-= Frank Black Forum =-
-= Frank Black Forum =-
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Off Topic!
 General Chat
 things to talk about - climate change

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
starmekitten Posted - 02/02/2005 : 16:29:50
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

Antarctic's ice 'melting faster'


Guide to Climate Change

A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.

It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.

The findings were announced at the Climate Change Conference in Exeter.

Rising sea level

Professor Chris Rapley, director of (Bas), told the conference that Antarctica could become a "giant awakened", contributing heavily to rising sea levels.

Melting in the Antarctic Peninsula removes sea ice that once held back the movement of glaciers.

As a result, glaciers flow into the ocean up to six times faster than before.

The other region in the continent affected by the changes is West Antarctica where warmer sea water is thought to be eroding the ice from underneath.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted the average global sea level would rise by between 11cm (4.3in) and 77cm (30.3in) by 2100 - but forecast the Antarctic's contribution would be small.

But over the past five years, studies have found that melting Antarctic ice caps contribute at least 15% to the current global sea level rise of 2mm (0.08in) a year.

It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming.

Professor Rapley said that if this was natural variability it might be expected to be taking place in only a handful of places. However, studies had shown that it was happening in all three major ice stream in West Antarctica.

Several major sections of the Antarctic ice sheet have broken off in the past decade.

The Larsen A ice shelf, which measured 1,600 sq km, broke off in 1995. The 1,100 sq km Wilkins ice shelf fell off in 1998 and the 13,500 sq km Larsen B dropped away in 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3927813.stm

Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol

Fossil fuel burning is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions
As Russia decides to back the Kyoto protocol, BBC News Online looks at the agreement which many say is the best hope for curbing the gas emissions thought partly responsible for the warming of the planet.

What is the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement setting targets for industrialised countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

These gases are considered at least partly responsible for global warming - the rise in global temperature which may have catastrophic consequences for life on Earth.

The protocol was established in 1997, based on principles set out in a framework agreement signed in 1992.

What are the targets?

Industrialised countries have committed to cut their combined emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008 - 2012.

Each country that signed the protocol agreed to its own specific target. EU countries are expected to cut their present emissions by 8% and Japan by 5%. Some countries with low emissions were permitted to increase them.

Russia initially wavered over signing the protocol, amid speculation that it was jockeying for more favorable terms. But the country's cabinet agreed to back Kyoto in September 2004.


Why has Russia decided to back the treaty now?

The deciding factor appears to be not the economic cost, but the political benefits for Russia. In particular, there has been talk of stronger European Union support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, when it ratifies the protocol.

But fears still persist in Russia that Kyoto could badly affect the country's economic growth.


Have the targets been achieved?

Industrialised countries cut their overall emissions by about 3% from 1990 to 2000. But this was largely because a sharp decrease in emissions from the collapsing economies of former Soviet countries masked an 8% rise among rich countries.

The UN says industrialised countries are now well off target for the end of the decade and predicts emissions 10% above 1990 levels by 2010. Only four EU countries are on track to meet their own targets.

Is Kyoto in good health?

Before Russia's backing, many feared Kyoto was on its last legs. But Moscow's decision has breathed new life into the protocol.

The agreement stipulates that for it to become binding in international law, it must be ratified by the countries who together are responsible for at least 55% of 1990 global greenhouse gas emissions.

The treaty suffered a massive blow in 2001 when the US, responsible for about quarter of the world's emissions, pulled out.

The additional uncertainty over Russia's position was seen as another nail in the coffin, but observers are now hopeful the 55% threshold can be reached.

Why did the US pull out?

US President George W Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, saying implementing it would gravely damage the US economy.

His administration dubbed the treaty "fatally flawed", partly because it does not require developing countries to commit to emissions reductions.

Mr Bush says he backs emissions reductions through voluntary action and new energy technologies.

How much difference will Kyoto make?

Most climate scientists say that the targets set in the Kyoto Protocol are merely scratching the surface of the problem.

The agreement aims to reduce emissions from industrialised nations only by around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions cuts in the order of 60% across the board are needed.

This has led to criticisms that the agreement is toothless, as well as being virtually obsolete without US support.

But others say its failure would be a disaster as, despite its flaws, it sets out a framework for future negotiations which could take another decade to rebuild.

Kyoto commitments have been signed into law in some countries, US states and in the EU, and will stay in place regardless of the fate of the protocol itself.

Without Kyoto, politicians and companies working towards climate-friendly economies would face a much rougher ride.

What about poor countries?

The agreement acknowledges that developing countries contribute least to climate change but will quite likely suffer most from its effects.

Many have signed it. They do not have to commit to specific targets, but have to report their emissions levels and develop national climate change mitigation programmes.

China and India, potential major polluters with huge populations and growing economies, have both ratified the protocol.

What is emissions trading?

Emissions trading works by allowing countries to buy and sell their agreed allowances of greenhouse gas emissions.

Highly polluting countries can buy unused "credits" from those which are allowed to emit more than they actually do.

After much difficult negotiation, countries are now also able to gain credits for activities which boost the environment's capacity to absorb carbon.

These include tree planting and soil conservation, and can be carried out in the country itself, or by that country working in a developing country.

Are there alternatives?

One approach gaining increasing support is based on the principle that an equal quota of greenhouse gas emissions should be allocated for every person on the planet.

The proposal, dubbed "contraction and convergence", states that rich countries should "contract" their emissions with the aim that global emissions "converge" at equal levels based on the amount of pollution scientists think the planet can take.

Although many commentators say it is not realistic, its supporters include the United Nations Environment Programme and the European Parliament.





you
me
we used to be on fire
35   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
pot Posted - 02/24/2010 : 14:41:39
Now the Atlantic has one too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8534052.stm

quote:
The maximum "plastic density" was 200,000 pieces of debris per square kilometre.

"That's a maximum that is comparable with the Great Pacific Garbage Patch," said Dr Lavender Law.

But she pointed out that there was not yet a clear estimate of the size of the patches in either the Pacific or the Atlantic.

"You can think of it in a similar way [to the Pacific Garbage Patch], but I think the word 'patch' can be misleading. This is widely dispersed and it's small pieces of plastic," she said.

The impacts on the marine environment of the plastics were still unknown, added the researcher.

"But we know that many marine organisms are consuming these plastics and we know this has a bad effect on seabirds in particular," she told BBC News.
pot Posted - 02/17/2010 : 14:56:02
I've heard of that ring of garbage collecting in the Pacific, it was called something else, can't remember.

It's such a serious fucking environmental problem and NOTHING is being done about it!

There's not a lot that can be done about the shit we've already dumped in our oceans either, it's really sad.

Oh yeah let's tax CO2, doesn't matter about all the other actual pollutants..

Humans are crazy.

Incidentally, whilst all these taxes and carbon trading bollocks is being introduced, most of our industries are moving to countries like China, who I believe are exempt from all this AND are one of the biggest offenders in polluting the environment.

tisasawath Posted - 02/17/2010 : 10:11:36
speaking of bisphenol a, concerned consumers might also want to exclude canned food and drinks from their diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Human_exposure_sources
danjersey Posted - 02/17/2010 : 07:40:08
may know all about this http://www.vbs.tv/newsroom/toxic-garbage-island-1-of-3--4




pot Posted - 01/31/2010 : 12:19:39
Why isn't the incentive to stop using oil the fact that it might bloody run out before we are prepared to deal with it running out? How much do we actually have left. That is what I want science to show. Some say there's plenty, some think it will run out soon. Some people believe it might never run out and that it is abiogenically produced between the mantle and the earths crust. It's possible and I've read about evidence for and against. I don't know. I think probably not. Either way, it's produced in the earth's crust somewhere, but how long it takes on average is anyone's guestimate. It's a product of the decay of biological matter as it moves slowly through the earth's crust, but the earth has been around for 3 billion years which is a long time, so how much of the crust that forms the earth and the upper mantle is made up of dead organic matter? I think we have to be careful about burning too much of it and what effect it MIGHT have. Any evidence that the almost negligible increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is having a significant effect are tenuous. I think it is a vastly unexplored science that has no basis whatsoever for claiming to be so uncertainty free.
pot Posted - 01/31/2010 : 05:45:09
Scenario 3. The science turns out to be wrong, but nonetheless we attempt some crazy geo-engineering plan to reduce global warming, and it turns out the world was actually on a cooling trend, and we end up plunging the world into an ice age wiping out most of the life on it.
trobrianders Posted - 01/31/2010 : 02:37:26
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders

quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face



This is still the best argument for doing something about climate change: it will fundamentally improve our lives. Even if the science is faulty (which i don't believe because i trust the larger scientific community), it will still make our world a much, much better place.

- Brian

Let me ask you which scenario is preferable?
1. The scientists are right but through concerted action we avert disaster.
2. The scientists are wrong and we can carry on as we are.

_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo

I'm still interested to hear your reply on this.

_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo
The Champ Posted - 01/31/2010 : 02:04:52

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
tisasawath Posted - 01/30/2010 : 11:42:12
OT, but here's an impressive photo of the Earth's atmosphere http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/materials/SED_wall_1920x1200.jpg
The Champ Posted - 01/18/2010 : 12:28:47
quote:
Originally posted by pot

I just recently hooked up with an old friend who works at the CRU in East Anglia. I asked him what his view on all this was and he said he believed in the science, that the scientists who work at the CRU are dedicated, and that the science 'IS SETTLED". He told me to stop bringing up zombie arguments and to google any further questions I had. So there you go. The science is settled.



Yeah thats convincing!
pot Posted - 01/18/2010 : 09:13:14
Statistically it is impossible not to get it wrong sometimes.
Llamadance Posted - 01/18/2010 : 07:09:48
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm

Seems they've said it might be true, looks about 0.05C too high. Unfortunately, you only get famous in the weather game for getting things wrong.


Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition
pot Posted - 01/18/2010 : 02:13:43
Ok, it's from a counter porpaganda climate-gate site, but it sounds prefectly plausible. The met office are famous for getting their long range predictions disastrously long, and it kind of makes me wonder why they bother at all! I guess it makes good filler for the news when there's no bombs going off anywhere or soldiers getting their legs blown off in Helmand...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/met-office-computer-accused-of-warm-bias-by-bbc-weatherman.html
quote:

A BBC weather forecaster has suggested that the Met Office’s super-computer has a ‘warm bias’ which has stopped it predicting bitterly cold spells like the one we have just endured.

Paul Hudson said the error may have crept into the computer’s climate model as a result of successive years of milder weather.

His claim was rejected by the Met Office but other experts said there could be flaws in the system, which was first developed 50 years ago.

In a blog, the BBC Look North presenter writes: ‘Clearly there is the rest of January and February to go, but such has been the intensity of the cold spell…it would take something remarkable for the Met Office’s forecast (of a mild winter) to be right.
pot Posted - 01/16/2010 : 08:27:53
I just recently hooked up with an old friend who works at the CRU in East Anglia. I asked him what his view on all this was and he said he believed in the science, that the scientists who work at the CRU are dedicated, and that the science 'IS SETTLED". He told me to stop bringing up zombie arguments and to google any further questions I had. So there you go. The science is settled.
The Champ Posted - 01/16/2010 : 06:07:12
This is pretty unbelievable if this turns out to be true.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
pot Posted - 01/03/2010 : 00:09:13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8437273.stm


quote:

The myth that Albrecht Duerer is left-handed gives an insight into the history of information overload, writes Lisa Jardine.

As we enter a new decade with its fresh agendas and challenges, it feels more important than ever to know who we can trust to keep us well-informed. Bombarded with information by all kinds of new and traditional media, how are we to evaluate the available evidence, let alone decide which way we will vote?

The rhetoric of those in positions of power announces every decision reached to be a watershed moment.

"Today is a major step forward for the American people," Barack Obama proclaimed, as the Senate moved gingerly towards a decision on healthcare, just before Christmas. "After a nearly century-long struggle, we are on the cusp of making healthcare reform a reality in the United States of America."

It was the second time in recent weeks that the president of the United States had made such an announcement. At the end of the climate change meeting in Copenhagen too, he hailed the compromise, non-binding agreement reached at the end of protracted and at times chaotic negotiations in similarly decisive terms:

"For the first time in history, all of the world's major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change. This important breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come."

And yet the reams of paper and acres of screen space filled by pundits, critics, climate change protesters, bloggers and twitterers seem to be telling us the opposite - that there was no shape, no resolution, no positive outcome that could be identified under the flood of information washing over us as events in the conference halls unfolded, minute by minute.

As the exhausted delegates made their way home from Copenhagen, commentators on online sites, in newspapers and on television concluded that compromise and procedural manoeuvring had prevailed. It was all a terrible disappointment.

Data bombardment

Which of these versions tells us the truth about unfolding events? With today's continuous stream of media-coverage, more seems to be less when it comes to being able to reach our own conclusions on the basis of what we read and hear.

The more we are bombarded with data, the less clear it is which way any of us ought to go in giving our assent to social and political initiatives.

Of course, in the days when information travelled more slowly, it was that much easier for the eager recipient of the latest headline news to be misled.

In May 1521, news reached the German painter Albrecht Duerer - then in Antwerp - that the radical monk Martin Luther had been arrested and imprisoned, following his condemnation as a heretic by the Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms.

Rumours spread like wildfire - Luther had been incarcerated, he had been interrogated and murdered. A distraught Duerer contemplated the loss of the man he regarded as the saviour of Christianity with dismay:

"May every man who reads Dr Martin Luther's books see how clear and transparent his teaching is when he sets forth the Holy Gospel. O God, if Luther is dead, who will henceforth deliver the Holy Gospel to us with such clearness? What might he not still have written for us in ten or twenty years?"

In fact Luther was not dead or even detained against his will. It was many months, however, before his true circumstances became known to his devoted followers, let alone the general public.

The changes Duerer anticipated Luther might make did indeed take place, sweeping across Europe in an unstoppable tide. In fact, the instrument of Luther's success in spreading his reforming message was the very new technology that had misinformed Duerer about his death.

Shopping list

Duerer never met Luther, nor even heard him preach in person. Everything he knew of Luther's radical teaching came from his published pamphlets, printed on the newly invented printing presses, in runs of thousands, and distributed right across Europe.

In the autumn of 1520, on the way home to Nuremberg from a business trip to Aachen, Duerer did some shopping in Cologne, keeping a careful record of his expenses: "I have bought a tract of Luther's for five weisspfennigs. And I spent another weisspfennig for one pound of candles. I gave six weisspfennigs for a pair of shoes and 1 more for beer and bread."

For a little less than the price of a pair of shoes, Duerer acquired the latest instalment in the developing drama of Martin Luther's confrontation with the Pope. It clearly wasn't cheap, but it kept him abreast of the most important international movement of the day.

The printing press meant that Duerer, like thousands of other ordinary German men and women, experienced the Reformation not as a remote quarrel between members of the clergy, but at first hand. It made it possible for him to participate immediately in an international crisis within the Catholic Church as it took shape.

Still, truth across time apparently remains tantalisingly elusive, however hard the on-the-spot witness tries. Duerer - an early master of perspective - believed that where his own profession was concerned, the truth could be achieved visually through mathematical measure and proportion: "Whoever proves his point and demonstrates the fundamental truth using geometry should be believed by all the world."

Not so. Like many artists, Duerer painted and drew a number of self-portraits in the course of his life. In one delightful pen-and-ink drawing, made when he was about 22, the artist looks quizzically towards us, a flat cap perched jauntily on his head, his long wavy hair falling over his shoulders. His left hand is poised in the moment of drawing - thumb, middle and forefinger in the act of gripping the pen, his open palm facing out towards us, his two remaining fingers held elegantly aloft.

So does this mean that Duerer was left-handed? Well, no, of course, it does not. Like most artists, Duerer paints himself by looking in a mirror, and thus paints the "mirror image" of himself, reflected through 180 degrees, so that the painter's right hand - the one in which he holds his pen - appears to be his left one.

Yet Duerer's name continues to appear in any number lists of "south paw" or left-handed figures from history - just try putting "Duerer" and "left-handed" into your search engine. The precision of line and angle in his drawing still has the capacity actively to mislead.

Left-handed fellowship

As a left-hander myself I confess to being a little disappointed at not to be able to number Duerer among my confreres. It was a struggle growing up left-handed in the fifties. At primary school I vividly recall sitting obstinately over my pudding when the other children had crocodiled their way back from the canteen to the playground.

Unless I held my spoon in my right hand, my teacher told me firmly, I was not allowed any crumble and custard. Unless I finished my crumble and custard, I was not considered to have finished my lunch, and so could not go and play with my friends.

No wonder the left-handed are inclined to hail one another as soon as they notice a similarly awkward signer of a document or credit card slip. "Oh! I'm left-handed too!" they exclaim, with audible pleasure.

Perhaps the only answer to the problem of sifting the truth out of the dross of banal information is simply to wait and see, letting the tide of documentary material settle into not-yet-detectable patterns before deciding on a conclusion.

History will tell whether Barack Obama's much-criticised early policy decisions are part of a carefully set agenda or not. Of course that leaves us with the problem of just how we are going to act for the common good in the immediate future

There is however one thing we can learn about the president of the United States through the media coverage that is true beyond a shadow of doubt.

When you eventually watch the video clips of Barack Obama signing that much-contested, watered-down healthcare bill you will be able to confirm for yourself that the president is indeed left-handed.
pot Posted - 12/29/2009 : 21:58:57
quote:
Originally posted by darwin

I only marry scientists.



Evidently.
darwin Posted - 12/29/2009 : 15:24:24
quote:
Originally posted by pot

Actually, I am currently waiting for the divorce papers to come through...



I only marry scientists.
pot Posted - 12/29/2009 : 12:18:33
I really hope humans are never foolish enough to try any of these hair-brained schemes to 'save the planet'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-promotes-geo-engineering-scenarios.html
pot Posted - 12/29/2009 : 07:35:52
Actually, I am currently waiting for the divorce papers to come through...
floop Posted - 12/29/2009 : 07:20:06
quote:
Originally posted by pot

Indicative of the entire debate, which has become overly polarised.



sometimes in a relationship you need to learn to be a good listener, even when you feel like your partner isn't listening to you. when you're arguing with someone for an exceedingly long time it's good to remember that occasionally you need to step back and take a break from the situation .. relationships - like yours and darwins - are about remembering that you love and care for one another, despite your differences
pot Posted - 12/29/2009 : 07:02:15
Indicative of the entire debate, which has become overly polarised.
floop Posted - 12/29/2009 : 06:58:37
i don't want to overstep my boundaries but i feel like perhaps you guys are having some communication issues in your relationshiop
pot Posted - 12/29/2009 : 06:02:34
What the hell do you think I've been saying for the past three pages of this thread!

My evidence against.

1. The hockey stick chart produced my Michael Mann is based on a technique that isn't very reliable, hence the fact that the misleading appearance of the chart. So far as I see there is no evidence to suggest that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing global warming other than the fact that both appear to be rising over the past 50 years. That alone is not enough to prove that the trend is not within natural variability, and in fact present temperature variations in the context over the past 1,000 years are not showing anything out of the ordinary WHATSOEVER.

2. The Ice core data is also unreliable, although it does show a direct correspndance between CO2 and temperature. It has been said by sceptics that the CO2 levels follow the temperature trends by hundreds of years, however I donot think ice core data measurements of CO2 levels and temperature against time are accurate enough to be able to tell from the charts. The feeling I have though is that IF CO2 is indeed preceding and causing warming then the nature of the charts would suggest that it is by far the most dominant influence on global temperatures, and that cannot be since we know there are other factors that affect the climate a great deal more such as solar activity and the wobble of the earth axis. It seems reasonable therefore to conclude then that the trends in CO2 levels are the result of something else, probably the variation in CO2 produced and absorbed by the oceans for different temperatures.

darwin Posted - 12/29/2009 : 05:30:14
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I am basically saying there is little evidence,



Then quit being sloppy and say that.

Meanwhile, if you want to engage in an evidence based discussion you could present some evidence that global warming isn't being caused by humans.
pot Posted - 12/28/2009 : 23:32:49
I am trying to bring up interesting new ways to look at the situation, which seem to be getting largely ignored. On the other hand he is just repeating the same feeble counter argument, further weakening his POV. I am basically saying there is little evidence, and his response to that is to say that you can't prove anything 100%. There is barely enough evidence to swing the argument 50% in his favour, and plenty to give reason to be highly sceptical. Please don't call me a 'denier'- it sort of implies that I haven't even bothered to look at the evidence. It is also suggests there is something to deny.

IMO anyone who takes that hockey stick crap as substantial evidence is not a very good scientist and a propagandist.
Llamadance Posted - 12/28/2009 : 21:31:35
Pot, I guess the point Darwin is trying to make is that you can't keep using the lack of certainty to try and score for the denier's point of view. That's not evidence-based discussion, it's just poor rhetoric.


Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition
pot Posted - 12/28/2009 : 18:35:47
quote:
Originally posted by darwin

How about you quit repeating the lie and then I'll quit pointing out that it's a lie?



If 'NOTHING is without a shadow of a doubt' then how can anything be a 'lie'?

Either of us may be right or wrong, and only time will tell. In the meantime, let the evidence (or lack of it) be the judge.

quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face

It's a MOOT point, not a MUTE point.

- Brian



Woot! Woot!
pot Posted - 12/28/2009 : 18:34:25
...
Broken Face Posted - 12/28/2009 : 18:23:12
quote:
Originally posted by pot

Repeating the same mute point over and over again will not add weight to your argument.



It's a MOOT point, not a MUTE point.

- Brian
darwin Posted - 12/28/2009 : 16:41:36
How about you quit repeating the lie and then I'll quit pointing out that it's a lie?
pot Posted - 12/28/2009 : 10:04:35
Repeating the same mute point over and over again will not add weight to your argument.
darwin Posted - 12/28/2009 : 09:44:58
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I find it quite laughable that anyone could take that and deduce from it that CO2 is causing global warming beyond a shadow of a doubt.



Strawman. As has been said many, many times, NOTHING is without a shadow of a doubt.
pot Posted - 12/28/2009 : 07:57:14
How about you consider how little evidence there is for the AGW then. Because, come on, there really isn't much is there.... I've been looking into the Hockey stick graph and the data it supposedly comes from, and I find it quite laughable that anyone could take that and deduce from it that CO2 is causing global warming beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Anyway, whatever you want to think is up to you. I'm not here to argue a case for either side so much as I am here to discuss the evidence from both sides and weigh it up accordingly in as objective a way as I can.

In the spring of last year climatologists gave out a long range (ie. 3 months) forecast for the british summer weather. Guess what, they got it totally wrong. And it's not the first time, so how anyone can believe in this hype that they tell you the world is going to between 1 and 6 degrees warmer in 100 years is beyond me...
gyaneshwar Posted - 12/28/2009 : 06:40:56
quote:
Originally posted by pot

http://climategate.tv/?p=667



I've been listening to you, pot, but a one hour special from Rupert Murdoch isn't going to convince me.

-= Frank Black Forum =- © 2002-2020 Frank Black Fans, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000