They are certainly not good for the planet.
It tends not to rot down to nothing though which is why we have huge accumulations of fossil fuels in the coal measures and oil deposits.
Peat bogs are remarkably good at preserving lots of things too.
Main annoyance in future is that with global warming we are likely to release rather large amounts of trapped methane from the permafrost.
Greenland was only ever "green" when they were writing the PR brochure to sell the idea of moving there to hapless would be settlers.
There are vineyards in Yorkshire today and they are not producing cheap plonk to make homesick centurions feel better but commercial wines.
Edith Sitwells Renishaw Estate used to be the most northerly vineyard for a long while but has been overtaken by several others now.
Another is just north of York
I think the most northerly vineyard is now somewhere on the edge of the Lake District at Carnforth but it changes almost every year.
Doesn't this claim to be:
Good thing the planet isnt warming then.
Doesn't this tend to be wet, so no forest fire (for the most part).
I thought they were as they let sunlight get to ground level which then in turn creats the nurtiemnst in the soil. This was happened millions of years before mankind arrived.
Silly boy - there is a UK flag to display in English.
And:
to a very low level of scientific
are plenty of bogeymen left after
Given the inaccuracy of the models there are bogeymen left to be discovered.
I wonder when the models will predict the coming cold spell?
That's weather not climate. The greenies will tell you cold spells are weather and not climate so warm spells must also be weather and not climate.
Anyway the extremes aren't very extreme, we just don't have records or memory from very long ago. Some of the records they quote as being "since records began" are only a few decades old.
turn creats the nurtiemnst in the soil. This was happened millions of years before mankind arrived.
Young growth absorbs CO2 faster than the old stuff it replaces.
MBQ
only to a very low level of scientific
there are plenty of bogeymen left after
They've already done that one to death. It was patently wrong, so they went on to catastrophic warming instead.
What you will never see is a model predicting nice gradual (on a human scale) natural variations. It just doesn't sell enough papers.
MBQ
It's a good job the alarmists weren't around when we first started keeping temperature records. "Record" temperatures would be recorded quite frequently.
MBQ
If it warms up, it can drain and then rot.
The models are so loose these days that there is no event or even series of events that cannot be ascribed to 'Anthropogenic global warming'.
At which point anyone who has read Karl Popper is instantly reminded of the clarification that any theory that cannot be refuted by the evidence is essentially metaphysical, and the chief amongst such theories are the theories of religions....
Unprecendented low incidence of polar bears in St Albans: "This is the lowest incidence ever recorded" says David Attenborough. "We must do something now to stop things getting worse".
For the first time ever records show no Minky whales have been spotted in Loch Ness....says the newly formed department of minky whale spotting and Climate Change based in.. er..loch Ness. "This is extremely important and we are worth the £2m a year salaries we get to do this important research and settle once and for all the real facts surrounding the decline of minky whales, in loch Ness"
Meanwhile a curve fitting exercise that shows a three sigma correlation betwqeen the performance of the Manchester United football team and rainfall in Patagonia has lead leading climate scientists to call for government intervention to enforce Manchester United to throw matches' examining the records we have discovered that in the month of February
2011, every time Man U lost a game, it rained in Patagonia. The obvious solution is to force Alex Ferguson to throw games to save the planet.Sir Alex was 'Unavailable for comment".
On 16.01.2013 18:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote something about David Attenborough and curve fitting: ...
I am glad that the The Natural Philosopher has heard about the naturalist David Attenborough. Dr David Attenborough is a clever man. When he wanted to know more about our climate and its future, he went to the expert Dr Peter Cox, lead-author on Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment report. Together they produced this short YouTube video: The Truth About Climate Change
Dr. Peter Cox is a real doctor, David Attenborough is a Sir and The Natural Philosopher is one of those strange creatures that has spent a lot of years in school and still do not know how science and its consensus works.
Pardon my butting in, but the consensus of which you speak is only among the group that support or believe in MMCC/GW. Even then, not all of them agree among themselves. I could cite a reference where the latest work (still awaiting peer-review) had one of the potential authors dissociate herself from it on the grounds of the science involved.
Then there is the wider groups of scientists, among which is far greater disagreement with the evidence put forward for MMCC/GW. I did once see figures mentioned, which I greatly regret I can't cite, that there were 1500 scientists in the MMCC/GW industry, and 18000 outside it, suggesting the use of the term 'consensus' is being used somewhat loosely.
Everyone knows that CC takes place, and has done so since the planet was formed; the issues are whether human activities affect that, and whether any human action can modify it in a suitable way.
is one of those strange creatures who spent a lot of time in school and in the science lab so he knows exactly how science and its so called consensus *should* work, and waht science *really * is, and then spent a lot of time in a professions where modelling things in mathematics is meat and drink, and then spent an equal time running a business in an area where marketing, lies, spreading fear uncertainty and doubt were the standard way to achieve financial gain, and whose wife worked in the media preparing so called 'scientific' white papers for 'wonderful safe drugs' like seroxat...and in prepping up graphs from dodgy data for Nature..and in understanding exactly how peer review ACTUALLY works as against how it is supposed to work. And has read, marked and inwardly digested most of the salient works on the philosophy of science..
..as well as a considerable understanding of metaphysics, and the nature of religions.
So is utterly well able to identify when climate change stopped being science, and became the ruthless cynical marketing of a new religion purely for financial gain.
Try a Google search on "spencer christy inhofe climate" and you will see how anti-science and religion are related, or you can go directly to this site:
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required