Oh yes, and insulting my intelligence is perfectly fine…

:rolleyes:

To question your use of sarcasm, when your arguments are patently based upon little study and ignorance is not an insult. Neither is my stating that your point of view seems based on shaky foundations, or that you appear confused, insulting your intelligence.

Ignorant, or ignorance are not terms that could, or should be thought of a synonymous with stupid or witless but simply lacking in knowledge. However, to perversely carry on debating a topic without checking out the current state of knowledge and relying on a few selected so called ‘facts’ is stupid.

Your continued assertions on solar output display that you have not visited the links that I supplied. Furthermore one cannot correlate what happened to the atmosphere thousands, or even millions of years ago, with today for so many conditions were different then.

For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth or at other times huge herds of sauropods and other herbivores denuded grazing land, changing the albedo of the surface and at the same time rapidly increasing greenhouse gasses much as herbivores do now. Many scientists consider that these large herbivores brought about their own extinction. Who saya history doesn’t repeat itself.

Besides one must also consider the Milankovitch Cycles see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

and for those with an aversion to Wiki’:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

plenty more found by simple search.

To aid in understanding the past history of the earth I can recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Cassells-Atlas-Evolution-Dougal-Dixon/dp/0304355119

and

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Architects-Eternity-New-Science-Fossils/dp/0747271798

It helps to have a foundation in the history of the earth.

Oh, get real.

No need for a rollseyes there, for that would be a case of redundancy.

The article I posted was a reprint of an article from The Times. Fox also posts AP articles as well.

Of course I realise that. And the connection between The Times and Fox is ….? Supply the missing name, hint: begins with R.

Let’s look at some hard data.

Here are the climate change trends from 1980 to 2006: NASA GISS

Here are the trends from 1980-1990:NASA GISS

And here are the trends from 2000-2006: NASA GISS

You’ll notice that while there was a widespread warming trend over the entire period, warming has slowed down considerably over the eastern half of the map since 1990 and has shown significant cooling trends since 2000, particularly over most or Europe and the US west coast, to name a few areas. How does that data fit the concept of climate change insofar as a GLOBAL temperature increase?

Sorry but the diagrams alluded to do not cover a period since 1990. I have entered parameters in the input dialogue to find one for that period and all it proves is that climate is shifting with an upward trend in many places. How you can deduce anything else given your first example is open to question.

I would suggest that this is what happens when data such as this is taken out of context.

Plus, did you know that typically temperature increases have occurred PRIOR to CO2 increases? Does CO2 work retroactively?

Please check out Feedback Mechanisms.

And are you aware that as recently as 1992 there were scientists up in arms over the coming Ice Age?

Yes and this could happen yet in parts if cold water melt from the Arctic diverts the Gulf Stream then Europe and UK could see a mini ice age.

More ice will cause more sunlight to be reflected and thus a slow down in heating. Conversely, as the ice caps melt the albedo change will cause an acceleration in temperature increase.

As I indicated above one has to take in the whole picture of the earth’s currents both atmospheric and ocean, and their interaction, with a host of other factors such as the Milankovitch cycles. Without doing this one can come to the wrong conclusions as to what is going on.

To be sure with a complex topic such as this, just as with evolution, there are many undecideds. What should not be in dispute, for both topics, is that the basics are now understood enough for us to build testable models WRT climate change and these are used both to predict future and to confirm past climate trends. What is happening is that these models are becoming ever more accurate.

May I point out 2 things to you ?

1) Wikipedia isn’t what I’d consider a reliable source. Even less an authoritative one.

I have just commented elsewhere on Wikipedia’s authority, I have found evidence of them having bowed presumeably to pressure from vested interests, however on this topic, for now, I would rather rely upon Wiki’ than Fox. How about you?

On statistics, sure mendacious use of statistics can be used to demonstrate anything, unfortunately humans in general have a weak grasp of this area of Mathematics and science also. This is why Lomborg has had the impact that he has. BTW I have read that Lomborg did not have any formal qualifications in statistics and none in science. As they say – go figure.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I would not put too much faith on that distortion, but then in the absence of undistorted scientific arguments all one is left with is faith.

I will point you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

not because Wikipedia is above criticism in general but because there are a number of sources sited, the links for which if followed, will provide the rationale for considering Durkin as having presented a biased account and how. Also Durkin’s past record could provide answers as to why.

:rolleyes:

For the rest of you, I’m not saying it’s not gettting warmer. Or even necessarily that man has not had something to do with it. But rather that the whole CO2 issue seems to be overhyped as part of the problem.

Sarcasm, the rolleyes, is so unbecoming in this context. Is this used because your are deliberately putting up straw-man arguments?

Whatever, CO2 issue over hyped! Well that depends on how well informed your point of view is and frankly yours appears rather shakily founded, this is evident from the lines of argument that you take.

As for, ‘Finally, see what correlates with climate change more: solar activity, or CO2 emissions’ this is one of the lines trotted out by those who wish to believe that solar activity is the prime cause of climate change, and I have argued against these on USENET for the last 6 years or so. Climate change BTW is the preferred description of what is happening as this removes much of the confusion caused by the term global warming, a confusion which seems to be at the bottom of your thinking.

The solar activity ‘myth’ is one of a number answered at:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

which I strongly suggest that you have a look at.

Also I have a couple of recent books which you should read.

The first is, ‘The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change’ by Tim Flannery, information on which can be found at:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Makers-History-Future-Climate/dp/0713999217

I find it interesting that a (world) Google does not come up with an early hit at Amazon.com, perhaps it is banned in the US or something, I have a book here that was banned by Amazon.co.uk as notified on its front cover so perhaps a similar thing happens in reverse.

More on this book can be found at:

http://www.theweathermakers.com/

The second book is less of ‘a what is causing it’ but more of a ‘what it is doing’, i.e. climate change, and is thus complementary:

‘High Tide: News from a Warming World’ by Mark Lynas with info at:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/High-Tide-News-Warming-World/dp/0007139403

with a similar lack of prominence at Amazon.com.

More at:

http://www.marklynas.org/books

Now, I wonder if you have read Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’ for this author does much to cast aspersions on ‘scientific consensus’. Well if you are using this as a basis then I will be happy to inform you that Crichton’s analysis is based upon flawed argument and has been well rebutted at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

It is well worth following the links in that document.

More trouble has been caused by Bjorn Lomborg, and I note, with not a little dismay that his book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ is back in print. Considering that his so called ‘facts’ have been well rebutted elsewhere then republishing this tired book is highly questionable, but then The Bible has had a long print run despite being largely bunk.

On Lomborg it is worth looking at:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

and

http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm

and

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2007/04/bjorn-lomborg-gets-confused-about.html

this latter will also provide a rebuttal of the solar energy myth.

That should give you enough to be getting on with, especially as there is a host of links within those pages to help you find information on the ‘real science’ that is going on.

Oh, and BTW. I did not avoid your question, in post 46. If you had read my post to understand then you would have appreciated that I did answer your question, a question based upon a false premise.

Fact: the warmest year on record in the US was 1934.

Fact: there was a cooling trend in the 1960’s where nearly every year save one was below average.

Fact: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere trended sharply upward beginning in the 1950’s.

So now explain to me how CO2 in the atmosphere has created a uniform global warming, especially when the USA underwent a cooling trend at the exact same time CO2 emissions were being produced like gangbusters, and why it hasn’t been as warm as it was back in the 1930’s?

Here’s how seriously scientists have apparently been taking this, by the way:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293498,00.html

I would recheck your Facts if I were you, not least because we seem to be quibbling about an, at most, 0.02 degree C difference. Try putting these facts in context.

Cooling trends, or slow downs in rate of increases in temperature, have been tied to an increase in particulates in the atmosphere reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.

Besides nobody who has really studied what is going on is claiming that a ‘uniform global warming’ is going on. The earth’s ocean and atmospheric systems are just too complex for that to happen.

Hence the rapid ice loss at the poles and from glaciers on mountains, not only in South America and the Himalayas but in Kenya, Scandinavia and the North American Rockies too. Consider that it could be the weight of ice keeping the lid on a number of volcanoes in that region. We are living in interesting times and North America, as we have seen, is not going to be exempt from bad things.

As for relying on Fox for your information, listening to Lord Haw Haw’s propaganda was probably of more value. For they are here amplifying a few details in order to skew the overall truth.

But then some like such straws to clutch hold of.

The method of mounting looks good, and shows the aircraft off well. It looks to be suffering from being out in the elements now however. Could do with a repaint and some maintenance.

Excellent pics.

Time to get out the rags and cans of WD40 lads.:D

That aside, I reckon my sig says it all!;)

What gets my goat about these airport/road protester types is that they ignore the years and years of public enquiries, planning enquiries, lobbying of govt etc, and yet when they seek to impose their narrow view on the rest of us they claim to be doing it in the name of democracy.

It is a proven fact that vested interests with deep pockets can find ways of perverting the courses of public enquiries. I did have a book in mind to point you to but unfortunately it is away on loan at the moment.

Has somebody has mentioned already ,farm yard animals cause more pollution by farting,what are they going to do next ,make all farmers put corks in there cattle’s ****’s
Paul

And that indicates what exactly?

Well I’ll inform you.

‘…both the domesticated animals and their domesticators have enjoyed huge population explosions (going from less than 1 percent of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass ten-thousand years ago to over 98 percent today…’, Daniel Dennett in ‘Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon’.

That demonstrates that humans have produced an accelerating increase of their input of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere by this means alone and right from the dawn of agriculture and civilization.

Scientists recognize that there isn’t any one cause to the problem that confronts us. However breeding animals for slaughter and meat is a very expensive, in the terms of emissions, process. Besides it is recognized that an excess of red meat is bad for ones health. Asian cultures which use small amounts of meat and fish added to their diet for flavour and essential minerals and vitamins tend to be healthier, excluding the effects of the poverty that many live under.

Are you aware that the mountain glaciers in South America and in the Himalayas are receding at an increasing rate and that it will not be long before the rivers they feed, Amazon, Brahmaputra and Ganges slow to a trickle with dire consequences for the people living in those areas and the wider world in due course.

Weigh that against a little local difficulty for some with their flights.