Grunweld said.

Regarding the current severe winter across the Northern hemisphere - 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'



Yes I agree, but this is like the summer of 1976 only in reverse.May not be significant, but could be.We could have another 2 months of this and they are already saying it's the worse for 30 years. In 63 it didn't even get going until Feb.

So why can't you find it on Google or Youtube?

You are the one with the disinformation. I keep asking you for evidence for your assertions and all I get back is your political opinions. That's irrelevant.Put up or shut up.

The CRU already confirmed that the leaked emails and documents are for real. Why should they do it after years and years of propaganda? You either are on a massive wind-up or a blindly believing sheep far worse than the Express readers you were mocking.

Who paid for that .com site?
Some people are very naive. There is money behind all this manipulation. Billions are at stake.

You're the most naive person on here, moon light

their tax bills, sorry.

its like putting an ice cube into a glass of water..itl slowly melt and the water will drop in temperature to meet it.thats whats happening with the ice caps..the earth is just normalising

Kavvie that's interesting because apparently the oceans are supposed to be rising in temp.Also why doesn't the Maldives and the other Islands at risk flood every summer when the oceans warm and the ice caps melt.It should be happening every spring.

'We will experience destabilisation, the loss of our under-appreciated temperate climate'.

________________________________________________

Surely its better to have a cold snowy winter , rather than a normal grey British winter with non stop drizzle and rain .

Moon Light, I know you mean well but please try to check out some facts for yourself, rather than believing what you see on the TV. Believe me you are being conned, and you have bought it hook line and sinker. That's understandable, as the propaganda is very strong, thus those that don't seek the true facts themselves could perhaps be forgiven for their naivety.

"An advertising campaign touting the depth and quality of the Times newspapers environment coverage has been slapped by an industry watchdog for inaccuracy. The paper has agreed to modify the advertisements, which are based on a false climate change claim.

The Times ads claimed that global warming had caused the North East shipping passage, the icy Arctic route which in summer links Russias European ports to the Bering Strait, to be opened for the first time. In fact, the North East Passage opened in 1934, and was opened to overseas traffic after the fall of the Soviet Union. Modern technology, specifically radar, has permitted a safer passage in recent years."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/london-times-forced-to-recant-ads-touting-ne-passage/#more-14898

True science values scepticism, whilst political faith based science hates it and punishes it as heresy with the rack and the Inquisition.

Personally, after much studying of the facts, I am convinced that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a negligible affect on climate. The tide of independent scientific opinion is turning that way too, and I'm confident it will not be too long before the whole CO2 political scare story is proven to be nonsense.

We have to be thankful to the anthropogenic global warming proponents for one thing. If it werent for them and their voodoo science, climate science wouldnt have attracted the attention of physicists, chemists, astro physicists and other non-climate scientists, and we would be sleepwalking into the rather disruptive cooling that is coming next decade. We have a few years to prepare for that in terms of agricultural production.

Did you know that total global anthropogenic CO2 accounts for just 0.0015% of our atmosphere. The UK is responsible for 2% of that figure i.e. if the UK halted all fossil fuel consumption over night, that would lower atmospheric CO2 by 0.00003%. The effects would be economically and humanly devastating, whilst of course having absolutely zero influence on climate. That's apart from the fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at all and our atmosphere is actually rather diminished, present concentration being 385ppmv (0.0385%). Levels have been much higher in the past, naturally of course, resulting in great benefits to plant life, forestry, farming and humans.

Like most people, I suspect you misunderstand the Greenhouse Effect. Warmists will usually state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so adding more and more must result in more and more heat reflected back to Earth. This is false. It is no more than a logical fallacy.

As a simplistic demonstration of the effects of CO2, perhaps we could ask them to imagine greenhouse gases in the atmosphere representing 10 duvets on their bed (9 for water vapour 1 for CO2/Methane/Nitrous oxide) (water vapour accounts for 90% of green house gases) whilst they're snug as a bug inside. Adding another duvet will make no difference, adding another 10,20,30 or more duvets will make no difference. So it is with CO2.

The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. Remember, atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 385 ppmv (0.0385%) and of that amount less than 4% is of human origin. Reducing that 4% to 3% or even zero would have no effect whatsoever on global climate. Meanwhile, the oceans de-gas and re-sink CO2 at varying rates naturally, always following temperature never preceding it.

For the last 2 years the Sun has been very quiet, sunspot activity has been at its lowest recorded level for more than 100 years, solar cycle 23 was extra long (normally 11 years) with a long solar minimum, and cycle 24 is predicted to be weak. There's a high probability that we are now entering a period of climate similar to the Dalton minimum circa 1800 (end of the little ice age) when solar activity was similarly quiet.

The solar/climate relationship is like this :

Lower magnetic field strength = fewer sunspots = reduced solar wind = increased high energy cosmic rays = increased low level cloud formation = increased albedo = cooler Earth.

You are seeing the effects of weak total solar irradiance right now. The effects of solar eruptivity (increased cosmic ray flux) are seperate to this, and are the main reason we will see a cooling climate for years to come.

The northern hemisphere is experiencing record breaking low temperatures. Global warming does not cause global cooling! Please question your logic!

Nice one trev.


Moon Light 06 Jan 13:43
Who paid for that .com site?
Some people are very naive. There is money behind all this manipulation. Billions are at stake.

Too darned right there's billions at stake... Billions in green 'taxes', Al Gore's paypacket.. to name just those for starters.

Where have all you guys come from? You don't usually post on here.
Are you gamblers at all?

And looking at the times of posts, I reckon out working all day too.

There is a world of difference between a drug company scam and allegations of a conspiracy involving thousands of people from every scientifically advanced country in the world.

Perhaps you'd care to tell us about your own scientific background, Trevh?

Could someone tell me who is the person that has set up the carbon emissions trading company/scheme?... and name two major shareholders in the company that manufactures Tamiflu.
These people stand to make a reasonable profit from these ventures.

clue No. 2

Conflict of interest or insider trading?

The saga of Tamiflu is just the tip of a big iceberg. As we noted in an earlier article, the real point of interest is the company in California who developed Tamiflu, Gilead Sciences, listed on the NASDAQ as (GILD). As we also noted, US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997 until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since 1988, some thirteen years.

A as-yet-unconfirmed report is that Rumsfeld recently purchased additional stock in his former company, Gilead Sciences, worth $18 million, making him one of its largest if not the largest stock owners today. Whether that is true or not, earlier this year, when the Bird Flu scare was just heating up, according to a report in the November 14 Fortune magazine, the Defense Secretary decided not to sell his many shares in Gilead so as to

Guys, we shouldn't forget to mention the Chairman of The IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) has a rather large undeclared conflict of interest, and like Gore is up to his neck in carbon trading scams.

Here's a recent letter to Chairman Pachauri calling for his removal from office:

"We note that throughout your chairmanship of the IPCC you have also been chairman of Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), founded by the multi-billion-dollar Tata steel and energy conglomerate. In 2003 the institute, which you have headed since 1981, was renamed simply

I posted this in the politics forum, but wouldn't want anyone to miss it, I was in stitches watching this...

http://www.youtube.com/user/ilovecarbondioxide#p/a...