December 7, 200915 yr eh?..loss of land?.... :lol: there is NO LAND at the north pole, its a sheet of ice! :lol: Exactly, the ice IS their land :manson:
December 7, 200915 yr Exactly, the ice IS their land :manson: oh lord, has crazy chris hacked your account?... whether the ice sheet is shrinking or not, its irrelevant, because theres still thousands of square miles of ice for the polar bears to live... your idiotic suggestion (probably based on that ridiculous tv ad) that theres no ice/land left for the polar bears is utter nonsense.
December 7, 200915 yr http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...l-warmists.html typical of what appears to be happening, governments hushing up evidence that doesnt meet their agenda.
December 7, 200915 yr this is interesting too http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...37&Itemid=1
December 7, 200915 yr I've learned something from this thread. I never knew that the North Pole was just ice. I always thought it was a large expanse of land COVERED WITH ICE. I honestly did and bet many other people think that too. Well I did only get an E in O-Level Geography so guess I should have paid attention more in class. Are you sure it's just a thick sheet of ice?
December 7, 200915 yr I've learned something from this thread. I never knew that the North Pole was just ice. I always thought it was a large expanse of land COVERED WITH ICE. I honestly did and bet many other people think that too. Well I did only get an E in O-Level Geography so guess I should have paid attention more in class. Are you sure it's just a thick sheet of ice? You're thinking of the South Pole. North Pole is just ice yes. Edited December 7, 200915 yr by Ashford.
December 8, 200915 yr You're thinking of the South Pole. North Pole is just ice yes. there is some land under the ice sheet... greenland! north greenland is part of the same ice cap that covers the pole.
December 10, 200915 yr Did anyone watch the documentary last night on BBC1 AT 10.45 about this? If not it'll be on the BBC I-player. I've just emailed the BBC and also Ofcom to complain as it was too one sided. They had an expert predicting doom and gloom and saying we're all partially responsible in our homes and mode of travel. Global warming may be a fact but whether it's man-made or not is debateable. As I've said in my emails, it was just scaremongering and they didn't have a scientist on too who doesn't believe in man-made global warming and there are lots. So it was totally unbalanced. Interesting though. Edited December 10, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris-Tmas
December 10, 200915 yr Did anyone watch the documentary last night on BBC1 AT 10.45 about this? If not it'll be on the BBC I-player. I've just emailed the BBC and also Ofcom to complain as it was too one sided. They had an expert predicting doom and gloom and saying we're all partially responsible in our homes and mode of travel. Global warming may be a fact but whether it's man-made or not is debateable. As I've said in my emails, it was just scaremongering and they didn't have a scientist on too who doesn't believe in man-made global warming and there are lots. So it was totally unbalanced. Interesting though. I saw the last 15 minutes of the David Attenborough thing on BBC2 and they advertised this other programme. I knew as soon as they described it that it would be a piece of one-sided tosh.
December 10, 200915 yr its just the latest fashion.... theres been loads of environmental fads in the past and none of them have resulted in the promised doom and gloom, or on the other hand great profit. i saw the last few minutes of it and it annoyed me that it was so one sided, in this pc world we are being fed all sorts of bollox and if you say anything against it you are some sort of 'phobe'.. tbh 'southpark' does alot to debunk these modern truths.
December 10, 200915 yr i saw the last few minutes of it and it annoyed me that it was so one sided, Me and Rob actually agree on something look. :o :o *Faints*
December 10, 200915 yr Did anyone watch the documentary last night on BBC1 AT 10.45 about this? If not it'll be on the BBC I-player. I've just emailed the BBC and also Ofcom to complain as it was too one sided. They had an expert predicting doom and gloom and saying we're all partially responsible in our homes and mode of travel. Global warming may be a fact but whether it's man-made or not is debateable. As I've said in my emails, it was just scaremongering and they didn't have a scientist on too who doesn't believe in man-made global warming and there are lots. So it was totally unbalanced. Interesting though. There is a small minority of climate scientists who dispute the existence of man-made climate change. Some of them and their supporters have appeared on the BBC, probably more than they deserve given how few of them there are. However, there is not a single piece of peer-reviewed work which has appeared in a reputable scientific journal to support the sceptics' claims. Try looking at who has funded the work of these dissident scientists. They will do their best to hide their funding source. However, where it has been identified by diligent journalists, it has invariably turned out out be oil companies or other companies who have a vested interest in denying climate change. So it's not surprising they'd rather you didn't know. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement. Against them are a tiny majority of scientists, George Bush, Nick Griffin, Melanie Phillips and a bunch of loonies who think it's all a conspiracy to create a world communist government. I know who I would rather trust.
December 10, 200915 yr There is a small minority of climate scientists who dispute the existence of man-made climate change. Some of them and their supporters have appeared on the BBC, probably more than they deserve given how few of them there are. However, there is not a single piece of peer-reviewed work which has appeared in a reputable scientific journal to support the sceptics' claims. Try looking at who has funded the work of these dissident scientists. They will do their best to hide their funding source. However, where it has been identified by diligent journalists, it has invariably turned out out be oil companies or other companies who have a vested interest in denying climate change. So it's not surprising they'd rather you didn't know. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement. Against them are a tiny majority of scientists, George Bush, Nick Griffin, Melanie Phillips and a bunch of loonies who think it's all a conspiracy to create a world communist government. I know who I would rather trust. thats nonsense... there are 500 scientists who signed the manhatten declaration http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...37&Itemid=1 and there are plenty of independant scientists who do not agree that global warming is man made.
December 10, 200915 yr Which means nothing seeing as there isn't a single piece of peer-reviewed work which has supported the sceptics' claims! I found these articles VERY telling: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...denial-industry http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geor...denial-industry
December 10, 200915 yr its just the latest fashion.... theres been loads of environmental fads in the past and none of them have resulted in the promised doom and gloom, or on the other hand great profit. i saw the last few minutes of it and it annoyed me that it was so one sided, in this pc world we are being fed all sorts of bollox and if you say anything against it you are some sort of 'phobe'.. tbh 'southpark' does alot to debunk these modern truths. Rob. :o The very fact you are in agreement with Crazy Chris and George W Bush; and the highly dubious 500 Scientists of the ICSC which most have already been proven to have (sponsorship/funding) links with right-wing governments and big multi-national companies really should ring some alarm bells in your head. But the quote of yours that most made me laugh was tbh 'southpark' does alot to debunk these modern truths. I'm sure Trey Parker and Matt Stone would fully appreciate the irony of that quote, especially regarding their Emmy Award winning episode featuring Michael Jackson Mr Jefferson, Blanket and the whole racially premediated trial.
December 11, 200915 yr Rob. :o The very fact you are in agreement with Crazy Chris and George W Bush; and the highly dubious 500 Scientists of the ICSC which most have already been proven to have (sponsorship/funding) links with right-wing governments and big multi-national companies really should ring some alarm bells in your head. But the quote of yours that most made me laugh was I'm sure Trey Parker and Matt Stone would fully appreciate the irony of that quote, especially regarding their Emmy Award winning episode featuring Michael Jackson Mr Jefferson, Blanket and the whole racially premediated trial. im not in agreement with them... im just sceptical over the fashion for believing the mmgw theory that HASNT been proven. the data being used is one sided and if anyone cares to investigate (ive not got time) then there are plenty of variables that are not being used in the equasion. take the melting ice caps for eg... yes they are melting, but 1) it is part of the normal cycle, 2) they are being replaced ... its not as if they are melting full stop, there is still plenty of precipitation building up new ice. the facts are that the planets climate has always been varied, the facts are that the global temp graph doesnt match the global emissions graph, emissions didnt just start like an explosion in the late 80's... they have been gradually rising since ww2 but the temperature graphs do not match this showing a 'step' up in the late 80's. 1998 is still the warmest on record... 11 years now with no increase... records go back 160 years, a blip in the earths age. plus the fact that i , being an environmentalist for 30 years, active conservationist, member of greenpeace and friends of the earth,have campaigned on many fronts from whaling, foxhunting, ozone, cnd, wildlife, owns a wildlife garden, so am very keen on environmental issues and have a track record in consevation/green issues, should be sceptical over the 'evidence' should ring alarm bells with you. the reason? well the very same scientists for decades have provided us with doom stories promising us environmental catastrophe. in the 70's we were going to have a new ice age, the scientists had all the data to support their premis. in the 80's it was the ozone hole over the ploes that 'we' had caused, only later it was found to be a natural cycle and the promised armageddon where the atmosphere was going to be destroyed...by NOW... obviously hasnt happened. channel 4 had a sceptic documentary a couple of years ago where eminant scientists were providing data contrary to the warming theorists data, dr david bellamy showed us that by examining sediments and ice cores co2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWED warming, it didnt create it. plus.... we simply do not know how much co2 the sea can store, a warmer globe = warmer seas = more algae = more co2 absorbtion. this is another variable that the warming brigade do not take into account. i believe that its the current fashion to believe and blindly accept the current theory that the governments are churning out, and you are a 'phobe' of some discription if you dont tow the line... like you are not allowed to dislike black or gay people, not because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation, but just maybe because that SOME black/gay or whatever people simply are not very likeable! its ok to hate straight whites as much as you want, but you cant dislike an arsehole who is black or gay because thats a 'hate' crime when in reality it is often because you dont like them regardless of their colour or sexuality. exactly the same is happening here.... believe the doctrine or be an outcast... what southpark often debunks brilliantly.
December 11, 200915 yr channel 4 had a sceptic documentary a couple of years ago where eminant scientists were providing data contrary to the warming theorists data, dr david bellamy showed us that by examining sediments and ice cores co2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWED warming, it didnt create it. That would be the documentary found to be in breach of several broadcasting rules by Ofcom and totally torn apart in this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...arbonemissions1 Here is a summary of Ofcom's conclusions http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom1
December 11, 200915 yr That would be the documentary found to be in breach of several broadcasting rules by Ofcom and totally torn apart in this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...arbonemissions1 Here is a summary of Ofcom's conclusions http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom1 .... and the mmgw brigade arnt chosing which facts and data to employ to prove their point are they? :rolleyes: using images of polar bears seemingly stuck on rapidly melting ice flows... when in fact the image was taken in SUMMER by a photographer using it for artistic effect ... they ignore the seas capability to absorb co2 and they ignore the sun... i mean.. THE FCUKIN SUN! it isnt constant and there is a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures. and will one of these scientists kindly explain why after 200 years of steady industrialisation and population growth the temperature chart has only just started to rise? like ive said... the graphs do not match. dont believe a word, off either side cos the truth is probably somewhere in between.
December 12, 200915 yr and will one of these scientists kindly explain why after 200 years of steady industrialisation and population growth the temperature chart has only just started to rise? like ive said... the graphs do not match. Err, Rob, I think that has been effectively explained... For a start, 200 years ago, you didn't have the sort of population on the planet you do now... Bigger population = more energy needing to be produced = more Industrialisation = more consumption = more CO2 = more pollution.... I cant believe I'm still having to explain this sh"t..... It really matters not one JOT if you call it "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", or even the bloody "Butterfly Effect", humans ARE adversely affecting the balance of nature and the planet's capabilities to regenerate.... Of course the Sun is a factor in the Earth's climate, I dont think any serious scientist is denying that... But, human greed and selfishness is an undeniable variable.. 200 years ago, there simply WAS NOT over 6 billion people on Earth mate... This is incontestable fact surely, and Industrialisation was largely confined to Europe/The West, now with countries with massive populations such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, etc all developing at a rapid pace over the past 20 or 30 years, it creates more pressure on the world's resources and the effect on nature is also more adverse... You ignore these facts at your peril...
December 12, 200915 yr the facts are that the planets climate has always been varied, the facts are that the global temp graph doesnt match the global emissions graph, emissions didnt just start like an explosion in the late 80's... they have been gradually rising since ww2 but the temperature graphs do not match this showing a 'step' up in the late 80's. 1998 is still the warmest on record... 11 years now with no increase... records go back 160 years, a blip in the earths age. Yes 1998 is indeed still the warmest year on record but that proves nothing. It beat the previous record year (1997) by 0.2 degrees, a huge margin. The overall trend remains upwards. A graph shows very clearly that 1998 was just a blip.
Create an account or sign in to comment