Guided Missile

You do realise that the graphs are plots of temperature anomaly? That is the difference between the long-term average temperature and the temperature that is actually occurring. If you can now stop dribbling and think about that sentence you may also realise that your GCSE calculation includes the period when the temperature anomaly was negative, i.e. you're adding a negative figure to your supposed increase in long term average temperature. Kind of p!sses on your credibility, doesn't it? "Actually points to an increase of 0.4oC"?

....and if you squint at the graph of actual global temperatures since around 1990, from the University of Reading data, above, you may be able to claim an increase of around 0.1C, well within the confidence limits of the measurements. You're not very good at this science stuff, are you? You sound more like Michael Fish after the storm of 1987.

I think scientific reality is wasted on you...talk about clutching at straws.

Meanwhile, a hilarious piece in The Spectator, here... More

The stats "I choose to use" reveal that actual global temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies. This is after decades of this organisation, the scientists they consult and the governments they advise, peddling the same message, costing the taxpayer billions and failing to admit their models are, to quote Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology "Not fit for purpose". All I'm saying is look at the evidence. The above graphs are fairly easy to read and I bet a pound to a pinch of sh! t the trend of actual global temperatures being way lower than the models, will continue for decades to come. Copyright GMDRS (Guided Missile Department of Real Science) - That isn't just a waffle name, it's recognition that the vast majority of qualified scientists in the UK and abroad have failed to predict the current 20 year (and counting) halt in global warming.

To anyone with a brain, the computer models that the IPCC uses are b0ll0x (that's scientific jargon for "unreliable when compared to real data")

Interesting article from a couple years ago from Matt Ridley: Acid rain...now there was a scare that even sounded scary. Not quite as scary as nuclear winter, but still scarier than global warming.

A few years ago "climate change" was called "global warming". In the 70's it was called "global cooling". Hopefully soon it will be called "normal long term climate variations, which mankind has very little influence over"...

I used to wonder how the population in North Korea got brainwashed, but now I know...

I think you are the one that needs to read more carefully. No where have I posted or implied that "rainforests were "unhealthy" before the recent rise in global CO2 levels". I stated that increasing CO2 levels would increase the health of rainforests. Read this paper, although I doubt your comprehension skill will cope, so a brief synopsis is that the authors used meta-analytic methods to summarize and interpret more than 500 reports of effects of elevated CO2 on woody plant biomass accumulation. Both total biomass (WT) and net CO2 assimilation (A) increased significantly at about twice ambient CO2. Frankly bizarre? I don't think so...although I do agree that the destruction of the rainforests will reduce their capacity to assimilate CO2, (that's obvious), although replacing them with grass or soybeans would offset this very minor reduction. A reduction in biodiversity is the main effect of cutting down trees and replacing with farmland. What I find more bizarre is the blind assumption that slight global increases in CO2 levels is a bad thing for the planet. It's good for plants... Still, I expect you will continue to believe whatever the Guardian writes, without taking the effort to read the evidence and make up your own mind, so I'll leave you and the rest of the herd to your ad hominem fallacies...

Clever...

Rainforests have not been "trashed" to use your scientific term. The rate of deforestation is lower now than it has been for a long time and much of the deforestation in the world is down to the use of the land for pasture and growing soy beans for, you've guessed it, biofuels (Soy production has already destroyed 21 million hectares of forest in Brazil). I can understand someone being concerned that deforestation may reduce biodiversity, but to suggest that replacing forests with other crops may affect global CO2 levels and thus our climate, by any meaningful measure is absurd. Still, I think it is time for me to leave this playpen. The level of informed debate by the posters responding to me, has reached an intellectual level I'm finding hard to stoop to. Just plain lazy, uninformed and ignorant responses based on superstitious scare stories ...

Obvious? Seriously??? You don't even understand the definition of biomass and confuse the term with rainforests.

Enlighten me on the link then, Sherlock. I would say there is no link between the two whatsoever. De-forestation is caused by chain saws and plants need CO2 to grow. Actually, I'm going to start a new theory you lot will love. Obesity levels have only started increasing since CO2 levels started increasing. Reduce CO2 levels and we'll cure obesity... I'm a genius, I must admit...

You and View From The Top should keep posting and I'm sure you'll soon get a PM from a couple of villages that are short of an idiot.

Read badgerx16's post again. The contention in the post was that deforestation is part of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I don't know what your point was, apart from the contention that I am dumb...

You could always increase the health of the rainforests by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh, hang-on, you want to remove it.... Brilliant...

Ohhh, I see, some Chinese nerd researcher, relying on funding for his computer modelling, has taken time off from his X Box, to postulate that it is the wind, that is causing the abnormally high extent of the ice cap, in the middle of summer, in Antartica. Pity him and the other experts on Climate Science didn't let the captain of the Russian icebreaker trapped for the foreseeable future, know about the problems before they set sail 5 weeks ago. Really, that paper is a scientific joke, full of b0ll0x. I've underlined the b0ll0x, so you can recognise it in the future: The best quote is from the mental case who got everyone to pay for the voyage. Or it could be that your outlandish theory is wrong, mate and man is having little or no effect on the extent of the polar ice caps...

The voice of reason from down under...

Meanwhile, in the Antarctic.... Thank God they have been saved by a helicopter and fossil fuel.... What a bunch of crackpots.

You're right...

Join the club...

Learn how to use the Advanced Search function on this site, numbnuts. It only takes a minute and is useful for showing up posters for the tools they are...

Welcomed with open arms....

Any excuse: