TopGun Posted 6 February, 2009 Share Posted 6 February, 2009 (edited) Indeed it does. But a more accurate graph might show CO2 following temperature. Explain that one... I'm quite prepared to consider your contention Jawilly as I know you have some knowledge in this field from your own studies. Please elaborate. Although how any small temperature rises may have led to explosive CO2 rises in very recent times will be difficult to explain! Edited 6 February, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 11 February, 2009 Share Posted 11 February, 2009 Even the Met Office amongst many others are finally starting to admit they got a hell of a lot wrong about the so called "Man made Global warming" frenzy.....Despite what some peeps would have y'all believe, the truth is "The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing" .....More from the US Senate http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c Wonder who'll be the first on here to admit they were wrong and/or fooled by Gordy,the BBC and the rest of the liberal/lefty sect......(i did notice one poster has changed her tune a little from 8-9 months or so ago) Think i'll keep this as my sig for a while LMFAO! -------------------------------------------------------------------- “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 11 February, 2009 Share Posted 11 February, 2009 I'm quite prepared to consider your contention Jawilly as I know you have some knowledge in this field from your own studies. Please elaborate. Although how any small temperature rises may have led to explosive CO2 rises in very recent times will be difficult to explain! Thats easy ....The recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is due to human activity, thats a fact...Any correlation between that and any kind of perceived oncoming 'Climate induced Armageddon' is nothing more than politically induced, fictional junk science. Served up by Liberal and Leftist control freaks and wack jobs for the consumption by the dim and gullible. Have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 11 February, 2009 Share Posted 11 February, 2009 Thats easy ....The recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is due to human activity, thats a fact...Any correlation between that and any kind of perceived oncoming 'Climate induced Armageddon' is nothing more than politically induced, fictional junk science. Served up by Liberal and Leftist control freaks and wack jobs for the consumption by the dim and gullible. Have a nice day I have a definite feeling that if someone showed you that black was indeed black, and you'd thought it was white all along, you'd not listen, be influenced, or change your mind whatever argument or evidence was presented. As a person, and a moderator, I don't indulge in name calling, but I must admit, you draw me close to it. Not because you talk from the other side of the argument, but because you seek to argue that anyone who doesn't have your opinion must be dimwitted and gullible. How do you truely know it isn't you..? Don't bother to answer, because, like yourself in this case, I won't reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 February, 2009 Share Posted 11 February, 2009 I have a definite feeling that if someone showed you that black was indeed black, and you'd thought it was white all along, you'd not listen, be influenced, or change your mind whatever argument or evidence was presented. As a person, and a moderator, I don't indulge in name calling, but I must admit, you draw me close to it. Not because you talk from the other side of the argument, but because you seek to argue that anyone who doesn't have your opinion must be dimwitted and gullible. How do you truely know it isn't you..? Don't bother to answer, because, like yourself in this case, I won't reading. to be fair...people slate saint george on here..but he give BY A MILE more legit sources/facts for his views than most of us put together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 11 February, 2009 Share Posted 11 February, 2009 to be fair...people slate saint george on here..but he give BY A MILE more legit sources/facts for his views than most of us put together... That maybe so, but it's largely due to any reception, evidence that is contrary to St George's opinon, has got in the past, and gets now. He who shouts last and most persistently gets heard and remembered by people who don't understand. This topic has been around the Lounge before, and at the time I debated it. I know the evidence, jeez, I studied the damn subject at university level, and have read several of the ideas and theories that were then just being discussed at academic level, but are now in the public domain. Like many people, before I was at University I just thought the temperature got hotter, and we'd all be enjoying mediterranean weather in GB in 20 years. Well it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm not prepared to dig out the evidence for people who's first reaction is to dig their heels in, and the second to ridicule. In a sense, the topic is made dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 LOL! What is entertaining is the way some people get wound up by St George opinions, which imho, he presents in an informed and articulate way. It appears as though they find it diffcult to accept an alternative perspective on the issue and are forced into childish reactions of the "it's my ball and i'm going home" type found in school playgrounds up and down the land. Long may the debate rage. It is far from "dead". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 (edited) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5682887.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange Edited 12 February, 2009 by bungle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Ah, of course... Mr Lovelock. Been wondering where the old chap has been. His GAIA - Earth in balance style theories were quite an eye opener many years ago. It certainly helped me see the processes involved. Now, I for one, would not ask anyone to take a simple newspaper article as gospel, even if it concentrates on a fairly respected individual. But it certainly saves me the bother of typing out something quite similar. And it's old ground as far as I'm concerned. The Earth will survive; we won't. Just depends on how soon we make the place uninhabitable for ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 And on the other hand when a giant meteor crashed into the Earth tens of thousands of years ago throwing up a dust cloud to cover the entire planet and force an ice age the likes of which had never been seen before, wiping out most of the dinosaurs and living creatures on the planet, what happened? That's right, the Earth bounced back, recovered and gave us what we have now. I wouldn't worry too much about killing our planet, it's already showed how resilient it can be in the face of adversity. I think what people are worrying about is killing off the human race, but to be fair, how arrogant is that? Who decided we should be the dominant species any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 And on the other hand when a giant meteor crashed into the Earth tens of thousands of years ago throwing up a dust cloud to cover the entire planet and force an ice age the likes of which had never been seen before, wiping out most of the dinosaurs and living creatures on the planet, what happened? That's right, the Earth bounced back, recovered and gave us what we have now. I wouldn't worry too much about killing our planet, it's already showed how resilient it can be in the face of adversity. I think what people are worrying about is killing off the human race, but to be fair, how arrogant is that? Who decided we should be the dominant species any way? I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 I did. I guess someone else thinks differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawillwill Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Even the Met Office amongst many others are finally starting to admit they got a hell of a lot wrong about the so called "Man made Global warming" frenzy.....Despite what some peeps would have y'all believe, the truth is "The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing" .....More from the US Senate http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c Wonder who'll be the first on here to admit they were wrong and/or fooled by Gordy,the BBC and the rest of the liberal/lefty sect......(i did notice one poster has changed her tune a little from 8-9 months or so ago) Think i'll keep this as my sig for a while LMFAO! -------------------------------------------------------------------- “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Have you ever watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? I have a sneaky feeling you'd like it, and I have an even sneakier feeling you'd believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawillwill Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 AGW Alarmist's don't like to talk about possibilities like that.....Its not in their bible I'm quite prepared to consider your contention Jawilly as I know you have some knowledge in this field from your own studies. Please elaborate. Although how any small temperature rises may have led to explosive CO2 rises in very recent times will be difficult to explain! Sorry, didn't see these posts before. I should probably point out that I was simply playing Devil's Advocate. If, however you did notice a trend showing CO2 change following temperature changes it's because the Oceans are a massive reservoir for Carbon Dioxide and therefore, when it warms it releases some of this trapped gas. Hence temperature changes and as a result you witness Carbon Dioxide changing too. Just to reiterate though, I am by no means denying man made global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 (edited) to be fair...people slate saint george on here..but he give BY A MILE more legit sources/facts for his views than most of us put together... Nonsense. The sources Saint George quotes are debunked scientists who are paid by US industrialists by and large. TDD, why do you believe the crackpot sources he comes up with over respected scientists like Sir David King, recently retired Govt Chief Scientist and in no way in accord with everything the Labour Party or green activists say? Yet Sir David reiterates time and again that climate change is the biggest threat faced by the planet and that it is manmade. The problem with you and others TDD is you believe any old reactionary guff and just spout it out again without looking into it. Like the FACT comment you uttered that UK landfill operators are taking EU waste as we are recycling too much. Ridiculous post. It does **** me off that people like TDD appear to believe the shyte Saint George states. I work in the energy sector and am currently involved with processes to help develop a 177MW 59-turbine windfarm in Scotland (Infinergy), a 300MW wood-fuelled biomass power station (Drax), two gas-fired power stations of 860MW (ESBI the Irish state generator, also part owners of the new Marchwood plant) and 1000MW (Scottish Power) and a couple of carbon capture & storage projects. To give you an understanding of the scale of those projects, a modern mid-sized nuke plant as proposed by the govt now is about 900MW. Saint George is probably a salesman selling photocopiers. In fact he does remind me of LLS in many ways! Edited 12 February, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 It does **** me off that people like TDD appear to believe the shyte Saint George states. ! wooah. I may have been flippant in my comments out waste..but george puts up sources and facts/opinions... others just snipe at him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 wooah. I may have been flippant in my comments out waste..but george puts up sources and facts/opinions... others just snipe at him I don't snipe at George. I correct the rubbish he spews out himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Saint George tells it how it is. Man made global warming is a lie. All we're seeing is nature taking it's course. Cathedrals were built during the 13th century - a warm period. The Thames froze every year in the 17th century - a cold period. The climate changes - it has done since the dawn of time. It can change slowly and it can change quickly. Mother nature works like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 (edited) Saint George tells it how it is. Man made global warming is a lie. All we're seeing is nature taking it's course. Cathedrals were built during the 13th century - a warm period. The Thames froze every year in the 17th century - a cold period. The climate changes - it has done since the dawn of time. It can change slowly and it can change quickly. Mother nature works like that. Yet another of TSW's reactionaries pitches up. Although there are differences between George and Stanley. Saint George agrees that very recent climate change and subsequent rise in CO2 emissions are manmade - but that has or will have no effect on the planet. Stanley disagrees that very recent climate change exists and that increased CO2 levels are manmade - but agrees that the perceived effects of the threat are a good incentive to move towards renewables to reduce dependence on oil. You know my views. :-) But I would be keen to know what both George and Stan do for employment and why they are knowledgeable in the field of climate change. Edited 12 February, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 But I would be keen to know what both George and Stan do for employment and why they are knowledgeable in the field of climate change. Is it just Geography teachers with leather elbow patches who are allowed to research global warming / climate change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Is it just Geography teachers with leather elbow patches who are allowed to research global warming / climate change? They're prob crap too. Like pub landlords and other gossipers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Stanley disagrees that very recent climate change exists and that increased CO2 levels are manmade I'm not saying for one minute that recent climate change isn't real. The climate of earth is always swinging one way or the other. Sunspots are the reason for the variations if you must know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 They're prob crap too. Like pub landlords and other gossipers! I can assure you that pub landlords have no interest whatsoever in the causes or effects of global warming, except to say that a warm summer = more beer sold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Nonsense. The sources Saint George quotes are debunked scientists who are paid by US industrialists by and large. TDD, why do you believe the crackpot sources he comes up with over respected scientists like Sir David King, recently retired Govt Chief Scientist and in no way in accord with everything the Labour Party or green activists say? Yet Sir David reiterates time and again that climate change is the biggest threat faced by the planet and that it is manmade. The problem with you and others TDD is you believe any old reactionary guff and just spout it out again without looking into it. Like the FACT comment you uttered that UK landfill operators are taking EU waste as we are recycling too much. Ridiculous post. It does **** me off that people like TDD appear to believe the shyte Saint George states. I work in the energy sector and am currently involved with processes to help develop a 177MW 59-turbine windfarm in Scotland (Infinergy), a 300MW wood-fuelled biomass power station (Drax), two gas-fired power stations of 860MW (ESBI the Irish state generator, also part owners of the new Marchwood plant) and 1000MW (Scottish Power) and a couple of carbon capture & storage projects. To give you an understanding of the scale of those projects, a modern mid-sized nuke plant as proposed by the govt now is about 900MW. Saint George is probably a salesman selling photocopiers. In fact he does remind me of LLS in many ways! LMAO!...Man talk about someone being so up their self they cant see the daylight.......Any one else see the irony here? Here is Mr super sneering TD accusing any scientist who dares to question the AGW theory as being "debunked scientists who are paid by US industrialists by and large. When all along Mr TD's apparent very mundane existence depends entirely on the current Global Warming hysteria ...LOL you couldn't make it up! You're really showing your true colors here TD...So what if i were "just a photo copy salesman?.....Is that the sort of peeps you like to look down on and sneer at?........If you really want to get into a ****ing contest then bring it on.....My turn........ I drive a 6 year old 5 1/2 ltr pick up truck...there ya go............oh and i no longer have to 'work' for a living.. I built up the means to effectively retire at 43 and live where in the world i wanted...Sometimes i do a little just for fun. Your turn...... Morning coffee is particularly nice under the gazebo this morning Have a nice day PS...I guess i better return some salvage bonuses i received while working deep sea Tug and Salvage vessels back in the 70's, I musta got them in error.....After all my opinion on maritime law along with everything else according to you is 'rubbish' LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Yet another of TSW's reactionaries pitches up. Although there are differences between George and Stanley. Saint George agrees that very recent climate change and subsequent rise in CO2 emissions are manmade - but that has or will have no effect on the planet. Stanley disagrees that very recent climate change exists and that increased CO2 levels are manmade - but agrees that the perceived effects of the threat are a good incentive to move towards renewables to reduce dependence on oil. You know my views. :-) But I would be keen to know what both George and Stan do for employment and why they are knowledgeable in the field of climate change. Now you're just miss quoting me 'and' Stanley to try and win your argument....Shows you up for what you are...desperate, Just like all the other wack jobs out there still trying to justify AGW in the face of ever growing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary... I've never said recent climate change is "man made" ...why would i?...because its not ....I 'only' agreed that recent build up in carbon is from human activities and has 'NO' correlation to climate change......Which is natural and has been happening since the year dot and is influenced by solar activity and the Earths natural forces. A year or so ago i was posting on here and other places about historic levels of carbon being a 'feedback effect from climate swings and not a 'forcing effect.....Predictable i was rubbished by most on here and i'm pretty sure you were one...Now Jill makes near the very same post in a little more detail and not a squeak from you, despite the fact that it blows many Armageddon type computer models and theories out the water as most were based on the asumption that carbon was 'forcing' the climate As for my job? Well unlike 'You' James Hansen and Al Gore, I'm not dependent on earning a living from the Great 'Man Made' Climate change scam..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Sorry, didn't see these posts before. I should probably point out that I was simply playing Devil's Advocate. If, however you did notice a trend showing CO2 change following temperature changes it's because the Oceans are a massive reservoir for Carbon Dioxide and therefore, when it warms it releases some of this trapped gas. Hence temperature changes and as a result you witness Carbon Dioxide changing too. Just to reiterate though, I am by no means denying man made global warming. Steady Jill...you're going to put a few peeps into shock with that info on carbon feedback.....not many peeps are aware of that I guess you're not going to be wrapping up warm for the coming 30 year cooling period then?....It already started a couple of years back y'know.....amazingly, just as predicted by many AGW sceptics I know one thing..... I'm going to be investing in more properties while they're still reasonable down here in the Deep South, ready for the climate migrants coming from the North in the next 20 years......Its going to be getting damned cold and property prices in warm places are going to sky rocket And no i havent watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'...although i have heard about it.......to much drama for me, i had enough with Gore's "Inconvienient Global warming Swindle" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Now you're just miss quoting me 'and' Stanley to try and win your argument....Shows you up for what you are...desperate, Just like all the other wack jobs out there still trying to justify AGW in the face of ever growing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary... I've never said recent climate change is "man made" ...why would i?...because its not ....I 'only' agreed that recent build up in carbon is from human activities and has 'NO' correlation to climate change......Which is natural and has been happening since the year dot and is influenced by solar activity and the Earths natural forces. A year or so ago i was posting on here and other places about historic levels of carbon being a 'feedback effect from climate swings and not a 'forcing effect.....Predictable i was rubbished by most on here and i'm pretty sure you were one...Now Jill makes near the very same post in a little more detail and not a squeak from you, despite the fact that it blows many Armageddon type computer models and theories out the water as most were based on the asumption that carbon was 'forcing' the climate As for my job? Well unlike 'You' James Hansen and Al Gore, I'm not dependent on earning a living from the Great 'Man Made' Climate change scam..... Mad as a box of frogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Mad as a box of frogs. There's no arguing against facts is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Have you ever watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? I have a sneaky feeling you'd like it, and I have an even sneakier feeling you'd believe it. As i said above, i'm not much into the dramatization of science, But i have a feeling it would stand up against judicial review a little better than this one did http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion. Hell Jill, he even rubbishes the law of Ocean/carbon feedback But hey, at least he's keeping Top Gun in work building windmills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Mad as a box of frogs. Its just dawned on me why my falling gas price updates needled you so much....Cheap Oil = less funding for your windmills ....Man, Oil's nearly back down to $35 a barrel...you must be crapping it Nice that you finally came out and declared your 'interest' though, at least peeps can now see how you're effectively in the pocket of the Global Warming scammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Its just dawned on me why my falling gas price updates needled you so much....Cheap Oil = less funding for your windmills ....Man, Oil's nearly back down to $35 a barrel...you must be crapping it Nice that you finally came out and declared your 'interest' though, at least peeps can now see how you're effectively in the pocket of the Global Warming scammers It's in his interests to lie about global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 15 February, 2009 Share Posted 15 February, 2009 (edited) Its just dawned on me why my falling gas price updates needled you so much....Cheap Oil = less funding for your windmills ....Man, Oil's nearly back down to $35 a barrel...you must be crapping it Nice that you finally came out and declared your 'interest' though, at least peeps can now see how you're effectively in the pocket of the Global Warming scammers If you had paid attention previously George you would know that I work with energy interests. Not all windmills as you put it either. I'm surprised anything dawns on you George. From the pinko Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7890988.stm I don't know about this fellow btw but thought it would give you denial rabbits more to chew on. The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned. Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted. Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change. He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast. Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. "We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said. Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem. He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China. Wildfires Prof Field said the impact on temperatures is as yet unknown, but warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted. Prof Field says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires. The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Edited 15 February, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 15 February, 2009 Share Posted 15 February, 2009 If you had paid attention previously George you would know that I work with energy interests. Not all windmills as you put it either. I'm surprised anything dawns on you George. From the pinko Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7890988.stm I don't know about this fellow btw but thought it would give you denial rabbits more to chew on. The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned. Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted. Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change. He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast. Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. "We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said. Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem. He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China. Wildfires Prof Field said the impact on temperatures is as yet unknown, but warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted. Prof Field says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires. The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Either way...You've been bought and paid for by the Man made global warming alarmists..We all know that now....Windmills, Carbon capture plants...all funded by fraudulent and tainted 'green' money.......Thats how it works doesn't it?...you even said so your self..........That's why you just wheeled out another desperate wack Job 'Chris Field'....Way past time for Mr Field to take his head out of his half baked computer models and look around at what's happening in the real world...The same real world where global temps have been on a 'falling' trend over the last decade, even the ice caps are back to where they were...not a squeak about it from the eco wacko's tho, and furthermore totaly screws with your your ignorant comment "The graph shows that temperature follows CO2 over time so it is fair to assume temperatures will increase over this century.....ya musta got that one off the BBC lol.... -------------------------------------------------------------------- “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 15 February, 2009 Share Posted 15 February, 2009 That GISS data comes from none other than the headbanger James Hansen himself...He's been caught twice in only the last 3 months altering historic data to paint a more extreme picture....Hell, he even tried to slip Russia's September temps into the month of October in a bid to make up for the lack of warming.....Junk science at its best Hansen and his GISS have been so out of order it even prompted his old boss Dr John Theon, (Hansens old Boss) to write to the US Senate warning them about what was going on within the GISS http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320....With comments like..... "we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” and .......Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” Of course there'll be plenty of peeps who will just ignore Hansens wrong doings because his 'forced' results reflect their beliefs and/or agenda and will continue to 'believe' as if his department were reporting on fact......Kinda like a religion Ignore Hansens work along with Al Gore and then peeps can start to have a proper debate on the subject And anyone thinking Gore's Movie was based on any kind of fact needs to do some research ...That movie was nothing more than "Independence Day" type Hollywood drama dressed up as a documentary and may well end up landing him in Court......Just about every thing in there presented as fact has been disproved, debunked and discredited...But most peeps wont get to hear about that .....or even want to know I'd be interested in knowing what facts have been disproved. Who disproved them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 15 February, 2009 Share Posted 15 February, 2009 (edited) Anyway Saint George, you were previously blundering on about how Obama woudn't be eligible for president as he was not natural born to the USA etc... And you call me a "wackjob"? Once again your spelling lets your ridiculous contentions down and makes you look wholly foolish. What's new? Edited 15 February, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCholulaKid Posted 15 February, 2009 Share Posted 15 February, 2009 “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Hahahahahaha! Oh, no!! David Bellamy doesn't believe in man-made warming. Why don't you read this you ****ing moron?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists As for James A. Peden. Who he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 15 February, 2009 Share Posted 15 February, 2009 Hahahahahaha! Oh, no!! David Bellamy doesn't believe in man-made warming. Why don't you read this you ****ing moron?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists As for James A. Peden. Who he? Oh dear. That would appear to be David Bellamy's reputation well and truly destroyed then. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about climate change. The world is going to end on Dec 21 2012 anyway (perhaps as a result of the current climate change? Who knows?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 16 February, 2009 Share Posted 16 February, 2009 Anyway Saint George, you were previously blundering on about how Obama woudn't be eligible for president as he was not natural born to the USA etc... And you call me a "wackjob"? Once again your spelling lets your ridiculous contentions down and makes you look wholly foolish. What's new? Ah, down to spelling now is it?...Man, you're so desperate it's pathetic... Start another thread if you want to talk about Chairman 'O' -------------------------------------------------------------------- “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 I'd be interested in knowing what facts have been disproved. Who disproved them? Mr Justice Burton, a London High Court Judge did as a starter. He even ruled that a list of corrections had to accompany the movie before it could be distributed to schools........I'm guessing most other peeps who have seen it, didn't get to see the corrections....http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.” http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do I also provided a link in one of my post's above to the Science and Public Policy Institute site, who claim there are '35' scientific errors in the movie.... here it is again http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf They also provide further links to supporting data at the end of their article Al Gore's own scientific adviser, Lonnie Thompson is distancing him self from a 'huge' and very significant error in the movie http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2598... Gore's 'error', not mine! Even "realclimate.org, who are world leaders in Global warming alarmism admit there are errors in the movie and very significantly, comment on some of Gore's choice of wording...While not actually lieing, definitely giving a false impression.... Here are some of the things these guys had to say about Gore's movie...and bare in mind these guys are pretty near the top of list when it comes to Man mad global warming wack jobs "There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film" "Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature" "Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate Theres also Physicist Dr. Will Happer, of Princeton University who used to work for Gore until he was fired for not agreeing with his views ....So much for debate eh?......But there again the AGW alarmist's say "the debate is over", when in fact they're now clinging on by little more than their fingernails. As more and more scientist and experts around the world complete their research and confirm the scam for what it is. Just to give you an idea of how ludicrous the whole thing is ....Hansen says that by increasing the Carbon in the atmosphere by an additional 160 parts per 'million' we will push the Earth into climatic Armageddon...Thats the crux of it......For reference, we know the Earth survived perfectly well in the past with carbon levels far far higher than that....... And for anyone still worried that we'll end up producing a whole lot more anyway...Well don't, the Earth doesn't contain enough fossil fuel to produce much more carbon than that There are many many other commentators on gore's movie and the climate change religion in general...I'm not going to spoon feed you with the info but I'll give you a few pointers....You'll get a far better picture by doing your own research http://www.junkscience.com/ http://icecap.us/ http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner 300 Australians have just died as a direct result of Government policies driven by the myths of Man Made Global Warming...and there's sure to many more before some common sense is restored..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Oh dear. That would appear to be David Bellamy's reputation well and truly destroyed then. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about climate change. The world is going to end on Dec 21 2012 anyway (perhaps as a result of the current climate change? Who knows?) At least I won't miss the London olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Oh dear. That would appear to be David Bellamy's reputation well and truly destroyed then. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about climate change. The world is going to end on Dec 21 2012 anyway (perhaps as a result of the current climate change? Who knows?) Now how many times has this been predicted - bloody stupid. 'Aristotle said.................... blah blah' absolute rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 17 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Anyway, I wouldn't worry about climate change. The world is going to end on Dec 21 2012 anyway Thanks for that Bexy, I shall cancel the milk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Thanks for that Bexy, I shall cancel the milk Why? It's not like there'll be a milkman to deliver it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 17 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Why? It's not like there'll be a milkman to deliver it anyway I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a milkman actually. And to think I wanted to beone as a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a milkman actually. And to think I wanted to beone as a child. I saw my milkman a couple of weeks ago for the first time, I finished early from a night shift and he must of been late delivering the milk (I'm assuming he was late delivering the milk :shock:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 17 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2009 I saw my milkman a couple of weeks ago for the first time, I finished early from a night shift and he must of been late delivering the milk (I'm assuming he was late delivering the milk :shock:) Who has milk delivered nowadays though, I don't know anyone who does. Keeping with the thread, surely it is beter for the environment to scrap doorstep deliveries altogether now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Who has milk delivered nowadays though, I don't know anyone who does. Keeping with the thread, surely it is beter for the environment to scrap doorstep deliveries altogether now? I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 17 February, 2009 Share Posted 17 February, 2009 Who has milk delivered nowadays though, I don't know anyone who does. Keeping with the thread, surely it is beter for the environment to scrap doorstep deliveries altogether now? Yeah!! Those electric milk floats must contribute so much to global warming!! (They use diesel transits these days, because the demand is so low and the routes are so long ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now