In message , "Hawi:" writes
How about a *question time* vote from the unselected audience?
Those who believe global warming is factual and caused by human activities? Put up your hands.
regards
Haven't recent surveys shown that only around half of the public believe that climate change is human-induced?
And that figure would probably drop significantly lower if more people read about what is currently being referred to as "Climategate", with admissions of lying and the distortion and/or suppression of results from and by prominent climate researchers, because the results don't fit the "consensus".
An awkward time for climate research, isn't it? And just before Copenhagen too. :-(
That's really two questions that demand two answers.
The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. The evidence of the extent of the human contribution is open to interpretation both by scientists who should be disinterested and entrepreneurs who care only about their profits. So who is it wise to believe?
With the amount of dishonest propaganda put out by the deniers I am surprised that figure is so low.
Now that would depend what you read. On the one hand you have the stolen e-mails taken out of context and presented in a manner intended to deceive and on the other hand the explanation from the horse's mouth that has received very little publicity:
I wonder how long the perpetrators of the theft have been waiting in order to maximise the impact of their attack and to minimise the chance that they are exposed as a bunch of charlatans before the meeting. No doubt some of the mud will stick regardless and the committed among our readers won't even bother to follow the link above, secure in the knowledge that GW is only a fantasy put about by a few deranged scientists with an axe to grind and a research budget to acquire.
Oh yes, to get back to the original subject. Carbon offset is a farce designed to sooth the consciences of those who travel, without doing anything at all to reduce CO2 production in the long term. And even in the short term it takes the lifetime of the tree (even if it is genuinely a tree that otherwise would not have been planted) to take in the CO2 that is supposedly offset after which the tree is burnt or rots releasing the captured CO2 again. There is only one message that greenies should take to heart. If you want to do your bit to save the planet don't fly at all.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hawi:" saying something like:
More greeny c*ck.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hawi:" saying something like:
Door, arse, etc.
That is debateable. There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the last century. However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in average global temps. And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up without affecting the average much. Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the planet until a couple of decades ago.
Please feel free to add to or modify it.
There are, but the agenda is to a fair degree the same, and its to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use in order to avoid an expected climate catastrophe. A policy which sadly would kill a sickening number of people.
We'd only just started. There have been people here with way more knowledge to offer, and they didn't convince us either.
NT
So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one side.
The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they home.
You wish. Typical for the deniers to rubbish the data that doesn't agree with their prejudices. But even if you restrict the period to 20 years the warming trend is there in any period of 10 years within that period and all 10 of the warmest years on record are also there.
In a major extinction event 251m years ago a rise of 6degC was enough to wipe out over 90% of all life on earth. Took millions of years before any significant degree of recovery took place.
I have no idea. That's why I'm a skeptic.
snip
snip
Just an afterthought. The 'island effect' is of course entirely manmade and only indirectly attributable to CO2 emissions. Indeed when the greenies get their way and all power comes from renewable sources it will still be at least as great as it is now (as long as we don't have power shortages which seems likely). Whether it has a disproportionate effect on the figures for global averages depends on who you believe. I have tended to incline towards the Global Warmers in recent years precisely because I find it ridiculously easy to see through the arguments from the Deniers but much more difficult to find any flaws with the opposite point of view. The Warmers might not be perfect (and there are complete nutters on both sides) but they are much more consistent and have much more real science behind them.
:
Today we're able to heat, cool, and move.
NT
I have told you before, you have zero evidence only a few models. When you can understand this you will realise how stupid you are being now.
But you can't prove they have gone up by 1C as there isn't enough data for the first 60 years. What data you have is from cities and we all know that cities get warmer as they grow. This doe not mean the average temp for the rest of the world has gone up.
Oh yes! the last ten have shown an increase of how much?
What makes you think the rise caused the extinction? There are many things that could have caused the extinction and the rise including.. volcanoes, gamma ray bursts, asteroid impact you just choose temp rise without any evidence as it suits your agenda.
well thats no strictly accurate.
we know that
1/. 90% of life was wiped ouyt and2/. teh earth suffered a 6 degeree rise,
the two events are almost certainly correlated, but not necessarily directly causally.
I.e. 90% of dead bodies might generate aneogh methane to warm the erath that much ;-)|
Or something else cased both. Major eruption or asteroid strike, or indeed, both.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dismal Dennis can't distinguish between data from the past and models predicting the future.
The data is there, I don't have to prove anything. But you can't prove that your claim is anything other than a lie.
Plumbing new depths of stupidity there Dennis. Three fifths of the world's surface is sea and most of the rest is countryside.
Your whole hypothesis is nonsense.
Not a lot but some. You can take the sophisticated Met Office approach (factor out ENSO and apply statistics) or you can work it out as I did. The sum of the averages for the second 5 years is greater than the sum for the first 5 years which is also true for most 10 year periods over the last 40 years that you might care to pick including all those that have 1998 in the first five years. 1998 being the year deniers have been using to prove the world has since been cooling.
I can but you apparently can't. The data from the past does not support your view of global warming. The models do. Therefore you have zero evidence to base your beliefs on. I know it must make you feel dismal but there is no need to try and make others that way.
You fanatics always say that sort of thing. Your data does not support what you claim, I don't need to supply any more data to disprove what your own data fails to prove.
Correct, now you are making progress.. how many of the data points relate to those areas and how many to cities? once you work it out you will see how you are wrong.
My hypothesis is correct, it being that there isn't data to support your claims. You yourself have said that the majority of the planet isn't cities, however the majority of data points in the 80 year period you chose are in cities. How you can expect to get sensible results for the world in general from that situation is puzzling.
I bet you will still be denying the facts next year and the year after too.
You wish. I'm quoting Professor Michael Benton in his book "When Life Nearly Died - The greatest mass extinction of all time"
Of course many things could have caused the rise, but the point is that what sounds like a small rise was catastrophic. The idea of asteroid impact has been discarded. What makes you think I have an agenda?
I sometimes wonder why I continue to argue with people like Dennis and Dribble who make and continue to defend the most outrageous statements in the apparent belief that if they lie long enough and loud enough they will prove their point.
As I said before Dennis cannot distinguish between data from the past and models which predict the future. So come on Dennis show us how stupid you can really be by explaining precisely how models predict the past.
There is plenty of evidence out there. Try:
I have to admit that you are world class at clutching at straws.
You are the fanatic. The data clearly points to some degree of global warming over the last 100 years but you continue to swear black is white while being blind to the reality.
Nice of you to agree that you have been plumbing new depths of stupidity Dennis.
Try this again:
You don't have any facts to back up your fantasy and, unlike you, I am open to facts whether they are inconvenient or not.
I said to Terry Fields a year or two back that we wouldn't be sure whether the warming had ceased for a number of years and so far at least the warming trend has continued. The Met Office has apparently (I can't find the source) predicted that the next 10 years will exhibit warming at a rate similar to that experienced during the 1980s and 1990s. On the other hand the Deniers (or at least some of those who accept there has been warming in the past) are predicting a prolonged period of cooling. They can't both be right and only time will tell.
The point is they don't know that the rise did anything at all. As I said there are many things that could have caused the extinction and the rise, there is little if any evidence that the rise caused the extinction, or was even in the same millennia.
How about the gamma burst then? Nasty things.. turn air in nitrous compounds, destroy ozone, cause mass extinction due to UV exposure, etc.
Or a volcano.. lots of dust and CO2 in the atmosphere, easy to mistake the CO2 as causing a warmed climate when in reality its the cold that kills the species off.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.