Global Warming

[BlasterBates]

IPCC boo boo

The IPCC predicted the himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

This flies in the face of the fact that these glaciers have been stable over the last few years or growing slightly.

Their statement was not based on a refereed piece of research, but an informal statement and was not checked.

The IPCC is now reviewing their position.

aha I see it was reported.

Anyway shows that maybe they should be a bit more scientific about their approach.

[BlackenedBiker]

We pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

Is anyone suggesting that this has no effect on the climate.

This to me seems very hard to believe.....

[sasguru]

The fact that you choose to move counter arguments into extreme points of view show that you have failed to make any convincing argument to support your view.

No I'm pointing out the logical implication of the theory that scientists are finding for AGW to support their livelihoods.
The fact that scientists from such a range of range of countries and political systems all agree suggests that that theory is crap.
The fact that you don't see this logical implication is probably why you are an agent and talk bollux for a living.

[BlasterBates]

A sceptical view from a highly respected glaciologist with refereed papers

His site is worth looking at.

Professor Easterbrook

[sasguru]

We pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

Is anyone suggesting that this has no effect on the climate.

This to me seems very hard to believe.....

And there is a very simple experiment to prove it does, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Google it and try it if you want the truth.
Or recycle the endless propaganda the lobbyists are planting in what passes for your minds.

[Paddy]

We pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

Is anyone suggesting that this has no effect on the climate.

This to me seems very hard to believe.....

Please point to the link where it show that the Earth is warming up.

I think you are getting the wrong end of the argument. One smoky fire can make a difference between a cloud passing over or it turning to rain however Co2 is not smoke and Co2 is does not warm up the temperature a land level. Co2 warms the upper atmosphere. Data does not prove that it is warming up.

Sasguru; you beat Atw by posting such trash.

[sasguru]

A sceptical view from a highly respected glaciologist with refereed papers

His site is worth looking at.

Professor Easterbrook

Here's another famous, eminent dissenter. Much more eminent than your Professor Easterbrook:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ract/133/5/416

[BlackenedBiker]

Please point to the link where it show that the Earth is warming up.

I think you are getting the wrong end of the argument. One smoky fire can make a difference between a cloud passing over or it turning to rain however Co2 is not smoke and Co2 is does not warm up the temperature a land level. Co2 warms the upper atmosphere. Data does not prove that it is warming up.

Re-read what I said initially.

If you agree that the production of an environmental pollutant on such a scale does effect the climate, then maybe mankind should address their behaviour in order to stop, like the good little sentient species we are....

[DodgyAgent]

No I'm pointing out the logical implication of the theory that scientists are finding for AGW to support their livelihoods.
The fact that you don't see this logical implication is probably why you are an agent and talk bollux for a living.

Most of the scientists and the other big names are supported and sponsored by governments. Governments of all countries have an agenda to increase their power and raise money through taxation. By employing scientists under their control it is not unreasonable to assume that their research will be biased to supporting the governments agenda.

it is entirely appropriate therefore that we should question AGW.

It may be a fact that the planet is warming, but it is also a fact that the climates around the world change all the time. It may be that we are in the short term experiencing unprecedented hot weather that you and your friends use to support your arguments. The quid pro quo of this is that if we at the same time get a spell of prolonged cold then equally such events can be used to counter your own arguments.
Most of us probably accept that the climate is getting warmer, but whether this is simply part of a cycle that has been running for thousands of years
is another matter. It is not unreasonable or "flat earthist" to challenge others opinions.
What I cannot come to terms with and therfore cannot accept is whether man has contributed to AGW and if he has by how much. I certainly am not convinced that sticking windmills in the middle of the North sea will influence how the climate develops. I am also not convinced that warming up the planet is in itself such a bad thing. I am sure DimPrawn is already eyeing up real estate in Greenland.
Your hysterically fanatical position is highly questionable to anyone with half a brain.. which of course includes us agents.

[sasguru]

Please point to the link where it show that the Earth is warming up.

I think you are getting the wrong end of the argument. One smoky fire can make a difference between a cloud passing over or it turning to rain however Co2 is not smoke and Co2 is does not warm up the temperature a land level. Co2 warms the upper atmosphere. Data does not prove that it is warming up.

Sasguru; you beat Atw by posting such trash.

I'll let you keep posting. Your posts make my case more eloquently than can I.