Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I think the answer would be neither, it probably is best demonstrated by the fact that in the past CO2 has been way higher but the temperature remained regulated.
Read the posts

 

But if your voice (platform) is taken away you will never get the facts out there

 

Hmm... Could be I misunderstood sisu's about it having been proven wrong.

 

In fact the CO2 was 15 times higher in times when the earth was an ice ball

 

I see this as a separate issue, and I agree with you in principle on that.
I think I see what you're getting at- and certainly corruption and self-interest could be at the root of some of the pro climate change politics, if not the science- but the equal and opposite accusation can be aimed at the fossil fuel lobby. So it comes down to who you choose to believe, and why.
My argument is, and has always been, that we owe it to ourselves and future generations to do the best we can to mitigate the effects of our irresponsible use of finite resources.
It just seems like common sense to me.

 

Were due another glaciation, eventually, could be 50 years 100 years 500 years 1000 years but there is a very strong pattern

 

That gets back to my theory

 

I try to avoid the to and fro, there is much, I only use the valid leaked and not denied emails from the very people involved in this. Phill Jones Tom Wigley and Michael Mann primarily, all shown to be lying ****s, Jones broke UK law by refusing to hand over info from freedom of information requests and all three conspired to conceal data as well as discussing "hiding the decline with Mike's nature trick" which meant just chopping out data and putting more trend lines over it to hide the fact. There were three "inquiries" and none of them examined one paper the "nature trick" was used in, making them literally mock inquiries, because the government was funding these ****s it's not going to do them in. Thatcher knew it and said it in her book,
"
The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.


Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.


Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”


It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’


And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”


But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.


The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes…."



It's not separate it is exactly the result of this theory, the IPCC are setting polices that consign poor ****s to lives without energy whilst rich countries buy up that prosperity and health to keep you in your good living standards and grow your economy.

Spare me saint, we wont see eye to eye.

 

so your answer of " CO2 will cause warming, it also prevents warming at the same time, it emits heat to space and blocks some heat coming in"

is based on estimates from the past?

 

Of course the climate changes constantly, I don't think any educated person is unaware of that. There's no such thing as a stable, homeostatic climate, how could there be in such a complex system with so many variables?
However, it's not unreasonable to believe that human activity, if not the sole cause, can be a significant contributor. After all we've reached the technological level where we are having significant effects on the environment in more obviously calculable ways.
I prefer to err on the side of caution, that's all.

 

Read back into the thread I already went through this Keep reading, dont come back till you have a clue, even then take your time.

Following me with weirdness and really bitter tosh then asking me a question like you were never a stalker?

 

Is all that bold from thatchers book?

 

Saint, I'll pick this up tomorrow, 2:50 here, I'll be less belligerent and better behaved

Take it easy chaps, we can continue this love in tomorrow, if you're arsed that is, we are in the end just shooting the **** here, not deciding the fate of humanity

 

Yup.

 

@terrifictraore
https://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic/

In Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (2002)

Here is her full reconsideration (pp. 449–50):and the bit on bold

 

just trying to get you to answer a question, about "your" claims, so is your answer to santaKlaus re CO2 a theoretical answer or based on real life experiments?

 

True enough.
I wish you'd stick to commenting on footie- I usually agree with you on that.
Anyway, I've got a stinking cold and have needed windscreen wipers on my eyes to get through tonight so I'm off to bed.
Tomorrow's just another day closer to oblivion, man-made or not.

'night.

 

Thanks, pretty sure I read that at the time but obviously not remembered that bit. Nice to see that you will answer a question when it suits your argument though.

 

Got any facts to back that up like?

As I was under the impression the rain forest was disappearing at a rapid rate of knots....

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

 

You have to stop being a three minute expert, this actually takes research, not links from environmentalist media, environmentalists are hysterical and always overstate an issue. Remember we've been told polar bears are suffering for 2 ****ing decades, the numbers are in, the PB population has tripled.

But I will come back and back it up and when I do, you will go full denial.

That's the problem with debating with you, you never actually go "yes you were right" so is there any point? We both know no matter what I post, you wont agree, as proven by the last 2 years