You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
it's not an ignoble cause at all, as you well know. but is it not questionable when such an organisation is paid significant sums by the very benefactor that it lobbies? conflict of interest perhaps? heaven forbid a hidden agenda.
The point was that HuttonD was disputing this thats why I posted this.
As for Venus, I'm not sure we disagree at all, Co2 levels are 98%, trapping the sun heat within it's atmosphere, a very good example of greenhouse effect I'd say.
As for 'go study planetary science' you are one arrogant m'fcker sometimes aren't you?
There's loads more, but you obviously know better!
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been on a business trip, involving air travel.
I don't need to "Google" for "hits" on this subject, clearly you did. There is a very good reason why I do not "Google" for links to support my PoV. I don't need it!
I had read through ALL of your "Googled research" links and I cannot find the one and the most important single fact that differs Earth from Venus regarding Co2 and surface temperatures. I suggest if you want to continue to "debate" with me, you should find out what that difference is. Also lookup what "runaway warming" actually means in regards to Venus. You will note that, although high, temperatures on Venus are normal for Venus.
I ask again what concentrations of Co2 are in the atmosphere of Earth, and how much of that is due to humans, bear in mind that Co2 has been at 1500-1800ppm in the past.
When you understand the "difference" you will soon understand that Co2, on Earth, isn't a problem.
See, I probably won't because I am not going to base my entire opinion of CC on that one documentary.
Neither am I. 30 years of "study".
Nor am I conspiracy theorist, which you have proven to be on a numbe rof subjects.
There is no theory about IPCC misinformation, it is fact.
And whcith regards to "one person" you have completely taken my response out of context (again).
Suresh said that "The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water!
Talking about your link - It does no such thing .
You are questioning the very scientists who reported their findings, and, the process in which the IPCC "delivers" those findings to Govn't advisers. These scientists have provable and very "worrying concerns" as to how the "facts" are determined.
Clealy you don't understand the implications of misinformation. WW1, WW2, Fauklands, Gulf War, Iraq invasion, war on "terrorism" etc...how the "public" are, continually, misinformed.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been on a business trip, involving air travel.
I don't need to "Google" for "hits" on this subject, clearly you did. There is a very good reason why I do not "Google" for links to support my PoV. I don't need it!
I had read through ALL of your "Googled research" links and I cannot find the one and the most important single fact that differs Earth from Venus regarding Co2 and surface temperatures. I suggest if you want to continue to "debate" with me, you should find out what that difference is. Also lookup what "runaway warming" actually means in regards to Venus. You will note that, although high, temperatures on Venus are normal for Venus.
I ask again what concentrations of Co2 are in the atmosphere of Earth, and how much of that is due to humans, bear in mind that Co2 has been at 1500-1800ppm in the past.
When you understand the "difference" you will soon understand that Co2, on Earth, isn't a problem.
Happy reading.
The reason I posted those links up (and I too rarely do this btw), is because you either deliberately or accidentally mis-read my post to HuttonD. He was claiming Co2 isn't greenhouse gas, when it just is. I used Venus as an extreme example.
Man-made Co2 is a tiny percentage of all the Co2 in our atmosphere, why do you ask?
Despite your rather annoying and patronising comments, I am becomming far alligned to your way of thinking on this. If temps haven't increased in recent years, then for me that's a massive hole in the 'rapid GW' arguement.
The way I see it, they say that there has been no increase in global temperatures yet this century although there was at the end of the last one. Also it has been reported that water vapour is far more effective at causing global warming anyway.
Like Martin, I was concerned initially about it all, but now am also beginning to feel that there is a hole in the GW argument and that it is being used cynically as an excuse to screw all that money out of us in taxes etc. The climate change is looking more like a cyclic event I think.
I don't understand why so many people are so completely convinced by this "science".
Don't forget in the 70's, scientists were certain we were heading for another ice age, and when one scientist said that he thought that temperatures were going up, he was treated like some sort of deranged lunatic.
The only thing that is certain for me, is that no-one knows for sure!
The reason I posted those links up (and I too rarely do this btw), is because you either deliberately or accidentally mis-read my post to HuttonD. He was claiming Co2 isn't greenhouse gas, when it just is. I used Venus as an extreme example.
Man-made Co2 is a tiny percentage of all the Co2 in our atmosphere, why do you ask?
Despite your rather annoying and patronising comments, I am becomming far alligned to your way of thinking on this. If temps haven't increased in recent years, then for me that's a massive hole in the 'rapid GW' arguement.
You still have not indentified the one and only significant difference between Earth and Venus and the main reason why surface temperatures on Venus are higher than Earth. It's, conveniently, left out of reports about the two planets.
No-one has disputed Co2 as a GHG, along with water vapour and methane (Only when it's burnt. Know what swamp gas is? You won't find it where Co2 is, until it's burnt) and those nasty rain forrests produce more methane than all of human activity and human agricultural production put together.
The way I see it, they say that there has been no increase in global temperatures yet this century although there was at the end of the last one. Also it has been reported that water vapour is far more effective at causing global warming anyway.
Like Martin, I was concerned initially about it all, but now am also beginning to feel that there is a hole in the GW argument and that it is being used cynically as an excuse to screw all that money out of us in taxes etc. The climate change is looking more like a cyclic event I think.
Les
The baseline temperature used to determine "variance" by "climatologists" is the gobal average between 1961 and 1990. It's been warmer than that before and in human history too. But we won't let those little "facts" interrupt the gravy train that is the IPCC.
OK to your point I guess what you are talking about here is the proximity to the sun?
It needs to be kept alive in order for people to challenge political consensus.
Proximity is a factor, along with Co2 @ 95% concentrations, but they are not the main driver of the temperature. It's always left out of discussions about the two planets.
Whats wrong with IPCC sources, as compared to climate change skeptic sources, then?
Also, how come Klaatu can say "i heard on the news the other night" and you don't bat an eyelied, but I say something to support climate change and you want proof
You're bleeding see through pal
Still here's some nice independant ones for you. Amazingly what I did, right, was type "2007 warmest winter" into google
There is no doubt that we are going through climate change, but no positive evidence I reckon as to whether it is due to global warming because of Man's influence or whether it is cyclical and we can do nothing to change it. I am becoming more of the opinion that it is cyclical.
2008 Winter/ski season is over.
Check the dates of your articles about 2007, they're dated March 2007
results, Suresh, results.
Just to be clear, anyway - To say we have had the coldest April for 19 years is just further proof that global warming is a lie. But when we have the warmest winter on record (one that will be shown to have been beaten in 2008) it proves nothing.
But when we have the warmest winter on record (one that will be shown to have been beaten in 2008) it proves nothing.
It really is a religion with you Pete . Nothing can shake the belief that the sky is falling!
Per your 'news' links from March 2007 where the 2006/2007 winter was being hailed as the warmest in 120 years (which proves nothing given the age of the earth) - if 2007/2008 was warmer still, then victory would have been declared in March 2008. It wasn't, so given the lack of hype, the 2007/2008 winter was almost certainly colder
Yes, I do strongly believe that there is something wrong with our climate. Yes I saw Al Gore's movie and I was very impressed and shocked while watching it. No matter if everything is true or not, it made sense to me. I am trying to make a change wherever and whenever I can. There is no need to let the water run while brushing my teeth or while soaping my body under the shower. It makes perfectly sense to me to use energy saving lamps. I don't need to turn on the lights in the staircase when it is only a little darker to use them. I don't need to heat as much as I used to during wintertime. Please, don't tell me that it is not important what I do as an individual, simply because China and India don't give a damn. When I see the glaciers melting much faster during the last 20 years then they did in the last 100 years, I don't think that everything is absolutely normal. I don't mind changing my personal life and behaviours towards a more energy saving lifestyle. But, it really is up to the individual. The climate and nature is something we all depend on and I strongly believe that it is important to protect it as much as possible in our short life and to pass it on to the next generation. I know that this topic is probably difficult to discuss in a car forum, but if you really are true to yourself........ why do we actually have to discuss it. Now go on and call me a hippie guy. Oh, and have I already mentioned that I am vegetarian?
It makes perfectly sense to me to use energy saving lamps.
Does it still make sense if I told you the energy used in their manufacture is more than the saving over a conventional bulb (due to the rare earth materials that go into them)? That the saving you get is based on continuous 24 hour usage? Does it still make sense to get them? Or do you think your decisions are based on incomplete evidence and having more evidence could change your view completely?
Does it still make sense if I told you the energy used in their manufacture is more than the saving over a conventional bulb (due to the rare earth materials that go into them)? That the saving you get is based on continuous 24 hour usage? Does it still make sense to get them? Or do you think your decisions are based on incomplete evidence and having more evidence could change your view completely?
The current energy bulbs i am using are lasting me already over 7 years so far. Before them, I had to change the regular bulbs like every 5 months or so, because they always broke (almost as often as the headlight bulbs in my Impreza MY00). Therefore yes, I believe that I have saved quite some energy with them. But maybe you can still change my mind back and I will have to drive again to the hardware store every 5 months and buy regular replacement bulbs.
Yes, I do strongly believe that there is something wrong with our climate. Yes I saw Al Gore's movie and I was very impressed and shocked while watching it. No matter if everything is true or not, it made sense to me. I am trying to make a change wherever and whenever I can. There is no need to let the water run while brushing my teeth or while soaping my body under the shower. It makes perfectly sense to me to use energy saving lamps. I don't need to turn on the lights in the staircase when it is only a little darker to use them. I don't need to heat as much as I used to during wintertime. Please, don't tell me that it is not important what I do as an individual, simply because China and India don't give a damn. When I see the glaciers melting much faster during the last 20 years then they did in the last 100 years, I don't think that everything is absolutely normal. I don't mind changing my personal life and behaviours towards a more energy saving lifestyle. But, it really is up to the individual. The climate and nature is something we all depend on and I strongly believe that it is important to protect it as much as possible in our short life and to pass it on to the next generation. I know that this topic is probably difficult to discuss in a car forum, but if you really are true to yourself........ why do we actually have to discuss it. Now go on and call me a hippie guy. Oh, and have I already mentioned that I am vegetarian?
Inter-glacial periods ARE warmer. We are in between iceages, in fact overdue for one. And please, can you define what "normal" is?
The "documentary" which contains no less than 36 unthruths. Now that is inconvenient.
. Nothing can shake the belief that the sky is falling!
