Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[dee-luded 2,959]

On 4/12/2015, 11:42:34, Wrecker45 said:

Choke - that was me and I don't believe it can be questioned that sattelites data is more reliable. The weather stations on the ground are " homogenised" the sattelite data is pure. 

ahh, there ya go, so a picture paints a 1000 words wrecka.   well an seeing is all you need to target something for de-struction, thats for sure;  but its more difficult to con-struct a multi story building, from just a photograph or sketch.

[Gator 17,332]

On 12/3/2015, 8:12:02, hardtack said:

Safe level of CO2 in atmosphere is 350 ppm - anything over is considered unsafe

Just exceeded 400ppm and remained above 400ppm for over one month for the first time in recorded history

Snip

 

Hardtack, I take issue with the premise that 400 ppm is “unsafe”.  Without greenhouse gases (CO2 and water vapour), Earth would be an ice planet without life.  Over the entire history of the planet, current levels of CO2 are at historically low levels.  Plants thrive at CO2 levels between 800 and 1,500 ppm.  20,000 years ago CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm and the planet teetered on the brink.  There was an ice age with CO2 levels in excess of 2,000 ppm and possibly as much as 8,000 ppm.    

 

=================================================

The benefits to humans of higher CO2 atmospheric levels:

Over the last 350 million years CO2 has varied by 10 fold, approximately 250 ppm to 2,500 ppm with an average level of 1,500 ppm. This average level happens to be the optimum level for plants, it seems by evolutionary design, and is the reason that this level of CO2 is used in greenhouses Since plants and animals evolved together it’s likely that humans also evolved to function best at some higher level.

However, at 380 ppm we are not far from the lower end of that 10-fold range. Because so many people benefit from enhanced levels of CO2, it appears that our present atmosphere is already lower than the minimum to which some people can adapt. Scientific studies and established medical practices leave no doubt that increased levels of CO2 help people with respiratory problems and, some time in our lives, that will include nearly every one of us.

Robert Chouinard, 24 Feb 09 http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm#RobertC

=================================================

Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ 

‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ 

‘Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science’ 

Washington, DC — Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.”  Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during today’s Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing entitled “Update on the Latest Global Warming Science.”  

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,”

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/in-the-news?ID=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437

=================================================

“Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question—too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin

http://canadafreepress.com/article/3490

=================================================

Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.

UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explains the crux of the entire global warming debate and rebuts the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.

“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets,”. It is not simply, not the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.

=================================================

Other analyses have shown CO2 loses any ‘warming’ impact as the levels increase. See: The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration – ’The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level’.

In February 2013, global warming activists were stunned by the retreat of one of their former UN scientists. Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of the UN IPCC, declared CO2”s “heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase.”  Bengtsson noted that global warming would not even be noticeable without modern instruments. “The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ — Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

http://www.geo.uu.se/news/2013/?tarContentId=428662&languageId=1

=================================================

Chris de Freitas revealed on May 1, 2009 that “warming and CO2 are not well correlated.” de Freitas added, “the effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect.” Dr. Chris de Freitas: ‘Current warm phase…is not unprecedented’ — ‘From the results of research to date, it appears the influence of increasing CO2 on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much’.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

=================================================

‘Temperature drives CO2’

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, former chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania,  spoke out in 2007 against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by Gore and others. Giegengack noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” (LINK) “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa,” Giegengack explained. “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2,” he added. (LINK) “The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It’s the temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the temperature,” he added.

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science-al-gore-is-a-greenhouse-gasbag/

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html

=================================================

Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller: ‘The Recent Temperature and CO2 Disconnect’ – Even going back ten centuries, there have been total disconnects between temperature and the CO2 impact, or lack thereof.  From 1000AD to 1800, over a period of relatively stable CO2 values that bounced around the 280ppm level, temperatures plummeted in the Little Ice Age (LIA) and then rebounded over a century later.  CO2 values neither led nor followed the temperature declines and recoveries…CO2 seems to have had little impact in EITHER direction on the observed temperatures over that 10k year period…If CO2 is to be considered a major driver of temperatures, it is doing a counterintuitive dance around the numbers.’

http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html

=================================================

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

=================================================

“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

=================================================

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels and  Chip Knappenberger declared 400 ppm of CO2 was cause for ‘celebration.” “In some circles, this announcement has been met with consternation and gnashing of teeth. The proper reaction is celebration,” Michaels and Knappenberger wrote on May 14, 2013.

“Fossil fuel energy supplies about 80% of the world’s energy production—a value which has been pretty much constant for the past 40 years. During that time, the global population increased by 75%, and global energy use doubled. Global per capita energy use increased, while global energy use per $1000 GDP declined.  We are using more energy, but we are using it more efficiently. In the developed world, life expectancy has doubled since the dawn of the fossil fuel era,” they wrote.

“As we continually document (see here for our latest post), more and more science is suggesting that the rate (and thus magnitude at any point in time) of CO2-induced climate change is not as great as commonly portrayed. The lower the rate of change, the lower the resulting impact. If the rate is low enough, carbon dioxide emissions confer a net benefit. We’d like to remind readers that “it’s not the heat, it’s the sensitivity,” when it comes to carbon dioxide, and the sensitivity appears to have been overestimated,” Michaels and Knappenberger added.

http://www.cato.org/blog/co2-400ppm-growing

=================================================

Humans thrive with greater atmospheric levels of CO2

 

=================================================

Unfalsifiable Climate Astrology: More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers: ‘Boreal forest fires may increase…Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing’ — ‘Earth’s rotation to slow down…Earth’s rotation to speed up…Great Lakes less snow…Great Lakes more snow…Malaria may increase…Malaria may continue decreasing…San Francisco less foggy…San Francisco more foggy…Winters maybe warmer…Winters maybe colder’.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/#sthash.Jxe6gYnv.dpbs

=================================================

Many question the motives behind those that seek to control 80% of our energy production, i.e. fossil fuels ?  Imagine the power and wealth involved in controlling and taxing carbon combustion.  Greedy climateers are alive and well.  Many of you fall hook, line and sinker.  

[hardtack 10,537]

"Many question the motives behind those that seek to control 80% of our energy production, i.e. fossil fuels ?  Imagine the power and wealth involved in controlling and taxing carbon combustion.  Greedy climateers are alive and well.  Many of you fall hook, line and sinker. "

Yes many question the motives behind those who currently currently control our energy production (ie fossil fuels) and why not considering they stand to lose vast amounts of power and wealth... much like the tobacco lobby who paid politicians and scientists to support their claims that smoking was not harmful to our health.  I believe there are cases where prominent "climate scientists" have been employed by the fossil fuel industry are there not?

The only difference is that we are talking about the welfare of an entire planet rather than of those who choose to smoke. 

I would rather invest in our future (and more particularly that of my children) now rather than wait until such a time as it is too late.  What you choose is up to you... and please don't try to tell me that your stance is not motivated by greed; that is simply NOT true regardless of how much you care to deny it.

Edited December 7, 2015 by hardtack

[Gator 17,332]

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

"Many question the motives behind those that seek to control 80% of our energy production, i.e. fossil fuels ?  Imagine the power and wealth involved in controlling and taxing carbon combustion.  Greedy climateers are alive and well.  Many of you fall hook, line and sinker. "

Just as many question the motives behind those who currently currently control our energy production (ie fossil fuels) who would stand to lose vast amounts of power and wealth... much like the tobacco lobby who paid politicians and scientists to support their claims that smoking was not harmful to our health.  I believe there are cases where prominent "climate scientists" have been employed by the fossil fuel industry are there not?

The only difference is that we are talking about the welfare of an entire planet rather than of those who choose to smoke. 

I would rather invest in our future (and more particularly that of my children) now rather than wait until such a time as it is too late.  What you choose is up to you... and please don't try to tell me that your stance is not motivated by greed; that is simply NOT true regardless of how much you care to deny it.

Your children will thrive with greater CO2 and man is not the main driver of CO2.  Did you read all the commentary/links ?  Obviously not.

Here's a few more:

Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

[hardtack 10,537]

My links and quotes referenced those who were stating over 400ppm is a dangerous level... you choose to believe who and what you like, but I believe your stance comes down to your hip pocket...that is your major concern.

Tell me, who stands to lose more... we tax payers as individuals or the fossil fuel industry?  

For every pro CO2 argument I'm sure you will find one from an equally qualified source that will argue the opposite.  While I know you will never back down from your position and that you are incapable of saying you may be wrong, I prefer to err on the side of caution and will take a more conservative approach when it comes to securing the future... if I am wrong, then so be it, but at least if I am right, I won't have sat on my hands until it was too late.

[daisycutter 29,613]

hardtack, you saw this graph posted a few posts back.

does it show a close correlation between co2 levels and temperature? buggered if i can see it

does it indicate a level of 400ppm of co2 is excessive or unusually high?

doesn't it make you just a little skeptical that co2 is singled out as the big bad wolf and drives the climate models that make the predictions

or do you just think the graph is bogus

you seem to have a closed mind to what some eminently qualified climatologists are saying

might is not always right

Edited December 7, 2015 by daisycutter

[hardtack 10,537]

DC, I don't necessarily have a closed mind at all... there are so many conflicting graphs and so many conflicting assessments from so many eminent scientists, that I honestly have no idea which way to turn.  So, rather than merely dismiss the whole global warming argument as a massive conspiracy, I would rather err on the side of caution.  Yes, it might cost me a few dollars more in taxes, but that's ok by me because in my opinion, losing a few tax dollars if it does turn out to be a furphy is far more palatable than the alternative.

[daisycutter 29,613]

14 minutes ago, hardtack said:

DC, I don't necessarily have a closed mind at all... there are so many conflicting graphs and so many conflicting assessments from so many eminent scientists, that I honestly have no idea which way to turn.  So, rather than merely dismiss the whole global warming argument as a massive conspiracy, I would rather err on the side of caution.  Yes, it might cost me a few dollars more in taxes, but that's ok by me because in my opinion, losing a few tax dollars if it does turn out to be a furphy is far more palatable than the alternative.

ht, no one is asking you to " dismiss the whole global warming argument as a massive conspiracy"

just not to dismiss out of hand any critical analysis of agw, and retain a healthy degree of skepticism

once the capitalists take it fully on board our heads will be spinning from all the crap and vested interest, if it's not already happening now

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

hardtack, you saw this graph posted a few posts back.

does it show a close correlation between co2 levels and temperature? buggered if i can see it

does it indicate a level of 400ppm of co2 is excessive or unusually high?

doesn't it make you just a little skeptical that co2 is singled out as the big bad wolf and drives the climate models that make the predictions

or do you just think the graph is bogus

you seem to have a closed mind to what some eminently qualified climatologists are saying

might is not always right

A bit of research on that isn't hard to do. Try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/comment-page-2/

 

 

 

[Gator 17,332]

NASA weather stations tricks and scandals

Edited December 7, 2015 by ProDee

[daisycutter 29,613]

9 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

A bit of research on that isn't hard to do. Try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/comment-page-2/

 

 

 

all that really shows, doc, is that there is a lot of different studies, different results, different ways of graphing it and a lot of divergence

i'm merely pointing out that there is/should be plenty of room for healthy skepticism. it's hardly a settled science and strong on hypothesis and blue-sky forecasting

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

56 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

all that really shows, doc, is that there is a lot of different studies, different results, different ways of graphing it and a lot of divergence

i'm merely pointing out that there is/should be plenty of room for healthy skepticism. it's hardly a settled science and strong on hypothesis and blue-sky forecasting

Oh come on Daisy, the 'graph' is a piece of tosh (and the bottom left hand corner tells you why). Using it to try and beat hardtack over the head is argument for its own sake.

And no, that's not all the link 'shows'... even if it were, the different ways of portraying data still doesn't give you pause for thinking you might have been just a bit precipitate in criticising 'tack? If not, you obviously prefer the bollocks version. So much for open minds.

[Lucifers Hero 39,764]

This isn't a climate change issue but didn't want to open a new thread.

Mt Etna erupted last week and here is a slide show of pics taken at different times and locations. http://palermo.repubblica.it/cronaca/2015/12/07/foto/spettacolo_etna_ecco_le_foto_piu_belle_dell_ultima_eruzione_sul_web-128953766/1/#26

The text is in Italian but it doesn't detract from the spectacular scenery!

[Gator 17,332]

2 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

you obviously prefer the bollocks version. So much for open minds.

Quoted for irony.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Quoted for irony.

Pity you don't know what that is. Nice try though.

[Biffen 12,943]

On 12/8/2015 at 1:30 PM, Dr John Dee said:

Pity you don't know what that is. Nice try though.

From the keeper of the key.

Also ,being a moderator ,probably not your concern but your comments on a topic start to get as obsessive as any  other fruitcake on here.

Back on topic,

Is the beef industry not more culpable for pollution than fuel emissions ?

 

[Gator 17,332]

NOAA inflated the 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didn’t exist during the hot years of the 1930s. 

[Gator 17,332]

2015 - England's 176th warmest summer.

[Gator 17,332]

During the 1930’s two-thirds of the US would reach 100 degrees every summer. In recent years, that number has been closer to one third.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html

Edited December 9, 2015 by ProDee
Added link

[hardtack 10,537]

Who cares about hottest days... it's the average heat over the year and the trend in overall warming that matters.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

11 hours ago, Biffen said:

From the keeper of the key.

Also ,being a moderator ,probably not your concern but your comments on a topic start to get as obsessive as any  other fruitcake on here.

Back on topic,

Is the beef industry not more culpable for pollution than fuel emissions ?

 

Having a good time with the stalking?

A couple of comments is obsessive is it?

You really have lost the plot. If you ever had it.

The countdown has begun. Unlike some on this thread I don't have the hubris to predict what the planet's future will be but I know yours.

[Gator 17,332]

10 hours ago, hardtack said:

Who cares about hottest days... it's the average heat over the year and the trend in overall warming that matters.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

 You do.  And other climateers who love quoting "extreme weather events".

But yes, the temperature has warmed the grand total of .8 degrees in 135 years.  The climate always changes and always will.  Only the naive and chicken littles think we have unprecedented levels of CO2 or that man is "dangerously" warming the planet.

Some rural areas in Australia have cooled in the same period.  

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by ProDee

[hardtack 10,537]

Again with the minutee and never with the bigger picture.  You simply cannot see past your wallet.

[Gator 17,332]

21 hours ago, hardtack said:

Again with the minutee and never with the bigger picture.  You simply cannot see past your wallet.

You sound like an anti-capitalist Greens voter.

Some of us just don't like waste and recognise the folly of global warming policies.

[Gator 17,332]

NASA knew in 1971 that substantial increased levels of CO2 would have no impact on the greenhouse effect.

Link

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf