badgerx16

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.

1) Actually, he's more concerned with Russia's gas industry. 2) As for empty accusations, you seem to keep making them - where is your EVIDENCE ? All you ever do is post up the results of your latest google trawl, or are you on an RSS feed from some of the right-wing denialist blogs ? 3) You still haven't answered my questions. :cool:

The organisation making this accusation is headed by this chap, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov, who is an avowed 'sceptic', and has links to the CATO Institute; so take this to heart with caution.

They might soon need to make use of the services of their shirt sponsors, wonder if they'll get a discount ?

Maybe on your sub We are between a rock and a hard place. Nuclear is 'clean' as regards carbon emissions, but produces waste that is toxic for 500,000 years and the plants will only run for about 30-40 years; Gas and coal both produce greenhouse gasses. As for me, I am in the fall-out zone of 1 nuclear station, and downwind of another :mad:

:smt023

G, all this proves is that where there is money available, there will always be some bent b'stard, in all probability a 'Casino Capitalist', willing to dip his ( or her ) snout in the trough. It does not serve to disprove any science, just to show the complete lack of morals that some people exhibit. IMHO, simply following America's lead in the 'gimme, gimme, gimme', 'grab all you can' stakes, and in the best tradition of the banking sector. ( And by the way, given your persistent poor spelling and grammar, I am more and more convinced you are really a skate on a wind-up ).

Is this St G ? "Target 1: Older, less educated males" I also think this bit is brilliant ; "But people behind these campaigns know that their claims are untrue. One of the biggest was run by the Global Climate Coalition, which represented ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute and several big motor manufacturers. In 1995 the coalition's own scientists reported that "the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well-established and cannot be denied". The coalition hid this finding from the public, and spent millions of dollars seeking to persuade people that the opposite was true." However, being in the Grauniad, it's bound to be just another bit of the Great Climate Change Swindle. Isn't it G ?

The methods used for deriving temperature data from ice cores use many factors ; "The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. In a general sense, the thickness of each annual layer tells how much snow accumulated at that location during the year. Differences in cores taken from the same area can reveal local wind patterns by showing where the snow drifted. More importantly, the make-up of the snow itself can tell scientists about past temperatures. As with marine fossils, the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the snow reveals temperature, though in this case, the ratio tells how cold the air was at the time the snow fell. In snow, colder temperatures result in higher concentrations of light oxygen." ( From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ ) Which links to... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/oxygen_balance.php And there is also this alternative route of research..... http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html Which includes the following "Like ice cores, deep sea cores have also provided information about climate, but from accumulated sediments on the ocean floor. Unlike ice cores, which provide direct climate information, sediment cores provide indirect information. An example of this indirect evidence is the method for determining temperature. When sediment cores are analyzed researchers painstakingly sort out plankton shells which twist in different directions depending on the temperature of the water they grew in. By counting the number of shells that twist each way the temperature of the surface water at the time that they grew can be determined. Understanding the behavior of these plankton in the modern world is necessary to produce a historical record of temperature for the ocean." From these ( and other ) alternative measures, it is possible to correlate the relationship between CO2 trapped in the ice and temperatures, and hence this can be extrapolated to assist in modern reports. ( With many thanks to GOOGLE )

So if you miss an 's' it doesn't count, but if I miss a ' ' it does - double standards or what ?

But would he have noticed ?

Have you yet addressed the Margaret Thatcher conundrum, or given your view on the ACCCE issue ? Also, can you give us your esteemed opinion of the theory of Global Dimming - I'm sure you would have some enlightening insights into that one.

Two mods ganging up on me when I try to educate a skate, foul play I fear !

I don't understand p00pey speak, would you mind translating that into English, and correcting the punctuation ? Thankyou.

#1) If you read back through the posts you WILL FIND that there is mention of water vapour ( note the spelling ! ) as a greenhouse gas; together with methane, chloro-flourocarbons, etc. So you score NUL POINTS on that one. #2) The given view of Canute, ( or possibly Knut ), a Danish king of the southern part of Britain, is that the scenario with the tide was actually him proving to the sycophants around him that he was in no way capable of influencing nature,- in fact he was merely a man. ( Oh, and the most likely location was the Solent, so a nice bit of local history for you ). #3) Please, please, stay on that side of the pond, we are much better off without the likes of you. Stay over there with the Colombian drug gangs, the rednecks in their bed linen burning crosses in front of negro Baptist churches, and the Creationists trying to deny reality. You deserve each other. By all means, please do have a nice day old bean.

I await St G's response with interest

Dune, two simple tasks for you, no traps or tricks ; 1) which of the options in post#329 do you subscribe to ? 2) Read post #266 and give your considered opinion on the bits highlighted in red. Thanks B

I presume this will be viewed as a whitewash in some quarters ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8393449.stm Interesting that the Saudi delegate is sceptical, who would have thought that ? Also, for St G's benefit, here is a list of data sets and other international resources related to the analysis of the relationship between human emissions and climate change; http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Keywords.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|HUMAN+DIMENSIONS|ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTS|FOSSIL+FUEL+BURNING&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb1 All of these MUST be part of the 'con'.

Once again you completely MISS THE POINT about MMGW/AGW. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY (!!!!!!!), disuptes the points you have highlighted, so that's hardly proved his argument, has it ? As has been stated so many times already, the issue is not solely about CO2, or even the other greenhouse gases, it's the combination of pumping out such products into the atmosphere at the same time as we are destroying the natural routes for CO2 to be absorbed, the rain forests and the marine algal blooms. It's the totality of mankind's abuse of the planet that affects the climate, unless, of course, you can PROVE otherwise,- and that's your problem, you can't ! Also, you might want to read these, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/14/climate-change-denial http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/denialist-ark-a-wobbly-craft/story-e6frg6xo-1225710263980 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/23/spectator-plimer-climate-change-sceptic Oh. and since when were the Conservative Party 'loony lefties' ? May I refer you back to the "Maggie Thatcher question", posted earlier, I presume you're a fan.

I don't see too much wrong with that !

The established view of the BofB is that the Luftwaffe scored their major own goal when they stopped blitzing the sector stations, they didn't realise that the RAF was on it's knees. The major 'what if' is how effective the Home Fleet might have been in blocking an invasion if the enemy had air superiority. As for the Eyeties, etc, the Balkans campaign and Barbarossa weren't until 1941; the original start date for the invasion of the USSR was 15 May 1941, but because the Italians got screwed over in Greece & Albania, the Germans had to divert through Yugoslavia to assist them. The consequences of this were (1) the British diverted troops to Greece and Crete who would otherwise have been involved in North Africa, which took the pressure of the Axis there, ( the Afrika Korps having started arriving in February 1941 ), and (2) the start date for Barbarossa went back to the end of June, which meant that winter had set in before they reached Moscow & Leningrad;- what if they had kicked off on the original date, 5 weeks earlier, would the Russians have folded had they lost those 2 cities ?

Found it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPvU1vJ29C4&feature=player_embedded Fonzie does his St G impression at about 1:47

More St G b0ll0x and biased reporting misrepresenting the truth - what a surprise ! http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35233_Did_Climate_Scientists_Destroy_Data_A-_No.#rss "the article at The Times, oddly enough, just happens to leave out that part of Phil Jones’ explanation. According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency. The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. “When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.” Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”"

I wouldn't mind losing at home to a prem side, but FFS, NOT the effing Skates ! :confused::confused::confused: