FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

But bud, this is about AGW (aka MMGW) - temperatures will always fluctuate, and we've had vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do now.

Does man have an affect on the planet? Of course.
Is he causing dangerous heating of the Earth through the output of CO2 (plant food)? No, probably not.

plant food? oh wait we are removing vast areas of rain forest ever day. its a fragile system that we are screwing with in many ways. you cannot claim we are not causing changes. its simple physics.

[Stephen]

you cannot claim we are not causing changes

I didn't, but there is no causality in the AGW argument - and the science isn't there. You have to wonder why politicians, who have largely ignored the environment up until now, suddenly take an interest in AGW (but still ignore more pressing issues - like the example you mentioned). Could tax, control and CO2-trading (and vested interests - seemingly everyone now has these) have anything to do with it?

[bud]

theres been vested interest namely in oil, by governments up until now delaying any action. is there a difference? so what if they are at least its cleaner than the latter!

[Stephen]

Get comfy and sit down with a very large coffee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1

[zweiblumen]

Get comfy and sit down with a very large coffee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1

Monckton is a right-wing nutter who believes that AGW is a global communist plot to take over the world ... no, seriously that IS what he believes, the man will surely go down in history as one of Britain's most lunatic politicians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ckton-ukip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... tler-youth

[Stephen]

Get comfy and sit down with a very large coffee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1

Monckton is a right-wing nutter who believes that AGW is a global communist plot to take over the world ... no, seriously that IS what he believes, the man will surely go down in history as one of Britain's most lunatic politicians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ckton-ukip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... tler-youth

Hilarious, and then you use the Guardian to make your point!

Unfortunately for you, he's a scientist, and has thus far debunked practically every scare story and torn apart the AGW argument. Watch the video and then tell me whose the 'nutter'...

[zweiblumen]

Get comfy and sit down with a very large coffee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1

Monckton is a right-wing nutter who believes that AGW is a global communist plot to take over the world ... no, seriously that IS what he believes, the man will surely go down in history as one of Britain's most lunatic politicians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ckton-ukip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... tler-youth

Hilarious, and then you use the Guardian to make your point!

Unfortunately for you, he's a scientist, and has thus far debunked practically every scare story and torn apart the AGW argument. Watch the video and then tell me whose the 'nutter'...

He's a scientist?? I've never seen him described as such anywhere, but you obviously know him better than I do - he's still a 100% nutter. A bit more background on Monckton here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe ... _Brenchley and here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ipulation/

[bud]

Scientist wouldnt quote genisis.....

[Stephen]

Scientist wouldnt quote genisis.....

Did you reach that view through consensus?

[bud]

Scientist wouldnt quote genisis.....

Did you reach that view through consensus?

Religion cannot be proven by science. a true scientist would want the truth which this guy was going on and on about anyways. yet he hypocritically quoted genesis on numerous occasions. the way he carried himself and talked made me think he belonged on Monty Python and not an academic debate.

[Stephen]

LOL, a typical 'warmist' response - all he did was reference the Bible, that hardly rubbishes the remainder of his lecture - perhaps you should be more concerned that he goes on to debunk any theory you wannabe Communists are desperate to cling to.

There is no denying climate change, but it's not happening in the way vested scientists want it to, and man, for once, isn't responsible. With ice sheets growing, polar bears thriving and sea-levels stagnating, there's nothing to base any argument on - as it was, had Gore actually been honest since the beginning, you would have seen in his infamous hockey stick chart that CO2 followed temperature change, and that the warming was no more severe than we had already experienced in the last century, and less than that of the medieval period, a period which many pro-AGW scientists tried to hide!

Game, set, match I'm afraid. The wheels of the AGW theory have well and truly fallen off.

[zweiblumen]

LOL, a typical 'warmist' response - all he did was reference the Bible, that hardly rubbishes the remainder of his lecture - perhaps you should be more concerned that he goes on to debunk any theory you wannabe Communists are desperate to cling to.

Aha! It's all a communist plot, we admit it ... incidentally, Monckton has recently worked as a climate science advisor for the BNP (google it if you don't believe me), I really would not want to trust anyone who has worked for them.

There is no denying climate change, but it's not happening in the way vested scientists want it to, and man, for once, isn't responsible. With ice sheets growing, polar bears thriving and sea-levels stagnating, there's nothing to base any argument on - as it was, had Gore actually been honest since the beginning, you would have seen in his infamous hockey stick chart that CO2 followed temperature change, and that the warming was no more severe than we had already experienced in the last century, and less than that of the medieval period, a period which many pro-AGW scientists tried to hide!

Game, set, match I'm afraid. The wheels of the AGW theory have well and truly fallen off.

Crap! Ice sheets growing? Not according to NASA they're not, ice-sheet thickening is consistent with global warming ... global warming = more precipitation caused by more evaporation of water. The Antarctic is the coldest, highest and DRIEST continent on the planet. As Antarctica warms it receives more precipitation ... i.e. snow, the continent is still very cold of course so the snow builds up, it doesn't melt ... so the ice sheets thicken. In 2001 I was working in the Falkland Islands and attended a lecture by a geologist (n.b. like Christopher Monckton not a climate scientist), at the end of the lecture there was the usual question and answer session and one of the questions posed was 'do you think global warming is actually happening?' ... remember this was 2001 ... she replied that she thought it wasn't because the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica was stable ... in her mind that disproved the whole global warming theory. In 2002 the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated.

Nobody disputes that the medieval warming period happened, but it was not as warm as it is today, tree-ring records have proven this. Nor is there any evidence that it was a global warming period, rather, evidence suggests it was far more localised - i.e. Europe, globally it is warmer now than it was then. Back to the drawing board for you methinks.

[bud]

LOL, a typical 'warmist' response - all he did was reference the Bible, that hardly rubbishes the remainder of his lecture

thats the whole point, his lecture went on and on about Truth, how can he make such claims when he quotes something that cannot be proven? he is no scientist.

[Stephen]

[i]Crap! Ice sheets growing? Not according to NASA they're not, ice-sheet thickening is consistent with global warming...

Right - Antartica is warming is it? Is that based on multiple accurate temperature readings? No? Just one? And it's likely inaccurate due to development at the particular science station?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/f ... ghcn-data/

This, like most other purported evidence, has been found wanting. Even Pachauri and his chums at the IPCC have admitted Antartica (and Greenland) is going nowhere fast - and would require, so we're as scientific about this as we can be, temperatures above our current rate of 2C (3.5 F) for many thousands of years. Whilst I completely agree the climate is changing, it always has, what we're now seeing is a reduction in temperatures if anything - painful for you I'm sure.

Nobody disputes that the medieval warming period happened

Actually, they do, and many charts suggesting violent rises in warming have removed prior warm periods. Yes we warmed, and yes, we're now cooling - thank you very much.

but it was not as warm as it is today

Again, inaccurate (and again data has been cherry picked - see news out of Russia just earlier this week). Certainly temperatures were much higher. Have a look here:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/M ... eriod.html - you might like to click the charts, they go off to real scientific papers, all available for peer-review.

tree-ring records have proven this.

Are you referring to the 14 (or might have been 16) samples which went into the original hockey stick chart? Wow, that's a sizeable sample isn't it - even without the fudging which went on...

Back to the drawing board for you methinks.

Not really, unfortunately I'm an analyst that specialises in the creation of detailed, functional, models from ridiculously large datasets - I even have a company which offers this service to other people. I've taken the time to review the datasets, the graphs produced by vested scientists, and the writing is on the wall - politicians and some of the public have been duped - the only issue we're going to face in the coming years is a plunge in global temperatures (which we're not ready for), a theory based on real evidence and all dreamt up by that wonderful organisation known to you as CERN.

The fact CO2 has been proven to follow (not cause) temperature change pretty much debunks anything you can say. Would you like to borrow my drawing board...?

[bud]

for me this debate is really getting childish. whats not up for debate is we have affected our planet for the worse....If the greatest mass extinction since the end of the Dinosaurs isnt enough for us to change our ways then i dont know what kind of person you are.