Reply to: Interesting stuff on Climate change

[shaunbhoy]

I think this thread needs the sas touch to enlighten it!

[PAH]

Climate scientists are like dodgy second hand car dealers. Their theory might look nice on the forecourt, but as soon as you open it up, bits start crumbling and falling off. I have feeling that someone opened the bonnet to see that the engine is missing.

Or they're busy trying to flog a car with an engine under the bonnet when it's actually in the boot.


[For the slow of thinking, 'the car' is climate change, 'the bonnet' is man made, 'the boot' is the sun. So tell me, where do you think the engine is? ]

[BlasterBates]

Climate scientists are like dodgy second hand car dealers. Their theory might look nice on the forecourt, but as soon as you open it up, bits start crumbling and falling off. I have feeling that someone opened the bonnet to see that the engine is missing.

[shaunbhoy]

spasguru showing once again his intelligent reasoned argument on the great climate change swindle.

I know where he is going wrong. When this debate started on here with people a lot brighter than sg(i.e. pretty much everyone!), he foogled to find out more. Tragically, he opted to search on IPCC, but rather than retrieving data on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he stumbled upon the Independent Police Complaints Commission page instead. He has probably been "running the numbers" on Violent Crime trends instead of AGW.
A simple enough mistake to make..............if you are indeed simple enough, and few would doubt that. You don't get to be Mr February in the Spongeheaded Dullards' Calendar without firmly ticking all of those particular boxes!!

[PAH]

perhaps pumping soot into the upper atmosphere.

The asian coal boom will do that.

[PAH]

No one was found dead in mysterious circumstances. It'll be 70 years before you can open that can of worms. Hell of a shelf life those have.

[SantaClaus]

Loading that page (took about 2 minutes) added over 100Mb to the amount of RAM my Firefox is using. As I scroll down it keeps downloading stuff and gobbling more RAM. And my CPU is maxed out.

Well that's your carbon footprint allowance gone for today then

[Doggy Styles]

Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to the IPCC’s reports, has been forced to stand down while an investigation takes place into leaked e-mails allegedly showing that he attempted to conceal data.

In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Plenty of scientific rigour there!

[RichardCranium]

Filling up the oceans with algae fills me with dread.

Yet, meanwhile, there are plans afoot to poison the blooms of plankton that occur off Africa because they reduce the fishing catch.

[BlasterBates]

Perhaps in the process of trying to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere through extreme measures, because even drastically reducing CO2 won't help (you can't really buck nature), we also might end up dead.

Filling up the oceans with algae fills me with dread or perhaps pumping soot into the upper atmosphere.

[Tingles]

It makes me chuckle to think that nobody is going to know the answer to this for 20 or 30 years and in the end one group of people is going to look silly (or be found dead in mysterious circumstances).

[Moscow Mule]

It makes me chuckle to think that nobody is going to know the answer to this for 20 or 30 years and in the end one group of people is going to look silly (or be dead).

[DimPrawn]

spasguru showing once again his intelligent reasoned argument on the great climate change swindle.

[BlasterBates]

If man's CO2 emissions are causing the increase in CO2, I would expect over each 5 year period that the CO2 rises would be higher, i.e. exponential, particularly as the oceans are "saturated".

however:

Recent levels of CO2

We see it rises up into the 70' as expected then somewhere in the 1980's 1990's the rises seems to get stuck at between 7 ppm and 10 ppm over 5 year periods, i.e it shifts from being exponential to linear, rather like ....well a sinusoid.

Interesting when you think our use of CO2 is increasing exponentially.

Even weirder is the correlation to the solar cycle, i.e. the more sunspots there are the higher the increase, eg 2000-2005 (solar max) has an increase of 11 ppm and 2005-2010 (solar min) an increase of 7 ppm

[sasguru]

You idiots still wanking each other off?
The problem with fools is that they don't know their limitations.

HTH