global warming. help
11 December 2007, 10:20 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man damage to the planet doesnt stop there - no, our plundering of the planet doesnt even stop on our planet - we're messing up the whole solar system!
SPACE.com -- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon - MIT News Office
Climate change hits Mars - Times Online
See, its clearly man made actions of burning fossil fuels that are screwing up the whole plantary system. People saying that its got something to do with the Sun (which clearly has a constant output and always will) are funded by the evilAmericanpetrosatancorporations.
And dont start me on DHMO
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide
SPACE.com -- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon - MIT News Office
Climate change hits Mars - Times Online
See, its clearly man made actions of burning fossil fuels that are screwing up the whole plantary system. People saying that its got something to do with the Sun (which clearly has a constant output and always will) are funded by the evilAmericanpetrosatancorporations.
And dont start me on DHMO
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide
11 December 2007, 10:21 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I didn't say any of these things!
I'm only lobbying for people to have an open-minded approach, what's wrong with that? It may make you feel better to put words in my mouth, but it doesn't change anything.
I have never ONCE said anything is FACT or certain, I was simply trying to say that simply throwing conspiracy theories into the debate to muddy the proper debate is not helping. Incidentally the only people on this thread using the words fact and definite are people denying the issue, which is why (in frustration) I wrote what I wrote.
As for my car, well at least I'm honest with myself, I could at this point launch into a long list of other more Co2 freindly things I do as well - but this really wasn't the point I was trying to make.
I'm only lobbying for people to have an open-minded approach, what's wrong with that? It may make you feel better to put words in my mouth, but it doesn't change anything.
I have never ONCE said anything is FACT or certain, I was simply trying to say that simply throwing conspiracy theories into the debate to muddy the proper debate is not helping. Incidentally the only people on this thread using the words fact and definite are people denying the issue, which is why (in frustration) I wrote what I wrote.
As for my car, well at least I'm honest with myself, I could at this point launch into a long list of other more Co2 freindly things I do as well - but this really wasn't the point I was trying to make.
We all know how Government spin works: They feed us really bad news (we're going to track all your vehicle movements constantly and put speed limiters in your cars, for example), they bang on and on about it, get some lobby groups behind it and then when they introduce ANPR which is capable of doing those things but doesn't actually do it, the general public breathe a collective sigh of relief seemingly unaware that they've been hoodwinked.
In this case, it's more a like they bang on about global warming, introduce a load of punitive measures, award a few key contracts to some cronies and then in 10 years we'll be worried about saving the fruitbat from bannana fungus caused by loud music and having to pay £50 for an MP3 track and all the global warming kerfuffle will be nought but a distant memory.
Enjoy the Monaro
11 December 2007, 10:27 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say that you said them, I pointed out the BS we're being fed.
We all know how Government spin works: They feed us really bad news (we're going to track all your vehicle movements constantly and put speed limiters in your cars, for example), they bang on and on about it, get some lobby groups behind it and then when they introduce ANPR which is capable of doing those things but doesn't actually do it, the general public breathe a collective sigh of relief seemingly unaware that they've been hoodwinked.
In this case, it's more a like they bang on about global warming, introduce a load of punitive measures, award a few key contracts to some cronies and then in 10 years we'll be worried about saving the fruitbat from bannana fungus caused by loud music and having to pay £50 for an MP3 track and all the global warming kerfuffle will be nought but a distant memory.
Enjoy the Monaro
We all know how Government spin works: They feed us really bad news (we're going to track all your vehicle movements constantly and put speed limiters in your cars, for example), they bang on and on about it, get some lobby groups behind it and then when they introduce ANPR which is capable of doing those things but doesn't actually do it, the general public breathe a collective sigh of relief seemingly unaware that they've been hoodwinked.
In this case, it's more a like they bang on about global warming, introduce a load of punitive measures, award a few key contracts to some cronies and then in 10 years we'll be worried about saving the fruitbat from bannana fungus caused by loud music and having to pay £50 for an MP3 track and all the global warming kerfuffle will be nought but a distant memory.
Enjoy the Monaro
I will add one more thing, I'm just as frustrated by those that say man made GW is a FACT and CERTAIN, it's just that that view is not represented at all on this forum.
In all your posts you make it pretty clear that you've made your mind up on this one, can I ask what if anything could change your mind (I'm not having a go, I'm just interested)
11 December 2007, 10:35 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staying with the T25 (for now at least)
I will add one more thing, I'm just as frustrated by those that say man made GW is a FACT and CERTAIN, it's just that that view is not represented at all on this forum.
In all your posts you make it pretty clear that you've made your mind up on this one, can I ask what if anything could change your mind (I'm not having a go, I'm just interested)
I will add one more thing, I'm just as frustrated by those that say man made GW is a FACT and CERTAIN, it's just that that view is not represented at all on this forum.
In all your posts you make it pretty clear that you've made your mind up on this one, can I ask what if anything could change your mind (I'm not having a go, I'm just interested)
My view is that we don't know for certain, but on balance man's influence on climate change is unlikely (in my opinion) given that if the planet decides it's game over for us, we'll be gone in the blink of an eye. Do you really believe that millions of years of this eco-system surviving can be destroyed in 100 years of redistributing carbon around the place that's been here the whole time anyway?
I've said it before: the planet will look after itself. Whether it looks after us is another matter.
11 December 2007, 10:43 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take therefore that as you've set an (on the face of it impossible) hurdle that the balance of probability arguements will cut no ice?
I do think though that the government needs to do more in terms of making the case, simply saying 'it's happening' is clearly not good enough (with some justification) for a lot of people.
I fear though whatever the evidence (either way), however compelling, people on one side or the other just will not want to listen.
Very frustrating
11 December 2007, 10:48 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise now I failed to answer your question:
When all the climatologists agree on the cause of climate change AND whether or not it's a bad thing AND whether we could/should do anything about it, I'll be happy to sign up to that way of thinking.
In the meantime, I'll look at the evidence rolling in and disseminate it in my own time and see how it fits against my viewpoint and whether I trust the data enough for it to influence my position.
Water vapour, farting cows and the sun. Honestly.
When all the climatologists agree on the cause of climate change AND whether or not it's a bad thing AND whether we could/should do anything about it, I'll be happy to sign up to that way of thinking.
In the meantime, I'll look at the evidence rolling in and disseminate it in my own time and see how it fits against my viewpoint and whether I trust the data enough for it to influence my position.
Water vapour, farting cows and the sun. Honestly.
11 December 2007, 10:51 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you re-read my posts. Some are very clearly tongue in cheek.
My view is that we don't know for certain, but on balance man's influence on climate change is unlikely (in my opinion) given that if the planet decides it's game over for us, we'll be gone in the blink of an eye. Do you really believe that millions of years of this eco-system surviving can be destroyed in 100 years of redistributing carbon around the place that's been here the whole time anyway?
I've said it before: the planet will look after itself. Whether it looks after us is another matter.
My view is that we don't know for certain, but on balance man's influence on climate change is unlikely (in my opinion) given that if the planet decides it's game over for us, we'll be gone in the blink of an eye. Do you really believe that millions of years of this eco-system surviving can be destroyed in 100 years of redistributing carbon around the place that's been here the whole time anyway?
I've said it before: the planet will look after itself. Whether it looks after us is another matter.
Without starting up the whole debate again, the big influencer for me is that I dont believe there can be no consequences for our actions, you state the Co2 has been here all along, but it's millions of years worth thats been stored underground, we've released a fair old chunk of this into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, surely that can't be without consequence?
This doesn't make GW a fact of course, but it certainly makes me uneasy!
11 December 2007, 10:55 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then we are both open minded kindred spirits
Without starting up the whole debate again, the big influencer for me is that I dont believe there can be no consequences for our actions, you state the Co2 has been here all along, but it's millions of years worth thats been stored underground, we've released a fair old chunk of this into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, surely that can't be without consequence?
This doesn't make GW a fact of course, but it certainly makes me uneasy!
Without starting up the whole debate again, the big influencer for me is that I dont believe there can be no consequences for our actions, you state the Co2 has been here all along, but it's millions of years worth thats been stored underground, we've released a fair old chunk of this into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, surely that can't be without consequence?
This doesn't make GW a fact of course, but it certainly makes me uneasy!
11 December 2007, 10:56 PM
#100
Then we are both open minded kindred spirits
Without starting up the whole debate again, the big influencer for me is that I dont believe there can be no consequences for our actions, you state the Co2 has been here all along, but it's millions of years worth thats been stored underground, we've released a fair old chunk of this into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, surely that can't be without consequence?
This doesn't make GW a fact of course, but it certainly makes me uneasy!
Without starting up the whole debate again, the big influencer for me is that I dont believe there can be no consequences for our actions, you state the Co2 has been here all along, but it's millions of years worth thats been stored underground, we've released a fair old chunk of this into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, surely that can't be without consequence?
This doesn't make GW a fact of course, but it certainly makes me uneasy!
Volcanic eruptions make our co2 emissions look like a walk in the park
11 December 2007, 10:59 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think anyone is suggesting the planet is going to go bang as a result of GW.
Let's hope that we don't emulate the T Rex
11 December 2007, 11:01 PM
#102
I just find the whole man-induced climate change thing hard to swallow when organisations such as the WWF, who I otherwise have a lot of respect for, turn around and cry how much global warming is harming penguins.. and when pushed actually admit that the vast majority of penguin colonies they monitor have either had no change or a population increase. I won't even talk about the nonsense that is "An Uncomfortable Truth"; when the uncomfortable truth is that the whole thing is based on half truths, white lies and, in some parts, entirely fabricated nonsense and dodgy editing. Another wonderful example of this is the whole "polar bears are dying!!" fabrication - when in actual fact, even the most pessimistic figures I can find say that numbers have remained level since the 1980s, and most say that numbers have actually increased.
This added to the constant bombardment of what is little more than propaganda from the green lobby, without any sort of objective reasoning, just really gets my back up about the whole thing and makes me want to stick two fingers up at it all
This added to the constant bombardment of what is little more than propaganda from the green lobby, without any sort of objective reasoning, just really gets my back up about the whole thing and makes me want to stick two fingers up at it all
11 December 2007, 11:03 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some interesting reading:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
11 December 2007, 11:12 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some interesting reading:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is much better than discussing the rights and wrongs on dump valves
12 December 2007, 02:55 AM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enron (I think it was) was the first organisation to suggest a carbon trading system. Why?
What does Al Gore and the oil industry (Oxy) have in common? They both made/make millions of dollars out of oil consumers, and in the case of Oxy, destroy native habitat in the process.
Why does Al Gore's mocumentary have many factually incorrect points presented as fact? What has his political career and detha of a son have to do with climate change?
The IPCC is a Govn't sponsored body of policy analysts and politicians, not scientists. Consensus is not science. Belief is not science. Many official online sources are "pro" human induced climate change (HICC).
We don't trust Govn'ts over the war in Iraq. But we trust them on HICC?
BTW, whatever we do the Earth has a shelflife. It will one day be consumed by the Sun.
What does Al Gore and the oil industry (Oxy) have in common? They both made/make millions of dollars out of oil consumers, and in the case of Oxy, destroy native habitat in the process.
Why does Al Gore's mocumentary have many factually incorrect points presented as fact? What has his political career and detha of a son have to do with climate change?
The IPCC is a Govn't sponsored body of policy analysts and politicians, not scientists. Consensus is not science. Belief is not science. Many official online sources are "pro" human induced climate change (HICC).
We don't trust Govn'ts over the war in Iraq. But we trust them on HICC?
BTW, whatever we do the Earth has a shelflife. It will one day be consumed by the Sun.
12 December 2007, 04:02 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am probably a little bit older than you and I can remember when we used to have hard frosts and significant snow falls every winter in the south of the country. We also used to have regular rainfall during the summer months and there were also greater extremes of temperature during the summer. It was quite normal then to have the house windows all iced up in the morning with what we called "Jack Frost" on them.
That hardly happens these days and the winters are much warmer generally than they used to be. It is very noticable believe me. We also get higher temperatures in the summer now for a longer period of time. PS Lewis might be able to remember all that better than I can!
Hope that helps.
Les
and I can remember when we used to have hard frosts and significant snow falls every winter in the south of the country. We also used to have regular rainfall during the summer months and there were also greater extremes of temperature during the summer. It was quite normal then to have the house windows all iced up in the morning with what we called "Jack Frost" on them.That hardly happens these days and the winters are much warmer generally than they used to be. It is very noticable believe me. We also get higher temperatures in the summer now for a longer period of time. PS Lewis might be able to remember all that better than I can!
Hope that helps.
Les
Trust me, the good people of Des Moines are not looking at butterflies right now. (see Deadly winter storm slams Northeast - Weather - MSNBC.com ). Oh, I guess that's "climate change" not "global warming" then.
We were talking about global warming, not local warming, right ? Did you know last spring in the US was one of the coldest on record ?
PS: I was born in the coldest winter in the previous century, so I know a thing or two about cold winters. We didn't have them recently (over here), you are right. The question is: is that really a sign of "warming"? Or might it have to do with the phenomena known as El Nino/La Nina ?
12 December 2007, 07:33 AM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, where to begin?
First question for all the pro-MMGW believers...
Since all the gloom-and-doom scenarios put forward by campaigners are based on (inadequate) computer models, and these computer modelling programs have as their basis Global Warming Theory, why are they still used for their projections by the IPCC and others when the Upper Troposphoric Amplification of temperature rises, which are a core part of GWT, have categorically not occurred (in fact the temps have FALLEN) according data NASA have taken from MSUs and weather balloons?
First question for all the pro-MMGW believers...
Since all the gloom-and-doom scenarios put forward by campaigners are based on (inadequate) computer models, and these computer modelling programs have as their basis Global Warming Theory, why are they still used for their projections by the IPCC and others when the Upper Troposphoric Amplification of temperature rises, which are a core part of GWT, have categorically not occurred (in fact the temps have FALLEN) according data NASA have taken from MSUs and weather balloons?
Last edited by DocJock; 12 December 2007 at 07:43 AM. Reason: fat fingers
12 December 2007, 08:47 AM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some interesting reading:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The debate is over, and you can bury your head in the sand as much as you like it changes nothing. As far as pretty much every government is concerned it's proven. Which means as far as you're concerned, its proven.
Originally Posted by r32
Do any of you really believe increased taxes will help global warming?
And if there are, the reason they are put in place is to stop people doing the thing that is being taxed
So the answer to your question is, of course it does.
See what lots of you don't seem to grasp is that you are all uninformed amateurs. The vast majority of the professionals say that this is happening and its because of us. It' probably fairly arrogant and a bit silly to think you know better.
12 December 2007, 08:51 AM
#113
Scooby Regular
See what lots of you don't seem to grasp is that you are all uninformed amateurs. The vast majority of the professionals say that this is happening and its because of us. It' probably fairly arrogant and a bit silly to think you know better.
12 December 2007, 08:55 AM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man made global warming is not fact, it is a Theory* (which is still stretching things a bit). Until it is fact, the issue is still up for debate, and that debate should be fully encouraged.
*A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven.
*A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven.
Hypothesis
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ...
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ...
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
12 December 2007, 08:57 AM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
12 December 2007, 09:01 AM
#116
I dont buy it; my take on the situation is that the governments know about alien life forms.
They make up increasingly more tax excuses so that they can fund the building of an intergalactic space station. Once completed we will find 'WMD' on the alien planets, and possibly oil, we will invade!
Oh and
It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes!
They make up increasingly more tax excuses so that they can fund the building of an intergalactic space station. Once completed we will find 'WMD' on the alien planets, and possibly oil, we will invade!
Oh and
It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes!
12 December 2007, 09:05 AM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence? Nobody claims scientists are always correct, but the nice thing about science as a discipline is the need for replication of results and peer review leading to a self correcting discipline.
Find me a scientist that claims it is, indeed, apart from the odd crackpot, find me anybody who hasn't known that for the last several thousand years.
Your very correct, but it was religion that propogated that idea, the more scientifically minded challenged the idea based on evidence.
Which scientist said we couldn't?
You were obviously concieved from a weak sperm, but that's hardly science's fault 
Be nice if you presented a few facts supported by evidence rather than just asserting stuff, but hey!
ETA: later postings seem to suggest you may have been tongue in cheek with some of this, in which case - Ooops!
The earth ain't flat
the sun doesn't revolve around us,
we can travel at more than 20 mph without suffocating,
I still get a stinking cold for which there is no cure at least once a year
and man's impact on climate change is negligable. FACT. <-- You can't argue once I've added that to a post, it's the law.
ETA: later postings seem to suggest you may have been tongue in cheek with some of this, in which case - Ooops!
Last edited by OllyK; 12 December 2007 at 09:19 AM.
12 December 2007, 09:14 AM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the clue is in the word "Mainstream"
The debate is over, and you can bury your head in the sand as much as you like it changes nothing. As far as pretty much every government is concerned it's proven. Which means as far as you're concerned, its proven.
Well firstly I dont think there is any significant tax hikes based on green issues, are there?
And if there are, the reason they are put in place is to stop people doing the thing that is being taxed
So the answer to your question is, of course it does.
See what lots of you don't seem to grasp is that you are all uninformed amateurs. The vast majority of the professionals say that this is happening and its because of us. It' probably fairly arrogant and a bit silly to think you know better.
The debate is over, and you can bury your head in the sand as much as you like it changes nothing. As far as pretty much every government is concerned it's proven. Which means as far as you're concerned, its proven.
Well firstly I dont think there is any significant tax hikes based on green issues, are there?
And if there are, the reason they are put in place is to stop people doing the thing that is being taxed
So the answer to your question is, of course it does.
See what lots of you don't seem to grasp is that you are all uninformed amateurs. The vast majority of the professionals say that this is happening and its because of us. It' probably fairly arrogant and a bit silly to think you know better.
I may no longer be a professional scientist but I haven't forgotten how to collate and interpret data...
Also remember that the vast majority of the IPCC panel are not climatologists, so by your terms they too are 'uninformed amateurs'.
Anyway,
A 'professional' view of carbon modelling Carbon Model Calculations
A 'professional' critique of the methods used by the IPCC (pdf) http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
PB, you are using the tactics of the True Believer, ignoring direct questions which you can't answer and falling back on 'they know better than you because they are professionals' as an argument. Guess what, 'professional' means they get paid, it doesn't necessarily mean they are any better.
FWIW I (like everybody else) cannot be certain, but until the pro-lobby can explain the many obvious flaws in their theory versus the actual data I will remain sceptical and keep asking questions.
12 December 2007, 09:14 AM
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS: I was born in the coldest winter in the previous century, so I know a thing or two about cold winters. We didn't have them recently (over here), you are right. The question is: is that really a sign of "warming"? Or might it have to do with the phenomena known as El Nino/La Nina ?
12 December 2007, 09:16 AM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, where to begin?
First question for all the pro-MMGW believers...
Since all the gloom-and-doom scenarios put forward by campaigners are based on (inadequate) computer models, and these computer modelling programs have as their basis Global Warming Theory, why are they still used for their projections by the IPCC and others when the Upper Troposphoric Amplification of temperature rises, which are a core part of GWT, have categorically not occurred (in fact the temps have FALLEN) according data NASA have taken from MSUs and weather balloons?
First question for all the pro-MMGW believers...
Since all the gloom-and-doom scenarios put forward by campaigners are based on (inadequate) computer models, and these computer modelling programs have as their basis Global Warming Theory, why are they still used for their projections by the IPCC and others when the Upper Troposphoric Amplification of temperature rises, which are a core part of GWT, have categorically not occurred (in fact the temps have FALLEN) according data NASA have taken from MSUs and weather balloons?