Come on Bob,y'all know you can't believe anything you read in Fox News.
Just ask Jim.
Curses, foiled again!
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Curses, foiled again!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The Measure of our Stupidity
"In 2011, the global carbon trading market climbed to a record US$176 billion – about the same as global wheat production".
See: It's no wonder the world's cooling on climate change | Mail Online
This is surely an indicator of a western world gone mad. We invest more in ration cards for hot air than is invested in the world's most important staple food.
It must have felt like this in the latter days of Rome.
"In 2011, the global carbon trading market climbed to a record US$176 billion – about the same as global wheat production".
See: It's no wonder the world's cooling on climate change | Mail Online
This is surely an indicator of a western world gone mad. We invest more in ration cards for hot air than is invested in the world's most important staple food.
It must have felt like this in the latter days of Rome.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
The latter days of Rome? Well, all the stupid idiots who still cling to the Global warming theory are like rats going down on their ship.
Similarities to Rome? Well, there might be some but being gay
has not been forced on us yet. (ps. I don't really give a shite about the PC of any messages I write - look where being PC has got us so far).
Similarities to Rome? Well, there might be some but being gay
has not been forced on us yet. (ps. I don't really give a shite about the PC of any messages I write - look where being PC has got us so far).
Me too Dave. Screw em if anyone get their knickers in a twist by something I might say.It's only me! No if God smack-talked them, I could understanfd their upset. But me? If they don't like it, tell me to *** Off! Don't cry!
Global warming? Never did believe it myself. It is a fundamentally shit idea. We've only been conscious for the blink of an eye, and are already so arrogant we talk as if we invented the bloody place and made up the rules on how it all works! Utter, Utter Bollocks.
It's cold again today, but it wasn't cold, this time last year. So from that, we can safely deduce that the climate has changed? Sod off! OK, so in reality they base their findings on records of 100ish years. What's the difference? Nothing. That's what.
'Climate Change' is a sinister attempt, conspired between many governments (and back-room boys we don't know about), to manipulate the people on a global scale, in to 'investing' into the system that keeps us all firmly where we are. Firmly in our place!
Rant over.
Global warming? Never did believe it myself. It is a fundamentally shit idea. We've only been conscious for the blink of an eye, and are already so arrogant we talk as if we invented the bloody place and made up the rules on how it all works! Utter, Utter Bollocks.
It's cold again today, but it wasn't cold, this time last year. So from that, we can safely deduce that the climate has changed? Sod off! OK, so in reality they base their findings on records of 100ish years. What's the difference? Nothing. That's what.
'Climate Change' is a sinister attempt, conspired between many governments (and back-room boys we don't know about), to manipulate the people on a global scale, in to 'investing' into the system that keeps us all firmly where we are. Firmly in our place!
Rant over.
Too late Brother Mark - you have been outed by your US Comrades:
Communist Party USA (Soviet Anthem In English) - YouTube
:laugh:
Communist Party USA (Soviet Anthem In English) - YouTube
:laugh:
Mark! I am very pleased to see your view on Global Warming!
Well done Lads all !
Well done Lads all !
Agreed. Having worked hard enough to have paid great wads of tax into the system and being lucky enough to retain enough money to actually afford a few trappings at the end of it all, does indeed make you a target! To even say such a thing, one runs a very real risk of being called a rich twat with no understanding of the plight of those less 'fortunate'. Tosh!
"Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity. To the planet, he suggests, the rising carbon may well be a MacGuffin, a striking yet ultimately benign occurrence in what Dyson says is still “a relatively cool period in the earth’s history.” The warming, he says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.” Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=2
Here is one I found interesting:
This was just copied and pasted from a link on the Yahoo login page...IIRC the source was Reuters...have no idea of their political persuasions or their veracity, just found it interesting.
Cheers!
Doug
Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround'
"A prominent scientist who was skeptical of the evidence that climate change was real, let alone that it was caused by humans, now says he has made a "total turnaround." Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, says he has become convinced that "the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct," and that humans are "almost entirely the cause" of that warming.
Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) team two years ago in order to independently assess what he viewed as questionable evidence of global warming. In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.
Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The numbers closely agree with the findings of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others; but finally, they were rigorous enough to satisfy Muller.
Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth's climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming.
"The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried," he wrote Saturday (July 28) in a New York Times editorial. "Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."
That's a high bar indeed. In graphs released with the new study, a red line representing the atmoaspheric concentration of CO2 crawls across the decades almost exactly tracing the black line representing the observed warming of the Earth. [What Are Climate Change Skeptics Still Skeptical About?]
By comparison, the study found that natural variability, including variations in the solar cycle, El Niño events and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (shifts in sea-surface temperatures that run in cycles), could have accounted for no more than 0.17 degrees Celsius of temperature variation — either warming or cooling — during the past 150 years. These natural forces are much subtler than the warming seen during the same time period.
In fact, the new results indicate that humans have been warming the Earth for longer than climate scientists previously thought certain. "In its 2007 report, the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans," Muller wrote. "It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural."
Not so, according to the new findings; variations in solar activity have a negligible effect on Earth's temperature. The handiwork is almost all our own.
"I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered," Muller wrote. "I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."
This was just copied and pasted from a link on the Yahoo login page...IIRC the source was Reuters...have no idea of their political persuasions or their veracity, just found it interesting.
Cheers!
Doug
Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround'
"A prominent scientist who was skeptical of the evidence that climate change was real, let alone that it was caused by humans, now says he has made a "total turnaround." Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, says he has become convinced that "the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct," and that humans are "almost entirely the cause" of that warming.
Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) team two years ago in order to independently assess what he viewed as questionable evidence of global warming. In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.
Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The numbers closely agree with the findings of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others; but finally, they were rigorous enough to satisfy Muller.
Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth's climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming.
"The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried," he wrote Saturday (July 28) in a New York Times editorial. "Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."
That's a high bar indeed. In graphs released with the new study, a red line representing the atmoaspheric concentration of CO2 crawls across the decades almost exactly tracing the black line representing the observed warming of the Earth. [What Are Climate Change Skeptics Still Skeptical About?]
By comparison, the study found that natural variability, including variations in the solar cycle, El Niño events and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (shifts in sea-surface temperatures that run in cycles), could have accounted for no more than 0.17 degrees Celsius of temperature variation — either warming or cooling — during the past 150 years. These natural forces are much subtler than the warming seen during the same time period.
In fact, the new results indicate that humans have been warming the Earth for longer than climate scientists previously thought certain. "In its 2007 report, the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans," Muller wrote. "It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural."
Not so, according to the new findings; variations in solar activity have a negligible effect on Earth's temperature. The handiwork is almost all our own.
"I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered," Muller wrote. "I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."
cough-bollox-cough
Check just this one line from the above: according to the new findings; variations in solar activity have a negligible effect on Earth's temperature. The handiwork is almost all our own
So the Sun has a negligible effect on the Earth??? Are you fooking trying to kill me with this bloody stupid arguement?
Sun come up, flowers grow, sun comes out too much, flowers wilt and die. Jumpers in the winter, T-shirts and shorts in the summer.
At least now we can sleep easy in our beds, knowing that should the Sun go Nova, we have nothing to worry about!
FOOLS!!! :furious:
Check just this one line from the above: according to the new findings; variations in solar activity have a negligible effect on Earth's temperature. The handiwork is almost all our own
So the Sun has a negligible effect on the Earth??? Are you fooking trying to kill me with this bloody stupid arguement?
Sun come up, flowers grow, sun comes out too much, flowers wilt and die. Jumpers in the winter, T-shirts and shorts in the summer.
At least now we can sleep easy in our beds, knowing that should the Sun go Nova, we have nothing to worry about!
FOOLS!!! :furious:
PS. I am not calling you a fool personally Doug.
I might be, Mark!
I copied and pasted the information because I frequently read this thread but seldom post on it, I have not "vetted" most of the sources of information, nor have I vetted this one...said as much at the beginning.
Realize that scientists, like many other occupations, have a vested interest in making sure their field provides continued employment, so the source of the information might well be suspect.
Here in the U.S., though, we are experiencing extreme swings...although they are all toward the "warmer" range. We had an incredibly mild winter, it never even got below freezing here in the area from which I am posting now, about 70 miles north of Houston, TX. We are having an equally incredibly warm summer....although, admittedly, the drought situation seems to have abated at the present.
IMHO, the question is not "Does mankind affect the environment with his polution?", it is "How much does mankind affect the environment with his pollution?".
There's still room for discussion regarding that, but to have a rational discussion the information bandied about needs to be unbiased. I frequently mention not to believe much you read on the internet unless you trust the veracity of the source...some are reliable, some are not (Fox News? Network is a great example).
I see another thread has been posted in the Paddock with the same reference as I copied and pasted.
Cheers!
Doug
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Doug, I agree that men should not pollute the Planet. No argument from me at
all!
But please accept that carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is one of the sources
Of life on Earth.
As for the chap who has completely changed his point of view, I cynically wonder where his next research grant is coming from and who is funding it.
all!
But please accept that carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is one of the sources
Of life on Earth.
As for the chap who has completely changed his point of view, I cynically wonder where his next research grant is coming from and who is funding it.
