Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Too hot to drive

No, the use of empirical data is simply bad science and NASA are simply playing the political game to assure funding.

See my previous post as to why I believe we are over reacting to the CO2 levels. We have about 100 years to return the CO2 levels to where they were pre-industrial revolution.
That should be achievable.

It was 38 degrees driving from Zagreb to Trieste this afternoon and utterly glorious. I have no idea what you lot are moaning about.

What, all the empirical data is based on bad science? That's an extraordinary claim. Care to back it up with some extraordinary evidence?

Don't forget that Peter is a scientist. From personal experience I know that you can make data and statistics mean whatever you want and also don't forget that the last two centuries is less than the blink of an eye in the lifespan of the earth and the blink of an eye timewise is hardly a realistic time frame to collect data

What are you going to do about the 200 active volcanos thar dwarf man's out put .

I'm very well aware of the fact, which is why I'm intrigued to know the basis for his claims.

As most of you who have read my witterings will know by now, I work in the electricity industry, and utilities companies spend an awful lot of time and money doing what they call 'Fundamentals Analysis' which basically means loads of propellor heads doing loads of research into the underlying elements of the economy, society, and the environment in order to try and understand what the demand for power is likely to be over the medium to long term.

As you can imagine, climate research is right up there as a significant element in the analysis, and so naturally if there is a body of research, models, or anything out there that might provide us with additional insight into climate trends I'd be extremely interested in finding it out.

As you say, Peter is a scientist, he'll understand I'm not trying anything ad hominem here, it's a genuine interest. The reason I say it's an extraordinary claim is that it goes against what my understanding is, as far as I'm aware the effect of solar variation is well understood and factored into the models - which are not telling us we've got anything like 100 years to sort things out in, more like 20 to 40.

http://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-climate-change-be-out-of-control-2014-9?IR=T

A really good source of information on the science of climate change is the Skeptical Science website

The short answer is, they don't. Havig just mentioned the Skeptical Science website, I can now do a direct quote from it

Kind of makes you wonder why we legislated that catalytic converters change exhaust to co2.

Does anyone dare say if co2 kills off humans, so what?
Do we really believe that we can affect nature at any cost except to ourselves?

Or, why are we obsessed with keeping people alive forever at vast cost when theybare just creating more co2?
Or, virtually uncontrolled population growth automatically means co2 increase.

Or, why was it hotter in the past? I never hear "hottest June ever", I hear "hottest June since 1947" or whatever.....

Neither do I hear (globally warming to my theme) anyone talking about the hideous legacy to future generations involved with producing vast numbers of batteries. Almost nothing about the human cost of mining the rare minerals needed for batteries, the child labour etc. Batteries still use nonrenewable stuff, it's just harder to get at than oil.......

Half joking, but half not.
Nick

Ps. Like Peter, I remember well growing up believing we were heading into an iceage...all the evidence pointed to it I was told for the first twenty five years of my life......
Nick