Educational Thread On Global Warming

[Guest]

Climate change will push millions from their homes. Where will they go?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xuZT7VkjVg


What if Carbon Emissions Stopped Tomorrow?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kX9xKGeEw


Why Are Hurricanes Getting Stronger?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E1Nt7JQRzc

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg

[Guest]

give me money because feelz not facts

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YezbREhH_Eg

[Guest]

Climate change cultists, don't believe in God because they can't see the evidence of his existence ..............Believes in climate change without any evidence of its existence

But remember climate change is not a religion

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

[Victorismyhero]

BUT.....in the long run and grand scheme of things.....

is anthropogenic global warming any worse than the potential alternative of dropping into another glacial period????

have a look at this, the guy shows that absent our CO2 input we "should" be heading for another long term severe period of glaciation

freeze or bake...your choice.....

[Tommy Monk]

Vostok data shows quite clearly that we are due to enter into another ice age...


And GISP2 data shows that most of the last 2000 and 10000 years have been as warm or warmer than now...!!!

[Victorismyhero]

watch the vid Tommy and learn

the warming we are experiencing now IS "unnatural" and caused by human activity, he expl,icitly states this towards the end

however whether or not this will prove to be a bane or a blessing is debatable...

[Tommy Monk]

Will look tomorrow...


But has been warmer in recent times... the Romans had vineyards successfully established up as far north as scotland... and the giant sequoia trees in western USA didn't evolve there by accident to require regular forest fires so they were able to reproduce...


And these trees can each live for up to 3000 years!


So... the long term normal for these trees in that region of the world, is clearly that where regular forest fires occur...

[Ben Reilly]

Imagine how bad it would be if the planet weren't trying to tip into a new glacial period. We'd have all fried up by now.

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=24&t=0s

[Victorismyhero]

thats the point Ben...its only "trying" at the moment...one point he does make id that many of the other things that affect climate ATM are fairly weak in action so the role of greenhouse forcing is relatively large. whether that continues to be the case is debateable. bear in mind the co2 has been as high as 1700 ppm in the past and the planet didnt self combust....in fact it did rather well biologically speaking...... The expected FALL in temp during glacial periods id upwards of 6 degrees (centigrade) how much warming have we managed so far??? less that 1.5 degrees???

get yer snow shoes and mammoth ready.......

[Victorismyhero]

umm didge THAT doesnt answer what I posted....in fact it has little to do with it and is indeed considered by the speaker in my post to be "in the noise"

IF you look at the recurring cycles of ice ages and the long term astronomical causes he mentions you will see why.

[Victorismyhero]

the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle

[Guest]

thats the point Ben...its only "trying" at the moment...one point he does make id that many of the other things that affect climate ATM are fairly weak in action so the role of greenhouse forcing is relatively large. whether that continues to be the case is debateable. bear in mind the co2 has been as high as 1700 ppm in the past and the planet didnt self combust....in fact it did rather well biologically speaking...... The expected FALL in temp during glacial periods id upwards of 6 degrees (centigrade)  how much warming have we managed so far??? less that 1.5 degrees???

get yer snow shoes and mammoth  ready.......

Is it debateable?

We have glacial periods and inerglacial periods, do we not mate?

The planet of the past had what life forms able to sustain itself based on such levels.

You then have to say whether humans and other species would be able to sustain themselves based on a level of the past

The reality is, that is emphatically no and why such an argument is poor in making mate

The reality is this. The Sun is at its lowest levels and only CO2 is know to cause a tempreture rise alongside the growing level of the sun itself. We know the sun has cycles, as has does the earth. Everytime there has been high tempretures with the earth. It has been based on high levels of CO2 and the level of the sun. When its been ice ages, its based on low levels of Co2

That is a fact mate and why we should be heading slowly into an ice age, but the opposite is happenning. Where even if we ommitted levels of Co2 tomorrow. It would takle thousand sof years still to get back to pre 1700 levels

I appreciate the video, but lets base some facts here

[Guest]

the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Shoiw me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

[Victorismyhero]

the ice age cycles have more to do with orbital parameters and the inclination of the polar axis to the sun AND at what point (aphelion or perihelion) the tillt of the earth gives more northern hemisphere warming he explains it quite well near the end of the talk...

[Victorismyhero]

the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Show me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

[Guest]

the ice age cycles have more to do with orbital parameters and the inclination of the polar axis to the sun AND at what point (aphelion or perihelion) the tillt of the earth gives more northern hemisphere warming he explains it quite well near the end of the talk...

Based on his hypoethsis

He is not even a climate scientist is he?

Show me which people in his field agree with him?

I mean based on the above his claim is bullshit, as its not factoring the costant warming of the sun over time and how there is cylces of solar warning and cooling on solar activity

He is a professor of astronomy

So spare me the babble mate

[Guest]

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Show me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

[Ben Reilly]

The only thing about the Earth's glacial periods is that they came on (get it?) VERY slowly, like over millions of years.

[Victorismyhero]

spare me your stupidity

do you know how top read graphs?

IF.....you graph the expected solar irradience as affected by the combined astronomical cycles onto the time map of ice ages the fit is perfect ...the test is how well does it map to past events,,,,the answer is very precicely therefor one can be "reasonably" confident of its ability to predict what will happen in the future UNLESS one of the orbital parameters changes ...which is as likely as god appearing on your door step asking for a spliff.....

[Victorismyhero]

The only thing about the Earth's glacial periods is that they came on (get it?) VERY slowly, like over millions of years.

uhm...not really

[Victorismyhero]

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Show me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

chicken shit.....

I notice you carefully omitted the quote I was replying to which was


   Lord Foul wrote:
   the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle



Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Shoiw me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?


Thor

   Posts : 4125
   Reputation : 80
   Join date : 2018-11-16

   View user profile Send private message Send e-mail

Lord Foul wrote:
the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Shoiw me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists? <<<<<<<<<<<
Back to top

[Guest]

spare me your stupidity

do you know how top read graphs?

IF.....you graph the expected solar irradience  as affected by the combined astronomical cycles onto the time map of ice ages the fit is perfect ...the test is how well does it map to past events,,,,the answer is very precicely therefor one can be "reasonably" confident of its ability to predict what will happen in the future UNLESS one of the orbital parameters changes ...which is as likely as god appearing on your door step asking for a spliff.....

Yes i do know how to read graphs

So show me as I stated his statistcial evidence. That shows through the last hundred millions of years. With CO2 levls, based on cycles and the continued warning and growing levels of the Sun?

The Ice ages is well known based on lower CO2 levels

I suggest you look back at the first couple of videos

Then present me evidence from your astronomer  , that has scientistis back his claims and not seen them righty as a hypothetsis which can be rightly challenged

You may want to be gullible to claims, but at least I look to people using collective science and data. Which I am even open to being wrong

I seriously do not tale much stock in an astronomer, who has nothing to back his claims

Put up or jog on

[Guest]

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

never deleted anything

So now lord foul is desperate to lie

Going to post his previous post as well

[Guest]

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Show me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

Now if people look back he edited his post and then claimed I am a liar and claiming I omited

never did any such thing

You owe me an apology Lord Liar

[Victorismyhero]

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Show me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

AND ...YOU jog on...unless you can identify those "golden mistakes"


I love it when you try to close down decent DEBATE with your loud mouth tactics if the subject doesnt please you..... you sound just like a cornered lefty.....

YOU have claimed he has made important mistakes....IF that is the case the
n point them out...as YOU understand them....

NOPE you only "claim so" which proves that your claim comes soley from your severely limited knowlege of these things....stick to history.....

[Guest]

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

AND ...YOU jog on...unless you can identify those "golden mistakes"


I love it when you try to close down decent DEBATE with your loud mouth tactics if the subject doesnt please you..... you sound just like a cornered lefty.....  

YOU have claimed he has made important mistakes....IF that is the case the
n point them out...as YOU understand them....  

NOPE you only "claim so" which proves that your claim comes soley from your severely limited knowlege of these things....stick to history.....

How am I trying to close down debate, by you for one lying. Over claim something I never did?

Second, over you not actually presenting data to back up your claims?

I have pointed his mistakes out

Read back

Stop being angry and actually read my replies

[Guest]

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

AND ...YOU jog on...unless you can identify those "golden mistakes"


I love it when you try to close down decent DEBATE with your loud mouth tactics if the subject doesnt please you..... you sound just like a cornered lefty.....  

YOU have claimed he has made important mistakes....IF that is the case the
n point them out...as YOU understand them....  

NOPE you only "claim so" which proves that your claim comes soley from your severely limited knowlege of these things....stick to history.....

How am I trying to close down debate, by you for one lying. Over claim something I never did?

Second, over you not actually presenting data to back up your claims?

I have pointed his mistakes out

Read back

Stop being angry and actually read my replies

[Victorismyhero]

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Show me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

Oh fuck off with that idiocy....its a long established well known and demonstrable effect of quiet solar cycles...ham radio users hate em......

and on top of which nearly all the "climate" scientists continually shout about how the minor variations in climate caused by sunspot activity is irrelevant.

WQith which I would tend to agree. its one of those "weak" effectors that is totally over ridden by CO2......

Now if people look back he edited his post and then claimed I am a liar and claiming I omited

never did any such thing

You owe me an apology Lord Liar

! I didnt edit my post...I copied and pasted it into another post....

the post YOU replied top was, as stated

Lord Foul wrote:
the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Shoiw me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

[Guest]

Now if people look back he edited his post and then claimed I am a liar and claiming I omited

never did any such thing

You owe me an apology Lord Liar

! I didnt edit my post...I copied and pasted it into another post....

the post YOU replied top was, as stated

   Lord Foul wrote:
   the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Shoiw me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

So you lied

Lets first have you admit that you lied with your accusation and apologise?

[Victorismyhero]

Oh I see when I point out your wonder boy has made some really golden mistakes. You then claim things I have not said

You place youbacking in an astronomer



The only thing weak here is for you to back up your claims with science

Either put up or jog on

AND ...YOU jog on...unless you can identify those "golden mistakes"


I love it when you try to close down decent DEBATE with your loud mouth tactics if the subject doesnt please you..... you sound just like a cornered lefty.....  

YOU have claimed he has made important mistakes....IF that is the case the
n point them out...as YOU understand them....  

NOPE you only "claim so" which proves that your claim comes soley from your severely limited knowlege of these things....stick to history.....

How am I trying to close down debate, by you for one lying. Over claim something I never did?

Second, over you not actually presenting data to back up your claims?

I have pointed his mistakes out

Read back

Stop being angry and actually read my replies

you have pointed out NO mistakes.....

the film YOU posted shows nothing new or even relevant, he already, in his presentation dismisses sunspot activity as insignificant and "in the noise"

[Victorismyhero]

Now if people look back he edited his post and then claimed I am a liar and claiming I omited

never did any such thing

You owe me an apology Lord Liar

! I didnt edit my post...I copied and pasted it into another post....

the post YOU replied top was, as stated

   Lord Foul wrote:
   the WORST thing about thgios quiet solar cycle is ...it screws up many of the modes wherby my ham radio transmissions are propagated........sniffle

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

Shoiw me the acrual statistical data that os corrborated by at least 10 climate scientists?

So you lied

Lets first have you admit that you lied with your accusation and apologise?

erm...how did i lie????

the evidence is above.....

I posted and you replied as above

which is a fkkin stupid reply to the point I made.........

[Guest]

How am I trying to close down debate, by you for one lying. Over claim something I never did?

Second, over you not actually presenting data to back up your claims?

I have pointed his mistakes out

Read back

Stop being angry and actually read my replies

you have pointed out NO mistakes.....

the film YOU posted shows nothing new or even relevant, he already, in his presentation dismisses sunspot activity as insignificant and "in the noise"

Not the youtube clipe but his understanding of what we know causes ice ages and warning. Is always based on Co2 levels and the constant warming and growing of the sun and solar activity. Of which we are now in a downward spiral of.

I said this before and you ignored what I actually said

So lets ask you some real knowledge

Explain how the earth warmed up after the first ice age?

[Guest]

So you lied

Lets first have you admit that you lied with your accusation and apologise?

 erm...how did i lie????

the evidence is above.....

I posted and you replied as above

which is a fkkin stupid reply to the point I made.........

You claimed i carefully ommitted a quote, did you not?

I did no such thing, that was simple your paranoia

[Victorismyhero]

erm 1st ice age??? Is this "snowball earth" or???????

can we be precise about this.....BECAUSE back beyond a certain point the main driver for change is a little uncertain due simply to it being so long ago.....the ice core record doesnt really go back that far......in fact it cant...since subsequent warm periods melted it completely.....


so please indulge me and give the approximate date for the one y9ou are talking about.....

I suspect I do know the answer,,,but...........

[Victorismyhero]

So you lied

Lets first have you admit that you lied with your accusation and apologise?

 erm...how did i lie????

the evidence is above.....

I posted and you replied as above

which is a fkkin stupid reply to the point I made.........

You claimed i carefully ommitted a quote, did you not?

I did no such thing, that was simple your paranoia

ah...my mistake and I appologise...its the "quote within quote" limit of the site that did that...I see now....

however...you reply was still erm,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Guest]

erm 1st ice age??? Is this "snowball earth" or???????

can we be precise about this.....BECAUSE back beyond a certain point the main driver for change is a little uncertain due simply to it being so long ago.....the ice core record doesnt really go back that far......in fact it cant...since subsequent warm periods melted it completely.....


so please indulge me and give the approximate date for the one y9ou are talking about.....

I suspect I do know the answer,,,but...........

Copout

I asked how the earth warmed up after the first ice age

You ever heard of the two flood events called the Siberian Traps and the Central Atlantic magmatic Provience?

[Guest]

You claimed i carefully ommitted a quote, did you not?

I did no such thing, that was simple your paranoia

ah...my mistake and I appologise...its the "quote within quote" limit of the site that did that...I see now....

however...you reply was still erm,,,,,,,,,,,,

Excatly dude, you need to post properly in replies as its confusing and not only for me but you.

[Tommy Monk]

LF... it may be a bit warmer than it has been over the last few hundred years... maybe about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer than 1880s... but most of the 10000 years before now have been just as warm or even warmer...!


But the earth orbit round the sun changes both in distance from the sun and the earth axis also changes over time... plus the sun's energy is subject to fluctuations too, ie, not a constant either...


Another thing... it is evident in certain studies that CO2 levels change as a result of warmer/cooler periods, with these changes lagging behind the temp changes, not occurring before the temp changes... so not a cause, but rather a resulting factor...


Vostok ice core data goes back 100s of thousands of years...

[Guest]

erm 1st ice age??? Is this "snowball earth" or???????

can we be precise about this.....BECAUSE back beyond a certain point the main driver for change is a little uncertain due simply to it being so long ago.....the ice core record doesnt really go back that far......in fact it cant...since subsequent warm periods melted it completely.....


so please indulge me and give the approximate date for the one y9ou are talking about.....

I suspect I do know the answer,,,but...........

Copout

I asked how the earth warmed up after the first ice age

You ever heard of the two flood events called the Siberian Traps and the Central Atlantic magmatic Provience?

-

You see Victor

I am not going to doubt an astronomer on levels of solar activity, but I will question why he has never question events in earths hstory. That created such an influx of CO2, that we not only know it cause the earth to rapidily rise in tempreture, but no doubt caused countless extinction of life. We know very well that CO2 levels is what plays the fundemental part in what creates global warming and the lower levels that help lead to ice ages.

We know the our sun has continually grown in size and strengh, but we also know that it has a cycle, as the earth does called the Milankovitch cycle, based on thousands of years. That it is a constant cycle through our universe. Its a know procession, which I am sure you know. Which can cause a fluctuation in tempreture cycles, which are consistant. Unless there is other factors like for example the levels of CO2. We know CO2 levels have been consistantly vastly lower during ice ages.

Anywa, all the best mate. I am no expert on this, but I know enough to know the science is there for people to read and see

Night

[Victorismyhero]

erm 1st ice age??? Is this "snowball earth" or???????

can we be precise about this.....BECAUSE back beyond a certain point the main driver for change is a little uncertain due simply to it being so long ago.....the ice core record doesnt really go back that far......in fact it cant...since subsequent warm periods melted it completely.....


so please indulge me and give the approximate date for the one y9ou are talking about.....

I suspect I do know the answer,,,but...........

Copout

I asked how the earth warmed up after the first ice age

You ever heard of the two flood events called the Siberian Traps and the Central Atlantic magmatic Provience?

so you cant give a rough era, but OK....that was the answer is suspected you were fishing for.


However....lets be precise here there are "ice ages" and then there are "ice ages"

according to literature there have been 5 major iceages but a lot more lesser ones..........


the Siberian trapps eruptions caused permian triassic extinction

"The eruptions continued for roughly two million years and spanned the P–T boundary, or the Permian–Triassic boundary, which occurred between 251 to 250 million years ago."

BUT ...I can find no documents refering to them as ending an iceage. If you can please post a link

[Guest]

Copout

I asked how the earth warmed up after the first ice age

You ever heard of the two flood events called the Siberian Traps and the Central Atlantic magmatic Provience?

so you cant give a rough era, but OK....that was the answer is suspected you were fishing for.


However....lets be precise here  there are "ice ages" and then there are "ice ages"

according to literature there have been 5 major iceages but a lot more lesser ones..........


the Siberian trapps eruptions caused permian triassic extinction

"The eruptions continued for roughly two million years and spanned the P–T boundary, or the Permian–Triassic boundary, which occurred between 251 to 250 million years ago."

BUT ...I can find no documents refering to them as ending an iceage. If you can please post a link

Have a watch mate

Night

[Victorismyhero]

I dont agree with Patrick Moore, but neither do I agree with this presenters assesment either.....

both have missed an additional element in the orbital equations which the presentation I posted includes......

However....

consider this

the climate change guys focus soley on CO2 levels and we know that (in the past) warming actually preceeds a rise in CO2...so the fact that this time warming is FOLLOWING co2 obviously there is a problem ...

however that does not preclude the fact that we could still be heading for what "should" be an ice age.... and this should NOT be lightly dismissed and the back of what is quite literally, politically fortuitous hysteria,

dont forget co2 HAS been as high as 1700ppm in the past , I cant remember when that was or ehast conditions were like...I'm not THAT old .......no....i mean i dont want to watch through that presentation again tonight.....

COULD it be that the confused and somewhat wild climate conditions (and I use climate advisedly) such as increased frequency and power of hurricanes and the wiold snow conditions we have seen are not so much the effect of warming per se but due to some sort of conflict in a climate that ought to be slipping into cooling but is being instead warmed? I dont know...but someone should ask and research that question.....

because.....get this wrong......and oh boy is there going to be fun

we can I think survive as an advanced civilisation (regardless of individual casualties) in a warming scenario I very much doubt thats possible under a mile of ice.........

[Victorismyhero]

not to mention THAT

unless we turn off all power, stop all industry
and go back to the stone age.........good luck with selling THAT on the street......ITS TOO LATE....

renewables in the main are as bad as fossil fuels...solar requires expensive high carbon footprint solar cells
wind and sea...requires complex large carbon footprint machines that are both expensive and unreliable,,,,,

so.....

even if we curtail the use of fossil fuels.......(how? public transport wont work over most of the globe and would require draconian enforcement and revolution) it would take 20-30 years to get it anywhertte near under control IN THE WEST the developing world would collapse since teh west would descend into poverty and not but anything ......

SO instead of wasting time money and carbon footprints on pointless meetings and wailings...how about we do something revolutionary

the climate scientists seem to be able to predict the future so well they are only 10's of years out of date so...lets take their worst case scenario for warming......and PREPARE for it

[Guest]

I dont agree with Patrick Moore, but neither do I agree with this presenters assesment either.....

both have missed an additional element in the orbital equations which the presentation I posted includes......

No he did not miss that out

[Guest]

COULD it be that the confused and somewhat wild climate conditions (and I use climate advisedly) such as increased frequency and power of hurricanes and the wiold snow conditions we have seen are not so much the effect of warming per se but due to some sort of conflict in a climate that ought to be slipping into cooling but is being instead warmed? I dont know...but someone should ask and research that question.....

because.....get this wrong......and oh boy is there going to be fun

we can I think survive as an advanced civilisation (regardless of individual casualties) in a warming scenario   I very much doubt thats possible under a mile of ice.........

Could it Be?

I suggest you go with that, when presenting youre evidence

[Sponsored content]