.
        So I arrived at a place called ‘pause for thought’ and jumped straight into my own impersonation of the Alamo.

        “* How can there be a “pause” when the thirteen warmest years have all occurred in the fifteen years following 1997? See:

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/2011-Global-Climate-Status_WMO.html

        If we update to 2013, the warmest fifteen years have all occurred in the seventeen years following 1997. Where is the slowdown?

        * We are currently at a sixty year low for sunspot activity and solar irradiation. Why have the glaciers been in retreat? They should have been advancing.

        * You know, we have satellites orbiting the planet which measure the energy from the sun hitting the Earth as well as the energy radiated back into space. There is an imbalance. If one is going to assert that there has been no increase in AGW since 1998, then one has to account for the missing heat. Where is it, if it is not on Earth? Golgafrincham?

        The idea that we must concede that there has been a pause in AGW seems absurd to me. Most deniers talk of the surface air record – which we know is most inaccurate exactly where the Earth is heating up the most , the Arctic – and then blithely equate that with AGW. But the surface air represents only about 2% of of the heat sink.

        If – and that is a BIG if – the models have been wrong of late, they have only been wrong about the distribution of a relatively tiny amount of heat distribution.So what?? We are inventing this science as we go along, and doing it without proper funding. If we had appropriate sensors at the Arctic and throughout the deep oceans, this so-called controversy would never have taken place.

        If deniers want to talk about the “pause”, we should reply that they should therefore be interested in more funding for proper instrumentation, not that somehow, magically, AGW has slowed down, surely?

        This was one of the politest responses I got to my question about consensus.

  8. Paul says:

    97% of UKIP supporters still believe that the floods in the UK were caused by the last labour administration and the environment agency. Only 3% know the truth that it was a direct result of EU directives.
    No difference really with agw believers and the majority of UKIP voters.

    • Check my presentation tomorrow in Torquay.

      • Thomas Fox says:

        Your devours are excellent but at our branch meeting things have not moved on in informal discussion amongst members to spread the word !
        There must be a whealth of expertise in all fields amongst local members to ignite interest in all topics related to politics.
        News is is conveyed well by UKIP but little local reciprocation between us maybe it’s to do with a lelucatance to adapt

  9. RichieP says:

    Fear not. Millipede will root us all out and make us pay for creating bad weather!

  10. DougS says:

    The UK is committed to spend £732 bn over the next 4 decades (courtesy of Ed Miliband’s egregious Climate Change Act) in a vainglorious attempt to reduce CO2 levels by 80% against a base level at 1990. Only possible by eliminating all industry and commerce in the UK.

    And this to (possibly) reduce global temperatures by an unmeasurably small fraction of a degree Celsius.

    Are we the stupidest country in the world? I think so – anyone want to disagree?

    • Jane Davies says:

      I think it’s the present politicians, Doug, that are the stupid ones. WE can see the folly of their ways but then we live in the real world and not political la la land. We must live in the hope that the pledge to waste £732 billion (which is bound to rise over 40 years) can be withdrawn when the UK has a government which doesn’t consist of complete idiots.

  11. j says:

    I don’t need any scientific knowledge to understand this simple concept: if I stick my mouth round a car exhaust and suck in (while the engines in,..obviously)…then I’m gunna feel seriously ill….so what happens when there a billion cars…? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html

    • omanuel says:

      “To save the world from nuclear annihilation . . . “

      Society was deceived worldwide after WWII by frightened world leaders who:

      1. Formed the UN on 24 Oct 1945
      2. Hid knowledge of “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” [1] in cores of

      _ a.) Heavy atoms like U & Pu
      _ b.) Some planets like Jupiter
      _ c.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
      _ d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way

      To understand how deceit put the survival of mankind at risk, study the last paragraph of F. W. Aston’s 1922 Nobel Prize lecture [1], Chapter 2 of my biography [2], and the 1982 book by P. K. Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon [3].

      References:

      1. F. W. Aston, “Mass spectra and isotopes,” Nobel Lecture (12 Dec 1922):

      http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1922/astonlecture.pdf

      2. O. K. Manuel, A Journey to the Core of the Sun – Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

      3. P. K. Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982) 165 pages: http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Chemical-Elements-Oklo-Phenomenon/dp/3642686699

    • Me_Again says:

      I think you’ll find you’ll burn your lips first and don’t try it with a Jaguar, the pipes are too wide.

    • RichieP says:

      I have no idea if your statement is meant to be ironic or reflects your real beliefs. You do know, don’t you, that’s it’s carbon MONoxide that is the nasty stuff that comes out of car exhausts, not CO2? Or maybe you just haven’t a clue about any of it. As you say, you don’t have any scientific knowledge ….

    • Gail Combs says:

      Please get the chemistry correct.
      The car is putting out Carbon MONOXIDE (CO) that will permanently bind to the hemoglobin in your blood that is supposed to carry oxygen. Therefore you suffocate.

      Carbon DIOXIDE (CO2) does not have that effect and in submarines is often up to 8,000 parts per million.

      40,000 ppm is the Carbon Dioxide exhaled in the breath of normal, healthy people. That is why plants love it when you talk or sing to them.

  12. El Sabio says:

    You might find this interesting. It concerns co2 and temperature levels.

    The following text is from here:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    “Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot – approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

    Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

    Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2 impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”

    Now take a look at this image:

    The graph ends in 2001 so here are the latest figures for…

    Global temperature:

    12.7°C (54.8°F) – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

    Co2 concentration:

    397.80 ppm – http://co2now.org/

    • Me_Again says:

      This raises a number of points.The high CO2 at the start of the carboniferous period and the 5x times reduction by the end tells us that Greenery, trees, plants of any kind but mainly trees are effective at lowering the CO2. Fascinating that this was the period where almost all the planet became covered in forests. We already knew that they they were carbon sinks, wonder what the estimated O2 levels were, I’d bet much higher, in fact rising as the corresponding CO2 diminished. A simple function of increased plant respiration.

  13. Paul says:

    “Roger Helmer MEP says:
    February 27, 2014 at 6:43 am
    Check my presentation tomorrow in Torquay.”

    So Roger, how did it go? Did you bring up the small matter that this disaster (the floods) were largely down to the various EU directives?

  14. ilma630 says:

    Surely 25 years of no temperature rise despite significant CO2 rises tells us that CO2 has NO effect on temperatures, so even the belief that man’s emissions must have some effect is shown to be false.

    • Me_Again says:

      No it isn’t as categorical as that. Although I favour the ‘we are not warming’ side of the argument at the moment, it is apparent to me that if we’re heading to a solar minimum, this would usually be causing a major reduction in temperature -perhaps were it not for us raising the temperature with our efforts [not just, or necessarily, CO2 at all] it’s possible we’d be heading for a mini-ice age similar to the one before the medieval warm period.

      So the lack of warming could easily be attributed to opposing efforts. Of course we will know this a lot sooner I think, when the solar minimum finishes [sadly not in my lifetime though].

      • omanuel says:

        Regretfully, I agree with your analysis.

        I also agree with Dr. John Christy. The climate debate is a moral issue. At stake is the survival of mankind.

        http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/geologic-record-shows-sun-not-co2-drives-climate-change-models-meaningless/

        That is why some of us skeptics are almost as fanatical as the believers in global warming.

        With kind regards,
        - Oliver K. Manuel
        Former NASA Principal
        Investigator for Apollo

      • Me_Again says:

        Therein lies a very real and present danger. We must never become like them and close our minds to possibilities. One of those is that they may correct in some way but perhaps not with the CO2 part. We do immense damage to this beautiful world of ours, mainly in the pursuit of something which is utterly without value.

        I will always try to retain my scientific objectivity. I do hope they are not actually correct but much of the really intense stuff is above my head.

      • omanuel says:

        I agree, we must each strive to follow the principles of science.

        That is why I published nine pages of precise experimental data (pp. 19-27) that contradict consensus models of stars and nuclei:

        “A journey to the Core of the Sun: Acceptance of Reality

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

        And requested an open discussion of these data from members of the UN’s IPCC, the US NAS, the UK RS.

        To date, none have stepped forward to defend the consensus models.

      • Me_Again says:

        Way over my head mate. But as Albert Einstein wrote, it only takes one to step up and prove me wrong.
        The most conforming that science should ever be is ‘General Agreement of likelihood’. Consensus should be confined to politics.

        One wonders why no one challenges your hypothesis?

      • Me_Again says:

        PS
        have you tried Tallbloke’s Talkshop?

      • omanuel says:

        Why does no one challenge:

        _ a.) Precise experimental data on pages 19-27 from the world’s top ranked research facilities?

        _ b.) Proof that the Sun made our elements, birthed the Solar System, sustained the origin and evolution of life, and still controls planet Earth and our fate?

        Only leaders on the modern scientific community are qualified to answer that question. Perhaps post-1945 science has been directed by inflating the human ego, weakening rather than strengthening human contact with reality and alienating science from religion.

        Great scientists like Einstein, Planck and Aston described reality with great reverence and respect prior to the end of the Second World War, using terms that were almost inter-changeable with religious terms like “God, Creator, intelligent and creative Mind, Spirit of the Universe, Father of Sunlight,” etc.

      • David says:

        HI

        It is fact, not a maybe, not a we are not sure, not a look if we say this then its something else.

        It is an absolute, totally and unequivocally renowned that we are heading into a solar minimum, after what has been described as damp squib of a solar maximum yet the panet still warmed!

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806

        However I would like to add even though I believe human man made global warming is now beyond doubt and that there is nothing we can do about it now anyway.

        That these events have little effect on the’ climate’ I should defend the weak solar minimum as proof of global warming, how on earth can you argue the planet is not warming when the sun has given less energy over the same period.

        The answer MATHS, maths is an absolute, you cant argue with a mathematician and this one is telling you that these events have a minimal effect on climate.

        I am also telling you as we head into the next soar minimum phase the planet will still warm.

      • Me_Again says:

        Well David, the planet has been warming for the last ten thousand years or so, that was what caused the end of the last ice age, and I do doubt it was early caveman lighting fires that did it.
        The increase in temperature over that time has not been linear -there you go a bit of maths- I doubt any would expect it to be so. But it has been faily steady with the occasional steeper ‘up’ trend and some steeper down trends too.
        Warming after an ice age all the way until the tipping point towards the next ice age is expected, nay, required. So to have to use such short data set periods as less than a hundred years to predict the future frankly immediately brings into doubt in my mind the fantastic claims made by the IPCC and its cohorts of large rises caused by human activity.

        You are I believe correct in once sense ‘Maths’ however it must be used correctly and sadly it seems that most often it appears to be used to support a claim rather than supply the proof for an hypothesis. That is not scientific, that is where politics meets science and we come away with an agenda not an hypothesis yet to be proven.

        Regarding the sun giving less energy. As I understand it from various cosmologists and solar scientists the amount of energy is not the issue, in fact it is the type of energy. Extra solar system cosmic rays and the sun’s magnetic field are responsible for the fluctuations not the simple total energy per square metre

  15. frostyface says:

    I, along no doubt with many others, are totally confused with all this diatribe. Please note that I with no doubt thousands of other Servicemen and Servicewomen, underwent various undefined experiments without our knowledge during the Nuclear Age of Experiments. Note that my Ship suddenly had an Enclosed Bridge installed and various Sea Water Outlet Sprays were installed! The latter were installed so that the Ship could be washed down with Sea Water following a Nuclear Explosion. Well, we served in the South Pacific and the South Indian Ocean, but, to my knowledge, none of us suffered unduly from those experiments! But, before anyone jumps to any conclusions, so many of our Crew have passed away from Cancer connected illness, so, can I really explain this? Short answer, No I Can’t! Which is why I carry a Link on our Web Site to the Mesothelioma Web Site! ~Thought for you boffins~ answers please to Editorbill@hmsgambia.com

  16. Sorry, 59.72 people asked said they agree? How odd

  17. frostyface says:

    Is it not right that, the Great Lakes have only just finished with their Ice Bergs? That as of June 4th 2014, so much for Global Warming then? I am not a Scientist, just Joe Public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s