UKIP... what do you know about them?

[Nial]

We're going off topic a bit with climate change but I do have to answer this.

 

Your post shows that you really don't understand the debate on climate change at all, you simply cannot take any 15 year period and extrapolate the data as evidence for or against climate change, look at 1000 years instead. The Earth is warming, there is no debate about that, the debate is whether the rise in temperature and associated changes in seal level, weather systems, droughts, floods etc, is man made or part of a natural cycle. The empirical evidence that you say is missing is easily found online but to sum it up the rise in atmospheric CO₂ and the rise in global average temperature seem to go hand in hand and it has been known that CO₂ traps more heat from the sun for 150 years, but as correlation is not causation more evidence is needed. One important bit of evidence is that the wavelength of the extra radiation that is being trapped in our atmosphere is the same wavelength that CO₂ traps so it is likely CO₂ is the culprit and in the last 200 years we have increased the amount in the atmosphere by 50%. Almost all of the worlds climate scientists agree that man is likely to be the major contributing factor - that doesn't mean it is a fact, it just means that until the data says something different then that is the most likely cause.

 

I'm not sure where to start with this, I understate the debate on climate change very well.

 

1) I didn't say there was evidence for or against climate change, it's a self evident fact that the climate changes and that we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age since the early 1800's.

 

Since then the word has warmed _0.8_ Degrees. This is a plot of HARCRUT4, one of the 4 main temperature indexes.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1840

 

Note the warming from 1910 - 1940 was the same as 1970 - 2000, yet CO2 levels were _much_ lower then. Also note the warming has stopped.

 

 

ALL the evidence that CO2 is to blame for the recent warming is based on the Global Circulation Models (climate models).

 

There has been no warming for the last >15 years, as you admit the CO2 concentration has increased.

 

The models did not predict this, they _all_ predicted increase (even accelerating warming). The logical conclusion is that the models are worthless.

 

 

"One important bit of evidence is that the wavelength of the extra radiation that is being trapped in our atmosphere is the same wavelength that CO₂ traps so it is likely CO₂ is the culprit"

 

CO2 can be shown in a glass jar in a lab to block some wavelengths of radiation, there is _no_ evidence that it affects the climate in the real world. The climate models

predicted a 'Trophospheric hot spot' generated by the radiation absorbing effects of CO2, this has failed to materialise.

 

BTW, water vapour is a much stronger "greenhouse gas" and there's 40 * more of it in the atmosphere than CO2.

 

CO2 is plant food, an increased concentration increases food yields in the third world.

 

"Almost all of the worlds climate scientists agree that man is likely to be the major contributing factor"

 

Almost all the world's climate scientists would suddenly get no funding if the CO2 bogeyman was shown to be nothing more than a scare story. There is

an incredible amount of money poured into global warming globally ($10's of Billions). There are a so many people with vested interests in

keeping the scare going that I fear it's going to be a while before those in charge see sense.

 

In the future people will look back and laugh at people worried about their 'carbon footprints', yet in the interim the resulting push for

renewables has pushed the price of fuel to the point there were 31,000 extra pensioner deaths last winter.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/10474966/Energy-row-erupts-as-winter-deaths-spiral-29-per-cent-to-four-year-high-of-31000.html

 

 

Nial.

[poontang]

 

Why not? Check it out.

 

I have. Couldn't find anything to substantiate your claims, quite the opposite to be honest.

[Nikk]

look at 1000 years instead..

 

OK

 

[Nikk]

[top shot]

there all full of lies say one thing do the opposite all the mps are stuck up snobs I asked the enfield conservative pm what do you think about hunting he goes its sickening and cruel I told him to get off my drive and **** o**

[Paul223]

The Conservatives have borrowed more since 2010 than Labour did in its years in office. I think you're mixed up between the deficit and the national debt.

Really?

Let's make it fair, revise your statement to take into account the opening balance for both and the rate they are / were spending

[henry d]

This is the deal maker for me...

[Gordon R]

Cottonseed, on 11 Dec 2013 - 9:24 PM, said:

 

Why not? Check it out.

 

Cottonseed - as you have cited this and poontang can't find it - can you supply the easy to find link? If it is so easy - it shouldn't be any trouble for you. If it can't be substantiated, it might look just a tad silly.

[Dekers]

7 pages already and it descended a long while back............

[Munzy]

Shut it down... I got some really helpful insight from pretty much everyone in one way or another, enough to further my reading anyhow. Thanks everyone!