is Global warming a scam? Climategate **HOT TOPIC**

[Adoom]

Burn the evidence! Burn it all!!!!!

Only if you pay the carbon tax for that fire first

I can pay that at the post office? What forms do I need to fill out?

[Toby]

It's all online Adoom, which you can access with the new g/ment BB initiative... once they have installed all the required copper/fibre etc alongside the current network that is already supplying most people therefore wasting millions (1.5 billion?) of our dollars (that they will probably get from carbon tax) to hopefully compete with an incumbent system (that aint as bad as most people think).


I think Nixon summed it up quite well the day before HMO's were introduced in America "This guys scheme sounds good as he/we can make money from it". (not exact wordsdsdsdsds).

[anthonym]

Sure it's an important issue, but it's not necessary to loose all common sense and ability to evaluate the information that is presented to you in a rational manner. From what I can see neither side of this debate is prepared to evaluate evidence that is contrary to their opinion. Without informed and rational debate the problem, if it exists, will not be solved.

I have looked and have not been able to find any tangible evidence (i.e. not modelling or surrogate measures) that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming. Or in fact that atmospheric CO2 has a measurable impact at all relative to the impact of water vapor, in the real world, as opposed to laboratory and computer models.

From what I can see we do have global warming, but whether or not that is entirely man made is debateable,

I'm not sure what data you are looking at but the warmist scientists have admitted that the temperature has been static or cooling for the last decade (and that their models did not predict this). And the actual measured rise (if the carefully preened and manipulated data can actually be trusted) is only about 1 degree centigrade over the last 100 years. Anecdotal data on crops is all fine and well, apart from the fact that the same sort of thing also ocurred hundreds of years ago.

but you'd have to be very ignorant to believe that man has nothing at all to do with it. The other issue, which I believe needs to be separated from the argument over what is causing it, is whether man can do anything to reverse the trend to any significant degree.

I'm not sure that's a fair statement at all, in fact it could be regarded as somewhat grandiose to suggest that man can affect the climate of the planet given what else is at play; especially to the extent being prophesised by Al Gore et al. CO2 is a very convenient villan.

I hope that's all rational enough for you .

[fivebob]

I have looked and have not been able to find any tangible evidence (i.e. not modelling or surrogate measures) that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming. Or in fact that atmospheric CO2 has a measurable impact at all relative to the impact of water vapor, in the real world, as opposed to laboratory and computer models.

Neither have I, and I'm understand that CO2 has the least effect per tonne released into the atmosphere. I know that methane is about 23 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but the concentrations in the atmosphere are about 1/200th of CO2.

Given that then, if greenhouse gases are causing the warming, and I'm not sure about that either, then CO2 is a major player in that. Although water vapour may also play a part, it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long before precipitating out, and I've been unable to find out if global humidity levels have changed.

As to the source of the CO2, given that levels have risen approx 100ppm since 1750, and half of that has been in the last 30years, even if the Co2 isn’t all man made then the deforestation that has taken place in the last 50years has drastically reduced the available carbon sink. So some of the culpability for the increase in CO2 levels must
be due to human activity.

I'm not sure what data you are looking at but the warmist scientists have admitted that the temperature has been static or cooling for the last decade (and that their models did not predict this).

Most of the data I've examined has been from NIWA, and while the averages may have decreased from 2000-2005, they seem to be rising again. Also you should not fall into the trap of just looking at average temps, you also need to look at the percentage of hot days, cold days, days with frost etc.

And the actual measured rise (if the carefully preened and manipulated data can actually be trusted) is only about 1 degree centigrade over the last 100 years.

Given that we were on a cooling cycle until about 1900, the increase in the last 150 years is only around 0.25°C. Since then the trend has been noticeably upwards, with the expected fluctuations due to solar activity.

Anecdotal data on crops is all fine and well, apart from the fact that the same sort of thing also ocurred hundreds of years ago.

Possibly it did, but my point was that it's occurring now because of the increase in growing degree days that we are currently experience. Even this year where we had the coldest winter for some time, followed by a warm August & Sept, then cold again in Oct & Nov, Crops are still chronologically ahead of previous years.

it could be regarded as somewhat grandiose to suggest that man can affect the climate of the planet given what else is at play;

I've always considered that man plays a minor part in the global scheme of things, a volcanic eruption, even a minor one like Mt Pinatubo is enough to lower temps by around 0.5°C for a few years, in comparison man's efforts at climate modification are puny. That said however, if there were no such events for the next 50years and man continued to produce greenhouse gases at today’s rate, it would be rather naive to think it would have no effect whatsoever.

I hope that's all rational enough for you .

Of course, but I would expect no less form you. If the rest of Toyspeed could just manage to up their game then... Nah forget that it's never happen

[sergei]

Solution to global warming and nuclear de armament at same time? Trigger some remote volcano with nukes.

[Toby]

Solution to global warming and nuclear de armament at same time? Trigger some remote volcano with nukes.

Sergei for president

[sergei]

Nah you don't want me for president/dictator.
Well If I get into power I will make sure I will become a dictator, via standard means of radioactive polonium poisoning.

On first day of my ruling I will round up all politicians (that survived somehow polonium poisoning) and their advisers round them up and shoot (maybe feed them to sharks, or use them as labour to pay for the wages they used to get all those years for spinning BS).
I will take care of bad driving, by taking away laser guns from cops (and selling them overseas, to recover costs) and making cops enforce other more important road rules.
I will cull all the social workers that have IQ lower than 110.

On second day I will take down nuclear free stance of NZ.
All the hippies objecting will be rounded up and shot (or fed to sharks, since shark population is declining due to over fishing, or free labour - picking up rubbish in Otara is perfect job for them).




Who am I kidding

[HZRDIZ]

Two Words - "Pole Reversal"... True story right there...

And no, it has nothing to do with what your mum gets up to on a saturday night...

[S T E A L T H]

I blame the sun for global warming.

F%@#ing thing....

[soniq]

I blame the sun for global warming.

F%@#ing thing....

yes sun spots. co2, hmmmm nah.

[Timmo]

Two Words - "Pole Reversal"... True story right there...

And no, it has nothing to do with what your mum gets up to on a saturday night...

...the difference is, we know of nothing that causes pole reversal....whereas AGW we think we have a good idea.

The earth will survive what ever we throw at it. The question is, will we, as a race survive? (or possibly as a evolutionary branch if we screw it up real good)