Guided Missile

I think you mean, how we we make any progress if we all had the same opinion as me...

Rather than stoop to your never ending ad hominem method of debating, I will clarify my feelings about David Attenborough. He works for a left wing organisation, perpetuating the same claptrap regarding AGW that you have swallowed hook line and sinker and is a misanthropic dinosaur with bizarre views on our race. It is no surprise that David Bellamy never gets asked to make programs for the BBC anymore. He doesn't fit the agenda...David Attenborough? Establishment and soon to be replaced by Bitterne's own Chris Packham, who would probably also like to cull a few Africans, just so he could carbon offset the business class flights, he will get the license payer to fund, to film exotic animals having sex and killing each other...

I think his points, with which you appear to agree are that population control is obscene, China's policy was not formulated by a Chinese aerospace statistician, I'm a fool and he is clever. I see no evidence for the above, but respect yours and his right to be ignorant and wrong. These facts help make my posts look clever and witty, like roses in a pile of horse manure...

My source regarding China's population control policy, based on the same type of failed computer modelling followed by the Club of Rome, who predicted in 1972 that oil would run out in 1992 and more latterly by the IPCC, who predicted the Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035: Still, what do I know. I'm a fool.

I've got an idea, Minty. You engage with Polaroid. I find it impossible to follow what he is posting and what his point is...

I must be foolish, because I haven't got a clue what your point is and have a real problem following your strange posts. I think I'll leave it there...

Boo hoo... Calls to a U.K. bullying helpline have almost doubled in a year.

I was thinking of David Attenborough, actually. The IPCC are a bunch of idiots, but not necessarily left-wing and have not promoted population control, the last time I read any of their myths. You really need to read my posts more carefully. You might learn something...

Obviously you didn't read the article online or in print. Educate yourself, on me: Additionally, read this obscene article from a rag you may have more sympathy with and realise the evil planned in the name of "global warming", by a bunch of left wing idiots we are blessed with in this country. Oh, and count the number of white babies in the photo accompanying the article. I'll be holding a quiz later...

...so nuclear power generation is OK, now?

Great article from Matt Ridley on the damage computer modelling, in the hands of politically motivated Greens has done, here , in todays Times. No wonder the Chinese have done the sensible thing and kicked the West's carbon policy into touch and embarked on the construction of coal fired power plants to continue to lift, 500 million of their population out of poverty. Meanwhile, the French and Chinese are building us nuclear power plants because our well meaning NGO lefties thought nuclear power was evil. Same has happened to GMO's and it will happen to fracking. These anarchists will not rest until we are back to the dark ages....

As I was working on my computer until late, last night, I thought I should inform those interested, about what I discovered while running a complex, bit-mapped, global climate simulation program. The results of my research will have a devastating effect on the way we view the future of the human race. Unless we take heed of the predicted outcome of my extensive work, the human race will be overrun by wave upon wave of alien life forms, which are bent on our destruction and no weapons currently in our possession will prevent total destruction. We need to develop means of defending ourselves as it is apparent from my research that there is a greater than 99% chance of our world being overrun in hours.

Pity your remedial English tutor doesn't mark the IPCC's assignments. They'd be as f***ed as you are in your course.

Just to settle the debate, I can now release a brand new set of graphs which indicate that the degree of global warming that is 97% likely to occur between now and 2050 is approximately 0.15oC. Although the model has not yet been peer reviewed, the author, Guided Missile, has a degree in Chemistry and many years experience in environmental modelling. I am sure we can all agree that the projected increase conforms well with the global data collected over the last 25 years and that the projected increase in temperature spells the end for the human race. Despite my confidence in the projections my research has shown, a grant of £100,000 a year would be needed to predict exact figures on the global death toll from the dangers that carbon emissions will cause.

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...