Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

http://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!!

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:



 :-?

[Varche]

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.

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.

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

 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.

     

Yes I'm certainly prepared to accept that Lizzie (as I always have) even to the point of human culpability (to a certain point) what I'm suspicious about is how this entire issue has been hijacked by those who seem to have a political agenda and a desire to alter our social behaviour.

Big business and those others who value the ability to generate wealth (for its own sake) from these concerns add another level of suspicion as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's justifiable to ask if we can do anything about this - in any realistic way without making retrograde steps to cut pollution before any viable technology is developed to ensure that we do as little damage as possible to the environment as we go about our daily lives.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

http://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!!

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:



 :-?

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!

[Nickbat]

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?

 

[cem_devecioglu]

[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.

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..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

http://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!!

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:



 :-?

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?

 

Yes indeed Nick, and the scientists, including the one from NASA, involved in studying climate change are very aware of those facts as they are at the forefront of their profession.  They are no amateurs like you or me, and are fully engaged in their specialised field, constantly reading papers published by other scientists and academics. 

Even with knowledge of all these facts they are concerned enough to publicly express their conclusions, as the NASA scientist did, when armed with the whole picture of fact. That is why the vast majority of the major world leaders are taking notice of these high ranking, international, scientists, and are not arguing against them.  Even countries like China are not disputing the facts, as understood by their own scientists, when for them it would be commercially a better option to do so!

No, climate change is a fact  , the Earth is warming up, a fact, and the world is witnessing many extremes of climatic change along with major events, a fact!  What is causing it is the question.  Is it natural , man made, or both?  After listening to the facts as described by NASA, especially the piece about carbon emmissions, I am now inclined to think it is man who is speeding up a maybe natural process.  It is this speed, a rapid change being witnessed, that is now fuelling the concern of the mainstream scientific community at least.

[cem_devecioglu]

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 ..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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 ..

Indeed Cem!

Like all our big cities, like London, the temperature is always 1 or 2 degrees higher than in the surrounding countryside

[Banjax]

I'll stick with NASA for now 

[Nickbat]

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 ..

Indeed Cem!

Like all our big cities, like London, the temperature is always 1 or 2 degrees higher than in the surrounding countryside

Yes, the UHI effect. Well documented. Also, the cause of some spurious historical temperature readings. Stations located in a field find themselves surrounded by tarmac within a couple of decades. Result? Average temperature goes up. If the station had remained in a rural location, it may well be the case that the average temperature would not have shown a rise. Indeed, that has been demonstrated to be the case in many instances. If you use surface station data that has been contaminated by UHI, you could be led into believing that it is a valuable contributor to  regional records. 

[Dishevelled Den]

I'll stick with NASA for now 

Yes, a fair enough position BJ.

What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

[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.

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..

Indeed Varche, then add to what you describe all the industry man engages in across the world, with a poulation rising to 9 billion by 2050, and you have to accept the World's climate must change

[Banjax]

I'll stick with NASA for now 

Yes, a fair enough position BJ.

What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?

well the answers/solutions are fairly unpalatable (hence, I suspect, the large number of skeptics - people rarely like to hear bad news or news that will cost money and therefore are quick to latch onto anyone saying its not true) as to ideas for tackling the problem, we have to assume that people wont act, governments wont spend money and business certainly wont lift a finger to reduce co2, so we have to accept that the solutions have to be cheap and unobtrusive - i like that guy who was on The 10 O'Clock Live show last week, painting roofs white helps and is easy and cheap, surely we can be bothered to do that much??


edit: Bjørn Lomborg's the guys name - practical and a realist 

[Olympia5776]

I'll stick with NASA for now 

Yes, a fair enough position BJ.

What is the answer to mitigating human involvement and continued behaviour in this change?

[/u]

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 .