Global Warming

[BlasterBates]

More glaciers growing

Oh dear looks like Easterbrook's predictions are coming true..

[Churchill]

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....

When are *they* going to ban fizzy drinks?

[Mich the Tester]

Am I alone in having the impression that people who hold left winged political beliefs generally believe in GW and people on the right generally don’t? Is this any way to conduct discussion into a very complex scientific issue?

[DodgyAgent]

Am I alone in having the impression that people who hold left winged political beliefs generally believe in GW and people on the right generally don’t? Is this any way to conduct discussion into a very complex scientific issue?

spot on.

Our local protesters against the gulf war have given up and moved onto global warming. Scare people into believing there is a problem and then champion the cause kerrrchiing

[sasguru]

Your hysterically fanatical position is highly questionable to anyone with half a brain.. which of course includes us agents.

My position is not fanatical. I'm just waiting for some proper evidence against the consensus as opposed to the random thoughts of some intinerant IT jobbers and an agent, who show all the evidence of :

1) not understanding the scientific process
2) not being able to separate their random opinion from facts
3) being trolls.

HTH

In any case, please explain to me why China would need an AGW argument to tax its citizens. It can tax them as it pleases, its not a democracy. An AGW argument is immensely harmful to its industrial, polluting economy. Yet its scientists (and indeed the govt) support the consensus. Could it be that they see first hand the results of their ways and realise they need to combat it?

[sasguru]

Am I alone in having the impression that people who hold left winged political beliefs generally believe in GW and people on the right generally don’t? Is this any way to conduct discussion into a very complex scientific issue?

I vote Tory. Guess what the official Tory position is? Anyone? DA?

[BlasterBates]

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.

Yup you can check the GISS satellite data which shows very little warming in the atmosphere, over 30 years. The warming is in the ocean and on land. It seems that the oceans are driving climate change, by warming up and changing the weather patterns. This happens every 30 years, where a warming period is replace by a cooling period as is currently the case. Interestingly the Arctic warmed up but not the Antarctic, but the Antarctic is not affected by maritime weather, it bypasses the Antarctic, thus bearing out the view that CO2 has very little effect.

Could be electromagnetic interaction with the sun rather than radiation, which wuld make sense. The Sun's magnetic field keeps flipping. This warms up the earth from the inside (the earth is a huge magnet), this warms up the oceans slightly causing the changes, and might explain why it correlates with sunspots, but the constant levels of radiation.

[sasguru]

Yup you can check the GISS satellite data which shows very little warming in the atmosphere, over 30 years. The warming is in the ocean and on land. It seems that the oceans are driving climate change, by warming up and changing the weather patterns. This happens every 30 years, where a warming period is replace by a cooling period as is currently the case. Interestingly the Arctic warmed up but not the Antarctic, but the Antarctic is not affected by maritime weather, it bypasses the Antarctic, thus bearing out the view that CO2 has very little effect.

Could be electromagnetic interaction with the sun rather than radiation, which wuld make sense. The Sun's magnetic field keeps flipping.

And there I was thinking you're an intinerant IT jobber and not the accomplished climatologist you so obviously are.

[DodgyAgent]

My position is not fanatical. I'm just waiting for some proper evidence against the consensus as opposed to the random thoughts of some intinerant IT jobbers and an agent, who show all the evidence of :

1) not understanding the scientific process
2) not being unable to separate their random opinion from facts
3) being trolls.

HTH

In any case, please explain to me why China would need an AGW argument to tax its citizens. It can tax them as it pleases, its not a democracy. An AGW argument is immensely harmful to its industrial, polluting economy. Yet its scientists (and indeed the govt) support the consensus. Could it be that they see first hand the results of their ways and realise they need to combat it?

China pollutes everywhere anyway and they now have a stronger mandate to do something about it. By accepting the AGW argument then again this enables them to exert more control over its people.

Anyone who disagrees or questions you is treated to a diatribe of hysterical abuse on this subject which is why no one here is buying your evidence. If one looks at the motley bunch of self serving ars**les promoting AGW then you might begin to further understand why your view is being so comprehensively challenged.

[EternalOptimist]

Yup you can check the GISS satellite data which shows very little warming in the atmosphere, over 30 years. The warming is in the ocean and on land. It seems that the oceans are driving climate change, by warming up and changing the weather patterns. This happens every 30 years, where a warming period is replace by a cooling period as is currently the case. Interestingly the Arctic warmed up but not the Antarctic, but the Antarctic is not affected by maritime weather, it bypasses the Antarctic, thus bearing out the view that CO2 has very little effect.

Could be electromagnetic interaction with the sun rather than radiation, which wuld make sense. The Sun's magnetic field keeps flipping. This warms up the earth from the inside (the earth is a huge magnet), this warms up the oceans slightly causing the changes, and might explain why it correlates with sunspots, but the constant levels of radiation.

Are you seriously suggesting that a huge nuclear fusion plant, only ninety odd million miles away and a billion times bigger than the earth, and burning at a billion degrees c, could possibly have more effect on the planet than my hyundai ????

pull the other one