dune Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 Why don't you go away and actually do some reading on the 'theory'. It is entirely predictable that an overall warming effect can cause such cold spells, they can be induced by changes in trans-oceanic currents that are caused by heat absorbtion by the sea. Historically, Britain's climate has been out of phase with the continent due to the warming effect of the trans-Atlantic currents, we have generally warmer winters than our neighbours. As these currents change course, and use a more southerly track, we come more into the influence of colder northern waters drawn down from the Arctic. ROFL. You lefties really do take the biscuit. We were suposedly entering a new ice age in the 1970's, but now a full 40 years on (eons in geololical terms ) we're all doomed by global warming. But just incase you lot have got it wrong again there's the latest treehuggers "get out of jail card" - That Global warming makes it colder!!!! Welcome to the wacky world of the Socialists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 I do find people's reasoning baffling when they point to a few weeks of cold weather and say that is evidence of a lack of global warming. I suppose I ought to mention to them that there is a southern hemisphere to the Earth. At this moment in time it is going into it's summer period, just as we are hitting our winter. There is of course, a thermal lag, which means that the hottest and coldest weeks occur well after the longest and shortest days respectively. Given that the years of the last decade or more have globally been amongst the hottest since records began, it is reasonable to suggest that however low the temperatures reach in the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere will make up for overall, at this time. And so it goes at other times of the year. This is why an examination and understanding of the Earth's Heat/Energy Budget is so important. There are variations in response of the Earth, to balance out the energy, but it will happen eventually. So don't worry about a bit of cold or heat, here or there. It's the rise in overall energy that needs to be concentrated on. As it happens. this rise in energy is a fundamental driver of climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 at the end of the day, no matter what anyone says on this thread, snears at others or just disagrees... it is NOT fact that man is causing all this...for every scientist that says it is, there is one that says it isnt.. in the mean time we will just pay more tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 Given that the years of the last decade or more have globally been amongst the hottest since records began, it is reasonable to suggest that however low the temperatures reach in the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere will make up for overall, at this time. And so it goes at other times of the year. This is why an examination and understanding of the Earth's Heat/Energy Budget is so important. There are variations in response of the Earth, to balance out the energy, but it will happen eventually. So don't worry about a bit of cold or heat, here or there. It's the rise in overall energy that needs to be concentrated on. The last 9 or 10 years have seen no rise, rather a 0.7 degree drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 at the end of the day, no matter what anyone says on this thread, snears at others or just disagrees... it is NOT fact that man is causing all this...for every scientist that says it is, there is one that says it isnt.. in the mean time we will just pay more tax Well let's amend that slightly. It is NOT fact that man is causing all this. However the evidence is compelling, if disputable. ... for every 100 scientists that says it is, there is one that says it isn't.. in the mean time we will just pay more tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 The last 9 or 10 years have seen no rise, rather a 0.7 degree drop. The last decade OR MORE. Please read fully before you jump to your argument, WG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 (edited) see...I read you St L..then I look at the column in the link below and some peoples comments... No one is right OR wrong about it at the mo.... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100005946/at-last-man-made-climate-change-is-a-threat-engineered-by-the-global-warming-fanatics-themselves/ the thing that fuks me off is the FACT that whilst it is not a FACT either way, taxes exist out there is if it was a settled arguement the comment that makes me chukle the most... In November of 1703, Britain was hit by a massive storm; perhaps a tropical hurricane managed to make it all the way up the Gulf Stream at full strength. At the time, it was attributed to the wrath of God. Such an event now (and I do NOT wish to see it repeated) would be attributed to the wrath of Gaia by the warmists. Neither is correct. It was a natural event. If it were to happen now, it would be a natural event–unusual, but natural http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm#q=%22United+States%22&seek=394.089 Edited 24 December, 2009 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 ROFL. You lefties really do take the biscuit. We were suposedly entering a new ice age in the 1970's, but now a full 40 years on (eons in geololical terms ) we're all doomed by global warming. But just incase you lot have got it wrong again there's the latest treehuggers "get out of jail card" - That Global warming makes it colder!!!! Welcome to the wacky world of the Socialists. Stick your head back in your dune !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 the thing that fuks me off is the FACT that whilst it is not a FACT either way, taxes exist out there is if it was a settled arguement There are only 2 things that are certain, and taxes are one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 There are only 2 things that are certain, and taxes are one of them indeed.... to be fair, I am not here or there on the whole climate change issue I know one thing though, if it was as serious and for real as we are told, then the recent meetings in Denmark would have been far more fruitful than they were...there are reports that highly experienced scientists who denied the extent of man made climate change were banned from attending... Have no idea if that is true or not.... if it was real and as serious as we are told..then why can I still buy bananas in a plastic packet as well as many other utterly pointless packaging all over the place...seems (to me) that WE are footing the bill to help dig the country out of the sorry mess it is in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 see...I read you St L..then I look at the column in the link below and some peoples comments... No one is right OR wrong about it at the mo.... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100005946/at-last-man-made-climate-change-is-a-threat-engineered-by-the-global-warming-fanatics-themselves/ the thing that fuks me off is the FACT that whilst it is not a FACT either way, taxes exist out there is if it was a settled arguement the comment that makes me chukle the most... http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm#q=%22United+States%22&seek=394.089 I think you'll find that taxes will go higher and higher. But will it be a fair proportion of your earnings..? In an overcrowded and aging population, who apparently demand a better standard of living with every following year, services have to be paid for. And yes, those environmental taxes have to be gathered as well, and they will be higher now, because they were never gathered in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 I think you'll find that taxes will go higher and higher. But will it be a fair proportion of your earnings..? In an overcrowded and aging population, who apparently demand a better standard of living with every following year, services have to be paid for. And yes, those environmental taxes have to be gathered as well, and they will be higher now, because they were never gathered in the past. sure...tax me for better services but dont cover it "green tax".. did you know that those flying to South Africa for the world cup next summer from the UK will have to pay £40 tax each way to offset their carbon foot print.. I mean..WTF..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 ...if it was real and as serious as we are told..then why can I still buy bananas in a plastic packet as well as many other utterly pointless packaging all over the place...seems (to me) that WE are footing the bill to help dig the country out of the sorry mess it is in... Completely agree. Why are vegetables and fruit unnecessarily packaged..? Why are they not just sold loose..? Well, one thing is that packaged vegetables and fruit can be sold at a premium compared to loose items. I buy freetrade bananas only, and they are invariably packaged in a polythene bag. And why are there rolls of plastic bags for the loose stuff when paper ones would be better for the environment..? Why must they be separately packaged at all..? In one of the very areas where people could see a major change in policy, that is, in the way that their necessary food is presented to them at the point of sale, the old order remains. Packaging literally generates more profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 sure...tax me for better services but dont cover it "green tax".. did you know that those flying to South Africa for the world cup next summer from the UK will have to pay £40 tax each way to offset their carbon foot print.. I mean..WTF..? Indeed. Where are all the planted trees going to go..? That's the bollix part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 if it was real and as serious as we are told..then why can I still buy bananas in a plastic packet as well as many other utterly pointless packaging all over the place...seems (to me) that WE are footing the bill to help dig the country out of the sorry mess it is in... Would that be the mess the bankers helped to get us into ? On the subject of packaging, why do I have to throw so much that is marked as recyclable into the general rubbish, because the council picks out those types of plastic it will accept ? If it can be recycled, bl00dy well recycle it ! :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 (edited) Cold snaps can be predicted by global warming theory, and changes in their frequency, severity, and location, lend support to the general theory; http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-01-14-voa5-68761472.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/20/global-warming-copenhagen-snow-storm-blizzard-extreme-weather/ http://www.examiner.com/x-558-Congress-Examiner~y2009m12d15-Does-cold-weather-disprove-global-warming-No-says-common-sense http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=cold-winter-doesnt-mean-global-warm-2009-02-12 PS, love the bit in the Examiner article which pinches St G's 'sheeple' phrase and turns it on the 'anti's Edited 24 December, 2009 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 The reason people don't like global warming protagonists is because of the fact that the debate is, largely, zealous. Where there are zealouts there are usually the ignorant, the agenda driven, the gullible, the misinformed and the devious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 Where there are zealouts there are usually the ignorant, the agenda driven, the gullible, the misinformed and the devious. That's one way of describing SG and Dune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 24 December, 2009 Share Posted 24 December, 2009 The reason people don't like global warming protagonists is because of the fact that the debate is, largely, zealous. Where there are zealouts there are usually the ignorant, the agenda driven, the gullible, the misinformed and the devious. Quite frankly, few if any of us on here is qualified to judge the rights and wrongs of the climate change debate. It is essentially a technical debate conducted most properly by atmospheric chemists and the like. But in any case, the argument about whether climate change is real or imagined is way too narrow. The atmospheric consequences of CO2 emissions aren’t the only issue here. Carbon-based energy is a finite resource. Coal, oil and gas are all running out, and by some reports faster than we are allowed to believe. Therefore the economies that are the least dependent on non-renewable energy sources will have a huge international advantage. It makes sense on economic grounds alone to invest heavily in renewable energy, so that when the supply crunch comes, the lights will still be on. But it’s not just about economics either. Countries that are independent of suppliers of carbon energy are also independent of pressure from those suppliers. So when Russia, for example, threatens the whole of Europe by cutting off gas supplies, we should take this seriously enough to remove Russia from the equation altogether. Or when Saudi Arabia, or some other part of OPEC, decides to exercise its muscle against the West, we can tell them to get lost. Independence from these energy monsters gives us a huge geo-political advantage. Or to put it more starkly, by reducing our dependence on Saudi oil, we are also reducing our indirect funding of terrorism – because there is no doubt that oil revenues in Saudi have driven a huge export of Wahhabi extremism, which in turn led directly to Al Qaeda. But there’s a third reason we should push for renewables and the reduction of our addiction to carbon: it drives technological innovation. One of the small pleasures of watching posters like St George pose on here as defenders of the land of the free is that he represents a point of view – quite strong in the US – that will enfeeble the US to Europe’s advantage. There’s a precedent for this. After the shock of the oil crisis of the early 1970s, when Saudi and OPEC ‘punished’ the West for its support of Israel of the war in 1973, the US and Europe resolved to massively reduce its dependence on oil imported from Arab countries. One of the most effective ways of doing this was to force the car industry to produce smaller cars with more efficient, less petrol thirsty engines. In Europe and Japan, mpg rates improved substantially, as car makers found ever more ingenious ways to squeeze more energy out of smaller, more economical, yet more powerful engines. In the US, by contrast, the hugely powerful carmakers went into lobbying overdrive to prevent this. The result? President Carter’s regulations designed to compete with the Europeans for efficiency savings were torn up by the incoming President Reagan. Reagan also, incidentally had solar panels at the White House torn off the roof, and he cut the Federal renewable energy budget by a staggering 85%. One of the more striking consequences of this vandalism is that American carmakers became the dinosaurs of the world automotive industry. Whereas the Japanese and the Europeans would meet efficiency standards and produce innovative cars that would erode American markets, the US carmakers continued with the hopelessly complacent attitude that they could carry on as before. Result? Crap American car sales dwindled in the US against foreign competition – and regulation elsewhere meant that American cars were generally just too rubbish to export elsewhere. Efficiency targets and independence form carbon are great engines of innovation. If America wants to walk away from that, then fine! Although of course there are plenty of entrepreneurs in the US who see the writing on the wall, let’s just hope that the innovation Neanderthals, so ineptly represented by St George and his mini-me, win the day. All the more for us. And we, unlike these Neanderthals, won’t be inadvertently perpetuating the revenue stream for Al Qeada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 25 December, 2009 Share Posted 25 December, 2009 Referring to the above, I think it's about time we had a separate thread about resource depletion. Probably another one about global population as well, because although the threads, including this one, are inextricably linked, they have separate areas of discussion as well. I might start them, but feel free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 December, 2009 Share Posted 25 December, 2009 Climate Change is natural, here's 101 reasons why... http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 25 December, 2009 Share Posted 25 December, 2009 Climate Change is natural, here's 101 reasons why... http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138 Forgive me if I dont take the research of such a well respected newspaper as The Daily Express with any seriousness at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 25 December, 2009 Share Posted 25 December, 2009 Climate Change is natural, here's 101 reasons why... http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138 12 selected 'reasons why climate change is natural', as presented by the Daily Express.............. 49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions. 50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report. 51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required. 53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans. 55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting. 58 ) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country. 59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines. 60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years. 62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. 65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive Can St G or Dune please explain how these points PROVE their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 December, 2009 Share Posted 26 December, 2009 Either way it is not a fact that is it or is not natural Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 26 December, 2009 Share Posted 26 December, 2009 Either way and the taxes aside all this climate change is at least making mankind look seriously at how we treat the planet and it's resources - it's focused us into looking at improvements and effeciencies in producing power that up until now has been lazy and seen as a cash cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 26 December, 2009 Share Posted 26 December, 2009 Either way it is not a fact that is it or is not natural Either way, it depends on whether you want to listen to the science or not. The overwhelming - although not total - number of scientists who are climate chemists, physicists and biologists think the evidence is conclusive as to the general pattern. The overwhelming number of sceptics either aren't scientists or are not specialists in climatology. Or, as the Express proves, they are simply incapable of holding an intelligent argument. Given the stakes, which would you choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 27 December, 2009 Share Posted 27 December, 2009 Either way it is not a fact that is it or is not natural What percentage of scientists have to agree before you accept it as fact though? As it stands, if next year temperatures rocket and millions die in Africa, weather gets more and more extreme and half of the UK gets flooded - some people will continue saying it's natural, how can you prove otherwise? At some point you have to accept the scientific opinion, and virtually all the world's governments have done so despite the consequences being very expensive. Scientist are mainly in agreement that we are having an effect, there is obviously disagreements as to how much is human and there is very little consensus on what will happen in the future - that is the really scary part. If scientists like James Lovelock prove to be right then results could be catastrophic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 27 December, 2009 Share Posted 27 December, 2009 Referring to the above, I think it's about time we had a separate thread about resource depletion. Probably another one about global population as well, because although the threads, including this one, are inextricably linked, they have separate areas of discussion as well. I might start them, but feel free. heh, if you did, I think you'd find an unusual amount of agreement in threads like those....'Real' issues are far easier to address than fantasy ones You could even add 'pollution' too....That's another real issue that often gets thrown into the AGW hat by the alarmists, when they get desperate enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 27 December, 2009 Share Posted 27 December, 2009 heh, if you did, I think you'd find an unusual amount of agreement in threads like those....'Real' issues are far easier to address than fantasy ones You could even add 'pollution' too....That's another real issue that often gets thrown into the AGW hat by the alarmists, when they get desperate enough. HAHA!! The fact you put 'pollution' into inverted commas makes your point redundant. I will simply refer you to the state of the Yangtze River for example... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1802-yangtze-river-pollution-at-dangerous-levels.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/30/content_604228.htm I can't be arsed to go into the effects of pollution on the Yangtze River Dolphin if I'm honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 28 December, 2009 Share Posted 28 December, 2009 HAHA!! The fact you put 'pollution' into inverted commas makes your point redundant. I will simply refer you to the state of the Yangtze River for example... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1802-yangtze-river-pollution-at-dangerous-levels.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/30/content_604228.htm I can't be arsed to go into the effects of pollution on the Yangtze River Dolphin if I'm honest. Dont get your point.....I'm actualy highlighting that very type of pollution as a 'real' issue...The fact you chose to throw it into a thread on AGW kinda proves my point.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 28 December, 2009 Share Posted 28 December, 2009 Dont get your point.....I'm actualy highlighting that very type of pollution as a 'real' issue...The fact you chose to throw it into a thread on AGW kinda proves my point.. Where do you think that pollution comes from?! China's industry which is mostly powered by coal. The two are closely linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 29 December, 2009 Share Posted 29 December, 2009 Where do you think that pollution comes from?! China's industry which is mostly powered by coal. The two are closely linked. Man, that's like saying, you live in Britain, so you're likely to blow up a passenger plane!...whatever works i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 December, 2009 Share Posted 29 December, 2009 Man, that's like saying, you live in Britain, so you're likely to blow up a passenger plane!...whatever works i guess. Troll !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 29 December, 2009 Share Posted 29 December, 2009 Man, that's like saying, you live in Britain, so you're likely to blow up a passenger plane!...whatever works i guess. HAHAHAHA I think I love you St.George, you are quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 30 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 30 December, 2009 That effing socialist John Gummer is standing down as an MP at the next election so he can help climate change campaigners. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8434735.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 31 December, 2009 Share Posted 31 December, 2009 That effing socialist John Gummer is standing down as an MP at the next election so he can help climate change campaigners. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8434735.stm LOL...he took a peak at the latest 'Carbon' $$$$Billionaires$$$$ like Big Al and Randy Pachauri and decided he wanted a piece of the action too. Can't say i blame him though...If The Dim and Gullible feel the need to donate to their new found Religion, then someone needs to be there to collect the cash.....hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 31 December, 2009 Share Posted 31 December, 2009 LOL...he took a peak at the latest 'Carbon' $$$$Billionaires$$$$ like Big Al and Randy Pachauri and decided he wanted a piece of the action too. Can't say i blame him though...If The Dim and Gullible feel the need to donate to their new found Religion, then someone needs to be there to collect the cash.....hmmmm Do you know a Saint Scooby, by any chance..? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 5 January, 2010 Author Share Posted 5 January, 2010 This weather has brought some interesting power issues: * National Grid is asking power suppliers to purchase more wholesale electricity from coal-fired power stations and cut back on gas-fired electricity supply as demand for gas is so high. Good news if you have Drax shares! * However that it not a reason for St George to have a pop at renewables. DECC figures released yesterday show that in Q3 2009 39% more electricity was generated from wind than in Q3 2008 and that trend means that the UK is starting to take more of its power from renewables. Yes, fossil fuels are required as spinning reserve but that was always going to be the case. * Tory Energy Spokesman Greg Clark accused the government of ****ing stuff up and said that due to the unprecedented demand on gas "there is only 8 days gas supply left." Actually that is true at any time of the year as 8 days gas storage is all the physical storage capacity allows. This demonstrates Clark does not know his subject well enough and that there is a dire need for any government to increase gas storage supply by pushing schemes through planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 So what happened to the barbeque summer? And what happened to the mild winter? The Met office are now saying that long term predictions isn't an exact science. That's strange because their grasp on climate change and its causes is indisputeable. If you even dare to question MMGW you are a flat earther. So how many cold summers and arctic winters do we need for the socialist nutjobs to question man made global warming? Or is it simply a case of hanging on the word of Prudence Brown and his cronies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 So what happened to the barbeque summer? And what happened to the mild winter? The Met office are now saying that long term predictions isn't an exact science. That's strange because their grasp on climate change and its causes is indisputeable. If you even dare to question MMGW you are a flat earther. So how many cold summers and arctic winters do we need for the socialist nutjobs to question man made global warming? Or is it simply a case of hanging on the word of Prudence Brown and his cronies? Are you even sure you understand global warming? It has the OPPOSITE affect to 'what it says on the tin'. For example, the UK can expect many more frezing winters because as the world warms up from man made global warming, the ice caps melt. This in turn releases more fresh water into the sea which has/is/will continue to have an adverse effect on the gulf stream (which is what currently keeps Britain mild). I would buy some more thermals if I were you Dune. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 Are you even sure you understand global warming? It has the OPPOSITE affect to 'what it says on the tin'. For example, the UK can expect many more frezing winters because as the world warms up from man made global warming, the ice caps melt. This in turn releases more fresh water into the sea which has/is/will continue to have an adverse effect on the gulf stream (which is what currently keeps Britain mild). I would buy some more thermals if I were you Dune. HTH. but only a few years ago we were told we were going to get milder, wetter winters and the sights we saw in the early 60's were gone this seems not to be the case if these predictions can't be right, then why should we all believe right now that the end of the world is coming unless I pay my carbon footprint tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 A change in the weather doen't mean a change in the climate. However, there has been no global warming for 11 years now. They can't even explain El Niño so how anyone can predict what's happening I'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 A change in the weather doen't mean a change in the climate. However, there has been no global warming for 11 years now. They can't even explain El Niño so how anyone can predict what's happening I'll never know. And yet 2000-2009 has been the warmest decade in recorded history. How very odd. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 but only a few years ago we were told we were going to get milder, wetter winters and the sights we saw in the early 60's were gone this seems not to be the case if these predictions can't be right, then why should we all believe right now that the end of the world is coming unless I pay my carbon footprint tax Out of interest, how much is your carbon footprint tax bill for this year DD? I haven't received mine yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 And yet 2000-2009 has been the warmest decade in recorded history. How very odd. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate Exactly. Both statements come from the same sort of sources. It is all open to interpretation. Maybe the world has not got any warmer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 Out of interest, how much is your carbon footprint tax bill for this year DD? I haven't received mine yet. You must be paying extra for your petrol and how about all the levies on energy supplies? Then there is air passenger duty.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 Whilst this cold snap doesn't mean anything with regards to a warming climate, it does pose the question - Do we in the UK really care if the climate gets warmer? It is a selfish point of view but whilst millions could die in Africa, America and Asia, from what I've read there is a good chance we could be one of climate change's winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 You must be paying extra for your petrol and how about all the levies on energy supplies? Then there is air passenger duty.... my car tax is now banded on emissions when I went on holiday this year i'm sure I paid a levy for my carbon footprint oh yes, my local supermarket charge for carrier bags in the name of climate change.. Small that one I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 Exactly. Both statements come from the same sort of sources. It is all open to interpretation. Maybe the world has not got any warmer? I'm curious then - what was your source? The UN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 6 January, 2010 Share Posted 6 January, 2010 oh yes, my local supermarket charge for carrier bags in the name of cli ate change.. Small that one I know. To be fair, that isn't really to do with climate change - it's more to do with common ****ing sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now