sorry Lizzie..
as usual "not available in your area" :(
Quotesorry Lizzie..
as usual "not available in your area" :(
or this one Cem?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/y4yql/
:-/
Excellent Lizzie.......I'm not convinced my good friend Nickbat will agree with certain views on climate change though... ::) ::) :)
now if you had a well that was examined by 100 scientists and 99 of them told you the water wasn't safe to drink why would you believe the guy saying "go ahead - they're all idiots" :-/
now if you had a well that was examined by 100 scientists and 99 of them told you the water wasn't safe to drink why would you believe the guy saying "go ahead - they're all idiots" :-/
Quote
now if you had a well that was examined by 100 scientists and 99 of them told you the water wasn't safe to drink why would you believe the guy saying "go ahead - they're all idiots" :-/
I doubt very much that you would get 99 out of 100 scientists to agree with any theory BJ. ;D ;D ;D
(Unless they were being funded in research grants by 'concerned' parties or were working to a specific agenda)
Quote
now if you had a well that was examined by 100 scientists and 99 of them told you the water wasn't safe to drink why would you believe the guy saying "go ahead - they're all idiots" :-/
I doubt very much that you would get 99 out of 100 scientists to agree with any theory BJ. ;D ;D ;D
(Unless they were being funded in research grants by 'concerned' parties or were working to a specific agenda)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Quotehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
So that is the limit of your argument against this documentary Nickbat! Involving the Mail, your biased against the BBC, and the upset Sissons!::) ::) ::) ::)
And you complain so often about Banjax's postings!! ::) ::) ::) :D ;)
I personnaly believe it is happening, and now, after watching and considering the facts from this documentary along with other sources, I am really starting to believe it is at least being assisted by mans activity on Earth.
;) ;)
QuoteQuotehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
So that is the limit of your argument against this documentary Nickbat! Involving the Mail, your biased against the BBC, and the upset Sissons!::) ::) ::) ::)
And you complain so often about Banjax's postings!! ::) ::) ::) :D ;)
I didn't want to get into an interminable argument again. But if you want science, tell me if you can draw any conclusions from this:
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/v6nick/tempvsstations.jpg)
:-?
You are taking one chart out of isolation and as Sir Paul Nurse made clear in the documentary so many climatic sceptics are using little sound bites that favour their argument to justify the whole.
The fact is Nickbat the Earth IS getting warmer on average, as noted by no less than NASA using their satellites looking down on the Earth and recording the facts, and will increase by another 0.75% of a degree. As I previously mentioned, it is the speed this is taking place that is shocking scientists, as at no time in ancient or modern history has this transpired before.
Belive it or not Nickbat. You can either accept the facts or not! ::) ::) ::) ::)
[size=12]You don't need any scientists whatsover to know that the sheer presence of a tripled world population within my Dads lifetime IS having a detrimental effect on the world and its climate.[/size]Try this experiment at home and become a scientist. Stick 20 people in your living room and you will soon spot the temperature rise particularly if they are using their Ipods, making hot drinks, farting or just talking hot air. There you are now a fully qualified scientist. :y
It really makes me laugh how a whole section of society makes a living out of pretending that our inflated unatural presence on Earth may or may not be causing issues. Mankind is truly pathetic.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
So that is the limit of your argument against this documentary Nickbat! Involving the Mail, your biased against the BBC, and the upset Sissons!::) ::) ::) ::)
And you complain so often about Banjax's postings!! ::) ::) ::) :D ;)
I didn't want to get into an interminable argument again. But if you want science, tell me if you can draw any conclusions from this:
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/v6nick/tempvsstations.jpg)
:-?
You are taking one chart out of isolation and as Sir Paul Nurse made clear in the documentary so many climatic sceptics are using little sound bites that favour their argument to justify the whole.
The fact is Nickbat the Earth IS getting warmer on average, as noted by no less than NASA using their satellites looking down on the Earth and recording the facts, and will increase by another 0.75% of a degree. As I previously mentioned, it is the speed this is taking place that is shocking scientists, as at no time in ancient or modern history has this transpired before.
Belive it or not Nickbat. You can either accept the facts or not! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Here are some facts for you, Lizzie:
"In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average)."
Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core show strong, abrupt warming depicted by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures.
"The largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming."
Professor Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, 24 January 2011.
Oh, and while we're about it, that chart is not "in isolation" as you put it. It shows the loss (in thousands) of surface stations occurred at the same time as the surface temperature records started to rise. That is a fact. I think I'm entitled to be sceptical.
Incidentally, the Parliamentary Sci-Tech Committe released a report at midnight on the climategate inquiries:
"Graham Stringer, a Labour MP on the Committee, said there are questions over how the scientists chose the figures they used to back up the case for global warming."
“It does not say this is the end of the scientific case for global warming but it does say that people at the centre of this research did some very bad science,” he said."
“It is not a whitewash, it is the establishment looking after their own. They are not looking hard enough at what went wrong.”
As the only member of the committee with a science background, is Mr Stringer entitled to be a tad sceptical as well?
;)
and if you dont believe that man kind, cant change the climate, here is a simple example.. my city's surrounding mountains are covered with thick snow in the last 2 months , but not even a tiny piece of snow dropped onto the city .. ;)
Quoteand if you dont believe that man kind, cant change the climate, here is a simple example.. my city's surrounding mountains are covered with thick snow in the last 2 months , but not even a tiny piece of snow dropped onto the city .. ;)
Indeed Cem! :y :y :y
Like all our big cities, like London, the temperature is always 1 or 2 degrees higher than in the surrounding countryside :D :D ;)
I'll stick with NASA for now :y
Quote[size=12]You don't need any scientists whatsover to know that the sheer presence of a tripled world population within my Dads lifetime IS having a detrimental effect on the world and its climate.[/size]Try this experiment at home and become a scientist. Stick 20 people in your living room and you will soon spot the temperature rise particularly if they are using their Ipods, making hot drinks, farting or just talking hot air. There you are now a fully qualified scientist. :y
It really makes me laugh how a whole section of society makes a living out of pretending that our inflated unatural presence on Earth may or may not be causing issues. Mankind is truly pathetic.
very well defines the case.. ;D :y
QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Quote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and escpouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
Quote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
QuoteQuote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
In that case D as I'm the owner (and occasional driver) of a Desmond, my conscience is clear. ;D ;D :y
Quote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
QuoteQuote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
That sounds quite similar to myself, but I dont call it reducing my carbon footprint, I call it being skint. ;) ::) ;DQuoteQuote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
QuoteQuoteQuote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
Yeah , I do all that too.......... :)
As I have commented before, the apparant rise in global temperatures is due to the lack of pirates:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=global+warming%2C+pirates&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
So its simple, its all the fault of pirates!
As I have commented before, the apparant rise in global temperatures is due to the lack of pirates:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=global+warming%2C+pirates&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
So its simple, its all the fault of pirates!
Science : "any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation" (Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So, not science, then. We're talking about politics, pure and simple. Science is about developing our understanding of that which we have observed to be true, not trying for various reasons to promote a theory that hasn't been backed up by proper observations.
Kevin
QuoteScience : "any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation" (Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So, not science, then. We're talking about politics, pure and simple. Science is about developing our understanding of that which we have observed to be true, not trying for various reasons to promote a theory that hasn't been backed up by proper observations.
Kevin
precisely, remove the politics from the facts, the raw data doesn't know right-wing from tree-hugger :y
QuoteThat sounds quite similar to myself, but I dont call it reducing my carbon footprint, I call it being skint. ;) ::) ;DQuoteQuote[/u]QuoteI'll stick with NASA for now :y
Yes, a fair enough position BJ.
What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?
Perhaps , as a start , those who vilify non believers and espouse the concept that man should minimise his , or her , carbon footprint should consider the hypocracy of driving around in a large V6 automatic saloon . ;)
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
Science : "any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation" (Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So, not science, then. We're talking about politics, pure and simple. Science is about developing our understanding of that which we have observed to be true, not trying for various reasons to promote a theory that hasn't been backed up by proper observations.
Kevin
Good lord Z, how do you stay warm!?
I have the heating set to 21 or 21.5 in here and it has to be on for a good three hours to get the house back up to that temperature .. and it still often feels freezing rather cold!
My flat was never this hard to keep warm :-/
Quote
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
Yes Lizzie I think that's a very practical way many people can help if they think help is needed.
Like you I have the double glazing, cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, thermostat set at 18 degrees (except in the worst of the recent weather, heating operating 2hrs in the morning and 2hrs in the evening.
I take showers rather than baths, I've set aside some ground for home grown produce, I rarely buy processed foods, I try to mend rather than replace.
I drive only when necessary and then it's invariably the Prius (not for any overt green reason - it gets 55mpg which is slightly better than that of the Desmond ;D)
I haven't taken a holiday since 1992 and I switch off most things at bedtime.
I try to be as responsible as I can - and I don't mind being so - but what would annoy me is if some NGO, committee or other group decided on the back of their own assertions, based on the current AGW wisdom, that I would have to make even more sacrifices in my lifestyle and tried to reinforce the point by energy rationing by way of pricing or denial of full service then I would by very annoyed indeed.
[/highlight]Quote
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
Yes Lizzie I think that's a very practical way many people can help if they think help is needed.
Like you I have the double glazing, cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, thermostat set at 18 degrees (except in the worst of the recent weather, heating operating 2hrs in the morning and 2hrs in the evening.
I take showers rather than baths, I've set aside some ground for home grown produce, I rarely buy processed foods, I try to mend rather than replace.
I drive only when necessary and then it's invariably the Prius (not for any overt green reason - it gets 55mpg which is slightly better than that of the Desmond ;D)
I haven't taken a holiday since 1992 and I switch off most things at bedtime.
I try to be as responsible as I can - and I don't mind being so - but what would annoy me is if some NGO, committee or other group decided on the back of their own assertions, based on the current AGW wisdom, that I would have to make even more sacrifices in my lifestyle and tried to reinforce the point by energy rationing by way of pricing or denial of full service then I would by very annoyed indeed.
I forgot to add that I only flush every time for solids - I wait for four or five evacuations from the front-bottom before flushing for 'liquids'. ;D :y
You have the makings of being the perfect house guest. Just one question....do you switch everything off to stop the electricity leaking away? ;D ;D I have several relatives that do that on table lamps, kettle and so on. I can see the point when they have LEDs or a transformer within using phantom juice.
Quote
But you see we may not be perfect, but I for me do the following to offset my V6 ownership.
I drive far less than ever before. I recycle everything I can. I use energy efficient light bulbs throughout my home, with all appliances fully turned off at night. The central heating thermostat is turned down to operate at a temperature as low as my health may take. All radiators have thermostats. My windows are double glazed. I buy food in the least packaging possible, and cook on mass the meals I eat from fresh ingredients, and rarely have 'ready meals'. I rarely take holidays abroad now using aircraft.
Oh, and I tend to buy old cars and keep them for some years, and not new ones expensively produced using huge amounts of energy!
That's me then, how about you? ;)
Yes Lizzie I think that's a very practical way many people can help if they think help is needed.
Like you I have the double glazing, cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, thermostat set at 18 degrees (except in the worst of the recent weather, heating operating 2hrs in the morning and 2hrs in the evening.
I take showers rather than baths, I've set aside some ground for home grown produce, I rarely buy processed foods, I try to mend rather than replace.
I drive only when necessary and then it's invariably the Prius (not for any overt green reason - it gets 55mpg which is slightly better than that of the Desmond ;D)
I haven't taken a holiday since 1992 and I switch off most things at bedtime.
I try to be as responsible as I can - and I don't mind being so - but what would annoy me is if some NGO, committee or other group decided on the back of their own assertions, based on the current AGW wisdom, that I would have to make even more sacrifices in my lifestyle and tried to reinforce the point by energy rationing by way of pricing or denial of full service then I would by very annoyed indeed.
I forgot to add that I only flush every time for solids - I wait for four or five evacuations from the front-bottom before flushing for 'liquids'. ;D :y
I forgot to add that I only flush every time for solids - I wait for four or five evacuations from the front-bottom before flushing for 'liquids'. ;D :y
very good ;D ;D ;D :yQuoteI forgot to add that I only flush every time for solids - I wait for four or five evacuations from the front-bottom before flushing for 'liquids'. ;D :y
I would imagine, then, that diarrhea would be more of moral, than a physical, dilemma. ;) ;D ;D
The thin end of the wedge regarding reducing freedom in the name of climate change has already been hammered into place.
Perhaps the most obvious example is the fact that we have almost no choice but to use those hateful low energy bulbs, which produce next to break all light. Traditional light bulbs are being phased out and will be illegal to sell in the next year or two. Im sure there are plenty more (serious) restrictions in the pipeline. >:( >:(
QuoteI forgot to add that I only flush every time for solids - I wait for four or five evacuations from the front-bottom before flushing for 'liquids'. ;D :y
I would imagine, then, that diarrhea would be more of moral, than a physical, dilemma. ;) ;D ;D
QuoteQuoteI forgot to add that I only flush every time for solids - I wait for four or five evacuations from the front-bottom before flushing for 'liquids'. ;D :y
I would imagine, then, that diarrhea would be more of moral, than a physical, dilemma. ;) ;D ;D
Quite correct Nick - the onset and discharge of the hybrid stool always conspires to cause me great moral difficulty. :( :( :(
The thin end of the wedge regarding reducing freedom in the name of climate change has already been hammered into place.
Perhaps the most obvious example is the fact that we have almost no choice but to use those hateful low energy bulbs, which produce next to break all light. Traditional light bulbs are being phased out and will be illegal to sell in the next year or two. Im sure there are plenty more (serious) restrictions in the pipeline. >:( >:(
So human. :-?
I've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.
My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big. A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.
Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream. And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.
As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW? I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true. So human. :-?
QuoteI've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.
My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big. A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.
Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream. And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.
As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW? I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true. So human. :-?
Very glad Chris you found the half of the programme you watched fascinating :y :y :y.
I would strongly recommend you watch the other half though when you have the time as there are so many different highly interesting observations being discussed throughout.
You mention the fact that no one mentions the Sun as the cause, and I don't know if you saw the part were indeed the chief NASA scientist ruled out any connection with the Sun causing the current climate change.
The point about human activity was highly important in my mind, and as you say Chris us humans will have a price to pay. The fact mankind is producing 7 gigaton of carbon emmissions per year compared to just 1 gigaton produced naturally is something surely no one should ignore. That point is of course what the world's political leaders and top scientists are tackling, much to the dismay of some humans! ::) ::)
QuoteQuoteI've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.
My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big. A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.
Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream. And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.
As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW? I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true. So human. :-?
Very glad Chris you found the half of the programme you watched fascinating :y :y :y.
I would strongly recommend you watch the other half though when you have the time as there are so many different highly interesting observations being discussed throughout.
You mention the fact that no one mentions the Sun as the cause, and I don't know if you saw the part were indeed the chief NASA scientist ruled out any connection with the Sun causing the current climate change.
The point about human activity was highly important in my mind, and as you say Chris us humans will have a price to pay. The fact mankind is producing 7 gigaton of carbon emmissions per year compared to just 1 gigaton produced naturally is something surely no one should ignore. That point is of course what the world's political leaders and top scientists are tackling, much to the dismay of some humans! ::) ::)
I meant to pick up on this point earlier. Today's article by Booker in the DT has reminded me to dig out the thread.
With respect to the highlighted words:
This was so much the message they wanted that Nurse invited him to confirm that human emissions are seven times greater than those from all natural sources. This was mind-boggling. It is generally agreed that the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 due to human activity represent just over 3 percent of the total emitted. That given off by natural sources, such as the oceans, is vastly greater than this, more than 96 per cent of the total.
One may argue about the "carbon cycle" and how much CO2 the oceans and plants reabsorb. But, as baldly stated, the point was simply a grotesque misrepresentation, serving, like many of the programme's other assertions, only to give viewers a wholly misleading impression.
..and a few were, indeed, misled. :( ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html
Oh, and I recommend the last part of the article which asks whether the Met's temperature data was "adjusted" to make 2010 the warmest, as claimed. :o
The words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy. I know who I believe first. ;) ;) ;)
We can (and probably will) argue about the rights and wrongs of this subject for forever and a day, but I think there is a great danger in watching Tv programmes etc. and accepting them at their word, assuming the contributors are as expert as their job title suggests and believing they are as honest and objective as they are being peresented.
The only hope of getting near the truth imo, is to study as much available info as possible from all perspectives and try to use best judgement as to where the truth is likely to lie.
Personally, I am still extremely sceptical about the whole man made global warming theory.
QuoteThe words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy. I know who I believe first. ;) ;) ;)
;D ;D The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:
If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.
"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.
Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."
DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html
If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths. :y
You've been suckered, methinks. ;) ;)
QuoteQuoteThe words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy. I know who I believe first. ;) ;) ;)
;D ;D The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:
If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.
"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.
Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."
DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html
If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths. :y
You've been suckered, methinks. ;) ;)
A case of lies.... damn lies.... and statistics... I think. ;)I'm with Lizzie on this one..... :y.....and she does not strike me as being particularly gullible either Nick... :y
QuoteThe words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy. I know who I believe first. ;) ;) ;)
;D ;D The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:
If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.
"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.
Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."
DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html
If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths. :y
You've been suckered, methinks. ;) ;)
You are off on one again Nick! ::) ::) ::) ::) Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you does not make them a lesser mortal to you! It certainly does not prove that they have been suckered!! >:( >:( >:( >:( You are again being very condescending to someone who does not accept all of your posted "facts", even when you quote a TD journalist!! ::) ::) ::)
Please see my previous post and answer to Albs for a full account of how I stand where I do!
I think my posts on this subject with you involved are over Nick. Just because I do not think like you does not make me wrong, right, or indifferent. :( :( :(
QuoteYou are off on one again Nick! ::) ::) ::) ::) Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you does not make them a lesser mortal to you! It certainly does not prove that they have been suckered!! >:( >:( >:( >:( You are again being very condescending to someone who does not accept all of your posted "facts", even when you quote a TD journalist!! ::) ::) ::)
Please see my previous post and answer to Albs for a full account of how I stand where I do!
I think my posts on this subject with you involved are over Nick. Just because I do not think like you does not make me wrong, right, or indifferent. :( :( :(
Lizzie, I was merely pointing out that human CO2 emissions DO NOT exceed natural emissions. That is a fact. The NASA chap may have been trying to fudge the issue by combining debatable sequestration rates, no one knows, but what is certain is that you and many others came away with the belief that man-made CO2 outstrips natural. Which is simply untrue. :(
I bang on about this subject because, although I believe I am a good steward of the environment in my personal life and am keen to see our wonderful countryside and wildlife protected, the global warming narrative is used as a thin veneer for anti-Western, anti-capitalist propaganda. That is why nothing is allowed to question the mantra. It is junk science for political ends, IMHO.
Oh, and why is the UN so anti-capitalist?* Oh, yes, that would be for "environmental" reasons. The fact is that western democracies have the cleanest lands, environmentally-speaking.
*http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/un-sec-gen-capitalism-is-environmental-suicide-says-we-need-a-revolution/
;)
How odd that you did not respond to my comment about your "lies" allegation. Are the figures I gave correct? Yes or no. Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ;)
As for the "conspiracy", I merely note what Ban Ki-Moon has just said (see link supplied). ::)
QuoteHow odd that you did not respond to my comment about your "lies" allegation. Are the figures I gave correct? Yes or no. Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ;)
As for the "conspiracy", I merely note what Ban Ki-Moon has just said (see link supplied). ::)
For "figures" substitute "statistics".......which by their very nature are neither absolute or definitive.
I could provide one set of figures........you could provide another. I'll wager that both sets are far closer to guesswork and opinion than to fact... :y
QuoteQuoteHow odd that you did not respond to my comment about your "lies" allegation. Are the figures I gave correct? Yes or no. Simple question, requiring a simple answer. ;)
As for the "conspiracy", I merely note what Ban Ki-Moon has just said (see link supplied). ::)
For "figures" substitute "statistics".......which by their very nature are neither absolute or definitive.
I could provide one set of figures........you could provide another. I'll wager that both sets are far closer to guesswork and opinion than to fact... :y
Go on then. I challenge you! ;)
hmmmm....who to believe...Nickbat or NASA.......tricky one that, my problem is how dare NASA be so arrogant as to dream that they know more on the subject than Nickbat, with his unwavering eye for the truth and access to every website on the net :o
you're wasting your time NASA - he'll never buy your lies :y
You may have just (inadvertently) hit the nail on the head Cem.
Cuba is concerned about the effects of global warming.Cuba is much too poor to do anything about it. The major western economies will be asked to give Cuba lots of (dirty capitalist) money to help it in its fight against global warming.Can you think of any other method that could ever be used, where the rich countries redistribute their wealth to the poorest countries, such as Cuba and all the African countries which have also been wrecked by tinpot communist dictatorships. ;)
One thing I have observed from these threads is that Nick tries as much as is possible to deal in facts, or at least data from sources which are as reliable as he can find. The people arguing the opposite case, afair rarely present any facts or data to counter this. The arguments tend to be wide sweeping statements and opinions with little if anything to back them up.
Could one of the reasons for this be that so much of the data produced to back up the global warming case has been disproved and discredited ?
Btw, I also note with interest that people fall into the trap of joining pollution/AGW together. They are not the same thing. I am and always have been against pollution of the planet,only a fool or someone with a large vested interest could argue otherwise, but it doesnt follow that we are destroying the planet by emitting co2, they are two different issues.
I think we would be wise to worry more about large scale deforestation - some of which is being carried out to help produce biofriendly fuels - utter madness.
Precisely Cem.A make believe world, in which everything is back to front and upside down and makes no sense whatsoever in the real world. ;) ;D
QuoteYou may have just (inadvertently) hit the nail on the head Cem.
Cuba is concerned about the effects of global warming.Cuba is much too poor to do anything about it. The major western economies will be asked to give Cuba lots of (dirty capitalist) money to help it in its fight against global warming.Can you think of any other method that could ever be used, where the rich countries redistribute their wealth to the poorest countries, such as Cuba and all the African countries which have also been wrecked by tinpot communist dictatorships. ;)
nah.. its the stolen money from them ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D they have to give it back anyway ;D ;D ;D ;D
hmmmm....who to believe...Nickbat or NASA.......tricky one that, my problem is how dare NASA be so arrogant as to dream that they know more on the subject than Nickbat, with his unwavering eye for the truth and access to every website on the net :o
you're wasting your time NASA - he'll never buy your lies :y
"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/albak.jpg)
these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..
On the question of Dr. Robert ("Bob") Bindschadler. , ok Nick he may have made one simple mistake as we all do at work and play. In fact what you do not mention is it has been stated:
"Dr Bindschadler suggests that the 7:1 figure is actually not that far out from the correct figure for net anthropogenic:natural carbon dioxide emissions, so the effect of the mistake is limited."
thing is.......even if there was any doubt whatsoever, why not just err on the side of caution? thats what i dont understand with the sceptics? i've made this point before but say you moved to a village with a drinking well and 99% of the locals told you not to drink from the well as its polluted and dangerous - why would you drink? you believe the one guy? well 99% of science is saying its real, its a problem and we need to deal with it.
scepticism and questioning of science is laudable and necessary but eventually, when every claim the denier brigade come up with is refuted, when they cherry-pick data, misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) the mounting evidence theres comes a point when the debates finished and we need to look at solutions :(
2 • Sea level[/i]
– will continue to increase and accelerate
– 1 m by 2100 is likely
– Just the beginning
• eventual level dependent on future CO2 emissions
"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/albak.jpg)
these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..
Quote"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/albak.jpg)
these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..
Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..
If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.
wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
Quotewow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
It's people like you and Nick that stop the rest of us giving a sh!t. ;D
wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
Quotewow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
How do you know you are right BJ?
Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.
I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?
I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.
Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quotewow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
How do you know you are right BJ?
Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.
I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?
I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.
Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
QuoteQuotewow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
How do you know you are right BJ?
Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.
I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?
I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.
Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
sorry Zulu - the whole "its a big conspiracy involving every government on the planet" schtick doesnt wash with me - its science not belief :o
wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
Quotewow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
If you would care to read the PDF at this link you will find that there are over 1,000 dissenting scientists, a figure which you may want to compare with the 52 that participated in the IPCC Summary.
http://69.16.184.196/g9z6c6z5/cds/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=480a3e0f5fa9002f9b4e61049a31f611&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&dopvhost=hw.libsyn.com&doppl=f07a229fbd7a2b08bd2a2b08f83a93b5&dopsig=8cdfac851815e587edbfa6b557cf8b20
:y
QuoteQuoteQuotewow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.
100% it is then :y
you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome :(
How do you know you are right BJ?
Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.
I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?
I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.
Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
sorry Zulu - the whole "its a big conspiracy involving every government on the planet" schtick doesnt wash with me - its science not belief :o
I didn't say it was a conspiracy BJ.
i think the problem arises when you give valuable, lengthy and exhaustive scientific research the same weight as unqualified spurious gibbering :y
I'm as sceptical as the next man, and the value of scepticism cannot be underestimated or quashed, but on this one, the debates over.
"any idiot can pull unattributable quotes by people no ones heard of off a website" Banjax the Wise, Hobbiton, The Shire
Quote"any idiot can pull unattributable quotes by people no ones heard of off a website" Banjax the Wise, Hobbiton, The Shire
Calling me an idiot now? How quaint, BJ. ::) ::) ::)
i think the problem arises when you give valuable, lengthy and exhaustive scientific research the same weight as unqualified spurious gibbering :y
I'm as sceptical as the next man, and the value of scepticism cannot be underestimated or quashed, but on this one, the debates over.
Quote"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/albak.jpg)
these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..
Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..
If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.
lets be honest, there is no easy , cheap, abundant energy source like fossil fuels.. and most govts and countries trying to delay the envitable expensive precautions they must take (of which they still dont know).. and rejecting the truth simply..
and for scientists , before believing them I do believe my very eyes that everyday industry and households, hundreds of millions of cars are flowing on roads emitting CO2 which the nature cant absorb !!(as seen in my previous post)
so whats the point in debating that ? :-?
QuoteQuote"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/albak.jpg)
these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..
Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..
If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.
in principle correct, in reality and practice, waste of time..
reality :we are consuming lots of hydrocarbon that produces CO2..
counter argument :no we dont ;D its negligible.. :-?
its like smoking in a room and saying , negligible ;D
Quotelets be honest, there is no easy , cheap, abundant energy source like fossil fuels.. and most govts and countries trying to delay the envitable expensive precautions they must take (of which they still dont know).. and rejecting the truth simply..
and for scientists , before believing them I do believe my very eyes that everyday industry and households, hundreds of millions of cars are flowing on roads emitting CO2 which the nature cant absorb !!(as seen in my previous post)
so whats the point in debating that ? :-?
well said the wise man from the East :y