Global Warming Do You Care?

[HS Mauberley]

I love it when people resort to insults, which is what youv'e done to anybody who dare question your super knowledge. However, in my experience, the person resorting to insults has usually lost the argument. Carry on, you are holding the shovel.

Really? Most people would have the good sense not to draw attention to their misunderstandings.

It was a very, very simple, straightforward analogy (perhaps not the best, but unarguably simple). However, to make things easier I said (more or less) “This is an analogy.” Unfortunately, this wasn’t clear enough so I provided an explanation along the lines of “This is an analogy and it means…” Sadly, this wasn’t clear enough for you and you took it with dull-witted literalism. Now you tell me, does this show (i) stupidity or (ii) intelligence? And I’m in a good mood so I’ll give you three goes. I think you’ll need them.

Is that also aimed at me?? If so, how do you deduce what my beliefs are, from what i have posted upto now? If you have reached your decision on the cause of climate change, in the same speedy way, as you conclude from a few posts, that we are more thick than you imagined. I need say no more, except for, "do you need a bigger shovel for that hole".

No, it wasn't. The fact that you didn't post anything about Christy and Spencer might have alerted you to this.

[Pepe']

So are you saying we shoulden't do everything we can to conserve and protect the environment?

Well of course not.

Discussing conservation and pollution in the same context as global climate is apples & oranges, fruits & nuts, Cadillacs & tuk-tuks (to keep this remotely Thailand-related).

There is nothing wrong with being "green," recycling paper, plastic and glass, conserving resources, etc. I do it and would encourage anyone to do it if they are so inclined. There is nothing wrong with protesting and fighting for reduced pollution in factories, automobiles, motorcycles, etc. I have done it and would encourage anyone to do it if they are so inclined. Certainly Bangkok would be a much more pleasant place with less pollution.

But to intermingle these kinds of passions, emotions and actions for green and environmental activism into the same boat as mankind and central governments having the arrogance and audacity to think that we can control mother nature and massive forces of the sun, the oceans, the tides, the atmosphere and the mantle geology is just nonsensical. There is no correlation or causality.

-----------------------

I'd rather think of myself as hopeful,not arrogant.

The American Indians respected the planet. Look what happened to them.

Now they're stuck in smoky casinos.

Maybe you've got a point...

[nakhonsi sean]

HS Mauberley Posted Yesterday, 2007-11-13 23:04:44

^^ Great isn't it. Five years ago, deniers like you were saying that climate change was wrong because it was a fringe belief. Now you're saying it's wrong because it isn't. Make your mind up. Oh, and any chance of a link to Christy and Spencer saying, explicitly, that their research shows that it is false that human activities are causing climate change? Thanks.

I would be glad to post the link tomorrow, it is on my computer at work. No they do not say they are false. Again from your lack of reading the scientific papers you mistakenly believe that sceptics all say that humans are having no affect on the climate. Almost all believe we are. However, in general they believe we are having but a small to medium affect on the climate. There are only a few who, I believe are mistaken, say human produced Co2 has no affect. We just believe that the affect is to small to worry about, is swamped by natural cycles or that there is little that can be done about it when one looks at the political or economic situation. Further more, the paper is not about AGW as such, the hypothesis in question is to do with high altitude clouds which have a warming affect. But if the hypothesis is shown to be true it would mitigate the affects of increasing levels of Co2. This is just one of the many hypothesis and theories that when added up stand against anthropogenic global warming. There is ample research by serious scientists to cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis, despite what you may have read in the mass media.

By the way, if you wish to show any understanding of how science works, I would suggest you be more civil, more respectful of others opinions and less abusive in your posts.

[Pepe']

HS Mauberley Posted Yesterday, 2007-11-13 23:04:44

^^ Great isn't it. Five years ago, deniers like you were saying that climate change was wrong because it was a fringe belief. Now you're saying it's wrong because it isn't. Make your mind up. Oh, and any chance of a link to Christy and Spencer saying, explicitly, that their research shows that it is false that human activities are causing climate change? Thanks.

I would be glad to post the link tomorrow, it is on my computer at work. No they do not say they are false. Again from your lack of reading the scientific papers you mistakenly believe that sceptics all say that humans are having no affect on the climate. Almost all believe we are. However, in general they believe we are having but a small to medium affect on the climate. There are only a few who, I believe are mistaken, say human produced Co2 has no affect. We just believe that the affect is to small to worry about, is swamped by natural cycles or that there is little that can be done about it when one looks at the political or economic situation. Further more, the paper is not about AGW as such, the hypothesis in question is to do with high altitude clouds which have a warming affect. But if the hypothesis is shown to be true it would mitigate the affects of increasing levels of Co2. This is just one of the many hypothesis and theories that when added up stand against anthropogenic global warming. There is ample research by serious scientists to cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis, despite what you may have read in the mass media.

By the way, if you wish to show any understanding of how science works, I would suggest you be more civil, more respectful of others opinions and less abusive in your posts.

All the speculating and pontificating about GW really would all be mute if we all were just as respectful as we possibly could be to the planet...

[mrbojangles]

I love it when people resort to insults, which is what youv'e done to anybody who dare question your super knowledge. However, in my experience, the person resorting to insults has usually lost the argument. Carry on, you are holding the shovel.

Really? Most people would have the good sense not to draw attention to their misunderstandings.

It was a very, very simple, straightforward analogy (perhaps not the best, but unarguably simple). However, to make things easier I said (more or less) “This is an analogy.” Unfortunately, this wasn’t clear enough so I provided an explanation along the lines of “This is an analogy and it means…” Sadly, this wasn’t clear enough for you and you took it with dull-witted literalism. Now you tell me, does this show (i) stupidity or (ii) intelligence? And I’m in a good mood so I’ll give you three goes. I think you’ll need them.

I answered your initial analogy quite reasonably and without insult. In answer to your question above, there is a third option (iii) it shows that you have a huge failing in being able to express your thoughts in a written manor. Thus leaving readers to second guess what you actually meant but being left in no doubt at all, as to your level of rudeness and self inflated pomposity . I suggest that you are maybe better suited to a talk show.

Is that also aimed at me?? If so, how do you deduce what my beliefs are, from what i have posted upto now? If you have reached your decision on the cause of climate change, in the same speedy way, as you conclude from a few posts, that we are more thick than you imagined. I need say no more, except for, "do you need a bigger shovel for that hole".

No, it wasn't. The fact that you didn't post anything about Christy and Spencer might have alerted you to this.

The "^^" idicated in your post it was, which is why i asked for clarification. In future, use the quote function to show us numpty's, who on earth you are talking too

[A_Traveller]

FWIW, I only twigged a while ago, the number of chevrons indicated the post being replied to, so two ^^ means not yours but the one preceding you. Though given possible delays between posting and refreshing it can get embarrassing.

Regards

[HS Mauberley]

it shows that you have a huge failing in being able to express your thoughts in a written manor.

Oh dear.

[mrbojangles]

it shows that you have a huge failing in being able to express your thoughts in a written manor.

Oh dear.

Yes, posted in a hurry before checking all my speeling mistaykes

But again you show your rudeness. People don't point them out on forums.

However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here, there is no significant argument about this within the scientific community (cue some gibbon posting a cut and pace from Lindzen printed in the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago).

Edit// But tit for tat and all that. Your post above signifies that we are all susceptible to the odd mistake. Look at oneself my friend before criticizing others

Edited November 13, 2007 by mrbojangles

[mrbojangles]

FWIW, I only twigged a while ago, the number of chevrons indicated the post being replied to, so two ^^ means not yours but the one preceding you. Though given possible delays between posting and refreshing it can get embarrassing.

Regards

Thanks A_Traveller

Just gone back and had a look, i didn't notice it either. That's why it's always best to use the quote function

[HS Mauberley]

it shows that you have a huge failing in being able to express your thoughts in a written manor.

Oh dear.

Yes, posted in a hurry before checking all my speeling mistaykes

But again you show your rudeness. People don't point them out on forums.

Normally I wouldn't but you rather undid yourself by complaining about my written manor (sic)

However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here, there is no significant argument about this within the scientific community (cue some gibbon posting a cut and pace from Lindzen printed in the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago).

Edit// But tit for tat and all that. Your post above signifies that we are all susceptible to the odd mistake. Look at oneself my friend before criticizing others

Sorry but where's the spelling mistake? Mediaeval is a perfectly acceptable variant (unless you know something which the OED doesn't)

[TheDon]

as humans we are greedy, money comes first.

Money will always come first, who cares if it stuffs up the world.

I believe in global warming, i mean all the sh1t that gets pumped into the air cant be a good thing can it.

But i dont believe us humans are capable of doing anything about it.

[mrbojangles]

However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here, there is no significant argument about this within the scientific community (cue some gibbon posting a cut and pace from Lindzen printed in the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago).

Edit// But tit for tat and all that. Your post above signifies that we are all susceptible to the odd mistake. Look at oneself my friend before criticizing others

Sorry but where's the spelling mistake? Mediaeval is a perfectly acceptable variant (unless you know something which the OED doesn't)

Ok, apologies. I'm man enough, i've never seen it written that way. I take it back but not these

Capitalsm is unsutainable. That means it's going to end. The only questions are when and how.

Yes in my 7,900 posts, i will have had many a mistake but in your 12, you too have made errors. Just saying, think first, we are all vulnerable and to be honest i really don't want to spend all my time checking that i haven't made a mistake. School is out and i don't need any Gold stars

[Pepe']

However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here, there is no significant argument about this within the scientific community (cue some gibbon posting a cut and pace from Lindzen printed in the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago).

Edit// But tit for tat and all that. Your post above signifies that we are all susceptible to the odd mistake. Look at oneself my friend before criticizing others

Sorry but where's the spelling mistake? Mediaeval is a perfectly acceptable variant (unless you know something which the OED doesn't)

Ok, apologies. I'm man enough, i've never seen it written that way. I take it back but not these

Capitalsm is unsutainable. That means it's going to end. The only questions are when and how.

Yes in my 7,900 posts, i will have had many a mistake but in your 12, you too have made errors. Just saying, think first, we are all vulnerable and to be honest i really don't want to spend all my time checking that i haven't made a mistake. School is out and i don't need any Gold stars

----------------------

Don't worry my spelling sucks, mostly because I'm trying to type to fast (also don't really care)

and I graduated Magna Cum Laude...

[Ricardo]

But to intermingle these kinds of passions, emotions and actions for green and environmental activism into the same boat as mankind and central governments having the arrogance and audacity to think that we can control mother nature and massive forces of the sun, the oceans, the tides, the atmosphere and the mantle geology is just nonsensical. There is no correlation or causality.

'Control' - no, but 'influence' - yes !

To dump several billion people on the planet, and have us live a high-energy life-style burning off the oil & gas & coal in a couple of centuries which took many millions of years to accumulate, how can that possibly not influence the climate in some way & to some extent ?

As the old Greek saying goes - 'Take what you want, said God, take it - but pay for it.' This saying is also respected by most big-store security-guards that I have met.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Ricardo

[wilko]

For all those Gore devotees and true believers that man is killing the planet by excessive CO2 emissions causing spiralling out of control global warming, I urge you to consider the following and prepare some sort of rational response.

Way back when there was an era here on Earth called the Ice Age. I think it is safe to say that this era occurred is generally accepted as fact. In the Ice Age, glaciers covered most of what is now North America and Russia. By all accounts the glacial ice was on the order of kilometers thick.

The Ice Age came and went long before the introduction of large populations of men, before the industrial revolution, and before all of the modern oil-driven conveniences like trains, planes and automobiles, electricity and electrical plants, hospitals that require electricity to save lives, and all the things that all the global warming hypists want us to get rid of today to "save the planet."

What could have possibly made the Ice Age go away? What could have made all the glaciers melt? Where we once had several kilometers thick ice sheeting covering millions of acres of land, we now have the Great Plains which are so fertile as to produce a large portion of the world's grains.

Clearly, this was a massive amount of global warming that caused the glaciers to disappear, on a scale that most people would find difficult to comprehend and easily dwarfing any current climate trends of late.

Yet mankind wasn't around in any kind of numbers to cause it. There was no massive global industrialization pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air. There were no airplanes polluting the stratosphere.

So how could this massive amount of global warming have taken place if man wasn't there to cause it?

Mr Spee - will you please try and include at least one accurate fact in your posts rather than the baseless vitriolic propaganda you are spouting at the moment. I keep reading your contributions hoping to see some form of intelligent life in them but alas conspiracies and ignorance abound and they alone rattle around in empty arguments.

Edited November 14, 2007 by wilko

[mogoso]

But you know what? It really doesn’t matter. Even if we don’t think our actions have an impact on the global climate, doesn’t it still make sense to find ways to stop using fossil fuels, and get away from unnecessary use of ethanol, especially the way it is currently produced? What about all the other forms of pollution we produce that if nothing else causes disease and death in the human population and animal/plant extinction? Isn’t cutting down the right thing to do?

One really good thing about the global warming scare is that is will speed up the transition to a post-fossil fuel society around the world.

Its great to attack the US for not signing the treaty. But 137 countries have signed it and have no responsibility but to monitor and report emissions. Give me a break. It's a poorly disguised attempt to lower the standards of living in the developed nations in order to attempt to raise it in the third world. Just world socialism crowd at work.

I will say I agree with alternative means to produce power and wean ourselves away from oil if only to quit enriching countries that want to take your culture away and enforce theirs upon you.

I did read something about someone burning seawater, dang if I know how its done but thinking like that I hope will lead to change.

I wanna put solar panels to provide a portion of our power when we build in a couple of years. I started getting solar updates from yahoo and the cost is decreasing and effectivness is increasing.

But at the moment fossil fuels are our best bet. As for Bush being the reason for the increase in price get a clue people, its simply demand. China and India and other counties are using more oil, supply and demand economics. Ya gotta quit blaming every whoa in the world on the US

[mogoso]

I'm no math major or scientist, but trying to find out how much CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere by my auto, I read that using 100 gallons of gas will put 2000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here is where I get math challenged. Gas weighs about the same or maybe a little less than water, hence 100 gallons is equal roughly 700 lbs, so how does the total byproduct of combustion (assume its all CO2, which I don't believe is true) gain roughly 3 times the weight of gas, post combustion.

Each atom of carbon (atomic weight 12) in your car's fuel combines with two atoms of oxygen (atomic weight 16) to produce one molecule of CO2 (molecular weight 44). So the weight does go up considerably (by a factor of 3.67).

But I can't calculate exactly how much weight of CO2 is produced by 100 gallons of car fuel as I don't know exactly what proportion of fuel is carbon - there is also a lot of hydrogen in there.

But the point is, using the weight change is just another over-dramatic way of describing combustion. The global warming advocates could've said "one atom of carbon produces one molecule of CO2" - but that's no where near as exciting or dramatic, is it?

Thank you for the math on the gas, but assume as many or more gallons of carbonated drinks are consumed, what is the effect on the CO2 footprint post consumption?

[mogoso]

What a depressing display of ignorant, ill-informed rubbish. The best that can be said for this trash is that at least it confirms the widely held view that ex-pats (and those in Thailand even more so than average) are the most boorish, prejudiced, loathsome oafs on the planet. Of course climate change is real and of course it's caused by our activities. However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here, there is no significant argument about this within the scientific community (cue some gibbon posting a cut and pace from Lindzen printed in the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago). If you still have doubts about it read a book on the subject (there are any number of excellent introductions on the subject) or read some of the excellent blogs on climate change (I would suggest devoting some time to reading realclimate.org, where you can find extremely thorough debunkings of all the main objections to climate change theories - that crap about climate change on Mars, the rubbish produced by Michael Crichton, maybe even how the explanations of manmade climate change aren't entirely dependent on Al Gore's moral integrity, etc. etc.)

The climate has warmed up a bit less than 1 degree in a century and has fallen a bit since 1998. NASA issued a correction about their interpertations recently with the warmest year in the past century being 1934.

[xyborg]

<br />500 years ago the prevailing wisdom was that the world was flat. Just because an opinion carries popularity does not make it correct.<br /><br />There is NO scientific evidence for climate change. The world's weather patterns are cyclical, in 20 years we will all be moaning about global cooling.<br /><br />In answer to the original question: No.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I for one hope in 20 years they are spouting this and saying mans contribution was way over stated and had a negligible impact. Time will tell and will I get a refund for all those green policies they put in place????

[xyborg]

<br />

I'm no math major or scientist, but trying to find out how much CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere by my auto, I read that using 100 gallons of gas will put 2000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here is where I get math challenged. Gas weighs about the same or maybe a little less than water, hence 100 gallons is equal roughly 700 lbs, so how does the total byproduct of combustion (assume its all CO2, which I don't believe is true) gain roughly 3 times the weight of gas, post combustion.

<br />Each atom of carbon (atomic weight 12) in your car's fuel combines with two atoms of oxygen (atomic weight 16) to produce one molecule of CO2 (molecular weight 44). So the weight does go up considerably (by a factor of 3.67). <br /><br />But I can't calculate exactly how much weight of CO2 is produced by 100 gallons of car fuel as I don't know exactly what proportion of fuel is carbon - there is also a lot of hydrogen in there.<br /><br />But the point is, using the weight change is just another over-dramatic way of describing combustion. The global warming advocates could've said "one atom of carbon produces one molecule of CO2" - but that's no where near as exciting or dramatic, is it?<br />

<br /><br />Thank you for the math on the gas, but assume as many or more gallons of carbonated drinks are consumed, what is the effect on the CO2 footprint post consumption? <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

And dont forget the methane too erkkkkkkkk talking of which what about all the methane lurking in the depths of the ocean which is going to erupt anytime soon? I blame the whales farting!!!!!!!

[mogoso]

^^ Oh dear. Looks like you failed the test. The analogy showed that effects can have multiple causes. The fact that cause a preceeded cause b in time is not a sufficient condition to conclude that cause a is sufficient explanation for all effects. Do you see?

America produces 25% of greenhouse gasses. We're talking about fat yanks driving their SUV to the mall to have a burger, not starving Africans.

Actually, it's obscene that those who seek to deny the reality of climate change pretend that by so doing they're somehow helping the poor. It's precisely the people you talk about who are in the front line of climate change.

Actually that 25% figure is going down even though the US has absorbed a massive influx of illegal immigrants over the last 15 years, who love SUVs and large pickup trucks.

Within a short while if not already China will be the worlds biggest polluter.

And Although Gore isn't mentioned in this post, I might add a British court found 15 erroneous statements in his book of crap.

[wilko]

time will tell and will I get a refund for all those green policies they put in place????

this is why people resist - they are worried about their money - nothing else!

[wilko]

you get the same issues from the same people.....

global warming is a hoax

it's all the fault of (illegal) immigrants or anyone who looks different

market forces are all...

minimum government when it comes in industry and tax but

but maximum govt when it comes to beating up/down those who disagree

anyone with a degree or brain is a pinko liberal (whatever that means)

if I can have a big car so can everyone else..

i'm not obese.... they're just "love handles"

my wife loves me for my personality.

"black" people have a better sense of rhythm than white folks and

women should be in the bedroom or kitchen.

Fox News tells nothing but the plain honest truth

i can sing "My Way" just as well as Frank Sinatra

Life was better in the '50's

the world is flat

can outrun an airplane

my mother was the queen of England and from the top of my house you can see 3 continents

[hammered]

I have kids, so I dont want to take no chances. Even if I didnt I wouild liek to see a better world for those that come after me. Yeah support anything that could make the world a better place for them and their kids in the future even if it means some sacrifice in comfort, cash or increased tax it will be worth it long term.

[Spee]

will you please try and include at least one accurate fact in your posts rather than the baseless vitriolic propaganda you are spouting at the moment. I keep reading your contributions hoping to see some form of intelligent life in them but alas conspiracies and ignorance abound and they alone rattle around in empty arguments.

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

[nakhonsi sean]

Spee Posted Today, 2007-11-14 15:13:28

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

Here is a paper backing your claim with an explanation of one of the causes.

Shaviv & Veizer

[HS Mauberley]

Spee Posted Today, 2007-11-14 15:13:28

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

Here is a paper backing your claim with an explanation of one of the causes.

Shaviv & Veizer

From realclimate:

"Shaviv and Veizer (2003) published a paper in the journal GSA Today, where the authors claimed to establish a correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years, concluding that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was much smaller than currently accepted. The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled “Global Warming not a Man-made Phenomenon", in which Shaviv was quoted as stating,“The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man”. However, in the paper the authors actually stated that "our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales". Unsurprisingly, there was a public relations offensive using the seriously flawed conclusions expressed in the press release to once again try to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are influencing climate. These claims were subsequently disputed in an article in Eos (Rahmstorf et al, 2004) by an international team of scientists and geologists (these scientists came from the Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Earth and Planetary Science, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA; Department of Space Research and Planetology, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Pierre Simon Laplace Institute, University of Versailles, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France; Institute of Physics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany; Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change, Swiss Academy of Sciences, Bern, Switzerland; NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, New York, USA; Geoscience Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA; School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; Center for the study of the Dynamics and Evolution of the Land-Sea Interface, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA), who suggested that Shaviv and Veizer's analyses were based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and drew untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming (see for example the exchange between the two sets of authors). However, by the time this came out the misleading conclusions had already been publicized widely."

The paper can be found at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publicat...l_eos_2004.html

The conclusion states:

“Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated.

Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO2-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide."

[wilko]

will you please try and include at least one accurate fact in your posts rather than the baseless vitriolic propaganda you are spouting at the moment. I keep reading your contributions hoping to see some form of intelligent life in them but alas conspiracies and ignorance abound and they alone rattle around in empty arguments.

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

That's right! You don't know......It would be a convincing argument that many invertebrates show more intelligence than you display in your postings.

As for "please forgive me" - Your ramblings are meaningless and as such I would suggest also unforgivable and I guess the result of a sadly deluded mind - what is most sad is it seems to make you very miserable too.. Take a decade off and get yourself an education.....it may not be too late for someone to teach you how to think analytically.

Edited November 14, 2007 by wilko

[Chloe82]

Take a decade off and get yourself an education.....it may not be too late for someone to teach you how to think analytically.

Says the 'man' who only scraped through on high school chemistry. You make me laugh wilko, someone dares to question you, proves something to you or asks you a question that you feel is uncomfortable then you just get abusive, your postings make me think you may have some self esteem issues.

Anyway i am still waiting for you to lay out these unseparable issues that you were banging on about a few pages back.

[Spee]

Take a decade off and get yourself an education.....it may not be too late for someone to teach you how to think analytically.

Says the 'man' who only scraped through on high school chemistry. You make me laugh wilko, someone dares to question you, proves something to you or asks you a question that you feel is uncomfortable then you just get abusive, your postings make me think you may have some self esteem issues.

Anyway i am still waiting for you to lay out these unseparable issues that you were banging on about a few pages back.

Don't sweat it Chloe. It isn't worth it for these kinds of people who follow the "... ready .... fire .... aim ..." approach. My uni education is in physics and mathematics. I have been involved with analytical processes and engineering for most of my adult life. Although not specific to climate studies, I've worked with scientists from all over the world. I've run Peer Reviews and been a critical reviewer in Peer Reviews. I know how the government research grant process works. I know enough to know the difference between good science and poor science. Government research is rife with climate research funding available only to those who wish to follow and preconceived notions, which by default makes it bad science. The current man-made global warming hoax is perpetuated by these kinds of flawed and faulty science. There is plenty of sound science to validate that mankind's impact to the global climate is negligible when compared to the forces of nature. Further, there is nothing that mankind can do to control the forces of nature. If people want to have their thoughts and minds controlled by the likes of Algore and be taxed into oblivion by governments who think they are powerful enough to alter global climate, then there's not much anyone can do.