Global Warming in my pants.......
14 September 2009, 01:15 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem very unwilling to answer
14 September 2009, 01:22 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think, or believe, CO2 drives climate? Point to a planet in this solar system where that is proven fact.
Last edited by Klaatu; 14 September 2009 at 01:23 PM.
14 September 2009, 01:29 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has never been kept secret, and there was/is no conspriacy, the political drivers however, are very real. Go study the physics of CO2, I mean really study them, you will find the truth.
You think, or believe, CO2 drives climate? Point to a planet in this solar system where that is proven fact.
You think, or believe, CO2 drives climate? Point to a planet in this solar system where that is proven fact.
You seem highly strung, and quite odd actually.
Now either answer my question, shut the hell up, or deliberately misconstrue someone elses posts please
Last edited by Martin2005; 14 September 2009 at 01:35 PM.
14 September 2009, 01:50 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of repeating myself again, I asked a question (based upon Scunnereds post), and you chose to put some words in my mouth.
You seem highly strung, and quite odd actually.
Now either answer my question, shut the hell up, or deliberately misconstrue someone elses posts please
You seem highly strung, and quite odd actually.
Now either answer my question, shut the hell up, or deliberately misconstrue someone elses posts please
Nah, don't bother. I don't want a "Gaurdian" type resonse from someone who does not understand "energy" absorbtion and re-radation (In particular CO2).
14 September 2009, 04:21 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, not highly strung at all. I have read this entire thread and you have not directed a question at me, at all. I dunno, maybe I am blind, but, last time I checked, I wasn't. So, you ask me a question, or errrmm....y'know, what you said.
Nah, don't bother. I don't want a "Gaurdian" type resonse from someone who does not understand "energy" absorbtion and re-radation (In particular CO2).
Nah, don't bother. I don't want a "Gaurdian" type resonse from someone who does not understand "energy" absorbtion and re-radation (In particular CO2).
Nowhere in this thread (and you should know given that you say you've read it) have I challenged any of the science you keep refering. So it should be clear by now why I'm so incredulous at some of the comments you made towards me.
So in future think before you jump to your standard set of assumptions - or is this behaviour indicative of the attitude of global warming sceptics?
14 September 2009, 07:14 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
And it’s a self generating 'global conspiracy' which needs no central command structure or defined organisation and written agenda
Do you think that News International has a 'global conspiracy' amongst is various new outlets to not criticise Rupert Murdoch interest both business and personnel – do you really think that it is all written down, that you must not criticise China’s removal of the BBC from broadcasting to China via News Corp controlled satellites
Or do you suppose that it is self generated censorship, from the editors to junior hacks, based on the fact that if you do write things criticising Rupert Murdoch and his interest you will eventually find yourself out of a job
I put it to you that that is how the Climate change conspiracy works – nothing explicitly written down – no Blofeld stroking a white cat
Scientist know that if they are going for funding to write a paper on the mating habits of the north American pot bellied toad they have more chance of securing funding if the title the paper Climate change and the mating habits of the north American pot bellied toad
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 14 September 2009 at 07:17 PM.
15 September 2009, 04:48 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's my point, I didn't ask you a question at you at all, yet you decided to answer a question I directed at someone else, by droning on about CO2 absorption and other things I completely unable to comment upon (btw you need to get out more), and telling me I must read The Guardian.
Nowhere in this thread (and you should know given that you say you've read it) have I challenged any of the science you keep refering. So it should be clear by now why I'm so incredulous at some of the comments you made towards me.
So in future think before you jump to your standard set of assumptions - or is this behaviour indicative of the attitude of global warming sceptics?
Nowhere in this thread (and you should know given that you say you've read it) have I challenged any of the science you keep refering. So it should be clear by now why I'm so incredulous at some of the comments you made towards me.
So in future think before you jump to your standard set of assumptions - or is this behaviour indicative of the attitude of global warming sceptics?
Never claimed to be a sceptic, but a realist who's studied this "issue" which the IPCC and Al Gore are proclaiming to be a "catastrophy". CO2 cannot possibly "cause" this. It's better for you to find out why yourself rather than allowing someone else to do your "thinking" for you.
Last edited by Klaatu; 15 September 2009 at 04:52 AM.
15 September 2009, 12:26 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't know you were a site moderator. Anyway, Leslie raises a very good point about solar activity. Scientists are treating themselves to a rarely observed, in terms of modern monitoring etc, solar minimum. Just 11 days ago, sun spotless days were 52, that's just 2 away from a record. That record coincided with the Dalton Minimum. Similarly, lack of activity coincided with the Maunder Minimum, or The Little Ice Age.
Never claimed to be a sceptic, but a realist who's studied this "issue" which the IPCC and Al Gore are proclaiming to be a "catastrophy". CO2 cannot possibly "cause" this. It's better for you to find out why yourself rather than allowing someone else to do your "thinking" for you.
Never claimed to be a sceptic, but a realist who's studied this "issue" which the IPCC and Al Gore are proclaiming to be a "catastrophy". CO2 cannot possibly "cause" this. It's better for you to find out why yourself rather than allowing someone else to do your "thinking" for you.
If there is no increase in solar activity, those Russians will be making an ever bigger buck........................
15 September 2009, 12:29 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're not wrong. Lets see if NH winter 2009 will be colder than 2008. Looks like colder is a winner to me....
15 September 2009, 12:46 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 September 2009, 01:44 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
I bleddy hope not! The house I'm in is ffffffffffffreeeeezzzzing ..........
Good article here ... Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” Watts Up With That? .... about the *possible* effects of decreased solar activity.
Long but a good, educational read!
"... Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel [IPCC] has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller ..."
Dave
15 September 2009, 01:49 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The clue is in the quoted post – its all about money
And it’s a self generating 'global conspiracy' which needs no central command structure or defined organisation and written agenda
Do you think that News International has a 'global conspiracy' amongst is various new outlets to not criticise Rupert Murdoch interest both business and personnel – do you really think that it is all written down, that you must not criticise China’s removal of the BBC from broadcasting to China via News Corp controlled satellites
Or do you suppose that it is self generated censorship, from the editors to junior hacks, based on the fact that if you do write things criticising Rupert Murdoch and his interest you will eventually find yourself out of a job
I put it to you that that is how the Climate change conspiracy works – nothing explicitly written down – no Blofeld stroking a white cat
Scientist know that if they are going for funding to write a paper on the mating habits of the north American pot bellied toad they have more chance of securing funding if the title the paper Climate change and the mating habits of the north American pot bellied toad
And it’s a self generating 'global conspiracy' which needs no central command structure or defined organisation and written agenda
Do you think that News International has a 'global conspiracy' amongst is various new outlets to not criticise Rupert Murdoch interest both business and personnel – do you really think that it is all written down, that you must not criticise China’s removal of the BBC from broadcasting to China via News Corp controlled satellites
Or do you suppose that it is self generated censorship, from the editors to junior hacks, based on the fact that if you do write things criticising Rupert Murdoch and his interest you will eventually find yourself out of a job
I put it to you that that is how the Climate change conspiracy works – nothing explicitly written down – no Blofeld stroking a white cat
Scientist know that if they are going for funding to write a paper on the mating habits of the north American pot bellied toad they have more chance of securing funding if the title the paper Climate change and the mating habits of the north American pot bellied toad
Sure elements on both side exploit the issue.
If governments are genuinely concerned about this issue, which they appear to be, then they have few levers they can actually pull to change behaviour - it doesn't have to be a conspiracy does it?
15 September 2009, 02:19 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
not sure what you disagree with -- I make several points -- but anyway on balance I probably believe that Climate change science is 90% correct
but I remain consumed with a healthy degree of sceptism about it all -- and I cant really put my finger on it
(it maybe something to do with a failed presidential candidate re-inventing himself at the expense of the planet)
I'm old enough to remember when we were all going to die of an Ice age in the 70's and Aids in the 80's
where we probably differ is what we need\can do about it
but I remain consumed with a healthy degree of sceptism about it all -- and I cant really put my finger on it
(it maybe something to do with a failed presidential candidate re-inventing himself at the expense of the planet)
I'm old enough to remember when we were all going to die of an Ice age in the 70's and Aids in the 80's
where we probably differ is what we need\can do about it
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 15 September 2009 at 02:22 PM.
15 September 2009, 02:53 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not sure what you disagree with -- I make several points -- but anyway on balance I probably believe that Climate change science is 90% correct
but I remain consumed with a healthy degree of sceptism about it all -- and I cant really put my finger on it
(it maybe something to do with a failed presidential candidate re-inventing himself at the expense of the planet)
I'm old enough to remember when we were all going to die of an Ice age in the 70's and Aids in the 80's
where we probably differ is what we need\can do about it
but I remain consumed with a healthy degree of sceptism about it all -- and I cant really put my finger on it
(it maybe something to do with a failed presidential candidate re-inventing himself at the expense of the planet)
I'm old enough to remember when we were all going to die of an Ice age in the 70's and Aids in the 80's
where we probably differ is what we need\can do about it
15 September 2009, 08:25 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice article here that shows just how far the media hysteria has gone: Media 're-open' North Eastern Passage ? The Register
16 September 2009, 12:50 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robbed?? Robbed of what, profits from carbon credit trading (His family wealth was derived from oil, Oxy, look it up. Locals not happy with "his" attitude. And his carbon offset trading company, based in the UK). Smells of vested interests to me.
16 September 2009, 04:22 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but I profoundly disagree with you.
Sure elements on both side exploit the issue.
If governments are genuinely concerned about this issue, which they appear to be, then they have few levers they can actually pull to change behaviour - it doesn't have to be a conspiracy does it?
Sure elements on both side exploit the issue.
If governments are genuinely concerned about this issue, which they appear to be, then they have few levers they can actually pull to change behaviour - it doesn't have to be a conspiracy does it?
Les
16 September 2009, 10:04 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robbed at the 2000 presidential election obviously
16 September 2009, 10:06 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 September 2009, 10:25 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
human induced catastrophic climate change is real, its here, its happening now and we need to act now if we are to save the planet from ther worst effects of irreversible runaway global warming
now if that isnt an example of propaganda then i dont know what is
say it loud and say it proud, sod off swampy - how to deal with environmentalists
A Place to Stand: SOD OFF SWAMPY
general examples of moonbattery
GREENIE WATCH
now if that isnt an example of propaganda then i dont know what is
say it loud and say it proud, sod off swampy - how to deal with environmentalists
A Place to Stand: SOD OFF SWAMPY
general examples of moonbattery
GREENIE WATCH
16 September 2009, 10:43 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lots of useful information here ... Energy Tribune - The Energy Disconnect
Seems like even the *greens* chase the money. Who'd have thought it ... ??
"... One day the UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband sets out his proposed expansion of the UK’s wind power-led alternative energy revolution, the next, Vestas, the UK’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, closes for business citing “low demand” and public opposition to onshore windfarms ........ Germany’s REpower US subsidiary has just relocated its US HQ to Denver, Colorado to take full advantage of the “supportive business climate” – read government cash – along with (surprise, surprise) Vestas, late of the UK ...."
My editing but not out of context. Read the rest - and the links.
Enjoy!
Dave
Seems like even the *greens* chase the money. Who'd have thought it ... ??
"... One day the UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband sets out his proposed expansion of the UK’s wind power-led alternative energy revolution, the next, Vestas, the UK’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, closes for business citing “low demand” and public opposition to onshore windfarms ........ Germany’s REpower US subsidiary has just relocated its US HQ to Denver, Colorado to take full advantage of the “supportive business climate” – read government cash – along with (surprise, surprise) Vestas, late of the UK ...."
My editing but not out of context. Read the rest - and the links.
Enjoy!
Dave
16 September 2009, 11:05 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a link on the recent nonsense (in a sea of nonsense) on the front page of the Independent, and just how many lies it contained
EU Referendum: A triumph for propaganda
EU Referendum: A triumph for propaganda
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Adam Kindness
ScoobyNet General
0
15 September 2015 03:31 PM
