Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

THis is a perfect example of addiction to the tabloids, where the ignorant assume such a tabloid will tell the truth as it is, and not select bits out of context to make their own point.

 

With my archaeloogical hat on the world climate is noramlly continuously in an ice age, and we at the moment are in an unusual time warp of an interglacial. Sheffield a few thousand years ago was under 2 miles of ice, but the tabloids do not put things in perspective. The North Sea did not exist as the UK was connected to Europe, one could walk there. We cannot do anything anyway, and why should we???

 

So I look forward to the wars just starting over water, watching millions starve to death as the climate which always is cylical puts the 7+ billion human under stress. Who cares about million dieing anyway, maleria kills a few, road accidents kills a lot, diseases reap a yearly crop of misery and death. What is a few million more?? Food prices get to a hight for the poor to be able to eat, shut the food banks down let them starve, natural selection??? So that gets rid of that problem, so roll on global warming, and watch how the frightened humans scurry like headless chickens watching their global family being decimated. THe UK will be forced to accept immigration of million, and not just the 2 million Poles, as sea level rising forces people into smaller more hostile environments.

 

Just look at world history tabloid suckers, then investigate your genetic history, and find out humans were nearly wiped out in the past, all due to climate change. THe few left created what exists now, as we are all more genetically closeer than two chimpanzees in the same group. Anyone told you were are an incestious species, check out the genetics tabloid students.

 

As for climate change it's going on and your children will be the suckers to try and sort this mess out, So just kleep up the banter and go out on the P*ss, its what tabloid addiction leads to. THe opinionated ignorami polish up their pathetic egos, over subjects they are not interestd providing opinions that will like this be forgotten in a few minutes.

 

Have you been drinking, perhaps your genes don't allow you to hold your alcohol.

[Cyclone]

THis is a perfect example of addiction to the tabloids, where the ignorant assume such a tabloid will tell the truth as it is, and not select bits out of context to make their own point.

 

With my archaeloogical hat on the world climate is noramlly continuously in an ice age,

Massive fail there.

and we at the moment are in an unusual time warp of an interglacial. Sheffield a few thousand years ago was under 2 miles of ice, but the tabloids do not put things in perspective. The North Sea did not exist as the UK was connected to Europe, one could walk there. We cannot do anything anyway, and why should we???

Big mix up of time periods here.

 

So I look forward to the wars just starting over water, watching millions starve to death as the climate which always is cylical puts the 7+ billion human under stress. Who cares about million dieing anyway, maleria kills a few, road accidents kills a lot, diseases reap a yearly crop of misery and death. What is a few million more?? Food prices get to a hight for the poor to be able to eat, shut the food banks down let them starve, natural selection???

Who do you think grows the food, the poor or the rich?

So that gets rid of that problem, so roll on global warming, and watch how the frightened humans scurry like headless chickens watching their global family being decimated. THe UK will be forced to accept immigration of million, and not just the 2 million Poles, as sea level rising forces people into smaller more hostile environments.

 

Just look at world history tabloid suckers, then investigate your genetic history, and find out humans were nearly wiped out in the past, all due to climate change. THe few left created what exists now, as we are all more genetically closeer than two chimpanzees in the same group. Anyone told you were are an incestious species, check out the genetics tabloid students.

Not really accurate, although you've got the gist of it.

 

As for climate change it's going on and your children will be the suckers to try and sort this mess out, So just kleep up the banter and go out on the P*ss, its what tabloid addiction leads to. THe opinionated ignorami polish up their pathetic egos, over subjects they are not interestd providing opinions that will like this be forgotten in a few minutes.

Ok...

 

---------- Post added 20-09-2013 at 07:15 ----------

 

There may be little change over the past 15 years, but there has been an upward trend for around 100 years.

 

There has been an upward trend for tens of times longer than that.

 

---------- Post added 20-09-2013 at 07:18 ----------

 

fair point

 

So, just to be clear- you accept that CO2 has risen dramatically, but you don't think there's real evidence that it's causing a temperature rise?

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 12:02 ----------

 

 

I think he's with you on the rise in CO2 levels- when he's saying there's no change currently, I think he's refering to global temperature, not co2

 

Yes, CO2 has risen dramatically, and the link to human behaviour is clear.

 

And yes, it's a greenhouse gas.

 

But what hasn't been demonstrated is that this single change is actually causing any systemic shift in what is a massively complicated system with multiple feedback mechanisms.

 

We only just figured out, for example, that the increased CO2 levels have increased plant growth in carbon sinks, and the increased plant growth has increased cloud formation, which happens to have a cooling affect.

 

How many more affects like this haven't we noticed and aren't we taking into account? Well, we don't know. If we knew them all our models might actually be worth something when we try to make predictions.

 

---------- Post added 20-09-2013 at 07:20 ----------

 

Angos, you appear to have swallowed the cool aid whole and to lack enough of a scientific background to even question what you've been told. That's a shame, but I can't prove negatives, so you carry on believing what you like and so will I.

When the climate is still no hotter in the next 15 years maybe we can revisit this thread.

[angos]

 

 

 

We only just figured out, for example, that the increased CO2 levels have increased plant growth in carbon sinks, and the increased plant growth has increased cloud formation, which happens to have a cooling affect.

 

How many more affects like this haven't we noticed and aren't we taking into account? Well, we don't know. If we knew them all our models might actually be worth something when we try to make predictions.

 

We wanted to know how the foreseeable rise in CO2 would affect cloud formation in temperate climate zones and what part the vegetation plays in this," says Jordi Vilà-Guerau de Arellano from the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands.

 

 

 

At higher CO2 concentrations plants close their stomata

 

The cascade starts harmless: in the double CO2 scenario, the stomata close earlier since the plants can assimilate the necessary CO2 for photosynthesis more optimally. As a result, less moisture is evaporated by the plants and there is overall less water vapour introduced into the atmosphere.

 

Consequently, fewer cumulus clouds are formed, which means that the Earth's surface becomes warmer, as the sun's rays hit it directly and are not reflected by clouds. Then, warmer air creates more turbulence in the atmosphere near the surface, and in consequence there is more heat and less moisture transported. The earth and the atmosphere thus heat up through the plants' response to the higher CO2 levels.

 

 

 

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-09-climate-carbon-dioxide-clouds.html#jCp

 

Plant growth as increased in some areas and decreased in other areas, the warmer it get the more droughts there will be and these areas more than offset the increased growth in other areas.

 

 

Earth's green carbon sink on the wane.

The results show that carbon uptake by plants did increase in some areas — primarily in the Northern Hemisphere — including parts of North America, western Europe, India and China. But in areas where carbon uptake decreased, the drop was sharp. In the Southern Hemisphere, 70% of plant-covered land, including regions of South America, Africa and Australia, showed a decrease in NPP.

 

"On balance," Running says of carbon uptake by plants, "when you add up all the pluses and minuses, there is a decrease"

 

 

 

[/color]

 

Angos, you appear to have swallowed the cool aid whole and to lack enough of a scientific background to even question what you've been told. That's a shame, but I can't prove negatives, so you carry on believing what you like and so will I.

When the climate is still no hotter in the next 15 years maybe we can revisit this thread.

 

:hihi:

 

I'm not expecting it to be hotter because the Sun is plunging into the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.

Edited September 20, 2013 by angos

[erebus]

CYCLONE...for it is YOU....May I congratulate you on taking bits of my post out of context to make your own personal point, and go to the top of the class for copying the selective tabloid style so perfectly.

 

I present my points in simplified language so that it just might be understood by the tabloid junkies. I might not be too detailed but we are in an interglacial period, and this planet has experienced Ice Ages for most of it history.

 

You state this is wrong, professor Tabloid!

 

We are still in an ice age as there is still ice in the Arctic and Antarctica but despite that, officially "The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago"

 

For then that don't like text books....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period The glacial maximum was around 20,000 years ago, which like £20 is a few, as in a few thousand years for the tabliodites to understand. I try not to confuse them with large numbers, maths is something UK people are proud to state they are no good at.

 

As for who grows the food well my friend its the rich not the poor, the poor are the wage slaves that work on the land of and for their masters, with modern tools, called machinery in the technologically advanced pollution creating world that is. Peasants or subsistence farming is for them that don’t get in the tabloids innit!

 

Its fine to criticise, but trying to be clever is not being clever, however polished the ego might feel. I suggest you do a tad of research before you postulate in tabloid fashion your opinions as facts. But on the other hand why change the habits of a lifetime???

 

No apology necessary, correcting you was fun enough and anyway it would just not be the tabloid style!

[Lockjaw]

CYCLONE...for it is YOU....May I congratulate you on taking bits of my post out of context to make your own personal point, and go to the top of the class for copying the selective tabloid style so perfectly.

 

I present my points in simplified language so that it just might be understood by the tabloid junkies. I might not be too detailed but we are in an interglacial period, and this planet has experienced Ice Ages for most of it history.

 

You state this is wrong, professor Tabloid!

 

We are still in an ice age as there is still ice in the Arctic and Antarctica but despite that, officially "The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago"

 

For then that don't like text books....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period The glacial maximum was around 20,000 years ago, which like £20 is a few, as in a few thousand years for the tabliodites to understand. I try not to confuse them with large numbers, maths is something UK people are proud to state they are no good at.

 

As for who grows the food well my friend its the rich not the poor, the poor are the wage slaves that work on the land of and for their masters, with modern tools, called machinery in the technologically advanced pollution creating world that is. Peasants or subsistence farming is for them that don’t get in the tabloids innit!

 

Its fine to criticise, but trying to be clever is not being clever, however polished the ego might feel. I suggest you do a tad of research before you postulate in tabloid fashion your opinions as facts. But on the other hand why change the habits of a lifetime???

 

No apology necessary, correcting you was fun enough and anyway it would just not be the tabloid style!

 

Hey Erebus.

 

Glad to see you've decided to change your MO and respond to posts directed at you. Respect for that.

 

Unfortunately, though, you're now coming across as even more of a knob and, to return to the topic, you have completely missed Cyclone's point re. who, actually, grows the food.

[Cyclone]

CYCLONE...for it is YOU....May I congratulate you on taking bits of my post out of context to make your own personal point, and go to the top of the class for copying the selective tabloid style so perfectly.

 

I present my points in simplified language so that it just might be understood by the tabloid junkies. I might not be too detailed but we are in an interglacial period, and this planet has experienced Ice Ages for most of it history.

 

You state this is wrong, professor Tabloid!

 

We are still in an ice age as there is still ice in the Arctic and Antarctica but despite that, officially "The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago"

 

For then that don't like text books....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period The glacial maximum was around 20,000 years ago, which like £20 is a few, as in a few thousand years for the tabliodites to understand. I try not to confuse them with large numbers, maths is something UK people are proud to state they are no good at.

 

As for who grows the food well my friend its the rich not the poor, the poor are the wage slaves that work on the land of and for their masters, with modern tools, called machinery in the technologically advanced pollution creating world that is. Peasants or subsistence farming is for them that don’t get in the tabloids innit!

 

Its fine to criticise, but trying to be clever is not being clever, however polished the ego might feel. I suggest you do a tad of research before you postulate in tabloid fashion your opinions as facts. But on the other hand why change the habits of a lifetime???

 

No apology necessary, correcting you was fun enough and anyway it would just not be the tabloid style!

 

You didn't correct me, you appear to have gone off into some sort of convoluted rant and concluded by the end that this makes you more clever than me, as if that were the point or somehow makes you correct.

It's very funny that you complain about me presenting opinion as fact though.

What personal point was it you imagined I was trying to prove though, and in what way was any of your error riddled post taken out of context?

[Vague_Boy]

Right, this settles it, I am now firmly in the "anti" camp

 

No 'serious person' should doubt man behind climate change, says Tony Blair

 

If that mendacious weasel is pushing global warming, it has to be spurious.

 

Unless of course, the saintly Mr Blair has some sort of vested interest?

 

Tony Blair to earn millions as climate change adviser

 

Now it all makes sense. That avaricious snake oil salesman would sell Rupert Murdoch's mother for an extra million.

 

(As all fans of The Omen know, Blair can't sell his own mother as the ant-Christ is, of course, born of a jackal.)

[angos]

Right, this settles it, I am now firmly in the "anti" camp

 

 

 

We already new you was firmly in the "anti" Tony Blair camp, so why are you telling us on a Global Warming topic.

Unless it's because you've just realised that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are directly responsible for global warming because of the huge volumes of hot air they spout.

[erebus]

The reason global warming is and will continue to be debated is about PRIORITIES.

 

We all pay taxes either directly or indirectly from fines, council tax, vat etc. So the money just roars into the treasury. Any government has a choice of how to use this, and one has to pay debts, as in the people who funded the people/party into power, who have interests and friends too.

 

So one can build social housing, NHS, schools, and the rest that benefit all people in the country, where profits from government funds are guaranteed, or one can make sure its the private sector, commercial interests that are the ones that mainly benefit and not the people.

 

Have the government taken flooding defences seriously? What about storage of water, or fuel which benefit the people in the LONG RUN.

 

Defence and so called security are industries where picking money off trees is seen as hard work, so like the USA war, defence and security, where we send experts, advisors, as they are euphemistically called, or mercenaries to someone who like straight talking, are a big part of our exports.

 

So its all about giving the corporations YOUR TAX money, in devious and imaginative ways. The new super train is, like the Olympics a way of spending like no tomorrow. Te Olympics started at 3 billion, and then the corporation accountants got to work and it went up beyond 5 / five fold. So the scam paid off, and now it starts at 50 billion, which is an estimate as no one in the government knows a thing about the technical details, and like bartering with illiterate natives exchange a few beads for massive potential profits. We elect personalities, ignorant gits who are just salesmen and technical and scientific retards.

 

So while we are encouraged to debate about global warming, others can empty the treasury tax coffers, so no real infrastructure projects, where the peoples needs, and aspirations are paramount. So businessmen will use the new high speed train, when they can fly almost direct to anywhere, as money is just not their problem!!! The Chinese built a 2,298km High Speed Rail line in just seven years. Our greedy corporate interests just might get it finished to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester – by 2033. just a fraction of the distance and double the time, and sky high profits, so the poor continue to fund the rich

 

So its about addressing the future or ignoring it till it happens, which is the real basis of the global warming debate. The choice is to fiddle the figures, while nothing is really done, creating wars, feeding greedy corporate interests, and sod the people who continue to be milked through corporate price rises, through food, fuel, energy and the rest, and in general we all just get poorer.

[Detetcive]

When deciding on what to think about climate change, I compare the likely value of the evidence being presented by the IPCC from over 200 leading experts across dozens of countries who think there's a 95% chance that global warming is man made, against the rantings of a few conspiracy theorists, and ostrich like petrol heads who swallow the guff churned out by the fossil fuel industry.