Maths and climate change (Here, here village idiots)

[DimPrawn]

Oh God no more please, we're begging you!

Please please stop

Tell him, he started it!

[foritisme]

It ain't on average getting any warmer. It's getting colder.

Does that mean we can expect a Global Cooling Tax (Blue Tax) anytime now ?

[DimPrawn]

Does that mean we can expect a Global Cooling Tax (Blue Tax) anytime now ?

Yep. That's why they renamed it Climate Change from Global Warming.

As long as it don't stay the same, Darling is quids in.

[Turion]

The receding polar ice is making these inhospitable waters attractive to many bordering nations who are starting to make claims - aka Russia, Denmark, Canada et al, for the main purpose of oil & gas exploration.

Now if increasing CO2 was really a factor in melting this ice, why would they (the international community) want to release more by extracting and burning the huge quantities of fossil fuel thought to lie under the ice. Surely they would choose to leave it there. Or am I missing something

[BrilloPad]

http://plus.maths.org/issue46/featur...ams/index.html

SG in <<sitting back and waiting for the village idiots>> mode.

If I turn my air conditioning up to full it will be fine.

[The Lone Gunman]

SAS:
Lots of those records seem to have been set 200 or 300 years ago and have only been broken this or last year, as have many other records used to sensationalise the AGW debate.
Could you explain what set them all that time ago and could you explain what the climate has been doing with all our CO2 and other emissions in the mean time if it wasn't using them to increase the temperatures year on year?

[Diver]

The receding polar ice is making these inhospitable waters attractive to many bordering nations who are starting to make claims - aka Russia, Denmark, Canada et al, for the main purpose of oil & gas exploration.

Now if increasing CO2 was really a factor in melting this ice, why would they (the international community) want to release more by extracting and burning the huge quantities of fossil fuel thought to lie under the ice. Surely they would choose to leave it there. Or am I missing something

££££$$$$$££££££$$$$$$

[ace00]

Royal Society

Let's be fair. CUK's resident Uber-idiot has the backing of the Royal Society no less in his faith in Global Warming.
Hey look, here's another news release from the esteemed society:

Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4734767.ece

Oh dear.

[sasguru]

Let's be fair. CUK's resident Uber-idiot has the backing of the Royal Society no less in his faith in Global Warming.
Hey look, here's another news release from the esteemed society:

Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4734767.ece

Oh dear.

If you weren't such a meta-cretin you'd have read the rest of the article and figured out why the Royal Society said what it did:
- "the legitimate point of view" bit seems to have been added by the journalist.

A spokesman for the organisation, which counts 21 Nobel Prize winners among its Fellows, confirmed yesterday that Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society.

He said: “Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t.”

HTH

[The Lone Gunman]

Let's be fair. CUK's resident Uber-idiot has the backing of the Royal Society no less in his faith in Global Warming.
Hey look, here's another news release from the esteemed society:

Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4734767.ece

Oh dear.

I have to agree with SAS on this one. When there are conflicting views and theories on any subject they should both/all be taught and considered.
It is only by promoting the debate and the research that we may eventualy conclude that one view or theory is correct though in a belief system you are never going to convince the believers.
Funny how SAS seems incapable of accepting there might be an alternative to AGW theory though even when there is a miriad of evidence that natural climate change has been ongoing since time imemorial.