Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 149

Thread: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

  1. #61
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    MY VIEW
    Responsible groups of scientists are working on global and regional climate change in many universities and research institutions around the world....

    ...There is a real possibility that human activities will cause man made global warming with devastating effects over timescales that are very short compared to normal timescales for changes in global temperatures. The scientific consensus amongst climate change specialists is that the threat is real and imminent. Under these circumstances it would make more sense to take steps to slow down the production of man made greenhouse gases (including CO2) while we proved scientifically that there was no problem after all than just to carry on regardless while refining models that could very well confirm that we really should have done something when we had a better chance. [It is generally thought to be sensible to conserve fossil fuel reserves anyway for other reasons.]
    .
    Sorry to disagree with you Mark but is it the responsible scientists that in the Climategate emails have been shown not only alter the effect of data to try and hide the decline in Global temperatures, that have 'value' adjusted base data and then destroyed it and that have also been shown to restrict the access of data to researchers who they fear may disagree with them, that you're referring to?

    And how can you claim that there is a 'real possibility that human activities will cause man made global warming with devastating effects over timescales that are very short compared to normal timescales for changes in global temperatures..' when despite documented increases in man made CO2 over the last 10 years Global temperatures have actually declined?

    There is no proven link to CO2, man made or otherwise, triggering historical Global warming, and even over the last 100 years with obvious increases in man made CO2 Global temperatures have both risen and fallen showing that man made CO2 cannot be the cause.

    And as I've stated before, over the last 1,000 years we have had centuries of hot weather and centuries of extreme cold and if man made CO2 were to blame we would have surely had a steady increases in temperatures reflecting the increase in anthropogenic CO2 - and we simply haven't.

    But for me the most logical argument has to be this: How can a gas that makes up less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere have a significant effect that changes Global temperatures? Surely it's ridiculous to suggest that it can when we know for a fact that solar activity and cloud cover creates the most significant effects on Global warming.

    It's like hurling a ping pong ball at a bowling bowl in an attempt to stop it rolling - it might make you feel better to have a go, but it'll make no difference whatsoever...

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    I watched a program where they were planting trees in a third world country, using "carbon credits" from "the west".

    Does this really solve the problem, or just make people feel good?

    Number 1, why use a third world country (is it because labour is cheap, trees are cheap, and hey, it is not in our back yard)?

    Number 2, If it is really an issue, why not plant huge forrests next to all the major airports and next to roads?

    Are carbon credits a marketing ploy?
    As in, no worries, I can fly where I like, chuck in a few carbon credits, and they will plant a few trees for me somewhere remote...

    As a job creation scheme, the "climate change" bandwagon, seems to have worked well. Many jobs created.

    Unfortuanately someone pays for this, so it could be that some jobs are lost.

  3. #63
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Rocky talking to himself? Do you think he's as insultingly rude in those conversations as he is in conversations with other people? If we can persuade him to do a bit more of that it will save the rest of us from having to fight fire with fire...
    I love being back on the forum , Rocky points out 20 of your school boy errors and you have no answer but a personal dig ?. Don’t take all your ‘facts’ from the Daily Mail Global warming addition 2007, try reading around the subject and learning from some of the better informed posters. A bit of humility old boy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    There is a real possibility that human activities will cause man made global warming with devastating effects over timescales that are very short compared to normal timescales for changes in global temperatures. The scientific consensus amongst climate change specialists is that the threat is real and imminent.
    If the climate scientists' best estimates are proven wrong they may well have egg on their face. to whatever human and environmental pain flows as a result of climate changes that could have been avoided.
    The ‘possibility is what 1% 5% 50% ?

    We do what? Spend a trillion on a 1% chance of reducing something by 0.1c ??

    It’s a costly egg.

    All these posts make no comment on Economics and Politics

    If its not too late I suggest people pick up a copy of the New Scientist and read the 12 articles in their re the myths around Global warming sorry ‘climate change’.

    Don’t ask me ask a scientist who has spent 30 years doing field studies in the Maldives and has records of sea levels going back to 1750s. Guess what sea levels were 30cm higher there in 1750, the Maldives didn’t sink

    If you like pictures of the President of the Maldives having a cabinet meeting under water in scuba gear a quick Google will find it

    Its good to be back

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    I love being back on the forum , Rocky points out 20 of your school boy errors and you have no answer but a personal dig ?. Don’t take all your ‘facts’ from the Daily Mail Global warming addition 2007, try reading around the subject and learning from some of the better informed posters. A bit of humility old boy.
    Well now, let's see.

    1. I have Rocky on ignore, I have no idea what he says (except when he's quoted). There are very good reasons for this, anyone can search the forum for the post which made me take that decision.
    2. Rocky didn't know me as a schoolboy, so I doubt if he knows anything about the errors I made.
    3. Personal digs at Rocky are a) light hearted and b) based on his behaviour on the forum (and not outside it).
    4. I don't think the Daily Mail believes in AGW, does it? If not, then I had no idea that it had changed its policy - which may give you a clue as to how much of my climate information I get from its pages.
    5. Global warming is not a fascinating topic for me - so I have not read especially widely. However, I refer you to the answer I made to David Franklin's post - my view is that scientists do not internationally arrive at wide-ranging, inter-disciplinary large-scale consensus because they are all anxious to keep their jobs. This is no more likely than that Capricorn One is a documentary or that the July 7 London bombings were the work of MI5 and Special Branch.

  5. #65
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The far east-Kent
    Posts
    3,687
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    We have 2 choices.
    1. Do nothing about CO2 and hope it's not important.
    2. Try to prevent increasing atmospheric CO2.

    If CO2 isn't important and we choose option 2, what do we loose? Maybe a reduction in our standard of living having to pay for new sustainable technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, gas and coal? Who feels confident enough to depend on dwindling resources to heat their homes and grow their food, when those resources are being supplied from other nations whose politics is inevitably self interested?

    Given a few spare months with nothing else to do, I'm sure I could almost convince myself in the arguments of one side or the other in this debate. But like most people, the studying is something I leave to those who have devoted their lives to research. There has to be trust that their motives are genuine. Obviously that's not been helped by the recent revelations.

    For those people who don't believe global warming is occurring (easy enough to believe based on short term data), are the massive reductions in polar and glacial ice purely down to irrelevant local weather changes? Of course the planet has gone through huge climate changes in it's history, homo sapiens has never previously been in a position to affect such changes.

    Greg

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    But for me the most logical argument has to be this: How can a gas that makes up less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere have a significant effect that changes Global temperatures? Surely it's ridiculous to suggest that it can when we know for a fact that solar activity and cloud cover creates the most significant effects on Global warming.
    Logical? That argument isn't logical at all. You have a supposition - that something in a small quantity can't have an effect on the system. It's a claim, not an argument (at best, it's a tautology).

    As a claim, it's empirical - "can something in very small quantities have an effect on a whole system?" Empirically, the answer is demonstrably yes. For example, the average human body contains approximately 4 grams of iron - or less than 0.0005% of a person weighing 80kg. If a person's body contained no iron, that person would die very quickly. If their body contains too much or too little iron, then they become reasonably sick quite fast. So its relatively easy to demonstrate that the supposition is wrong. The reason for this is that the small quantity of iron is required in the human body to carry oxygen around. Oxygen is essential for cell metabolism, without which the body would die. Thus, while small in quantity, iron is essential in function.

    CO2 in the atmosphere is similarly important to life on earth. While only a small proportion of the air, it is the primary source of carbon in plants: it is extracted from the air through the process of photosynthesis. The carbon in plants are the building blocks of all organic molecules - including our bodies. Thus, while 0.04% is a small proportion, if it were removed then all life on earth would die.

    Both these empirical examples demonstrate that the original claim is false (there is logic to that refutation - the process of science is generally called logical empiricism). In general, the proportion of something as a part of the whole tells you very little about it's importance to the system. You would need to understand function.

    In terms of more pure logic, one could refer to cybernetics - the study of complex systems. They refer to equilibrium in complex systems - a state where it is relatively stable. In cybernetics, its reasonably easy to demonstrate that relative small changes to even minor factors in the system can lead to large changes in the outcome. Conversely, changes to major factors can often be absorbed by the system. It all depends on the system dynamics.

    Logically, therefore, one would need to understand the function of CO2 in the system of the atmosphere before one could make any sensible claim about the import of changes to the proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere. To suggest otherwise is not only ridiculous, it is illogical.

    If you are saying that you don't understand how CO2 can have such a big impact, that's a very different claim. Fortunately, arguments from ignorance are also not logical. This is an argument often put forward by creationists, "I just can't believe that all life on earth has evolved from single cells organisms." In that case, as well, belief or understanding from one individual is completely irrelevant.

    It does, however, say a great deal. If you have started your "most logical argument" then that may well shape the way you read and interpret all the other evidence. Now that I've demonstrated - both logically and empirically - that your "most logical argument" is neither logical, an argument nor valid, I wonder if you will change your mind? I suspect not.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Global warming is subset of climate change

    I wish people would stop using "climate change" when they are talking about "Global warming".

    There is no doubt that human activity affects climate. there is a very big question "How much".

    Deforestation may well have regional catastrophic effects, maybe with measurable efects worldwide. It will affect clouds and wind, and those may affect ocean currents. Rivers have been known to change course, and an ocean current can be likened to a river contained by water, far more suceptible to change. If the Gulf Stream changed course the World would know it.

    The world does need proper funding for "no profit in it" and "why should we pay to benefit them?" science projects.

  8. #68
    Dickie Davies' love-child Cruella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rugby
    Posts
    6,159
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepman View Post
    We have 2 choices.
    1. Do nothing about CO2 and hope it's not important.
    2. Try to prevent increasing atmospheric CO2.
    I agree with Sheepman, because we don't know the 'truth' isn't it better to take precautions just in case, rather than find out later that they were right and we're too late to 'save the planet'?

  9. #69
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Global warming is subset of climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    I wish people would stop using "climate change" when they are talking about "Global warming".
    Why? Surely global warming is a form of climate change?

  10. #70
    Registered User MarkW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cheltenham
    Posts
    792
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    ...


    The ‘possibility is what 1% 5% 50% ?

    ...

    Or 95%? 99%?

    Based on the IPCC's assessment report on peer reviewed scientific research I think that the expression "real possibility" is quite restrained.

    A huge amount of research has taken place over many years in this area. Peer reviewed scientific papers keep on developing the subject. A group of climate science specialists has used the research available to make the best predictions it is capable of. I don't see anything else out there that I would give greater credence. Some posting on on this thread essentially agree with that approach, others take a different view.

    I have tried to avoid going into the politics and economics linked to the science as the thread was big enough already. Politics, e.g. Copenhagen negotiations, will be the ultimate decider as to what steps are taken.

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Oh, dear. The best Rocky can do is the 'argument from personal incredulity'.

    I find it absolutely impossible to believe that people are interested in Jordan. Nevertheless, there she is, tediously popping up on TV and the magazine racks in the supermarkets and on the internet and in bookshops (her 'refusal' to stop writing books credited by The Now show! as being single-handedly responsible for global deforestation) and on the magazine racks the following month and on the radio and on and on and and on...

    ...so I conclude that I must be wrong. People are interested in Jordan.

    So much for the argument from personal incredulity.

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Global warming is subset of climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    I wish people would stop using "climate change" when they are talking about "Global warming".
    Quote Originally Posted by straycat View Post
    Why? Surely global warming is a form of climate change?
    Global cooling is also a form of climate change. The shift from talking about 'global warming' to 'climate change' is no coincidence. It is the first step (along a very long path) in acknowledging that average global temperatures are actually in decline at present.

    If you want to know more just ask Phil 'Hide The Decline' Jones from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

  13. #73
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Logical? That argument isn't logical at all... ....argument nor valid, I wonder if you will change your mind? I suspect not.
    Err... of course not because you managed to completely ignore the key words in the paragraph..


    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    But for me the most logical argument has to be this: How can a gas that makes up less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere have a significant effect that changes Global temperatures? Surely it's ridiculous to suggest that it can when we know for a fact that solar activity and cloud cover creates the most significant effects on Global warming.

    It's like hurling a ping pong ball at a bowling bowl in an attempt to stop it rolling - it might make you feel better to have a go, but it'll make no difference whatsoever...
    So 'significant effect' is the significant phrase within that sentence, a sentence which is then followed by 'Surely it's ridiculous to suggest that it can when we know for a fact that solar activity and cloud cover creates the most significant effects on Global warming.'

    Climate scientists who have, and are, researching the effect of clouds on Global Climate change suggest that they could account for 90-95% of Global Climate change. Water vapour and water droplets form the largest volume of greenhouse gas by a massive amount AND collectively they are a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 as they absorb energy across a much wider spectrum.

    So, I repeat, how can a gas that is miniscule in volume compared to alternate Global Climate change agents and that is also less effective as a greenhouse gas, have any significant effect? It's simply not logical to suggest it can, especially given that despite documented increases in man made CO2 that Global temperatures have actually fallen in the last 10 years...

    I've also noticed that the supporters of the concept of man made Global warming here have managed to completely ignore that last fact... just because you ignore it doesn't mean it'll go away you know..

  14. #74
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepman View Post
    We have 2 choices.

    For those people who don't believe global warming is occurring (easy enough to believe based on short term data), are the massive reductions in polar and glacial ice purely down to irrelevant local weather changes? Of course the planet has gone through huge climate changes in it's history, homo sapiens has never previously been in a position to affect such changes.

    Greg

    Without Google , do you have a clue what the Artic ice conditions have been like in the last 2 years

    Can you within the nearest 1,000,000 sq kms guess the area of the artic ice.

    Dont base you knowledge on the Daily Mail headlines or ask people to get into debt based on those headlines

    ps its stop snowing in reading

  15. #75
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    Or 95%? 99%?

    Based on the IPCC's assessment report on peer reviewed scientific research I think that the expression "real possibility" is quite restrained.

    A huge amount of research has taken place over many years in this area. Peer reviewed scientific papers keep on developing the subject. A group of climate science specialists has used the research available to make the best predictions it is capable of. I don't see anything else out there that I would give greater credence. Some posting on on this thread essentially agree with that approach, others take a different view.

    I have tried to avoid going into the politics and economics linked to the science as the thread was big enough already. Politics, e.g. Copenhagen negotiations, will be the ultimate decider as to what steps are taken.
    Again stop going on about Daily Mail headlines

    Without a google whats happen with the Artic ice last 2 years ??

    I'm afraid Politics and Economics is Climate change

    If you want to learn about the subject read up on the 'peer review issues'. I cant be bothered to educate on here

  16. #76
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post

    Logically, therefore, one would need to understand the function of CO2 in the system of the atmosphere before one could make any sensible claim about the import of changes to the proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere. To suggest otherwise is not only ridiculous, it is illogical.


    Well yes I'd agree

    However I dont want to spend Trillions before I find out

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Err... of course not because you managed to completely ignore the key words in the paragraph..
    Much the same as you ignored the substance of my reply? The key difference is, I did directly address the claim you've chosen to repeat. Here's a suggestion - try to counter my refutation rather than ignoring it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    I repeat, how can a gas that is miniscule in volume compared to alternate Global Climate change agents and that is also less effective as a greenhouse gas, have any significant effect? It's simply not logical to suggest it can...
    Through the processes I've described above. The ones that demonstrate that is a claim. As a claim, it is not logical (claims are claims to fact, not expressions of logic). As an empirical claim, it is demonstrably false. Repeating the claim does not refute the critique. The claim is still demonstrably false.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    ...especially given that despite documented increases in man made CO2 that Global temperatures have actually fallen in the last 10 years...
    Mostly because the fluctuation over the last 10 years is not a trend. These trends are based on hundreds of years of direct temperature measurements and thousands of years of reconstructed temperatures. That temperature rises have levelled off in the last few years could be die to a lot of different reasons. A 10 year levelling does not allow one to logically conclude that global warming is not happening - the graph below might be illustrative.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.svg

    Of course, if one has already presupposed that global warming is not happening (because they think it's ridiculous), then they're likely to interpret the last 10 years as supporting their ridicule. Fortunately, logic is stronger than that.

    Anyway, there's never been a point in arguing with you. Mostly because arguments work with logic, not with supposition. I feel confident you'll ignore the logical arguments here... mostly because you've already completely ignored them once.
    Last edited by geoff332; 16th-December-2009 at 02:25 PM. Reason: added the graph

  18. #78
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post

    Of course, if one has already presupposed that global warming is not happening (because they think it's ridiculous), then they're likely to interpret the last 10 years as supporting their ridicule. Fortunately, logic is stronger than that.
    Logic mmmm

    You have a £50,000 car

    I tell you the worse state it’s ever been in was 1998

    Its better now but it ‘could’ get a lot worse

    Please spend £25,000 in case it gets worse

    Would you ??

  19. #79
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepman View Post
    We have 2 choices.
    1. Do nothing about CO2 and hope it's not important.
    2. Try to prevent increasing atmospheric CO2.

    If CO2 isn't important and we choose option 2, what do we loose? Maybe a reduction in our standard of living having to pay for new sustainable technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, gas and coal? Who feels confident enough to depend on dwindling resources to heat their homes and grow their food, when those resources are being supplied from other nations whose politics is inevitably self interested?

    Given a few spare months with nothing else to do, I'm sure I could almost convince myself in the arguments of one side or the other in this debate. But like most people, the studying is something I leave to those who have devoted their lives to research. There has to be trust that their motives are genuine. Obviously that's not been helped by the recent revelations.

    For those people who don't believe global warming is occurring (easy enough to believe based on short term data), are the massive reductions in polar and glacial ice purely down to irrelevant local weather changes? Of course the planet has gone through huge climate changes in it's history, homo sapiens has never previously been in a position to affect such changes.

    Greg
    Umm... well starting with your last paragraph I'm afraid that's not true... Both Antarctic AND Arctic sea ice levels are increasing. See Here and Here Now, whereas some scientists would claim that the Antractic increase is due to the effects of the hole in the ozone there is no reasonoble explanation for the Arctic sea ice increase other than Global climate cooling. The latter in particular shows how by changing the method of measurement changes the results you want to show.. Which again highlights the whole issue regarding the Climate change debate and how the raw data can be interpreted to show anything you want it to..

    This brings me to the rest of your post, and yes it is of course sensible to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because we are going to run out of them soon - and that's the reason why we should reduce their usage and not because of the lie that's been perpetrated by politicians and scientists regarding Global man made climate change.

    If we do nothing, levels of anthropogenic CO2 will naturally reduce anyway as we have to seek alternative forms of energy because of the fossil fuel reserve problem. In addition a number of scientists are already working on alternative artificial CO2 sink solutions which will also help solve the problem (assuming one believes it to be a problem in the first place).

    So, in my mind there is no real proof of Global Climate change being man made at all and yet we are spending billions of dollars a year on it on the basis that it might be a potential problem. And yet for a fact we KNOW that one third of the World's population does not have access to adequate sanitation facilities and that in excess of 1 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. This means that over 5,000 children are dying EACH DAY from simple diarrhoeal diseases and almost 90% of those deaths are caused by inadequate water and sanitation.

    If you then add in that around 7.6 million people die of cancer each year you really have to stand back and ask: is it reasonoble to spend so much money on a threat that isn't even proven and on protecting a future problem that may well resolve itself anyway (assuming there is even a problem that exists that we can control in the first place) when we are fully aware of problems that currently exist and that kill millions upon millions of people each year that could be alleviated by a dramatic increase in funding...

    I'm sorry madam but your child has to die because Global tempreatures are cooling and we just have to spend another $50 billion dollars on stopping increases in man made CO2 in case they start to rise again... Ooops, sorry, brain tumour... can't deal with that we're concerned that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is still there when we said it was collapsing in 1999...

  20. #80
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Much the same as you ignored the substance of my reply? The key difference is, I did directly address the claim you've chosen to repeat. Here's a suggestion - try to counter my refutation rather than ignoring it..
    Here's a suggestion: rather than taking a statement in isolation as you have done, and again below (you'll notice that you have again cut off the comments that provide an explantion for the statement..) why not try addressing the whole statement? Clue: a paragraph denotes connected material..

    As regards your originally 'refutation' I chose to ignore it because it wasn't relevant. By ignoring the context of my statement within the connected material in the paragraph you gave an example of a primary compound and it's significance in the human body, whereas that is not what I was referring to - I was not referring to a primary compound in the Earth's atmosphere that controlled climatic changes exclusively because CO2 manifestly doesn't.

    Think of it like this. A drunk smashes up his car because he was swerving to miss a cat sitting in the middle of the road. What's the primary cause of the crash? The cat, or the fact that the man was so p1ssed that he didn't notice the cat until the last minute?

    Same here: Water vapour and water droplets that constitute cloud cover is estimated to have a 90-95% effect on Global temperatures - CO2 represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Which do you think is the primary cause of Global temperature change? I'm not saying that CO2 has no effect - what I'm saying that it's effect is dwarfed by much larger agents.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    .. A 10 year levelling does not allow one to logically conclude that global warming is not happening - the graph below might be illustrative.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.svg

    Of course, if one has already presupposed that global warming is not happening (because they think it's ridiculous), then they're likely to interpret the last 10 years as supporting their ridicule. Fortunately, logic is stronger than that..
    I've not said Global warming has never occurred, because it has. What I have said is there is no proof of Global man made warming via anthropogenic CO2 - and you're chart is very useful because it again proves this. You'll note during the post war industrial cycle when anthropogenic CO2 was obviously increasing that Global temperatures decreased. You're chart also shows that despite the most dramatic period of increase in anthropogenic CO2 during the last 10 years that Global temperatures have also cooled again. So logic must dictate that man made CO2 is NOT the driver of Global temperature increases...

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Anyway, there's never been a point in arguing with you. Mostly because arguments work with logic, not with supposition. I feel confident you'll ignore the logical arguments here... mostly because you've already completely ignored them once .
    Provide me with a logical argument and one that isn't just based on cutting out the statements in my post which validate my logic and we'll see...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Change of username request
    By Kathleen in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th-May-2008, 09:28 PM
  2. how do I change my user name
    By ray.ferreday@talk in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24th-April-2008, 02:11 PM
  3. SUNDAY HERALD - Change Your Life in 80 Ways
    By Sandy in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd-January-2003, 12:29 AM
  4. Swing Sunday Xmas Party - change of venue
    By Lindsay in forum Social events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th-December-2002, 09:27 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •