Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
Why appeal to consensus? Obviously diggin' up dem fossil fuels and releasing the lovely energy out of them is going to warm things up; it can't not, unless you suspend the law of the conservation of energy. It is the most hilarious indictment of the we-know-Ther-Science warmist dweebs that they never make this most obvious knockdown point in their own favour.
Even that isn't a given, the Earth radiates heat energy into space, if it didn't it would have burned to a crisp millennia ago from all the heat arriving from the sun. The amount of heat radiated by any body is proportional to the fourth power of it thermodynamic temperate, so if the world gets a little bit warmer, it radiates a lot more heat energy.
@Ishmael_X In theory, the log you are burning, is being mitigated by the growing of still live trees, Do you need something simpler, perhaps some nice pictures?
How does the burning of not of his log effect what those still growing trees do ?
@Ishmael_X Pumping extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will cause a result of one form or another. You are arguing about how much change it is making, not that it has no effect?
The 'greenhouse effect' on climate is what is under dispute. Your phrase of 'pumping extra greenhouse gas' assumes it is beyond dispute. CO2 is a very stable gas, so there is very little reason to jump to the conclusion that it has any measurable effect at all.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
You are obviously unaware that you are talking complete and utter bollocks - as you invariably do when the subject is climate change. 2014 was not the warmest year ever recorded no matter how many times you repeat that lie.
As I have pointed out to you many times before your knowledge of climate change and it's causes is laughably scant and you really should stop coming on here and making yourself look utterly foolish.
@Indigo I think the problem about heat radiating back out into space is the crux of the apostrophe. As with a greenhouse, the better the properties of the glass, the more heat is retained. They call it the "greenhouse" effect for some unfathomable reason.
@Indigo So, you are willing to bet against the odds at very poor value? No wonder the bookies love this site.
I remember watching Tomorrow's World in the 70's which assured us of parts of the UK being underwater by 2000 and whole islands disappearing in the West Indies. In reality what has happens is the high water mark has moved up some beaches a small number of millimetres, excuse me if I don't get any more excited about current predictions.
Mr. G, 18 year old Englishmen didn't choose for tuition fees to come about. Neither did 18 year old Frenchmen, who are not charged.
It's an indefensible approach, indicative of the currently unsustainable situation we have due to Labour's narrow-minded efforts to gerrymander itself a perpetual fiefdom.
Just one more thing that makes the next election so intriguing.
MD , I do agree but it is a Westminster issue , not an SNP issue. The English student can choose to reside in Scotland and get it free, the Scottish student cannot.
Can my kids still get free tuition in Scottish University if I get my kids Republic of Ireland passports (which as they have a grandparent born in Northern Ireland, I can)?
Paul, I am not sure but certainly worth looking into.
Paul, having looked at some university sites, it looks like all EU students , except England, Wales and Northern Ireland get fees paid. You would obviously need to read small print.
This was my point earlier, most of the EU institutions would charge Scottish students in excess of a thousand Euros per year, some considerably so.
Indigo, still a huge gulf from the €10K that Westminster levy
Maybe we should tell all those millions of people in the far east who burn charcoal for cooking purposes to stop..right away. Or another white bear might die. Eat uncooked and cold food you selfish barstewards.
Who cares. Whatever it is it isn't worth several trillion pounds to go a few percentage points towards possibly fixing (although no one will promise that spending that money will make any difference at all) when the effects caused by such a microscopic change in environment could be mitigated if not outright ignored for a fraction of the cost.
@Ishmael_X Pumping extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will cause a result of one form or another. You are arguing about how much change it is making, not that it has no effect?
If that effect is tiny, or at any rate insignificant compared to natural phenomena, there is a debate to be had as to whether the amount of money being spend on ineffectual rubbish like the Climate Change Act is really worth the damage to the economy, especially since all it is doing is off-shoring the pollution AND damaging our economy. There is also logically a debate as to whether spending trillions of pounds to make almost no difference to the temperature change even using optimistic models is a good use of resources or if mitigating the effects of that change would be rather more sensible.
I think there is a big green angle for UKIP on the off-shoring of pollution, if the argument can be distilled into simple enough terms. A party that argues for cheap fuel for businesses and citizens and putting environmental considerations on the back burner (as UKIP currently appears to do) is swimming against the established mindset of the vast majority of British people. The NEW information that we are actually just using carbon released elsewhere, especially if it can be shown that the result is actually a net increase in CO2 emissions, could be powerful.
@richardDodd Again, charcoal is theoretically carbon neutral, but only if it is grown and used sustainably. (A more immediate concern of theirs is deforestation)
Interesting watching the Austin Mitchell coverage on BBC News on BBC1.
Their headline at the start was 'Austin Mitchell claims a raving alcoholic sex paedophile could get elected in Grimsby'
When what he said was 'a raving alcoholic sex paedophile could get elected in Grimsby FOR LABOUR'
Totally changes the meaning and impact - doesn't it. Why not use the word Labour - when that is the story i.e. one party state safe seats. But then they couldn't bring themselves to use Labour when covering Rotherham either!
@Ishmael_X Pumping extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will cause a result of one form or another. You are arguing about how much change it is making, not that it has no effect?
If that effect is tiny, or at any rate insignificant compared to natural phenomena, there is a debate to be had as to whether the amount of money being spend on ineffectual rubbish like the Climate Change Act is really worth the damage to the economy, especially since all it is doing is off-shoring the pollution AND damaging our economy. There is also logically a debate as to whether spending trillions of pounds to make almost no difference to the temperature change even using optimistic models is a good use of resources or if mitigating the effects of that change would be rather more sensible.
I think there is a big green angle for UKIP on the off-shoring of pollution, if the argument can be distilled into simple enough terms. A party that argues for cheap fuel for businesses and citizens and putting environmental considerations on the back burner (as UKIP currently appears to do) is swimming against the established mindset of the vast majority of British people. The NEW information that we are actually just using carbon released elsewhere, especially if it can be shown that the result is actually a net increase in CO2 emissions, could be powerful.
Furthermore, they should introduce a new carbon measure, that took into account CO2 emissions released offshore due to British demands, and aim at getting that measure down, thus pleasing warmists, business people, and everyone in between.
The Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for 22nd Feb. 11 polls, total weighted sample 11,915
Lab 33.1% (-0.8) Con 32.1% (-0.3) UKIP 14.9% (+0.7) LD 8.0% (+0.5) Green 6.5% (+0.3)
* Lab lead down to 1.0% (-0.5) * Lab down, but also Tories down a touch. * LibDem lead over Greens 1.6% (+0.3) * UKIP recover ground from six month low last week * Greens recover a touch from their 2015 low last week
LibDems on their highest score since 12th October!
Just for a bit of fun, and to partially placate Mike:
Including Five YouGovs only: 33.5, 32.1, 14.9, 7.6, 6.6 = Lab lead 1.4 Including Six non-YouGovs only: 32.7, 32.1, 14.9, 8.5, 6.3 = Lab lead 0.6
@Ishmael_X Pumping extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will cause a result of one form or another. You are arguing about how much change it is making, not that it has no effect?
If that effect is tiny, or at any rate insignificant compared to natural phenomena, there is a debate to be had as to whether the amount of money being spend on ineffectual rubbish like the Climate Change Act is really worth the damage to the economy, especially since all it is doing is off-shoring the pollution AND damaging our economy. There is also logically a debate as to whether spending trillions of pounds to make almost no difference to the temperature change even using optimistic models is a good use of resources or if mitigating the effects of that change would be rather more sensible.
I think there is a big green angle for UKIP on the off-shoring of pollution, if the argument can be distilled into simple enough terms. A party that argues for cheap fuel for businesses and citizens and putting environmental considerations on the back burner (as UKIP currently appears to do) is swimming against the established mindset of the vast majority of British people. The NEW information that we are actually just using carbon released elsewhere, especially if it can be shown that the result is actually a net increase in CO2 emissions, could be powerful.
Furthermore, they should introduce a new carbon measure, that took into account CO2 emissions released offshore due to British demands, and aim at getting that measure down, thus pleasing warmists, business people, and everyone in between.
Except the voter who has to pay for more expensive goods. People are hypocrites, they want to get a warm feeling from seeming environmentally responsible, they want the environment around them to look nice, smell nice, and give the impression that it is being well looked after. They also want their cheap phones and computers built in China where they are building a new coal fired power station every week to keep up with the power demand. They don't want nasty polluting steel and aluminium foundries in their country, so they all get moved to developing countries, where lower standards of safety and pollution control means more actual pollution in the world, and cheap labour means they pay less for their consumer goods. I live in the third world, I see the other side of the coin.
Smarmeron To keep the water level down we should all drink more..or pee less..How many Islands have been overwhelmed by the sea recently..and how is the cull of Polar Bears going
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
I am really sorry I raised this, even in jest. Can we maybe now get back to questions on which there is a chance of a useful consensus such as: "would Ed Balls be a better or worse Chancellor than Gordon Brown?"
I am setting the bar incredibly low here but does he scrape over or not?
I am really sorry I raised this, even in jest. Can we maybe now get back to questions on which there is a chance of a useful consensus such as: "would Ed Balls be a better or worse Chancellor than Gordon Brown?"
I am setting the bar incredibly low here but does he scrape over or not?
Probably not, bearing in mind how close he was to Brown and how implicated he is in Brown's manifold and egregious errors.
I am really sorry I raised this, even in jest. Can we maybe now get back to questions on which there is a chance of a useful consensus such as: "would Ed Balls be a better or worse Chancellor than Gordon Brown?"
I am setting the bar incredibly low here but does he scrape over or not?
Probably not, bearing in mind how close he was to Brown and how implicated he is in Brown's manifold and egregious errors.
Yes, but he is not stupid. Might he have learned from those errors? And is this why he cannot find anything to agree on with the other Ed?
@Indigo So, you are willing to bet against the odds at very poor value? No wonder the bookies love this site.
I remember watching Tomorrow's World in the 70's which assured us of parts of the UK being underwater by 2000 and whole islands disappearing in the West Indies. In reality what has happens is the high water mark has moved up some beaches a small number of millimetres, excuse me if I don't get any more excited about current predictions.
It is only 4 years until LA is supposed to look like Bladerunner. They are going to have to get a move on with those Tyrell Corporation headquarters....
The part of me that would be happy enough to live in a cave, eat roots and berries and use seashells as currency is quite looking forward to the clusterfeck that would be an Ed Miliband government.
If anyone recently watched the programme about the secret life of four year olds.....
Sadly, I suspect I shall be deprived of the spectacle because the idea of caves, roots, berries and seashells scares the crap out of a significant slice of the population.
I am really sorry I raised this, even in jest. Can we maybe now get back to questions on which there is a chance of a useful consensus such as: "would Ed Balls be a better or worse Chancellor than Gordon Brown?"
I am setting the bar incredibly low here but does he scrape over or not?
Unfortunately, based on the "balance the books" nonsense Balls has been spewing, I highly doubt he will be anywhere near as successful as Brown in improving the nation's schools, hospitals and other public services.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
I guess you put in a bit of draught insulation those tin sheds can be mighty chilly
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
Mr. G, 18 year old Englishmen didn't choose for tuition fees to come about. Neither did 18 year old Frenchmen, who are not charged.
It's an indefensible approach, indicative of the currently unsustainable situation we have due to Labour's narrow-minded efforts to gerrymander itself a perpetual fiefdom.
Just one more thing that makes the next election so intriguing.
MD , I do agree but it is a Westminster issue , not an SNP issue. The English student can choose to reside in Scotland and get it free, the Scottish student cannot.
Can my kids still get free tuition in Scottish University if I get my kids Republic of Ireland passports (which as they have a grandparent born in Northern Ireland, I can)?
Paul, I am not sure but certainly worth looking into.
Paul, having looked at some university sites, it looks like all EU students , except England, Wales and Northern Ireland get fees paid. You would obviously need to read small print.
@Paul_Mid_Beds, do double check that. The NI students were using a loophole for a while which was stopped up relatively recently. I cannot remember if this affects your situation or not.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
If only he wasn't a Labour MP, then the tunbril & Tricoteuse would be waiting.
Can you imagine if a Tory had said there was no chance of the Tories losing a seat even though their candidates were Swiss bank-account owning, tax-evading, baby-eating, NHS-hospital closing, badger-gassing Masters of the local Hunt.
Although, we don't need to imagine. Because that is pretty much the reason to vote Labour in a nutshell...
Re Balls..Is there anyone on the Labour front bench who could actually take over..and please don't say Robot Reeves..she would scare the markets more than Balls..seems like EdM is stuck with him until it all turns tits up... should take about a month.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
The Reports from the IPCC have painted very different pictures of how the Earth might look in 20/50/100 years' time. They have not given a clear indication of how much key human services will change or on what timescale. And yet they continue to conclude, after a dozen revisions reflecting changing understanding of a complex climate model, the This Time We're Right (tm). They would be a lot more successful politically if they did not.
@Ishmael_X In theory, the log you are burning, is being mitigated by the growing of still live trees, Do you need something simpler, perhaps some nice pictures?
How does the carbon in the log know about the "still live trees"? Do the entwives tell it, or is this what Einstein called spooky action at a distance?
Actually the answer is that the life of a tree is short enough that you can net off the capture and re-release of carbon in growing and burning it to zero. You simply don't understand the arguments you advance.
Does anyone have any reasonably informed views on how far and how fast interest rates might rise if the markets really take against a Labour government?
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
@Morris_Dancer Speaking of death rays - have you seen Agent Carter? The next Marvel character to be brought to a TV show near you by ABC? It's much better than Supermodels of SHIELD. Hayley Atwell is excellent as Peggy Carter and not the stereotypical 1940s bad ass female. It takes a few shows to get into its stride, but I'm loving it by E5.
Imagine Gotham crossed with 007 multiplied by Nikita [the female who played the Russian vamp agent is a waitress with potential in this one]. It's getting 8.4 at IMDbimdb.com/title/tt3475734/?ref_=nv_sr_2
I am really sorry I raised this, even in jest. Can we maybe now get back to questions on which there is a chance of a useful consensus such as: "would Ed Balls be a better or worse Chancellor than Gordon Brown?"
I am setting the bar incredibly low here but does he scrape over or not?
Unfortunately, based on the "balance the books" nonsense Balls has been spewing, I highly doubt he will be anywhere near as successful as Brown in improving the nation's schools, hospitals and other public services.
Does that mean we don't have to pay ludicrous PFI rates that make Wonga seem interest free in comparison?
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Don't be silly. Given the amount of stuff humanity does like breathing, raising stuff to eat and burning stuff, it would be very odd indeed if it didn't affect the climate in some way. I am not pointing to any particular correlation, so I don't see your point at all.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Don't be silly. Given the amount of stuff humanity does like breathing, raising stuff to eat and burning stuff, it would be very odd indeed if it didn't affect the climate in some way. I am not pointing to any particular correlation, so I don't see your point at all.
Luckily we have only started breathing, eating and burning stuff recently or we would have all gone to hell in a handcart centuries ago.
Science is fine but it depends on facts. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas but the jump to "The earth is warming so we must spend a fortune to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide" is the problem. You may be aware of many of the confounding factors. The temperature data depends on accurate and reproducible sampling, on ensuring identical conditions to take the temperature and a knowledge of the variables involved - urbanisation, insulation, yearly variation for instance.
But let's assume the earth is warming. Do we assume that association is correlation? The earth has massive cycles anyway. There will always be an element of faith until we can predict.
I'll give you a facile example. We believe that sex education will reduce teenage pregnancies.
In the sixties, sex eduction was rudimentary; nowadays it's far more sophisticated, Obviously we can show that teenage pregnancies are much lower now, can't we?
Ah, you will say, the world has changed now, and the are many other variables, education is just one of them. True, but how many variables are there in climate change for the whole earth, and do we even know what they all are. A scientist always remains cautious.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Don't be silly. Given the amount of stuff humanity does like breathing, raising stuff to eat and burning stuff, it would be very odd indeed if it didn't affect the climate in some way. I am not pointing to any particular correlation, so I don't see your point at all.
Common sense says that it is likely that human activity has an affect on climate, but we have no idea how, what the mechanism is, or to what extent.
Climate has always changed through the earth's history - the ice ages, the fact that the UK climate was warmer in Roman times than it is now, the medieval cooling period etc - we have frankly no idea as to how or if human activity definitively affects the climate, with accurate measurements as to how and how much.
As the world was warmer in the past than it is now, we don't even know that warming slightly is necessarily bad.
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Good for you, but missing the point. It is pretty much certain that "man-made activity" is affecting the climate. The question is what if anything we can and should do about it.
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Don't be silly. Given the amount of stuff humanity does like breathing, raising stuff to eat and burning stuff, it would be very odd indeed if it didn't affect the climate in some way. I am not pointing to any particular correlation, so I don't see your point at all.
Luckily we have only started breathing, eating and burning stuff recently or we would have all gone to hell in a handcart centuries ago.
Find a graph showing human population growth over the last millennium. Google "industrial revolution". You really do play into the hands of the warmists when you make points like that.
Don't be silly. Given the amount of stuff humanity does like breathing, raising stuff to eat and burning stuff, it would be very odd indeed if it didn't affect the climate in some way. I am not pointing to any particular correlation, so I don't see your point at all.
It wouldn't be very odd at all, it would be a possibility. Just as us changing it is a possibility. The earth is an enormous ball in space, heated by an even more enormous ball in space. Changes in the Sun (for example) are obviously going to be many, many times more impactful than any activity of any flora and fauna upon the earth's surface.
My point is that just as house fires result in firemen, so periods of warming may result in an efflorescence of life - increased plant, human, and animal numbers and activity. Therefore the warming could well be a cause of increased CO2, not a result.
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Er, what? Your joke is that firemen cause housefires, whereas in reality housefires cause the presence of housefires.
So if that's an analogy for climate change, are you saying that scientists are wrong for thinking that CO2 emissions are causing climate change because actually it's climate change which is causing CO2 emissions?
Luckily we have only started breathing, eating and burning stuff recently or we would have all gone to hell in a handcart centuries ago.
Wait. I thought UKIP was of the view that we had gone to hell in a handcart.
Hi Robert, we had a bet on the lib Dems doing badly at the GE and I can't remember what it was.... Do you?
It was £20@11/2 ish me being the backer, using the money you had with me on ukip at the Wythenshawe by election. Might have been lib Dems to poll less than 8%?
No it isn't -any more than it's certain that firemen cause housefires, which surely should be the case, since they seem to coincide so strongly.
Er, what? Your joke is that firemen cause housefires, whereas in reality housefires cause the presence of housefires.
So if that's an analogy for climate change, are you saying that scientists are wrong for thinking that CO2 emissions are causing climate change because actually it's climate change which is causing CO2 emissions?
Precisely. And I'm not saying it's a fact, because how could I prove it, but I'm certainly saying it's a good working theory (and sadly not one I can claim I came up with).
A 200-year-old man works in the New York City Morgue trying to find a key to unlock the curse of his immortality.
That sounds just like a show from a few years ago called New Amsterdam, starring a pre Game of Thrones Nikolaj Costa-Waldau (Jaime Lannister), only in that one he was a detective, not a morgue worker.
I liked the concept well enough, only saw the pilot, so I'll probably give this new one a shot
I have no particular axe to grind on this (I believe that mankind is causing some global warming, but am skeptical that we can stop it and would be better planning to adapt).
Mr. L, that's why the solar death ray is so perfect. It uses natural light and brutally executes people in an environmentally sustainable and clean way.
.
I regret to say that it is snowing fairly heavily here at the moment so the case for radical cuts in carbon emissions is once again looking a tad unproven.
You are obviously unaware that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded globally and that January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
There is no doubt that the globe is anomously warm - the question is how much of the recent upward spike is due to man's activities. Consensus suggests that man is having a significant impact here.
Climate change is one of biggest challenges facing mankind - bury your heads in the sand if you wish but the facts speak for themselves...
No it wasn't and no it isn't no it doesn't and no it isn't.
In science, no-one is ever 100% certain of anything, not even the general theory of relativity. But it's highly likely that man-made activity is affecting the climate, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
The problem being of course that the warmists you put so much faith in do not follow the scientific method and certainly do not deserve to be called scientists.
Re the UKIP Councillor who I mentioned earlier for her racist comments who foolishly defended herself by saying 'I just said I don't like the way Negroes look which isn't racist it's just a question of aesthetics or something similar...........
Well I've just had lunch with some friends and one of the people at the lunch said "I'm going to see the heart man Simon Levy next week who's I've been told is the best in the business with the emphasis on business"
I found it amusing but in the new world of hyper sensitivity perhaps I shouldn't have smiled
Based on logic. Can you explain previous periods of warming? Obviously not man-made CO2.
Even on the site 'Skeptical Science' -a site whose entire purpose seems to be trying to 'debunk' alternative theories wherever they emerge, does not even manage to dispute the time lag, it just fudges the issue and tries to say the increased CO2 after warming further accelerated the warming -for which it gets something of a hosing from experts in the comments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Comments
So, you are willing to bet against the odds at very poor value?
No wonder the bookies love this site.
As I have pointed out to you many times before your knowledge of climate change and it's causes is laughably scant and you really should stop coming on here and making yourself look utterly foolish.
I think the problem about heat radiating back out into space is the crux of the apostrophe.
As with a greenhouse, the better the properties of the glass, the more heat is retained.
They call it the "greenhouse" effect for some unfathomable reason.
What is causing the water level to rise?
PCP's are even more stable. did they have an effect?
Again, charcoal is theoretically carbon neutral, but only if it is grown and used sustainably.
(A more immediate concern of theirs is deforestation)
Their headline at the start was 'Austin Mitchell claims a raving alcoholic sex paedophile could get elected in Grimsby'
When what he said was 'a raving alcoholic sex paedophile could get elected in Grimsby FOR LABOUR'
Totally changes the meaning and impact - doesn't it. Why not use the word Labour - when that is the story i.e. one party state safe seats. But then they couldn't bring themselves to use Labour when covering Rotherham either!
The Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for 22nd Feb.
11 polls, total weighted sample 11,915
Lab 33.1% (-0.8)
Con 32.1% (-0.3)
UKIP 14.9% (+0.7)
LD 8.0% (+0.5)
Green 6.5% (+0.3)
* Lab lead down to 1.0% (-0.5)
* Lab down, but also Tories down a touch.
* LibDem lead over Greens 1.6% (+0.3)
* UKIP recover ground from six month low last week
* Greens recover a touch from their 2015 low last week
LibDems on their highest score since 12th October!
Just for a bit of fun, and to partially placate Mike:
Including Five YouGovs only: 33.5, 32.1, 14.9, 7.6, 6.6 = Lab lead 1.4
Including Six non-YouGovs only: 32.7, 32.1, 14.9, 8.5, 6.3 = Lab lead 0.6
Was it all you were hoping for?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/569480545782145026
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/569481700058771457
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/569482684214468608
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/569483399511064577
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/569483039950180352
I am setting the bar incredibly low here but does he scrape over or not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31574817
If only he wasn't a Labour MP, then the tunbril & Tricoteuse would be waiting.
If anyone recently watched the programme about the secret life of four year olds.....
Sadly, I suspect I shall be deprived of the spectacle because the idea of caves, roots, berries and seashells scares the crap out of a significant slice of the population.
My local metorological station has warmed by about 1.2 degrees K since the 1960s. I downloaded the data from the Met.Office website and plotted a trend line on an Excel spreadsheet to check it for myself.
If politicians divide into those that believe in the scientific method and those that don't, I'll vote for the first group, thanks very much.
Although, we don't need to imagine. Because that is pretty much the reason to vote Labour in a nutshell...
Actually the answer is that the life of a tree is short enough that you can net off the capture and re-release of carbon in growing and burning it to zero. You simply don't understand the arguments you advance.
There, sorted.
http://www.nojam.com/at/ge2015
Imagine Gotham crossed with 007 multiplied by Nikita [the female who played the Russian vamp agent is a waitress with potential in this one]. It's getting 8.4 at IMDbimdb.com/title/tt3475734/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Excellent.
Science is fine but it depends on facts. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas but the jump to "The earth is warming so we must spend a fortune to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide"
is the problem. You may be aware of many of the confounding factors. The temperature data depends on accurate and reproducible sampling, on ensuring identical conditions to take the temperature and a knowledge of the variables involved - urbanisation, insulation, yearly variation for instance.
But let's assume the earth is warming. Do we assume that association is correlation? The earth has massive cycles anyway. There will always be an element of faith until we can predict.
I'll give you a facile example. We believe that sex education will reduce teenage pregnancies.
In the sixties, sex eduction was rudimentary; nowadays it's far more sophisticated, Obviously we can show that teenage pregnancies are much lower now, can't we?
Ah, you will say, the world has changed now, and the are many other variables, education is just one of them. True, but how many variables are there in climate change for the whole earth, and do we even know what they all are. A scientist always remains cautious.
Climate has always changed through the earth's history - the ice ages, the fact that the UK climate was warmer in Roman times than it is now, the medieval cooling period etc - we have frankly no idea as to how or if human activity definitively affects the climate, with accurate measurements as to how and how much.
As the world was warmer in the past than it is now, we don't even know that warming slightly is necessarily bad.
I don't think these shows are on UK TV yet.
My point is that just as house fires result in firemen, so periods of warming may result in an efflorescence of life - increased plant, human, and animal numbers and activity. Therefore the warming could well be a cause of increased CO2, not a result.
So if that's an analogy for climate change, are you saying that scientists are wrong for thinking that CO2 emissions are causing climate change because actually it's climate change which is causing CO2 emissions?
It was £20@11/2 ish me being the backer, using the money you had with me on ukip at the Wythenshawe by election. Might have been lib Dems to poll less than 8%?
I liked the concept well enough, only saw the pilot, so I'll probably give this new one a shot
Nonetheless I found this interesting: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21643059-earths-northernmost-sea-stirring-consequences-are-both-good-and
Well I've just had lunch with some friends and one of the people at the lunch said "I'm going to see the heart man Simon Levy next week who's I've been told is the best in the business with the emphasis on business"
I found it amusing but in the new world of hyper sensitivity perhaps I shouldn't have smiled
Even on the site 'Skeptical Science' -a site whose entire purpose seems to be trying to 'debunk' alternative theories wherever they emerge, does not even manage to dispute the time lag, it just fudges the issue and tries to say the increased CO2 after warming further accelerated the warming -for which it gets something of a hosing from experts in the comments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm