Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

There you go again...

Making daft comments, lazy assumptions and being offensive. That's why your views are never taken seriously by most on here, as when someone challenges your beliefs with a counter, you defend your stance in an almost evangelical way.

Debating with you is a complete waste of time, as whatever I put forward, you'll claim I'm an idiot for beleiving, as you've decided that your stance is the correct one. This entire discussion has more than run its course.

I believe that mans industrial CO2 production is having an effect on the global temperature, you don't. We differ, neither can claim to be totally correct, but the current consensus sits on the side that I agree with, that's a fact. If in 30 years time the entire premise is proven to be incorrect, you can pat yourself on the back in your rocking chair pal . Conversely, I'll have a wry smile thinking about that crank Irishman from Finland while I'm pruning my palm trees

 

There's been absolutely no balance in what you've put forward in this debate. in fact you've flip flopped around. One minute there's no termperature rise at all as the data is all bent. The next the temperature rise has happened but isn't due to mans CO2 production, the next there's supposedly saturation of CO2, so it no longer matter. You're seemingly as confused as some of the 'science' that you've put forward to back your stance.

Balance? You sound like the Israelis when some media talks to Palestinians when atrocities are discussed Only all of the media and governments are screaming the other side of the argument, it is not balanced though, cos you dont know ****, not because of what I do or do not do

I've used data from both sides of this debate, IPCC reports, the failed predictions and the false hyperbole. Reality vs claims.

As for understanding of this subject

"One minute there's no termperature rise at all as the data is all bent. The next the temperature rise has happened but isn't due to mans CO2 production, the next there's supposedly saturation of CO2, so it no longer matter."
1. Well if you were not an idiot who didn't read any posts you'd know I never said there was "no temperature rise" as a single statement not connected to anything.
I said not in the last 18 years which is very different but doesn't support your hyperbole crap.

2. "The temperature rise was not due to man's CO2" It isn't, look who published this data, bottom right. This is for dummies like you, this chart, ignore it even though it comes from the very people you "believe" are right. And this is the altered data

please log in to view this image

3. Saturation, which you dont even understand, was reported by NASA in 1971, that was a reconfirmation, it was proven years before NASA published in 1971 and in many experiments since. So saturation is empirical science and does not refute either of my two previous points.


So, your paraphrase was nonsense, as usual, and you wonder why I seem condescending?

Plus the sun, that big orange fireball, you think that doesn't drive temperature, even though without it there would be nothing but ice. I mean ffs, a slight tilt of the earth brings on an ice age. you cant fix stupid

It's not the sun, it's a trace gas 0.04% of the atmosphere, or rather it's us humans, who add 5% of that 0.04% trace gas.

 

And so to prove my point, the usual MO is rolled out..

You know ****, your hyperbole crap, you're an idiot, you're a dummie......the usual set of debating tools rolled out by you. Together with the same cut and pasted graphs from your encylopdia of climate change denier bookmarks.

As I stated earlier, whatever I posted to counter it, you'd claim I was an idiot for beleiving, so I'm not going to bother as its a complete waste of time. I'm done, carry on cutting and pasting to your hearts delight love x.

 

You are an idiot for believing, when you dont know wtf you are believing, I believe in data and arguments being valid and backed by historical records.

A skeptic relies on your intelligence, a warmest relies on your stupidity and ignorance of data and history.

No I broke down your hyperbole, and you dont like it. Here I will repeat it.

"One minute there's no termperature rise at all as the data is all bent. The next the temperature rise has happened but isn't due to mans CO2 production, the next there's supposedly saturation of CO2, so it no longer matter."
1. Well if you were not an idiot who didn't read any posts you'd know I never said there was "no temperature rise" as a single statement not connected to anything.
I said not in the last 18 years which is very different but doesn't support your hyperbole crap.

2. "The temperature rise was not due to man's CO2" It isn't, look who published this data, bottom right. This is for dummies like you, this chart, ignore it even though it comes from the very people you "believe" are right. And this is the altered data [img src="http://www.not606.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/doh.gif" class="mceSmilie" alt="

please log in to view this image

3. Saturation, which you dont even understand, was reported by NASA in 1971, that was a reconfirmation, it was proven years before NASA published in 1971 and in many experiments since. So saturation is empirical science and does not refute either of my two previous points.
)))))))))))

You hate having your hyperbole broken down point by point dont you

 

There are no words......

 

Via www.IceAgeNow.info

Montreal carting away record snowfall – Video – Montreal hit with 39.2 cm (15.4 inches) of snow, breaking a 61-year-old record.

Hard Freeze Warning for the San Joaquin Valley – The San Joaquin Valley produces the majority of the 12.8% of the United States’ agricultural production that comes from California

Mexico – Biggest snowstorm in more than half a century

Heavy snowfall in Peru – In the summer – Surprises inhabitants.

please log in to view this image

Heavy snowfall in Niseko Hokkaido Japan – Video of JR train in the snow

Record snowfall in China – The snowfall lasted over 40 hours

Snowstorm brings chaos to Istanbul – Heavy snow in Istanbul, Turkey – 300 flights canceled

Historic snowfall closes I-90 over Snoqualmie Pass – More than ¼ of an entire season’s snowfall in one week.

Record snowfall in Lubbock, Texas – More spectacularly, snow drifts ranged from 1-4 feet deep in Lubbock to 7-10 feet in areas along the Texas/New Mexico border.

please log in to view this image

Ciudad Juarez buried under six to ten inches of snow – Record snowfall – Flights canceled at Abraham Gonzalez International Airport.

Snow paralyzes 30 municipalities of Chihuahua – The temperature dropped to minus six Celsius and is expected to fall further.

Record-breaking snowstorm in New Mexico – “New Mexico Works to Unbury After Record Snow Storm,” reads the headline on ABC news.

Record-breaking cold in California – “20 degrees F in SoCAL tonight,” says reader Jim Pearson. “Insanely cold.”

Green Bay snowfall smashes previous record – Green Bay, Wisconsin, received 11½ inches (29.2 cm) of snow from Monday afternoon into the overnight hours, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon.

Roswell, NM – Snowiest day ever recorded – Parts of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico could expect 8-20 inches (20-50 cm) of snow, said weather service meteorologist Mark Wiley.

#daffodils.

When the cold records rack up the climatards keep quiet, funny how these records keep getting broken in the hottest decade ever.
And it's only the start of Jan, Winter hasn't kicked off proper.

 

The hottest 2 years on record are now 2014 and 2015, an unfortunate fact for the climate change deniers

2016 is predicted by the Met office to be even hotter

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally

Surely someone who is such a climate change expert would understand the correlation between increased precipitation and global warming?

It's a bit cold today, oh look it's snowing, crank up the Hummer love we're in the clear

A cynic might suggest that you're trying to mislead people with nonsense.

 

Do you not think there might be cranks on both sides of this debate, Sis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

i appreciate commercial interests and political interests in the anti-carbon camp, but surely you can see the influence of Wall St in the oil camp too?

Seems tome that the science isn't clear except on one thing - it is getting warmer. You may want to rethink the effects of a mere 2 degree warming on the planet too, regardless of what causes it.

So look, here's the point. If the climate is changing, naturally or artiificially, then surely it's a question of buying time (if we can) while the human population adjusts and migrates. Crikey, we've seen the chaos caused in the last few years over migration from the Middle-east and North Africa - what happens when populations need to move from low-lying coastal areas and valleys, and all the farming and resources that go with it?

Important thing now is not what caused it, but what can and should be done. That will involve planning and control, and that will involve some authority. The positioning for commercial gain on all sides of the equation is just another aspect of our neo-liberal, Anglo-American economic model, I'm afraid, but I just can't see this guiding, conspiritorial presence behind all this that others do - just the usual suspects of shayman and shafters on all sides.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, however, that very statement proves yet again that you are anything but the sceptic you like to think you are.

 

do you have an update on that chart? I have emailed the blog you got it from to ask but thought you might have it saved ready.The chap with that blog seems like a nice bloke although some people might find it interesting that he appears to have made most of his money from the oil industry, I am not sure that will have affected his view on this subject though.

 

"I'm afraid, but I just can't see this guiding, conspiritorial presence behind all this that others do"

Like with that other subject, you only look at what you want to see and listen to sources that back what you believe, please don't tell me that is not true, you know it is, we all suffer that and have to actively resist it

Given I posted excerpts from their leaked emails showing clear unambiguous conspiracy to conceal data, to hide data and to exclude scientists and publishers who did not tow the line.

NASA changes 1880 temp like 8 or 9 times since 2001. Always making it cooler.. OK mate, you believe that is legit, then you need to think it out. How can you remodel temp from 130 years ago when you just dont have the data to do so.

Half a degree warming from making the past colder, is not warming, it is fraud

Your post has no actual points, it's just a generalisation skirting around the actual issues.

There has been too much of this from the others. Ignore the facts of the matter, dont deal with them, instead apply thinking born of disposition.

Tobes has resorted to telling me I am rude, Tobes That's when you know for sure he's flapping like a flightless bird.

So, if you have something that is not general and factless to bring up, otherwise there is no point.

Invoking "crank" and "oil company" are just tools to shut down debate and avoid looking at data and information. It's not a 9\11 subject after all.

 

@donga kloppo What's with the Agenda 21 link? Wasn't accompanied by any point made

 

What I find truly shocking from all of you is I just posted data from your hallowed Met and CRU. I know ye love believing the establishment.

That shows warming from 1910 to 1940 was actually a faster rate of warming than 1980 to 2000. But I get general skirting of the issue and logic without facts.
Instead the posts are about me, and "conspiracy theory" and now again "cranks" and "wall street" and "oil companies".

I guess it hasn't dawned on some that oil companies, their biggest shareholders are banks, wall street is set to make vast fortunes from cap and trade as are banks, that dwarf oil profits. Plus we cannot stop using oil even if we wanted to, unless we go back to living standards of pre oil, good luck with that, no oil.. coal would be burned 100 times more.

How many solar panels would it take to run rail systems in the UK alone Never mind everything from plastics to toothpaste. Agriculture would die immediately without oil. No fertilisers no fuel no transport of crops nothing.

But lastly, for some reason some of you think we can survive without oil Civilisation without oil would fall apart in weeks, literally. It is the blood of civilisation, any disagreement with that is the stuff of mental cases with no business talking this subject

 

Again John Kerry at Paris "reducing emissions wont affect global climate", not pollution emissions, CO2, which is not a pollutant.

So, that is what I have been saying, maybe for different reasons than Kerry, cos it is true, CO2 does not and never will affect climate.. much. I am sure there is some miniscule effect somewhere but not warming, cos that is scientifically impossible as saturation is well over 90% already.

So Kerry confirmed the fact that lowering CO2 emissions wont change anything, I've been saying that all along. So why give the IPCC 2% of GDP every year, a bunch of ****s no one voted for, massive scam.

Also for you @donga kloppo Go look up the history of the long time IPCC president Dr Pachauri, banking, oil and renewable companies.. Go Figure

 

Here is your agenda 21 map for the US. They dont call it agenda 21 any more I think.

please log in to view this image

 

This is unbalanced apparently

please log in to view this image

No takers no? Apparently lesser warming than in the recent past is all us... no one has ever said how much.. just it's mostly us, even though the past shows this is nonsense, as recent as 1910 to 1950ish

Nope, lets talk about "balance" "Sisu being rude to the biggest bitter on here" "oil" "wall street" and "conspiracy". Lets not look at anything, and just vent gas instead

Didn't take long for your objectivity to dry up link an old Nun's crotch Donga Plus you contradicted yourself, you said you can't see the conspirtorial aspect (cos you didnt look as usual) and then claim conspiritorial aspect by invoking oil and wallstreet. ORLY?

 

Guardian links, you might as well get your sources from Greenpeace.

Secondly, you are giving me a prediction from this alarmist rag, not scientific anything, so, like the IPCC you are giving me prediction over observation.

Same as your coal argument, I gave facts and you posted a greenpeace document talking about future forecasts (before we found out China's emissions were 16% higher than claimed.

Your ignorance is astounding, sure you must know, no need for me to tell you.

I post data, from your side (met Cru), and you post green ****e from the Guardian (who are invested in coal out the ass)

You refuse to discuss any facts, and post alarmist rag cack about doom.

The Guardian are liars, proven by their arctic claims, have they any articles on there about the Arctic gaining unprecedented ice atm? Surely for BALANCE they should be reporting that.

Getting your "proof" from the media is laughable, especially a lefty leaning progressive liberal rag.

 

Sisu keeps posting this graph which I don't understand why since it doesn't support his argument at all, unless he can also provide a physical model for why "natural warming" turns on and off at specific times, as my sketch tries to show:

please log in to view this image

 

As usual the information doesn't fit your conclusion so you dismiss it and decry the source before even digesting the fact that it's merely reporting what the Met office are predicting.

You dismiss the media and yet you posted a link from the NY Times over the weekend, you're a walking contradiction. Your arguments flip flop all over the place.

You talk about ignorance and yet you post stories of records snowfalls to somehow back your point, whilst seemingly unaware of the obvious link between increased precipitation and global warming.

I note you have **** all to say about the actual facts quoted, 2014 and 2015 the hottest 2 years on record, and 2016 predicted eclipse them.

 

please log in to view this image

Now if this chart started from say, 1970.. stretch it out, and hey presto, you have global warming.

This is natural variability not CO2 driven.

CRU East Anglia, source of met data, CO2 vs Temp

please log in to view this image

Temp is not doing what CO2 is doing, so CAGW fails