Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd love to know how they all got there ???  "Well considering my friend is a news reporter and his job is to follow the pm around, he didn't take the ferry let me tell you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change?" It's a very complicated subject - what's your view OP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change? It's a very complicated subject - what's your view OP?" I would say up to 90% is down to the earth itself and el nino effect, the other 10% to humans and you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a very complicated subject - what's your view OP?I would say up to 90% is down to the earth itself and el nino effect, the other 10% to humans and you?" The G'ment seems to think it's caused by humans... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a very complicated subject - what's your view OP?I would say up to 90% is down to the earth itself and el nino effect, the other 10% to humans and you? The G'ment seems to think it's caused by humans... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained" Yes cos most of them listens to scientists you know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China have promised not to increase emmisions after 2030 and announced plans to build 155 giant coal fired power stations. "Meanwhile being good citizens we are shutting down coal fired power stations without a reliable back up in place. On November 23rd at 08.30am UKgrid called up 13.4 GW of electricity from coal fired power. In just six months from now (April 2016) only 12.4GW will exist. Personally, I am going to invest in a back up generator. I see no back up plan at all to keep the lights on come winter 2016/2017. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change?" A combination of both. There is a fairly steady upward trend due to CO2 emissions. There is also internal variability that changes where the energy is stored. El Nico / La Nina is an example if a system that moves heat about, the global surface temperature is higher during an El Nino. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change? It's a very complicated subject - what's your view OP?I would say up to 90% is down to the earth itself and el nino effect, the other 10% to humans and you?" Virtually all due to CO2 emitted by humans unfortunately. We have records that show we've emitted twice the excess that's in the atmosphere (the extra 120ppm). The rest has been absorbed in the ocean and biosphere. It's also supported by the reduction in O2 levels and isotope analysis of the CO2. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Climate change is an excuse to tax the people. My energy bills go up every year like every one else's despite using low energy light bulbs and energy efficient appliances, we use less energy, so the hike up prices, instead of paying £1 for s light bulb now we are paying about £5 for an energy saving bulb or more still for a led bulb." Your energy bills go up because the energy companies are greedy and unregulated. Whether human made global warming is happening (and scientists agree it is), we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Whether human made global warming is happening (and scientists agree it is), we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. " That depends on what scientists you listen to, I've seen programmes on the telly of scientists saying it is happening and scientists saying its a load of bull. Personally I think it's alias of crap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this is the single biggest threat to humanity we face. Regardless if ifs natural or self inflicted. Global warming is going to fuck us up big time" *BRAINWASH ALERT* | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd love to know how they all got there ??? "The exact thing I asked the cop21 summit on twitter yesterday!! How many planes, petrol guzzling cars and fuel did the 150 so called leaders use to get to Paris... Surely they could conference call each other with minimal carbon footprint. Hypocrisy at its finest. A party attendee actually tweeted "conference over for today now time for the real work, Michelin restaurants, the fines cognac and champagne to wash it down" #dickhead was my response  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this is the single biggest threat to humanity we face. Regardless if ifs natural or self inflicted. Global warming is going to fuck us up big time *BRAINWASH ALERT*" Your reasons? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this is the single biggest threat to humanity we face. Regardless if ifs natural or self inflicted. Global warming is going to fuck us up big time" Well it would seem that you have bought into it then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Climate change is an excuse to tax the people. My energy bills go up every year like every one else's despite using low energy light bulbs and energy efficient appliances, we use less energy, so the hike up prices, instead of paying £1 for s light bulb now we are paying about £5 for an energy saving bulb or more still for a led bulb." +1 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Worry ye not!! That barrier was only constructed because the Thames has been walled in. Cock all to do with rising sea levels. More high tides combined with storm surges. The river Roding will not become a raging tolerant anytime soon. "I still worry though,I don't want the content of Beckton sewage works floating past my door. My daughter has moved a stone's throw from the Thames where there are rivers,lakes and marshlands. I'm just glad she's not on the ground floor  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Worry ye not!! That barrier was only constructed because the Thames has been walled in. Cock all to do with rising sea levels. More high tides combined with storm surges. The river Roding will not become a raging tolerant anytime soon.
I still worry though,I don't want the content of Beckton sewage works floating past my door. My daughter has moved a stone's throw from the Thames where there are rivers,lakes and marshlands. I'm just glad she's not on the ground floor "Hmmm, time to do what Mrs Fandango did, get the hell outta Dodge! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Whether human made global warming is happening (and scientists agree it is), we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. That depends on what scientists you listen to, I've seen programmes on the telly of scientists saying it is happening and scientists saying its a load of bull. Personally I think it's alias of crap." Unfortunately the overwhelming body of science disagrees with you. No national academy or institution goes against the mainstream view that increasing CO2 causes energy retention. The basic process was understood 200 years ago and has been refined by quantum mechanical theories. If anyone wants to suggest another theory, they really have to say why the mainstream theory isn't working! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those same scientists that don't want to lose their funding...."do you agree? Yes? Have some more money!" "hmmmm .... yet another conspiracy theory? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the real truth that the developed economies don't want to compete with the developing economies of Asia and Africa? If you make it more expensive for them to manufacture anything you can slow down their development. So suddenly coal (which is cheap) is bad. Which is why countries like India aren't that keen on investing in renewables." No | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the real truth that the developed economies don't want to compete with the developing economies of Asia and Africa? If you make it more expensive for them to manufacture anything you can slow down their development. So suddenly coal (which is cheap) is bad. Which is why countries like India aren't that keen on investing in renewables." the truth? it still just sounds like conspiracy theories. offer up some evidence based facts, it would help your cause | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://youtu.be/Uq_QEDchn-E" i'm not sure what evidence you think this video offers in relation to your previous statement as regards to developed countries making it more expensive for developing nations to manufacture things . it does bolster the arguement for much more investment in renewables but that's about all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Whether human made global warming is happening (and scientists agree it is), we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. That depends on what scientists you listen to, I've seen programmes on the telly of scientists saying it is happening and scientists saying its a load of bull. Personally I think it's alias of crap.Unfortunately the overwhelming body of science disagrees with you. No national academy or institution goes against the mainstream view that increasing CO2 causes energy retention. The basic process was understood 200 years ago and has been refined by quantum mechanical theories. If anyone wants to suggest another theory, they really have to say why the mainstream theory isn't working!" Main issue I have is this, all mainstream climate change predictions and models run from the same homogenised (modified) data set, from stations and markers around the world. Now many of these places were found to be no longer for for purpose (wratherstations once in ideal locations were now next to the radiators of major buildings air conditioning units etc) Also the original unmodified data was destroyed/lost by the parties that "corrected it" now this means that any error in that process (willful,knowing,or innocent ) is now a widespread unavoidable error. One that I remember was when picking sea level rise data from a port of the multiple depth sticks the one chosen for the official measurement was the one that showed the biggest change, regardless of the fact that on indipendant investigation later that it had in fact subsided and sunk into the sea bed. No matter how right people may be most are working from questionable data | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://youtu.be/Uq_QEDchn-E i'm not sure what evidence you think this video offers in relation to your previous statement as regards to developed countries making it more expensive for developing nations to manufacture things . it does bolster the arguement for much more investment in renewables but that's about all." About 30 seconds in, if we can make renewables cheaper than using fossil fuels the less developed countries will use this instead. As I've said before, if we can make solar able to harness and store 1 fivethousandth of the the Suns energy every day we wouldn't need any other energy source. Is it not reasonable to think this can be achieved within 10 years as we did manage to get people into space in less time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"climate change theory serves 2 purposes #1 Population control through fear. #2 Cash harvesting."" #1 isn't working very well, and it needs to. #2 is the human condition, welcome to capitalism. On the plus side, the climate is not as warm as it was around 600 years ago. Not quite sure what to make of that, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://youtu.be/Uq_QEDchn-E i'm not sure what evidence you think this video offers in relation to your previous statement as regards to developed countries making it more expensive for developing nations to manufacture things . it does bolster the arguement for much more investment in renewables but that's about all. About 30 seconds in, if we can make renewables cheaper than using fossil fuels the less developed countries will use this instead. As I've said before, if we can make solar able to harness and store 1 fivethousandth of the the Suns energy every day we wouldn't need any other energy source. Is it not reasonable to think this can be achieved within 10 years as we did manage to get people into space in less time. " It's much much less reasonable. Making something cheap is much harder than making a few very expensive things and hurtling them into orbit atop rockets that are sharing the massive budget set aside to hurl nuclear weapons around the world. As for harvesting that much energy from the sun it's a mind boggling amount of energy. Just because it's a small measurement doesn't make it any more acomplishable. Renewables are inherently inefficient | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change?" The evidence for human caused climate change are very similar to the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease. No matter how compelling the evidence it will be denied by those who have a financial stake in allowing the status quo to continue (the petro-chemical industry), and just like the revelations in panorama about BAT this week we will see the oil companies and OPEC use their financial muscle to subvert all efforts to clean up our act. Of course the motor industry will do its part (think VW)...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Renewables are inherently inefficient " How do you come to that conclusion? Would it be the same way that extracting energy from waves was written off in the 70s because a civil servant put the decimal point in the wrong place conveniently reducing the efficiency of 'ducks' by a factor of 10! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Renewables are inherently inefficient How do you come to that conclusion? Would it be the same way that extracting energy from waves was written off in the 70s because a civil servant put the decimal point in the wrong place conveniently reducing the efficiency of 'ducks' by a factor of 10!" OK say I give you a flow of fluid from a. Specific direction, with a small range of pressures and flow rates for this you can design a very efficient turbine with a small amount of adjustability to get as much energy as possible from the fluid flow. That's the set up in any major power plant. No I give you a fluid flow of wildly varying directions, pressures and flow rates and you have to make a very low efficency turbine with lots of adjustability (and so points of failure) and also in order to be effective in the lower end of the range you have to completely sacrifice the top end and lock the turbine. That's the case for a wind farm. Nearly all renewables rely on a very broad range of inputs and so you can take get the same efficencies as you can with a highly controlled system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://youtu.be/Uq_QEDchn-E i'm not sure what evidence you think this video offers in relation to your previous statement as regards to developed countries making it more expensive for developing nations to manufacture things . it does bolster the arguement for much more investment in renewables but that's about all. About 30 seconds in, if we can make renewables cheaper than using fossil fuels the less developed countries will use this instead. As I've said before, if we can make solar able to harness and store 1 fivethousandth of the the Suns energy every day we wouldn't need any other energy source. Is it not reasonable to think this can be achieved within 10 years as we did manage to get people into space in less time. " i did watch the video .... but still there is no mention of a deliberate act by developed nations to make renewables prohibitavely expensive for developing countries. developing countries such as india who you mentioned, are choosing themselves to back a space program rather than invest in R&D of renwables. no one has forced them to do this. on the other hand china seem to bashing out solar panels at an extreme rate. i see no conspiracy, just more capitalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://youtu.be/Uq_QEDchn-E i'm not sure what evidence you think this video offers in relation to your previous statement as regards to developed countries making it more expensive for developing nations to manufacture things . it does bolster the arguement for much more investment in renewables but that's about all. About 30 seconds in, if we can make renewables cheaper than using fossil fuels the less developed countries will use this instead. As I've said before, if we can make solar able to harness and store 1 fivethousandth of the the Suns energy every day we wouldn't need any other energy source. Is it not reasonable to think this can be achieved within 10 years as we did manage to get people into space in less time. i did watch the video .... but still there is no mention of a deliberate act by developed nations to make renewables prohibitavely expensive for developing countries. developing countries such as india who you mentioned, are choosing themselves to back a space program rather than invest in R&D of renwables. no one has forced them to do this. on the other hand china seem to bashing out solar panels at an extreme rate. i see no conspiracy, just more capitalism." by the way flasheart, late last night i confused your post with clem fangangos. sorry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". on the other hand china seem to bashing out solar panels at an extreme rate. i see no conspiracy, just more capitalism." And they are using a lot of coal to power the machines to make the solar panels, India also have large plans for more electricity, and are looking to use coal to make it. If renewables worked and are cheaper than coal surely they would be using them instead of spending on coal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". on the other hand china seem to bashing out solar panels at an extreme rate. i see no conspiracy, just more capitalism. And they are using a lot of coal to power the machines to make the solar panels, India also have large plans for more electricity, and are looking to use coal to make it. If renewables worked and are cheaper than coal surely they would be using them instead of spending on coal." the problem is capitalism never allows planning for the long term, it's only ever concerned with making the quickest buck possible regardless of the effects that causes. another problem is that folks are of the mindset that it's their right to consume as much electricity as they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://youtu.be/Uq_QEDchn-E i'm not sure what evidence you think this video offers in relation to your previous statement as regards to developed countries making it more expensive for developing nations to manufacture things . it does bolster the arguement for much more investment in renewables but that's about all. About 30 seconds in, if we can make renewables cheaper than using fossil fuels the less developed countries will use this instead. As I've said before, if we can make solar able to harness and store 1 fivethousandth of the the Suns energy every day we wouldn't need any other energy source. Is it not reasonable to think this can be achieved within 10 years as we did manage to get people into space in less time. It's much much less reasonable. Making something cheap is much harder than making a few very expensive things and hurtling them into orbit atop rockets that are sharing the massive budget set aside to hurl nuclear weapons around the world. As for harvesting that much energy from the sun it's a mind boggling amount of energy. Just because it's a small measurement doesn't make it any more acomplishable. Renewables are inherently inefficient " That quote on the amount was from a man far more knowledgeable than myself. The space quote was for the science, if the great scientific minds of today can come together, pool ideas, etc and the burden shared by the most affluent nations it must be possible. And it's not just one country paying to win the space race then either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Renewables are inherently inefficient How do you come to that conclusion? Would it be the same way that extracting energy from waves was written off in the 70s because a civil servant put the decimal point in the wrong place conveniently reducing the efficiency of 'ducks' by a factor of 10! OK say I give you a flow of fluid from a. Specific direction, with a small range of pressures and flow rates for this you can design a very efficient turbine with a small amount of adjustability to get as much energy as possible from the fluid flow. That's the set up in any major power plant. No I give you a fluid flow of wildly varying directions, pressures and flow rates and you have to make a very low efficency turbine with lots of adjustability (and so points of failure) and also in order to be effective in the lower end of the range you have to completely sacrifice the top end and lock the turbine. That's the case for a wind farm. Nearly all renewables rely on a very broad range of inputs and so you can take get the same efficencies as you can with a highly controlled system." Except for solar in countries a bit nearer the equator - technologies such as thermal-saline also iron out the day-night cycle. Other renewables such as wind and tidal provide a subsidiary energy source and you are correct in terms of their variability. You do therefore need an underlying base-load provider which will probably have to be gas and nuclear for the UK. However, renewables are definitely part of the solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change?" It depends on who's science you believe. It's a fact that a lot of the data that was used was fabricated. Some data shows we're heading into a mini Ice age. On the other hand, we should all leave this planet better than how we got it. Maybe we should stop all industry, get naked and move to the equator. ( lets not forget to plant more trees to take the carbon out of the air. Actually this ones not a bad idea.) But as long as we fight amongst each other, nothing is going to get fixed. It's all about using fear to control us. They use it so you will spend money ( Fix Economy ) They use it to nail you for more taxes. ( Notice they changed the words from global warming to Climate Change.) It's all about money and using fear to get it. Who knows, maybe the next fix will be Genocide, Man caused it so let's get rid of man. Don't get us wrong, we're not deniers. We're just suspicious of anyone trying to fuck us. ( For any other reason than to fuck.) Declaimer --- We neither agree or disagree with the above editorial comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All the conference is going to bring is all the big wigs getting d*unk at the bar every night and God knows what and not actually come up with a plan. That's miss geekys view lol" this plus they all got there by fuel guzzling jets from all over the globe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All the conference is going to bring is all the big wigs getting d*unk at the bar every night and God knows what and not actually come up with a plan. That's miss geekys view lol this plus they all got there by fuel guzzling jets from all over the globe" No doubt, a skype conference call would have been so less polluting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the papers, if you include all the delegates, aides, reporters, protesters and all the behind the scenes staff, about 50,000 people are attending the summit... That's a hell of a lot of carbon..." . It's about 5 hours of Heathrow traffic!. There's so much nonsense wrote about this subject, it's quite incredible. I'd challenge anyone who "belives" in some sort of a conspiracy to just learn some basic science and read the evidence (honestly it's not complicated). If humans have anything at all, it's the ability to reason from evidence and facts, those that just chose to belive for the sake of believing are really no different to any other extremists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the papers, if you include all the delegates, aides, reporters, protesters and all the behind the scenes staff, about 50,000 people are attending the summit... That's a hell of a lot of carbon.... It's about 5 hours of Heathrow traffic!. There's so much nonsense wrote about this subject, it's quite incredible. I'd challenge anyone who "belives" in some sort of a conspiracy to just learn some basic science and read the evidence (honestly it's not complicated). If humans have anything at all, it's the ability to reason from evidence and facts, those that just chose to belive for the sake of believing are really no different to any other extremists" I'm not really into global warming but do think a bit less pollution couldn't do any harm... When you think that if the UK pruduced no carbon or pollution it would make no difference because China'so pollution is climbing so fast. In a year China will have apparently increased it's pollution by the UK annual output... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the papers, if you include all the delegates, aides, reporters, protesters and all the behind the scenes staff, about 50,000 people are attending the summit... That's a hell of a lot of carbon.... It's about 5 hours of Heathrow traffic!. There's so much nonsense wrote about this subject, it's quite incredible. I'd challenge anyone who "belives" in some sort of a conspiracy to just learn some basic science and read the evidence (honestly it's not complicated). If humans have anything at all, it's the ability to reason from evidence and facts, those that just chose to belive for the sake of believing are really no different to any other extremists I'm not really into global warming but do think a bit less pollution couldn't do any harm... When you think that if the UK pruduced no carbon or pollution it would make no difference because China'so pollution is climbing so fast. In a year China will have apparently increased it's pollution by the UK annual output..." . That's a bit of a misnomer, for 1 China is the number one world investor in renewable energy, that's not to discount they are also the number one polluter! However most of their c02 production comes in the form of making stuff for the west, so in effect your still the polluter of source!. However if we the wealthy west are seen to be doing nothing, then in reality what does that say to the poorer up and coming nations?. The current idea to tax carbon then redistribute the tax to every citizen is the best way to cut back on actual emissions as we'll encourage people to 1 look for cleaner fuels as a way of making more money and 2 encourage energy suppliers to make carbon free energy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change?" Somedays it's foggy. smog does not prove man made climate change, The climate on earth has always been variable,it's the natural cycle. If nobody on earth,so much as lit a match,for the next hundred years,the globe would still be warming. People who start with an agenda, almost always find what they're looking for.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change? Somedays it's foggy. smog does not prove man made climate change, The climate on earth has always been variable,it's the natural cycle. If nobody on earth,so much as lit a match,for the next hundred years,the globe would still be warming. People who start with an agenda, almost always find what they're looking for. "Smog is not fog, smog is man made fog consisting mostly of pollution, the WHO estimate that around 1 million people die early deaths from air pollution in China alone!. Smog quite clearly changes the local weather, if you get it over long long periods then it would quite clearly change local climate as well!. Nobody has ever said the climate doesn't naturally change, in fact we know this from scientists and there data from experiments, for instance a couple of hundred years ago people just believed that giant boulders got where they did from Noah's floods but several geologists proved that to be nonsense and that the great ice age moved them and shaped the landscape! The overwhelming evidence today shows that human actions are causing the climate to change far quicker than through any natural cycle. The tragedy is that because of sceptical attitudes to scientific facts, we'll probably miss the 2 degree target because if we'd started this reduction in 99 we'd have only needed a 1.5% reduction per year(quite achievable) this year will need a 5.5% reduction per year (pretty hard) and by 2020 we'll need a near enough 10%reduction per year (nearly impossible). So through our own inaction despite the evidence to the contrary we've done nothing and left it way too late to stop the 2 degree rise. Apart from c02 reduction I think the question now needs to be, how do we prepare for the inevitable changes coming in 30-100 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a conference in paris about the climate change and the US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a "turning point" in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. We have seen some extreme weather this year and storms with winds, is this more down to the natural cycles of earth like the el nino effect rather than what we human does? All though as we seen in china when they have daylight it is like a thick cover of fog and some have masks on to breath so yes that is caused by humans like pollution. Whats your view on climate change? Somedays it's foggy. smog does not prove man made climate change, The climate on earth has always been variable,it's the natural cycle. If nobody on earth,so much as lit a match,for the next hundred years,the globe would still be warming. People who start with an agenda, almost always find what they're looking for.
Smog is not fog, smog is man made fog consisting mostly of pollution, the WHO estimate that around 1 million people die early deaths from air pollution in China alone!.
Smog quite clearly changes the local weather, if you get it over long long periods then it would quite clearly change local climate as well!.
Nobody has ever said the climate doesn't naturally change, in fact we know this from scientists and there data from experiments, for instance a couple of hundred years ago people just believed that giant boulders got where they did from Noah's floods but several geologists proved that to be nonsense and that the great ice age moved them and shaped the landscape!
The overwhelming evidence today shows that human actions are causing the climate to change far quicker than through any natural cycle.
The tragedy is that because of sceptical attitudes to scientific facts, we'll probably miss the 2 degree target because if we'd started this reduction in 99 we'd have only needed a 1.5% reduction per year(quite achievable) this year will need a 5.5% reduction per year (pretty hard) and by 2020 we'll need a near enough 10%reduction per year (nearly impossible).
So through our own inaction despite the evidence to the contrary we've done nothing and left it way too late to stop the 2 degree rise.
Apart from c02 reduction I think the question now needs to be, how do we prepare for the inevitable changes coming in 30-100 years
"Smog is not fog,true. I'm thinking,as a percentage,how much of the overall planet surface is polluted by smog,would that be,75%,50%,25%,or maybe even less than all of those,perhaps even less than 0.0001%. Now those scientists you speak of, would they be in the same profession, as the guys who said oops, we miscalculated the amount of trees on the planet by three trillion. who said oops again, after telling us vegetable fat was the healthy option,over animal fat. Who Said oops again, we underestimated the amount of stars in the universe, by possibly as little as 5 maybe as much as 8 times, making the underestimated three trillion trees,look like a raindrop In the ocean. Who told us the antarctic was melting,then said oops again, it's actually increasing by as much as 100 billion tons a year. Is it those guys giving us all the facts on climate change. Forgive my scepticism,but I've lost a wee bit of confidence in those guys,no matter how you look at it,three trillion trees is quite a lot.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Smog is not fog,true. I'm thinking,as a percentage,how much of the overall planet surface is polluted by smog,would that be,75%,50%,25%,or maybe even less than all of those,perhaps even less than 0.0001%." Where do you get that figure from? Off the top of your head I am guessing... But even so lets do a little sums and see how big an area you say is polluted by smog: Total Earths surface is about 500 million Sq Kms, water makes up 70% of that area therefore there are 150,000,000 Sq Kms of land on earth... You say 0.0001% of the earth is effected by smog so move the decimal point 4 places to right and you have total land mass effected by smog. That is 15,000 Sq Kms if we work it out just using land mass. However if we take your total as being of total surface are of Earth then the figures work out a bit differently at 50,000 Sq Kms or a fifth of the total UK landmass. Of course this area will be spread over all the industrial areas of the world. With average population in urban areas being over 10,000 per Sq Km add to the 50 thousand and we get how many people live in smog... try 500,000,000 thats 10 times the population of the UK. And thats on the figures you came up with... You still think its a nothing? "Now those scientists you speak of, would they be in the same profession, as the guys who said oops, we miscalculated the amount of trees on the planet by three trillion. who said oops again," The latest estimate is that there are 3 trillion trees on earth. Up from the previous estimate was 800 million. Not quite the same thing now is it? " after telling us vegetable fat was the healthy option,over animal fat." I think you will find that you were told that unsaturated fats were less harmful than saturated fats and hydrogenated fats are the most harmful. "Who Said oops again, we underestimated the amount of stars in the universe, by possibly as little as 5 maybe as much as 8 times," Again I think you will find that the estimate has always been based on the size of the observable universe. Again not quite how you portray things. " making the underestimated three trillion trees,look like a raindrop In the ocean." Already covered and still wrong... "Who told us the antarctic was melting,then said oops again, it's actually increasing by as much as 100 billion tons a year." Again your statement is not quite true is it? Firstly Antarctica has an active volcanos that are melting the western ice sheet. Second the growth in the Eastern ice shelf does not compensate for the losses else where. " Is it those guys giving us all the facts on climate change." Those guys... Would they be the same ones as bring you light, heat, transport, medicine and all the other creature comforts you (and the rest of us) surround our selves with? " Forgive my scepticism,but I've lost a wee bit of confidence in those guys,no matter how you look at it,three trillion trees is quite a lot. "Sorry, no I will not because your scepticism is predicated on misinformation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Those guys... Would they be the same ones as bring you light, heat, transport, medicine and all the other creature comforts you (and the rest of us) surround our selves with? Forgive my scepticism,but I've lost a wee bit of confidence in those guys,no matter how you look at it,three trillion trees is quite a lot.
Sorry, no I will not because your scepticism is predicated on misinformation.". Excellent factual rebuttal of spurious nonsense! .
The point is we need to think smart if we want to try and keep the temperature gain to something inside of hideous!
We know there's a certain amount of c02 that we can release before getting to the 2 degree rise and it looks like that's really not possible now, so the new limit of a 3 or 4 degree rise should be the new goal, to reform our worldwide infrastructure and power system to a zero or extremely low c02 system will require us to practically use all that allowable c02 emissions to do it!!
That means we really really need to concentrate efforts on stuff that's a waste like... Flying, cars, shipping... The entire capitalist industry!.. I mean that's the struggle, the fundermental reform of everything to allow for reduction in c02 through technology, worse still we will have to spend billions inventing this technology and then give it away to the third world, as the reality is that this problem is a global problem!
The tasks are monumental but the stakes are about as high as they get!.
The facts are clear, we either need to vastly reduce c02 output or vastly reduce human population levels and we'd probably need something in the order of a 70% cull, so people who are thinking birth control I'm afraid just won't cut it.
The evidence suggests a 20-40 year lag between c02 emissions and effects as oceans and natural systems take up the extra emissions!..
The question we might not be able to answer is how long we have before the effects are really felt! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yeah i agree this shouldnt be done by politics, it should be scientists and engineers. Feel sorry for the smaller countries, the ones who don't cause wars or get involved, the ones who live a good healthy life away from corporations, who are 100% renewable etc who might happen to live in a prime area where climate change has a huge effect on. Who if 1C degree more, they could loose most or all their land due to sea levels risings. They prob get no say at all during this conference and just have to watch the rest moan about cutting their emissions by a small percent. " 100% agree with this
Also the mountain peoples whom are in grave danger from flash floods due to glacial melting etc.....
Of course as is usually the case, the biggest whingeing comes from the biggest offenders! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today on the telly news, another atoll dwelling community threatened with flooding. Terribly sad we can all agree. Still I ask the question. Why is Portsmouth still here? Why hasn't the Thames estuary turned into a beautiful shallow lagoon? Is there more sea water near these poorer communities? Or are these islands built of coral and sparsely packed lava slowly collapsing into the sea? I grew up next to a beach. I was there again this weekend, nothing has happened... If governments were serious about this they'd all go nuclear power. ban internal combustion engines, making electric cars affordable even to us, the great unwashed. At the moment climate change theory serves 2 purposes #1 Population control through fear. #2 Cash harvesting. " you said it yourself, - 'climate change' , yet your point seems to be about rising sea levels.....??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hello by the Doors, "The evidence suggests a 20-40 year lag between c02 emissions and effects as oceans and natural systems take up the extra emissions!.." That contradicts what scientists have found going back millions of years, CO2 level rises after the temperature not before. So many keep calling for more renewable generation but it just does not work so we will need to use fossil fuel and/or nuclear to keep the lights on. Google with a lot of enthusiasm and huge amounts of money finally admitted defeat in their renewable energy project. Yes, we can go back to the dark ages and reduce our energy requirements by a huge amount, who's going to be first? Alec" . Hello I'm not really sure about millions of years of records but according to NASA they have 400,000 years of ice core records, these found that most but not always c02 lagged temperature, they also found that c02 and temperature were absolutely linked and followed each other perfectly. The best explanation I found that showed this is a A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that: The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing ofheat between the hemispheres.The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere. While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2increase. It's slightly complicated if your not fully converse with climate but it boils down to natural climate change by solar and orbital changes initiate warming and cooling these changes then release c02 that causes further warming. The difference being now is that natural warming that should be in a timescale thousands of years is being speeded along by the huge amounts of c02 that humans are producing! The lag that I mentioned is the lag that scientists know occurs because the oceans store c02 and warmer oceans can't store as much, so they start releasing millions and millions of tonnes of c02 therefore causing what's known as the runaway scenario... natural methane that's stored in perma frost , extra water vapour and the added c02 combine and whammo, it's out of control | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Burn baby burn. Mankind is thoughtless, selfish and riding the End of the Human Race rollercoaster with the brakes off. We wont be missed when we are gone. The Earth will recover as she did after all the other major climate changes. There will just be different monkeys trying to mess it up next time. I wish it were different, that we could live in harmony with our planet and all its inhabitants but history indicates otherwise." ain't that the truth but we'll be taking out millions of other species with us, unfortunately; not to mention the tribal peoples & others whom still manage to find that balance to coexist with nature. so much for the term 'civilised' that we love to label ourselves with!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The earth has been around about 6 billon years, it took life 4.5 billon years to start, it took 500 Million years for microbe life to evolve into rodents and small mammals and 150 million years after the dinosaurs demise to get us!. In all those billions of years none of the animals that are now long extinct, could be described as evolving into intelligent life. The earth's got about 2.5 billon years left in the habitable zone before the sun's cycle kills it. It's likely that once we're gone, intelligent life on earth will be gone forever! " how can you class a species that does so much damage to the very environment that it needs for survival, 'intelligent', baffles me! But you do underestimate planet earth considering - if you believe in evolution - that's where we evolved from!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The earth has been around about 6 billon years, it took life 4.5 billon years to start, it took 500 Million years for microbe life to evolve into rodents and small mammals and 150 million years after the dinosaurs demise to get us!. In all those billions of years none of the animals that are now long extinct, could be described as evolving into intelligent life. The earth's got about 2.5 billon years left in the habitable zone before the sun's cycle kills it. It's likely that once we're gone, intelligent life on earth will be gone forever! how can you class a species that does so much damage to the very environment that it needs for survival, 'intelligent', baffles me! But you do underestimate planet earth considering - if you believe in evolution - that's where we evolved from!! " dolphins are clever, if they were intelligent they wouldn't swim into tuna nets! Im just giving the timescale to evolve intelligent life... 4.5 billon years and millions of species, in fact 99.5% of all species that ever lived are extinct and none of them have known to become intelligent. Now bearing in mind earth only has 2.5 billon years left... The probability is when we're gone it's gone | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow! I think this needs to be gone through point by point. Wow!!glad you did,seems to reiterate all I said,thank you. Smog is not fog,true. I'm thinking,as a percentage,how much of the overall planet surface is polluted by smog,would that be,75%,50%,25%,or maybe even less than all of those,perhaps even less than 0.0001%. Where do you get that figure from? Off the top of your head I am guessing... But even so lets do a little sums and see how big an area you say is polluted by smog: Total Earths surface is about 500 million Sq Kms, water makes up 70% of that area therefore there are 150,000,000 Sq Kms of land on earth... You say 0.0001% of the earth is effected by smog so move the decimal point 4 places to right and you have total land mass effected by smog. That is 15,000 Sq Kms if we work it out just using land mass. However if we take your total as being of total surface are of Earth then the figures work out a bit differently at 50,000 Sq Kms or a fifth of the total UK landmass. Of course this area will be spread over all the industrial areas of the world. With average population in urban areas being over 10,000 per Sq Km add to the 50 thousand and we get how many people live in smog... try 500,000,000 thats 10 times the population of the UK. And thats on the figures you came up with... You still think its a nothing? . You could have just said you didn't know. . Now those scientists you speak of, would they be in the same profession, as the guys who said oops, we miscalculated the amount of trees on the planet by three trillion. who said oops again, The latest estimate is that there are 3 trillion trees on earth. Up from the previous estimate was 800 million. Not quite the same thing now is it? Almost 8 times more than scientist previous calculated. No star for that one then. . after telling us vegetable fat was the healthy option,over animal fat. I think you will find that you were told that unsaturated fats were less harmful than saturated fats and hydrogenated fats are the most harmful. No,I was told vegetable oil was the healthy option. Lard less harmful,than most vegetable oil. Lard the rendered fat of hogs,especially the internal fat of the abdomen(dictionary). I'm thinking hogs are still considered animals,maybe you know different. Who Said oops again, we underestimated the amount of stars in the universe, by possibly as little as 5 maybe as much as 8 times, Again I think you will find that the estimate has always been based on the size of the observable universe. Again not quite how you portray things. Why give a figure,when it bears absolutely no relationship with the actual answer. making the underestimated three trillion trees,look like a raindrop In the ocean. Already covered and still wrong... Who told us the antarctic was melting,then said oops again, it's actually increasing by as much as 100 billion tons a year. Again your statement is not quite true is it? Firstly Antarctica has an active volcanos that are melting the western ice sheet. Second the growth in the Eastern ice shelf does not compensate for the losses else where. Yes it does,over the last 20 years Antarctica,has increased on average,over one hundred billion tons per year. Increase-added,gained,grow,get bigger. You seemed to be having a problem understanding the meaning of increase,hoping that helps. Is it those guys giving us all the facts on climate change. Those guys... Would they be the same ones as bring you light, heat, transport, medicine and all the other creature comforts you (and the rest of us) surround our selves with? Getting some things right,does not give them the right to talk bollox,then present them as facts. Forgive my scepticism,but I've lost a wee bit of confidence in those guys,no matter how you look at it,three trillion trees is quite a lot.
Sorry, no I will not because your scepticism is predicated on misinformation.
I think you'll find it's your blind faith,that is predicated on misinformation.
.
Ps what does predicated mean.
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The earth has been around about 6 billon years, it took life 4.5 billon years to start, it took 500 Million years for microbe life to evolve into rodents and small mammals and 150 million years after the dinosaurs demise to get us!. In all those billions of years none of the animals that are now long extinct, could be described as evolving into intelligent life. The earth's got about 2.5 billon years left in the habitable zone before the sun's cycle kills it. It's likely that once we're gone, intelligent life on earth will be gone forever! how can you class a species that does so much damage to the very environment that it needs for survival, 'intelligent', baffles me! But you do underestimate planet earth considering - if you believe in evolution - that's where we evolved from!! dolphins are clever, if they were intelligent they wouldn't swim into tuna nets! Im just giving the timescale to evolve intelligent life... 4.5 billon years and millions of species, in fact 99.5% of all species that ever lived are extinct and none of them have known to become intelligent. Now bearing in mind earth only has 2.5 billon years left... The probability is when we're gone it's gone "The Orca, a member of the dolphin family, has a hole 'new' part of the brain that humans simply don't have, - I say 'new' because we've only just discovered it; Now there's intelligence for you!!
Dolphins get tangled in fishing nets, - is that all?
Humans make unsinkable ships that
sink on their maiden voyage, use plastic bags & microplastics even when they know that they'll be washed in to the oceans & into their very own food chain. They build nuclear power stations on the coast on fault lines with no regard for the water source & oxygen that they need to exist. And the millions of other idiocies that the human race is responsible for can compare with a dolphin getting trapped in a net?
Wow!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The earth has been around about 6 billon years, it took life 4.5 billon years to start, it took 500 Million years for microbe life to evolve into rodents and small mammals and 150 million years after the dinosaurs demise to get us!. In all those billions of years none of the animals that are now long extinct, could be described as evolving into intelligent life. The earth's got about 2.5 billon years left in the habitable zone before the sun's cycle kills it. It's likely that once we're gone, intelligent life on earth will be gone forever! how can you class a species that does so much damage to the very environment that it needs for survival, 'intelligent', baffles me! But you do underestimate planet earth considering - if you believe in evolution - that's where we evolved from!! dolphins are clever, if they were intelligent they wouldn't swim into tuna nets! Im just giving the timescale to evolve intelligent life... 4.5 billon years and millions of species, in fact 99.5% of all species that ever lived are extinct and none of them have known to become intelligent. Now bearing in mind earth only has 2.5 billon years left... The probability is when we're gone it's gone
The Orca, a member of the dolphin family, has a hole 'new' part of the brain that humans simply don't have, - I say 'new' because we've only just discovered it; Now there's intelligence for you!!
Dolphins get tangled in fishing nets, - is that all?
Humans make unsinkable ships that
sink on their maiden voyage, use plastic bags & microplastics even when they know that they'll be washed in to the oceans & into their very own food chain. They build nuclear power stations on the coast on fault lines with no regard for the water source & oxygen that they need to exist. And the millions of other idiocies that the human race is responsible for can compare with a dolphin getting trapped in a net?
Wow!!". I wouldn't disagree with our ability to be wreckless but as intelligence goes, were way beyond anything that any species has ever been close too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ps what does predicated mean. "Is adding that to my post and then putting up 4 smilies as your post the best you can do? That's really a bit juvenile and not very clever you know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The earth has been around about 6 billon years, it took life 4.5 billon years to start, it took 500 Million years for microbe life to evolve into rodents and small mammals and 150 million years after the dinosaurs demise to get us!. In all those billions of years none of the animals that are now long extinct, could be described as evolving into intelligent life. The earth's got about 2.5 billon years left in the habitable zone before the sun's cycle kills it. It's likely that once we're gone, intelligent life on earth will be gone forever! how can you class a species that does so much damage to the very environment that it needs for survival, 'intelligent', baffles me! But you do underestimate planet earth considering - if you believe in evolution - that's where we evolved from!! dolphins are clever, if they were intelligent they wouldn't swim into tuna nets! Im just giving the timescale to evolve intelligent life... 4.5 billon years and millions of species, in fact 99.5% of all species that ever lived are extinct and none of them have known to become intelligent. Now bearing in mind earth only has 2.5 billon years left... The probability is when we're gone it's gone
The Orca, a member of the dolphin family, has a hole 'new' part of the brain that humans simply don't have, - I say 'new' because we've only just discovered it; Now there's intelligence for you!!
Dolphins get tangled in fishing nets, - is that all?
Humans make unsinkable ships that
sink on their maiden voyage, use plastic bags & microplastics even when they know that they'll be washed in to the oceans & into their very own food chain. They build nuclear power stations on the coast on fault lines with no regard for the water source & oxygen that they need to exist. And the millions of other idiocies that the human race is responsible for can compare with a dolphin getting trapped in a net?
Wow!!.
I wouldn't disagree with our ability to be wreckless but as intelligence goes, were way beyond anything that any species has ever been close too"you cannot possibly prove that to be correct & likewise neither can I prove you to be wrong; - that's the beauty of ancient history; no obvious learning curves just astonishing monuments exactly when & where we didn't expect them to be according to theory. But disappointingly a very weak & closed response; - surely you can do better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me the 'truth' is in the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I've only seen it once but as soon as he said "last time the polar ice caps receded" I knew it was not manmade. Climate change is real, but not man made as it's happened before when we weren't even here." where were we then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ps what does predicated mean.
Is adding that to my post and then putting up 4 smilies as your post the best you can do?
That's really a bit juvenile and not very clever you know."I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for. "Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
......okay, maybe not quite the whole planet, just the microscopical bacterial scum that festers the very outer skin of it then!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The earth has been around about 6 billon years, it took life 4.5 billon years to start, it took 500 Million years for microbe life to evolve into rodents and small mammals and 150 million years after the dinosaurs demise to get us!. In all those billions of years none of the animals that are now long extinct, could be described as evolving into intelligent life. The earth's got about 2.5 billon years left in the habitable zone before the sun's cycle kills it. It's likely that once we're gone, intelligent life on earth will be gone forever! how can you class a species that does so much damage to the very environment that it needs for survival, 'intelligent', baffles me! But you do underestimate planet earth considering - if you believe in evolution - that's where we evolved from!! dolphins are clever, if they were intelligent they wouldn't swim into tuna nets! Im just giving the timescale to evolve intelligent life... 4.5 billon years and millions of species, in fact 99.5% of all species that ever lived are extinct and none of them have known to become intelligent. Now bearing in mind earth only has 2.5 billon years left... The probability is when we're gone it's gone
The Orca, a member of the dolphin family, has a hole 'new' part of the brain that humans simply don't have, - I say 'new' because we've only just discovered it; Now there's intelligence for you!!
Dolphins get tangled in fishing nets, - is that all?
Humans make unsinkable ships that
sink on their maiden voyage, use plastic bags & microplastics even when they know that they'll be washed in to the oceans & into their very own food chain. They build nuclear power stations on the coast on fault lines with no regard for the water source & oxygen that they need to exist. And the millions of other idiocies that the human race is responsible for can compare with a dolphin getting trapped in a net?
Wow!!.
I wouldn't disagree with our ability to be wreckless but as intelligence goes, were way beyond anything that any species has ever been close too
you cannot possibly prove that to be correct & likewise neither can I prove you to be wrong; - that's the beauty of ancient history; no obvious learning curves just astonishing monuments exactly when & where we didn't expect them to be according to theory.
But disappointingly a very weak & closed response; - surely you can do better?". Well... I like a challenge. Depleted uranium, it's half life is 5 billon years, it's currently scattered all over the middle East for reasons best left at.. 
Anyhoo any intelligent life to have got upto or above us would have very likely had shall we say dabblings with it.... In 5 billion years if any other intelligent life comes along after us???
Depleted uranium and plutonium would be our ever lasting signature!....
Apart from that there's the mirrors we left on the moon,a few flags, a lunar lander.. A base pod... Several probes flying through various parts of the solar system!
If you Google species on earth..they estimate there's been About 5 billon over 1 billon years...
And only fucking 1 out of 5 billon have got to our point of intelligence.
Were a fluke of evolution as grand and beautiful piece of engineering once in a billion year fucking fluke!
What we chose to do with it, is our destiny, we'll live or die by our own genius or ignorance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me the 'truth' is in the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I've only seen it once but as soon as he said "last time the polar ice caps receded" I knew it was not manmade. Climate change is real, but not man made as it's happened before when we weren't even here." . I'll try and answer that the best I can from what ive learnt. We've had several ice ages! The earth has a tilt and it basically wobbles around it's axis so this tilt vary from 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees , were currently at 23.5 degrees. Now this tilt and the earth's orbit around the sun is very important to climate.. The more tilt the less solar energy the less tilt the more solar energy, this tilt cycles around on a 40,000 year basis. You see were heading from the cold tilt (ice age) of 24 degrees and heading to the warm tilt 22(no ice) but this happens on a 40,000 year cycle, so you should only observe tiny tiny changes over serval thousand years, of course there's other factors for solar energy input (remember all energy on earth is in actuality solar energy carbon energy or petrol and diesel as you might know it, is just stored solar energy). Yes so there's the sun itself, this varies it's solar activity, usually around 7-11 year cycles and of course there's the natural decline of the sun burning out and increasing in size, so a million years ago the sun might have only had 70% of the output it has now! And the earth's orbit is gradually wakening but belive it or not.. They've actually factored in all this stuff and none of it fits with the observations and data.. That leaves tada. Climate gases like methane, water vapour and carbon dioxide. Now when they do the sums and guess what the c02 fits with the data and the sums and bingo. If your really interested in learning stuff about climate change, NASA's website is chocka block with thousands of pages full of science stuff. I recommended it over al gore to be honest! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me."It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see. Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
". It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts. If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies! There's no difference in my eyes! If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias! Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data ... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies! An honest answer please! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!"None of my statements were false, all facts. None of my statements were taken from YouTube. In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA. Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial, Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection. It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob, Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine. I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!
None of my statements were false, all facts.
None of my statements were taken from YouTube.
In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA.
Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial,
Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection.
It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob,
Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine.
I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one.
". So your not willing to answer the question I posed?. Im not sure what you want an apology for!.. For a small scientific study on an amount of trees being wrong? What's that got to do with anything! Your facts on Antarctica are both wrong and misleading! East Antarctica is gaining ice, west Antarctica is losing ice, east is gaining more than west is losing, however the east is actually gaining sea ice where as the west is losing land ice, the two are completely different and it still doesn't get close to making up for ice being lost elsewhere. I would imagine that the very fact that east Antarctica having massive unusual sea ice gain would be worrying and just another clue as to the current climate change that c02 is causing! Can I ask you which website you got these facts on your climate change scepticism please, I'd be very interested in checking it out myself!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!
None of my statements were false, all facts.
None of my statements were taken from YouTube.
In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA.
Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial,
Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection.
It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob,
Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine.
I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one.
.
So your not willing to answer the question I posed?.
Im not sure what you want an apology for!.. For a small scientific study on an amount of trees being wrong? What's that got to do with anything!
Your facts on Antarctica are both wrong and misleading!
East Antarctica is gaining ice, west Antarctica is losing ice, east is gaining more than west is losing, however the east is actually gaining sea ice where as the west is losing land ice, the two are completely different and it still doesn't get close to making up for ice being lost elsewhere. I would imagine that the very fact that east Antarctica having massive unusual sea ice gain would be worrying and just another clue as to the current climate change that c02 is causing!
Can I ask you which website you got these facts on your climate change scepticism please, I'd be very interested in checking it out myself!."I'm noticing your clutching at straws becoming more desperate with your every post. Antarctica gaining ice,is proof of Man made climate change (global warming)??are you sure. So let me see if I've got this right. area's of the planet,becoming warmer,are proof of Man made climate change(global warming) And area's of the planet gaining hundreds of billions tons of ice, Are proof of climate change(global warming). Seems a bit contradictory,though not entirely unusual for your bullying mob. Cake and eat it,comes to mind. Antarctica now has a greater mass,than at any time since records began. In the last twenty years, Antarctica on average,has increased ice mass,by one hundred billion tons,per year. I gave the source,In my post above. Now I would have expected even a complete imbecile,to have heard of NASA,(they're quite a well known space agency,Google them) . Ps if I have to explain everything twice,this could take some time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!
None of my statements were false, all facts.
None of my statements were taken from YouTube.
In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA.
Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial,
Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection.
It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob,
Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine.
I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one.
.
So your not willing to answer the question I posed?.
Im not sure what you want an apology for!.. For a small scientific study on an amount of trees being wrong? What's that got to do with anything!
Your facts on Antarctica are both wrong and misleading!
East Antarctica is gaining ice, west Antarctica is losing ice, east is gaining more than west is losing, however the east is actually gaining sea ice where as the west is losing land ice, the two are completely different and it still doesn't get close to making up for ice being lost elsewhere. I would imagine that the very fact that east Antarctica having massive unusual sea ice gain would be worrying and just another clue as to the current climate change that c02 is causing!
Can I ask you which website you got these facts on your climate change scepticism please, I'd be very interested in checking it out myself!.
I'm noticing your clutching at straws becoming more desperate with your every post.
Antarctica gaining ice,is proof of Man made climate change (global warming)??are you sure.
So let me see if I've got this right.
area's of the planet,becoming warmer,are proof of Man made climate change(global warming)
And area's of the planet gaining hundreds of billions tons of ice,
Are proof of climate change(global warming).
Seems a bit contradictory,though not entirely unusual for your bullying mob.
Cake and eat it,comes to mind.
Antarctica now has a greater mass,than at any time since records began.
In the last twenty years,
Antarctica on average,has increased ice mass,by
one hundred billion tons,per year.
I gave the source,In my post above.
Now I would have expected even a complete imbecile,to have heard of NASA,(they're quite a well known space agency,Google them)
.
Ps if I have to explain everything twice,this could take some time.
". Ahh well you've given me a clue there NASA! Err could you be a bit more helpful and tell me which NASA study, they've done like two thousand studies on Antarctic and Arctic ice!. Have you actually read this particular study and if so where did you read it. Thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!
None of my statements were false, all facts.
None of my statements were taken from YouTube.
In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA.
Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial,
Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection.
It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob,
Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine.
I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one.
.
So your not willing to answer the question I posed?.
Im not sure what you want an apology for!.. For a small scientific study on an amount of trees being wrong? What's that got to do with anything!
Your facts on Antarctica are both wrong and misleading!
East Antarctica is gaining ice, west Antarctica is losing ice, east is gaining more than west is losing, however the east is actually gaining sea ice where as the west is losing land ice, the two are completely different and it still doesn't get close to making up for ice being lost elsewhere. I would imagine that the very fact that east Antarctica having massive unusual sea ice gain would be worrying and just another clue as to the current climate change that c02 is causing!
Can I ask you which website you got these facts on your climate change scepticism please, I'd be very interested in checking it out myself!.
I'm noticing your clutching at straws becoming more desperate with your every post.
Antarctica gaining ice,is proof of Man made climate change (global warming)??are you sure.
So let me see if I've got this right.
area's of the planet,becoming warmer,are proof of Man made climate change(global warming)
And area's of the planet gaining hundreds of billions tons of ice,
Are proof of climate change(global warming).
Seems a bit contradictory,though not entirely unusual for your bullying mob.
Cake and eat it,comes to mind.
Antarctica now has a greater mass,than at any time since records began.
In the last twenty years,
Antarctica on average,has increased ice mass,by
one hundred billion tons,per year.
I gave the source,In my post above.
Now I would have expected even a complete imbecile,to have heard of NASA,(they're quite a well known space agency,Google them)
.
Ps if I have to explain everything twice,this could take some time.
.
Ahh well you've given me a clue there NASA! Err could you be a bit more helpful and tell me which NASA study, they've done like two thousand studies on Antarctic and Arctic ice!.
Have you actually read this particular study and if so where did you read it.
Thanks"Ffs you really do take the biscuit. Try doing the same as me,and look beyond the smoke and mirrors. It'll be good grounding,for when you grow up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!
None of my statements were false, all facts.
None of my statements were taken from YouTube.
In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA.
Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial,
Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection.
It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob,
Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine.
I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one.
.
So your not willing to answer the question I posed?.
Im not sure what you want an apology for!.. For a small scientific study on an amount of trees being wrong? What's that got to do with anything!
Your facts on Antarctica are both wrong and misleading!
East Antarctica is gaining ice, west Antarctica is losing ice, east is gaining more than west is losing, however the east is actually gaining sea ice where as the west is losing land ice, the two are completely different and it still doesn't get close to making up for ice being lost elsewhere. I would imagine that the very fact that east Antarctica having massive unusual sea ice gain would be worrying and just another clue as to the current climate change that c02 is causing!
Can I ask you which website you got these facts on your climate change scepticism please, I'd be very interested in checking it out myself!.
I'm noticing your clutching at straws becoming more desperate with your every post.
Antarctica gaining ice,is proof of Man made climate change (global warming)??are you sure.
So let me see if I've got this right.
area's of the planet,becoming warmer,are proof of Man made climate change(global warming)
And area's of the planet gaining hundreds of billions tons of ice,
Are proof of climate change(global warming).
Seems a bit contradictory,though not entirely unusual for your bullying mob.
Cake and eat it,comes to mind.
Antarctica now has a greater mass,than at any time since records began.
In the last twenty years,
Antarctica on average,has increased ice mass,by
one hundred billion tons,per year.
I gave the source,In my post above.
Now I would have expected even a complete imbecile,to have heard of NASA,(they're quite a well known space agency,Google them)
.
Ps if I have to explain everything twice,this could take some time.
.
Ahh well you've given me a clue there NASA! Err could you be a bit more helpful and tell me which NASA study, they've done like two thousand studies on Antarctic and Arctic ice!.
Have you actually read this particular study and if so where did you read it.
Thanks
Ffs you really do take the biscuit.
Try doing the same as me,and look beyond the smoke and mirrors.
It'll be good grounding,for when you grow up.
". What smoke and mirrors!! I was just asking which nasa study and where you read it? Are you actually being serious about debating this subject or is this just another childish remark to evade answering any of my questions. Your claiming that you've read a NASA report that conclusively shows Antarctica has massively grown in size in the last twenty years.. Where have you read it and what nasa report was it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm thinking,if you were that grown up,and clever,you would have read the whole post. Although it's not the first time you've only seen,what you want to see. People with an agenda,usually find what they're looking for.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to mislead others by editing others posts in order to make myself look clever. The fact that you then post the above to justify your original dishonest act because I only picked you up on the last part says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It tells me,you're not very observant,and only see what you want to see.
Like most of the bullying,man made climate change mob.
.
It's not bullying when you point out somebody's completely false statements and facts.
If the subject was Holocaust denial, you would feel ashamed to be dragging up spurious evidence and unfounded lies!
There's no difference in my eyes!
If your getting all your research on this subject from YouTube, well I suggest you examine your own bias!
Think about this honestly, if you had a diagnosis of lung cancer, would you choose the diagnosis of 30,000 medical and cancer specialists, with thousands and thousands of experiments and observable data
... Or would you choose a few hundred dicks on YouTube who are nearly all paid by the tobacco companies!
An honest answer please!
None of my statements were false, all facts.
None of my statements were taken from YouTube.
In fact,I'm pretty sure the ever increasing Antarctica fact,was from NASA.
Let's face it I don't have lung cancer,and this is not about haluacaust denial,
Although I'm not surprised someone from the "man made global warming"mob,would try and make such a ludicrous connection.
It's typical bullying tactics of the"man made global warming"mob,
Who's doctrine seems to be,it's OK to have an opinion,so long as it's the same as mine.
I won't hold my breath for an apology,as I'm doubtful that any of your bullying mob,have the dignity within them to give one.
.
So your not willing to answer the question I posed?.
Im not sure what you want an apology for!.. For a small scientific study on an amount of trees being wrong? What's that got to do with anything!
Your facts on Antarctica are both wrong and misleading!
East Antarctica is gaining ice, west Antarctica is losing ice, east is gaining more than west is losing, however the east is actually gaining sea ice where as the west is losing land ice, the two are completely different and it still doesn't get close to making up for ice being lost elsewhere. I would imagine that the very fact that east Antarctica having massive unusual sea ice gain would be worrying and just another clue as to the current climate change that c02 is causing!
Can I ask you which website you got these facts on your climate change scepticism please, I'd be very interested in checking it out myself!.
I'm noticing your clutching at straws becoming more desperate with your every post.
Antarctica gaining ice,is proof of Man made climate change (global warming)??are you sure.
So let me see if I've got this right.
area's of the planet,becoming warmer,are proof of Man made climate change(global warming)
And area's of the planet gaining hundreds of billions tons of ice,
Are proof of climate change(global warming).
Seems a bit contradictory,though not entirely unusual for your bullying mob.
Cake and eat it,comes to mind.
Antarctica now has a greater mass,than at any time since records began.
In the last twenty years,
Antarctica on average,has increased ice mass,by
one hundred billion tons,per year.
I gave the source,In my post above.
Now I would have expected even a complete imbecile,to have heard of NASA,(they're quite a well known space agency,Google them)
.
Ps if I have to explain everything twice,this could take some time.
.
Ahh well you've given me a clue there NASA! Err could you be a bit more helpful and tell me which NASA study, they've done like two thousand studies on Antarctic and Arctic ice!.
Have you actually read this particular study and if so where did you read it.
Thanks
Ffs you really do take the biscuit.
Try doing the same as me,and look beyond the smoke and mirrors.
It'll be good grounding,for when you grow up.
.
What smoke and mirrors!!
I was just asking which nasa study and where you read it?
Are you actually being serious about debating this subject or is this just another childish remark to evade answering any of my questions.
Your claiming that you've read a NASA report that conclusively shows Antarctica has massively grown in size in the last twenty years..
Where have you read it and what nasa report was it? "I've answered your question twice now,but just like the rest of the man made global warming mob. You just ignore any information that doesn't suit your agenda. You must be the only guy on the planet,that's never heard of google. Try "NASA say ooops! on Antarctic ice" then take your pick. Hoping that's simple enough for you,though I won't hold my breath. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somedays it's foggy. smog does not prove man made climate change, The climate on earth has always been variable,it's the natural cycle. If nobody on earth,so much as lit a match,for the next hundred years,the globe would still be warming. People who start with an agenda, almost always find what they're looking for." Researcher's bias? Which reminds me of this scientific experiment testing whether you get more soaked from walking in the rain or from running in the rain. Reasearch money was spent on that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"p.s. The research results evidenced that you become more soaked when you RUN in the rain!!! "I think you will find that the results were: If you are moving in the same direction as the rain is moving you get wetter if you run (because you stay in the rain for longer). If you are moving in the opposite direction to the rain you get wetter if you walk (for the same reason as stated above).
Stuff like this is important...
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
