To those who don't believe AGW is real

[sasguru]

sas cannot grasp the simple fact that the main assertion of the IPPCC report, which was based on 1990's data, that global temps will rise due to CO2 is plainly flawed, as the temps have not risen as predicted, ergo the whole report can be dismissed.

Now, can I have my 7 litre V8 back now please?

I explained variation in a previous thread but obviously you are incapable of grasping a simple O-level concept. The graph of rising global temperature is not a smooth line but jagged - there will be years where temperature is less than previous years but the overall trend is up and that isn't going to change.
There will be another record breaking year within the next 5 years as the efffects of La Nina subside.

[sasguru]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...g-madness.html



The data never lies. The figures used by the IPCC 2001 report to base their predictions was wrong and has been since revised. The hottest years were in the 1930's and the global temperature has now been falling for many years, yet CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

Global warming became climate change becomes bulltulip.

The END

Ah that eminent scientist, Chris Booker of the Telegraph
NASA begs to disagree:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

[DimPrawn]

There will be another record breaking year within the next 5 years as the efffects of La Nina subside.

Like the record breaking predictions in the IPCC report that never happened.

Oh, it was La Nina, oops, didn't mention that one in the predictions did they. Silly them. Obvious now isn't it.

Since you are obviously either a mystic or a time traveller, can I have the winning lottery numbers for next week?

Idiot.

[sasguru]

1. Do some research.
2. You completely fail to understand the point.

You made no point. Your post was certainly not logical, coherent or cogent.
Next!

[sasguru]

Idiot.

Defined as one who quotes Chris Booker of the Telegraph in a scientific argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Jazz critic FFS.
Next!

[DimPrawn]

Ah that eminent scientist, Chris Booker of the Telegraph
NASA begs to disagree:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

This 2005 summation was first posted on-line Dec. 15, 2005, and discussed the 2005 meteorological year (December-November). Minor revisions were made on Jan. 12, 2006, so that it instead discussed the 2005 calendar year.

That data is based on the old, incorrect data. It was recently revised but the AGW fanatics seem to be still using the incorrect data.

[sasguru]

FFS Is this the best the sceptics can do? I've had so-called arguments backed up by:

- discredited cranks
- random thoughts
- basic misunderstandings
- The Telegraph.



Pathetic!

[sasguru]

This 2005 summation was first posted on-line Dec. 15, 2005, and discussed the 2005 meteorological year (December-November). Minor revisions were made on Jan. 12, 2006, so that it instead discussed the 2005 calendar year.

That data is based on the old, incorrect data. It was recently revised but the AGW fanatics seem to be still using the incorrect data.

So you're saying the minor variations year to year are more important than the long term trend?
Are you really such a cretin or are you being a troll?

Let me give you an example you understand. Look at UK house prices. Falling drastically now. What will they be in 25 years?
I'll wager much higher than at 2006 peak.
Reason for that is that there are certain things that cause the price to rise in the long run that can be temporarily cancelled by immediate short term effects.

[DimPrawn]

FFS Is this the best the sceptics can do? I've had so-called arguments backed up by:

- discredited cranks
- random thoughts
- basic misunderstandings
- The Telegraph.



Pathetic!

No SAS. It's simple.

It's discredited by one simple fact. The conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, that global temperatures would rise is wrong. Their models were wrong, their extrapolations were wrong and the data they based their models on was since revised (and hence was wrong).

Simple as that.

[sasguru]

No SAS. It's simple.

It's discredited by one simple fact. The conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, that global temperatures would rise is wrong. Their models were wrong, their extrapolations were wrong and the data they based their models on was since revised (and hence was wrong).

Simple as that.

coz you say say so and will scthweam and scthweam till you're red in the face.
Nice argument.

Anyone who concludes an argument with "Simple as that" on a complex issue is obviously a dunce.