Global warming

He is a chart that even a climate changing denying dullard like Tom can understand.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yawn...

QED.

Yawn...

Well, I'm glad I clicked on this scintillating thread.

Putting the same bullshit into a different picture doesn't change the fact that it's still bullshit...

It's only you that thinks it's bullhsit. But whatever. You're entitled to your opinion.

I've posted the official data...


This picture is promoting a lie!

The same lie as the Nazi gas chambers weren't real?

I've posted up the actual data on other threads.

Bloody global warming, not in Manchester.
I flew round doing everything that had to be done earlier, it was scorchio....now I can relax in the garden it's gone all dull and cloudy.....so much for the heatwave we were promised.

Handy Andy wrote:The same lie as the Nazi gas chambers weren't  real?

Has Tommy ever said that HA?

Well HA??? has he???

Where have I said he did? They are both lies. Ergo, the same.
Weak attack Foul.

Handy Andy wrote:Where have I said he did? They are both lies. Ergo, the same.
Weak attack Foul.

Why didn't you use something stupid he did actually say?

There isnt any eddie... so he has to make shit up...

Handy Andy wrote:Where have I said he did? They are both lies. Ergo, the same.
Weak attack Foul.

weak attack????...you think I cant see through your deliberate "smear by implication" attempt...??

you think I am NOT wise to your lots little ploys...?

You are paranoid Foul. Still think me as part of "you lot".
Didn't they have a commie witch hunt in the 1950's?
You are losing the plot. Go and have a rest and let us raging red communists take over the forum. We are poised with our spy cameras and hacking devices.

No... you have been rumbled hand shandy!!!

Yawn

Handy Andy wrote:Yawn

I see you are even boring yourself off now...!

It is difficult to converse with someone who was brainn damaged at birth.
Perhaps they mixed you up with the afterbirth.

That's a bit nasty Handy.

He wont address the thread.

you mean the thread you started as a personal attack on him?
Tommy it seems had got far more sense than to feed a troll.

Surely the question is not "is there climate change?" but "why is there climate change?"

The climate has been changing throughout history, and will continue to change. Earth began as a red hot cinder and will eventually end up as one.

We are currently in a period which we consider as being the optimum for the support of human life on the planet and the tendency is to regard even a modest change in temperature - in either direction - as being potentially catastrophic to the continuation of human life.

It is also a natural tendency to blame someone - or at least something created by humankind - as being the cause, hence the enthusiasm among governments for the creation of new and heavy "green" taxes and punitive charges on energy use while studiously avoiding any mention of the real reason for them...and that is to fill the ever deepening black holes in national exchequers.

The scientific world, or at least that part of it connected to climatic research, is inevitably keen fully to support the political line...mainly because their own levels of financial support depend largely on the largesse or otherwise of government. Thus we have the formerly highly respected climatic research department at the University of East Anglia caught out being deliberately, er, economical with the truth in order to make the facts stick to the official story, while scientists such as David Bailey are not only ridiculed but made targets of public hatred and contempt.

I'm not a scientist but I know enough about history to realise that there has always been constant climate change - and always will be.

I am, however, far from being convinced that my personal choice to drive a diesel BMW and a petrol-thirsty classic Land Rover is contributing anything to the equasion other than a shedload of cash to the government's coffers.

oh dear Fred......

you drive a BMW......

agghhhhhhhh

your soul is, of course, saved to some extent by also driving a landy

but I am forced to ask.....is it true you have to remove your brain BEFORE driving the BMW???

Fred, that was a good answer for those who will listen to only one side of the argument, and a post not containing insulting remarks to posters who do not believe.

Look out for posters who think your deluded.

Lord Foul wrote:oh dear Fred......

you drive a BMW......

agghhhhhhhh

your soul is, of course, saved to some extent by also driving a landy

but I am forced to ask.....is it true you have to remove your brain BEFORE driving the BMW???

The last time I had to remove my brain before driving, the car in question was a Morris Marina (yes, I kid you not!). It was my company car so I had little choice but to risk life and limb every time I got into the bloody thing, and putting myself into a semi-comatose state before turning the key did at least help me not to think too much about what was likely to go wrong...brakes failing, wheels coming off, engine catching fire, that sort of thing.

Yeah, I know I ought to be a drug dealer or Mafia capo to be driving around in a BMW, but it's all my dog's fault...her car cage is a bloody big one and the 218d Gran Tourer Luxury was one of the relatively few cars on my wish list to meet the specifications of her travel accommodation. Lovely drive and not a daft price, like most models, so I'm happy enough.

Not only has my soul been saved by being a Landy owner (of half a century standing, I might add, having learned to drive on a Series 1)...but I am positively beatific: my fourth and current beast is a restored Series 2a County Station Wagon of 1971 vintage, possibly one of the very last of the Land Rover dynasty before they fitted an (aaaaggggh!) plastic radiator grille to the newly introduced Series 3 in that year.

She's an absolute pig to drive...but what a drive!

nicko wrote:Fred, that was a good answer for those who will listen to only one side of the argument,  and a post not containing insulting remarks to posters who do not believe.

Look out for posters who think your deluded.

I'm a gentle, harmless old soul as you know, Nicko...but I shall gird my loins in anticipation!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Surely the question is not "is there climate change?" but "why is there climate change?"

The climate has been changing throughout history, and will continue to change. Earth began as a red hot cinder and will eventually end up as one.

We are currently in a period which we consider as being the optimum for the support of human life on the planet and the tendency is to regard even a modest change in temperature - in either direction - as being potentially catastrophic to the continuation of human life.

It is also a natural tendency to blame someone - or at least something created by humankind - as being the cause, hence the enthusiasm among governments for the creation of new and heavy "green" taxes and punitive charges on energy use while studiously avoiding any mention of the real reason for them...and that is to fill the ever deepening black holes in national exchequers.

The scientific world, or at least that part of it connected to climatic research, is inevitably keen fully to support the political line...mainly because  their own levels of financial support depend largely on the largesse or otherwise of government. Thus we have the formerly highly respected climatic research department at the University of East Anglia  caught out being deliberately, er, economical with the truth in order to make the facts stick to the official story, while scientists such as David Bailey are not only ridiculed but made targets of public hatred and contempt.

I'm not a scientist but I know enough about history to realise that there has always been constant climate change - and always will be.

I am, however, far from being convinced that my personal choice to drive a diesel BMW and a petrol-thirsty classic Land Rover is contributing anything to the equasion other than a shedload of cash to the government's coffers.

Exactly Moley!!!


Have a green!

I have produced the actual facts about how much this rise has been and when...


This has always been the facts the ipcc and nasa and others have actually said... but I have told the facts without adding the hyperbolic waffle that others have used in their articles...


From 1880 to now there has been an estimated temp rise of 0.85 degrees centigrade.


Over the last 20 years there has been no significant temp rise at all, and coincidentally, solar activity has remained constant level over this time too... (estimated 0.06 degrees centigrade change over last 20 years)


Solar activity has increased significantly over the last 100 years or so.


There is a direct correlation between increased solar activity and increased global temperatures here on earth.


Other planets in our solar system have also seen a rise in their global temperatures over this same time.



Look at the facts I tell you... think about them... check them out yourself if you dont believe me...

http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences






https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/




Does hand shandys comic book picture accurately reflect any of the ACTUAL TEMP CHANGE FACTS THAT I HAVE SHOWN...!?

And as you can also see... a decrease in solar activity results in lower temperatures...!

None so blind as those who cannot see! [Or refuse to]

FRED drives a  218d  !?!

Never worry, Mr. Moletrousers..
No doubt one day your lot will inprove.
And then, maybe you will be able to afford a more decent drive..        

(AS for the Series II Landrover -- the engines in them really are a load of garbage..).

nicko wrote:
None so blind as those who cannot see!     [Or refuse to]

You really shouldn't encourage the wee poor lad, nicko...

Supporting Tommy's anti-science denialist nonsense only makes you seem more gullible..

The facts I post are from the scientists...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

FRED drives a  218d  !?!

Never worry, Mr. Moletrousers..
No doubt one day your lot will inprove.
And then, maybe you will be able to afford a more decent drive..        

(AS for the Series II  Landrover  --  the engines in them really are a load of garbage..).

My "lot" is sufficient to allow me to have chosen - new - from Merc, Audi, Range Rover or BMW. The 218d was selected to meet my preferences and requirements, which did not include trying to impress other people.

My Landy's original two and a quarter litre petrol engine has gone once round the clock; is well into its second century and still runs sweet as a nut, just like many other old Solihull-built classics still plodding happily round Britain's roads.

Just because Aussie mechanics are too bloody dim-witted to know how to maintain them properly hardly qualifies them as a load of garbage

Aussies used to buy any Rover sd1 they could get, the wanted the 4ltr V8 engine to put in their own cars.

nicko wrote:Aussies used to buy any Rover sd1 they could get,   the wanted the 4ltr V8 engine to put in their own cars.

Well, mate, one of those would be more at home driving across the Outback than traversing the grid system of Milton Keynes. My 218d and Landy 2a CSW are quite adequate for my needs as I am more Milton Keynes than Outback!

That was priceless! Hahahahahaha

Very funny... but totally factually inaccurate...

Ben, did you draw all that yourself?

nicko wrote:Ben,   did you draw all that yourself?

LOL - no he didn't

http://xkcd.com/

worlds leading stick figure comic for Physicists, Mathematicians and Academics

another example of his work

I love his graphs

Tommy Monk wrote:
Very funny... but totally factually inaccurate...

Says the stupidest and most ignorant twat on this forum :

Doesn't understand Science,
Hopeless at Maths,
Doesn't understand Statistics,
Can't read graphs;

Makes up "facts" to suit his latest fairytales.
Then cherry_picks data to fit his pathetic and selfish agendas...

The only reason you enter into of these scientific based, technical and environmental topics is to cause as much distraction, misdirection, pointless (non)argument, messiness and pute gibberish as you can, isn't it Tommy ?        

I've posted the facts... all verifiable...

So the Professor of Climatology at Reading University was interviewed on LBC yesterday explaining why the warmer trend in weather this century is a result of man's interference  by way of carbon emissions, the ozone hole was a liar.?
Who is better qualified?
An expert university Professor specialising in climatology and meteorology or
Tom. A dolt who thinks the earth is flat and the reductions in polar ice are a result of the hot air from the mouths of those who insist climate change is happening.