Rhythm Thief:
kr79:
Global warming your all so out of date. When all of there predictions that we would have a cliamate like the sahara by now didnt come true they changed the name to cliamate change.
That’s not actually true. The science behind it always predicted that our weather would get stormier. Any idea that we’d all be sunning ourselves in a Mediterranean style climate was purely an ill - informed tabloid construct, nothing more.
That would obviously have been when they changed the agenda from global warming to climate change because the facts didn’t match the script.Although the whole bs theory is just the same with a different name.
So how how can the poles supposedly be melting when a recent ‘climate change’ expedition got blocked in by ice in the Antarctic in mid Summer let alone winter and when America has been continuously blasted through the winter by a freezing polar air mass which is what has caused the jet stream issue.
70’s has been mentioned. Now waiting for Thatcher
mickyblue:
70’s has been mentioned. Now waiting for Thatcher
Try to keep up this argument is all about a mad scientist called Carl Sagan. 
“…because if you don’t the next shower you get caught in could be in the prison washblock”
macplaxton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0
“…because if you don’t the next shower you get caught in could be in the prison washblock”
Some say that Berkshire has already been put under martial law because a small minority of flooded residents have expressed disbelief that the floods there have been caused by melting ice at the North Pole and heatwaves in America through the winter.However the authorities have met more resistance in Surrey so extra forces are being sent in as soon as they get back from Afghanistan.
This pro must feel a bit of a drip
kr79:
Ive been reving the nuts out of my car while spraying aerosols for the last 10 minutes trying to help ffs. 
Steve66 is doing his bit too; He’s been pumping blue smoke out into the atmosphere all week.
Using more oil than diesel.
But hey Ho.
Sod the environment 
Steve66:
Using more oil than diesel.
But hey Ho.
Sod the environment
I ■■■■■■ with the windows shut so I’ve made my contribution.
I’ll miss her when she goes.
The fumes not so much.
Muckaway:
Steve66 is doing his bit too; He’s been pumping blue smoke out into the atmosphere all week.
I bet that’s not all he’s been pumping.
Take it to PM boys. Nobody wants to see you two flirting with each other.
Contraflow:
Muckaway:
Steve66 is doing his bit too; He’s been pumping blue smoke out into the atmosphere all week.
I bet that’s not all he’s been pumping.
Take it to PM boys. Nobody wants to see you two flirting with each other.
I live in the PMs constituency actually. No flooding outside my gaff.
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
Don’t argue it with me, CF … write a proper scientific paper and get it peer reviewed and send it off to a reputable journal with your, er, “findings”. Be sure and include phrases like “raving green” and “bs scenario” so they know to take you seriously.
I’m still waiting for those figures which considering that you’re an obvious believer I’d have thought that you’d be able to provide.That’s ‘if’ the bs theory was true of course.However being that it’s actually bs it’s no surprise that you could only provide yet more of the same politically driven garbage as all the other believers instead.
I can only repeat my earlier suggestion, which you’ve helpfully quoted above. If you have evidence of your own, write it up, get it peer reviewed and send it off to somewhere like Nature or a similar reputable scientific journal. Then let us know how it’s received. In the meantime, you could maybe refute some of the climate change science in a clear and logical way, providing your own counter evidence and theories … if there’s anything in your research, which has undoubtedly occupied a great deal of your time over the last decade or so, dismissing the established scientific literature which currently exists on the subject shouldn’t present you with any difficulty.
It’s not a matter of “believing”, by the way … scientists don’t work like that. It’s not religion (which is a matter of faith): scientists look at what evidence they have available and formulate hypotheses based on what that evidence appears to support. When new evidence comes to light, the hypothesis is modified and eventually, when it’s supported by enough evidence, it becomes a theory. If at any point, evidence comes to light which does not support the initial hypothesis, that hypothesis is binned or modified and the whole process begins again. No “belief” necessary. I don’t, however, expect you to read this far or take any of it on board.
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
Don’t argue it with me, CF … write a proper scientific paper and get it peer reviewed and send it off to a reputable journal with your, er, “findings”. Be sure and include phrases like “raving green” and “bs scenario” so they know to take you seriously.
I’m still waiting for those figures which considering that you’re an obvious believer I’d have thought that you’d be able to provide.That’s ‘if’ the bs theory was true of course.However being that it’s actually bs it’s no surprise that you could only provide yet more of the same politically driven garbage as all the other believers instead.
You know enough to diss the whole theory, you clearly know where to find the figures. You wouldn’t read them anyway. Besides, your next post:
Carryfast:
So how how can the poles supposedly be melting when a recent ‘climate change’ expedition got blocked in by ice in the Antarctic in mid Summer let alone winter and when America has been continuously blasted through the winter by a freezing polar air mass which is what has caused the jet stream issue.
shows that you don’t even understand the difference between weather and climate, which is at best an elementary mistake and marks you out as a bit stupid. This stuff doesn’t happen over years, or even decades.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
Don’t argue it with me, CF … write a proper scientific paper and get it peer reviewed and send it off to a reputable journal with your, er, “findings”. Be sure and include phrases like “raving green” and “bs scenario” so they know to take you seriously.
I’m still waiting for those figures which considering that you’re an obvious believer I’d have thought that you’d be able to provide.That’s ‘if’ the bs theory was true of course.However being that it’s actually bs it’s no surprise that you could only provide yet more of the same politically driven garbage as all the other believers instead.
I can only repeat my earlier suggestion, which you’ve helpfully quoted above. If you have evidence of your own, write it up, get it peer reviewed and send it off to somewhere like Nature or a similar reputable scientific journal. Then let us know how it’s received. In the meantime, you could maybe refute some of the climate change science in a clear and logical way, providing your own counter evidence and theories … if there’s anything in your research, which has undoubtedly occupied a great deal of your time over the last decade or so, dismissing the established scientific literature which currently exists on the subject shouldn’t present you with any difficulty.
It’s not a matter of “believing”, by the way … scientists don’t work like that. It’s not religion (which is a matter of faith): scientists look at what evidence they have available and formulate hypotheses based on what that evidence appears to support. When new evidence comes to light, the hypothesis is modified and eventually, when it’s supported by enough evidence, it becomes a theory. If at any point, evidence comes to light which does not support the initial hypothesis, that hypothesis is binned or modified and the whole process begins again. No “belief” necessary. I don’t, however, expect you to read this far or take any of it on board.
Unlike that idiot Sagan and his followers,it’s not me who’s been telling everyone since the 1970’s that there’s a direct link between Earth’s temperature and the minute level of CO2 in it’s atmosphere and/or that there’s any noticeable increase in temperature caused by the even more minute increase,if any,in the level of CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.Assuming those followers,who obviously include yourself,can’t prove any link mathematically then there obviously is no link.
So I’ll ask again 
percentage increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 = percentage increase in daily temperatures globally assuming that there is any link whatsoever.It’s my bet that just like Sagan and the rest of his followers you can’t provide the relevant figures.Which isn’t surprising being that there is no link whatsoever.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
Don’t argue it with me, CF … write a proper scientific paper and get it peer reviewed and send it off to a reputable journal with your, er, “findings”. Be sure and include phrases like “raving green” and “bs scenario” so they know to take you seriously.
I’m still waiting for those figures which considering that you’re an obvious believer I’d have thought that you’d be able to provide.That’s ‘if’ the bs theory was true of course.However being that it’s actually bs it’s no surprise that you could only provide yet more of the same politically driven garbage as all the other believers instead.
You know enough to diss the whole theory, you clearly know where to find the figures. You wouldn’t read them anyway. Besides, your next post:
Carryfast:
So how how can the poles supposedly be melting when a recent ‘climate change’ expedition got blocked in by ice in the Antarctic in mid Summer let alone winter and when America has been continuously blasted through the winter by a freezing polar air mass which is what has caused the jet stream issue.
shows that you don’t even understand the difference between weather and climate, which is at best an elementary mistake and marks you out as a bit stupid. This stuff doesn’t happen over years, or even decades.
It’s the raving global warming theorists who are saying that the current level of CO2 is causing noticeable temperature increases that are enough to melt polar ice.All of which is stated as a change which has taken place relatively recently which seems to contradict your statement.When the fact is it’s obviously cold enough in Polar regions in the Summer let alone winter to make ships ice bound just as it ever was.
Carryfast:
Unlike that idiot Sagan and his followers,it’s not me who’s been telling everyone since the 1970’s that there’s a direct link between Earth’s temperature and the minute level of CO2 in it’s atmosphere and/or that there’s any noticeable increase in temperature caused by the even more minute increase,if any,in the level of CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.Assuming those followers,who obviously include yourself,can’t prove any link mathematically then there obviously is no link.
So I’ll ask again percentage increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 = percentage increase in daily temperatures globally assuming that there is any link whatsoever.It’s my bet that just like Sagan and the rest of his followers you can’t provide the relevant figures.Which isn’t surprising being that there is no link whatsoever.
Well, if you’re so insistent on figures, provide a few of your own. After all, you’re the chap arguing against the overwhelming body of evidence. I say again, it’s not me that you need to have this argument with; go and get your research peer reviewed and published.
However, since you want something a bit more concrete, have a look at some of the links here … scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=C … CDQQgQMwAA It’s tricky to find reputable scientific articles you can access for free online, but some of the articles linked to should give you an idea.
Here - aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm - is a more general summary of the greenhouse effect and how it works.
pa.msu.edu/~sciencet/ask_st/083194.html is aimed at children as far as I can tell, so might be about on your level.
Here - skepticalscience.com/empiric … vanced.htm - are some articles from sceptical science, which refute some of the statements you’ve been making and explain among other things why the fact that is was cold last Wednesday week, and is still cold in the Antarctic, is not a valid argument against climate change. As though anyone intelligent thinks it is.
I could go on … I appreciate “Google” is not the same as “Research”, but really CF, there’s no reason for you not to have had a look at this stuff yourself. However, as you’re obviously not interested in opening your dullard’s mind to anything new, and are capable of dismissing entire worlds of properly peer reviewed and rigorously researched scientific literature, it’s unlikely that you’ll be convinced by anything I say or any links I post. You know my views … when you’ve had the results of your own climate research published, come back and we can debate further.
RT - You have the patience of a saint. Not even a hint of exasperation!
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Unlike that idiot Sagan and his followers,it’s not me who’s been telling everyone since the 1970’s that there’s a direct link between Earth’s temperature and the minute level of CO2 in it’s atmosphere and/or that there’s any noticeable increase in temperature caused by the even more minute increase,if any,in the level of CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.Assuming those followers,who obviously include yourself,can’t prove any link mathematically then there obviously is no link.
So I’ll ask again percentage increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 = percentage increase in daily temperatures globally assuming that there is any link whatsoever.It’s my bet that just like Sagan and the rest of his followers you can’t provide the relevant figures.Which isn’t surprising being that there is no link whatsoever.
Well, if you’re so insistent on figures, provide a few of your own. After all, you’re the chap arguing against the overwhelming body of evidence. I say again, it’s not me that you need to have this argument with; go and get your research peer reviewed and published.
However, since you want something a bit more concrete, have a look at some of the links here … scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=C … CDQQgQMwAA It’s tricky to find reputable scientific articles you can access for free online, but some of the articles linked to should give you an idea.
Here - aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm - is a more general summary of the greenhouse effect and how it works.
pa.msu.edu/~sciencet/ask_st/083194.html is aimed at children as far as I can tell, so might be about on your level.
Here - skepticalscience.com/empiric … vanced.htm - are some articles from sceptical science, which refute some of the statements you’ve been making and explain among other things why the fact that is was cold last Wednesday week, and is still cold in the Antarctic, is not a valid argument against climate change. As though anyone intelligent thinks it is.
I could go on … I appreciate “Google” is not the same as “Research”, but really CF, there’s no reason for you not to have had a look at this stuff yourself. However, as you’re obviously not interested in opening your dullard’s mind to anything new, and are capable of dismissing entire worlds of properly peer reviewed and rigorously researched scientific literature, it’s unlikely that you’ll be convinced by anything I say or any links I post. You know my views … when you’ve had the results of your own climate research published, come back and we can debate further.
What a surprise a typical believer in the bs global warming theory,when asked to provide something as simple,as the figures showing a direct link,between Earth’s atmospheric CO2 and day to day temperatures,can’t do it because the figures don’t exist.It’s no surprise that just like any global warming believer you then try to justify your cause by posting a load of bs propaganda none of which answers the question.Assuming that my statements concerning temperatures in the Polar regions aren’t valid then why should the believers continuous references to same be considered as any more valid.Although at least the references that I’m relying on are based on facts not bs.The fact is the global warmist cause is as dangerous as Communism and Religeous extremism like the Taliban in that it’s just a matter of time until what are just a bunch of mentally disturbed zealots are allowed to take over the asylum if they aren’t stopped.
www.dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-9 … are-wrong/
www.dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit- … ly-flawed/
