Global Warming... a hoax?

[LISpace]

If you accept evolution and geological science. Can you not accept that releasing trapped gases back into the environment might harm us?

I suppose it would depend on how harmful these gases are, and the atmosphere's ability to absorb them. I think trapped gases are quite naturally released into the atmosphere all the time are they not? And in pretty massive quantities - from oceans, volcanoes, geysers and so on?

[ashie]

The consensus on AGW is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1. This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

Consensus is not science, nor is it an indication of fact.

All this means is that there is agreement on the available evidence from current climate research on the date the consensus was reached. It's a snapshot in time, and will be out of date the moment more evidence becomes available.

Wouldn't disagree on that. But the facts are that the evidence points one way (yes, at the moment) and that the weight of the scientific community agrees. When the evidence changes, so will scientific minds.

Ashie, I strongly suggest that you do not waste your time locking horns with these buffoons.
Thye're reactionaries. In essence, they know the square root of fcuk all decimal fcuk all about the science. What they do know is that they don't like the look of the proponents of AGW; to a man, they're Pinkos, Commies, Crusties, moist-palmed and scheming Eurocrats and effete academics, all in an unholy conspiracy to deprive the Hard Working English Man of his God-given right to use a 3.0 litre 4x4 for the 0.5 mile school run. Consequently, they'll trawl the Web to hoover up any scrap of science or pseudo science to reinforce their prejudices.
If you absolutely have to go mano-a-mano with fcuktards, may I suggest this lot:

The Flat Earth Society


They're a lot more funny and they've better graphics.

PS
This is not an invitation for debate: If I want that kind of debate, I'll talk to the meltdowns that wander into my local from the psychiatric hospital over the road. They can make a convincing case for why dozens of respected scientific institutions around the World would conspire to foist a fraudulant scientific theory on us. They'll also give a good shpiel on how the Queen runs the cocaine trade and about the secret tunnels that run between the Vatican and Vauxhall Cross.

:D

[scoobish]

Lord Monckton addresses Greenpeace campaigner on Global Warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5...layer_embedded

Global warming or Global government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1qTPvugqgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEqFt...layer_embedded

[StickyEnd]

If you accept evolution and geological science. Can you not accept that releasing trapped gases back into the environment might harm us?

I suppose it would depend on how harmful these gases are, and the atmosphere's ability to absorb them. I think trapped gases are quite naturally released into the atmosphere all the time are they not? And in pretty massive quantities - from oceans, volcanoes, geysers and so on?

Yes, I think that they are, We can not control when that happens but they do seem to have global climate changing tendencies do they not?

[ashie]

Lord Monckton addresses Greenpeace campaigner on Global Warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5...layer_embedded

This is better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0...layer_embedded

[Semper_Flexibilis]

……an unholy conspiracy to deprive the Hard Working English Man of his God-given right to use a 3.0 litre 4x4 for the 0.5 mile school run. ……….

Well, that's where the tree huggers always get their facts in a twist, on a 0.5 mile run, it matters not whether you're driving a 3.0L car or a 1.0L car, both have cold engines and will be doing low teens MPG…

Now, stick 5 up in my 4X4 and run down a motorway at 80 and guess what? It will be doing more MPG than a Pious hybrid with 5 up. That's the problem with all these tiny engined 'eco cars', they're crap in real world driving…


http://www.gearlog.com/2008/03/bmw_d...us_in_econ.php

[scoobish]

Lord Monckton addresses Greenpeace campaigner on Global Warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5...layer_embedded

This is better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0...layer_embedded

:D

[bernoulli]

……an unholy conspiracy to deprive the Hard Working English Man of his God-given right to use a 3.0 litre 4x4 for the 0.5 mile school run. ……….

Well, that's where the tree huggers always get their facts in a twist, on a 0.5 mile run, it matters not whether you're driving a 3.0L car or a 1.0L car, both have cold engines and will be doing low teens MPG…

Now, stick 5 up in my 4X4 and run down a motorway at 80 and guess what? It will be doing more MPG than a Pious hybrid with 5 up. That's the problem with all these tiny engined 'eco cars', they're crap in real world driving…


http://www.gearlog.com/2008/03/bmw_d...us_in_econ.php

Now, there's a psychological basis to this, isn't there? Let me guess: as a child, you were made to give back massages to your grossly obese maternal grandmother, and she used to fart up your rectal passage while you were perched atop of her ample behind.
The peculiarities of the mind are such that thirty-odd years later, the subliminal trauma manifests itself by you talking out of your arrse on web forums in a subconscious efffort to purge the violation from your body...

Don't you worry now, shippers, I've plenty more Kleenex where that came from, and I'll waive my fees for this session! :D

[RedCoat2009]

From the Telegraph, 14 Dec 2009

Al Gore shows us the way to make green from being green

Al Gore has made lots of money by lecturing us all about being green. Some say he's become the world's first "carbon billionaire".

Simply enough justification for me to be a doubter, Al Gore is true slime.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

The consensus on AGW is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1. This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

Consensus is not science, nor is it an indication of fact.

All this means is that there is agreement on the available evidence from current climate research on the date the consensus was reached. It's a snapshot in time, and will be out of date the moment more evidence becomes available.

Wouldn't disagree on that. But the facts are that the evidence points one way (yes, at the moment) and that the weight of the scientific community agrees. When the evidence changes, so will scientific minds.

Ashie, I strongly suggest that you do not waste your time locking horns with these buffoons.
Thye're reactionaries. In essence, they know the square root of fcuk all decimal fcuk all about the science. What they do know is that they don't like the look of the proponents of AGW; to a man, they're Pinkos, Commies, Crusties, moist-palmed and scheming Eurocrats and effete academics, all in an unholy conspiracy to deprive the Hard Working English Man of his God-given right to use a 3.0 litre 4x4 for the 0.5 mile school run. Consequently, they'll trawl the Web to hoover up any scrap of science or pseudo science to reinforce their prejudices.
If you absolutely have to go mano-a-mano with fcuktards, may I suggest this lot:

The Flat Earth Society


They're a lot more funny and they've better graphics.

PS
This is not an invitation for debate: If I want that kind of debate, I'll talk to the meltdowns that wander into my local from the psychiatric hospital over the road. They can make a convincing case for why dozens of respected scientific institutions around the World would conspire to foist a fraudulant scientific theory on us. They'll also give a good shpiel on how the Queen runs the cocaine trade and about the secret tunnels that run between the Vatican and Vauxhall Cross.

Then, with your great brain and extensive scientific knowledge, you’ll be able to talk us through all the points raised in the last sixty five pages or so and give us the definitive answers that will prove your case.

So far, the only thing you’ve proved is that you’re a mouth-breathing, bubble-blower and that, despite being a MOD, you’re prepared to come into the CA forum and crayon on a thread that has been notable for the quality of contributions from both sides – whatever we believe, I think most of us are more knowledgeable than when we started.

If the nutters in your pub talk to you, it’s because it's the only chance they get of having an argument they can win.