been reading and watching loads over the past 2-3 years about so called man made global warming..complete bollox.. money grabing con im afraid...
global warming is bullshit..
global warming is bullshit..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html
been reading and watching loads over the past 2-3 years about so called man made global warming..complete bollox.. money grabing con im afraid...
been reading and watching loads over the past 2-3 years about so called man made global warming..complete bollox.. money grabing con im afraid...
proper geezer AVE IT init
Re: global warming is bullshit..
If you had posted a reputable source (i.e. not the daily mail) I would of given you the benefit of the doubt.
Quotes various bits of research with no links for anyone to check them nor their names to be able to find them. Worthless "journalism".
Quotes various bits of research with no links for anyone to check them nor their names to be able to find them. Worthless "journalism".
-
NItro{IRE}
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2008 7:22 pm
- Location: Dublin /Ireland the land of an calline baine
Re: global warming is bullshit..
just watch top gear its what clarkson has been talking about for years!
Re: global warming is bullshit..
Couldnt agree moreskeletor wrote:If you had posted a reputable source (i.e. not the daily mail) I would of given you the benefit of the doubt.
Quotes various bits of research with no links for anyone to check them nor their names to be able to find them. Worthless "journalism".
Re: global warming is bullshit..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152542.htm
That's a proper bit of journalism with notes on the journal that the info came from.
The result in the increase in CO2 from human activities is increasing the acidity of water in the oceans. As this goes on the oceans become less effective at retaining the carbon which is going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a lot quicker. And that isn't taking in to account the damage that will happen to the coral reef.
According to data from ice cores, the fastest CO2 levels have risen in the past 800,000 years is 10 ppm over a period of 1,000 years. Recently, it has risen over 100 ppm in the past couple hundred years. CO2 levels have increased roughly 40% since humans started spewing enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That's a proper bit of journalism with notes on the journal that the info came from.
The result in the increase in CO2 from human activities is increasing the acidity of water in the oceans. As this goes on the oceans become less effective at retaining the carbon which is going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a lot quicker. And that isn't taking in to account the damage that will happen to the coral reef.
According to data from ice cores, the fastest CO2 levels have risen in the past 800,000 years is 10 ppm over a period of 1,000 years. Recently, it has risen over 100 ppm in the past couple hundred years. CO2 levels have increased roughly 40% since humans started spewing enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Re: global warming is bullshit..
well it was nasa who are claiming it not the daily mail.. i doubt even they would make that up..If you had posted a reputable source (i.e. not the daily mail)
as far as the man made C02 raising temps or effecting anything else .. its all lies... in fact up to 1979 the world was getting colder... it was warmer in 1904 when cars ect were at a minimum...
further more after the second world war when america went into mega drive and produced millions of cars/home apliances.. if co2 was going to warm things up. it would have happened then.. but it still got colder..
way back in the middle ages ..before eleci..cars ect.. the earthj was far warmer than it is now.. to the point were they grew grapes in vinyards in london..hence the name "vine street"
there is no scientific link between co2 emissions and warming temps.. man made or otherwise..
did you know the climate change debate came about because in the 1980s margret thatcher was so paraniod about gas supplies from russia (cold war times then ) and coal supplies bieng stoped by the miners strike at the time she wanted to promote nuclier power... so she set up a commitee on climate change..to make it look like it was a greener way forward.... it quickly escalated out of control..
all scientist could not get funding for work unless climate change was mentioned in criteria...
they can not admit the truth simply because there is so many jobs and money invested worldwide to do with climate change (not to mention futre tax revenue for the gov) that it would cause a massive global crisis.... imagine if overnight your job was rendered usless because it was fake
shall i go on...trust me i have looked into this alot... it wasnt the daily mail that changed my mind...there is also a couple of docs called.. "not evil..just wrong" and another i cant remeber you can dowload..
the earth warms and cools down over year because of solar activity... the more solar activity the warmer it is... ever seen those wood cut pictures of the thames in the 1600s it froze over then.. it was because there was very low solar activity....
a scientist who is expert on it has a bet with ladbrooks that he can predict the weather better than the met office wins everytime.... he has the winning cheques all over his office wall as proof..
global warming in not man made, there is no proof of it.. ITS IS A MONEY GRABBING SCAM
proper geezer AVE IT init
Re: global warming is bullshit..
watch that doc.. thats the one sry not the other one mentions.. iahvent seen the all gore one as it goes.
proper geezer AVE IT init
Re: global warming is bullshit..
Ahem - http://climate.nasa.gov/sparksy wrote:well it was nasa who are claiming it not the daily mail.. i doubt even they would make that up..If you had posted a reputable source (i.e. not the daily mail)
Nuclear power would be a much better way forward than coal and gas but people fear it due to various avoidable meltdowns.sparksy wrote:did you know the climate change debate came about because in the 1980s margret thatcher was so paraniod about gas supplies from russia (cold war times then ) and coal supplies bieng stoped by the miners strike at the time she wanted to promote nuclier power... so she set up a commitee on climate change..to make it look like it was a greener way forward.... it quickly escalated out of control..
If you are for or against and are working to find out what, you will have to mention climate change either way.sparksy wrote:all scientist could not get funding for work unless climate change was mentioned in criteria...
And the argument that they are getting loads of money is ill informed. The people who generally look in to this sort of thing (through all the statistics etc) can get extremely large sums of money doing other monotomous jobs involving statistics. The climate is not a way for a scientist to get money, lobbyists maybe, not scientists.
A skeptic called Richard Muller started a project called BerkeleyEarth to show that all the NASA and NOAA data was wrong on the warming temperatures. Upon publishing his results he admitted that he was wrong.
It was in fact getting cooler from 1940 to 1979. 1979 then saw the start of the fastest average rise of temperature that has been recorded since 1810.sparksy wrote:in fact up to 1979 the world was getting colder... it was warmer in 1904 when cars ect were at a minimum...
On a slightly unrelated note, the universities of Leeds and York co-published some research that has shown that pollution travelling across the Atlantic from the US has caused a drop in wheat production across Europe (around 1% of total possible output). I haven't read the full report so I don't know what they are citing as the problem.
Re: global warming is bullshit..
It was in fact getting cooler from 1940 to 1979. 1979 then saw the start of the fastest average rise of temperature that has been recorded since 1810.
but it should have got warmer from 1900 to 1979 not cooler... if c0s is linked to earths temp rising.. not after 1979
even jonny ball.. the bbc kids presenter got booed off a stage because he said the evidence is false.. science should be based on findings not speculation... he said or something.. he got slow hand clapped of the stage
proper geezer AVE IT init
Re: global warming is bullshit..
Scientific findings are to be sent out for peer review (where other scientists read through the data provided and the methodology) and if they all agree that everything that needs to be looked at has been looked at, it will be sent out to be published in one of the many scientific journals. Some journals are a lot stricter and will apply their own peer review before publishing it in their journal where as others are happy just to have stuff coming in.
But there are a lot of cases where either draft findings are publish prior to peer review which is then picked up my the media and blown out of proportion before peer review has even taken place. This has happened numerous times and a reasonably big one recently where someone published a press release which some news outlets published articles about even though the original press release was a load of bullshit and there had been no peer review at all.
As for the temperatures, they will go up and down slightly, that is a given. The difference between 1940-1979 and 1979-2010 is that 1940-1979 is a very gradual small decline whereas 1979-2010 is a pretty steep incline.
This is from the Berkely Earth findings (albeit they haven't been approved through peer review yet, but they do echo the same findings of NASA and NOAA).
Result of the Berkeley Average Methodology applied to the GHCN monthly data. Top plot shows a 12-month land-only moving average and associated 95% uncertainty from statistical and spatial factors. The lower plot shows a corresponding 10-year land-only moving average and 95% uncertainty. This plot corresponds to the parameter in Equation 5. Our plotting convention is to place each value at the middle of the time interval it represents. For example, the 1991-2000 average in the decadal plot is shown at 1995.5.
But there are a lot of cases where either draft findings are publish prior to peer review which is then picked up my the media and blown out of proportion before peer review has even taken place. This has happened numerous times and a reasonably big one recently where someone published a press release which some news outlets published articles about even though the original press release was a load of bullshit and there had been no peer review at all.
As for the temperatures, they will go up and down slightly, that is a given. The difference between 1940-1979 and 1979-2010 is that 1940-1979 is a very gradual small decline whereas 1979-2010 is a pretty steep incline.
This is from the Berkely Earth findings (albeit they haven't been approved through peer review yet, but they do echo the same findings of NASA and NOAA).
Result of the Berkeley Average Methodology applied to the GHCN monthly data. Top plot shows a 12-month land-only moving average and associated 95% uncertainty from statistical and spatial factors. The lower plot shows a corresponding 10-year land-only moving average and 95% uncertainty. This plot corresponds to the parameter in Equation 5. Our plotting convention is to place each value at the middle of the time interval it represents. For example, the 1991-2000 average in the decadal plot is shown at 1995.5.