BBC jakes GW demo?

[The Medway Handyman]

Henceforth know as 'Wikiman'.

[The Natural Philosopher]

well that's a statement that stands aghast of anything.

how can man's activities NOT have an effect?

Since plants obviously do and more and more land surface is less and less plants and we are buring up all the plant life from a few million years ago...

yes, but this time there is no major volcanic eruption, no asteroid impact and no major change in solar activity to point the finger at.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think you would have to be a scientist to understand the answer one might give you.

[Roger Chapman]

Of course I can answer for myself. I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3 reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

2) It winds TMH up.

3) As a cite it should be a constant reminder that TMH (IIRC) has never once cited any source for the garbage he peddles.

[news09paul]

For the vast majority of earth's history, climate change has been entirely due to natural factors: solar flux, orbital variations, biological processes locking up carbon, volcanic events, etc.

Now, human activity can affect the climate too: e.g. a nice nuclear war (i.e. n. winter) should do the trick, although burning fossils and releasing carbon as CO2 works as well -- if a little more slowly, and in the oppsite direction.

Simples.

#Paul

[Man at B&Q]

I would call it circumstantial, rather than compelling.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, lets put that one to bed.

So it reduces to "For there to have been no AGW you would have to accept that mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2 concentrations"

Why? Of course mankind is responsible for CO2, along with many other emissions. You're making assumptions about the effect of CO2, specifically that the measured increase is directly responsible for any warming.

How long have accurate CO2 measurements been taken?

How reliable is the proxy data for historic CO2 levels?

MBQ

[The Natural Philosopher]

good grief. Did you really think that made any sense to anyone with any background in science?

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am speechless.

Surely this is drivel in a different sock?

[The Medway Handyman]

[dennis]

Are you actually trying to say something or just posting cr@p links for the sake of it?

[dennis]

Yes its so easy that you keep posting stuff that is irrelevant. you obviously don't know what they mean or you wouldn't post them.

[dennis]

Why can't you understand what stores energy in the atmosphere? A hint.. lots of latent energy in the form of water vapour.

You are in a sock?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Pass.

better than 97% as an estimate.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hint. And how much water vapour can you store in warm air as opposed to cold? Hint. Why does water vapour become mist of cloud, when it cools? Hint. Why is it cooler after it rains?

I see that one passed so far over your head it might as well have been a satellite.

[Roger Chapman]

That you don't find the cites relevant says a good deal more about you than it does about me, particularly when you don't come up with any cites of your own.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

The reference contains a definition of temperature.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Dont jest. It will probably come to that.

War is the problem solving tool of last resort.

The problem is really overpopulation, and, sadly, even a war may not be enough.

If I were around long enough to collect, Id place 10 grand on there being less people alive in 100 years than there are now.

[news09paul]

Throw a block of ice into the air. The ice has a low temperature, but nevertheless has both kinetic and gravitational potential energy.

#Paul

[The Medway Handyman]

Or you are a wanker who doesn't have enough information or intelligence to answer for yourself.

Don't flatter yourself Wikiman, you are trying to punch well above your weight.

And neither have you idiot. Your entire premise relies on refering any akward question to a Wikipedia page that happens to support your naive veiw. Such Wiki pages could of course be wildly inaccurate and/or written by someone who is a big a prat as you are.

This is going to be difficult for you. I'm going to ask you to think for yourself.

I could easily write a Wikipedia page claiming that global warning is caused by little green men in flying saucers and then refer anyone asking awkward questions to that page. It wouldn't prove a thing - except to fuckwits like you who believe what ever Wikipedia quotes.

So, apart from pathetic attempts to slag off anyone who doesn't swallow your ecobollox wholesale, you can't answer a simple question in case someone picks holes in your argument.

[The Medway Handyman]

Phil did not get an answer, he got a referal to a Wikipedia page, no doubt written by another ecoboloxist like you.

And nothing can alter the fact that you are evading the issue completely and are incapable of answering the simplest of questions.

Any post that questions your opinion is either refered to a Wikipedia page or met with abuse and name calling.

Anyone with a different opinion is a denier, a maverick, clueless, or a lunatic.

If you were able to answer a simple question you might make your point, as it is you are a complete f****it.