Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
tanglefoot
04 Jan 18 16:20
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 May 12
| Topic/replies: 185,243 | Blogger: tanglefoot's blog
Polar bear now walking around New York,enuff said Al Gore
Share |
Pause Switch to Standard View Global warming
Show More
Loading...
Report tanglefoot January 4, 2018 4:24 PM GMT
Al Gore famous last words in the early 2000,there will be no Polar bears left in 2014
Report sageform January 4, 2018 5:20 PM GMT
Snowing in Florida. Ice age imminent.
Report tanglefoot January 4, 2018 5:42 PM GMT
The experts/scam artists know how to drain the last few dollars from the small guy,while telling them that it is good for them.
Report InsiderTrader January 5, 2018 11:09 AM GMT
The evidence suggests that the globe has warmed up the last 150 years.
Report bigpoppapump January 5, 2018 3:04 PM GMT
The evidence shows the globe has warmed up in the last 10 years, FWIW.

2017 not as warm as 2016 (an El Nino year) but warmer than any year before 2015. 

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years.

top 3 global temp years (in order):

2016
2017
2015

hmmm.
Report InsiderTrader January 5, 2018 3:51 PM GMT
The globe is warmer that is was during the mini-iceage.

Dont think anyone is disputing that.

Billionaires like Al Gore have used that basic fact to cash in on the fear and increase living costs for the poorest in society as a result.

While OAPs cannot afford to turn on the heat this winter due to the disgraceful 'Green' levy do you think the 'climate change' billionaires will be freezing to death as well?

Some members of the public have been so taken in by this hoax they are willing to go along with making the rich richer.

These people simply do not bother to do their own research. They just blindly believe what they are fed by the establishment.

The Vikings farmed in Greenland during the medieval warm period. They had to abandon their settlements when the land froze over. Now suddenly some of Greenland may have gone and people are saying this is terrible. Why is it terrible is unproductive land can be used again?
Report InsiderTrader January 5, 2018 3:52 PM GMT
* Greenland ice may have gone.
Report Dr Crippen January 5, 2018 4:28 PM GMT
Don't believe a word they tell you about global warming, it's all bullshine.
Report edy January 5, 2018 4:52 PM GMT
What deep and profound research do you even do other than carelessly repeating the uninformed trash your favourite conspiracy theorists spout on this and many other topics, IT?
Report InsiderTrader January 5, 2018 5:31 PM GMT
edy,

So you are denying that the climate change around the little ice-age caused massive economic and civil problems from 1560 to 1850. Massive increase in storms, failed harvests, loss of farmland, lose of vineyards in places like England and so on?

In cold periods farm land opens up in further south. In warmer periods in it open up further north.

I am far more worried out pollution than the climate changing through cycles. We can adapt to climate change but not so much from all the rubbish we create.
Report Dr Crippen January 5, 2018 5:45 PM GMT
Eh what's edy on about?

Making up lies again I see.
Report Dr Crippen January 5, 2018 5:46 PM GMT
Oh, that's torn it.
Get ready for another tantrum.
Report edy January 5, 2018 6:02 PM GMT
IT, you need to stop seeing things and stop using strawmans all the god damn time. Your main problem is that you fail to grasp geological dimensions and physics. We've been through this before, multiple times actually. Go back and re-read those discussions.

Hey there Dr "I watched a David Icke video on climate change yesterday and I know everything about it" Crippen!
Report edy January 5, 2018 6:03 PM GMT
...as we were speaking about carelessly repeating the uninformed trash of our favourite conspiracy theorists....
Report Dr Crippen January 5, 2018 6:11 PM GMT
I said you'd throw a tantrum edy.
Report moisok January 5, 2018 6:16 PM GMT
they are still making money out of it

I have always said that pollution would be worse - we are trying to poison ourselves

they are trending plastic at the moment  but we are putting all sorts of filth into the oceans and dumping
stuff every where on land
Report moisok January 5, 2018 6:17 PM GMT
suck it up ho ho  it is so funny
Report edy January 5, 2018 6:22 PM GMT
Finally someone with a sense of humour. Thank you, mobbo!
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 11:00 AM GMT
edy
05 Jan 18 18:02
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 179,564 | Blogger: edy's blog
IT, you need to stop seeing things and stop using strawmans

^

No argument to offer so out comes the 'strawman' thing again.

Where is the 'strawman' in saying yes the globe is warmer now than during the little ice age but there was less ice further north during the medieval warm period before that?

Man can and will adapt to changing climates.
Report edy January 6, 2018 11:51 AM GMT
I think you need to read up and try to understand what a strawman argument is if you're really asking that question.

Sure humanity, and especially the planet as a whole, can and will adapt to changing climates and places becoming inhabitable (while others might open up). But, you know, unnecessary massive economic and civil problems. Maybe an increase in storms, floods, failed harvests, loss of farmland, loss of vineyards, changes in animal use etc.

Being a coastal child I'd also find it sad if the preventable (or limitable) human caused global warming was to see those places gone or wrecked by increasingly heavy storms and floods.

And you support all that that because you'd rather trust your favourite conspiracy theorist with no expertise or your "gut feeling" than actual scientists. Or maybe you just love yourself a giant multinational fossile fuel company, our countries being reliant and being open to blackmail because of that reliance. Who knows? You see, Germany would be in massive trouble if Russia decides their state-run gas companies don't want to supply us anymore for whatever reason. I've run the many geopolitical and communal advantages down for you in the past.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 12:30 PM GMT
The first piece of information about a report or study, that anybody should know before they examine the findings of such, is who sponsored the report?
Who did the funding?
Then who is in the pay of people with a vested interest in seeking others to act on the findings?

Any employee of any concern that stands to gain from the findings, should have their opinions questioned.
The same as the opinion of any scientist whose boss or company has aired a view.

A company with a thousand scientists on their payroll with apparently a thousand opinions is merely the opinion of one, and that is the opinion of one at the top of the pecking order because no one else will go against it.

There's a phrase that covers people who take the word of the establishment on everything.

It's ''wide eyed and helpless.''
Report edy January 6, 2018 12:35 PM GMT
Wise words in that first sentence, Dr Crippen. That's why you'll find the human made global warming denial machine largely being funded by people and corporations active in the fossil fuel industry.
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 12:44 PM GMT
Edy,

One Volcano eruption can change the temperature of the globe for centuries.

To think that people freezing because of the green levy is going to change anything is just plain wrong.

Back in 1970s the scientists were warning of another iceage.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'force of nature'?

As I said I am far more worried about pollution by plastics and the build up of waste and how Africa is going to be fed as its population grows exponentially than 'climate change'.
Report edy January 6, 2018 1:06 PM GMT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

Even the human made climate change denial lobby groups have internal reports that the evidence of human emissions on climate is undeniable

IT

Potential volcano eruptions have no place in this discussion. You really have a knick for bringing up things like that so you don't have to discuss the real points.

Are people freezing at large or are you making that up? I remember you playing that kind of card before. Just that time with rural Africans in their cute little huts not being allowed to heat their stoves with wood they collected because of evil environmentalists.

The 70s thing is a hoax. Yes, there were scientists arguing there'd be cooling, but it wasn't the majority opinion even at that time. Which leads me back to my assessment of you playing smart (because you claim to have done your research) but in reality you are just re-blabbering what you like and hear without any verification.

Plastics are a problem sure. At least in our countries they probably kill fewer people in our inner cities than the slow creeping death brought by air pollution though.
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 1:23 PM GMT
'the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions could cause global warming but ignored it in a lobbying and public relations campaign against efforts to curb emissions.'

Are you a fan of scientific consensus edy?
Report edy January 6, 2018 1:38 PM GMT
I'm a fan of rather trusting people that actually research these things than going all "I know nothing about it but this one guy who doesn't know anything about it or has any experience or expertise in the field whatsoever told me it's all BS"
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 1:51 PM GMT
The point is if you have a 'scientific consensus' then the research can never be objective.

Any scientist that disagrees with the consensus is dismissed.

If you actually dig into the research the IPCC has always over estimated future temperatures.

If the temperatures go up at the speed they claim they will no amount of carbon trading will make any difference.
Report edy January 6, 2018 2:07 PM GMT
If someone actually makes groundbreaking, convincing new research, it will be adopted by the scientific community and become new consensus. I think history has taught us that time after time. Or do you see us still talking about flat earth, lizard people or scientific consensus in the Christian world being that God made us all?

With the underlying physics of greenhouse gasses very, very, very unlikely to be overthrown and a wealth of available data, this particular scientific consensus on the effect of human emissioned greenhouse gases is unlikely to be found wrong as well however.
Report moisok January 6, 2018 3:57 PM GMT
It is more about having an agenda, believing it and selling it. 

hope this helps
Report terry mccann January 6, 2018 4:03 PM GMT
not with chemtrails happening
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 4:05 PM GMT
If you have concencious on a subject, there usually isn't any meaningful research going on that could refute the official line.
Funding for research doesn't work like that.

New ideas get shouted down before they even get started let alone funded. 
Concencious on a subject means agreement on a subject by those who hold the power.
And once they've made their minds up, that's that.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 4:28 PM GMT
''concencious''

consensus.
Report edy January 6, 2018 4:28 PM GMT
Maybe the fossil fuel indistry should refunnel the hundreds of millions they use for lobbying into proper research then. If they actually believed they had a case. They don't believe so, they're not stupid after all.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 4:35 PM GMT
The research has all been done.
It's the interpretation of it that's in question.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 4:48 PM GMT
Here's an interesting tale about the cause of peptic ulcers, which went against conventional wisdom.

Decades ago the consensus was that bacteria couldn't cause stomach ulcers because bacteria cannot live in the acid environment in the stomach.
One man had an idea that they were all wrong, he was laughed at but another doctor with the access to the facilities needed to investigate further who had a free hand at a research centre proved he was correct.
And he produced a simple cure.
He announced his findings to the world.
A TV documentary ten years later questioned why his treatment hadn't been universally taken up?
It found that only 10% of all doctors were using his cure.
Of course the publicity the programme got saw the cure being accepted slowly but surely.
It's the standard treatment for stomach ulcers now and the doctor in question was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Yet this does show what an uphill struggle it is to go against the official line. 

If it weren't for that original ''crank'' they'd still be cutting people up who suffer with peptic ulcers.
Or for the laxity of the research centre where the doctor worked, that unusually allowed him a free hand to conduct his research.
Report edy January 6, 2018 4:56 PM GMT
Thank you for confirming the point I made earlier with your example

If someone actually makes groundbreaking, convincing new research, it will be adopted by the scientific community and become new consensus. I think history has taught us that time after time.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 5:06 PM GMT
That point was that ten years after its discovery still only 10% of doctors were using the treatment.

And the doctor involved hadn't got the backing of anyone.

So how much potentially groundbreaking research never gets done?
Report moisok January 6, 2018 5:10 PM GMT
edy is neveer going to accept your points
he embraces the dictatorial regime of the Eu and you can never win against corruption like that
Report moisok January 6, 2018 5:11 PM GMT
never never never   ooooops   ho ho
Report edy January 6, 2018 5:20 PM GMT
Go away drunken sailor.

Maybe so, Crippen, but the fossil fuel industry does provenly spend plenty of money on this cause. They just prefer to spend it on lobbying, dilution and the funding of anti-science movements. The money and backing for the groundbreaking research would be there. But even they and their scientists know that they do not have a case whatsoever.

Why do they not have a case? Because the underlying phyics would have to be wrong. Now, in physics you do not proof things to be true. However, this is one of those things that have been verified time after time after time however and with a good degree of certainty we can assume that the physics on the effect of greenhouse gases is solid.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 5:31 PM GMT
And the computer projections which everything is based on, are they solid?

They depend on how the programme is written.
Report edy January 6, 2018 5:34 PM GMT
For which, again, there'd be plenty of money available from the fossil fuel industry to write a solid programme and convince the world if they truly believed the existing models to be fundamentally faulty.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 6:00 PM GMT
edy seems to base his whole case on who has the most money to spend on research and lobbying.

Suddenly the science has taken a back seat.

edy has made my case for me.
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:05 PM GMT
No, I base my case on even the fossil fuel industry not bothering with funding proper research because they know fully well they wouldn't have a case. Hence they instead spend massive amounts of money over the past multiple decades on lobbying and enabling people who think science is witchcraft. Your English skills don't seem to be too insufficient. Why pretend to be so confused?
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:06 PM GMT
Either way, your base your climate science views on David Icke and accuses me of giving science a back seat. Couldn't make it up.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 6:16 PM GMT
The world heats up ,and the world cools down.
As it's been doing since records were kept.

And when all the money has been spent and all the measures taken, the world will carry on the way it has always done.
Heating up and cooling down, and nothing we will do will have done will have made a scrap of difference to that.

Sorry about the mess the plane leaves in the sky when I go on holiday by the way.
I don't really think it matters at all.
Report moisok January 6, 2018 6:23 PM GMT
edy will tell you differnt - he is a good boy and does what he is told and repeats what he is fed by the eu oligarchy and his dear chancellor who leads from the eastern front campaign

meanwhile they are entertaining the middle east in the form of turkey

look forward towards 75 million more

what's not to like

hugs and kisses  xxxxxxxxxx
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:23 PM GMT
Can only repeat what I already told IT. Your main problem is that you fail to grasp geological dimensions and physics
Report moisok January 6, 2018 6:24 PM GMT
New year celebrations in cologne is going to be a lot busier in a few years time
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:24 PM GMT
That's good, mobbo.
Report terry mccann January 6, 2018 6:31 PM GMT
you are all miles off as usual
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:32 PM GMT
is it geoengineering by the lizard people?
Report terry mccann January 6, 2018 6:34 PM GMT
grow up ffs you bore
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:36 PM GMT
You can't just stomp into the door and say we're all miles off without offering what's really happening. C'mon, mate.
Report terry mccann January 6, 2018 6:36 PM GMT
hardly a joking matter
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 6:37 PM GMT
Your main problem is that you fail to grasp geological dimensions and physics

And your problem is that you're a sucker for bullshine dressed up as technology.
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:40 PM GMT
What's that even supposed to mean?
Report moisok January 6, 2018 6:42 PM GMT
No geoengineering, but the eu's books are a work of art - a work of fiction even!!!

But they get top marks for re-writing history. Pop round to the 40 million eu museum!! 

full of *****
Report terry mccann January 6, 2018 6:42 PM GMT
"Geoengineering: Waging weather warfare on world populations" all the evidence is there
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 6:44 PM GMT
edy
06 Jan 18 18:23
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 179,610 | Blogger: edy's blog
Can only repeat what I already told IT. Your main problem is that you fail to grasp geological dimensions and physics

^

I understand that every single prediction they have made has over predicted the amount the globe will heat up.
If the science was so strong this would not be the case.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 6:44 PM GMT
Let's get this straight.
I break wind and my fart being lighter than air finds its way up into the atmosphere, and joins 6 billion other farts already there.
This happens on an hourly basis.
The farts form a cloud all around the earth which then traps the heat coming from the earth.
The heat can get in but once it's in it can't get out.
I see.

How about if we all set fire to our farts - would that help?

They come out with stuff like that then reckon everybody else is off their rocker when they laugh at the idea.
Report Foinavon January 6, 2018 6:46 PM GMT
Edy is right that there is little dispute that carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas. It is easy to demonstrate in a laboratory by shining infra-red radiation through a tube of gas and measure how much comes out the other end. The experiment shows that the gas absorbs radiation.
Applying this to the earth's climate is far more difficult to model as there are many factors involved.
The theory works like this. The sun's energy heats the earth and the heat is radiated back out to space as infra-red radiation. The atmosphere absorbs some of this radiation and keeps the earth warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere. Some gases absorb more radiation than others and carbon dioxide is a high absorber so increasing it's concentration keeps the earth warmer.
There is a positive feedback effect to the warming as the atmosphere holds more water vapour also a greenhouse gas, more methane released from melting tundra and decomposing sea hydrate and lower albedo due to loss of sea ice.
The warm up effect is countered by carbon dioxide dissolving in seawater and by the sun's cycle where it's energy output varies over time.

Regardless of these arguments what the UK does has little effect when larger manufacturing nations such as China, India, USA and Germany are using vast amounts of coal to produce energy. Our output is dwarfed by them and our green policy is just a token gesture IMO.
Report edy January 6, 2018 6:53 PM GMT

Jan 6, 2018 -- 6:44PM, InsiderTrader wrote:


edy06 Jan 18 18:23Joined: 13 Dec 06| Topic/replies: 179,610 | Blogger: edy's blogCan only repeat what I already told IT. Your main problem is that you fail to grasp geological dimensions and physics^I understand that every single prediction they have made has over predicted the amount the globe will heat up.If the science was so strong this would not be the case.


Dude, you really, really need to stop just spreading your sheep propaganda that you take from whereever you take it. Do you even notice how ridiculous you sound? "Every single prediction"..that's plain untrue even if we of course don't take you literally and allow for some exaggeration on your part. Serisously, mate. If you wanna play the man who researches things unlike all us foolish sheep, you gotta stop with that kinda idiocy.

Report edy January 6, 2018 7:00 PM GMT
Regardless of these arguments what the UK does has little effect when larger manufacturing nations such as China, India, USA and Germany are using vast amounts of coal to produce energy. Our output is dwarfed by them and our green policy is just a token gesture IMO.

For a nation with comparatively small carbon footprint like the UK you're probably right. It would be nice if however it sent a positive signal to the others that they need to get their act together too. Germany is somewhat doing it, at least we are telling others that we are, but in reality at this stage there's a lot more shine and words than action.

All the more why the Paris climate accord was a good first step for human agreement on the necessity to do something after decades of inaction. That it was still largely weighted towards industry interests and hence not nearly ambitious enough is another topic. It will need to be expanded upon eventually.
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 7:05 PM GMT
Regardless of these arguments what the UK does has little effect when larger manufacturing nations such as China, India, USA and Germany are using vast amounts of coal to produce energy. Our output is dwarfed by them and our green policy is just a token gesture IMO.

Which nails it.
Even if the lunes were correct about global warming, anything we did would be insignificant in the general scheme of things.
Not that they are correct as Fionavon's posts points out.
Report Foinavon January 6, 2018 7:06 PM GMT
Sending a positive message is good as long as we don't disadvantage our industry and general population disproportionately by adding extra costs that others are reluctant to do. We need a level playing field for trade and not make the poor pay for it in green taxes on energy for heating the home.
Report edy January 6, 2018 7:08 PM GMT
Foinavon, did you point out that the "lunes" are incorrect about human carbon emissions causing a warming of the atmosphere like Dr. Crippen just claimed?
Report Foinavon January 6, 2018 7:18 PM GMT
I don't listen to the "lunes" edy. It's thought that the sun is in a period of lower energy output that would normally result in an ice-age but this has been off-set since the beginning of agriculture. There have been many ice-ages with periods of warming in-between so it is anticipated that at some stage the sun will warm again.
It is fine to warm your home in winter but would be inconvenient if you could neither turn it off nor open the windows when summer comes around again.
Report Foinavon January 6, 2018 7:20 PM GMT
*off-set by a greenhouse effect since the beginning of agriculture (the burning of forests and turning the soil releases carbon dioxide).
Report edy January 6, 2018 7:25 PM GMT
Thanks. I just wanted confirmation that I didn't completely misunderstand your very good first post on the topic. When Dr. Crippen suddenly claimed that your post pointed out that the "lunes" (which seems to be code for climate scientists) were wrong about the anthropogenic influence on the warming of the atmosphere through (e.g) our carbon emissions I was getting slightly worried I got you all wrong.
Report Foinavon January 6, 2018 7:38 PM GMT
edy, this is an important topic and there is exaggeration on both sides. The basic science is simple, the translation into predicting such a complicated and chaotic system as earth's ecosystem is hugely difficult and it's a matter of opinion how much or little we need to do to avoid a potential catastrophe.
We are heading for a catastrophe anyway through lack of population control and our ability to sidestep future problems leading to a population crash is steadily diminishing. Climate change is potentially one of those problems.
Report Foinavon January 6, 2018 7:41 PM GMT
Each individual has a carbon footprint. The more people the bigger the aggregate footprint. The most ecofriendly thing anyone can do is not have children.
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 7:41 PM GMT
Edy,

Please point me to IPCC projections that underestimated or got right the future temperature of the globe.
Report edy January 6, 2018 7:57 PM GMT
IT, you're the one with the initial claim (do you seriously still not recognise how ridiculous a claim it was?) And you're the one who tells us you research all these things unlike us sheep who blindly and foolishly believe everything we are fed. So you must have the material at hand, right? How about you back up your claim of that every single IPCC projection overestimated the temperature rise?

Spoiler: You'll very quickly find out that you, dear sheep, were talking pure rubbish because you, dear sheep, just mindlessly chose, as sheep tend to do, to spread what your favourite climate conspiracy source told you without, contrary to what sheep love to claim, having had even the slightest look to verify it.
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 8:00 PM GMT
Edy,

Please point me to IPCC projections that underestimated or got right the future temperature of the globe.
Report edy January 6, 2018 8:01 PM GMT
Can you read?
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 8:02 PM GMT
Edy,

They made projection in these years:

1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007

Which one underestimated or got right the future temperature of the globe?
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 8:03 PM GMT
*ones
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 8:04 PM GMT
I am saying non of those 4 got it right. They are all within the margin of error of being random.

Which one are you suggesting got it right?
Report edy January 6, 2018 8:05 PM GMT
You show me how they did not get it right.
Report moisok January 6, 2018 8:05 PM GMT
edy's brain is controlled by an outside force, centred in Brussels. You need to understand this.  He is only following orders.  Have some empathy for the poor chap.
Report InsiderTrader January 6, 2018 8:09 PM GMT
None of them are right.

Zero. They are all at the lower end of their range. Statically not significant given we all know the earth is in a heating up stage.

They models trying to project are all wrong.
Report moisok January 6, 2018 8:16 PM GMT
There is nothing crazy about the control the eu exerts over its members and its slaves.

they brook no opposition - look at the treatment of Greece, Hungary, Poland etc and the uk

they spend over 1.1 billion euros on propaganda alone

now tell me I have voices & 'crazy' etc

you are so indoctrinated by it all and are so close to it you are unable to see or understand what is
going on - you have been born into it, educated by it and are the result of it  - a fully formed europerson springing from its bosom
Any one outside it is 'crazy'. 
They even have 'hate hours' in Parliament against the eu's evil opponent - Putin is their Emmanuel Goldstein and maybe Boris at other times.
Whilst promoting alliances with cultures who would eradicate any idea of freedom of expression

why would they want to spend billions on propaganda  - did you vote for that for starters?

hope this helps
Report edy January 6, 2018 9:52 PM GMT
No, one outside or against the EU or the UK's membership in it does not make one crazy, mobo. Not at all. Leavers like Foinavon or bongo from this forum are nowhere near crazy. They're both incredibly smart and knowledgeable. You just simply are crazy, or at least give a wonderful impression of someone not quite clear in the head.

IT, so you dismiss the low estimate of the projections because you don't like it, and also seem to take the observed, measured temperature as gospel without accounting for the margin of error of those measured, observed values? That is....marvelous....and would make every dead scientist to ever grace the earth's surface turn in his grave.

You also are wrong if you claim they are all on the lower end of their range as well. The first one was off quite a bit, but SAR and TAR have been about down the middle.

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rates.jpg
Report Dr Crippen January 6, 2018 10:03 PM GMT
edy appears to have received quite a mauling here over his slavish following of the global warming hoax.
He's not the first, and won't be the last if past threads on the subject are anything to go by.
Report edy January 6, 2018 10:10 PM GMT
I urge you to re-read Foinavon's very good and informed initial post on the matter.
Report moisok January 6, 2018 10:13 PM GMT
Carry on reading from your instruction booklet edy.  Others will continue to be free thinking on all matters and not ones that come from brussels.
Report InsiderTrader January 7, 2018 8:36 AM GMT
Edy,

The long term trend for global temperatures the last 150 years is upwards.

No one is disputing that.

The long term trend for the FTSE is also upwards.

No one is disputing that.

If I predict that the long term trend for the FTSE will continue to go up between 1% and 20% a year on a 20 year average I will get it right every time.

That does not mean I can say the FTSE goes up because of any reason I care to give.

Picking a long term trend within a massive range means nothing.

Even by chance after 4 predictions you would expect the IPCC to overestimate the trend at least once if they were right.
Report terry mccann January 7, 2018 10:57 AM GMT
so who looked at the video and what are your thoughts?
Report edy January 7, 2018 11:32 AM GMT
IT, I believe you'll find they did a bit more than just go diddledidoo and pick a massive range. Also, you too, like Crippen, might want to re-read Foinavon's posts.
Report Dr Crippen January 7, 2018 12:36 PM GMT
Co2 has been going up there since time began from natural causes, and from what I've read in far higher quantities then and now, than from burning stuff which has suddenly become an issue.

It's a fantastic idea by the way. There's no doubting that.

Some people are making a bomb out of it, there's no doubting that either.
Neither is the question of who is having to pay for it!
Report sageform January 8, 2018 11:20 AM GMT
If global warming is partly due to human activity then the only way to reduce that is to reduce the human population. It is quite unrealistic to expect a significant reduction in energy use when the population of the world continues to rise. Giving incentives to have more children is bizarre at a time when the level of CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.
Report moisok January 8, 2018 3:19 PM GMT
Build more cars and send more money to Africa  - you tight wads!!!
Report terry mccann January 10, 2018 9:57 AM GMT
with 1.5 views the video "why are they spraying"(nowt to do with cats) proves at last the world is taking notice unlike you lot, that should read 1.5 millionWhoops
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com

New to Betfair?

You need to open an account before you can add content to the forum.

Opening an account only takes a few minutes.

register now