Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[aintforever]

A brief summary here.

 

A good comment is this one related to the Times article, which may answer the point I think you are about to make:

 

To be fair, I think any creditability you may have had on this subject was lost with the mental breakdown/rant you had a while ago. The one when you told us how you didn’t give a **** about the environment because you like driving a big car and your offspring will have enough money to cope anyway.

[Sheaf Saint]

To be fair, I think any creditability you may have had on this subject was lost with the mental breakdown/rant you had a while ago. The one when you told us how you didn’t give a **** about the environment because you like driving a big car and your offspring will have enough money to cope anyway.

 

I would say that his credibility was blown when he copied and pasted a load of utter codsh!t from the website of the Association of British Drivers and tried to present it as proof that climate change is just a hoax.

 

Now he is citing the BBC as a data source when asked to support his claim of no warming for the last 15 years.

 

If he is true to form, he will shortly start hurling childish abusive insults at anyone who dares to produce evidence which shows how wrong his claims are.

[Guided Missile]

If he is true to form, he will shortly start hurling childish abusive insults at anyone who dares to produce evidence which shows how wrong his claims are.

Thank you for reading my post. I think it only fair to ask if you could post evidence that global temperatures have increased in a statistically valid way, over the past 15-20 years. I would be grateful for any information you have to allow me to reach a balanced view on this matter.

[Sheaf Saint]

Thank you for reading my post. I think it only fair to ask if you could post evidence that global temperatures have increased in a statistically valid way, over the past 15-20 years. I would be grateful for any information you have to allow me to reach a balanced view on this matter.

 

Certainly...

 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

 

Edit: Here's the NASA data in graph form...

 

Edited 20 September, 2017 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

Now if you could provide some verified data to support your claim, rather than just an unsubstantiated article from the BBC news, we can have a sensible, reasoned debate.

[Guided Missile]

Certainly...

 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

 

Edit: Here's the NASA data in graph form...

 

 

Global temperature varies by between -0.5 and +1.0 C over a 140 year period shocker....

[Sheaf Saint]

Global temperature varies by between -0.5 and +1.0 C over a 140 year period shocker....

 

So you can't provide any data to prove your assertion that there has been no warning over the last 15 years then. And instead start with the childish mocking, right on cue.

[Guided Missile]

I quite liked this paper, as well:

 

The following phrase from the executive summary of Ch 10. of the recent IPPC-2013 assessment (after stating that humans activities extremely likely caused more than half of the observed GMTA increase) might serve for summarising the actual situation: “Uncertainties in forcings and in climate models’ temperature responses to individual forcings, and difficulty in distinguishing the patterns of temperature response due to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings prevent a more precise quantification of the temperature changes attributable to greenhouse gases”.

Sounds like a slam dunk, scientific proof, then and a great reason to spend billions on trying to reduce CO2 levels from 0.04% down to 0.03%...

[Guided Missile]

This one's good:

 

All of the model simulations examined simulate multi-decadal warming in the Pacific over the past half-century that exceeds observed values. This difference cannot be fully explained by observed internal multi-decadal climate variability, even if allowance is made for an apparent tendency for models to underestimate internal multi-decadal variability in the Pacific. Models which simulate the greatest global warming over the past half-century also project warming that is among the highest of all models by the end of the twenty-first century, under both low and high greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Given that the same models are poorest in representing observed multi-decadal temperature change, confidence in the highest projections is reduced.

 

Now you're back on ignore, Bexy, because you're even more boring than I am...

[badgerx16]

This one's good:

Now you're back on ignore, Bexy, because you're even more boring than I am...

What point are you trying to make with that link ? This is the last part of the final summary:

 

"Further substantial warming over the twenty-first century is nevertheless projected in all the models under business as usual emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5; Figs. 1, 6respectively). If attention is restricted to models with more accurate simulations of recent multi-decadal temperature change then the resulting model ensemble has far fewer members exhibiting the highest warming levels in the late twenty-first century. The warming nevertheless remains much larger than warming to date, under both the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios (Table 1)."

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

I quite liked this paper, as well:

 

 

Sounds like a slam dunk, scientific proof, then and a great reason to spend billions on trying to reduce CO2 levels from 0.04% down to 0.03%...

 

Yes, I like it too. It appears to be a thoroughly well researched paper. Have you even read it? I ask because the study appears to prove the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make...

 

"Abstract

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing, and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.

 

Conclusions...

Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years. Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s. This provides an independent statistical confirmation of the results from process based modelling studies. Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data. However on very long time scales (800,000 years) the IF is only significant in the direction from air temperature to CO2. This supports the idea that the feedback of GHGs to temperature changes seems to be much slower than the fast response of temperature to changes in GHGs48.

 

The spatial explicit analysis strongly indicates that the increasing anthropogenic forcing is causing very differing effects regionally with some regions in the southern hemisphere showing large IF values. Regions of significant IF do coincide with regions having stronger than average recent warming trends. Our observational data-based study, therefore, not only provides complementary support for the results from global circulation modelling, but also calls for attention for further research in regions of increased sensitivity to the forcing resulting from anthropogenic activities."

 

If you think this piece offers "slam dunk, scientific proof" that the theory of AGW is false, then you are even stranger than I ever previously thought.

 

Edit: OK, I see now on re-reading that you were attempting to be sarcastic, and you highlighted a small section of a study that explained some uncertainties in the modelling system to show how flawed the research is. But you still completely ignored the fact that the conclusions drawn by the authors of the paper are in direct contradiction to your main argument.

Edited 21 September, 2017 by Sheaf Saint

[hutch]

What point are you trying to make with that link ? This is the last part of the final summary:

 

"Further substantial warming over the twenty-first century is nevertheless projected in all the models under business as usual emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5; Figs. 1, 6respectively). If attention is restricted to models with more accurate simulations of recent multi-decadal temperature change then the resulting model ensemble has far fewer members exhibiting the highest warming levels in the late twenty-first century. The warming nevertheless remains much larger than warming to date, under both the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios (Table 1)."

 

 

What precisely does business as usual mean?

[badgerx16]

What precisely does business as usual mean?

Carry on regardless.

[Sheaf Saint]

What precisely does business as usual mean?

 

Continuing with our current rate of emissions

[hutch]

So which is it then? And does that mean that everybody is pulling out of the Paris agreement, not just trump. And all that stuff about car manufacturers abandoning combustion engines in favour of electric vehicles is just fake news?

 

Or maybe it's just headline grabbing gobbledygook put out by researchers keen to keep their money tree fertilized.

[Sheaf Saint]

So which is it then? And does that mean that everybody is pulling out of the Paris agreement, not just trump. And all that stuff about car manufacturers abandoning combustion engines in favour of electric vehicles is just fake news?

 

Or maybe it's just headline grabbing gobbledygook put out by researchers keen to keep their money tree fertilized.

 

It's just a commonly used term to describe one of a number of possible future emissions baseline scenarios that are fed into computer models to make projections about possible future warming. Nobody is actually suggesting that we continue down that path (except, it seems, Trump and his friends in the oil industry).

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=286

 

1.3 For the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC, new climate change projections are based on a set of four new scenarios called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). As a set, these four RCPs span a range of assumptions about future controls on greenhouse gas (and other) emissions. The lowest RCP represents a very aggressive GHG mitigation scenario aimed at limiting global warming to about 2°C, while the highest RCP corresponds to minimal effort to reduce GHG emissions this century. This differentiates this set of scenarios from those used in previous IPCC assessment reports, which were ‘business-as-usual’ scenarios assuming no policies to address climate change.

Edited 21 September, 2017 by Sheaf Saint

[hutch]

It's just a commonly used term to describe one of a number of possible future emissions baseline scenarios that are fed into computer models to make projections about possible future warming. Nobody is actually suggesting that we continue down that path (except, it seems, Trump and his friends in the oil industry).

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=286

I agree with you, which removes any trace of validation of all the reports, studies, papers, blogs and opinions that use that as the basis of their 'projections'.

 

There is some good pertinent relevant worrying stuff to be said about climate change, but it is increasingly buried under barrowloads of populist shyte.

[Sheaf Saint]

I agree with you, which removes any trace of validation of all the reports, studies, papers, blogs and opinions that use that as the basis of their 'projections'.

 

There is some good pertinent relevant worrying stuff to be said about climate change, but it is increasingly buried under barrowloads of populist shyte.

 

It really doesn't. It's an essential tool when making projections because it gives us a frame of reference. How can climate scientists convince policy makers of the need for action if they can't show a valid projection of the consequences of inaction? They can't.

 

There are a number of examples of 'populist shyte' which cloud the issue (such as the constant harping on about polar bears) but the business as usual baseline scenario really isn't one of them.

[Sheaf Saint]

This is the level of stupid we are dealing with...

 

[badgerx16]

This is the level of stupid we are dealing with...

 

 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” ( Upton Sinclair ).

As well as being an advocate for the oil and mining industries, Wehrum has previously tried to use the powers of his Federal office to block California's Clean Air legislation.

[Guided Missile]

Finally, the ridiculous carbon emission based, global energy policy, as contained in the Paris Accord, has been killed stone dead by the US, China, Germany and now, Australia, as reported here. Hopefully the UK will learn something.

 

Following the US, Australia – whose biggest coal customer is China – has called the bluff of that delusion that a country can somehow replace fossil fuels with hopelessly weather-dependent renewables without doing irreparable damage to its economy. It is already clear that few European countries, least of all Germany, have any prospect of meeting their crippling “CO2 reduction targets” set by the EU for 2020 and beyond. Sweden is another country where the unreliability of wind power now threatens the survival of its “green” pro-renewables energy policy.

All of which leaves Britain locked into this delusion more than any other country in the world, committed by the Climate Change Act to precisely the suicidal energy policy Australia has firmly rejected. In recent windless weeks, we have repeatedly been drawing more than half our electricity from the gas our Government wants to see phased out; while only one per cent or less was coming from the windmills which are costing us billions a year in subsidies. If only we had a single politician with Mr Taylor’s (Australia's new Energy Minister) common sense to grasp the great black hole this is heading us for.

 

Another insane policy that Trump was right about...

[badgerx16]

Finally, the ridiculous carbon emission based, global energy policy, as contained in the Paris Accord, has been killed stone dead by the US, China, Germany and now, Australia, as reported here. Hopefully the UK will learn something.

 

 

 

Another insane policy that Trump was right about...

Putting short term monetary gain above longer term ecological damage. Typical narrow minded thinking; "I'm alright Jack, and I don't give a stuff about the prospects for my great-grandchildren".

[Window Cleaner]

Putting short term monetary gain above longer term ecological damage. Typical narrow minded thinking; "I'm alright Jack, and I don't give a stuff about the prospects for my great-grandchildren".

 

And yet despite Hollande and Fabius being the driving force behind the Paris agreement the French are already way way over the limit for CO2 etc this year and it's only September. It's OK driving through an agreement but telling people to not buy gas guzzling SUVs is something completely different. There are about 80 car owners in my village, at least half of them own Dacia Dustbins.

[Sheaf Saint]

Finally, the ridiculous carbon emission based, global energy policy, as contained in the Paris Accord, has been killed stone dead by the US, China, Germany and now, Australia, as reported here. Hopefully the UK will learn something.

 

 

 

Another insane policy that Trump was right about...

 

Still foolishly backing the wrong horse I see GM.

 

This was written by Christopher Booker, who has previously claimed that Passive smoking and asbestos present no danger whatsoever to human health. I can tell you just how wrong he is about the latter because my own stepfather recently died of an asbestos-related lung disease. He is also handsomely paid by the Heartland Institute to spread his pseudo-scientific nonsense about climate change, which means he has absolutely ZERO credibility on such matters. His books and articles can be so easily debunked (like this, for instance) that you would have to be completely scientifically illiterate to even consider being taken in by his arguments.

 

But then, I guess I should not be surprised about that by someone who once posted a load of copy and pasted b*ll*cks from the Association of British Drivers website as 'evidence' supporting your climate change position.

[Guided Missile]

Still foolishly backing the wrong horse I see GM.

 

This was written by Christopher Booker, who has previously claimed that Passive smoking and asbestos present no danger whatsoever to human health. I can tell you just how wrong he is about the latter because my own stepfather recently died of an asbestos-related lung disease. He is also handsomely paid by the Heartland Institute to spread his pseudo-scientific nonsense about climate change, which means he has absolutely ZERO credibility on such matters. His books and articles can be so easily debunked (like this, for instance) that you would have to be completely scientifically illiterate to even consider being taken in by his arguments.

Well done for completely missing the point of my post and resorting to an ad hominem argument. It had nothing to do with climate change, but everything to do with CO2 emissions and ridiculous policy decisions which have led to power cuts and expensive energy in Australia. I was quite proud of the post below, the point of which was obviously not lost on the US and Australian governments.

 

I quite liked this paper' date='[/url'] as well:

 

The following phrase from the executive summary of Ch 10. of the recent IPPC-2013 assessment (after stating that humans activities extremely likely caused more than half of the observed GMTA increase) might serve for summarising the actual situation: “Uncertainties in forcings and in climate models’ temperature responses to individual forcings, and difficulty in distinguishing the patterns of temperature response due to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings prevent a more precise quantification of the temperature changes attributable to greenhouse gases”.

Sounds like a slam dunk, scientific proof, then and a great reason to spend billions on trying to reduce CO2 levels from 0.04% down to 0.03%...

 

By the way, CO2 is not toxic to humans. Asbestos is, but is took a while for scientists to prove the link between the exposure, (as with the many dock workers, including my father-in-law, who unloaded shedloads of the stuff from ships), and a very slow developing illness. Haven't got a clue what the Association of British Drivers Paper is, you referred to. Maybe it is the one that persuaded Trump to pull out of the Paris accord.

 

Still, keep believing in windmills and solar panels. Take it from me. They are not the answer....

[Guided Missile]

Putting short term monetary gain above longer term ecological damage. Typical narrow minded thinking; "I'm alright Jack, and I don't give a stuff about the prospects for my great-grandchildren".

So, increased CO2 levels equates to "long term ecological damage". There was me thinking that increased levels of CO2 was good for plants. In fact, I'm thinking of buying one of these for my greenhouse.

 

"Spend billions on trying to reduce CO2 levels from 0.04% down to 0.03%" Absolutely mental...

[Guided Missile]

And yet despite Hollande and Fabius being the driving force behind the Paris agreement the French are already way way over the limit for CO2 etc this year and it's only September. It's OK driving through an agreement but telling people to not buy gas guzzling SUVs is something completely different. There are about 80 car owners in my village, at least half of them own Dacia Dustbins.

France has nothing on Germany, as this article from 2017 shows:

Germany Is a Coal-Burning, Gas-Guzzling Climate Change Hypocrite

Germany’s image as selfless defender of the climate, which was once largely deserved, is now a transparent fiction. Germany has fallen badly behind on its pledges to sink its own greenhouse gas pollutants. In fact, Germany’s carbon emissions haven’t declined for nearly a decade and the German Environment Agency calculated that Germany emitted 906 million tons of CO2 in 2016 — the highest in Europe — compared to 902 million in 2015. And 2017’s interim numbers suggest emissions are going to tick up again this year.

Germany is now in serious danger of hitting neither its 2020 nor its 2030 emissions targets, the very benchmarks that it browbeat other nations into adopting at previous climate conferences.

...and Merkel had the nerve to berate Trump for quitting the Paris accord...

[Sheaf Saint]

Well done for completely missing the point of my post and resorting to an ad hominem argument. It had nothing to do with climate change, but everything to do with CO2 emissions and ridiculous policy decisions which have led to power cuts and expensive energy in Australia.

 

But they haven't though. Booker is simply wrong.

 

Over the last ten years, South Australia has abandoned coal completely in favour of renewables, wholesale prices have gone down, and reliability has been improved with outage time reduced to 0.00004%, from 0.00032% last decade.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/04/angus-taylor-condemns-us-to-another-round-of-energy-stupidity

 

Still, keep believing in windmills and solar panels. Take it from me. They are not the answer....

 

This is not borne out by the facts. Booker claims that Sweden's energy policy is threatened by the unreliability of wind power, but this claim is completely false...

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/sweden-to-reach-its-2030-renewable-energy-target-this-year

 

You simply cannot believe a single word this man says when it comes to climate and energy.

[Sheaf Saint]

Haven't got a clue what the Association of British Drivers Paper is, you referred to.

 

No, of course you haven't. It isn't even a paper. It is just a load of rambling nonsense posted on their website which you once cited as 'evidence' to back up your arguments...

 

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?33291-Global-warming-really-is-happening-(well-duh!)&p=1885589#post1885589

[Sheaf Saint]

So, increased CO2 levels equates to "long term ecological damage". There was me thinking that increased levels of CO2 was good for plants.

 

I don't know why I continue to do this to myself, because I can already confidently predict how this is going to turn out, but I'll humour you for a moment...

 

Yes, of course CO2 is good for plants. Basic GCSE biology stuff, that - CO2 is an essential component of photosynthesis.

 

But, as I am sure someone with your knowledge and experience must be aware, plants - like all organisms - have a limited range of temperatures in which they can succeed/survive. So yes, a warming climate most certainly does lead to long term ecological damage, like desertification. Doesn't matter how much CO2 is in the air over the desert - nothing is gonna grow anyway.

 

Quite how anybody with the scientific background you claim to have can be so blind to such basic ideas like this is truly astonishing.

[aintforever]

I don't know why I continue to do this to myself, because I can already confidently predict how this is going to turn out, but I'll humour you for a moment...

 

Yes, of course CO2 is good for plants. Basic GCSE biology stuff, that - CO2 is an essential component of photosynthesis.

 

But, as I am sure someone with your knowledge and experience must be aware, plants - like all organisms - have a limited range of temperatures in which they can succeed/survive. So yes, a warming climate most certainly does lead to long term ecological damage, like desertification. Doesn't matter how much CO2 is in the air over the desert - nothing is gonna grow anyway.

 

Quite how anybody with the scientific background you claim to have can be so blind to such basic ideas like this is truly astonishing.

 

But to be fair, though it's no argument for ignoring climate change, in theory a warming climate will also be good for plants in areas that were previously too cold.

[Sheaf Saint]

But to be fair, though it's no argument for ignoring climate change, in theory a warming climate will also be good for plants in areas that were previously too cold.

 

While this is true, it also brings with it a whole host of other environmental problems. Expansion into areas that were previously unsuitable for cultivation means, among other things, building of new infrastructure and removal of existing vegetation, all of which has an adverse effect on biodiversity. Therefore, it still leads to long term ecological damage.

[badgerx16]

By the way, CO2 is not toxic to humans.

 

Err, yes it is, although technically it is an asphyxiant, and will suffocate you long before it reaches a high enough level to poison you.

Edited 5 September, 2018 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

Err, yes it is, although technically it is an asphyxiant, and will suffocate you long before it reaches a high enough level to poison you.

Jesus Christ Almighty.....

0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. You're an idiot.

[badgerx16]

Jesus Christ Almighty.....

0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. You're an idiot.

I assure you I am neither JC or an idiot. You stated that CO2 is not poisonous to humans, without clarifying with 'at normal atmospheric concentration'. Perhaps, to prevent your continuing to be a subject of ridicule, you shouldn't post sweeping, inaccurate, generalisations.

 

A helpful link for you, ( and anybody else who might be interested ); https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms

Edited 5 September, 2018 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

I assure you I am neither JC or an idiot. You stated that CO2 is not poisonous to humans, without clarifying with 'at normal atmospheric concentration'. Perhaps, to prevent your continuing to be a subject of ridicule, you shouldn't post sweeping, inaccurate, generalisations.

 

A helpful link for you, ( and anybody else who might be interested ); https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms

CO2 is a poison and comparable to asbestos?

Like I said, you're an idiot...

[Jonnyboy]

CO2 is a poison and comparable to asbestos?

Like I said, you're an idiot...

 

Everyone knows the poison is in the dose surely?

[badgerx16]

CO2 is a poison and comparable to asbestos?

Like I said, you're an idiot...

 

Show me where I compared CO2 to asbestos. There's only 1 idiot around here, and it isn't me -

"By the way, CO2 is not toxic to humans."

[badgerx16]

Everyone knows the poison is in the dose surely?

Not quite everyone, apparently.

[Sheaf Saint]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

 

Although the details of global warming were foreign to most people in the 1980s, among the few who had a better idea than most were the companies contributing the most to it. Despite scientific uncertainties, the bottom line was this: oil firms recognized that their products added CO2 to the atmosphere, understood that this would lead to warming, and calculated the likely consequences. And then they chose to accept those risks on our behalf, at our expense, and without our knowledge.

 

Hey deniers... why don't you tell us all again how the theory of AGW is just a massive conspiracy.

[OldNick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

 

imagine the furore if this happened now. The media would whip us into a frenzy.

Edited 23 September, 2018 by OldNick

[Jonnyboy]

This might be best read by some of our resident shy Trumpites:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=fb

[Guided Missile]

Like the "drones" at Gatwick, here's a report that marks the beginning of the end for the climate conmen. Well done Trump!

 

That mammoth UN climate conference in Poland may have opened with an apocalyptic warning by Sir David Attenborough that, unless we “act now” on global warming, we face “the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world”. But what followed over the next two weeks, despite the best efforts of the BBC and others to pretend otherwise, was that the 22,000 delegates gathered in Katowice achieved nothing at all.

 

What we have seen, of course, is that those “developing countries” have been free to power on, to the point where China and India are now not only the world’s first and third-highest emitters of CO₂ but intend, as they made clear in Paris, to carry on building hundreds more coal-fired power stations.

 

So, as we have seen, global emissions are continuing to rise and there is no way most of the rest of the world is any longer paying any more than lip-service to the Western world’s groupthink obsession with global warming. The UN and the West may continue to believe in their apocalyptic scare stories. But the rest of world is carrying on regardless.

 

The BBC may comfort itself with its make-believe that the rules are “key to the game”. But the real lesson of Katowice is that in reality the whole game is well and truly over. It’s time we all woke up to that fact.

 

And the comments from the uneducated rabble that also saw through #Project Fear?

 

The UK emits 1% of the worlds CO₂. We could close down the UK economy, kill everyone in the UK and still it would have virtually no impact at all on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

These carbon extremists are extraordinarily dangerous to civilisation.

 

AGW is the greatest scam of the past Century. Probably the biggest ever.

To think that mankind can affect Earth's climate is preposterous and completely arrogant. Global warming is a Natural Phenomenon and has be occurring since the Earth was formed .It is caused by our 'wobbling' orbit around the Sun, That is called Milankovitch Cycles which establish that once in 116000 years, the Earth is at its closest to the Sun. That actual period was about 7000 years ago and from now on, we are moving into the cycle which will make Earth colder. Much colder. So that means a lot to those that live long enough, Earth will enter a new Ice Age. Its over 50,000 years away but there will always be other climate cycles within those years. This explains why England was much warmer in Roman times than it is now. Neither Coal nor Oil had been discovered at that time. So what caused that warming? Cooking on an open fire?

 

Less than 4% of all the CO₂ released into the atmosphere is from human efforts.

 

Interesting as always, a fresh critical view of what really matters. Furthermore the BBC always criticises the UK's contribution. Consider electrical power generation from coal. China 75%. Germany 55% (still building new coal fired stations). USA 25% and dirty old UK around 8%.

 

AGW, the original Gatwick drone....

[Pamplemousse]