COP26

[Barry]

And with that you lose all credibility, . Melanie frigging Philips, .

Hardly a reliable  source.

Pick apart the content if you can. If the source has researched the subject and come up with some facts, speak against those "facts".
It's akin to those who lazily suggest everything the Daily Mail publishes is a lie. Please tell us what is false in what I posted.You can't can you?

[srb7677]

I can't wait for you to show how my facts are 'cank rubbish', what ever that is.

I had been drinking when I typed that. I meant crank rubbish.

You still have not offered up any convincing bona fides that can support your extraordinary assertion that you know better than most of the world's top scientists. Credentials please?

[srb7677]

Says Melanie Phillips.

And with that you lose all credibility, . Melanie frigging Philips, .

Hardly a reliable  source.

[Barry]

Contrary to current claims, extreme weather events aren't occurring more frequently. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and at most coastal locations this is primarily due to changes in land level associated with tectonics and land use.

The Antarctic interior recorded its coldest April-to-September this year since records began in 1957. It was also the station's second coldest winter (June, July and August) on record, with an average seasonal temperature 3.4 degrees C below the average for winter recorded from 1881-2010.

Climate change dogma holds that rising CO2 levels inescapably push up global temperatures. But these temperatures have actually been flat-lining for the past seven years. [highlight]Globally, it's actually cooler now than it was in 2015. This undermines the entire theory.[/highlight]

One of the world's most distinguished meteorologists, professor Richard Lindzen, has said that not only does the data show no trend towards extreme temperatures, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees there is no evident trend.

In a lecture in 2018, Lindzen said: "Some of the claims, such as those relating to weather extremes, contradict what both physical theory and empirical data show... An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct 'knowledge,' and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilisation".


Says Melanie Phillips.

Of course, the real reason behind it is:
an attempt to destroy the primacy of the west by rolling back capitalism.
Humans are not causing climate change. It has always changed and always will. If human beings think they can control the climate, they are truly deluded and arrogant.

[Nick]

You've looking at your graph upside down. Either that or it's one from Hal-Beitbart-Trump Research Inc.

Are you denying / disputing that CO2 has lagged temperature since the dawn of time? Or are you going to tell me that immediately after the Industrial Revolution the laws of physics changed and CO2 suddenly started taking the lead?

[HDQQ]

As for the sudden rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, it's like someone invented a much more sensitive way of measuring it overnight.

Bit of real science there, then! We're eagerly waiting to see the datasets that back up your game-changing discovery

If you look at Al Gore's famous hockey stick graph which was the cause of the panic around 20 years ago, the Earth has been cooling slowly since then.

You've looking at your graph upside down. Either that or it's one from Hal-Beitbart-Trump Research Inc.

[Nick]

They were still going on in the same way in the sixties until I left school.

If you look at Al Gore's famous hockey stick graph which was the cause of the panic around 20 years ago, the Earth has been cooling slowly since then.

See my signature.

You mean this one Barry? The one where you can see with the naked eye that CO2 lags temperature. Amazing how they don't use the CO2 and Temp fit like a glove graph any more.

As for the sudden rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, it's like someone invented a much more sensitive way of measuring it overnight.

[Nick]

[highlight]Your supposed facts are cank rubbish.[/highlight]

Here are some real ones...


Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Do you actually look at the links you post? There is not one single scientific fact proving AGL in the link. Please point to one within that link?

I can't wait for you to show how my facts are 'cank rubbish', what ever that is.

Not only can you post scientific proof that the Earths heating is man made, you cant disprove my points. Good job Steve, you get the waste of ink award for that.

[Barry]

I remember when I was about 9 yrs old in the mid 1950's being in a bit of a panic because the science told us that by the time I was 50 this country would be in the midst of an ice age and uninhabitable. I do worry about scientists.

They were still going on in the same way in the sixties until I left school.

If you look at Al Gore's famous hockey stick graph which was the cause of the panic around 20 years ago, the Earth has been cooling slowly since then.

See my signature. 

[T00ts]

Your supposed facts are cank rubbish.

Here are some real ones...


Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

I remember when I was about 9 yrs old in the mid 1950's being in a bit of a panic because the science told us that by the time I was 50 this country would be in the midst of an ice age and uninhabitable. I do worry about scientists.

[srb7677]

SO, I've spaced my facts out like ducks in a row, it should make it nice and easy for you to put your scientific point on every case.
Crack on!

Your supposed facts are cank rubbish.

Here are some real ones...


Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

[Nick]

SO, I've spaced my facts out like ducks in a row, it should make it nice and easy for you to put your scientific point on every case.
Crack on!

If additional CO2 in the upper atmosphere is causing the Earth to increase in temperature then it must be the greenhouse effect that is causing it. And if that is the case then it's the upper atmosphere that is trapping the heat so the warming would be seen in the upper atmosphere. But it's not, so how do you explain that?

1.

The Earth also uses a mechanism of closed loop control, whereby the effect of one thing increases, causes another thing which In turn dampens the first thing. A slight hysteresis occurs obviously.

2.

Are you trying to tell me that a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is being added to in total by all CO2 production on the Earth to the tune of 5%, of which man is producing 5% is causing the earths control to spiral? Man's 1/10000th of a percent is causing the warming of the Earth?

3.

Are you suggesting that the Earth, that has a wobble inside a wobble inside another wobble, orbiting a sun that has Sun spot cycles, that is orbiting around a galaxy, that is wizzing through space has no bearing whatsoever ever on how our climate changes?

4.

I agree, there is a strong correlation. Unfortunately for you it's the wrong way round, CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years, meaning CO2 is a product of temperature increase and not the driver.

Also, every time it rains CO2 is collected and taken either into the sea or deep underground and locked away in rocks

5.

CFC's were banned 20 years ago, yet this hole was at it's biggest in August last year and has now closed. I suppose that kind of science fits perfectly with your non-existent climate science.

The 2020 Antarctic ozone hole grew rapidly from mid-August and peaked at around 24.8 million square kilometres on 20 September 2020, spreading over most of the Antarctic continent.

6.

[srb7677]

I'm not the one everyone can see ducking the points presented to you.

It's dead easy Steve, someone presents a post containing supposed facts, you can either agree, post a point countering the fact or take the cop out knowing you have no  argument but still want to stick with scientists on the climate gravy train.

And you have nothing to offer except doubling down on your wholly unproven conspiracy theory about world scientists supposedly lying to us for money - the only basis upon which little old you claims to know more than them.

Sorry, but it is blatantly obvious to any rational mind that they are likely to know more than you. What is the basis of your extraordinary claim that you know more than the world's top scientists?

[Nick]

You have not presented any science. Merely statements that suggest you know better than the world's top scientists - an extraordiry claim requiring extraordinary evidence, otherwise you just look like an arrogant and deluded fool.

I'm not the one everyone can see ducking the points presented to you. 

It's dead easy Steve, someone presents a post containing supposed facts, you can either agree, post a point countering the fact or take the cop out knowing you have no  argument but still want to stick with scientists on the climate gravy train. 

[srb7677]

Im the one posting facts, you're just ducking every one.
If my science is so flaky it should be a piece of cake to pick it apart then!!

You have not presented any science. Merely statements that suggest you know better than the world's top scientists - an extraordiry claim requiring extraordinary evidence, otherwise you just look like an arrogant and deluded fool.