Hey, the cartoon critters explained it all away and they didn't mention tipping points once! Wait. They didn't mention tipping points ... hmmm ...
Was it b*llox.........WTF does "certain legal steps" mean? A barrister walking through Chambers? For God's sake, (or whoever your idol is) if you are going to make a point as emphatically as you attempted to at least pan it out a bit..... ...and I very much doubt that you and I will be in agreement about anything, because if you deign to call an opinion of mine a schoolboy error which gives you a chuckle, then b*llox to you.........some of the stuff you come out with deserves no higher publication than The Beano, but I have never decried your opinion, so don't try your oneupmanship cr*p on me.
Piers Corbyn........clever bloke...........read some of his published stuff, Glidd Oh. and I know David Bellamy quite well, so you could do well to investigate his opinion. Even James Lovelock who was one of the major contributors to the Gaia disaster theory has generally changed his mind (as has the scientist Steven Hawking about some his theories about time etc). Do you know, I was once asked what I would have on my headstone (if someone could afford one) and I said "I told you I was ill"............Having established that is in fact Spike Milligan's, I have revised mine to "ITYS".........Its a pity I won't be here to stick my tongue out at you and go 'Ner!'.
Hmm. Doesn't look too promising at first glance: Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And since when have you been in bed with the Marxists?
On David Bellamy: "[h=2]Views on global warming [edit][/h]In his foreword to the 1989 book The Greenhouse Effect[SUP][8][/SUP] Bellamy wrote: "The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland." Bellamy's later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views completely. In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as "poppycock".[SUP][9][/SUP] A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating.[SUP][10][/SUP] George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but no such article exists.[SUP][11][/SUP] Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".[SUP][12][/SUP] His opinions have changed the way in which some organisations view Bellamy. The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts stated in 2005 "We are not happy with his line on climate change",[SUP][13][/SUP] and Bellamy was succeeded as president of the Wildlife Trusts by Aubrey Manning in November 2005.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] In October 2006 the New Zealand Herald reported that Bellamy had joined the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, a group trying to refute what they believe are unfounded claims about man-made global warming[SUP][14][/SUP] In May 2007 Bellamy and Jack Barrett jointly authored a paper in the refereed Civil Engineering journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers entitled 'Climate stability: an inconvenient proof'.[SUP][15][/SUP] In this report they argue that the widely prophesied doubling of carbon dioxide levels from natural, pre-industrial levels was not only unlikely but would also amount to less than 1 degree C of global warming. In June 2007, The New Zealand Centre for Policy Research (founded by Muriel Newman formerly an MP in the neo-liberal ACT Party) published an opinion piece by Bellamy stating amongst other things that "There are no facts linking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming".[SUP][16][/SUP] Bellamy complained in November 2008 that his dissent from global warming has resulted in rejection for his BBC TV programme ideas.[SUP][17][/SUP] However, The Guardian newspaper has pointed out that Bellamy stopped making television programmes in 1994, some ten years before his first public statement showed scepticism about climate change.[SUP][18]" From Wikipedia. For the full low down on the infamous Fred Singer, i can recommend an extremely good book. The guy is a joke.[/SUP]
It might not be promising to you, Glidd.........but I guess that is because he has been right so many times. And it's a lie, I have never been to bed with anyone called Mark and I'm not that f*****g old to have had Karl as my neighbour..........besides, Pete is nearer to him than I am........he's buried just down the road from him (and he has the same hairstyle) PS....Please don't quote George Monbiot to me......I have corresponded with him several times, asking him to explain certain points he has made.......he has never answered one point yet without going round the houses and avoiding the original question. PPS......Just think about it......Carbon Dioxide........What do flora and fauna survive on? What is the problem with CO2? It's where O comes from. PPPS...I'm going to bed now, so I await with bated breath to see if I get insulted again tomorrow.
Increased CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is not a problem, that's what plants use to create their energy for growth. Problem solved. Thank goodness we as human beings aren't doing anything foolish like, oh, eliminating an enormous area of forest every year. I mean, that would be just crazy!
doesnt co2 become a problem when we produce more faster than plants can use and it builds up ! too true re forrests I havent read all this thread so I dont know if your just being good old satirical 'loz' ref co2
Phill, I promise to be good old Loz if you promise to be good old Phill CO[SUB]2[/SUB] can build up for a few reasons and only one of those is deforestation. There's release of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from seawater, from vulcanism ... those are the main ones I can think of. There may be an issue with melting perma-frost as well, I cannot recall, but it may or may not not be significant. The vulcanism one is beyond humanity's control. Deforestation to a great extent is caused by human beings. The CO[SUB]2[/SUB] release from seawater can be the result of either one or both of the other two reasons, so it may be the indirect result of human beings and their activities. The idea of man-produced greenhouse gases being incapable of causing disaster seems to be misrepresented by the anti-anthropic global warming factions. They talk of percentages of gases produced, the relative effects they have on climate change but they explain it in terms of an unchanging, non-dynamic system. The volume and effective heat absorption of additional CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere seems, in raw percentage terms, irrelevant. The real problem is likely to be one of a spanner in the works. A spanner may not weigh much compared to an ocean liner, but the same spanner being stuck in the works of the ship's propulsion units can cause everything to grind to a halt. In other words, a slight change in the atmosphere may beget larger changes and then larger changes still - then, best you wrap up warmly cos you're in an ice age.
I would be grateful if he did, LOL. There are so many different data sets which point to it being man made, not least that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than at any time in human history.
well I havent read this thread as I was busy doing my hair.. but as loz said. co2 may have gone up anyway... but the empirical data collected over the last 40 years (more or less since scientists started measuring it) tends to lean towards co2 rising in line with global industrialisation during that time whats really annoying is the way the government leans very heavily on the co2 argument as a way of hiking tax revenue but not necessarily investing the revenue
Absolutely.........and they do invest (read, 'give away') some of the revenue.......... ........in subsidies for useless 'green' windmills.
But it's a Government's 'win-win' tax: If the 'green' taxation is shown to reduce co2 then they can say that the policy is working and so subject us to some more to do more, but if on the other hand co2 increases then they can tax us some more because we clearly aren't paying enough to reduce co2 output...
Climate change has always been taking place, from the tropical conditions when the dinosaurs were around, to the ice age to now. I have no idea if or how much we affect it but it makes sense to me to develop green energy anyway and use less fossil fuels. In the long run I expect renewables to be cheaper that fossil fuels. I`m not a fan of wind farms or growing crops for oil but I think wave and solar are the way to go to run alongside hopefully reduced use of fossil fuels. All we need to do now is stop ripping up forests and invent a giant white sheet to cover vast expanses of sea and reflect the sun`s rays back. Oh , it needs to be breathable as well so as not to suffocate the fish. Any genius scientists on here to get cracking with that?
