badgerx16

Would that be the mess the bankers helped to get us into ? On the subject of packaging, why do I have to throw so much that is marked as recyclable into the general rubbish, because the council picks out those types of plastic it will accept ? If it can be recycled, bl00dy well recycle it ! :confused:

There are only 2 things that are certain, and taxes are one of them

Stick your head back in your dune !!!

Agreed

Why don't you go away and actually do some reading on the 'theory'. It is entirely predictable that an overall warming effect can cause such cold spells, they can be induced by changes in trans-oceanic currents that are caused by heat absorbtion by the sea. Historically, Britain's climate has been out of phase with the continent due to the warming effect of the trans-Atlantic currents, we have generally warmer winters than our neighbours. As these currents change course, and use a more southerly track, we come more into the influence of colder northern waters drawn down from the Arctic.

Most canopy and emergent trees live between 300 and 400 years, but some can survive for over 1000. With reference to our own landscape, view them as oaks or yews, rather than pines or birches.

The issue is that 'ancient' rain forest actually has very little soil in the first place. The conditions beneath the canopy enable rapid re-absorbtion and recycling of dead materials, so soil never gets formed from the detritus.

It will, but it will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years for it to happen. The secondary forest will tend to be comprised of tree species that can grow and spread quickly, rather than those that inhabit the 'ancient' parts. These species will be accompanied by other opportunistic, fast growing / spreading, ground cover plants, which strive to stifle the much slower germinating/growing 'old forest' species. The "old" forest will nibble away at the boundary with the "new", and will in time supplant it, but it needs time for it's offspring to gain a foothold. Once the giants get going, however, they will eventually cut out the light that the infiltrators need. The other plants such as mosses and ferns will only spread once the conditions of temperature and humidity have stabilised beneath the new high-level canopy.

Most of which is only usable for about 3 years because the soil is so thin. The forests are so dense because of the leaf litter and other biological waste they trap and recycle. Take away the trees and there is nothing to sustain the ecosystem.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deforestation_in_Amazonia Plus, of course, you need to include the asian forests, which are similarly coming down at an alarming rate.

Well that is certainly incorrect. As has been mentioned many times on here, there are many sources of CO2, whether biological, geological, or man-made. The increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is fuelling the greenhouse effect, if the level can be stabilised, ( or preferably brought down a little, by removing the influence of humans, the effect should halt. Therefore we need to look at how we can reduce the man-made part of the equation ; the natural and geological sources, which balance the needs of the plant and animal kingdoms, will remain. ( Note, plants can only absorb CO2 during daylight, when they photosynthesise, at night they respire and can actually produce CO2. ) You also need to factor in the effect that man is having on the natural CO2 'sinks', the rainforests and the oceanic photoplankton. Crop yields are far more likely to fall due to increased temperatures and declining rainfall in arable farming areas, caused by AGW.

To summarise, there are 42 names on that list, grouped as follows; 3 "deniers", 1 of whom says the world is cooling ( ! ), and another is directly linked to the coal industry. 4 who say that the science is not yet good enough to be used to accurately predict what is happening. 23 debate the cause, but accept the warming is happening. 9 say the cause is yet to be proven as man-made or not. And the last 3 simply say it's nothing to worry about. And I would point out this key clause "For the purpose of this list, a scientist is a person who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field relevant to climate." So maybe not quite as conclusive as you had expected ? And it could be countered by this similar link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which includes the statement "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation". I must say, WG, that you do at least present your case in a polite and sensible manner, unlike some I will not mention.

"Give me Honda, Give me Sony, So cheap and so phoney" The Clash - "The Magnificent Seven"

You cannot beat a group of alien robots laughing at "...and then they smash them all to bits!".

"All I Want for Christmas is a Dukla Prague Away Kit" by Half man Half Biscuit, or most of the tracks on Phil Spector's "A Christmas Gift For You"

I think even AH & HH would have been stretched to manage 6 million between just the 2 of them, and at the same time ruin Germany's chances of winning the war and manage the suppression of the rest of occupied Europe !

But surely Uncle Adolf and the chicken farmer fail the test, they didn't actually KILL anybody themselves, it was all franchised out & sub-contracted to people such as Karl Jaeger, Viktors Arajs, Franz Stahlecker, and John Demjanjuk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion The largest 'hole' so far observed in the ozone layer was in 2006, and a measurable recovery is not expected until at least 2024. The point about the 'new ice-age' predictions at the start of the 70's was being based on a presumed continuation of a slight cooling trend observed between the 1940's and the 1960's; this pre-dated the advances in climate science bought about by improved satellite observations, which in turn led to the global warming hypotheses, now proved to be correct.

Shock, Horror ! Readers of a right-wing rag decide that they don't trust a Labour PM. Do try harder.

From http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/todays-buzz-is-about-moscow-based-free.html "So I ask the Met Office for a comment. They reply: The World Meteorological Organisation chooses the set of stations designated as essential climate stations that have been released by the Met Office. These are evenly distributed across the globe and provide a fair representation of changes in global average temperature over land. We do not choose these stations and therefore it is impossible for the Met Office to fix the data. The global temperatures record, HadCRUT has been shown to underestimate the rise in global average temperatures over the past 30 years when compared against a fuller analysis of global temperatures. This analysis includes information from a wide range of sources such as satellites, radiosondes, and sea surface temperature data, but does not include surface observations used in HadCRUT, so is fully independent. The analysis shows that HadCRUT under-estimates the warming in the Russian region, in particular, because of the limited availability of Northern Hemisphere high latitude observations. The Met Office is keen to publish all underpinning station data as it becomes available. We are already in the process of seeking agreement to release the underpinning data from its owners. (emphasis added) So it looks as if the IEA have got it wrong about who removed the measuring points, and in any case, there is no evidence that they are removing stations that are too cold. So it looks as if it is another damp squib from the deniers. This will not stop them from spraying it around the blogosphere, and to news sources which are also in denial. A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. The red line shows readings from the smaller set of 121 stations, and the blue line is for the larger set of 476 stations. They agree very well since 1950. Before that, the red smaller set, the ones chosen by the data collectors, show colder temps. It is true that the pruned readings from 1990 on are fractionally warmer than the full set, but the difference is not significant, as both lines are cooler than the best estimate grey line.It is odd that the selected by the WMO is more cold in the 1880s, going beyond the grey line of total uncertainty. The key point is that the two sets agree very well from the 1960s onward. So - no goal for the skeptics at the Institute for Economic Analysis. Maybe they should stick to economics. "

My first car was a 20 year-old Morris Traveller, bought for £70 but without an off-side rear wheel arch. At the time I was cycling the 15 miles to work most days, and one day on the way home I spotted something on a grass verge - it turned out to be a fibre-glass off-side wheel arch for a Morris Traveller ! I picked it up and cycled the remaining 12 miles or so with it over my shoulder.

He held court in the Red Lion before sailing. He held a trial of the Earl of Cambridge, and Lords Scrope and Grey for treason; all 3 were found guilty and executed outside the BarGate.

Who will be from external, PRIVATE, consultancy companies like EDS, CAP GEMINI, CSC, BT, etc. The amount of money wasted on these so-called 'experts', is frightening. Also, PFI is a licence to print unaccountable money which is underwritten by the public purse.

In which case I refer you to the title of my post :cool: Hey St G, it turns out that it isn't a 'commie' conspiracy, it's a fascist one !

A reminder just for St G http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/History of the Met Office Hadley Centre The Met Office Hadley Centre was opened in 1990, by the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when the Met Office was at its previous headquarters in Bracknell. Prior to the opening of the dedicated centre different areas of the Met Office had been undertaking climatology research. By the late 1980s the Synoptic Climatology Branch was working closely with the Climatic Research Unit to produce an integrated global land surface air and sea surface temperature data set. This was the primary data set used to assess observed global warming by the IPCC in 1990. Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians: A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada. A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change. The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options. In December 1988 the UK Government ( edit : the Tory Government ) announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.