Permanent Arctic Ice Vanishing - Satellite Images Misleading

richard.webster · **Posted:** 09 Dec 2009 9:01 pm

Seeker1 wrote:

richard.webster wrote:

So people need to become wealthier, and I fear that Copenhagen can only work against that.

Do they need to become wealthier, or do they need more basic human needs met? See, to me, this is part of the problem.

I think GDP measures the wealth of a society - but it's not always clear that as societies become wealthier (esp. if the wealth is in the hands of a small few) that human needs are always better met.

It's exactly because of this problem that some development specialists have suggested we look at other measures of "wellbeing" for societies other than GDP - such as the Human Development Index (HDI), or the ISEW or GPI...

I understand the point you're making, and there's something to it, for sure, but it's entering onto tricky ground, I think. It's the sort of point to which someone from a developing country might well retort by claiming that only someone from a country already rich would say that. I mean, in the sense that it's usually rich people who say that money can't buy you happiness. Poor people would more likely say, yeah whatever, I'll take the chance.

I do though agree that GDP is a poor measure of societal "well-being", in as much as it's a crude average that doesn't take account of how the wealth is distributed. In fact, it often seems to be those countries very rich in mineral wealth that have the most inequitable distribution. Growing things and making stuff, offering services that people want, and creating an environment that encourages aspiration and fosters entrepreneurship, obviously better ways to create general well-being.

lovuian · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2009 2:27 am

Serendipity brings in another factor not talked about
what is the effects of a diminishing Magnetosphere

:?:

Forget Nuclear
Lets use Salt Water for source of Energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lvw8rKAa4

There are other possible options

Thorium and oxides, Aluminum and Silicon carbide, have been identified in a special mixture referred to generally as "Welsbach Refractory Seeding Agents" (U.S. Patent 5, 003,186 . - March 26, 1991). This patent was assigned and awarded in 1990 to Hughes Aircraft Corporation. The Welsbach Refractory Seeding, under unrestricted deployment operations, began in the early 1990s over a vast area of stratosphere above the North American Continent.

Expanding over the entire western hemisphere, many operations were believed to have become enjoined with the ozone depletion mitigation aerial operations of the U.S. Air Force and connected to the High Frequency Active Aural Research Project (HAARP) located in Alaska. Ironically, HAARP sends millions of watts of electricity up to heat the ionosphere while seeding the stratosphere with particulates is supposedly to cool the troposphere.

Ozone Remediation was 1 of 3 active mission parameters for HAARP, as defined by Dr. Bernard Eastlund, Inventor and Director of HAARP. The Ionospheric Heating Research Facility was manned and operated by the U.S. Air Force (Reserve) and the U.S. Navy. HAARP had been weaponized; therefore, most of its operations were and remain classified.

Weather modification/

climate change

HAARP is utilized for many clandestine missions, of which weather modification is a fundamental objective. Microwave, Extreme Low Frequency (ELF ), Very Low Frequency (VLF) and other EMR/EMF-based systems are transmitted into the atmosphere and reflected by the ionosphere back through the Earth’s Stratosphere/Atmosphere where various airborne chemical particulates, polymer filaments and other electromagnetic frequency absorbers and reflectors are used to push or pull the prevailing jet-streams to alter weather patterns.

In many instances, drought inducement technologies have been found in patented systems. Drought inducement occurs, according to reviewed technologies, by heating the stratosphere with microwaves, placing airborne chemical particulates in the airspace and thereby changing the base-line moisture gradients via microwaves from HAARP and desiccating regions chemically with barium titanates, methyl aluminum and potassium mixtures.

Like I said there is more here than meets the eye

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060504.htm

and the Whole Solar System is heating up

like I said many factors here CO2 is just one of them
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060504.htm

April 18, 2009 to announce, “Global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.”

With the first feedback effects from methane releases starting to kick in and our space colony's atmospheric CO2 levels surging toward the “Do Not Exceed” redline of 440 parts per million, Holdren declared that the Obama administration is considering “last resort” technologies to chill the global greenhouse village - aka the 'hood.

Is the Obama administration about to “out” chemtrails?

Referring to “radical” technologies that include spreading a sunlight-reflecting artificial cloud cover, Holdren declared, “It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

Could Copenhagen be looking for the quick fix

In 2007, as the IPCC's latest report was being drafted to guide international negotiators in devising a successor to the Kyoto emissions treaty, the Sydney Morning Herald reported U.S. representatives were pressing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to steer “away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions.”

Instead, Washington sought to legitimize its clandestine chemtrails program by urging inclusion in the “Summary For Policymakers” prefacing each chapter in the IPCC report - “techniques such as reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.”

The IPCC draft report called these ideas “speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects.”

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a 30-year climate consultant to the U.S. government and key IPCC player, insisted the world was “playing Russian roulette” by failing to address Climate Change. [Sydney Morning Herald Jan 29/07]

Wombat Richard Seeker Roscoe and others Dipity
let's face it
We DON"T trust our governments and agencies that work for them

they LIE

Wombat · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2009 5:02 am

lovuian says:

Quote:

We DON"T trust our governments and agencies that work for them

Their track record is not good. However, at least in a democracy and with a rigorous free press we have the recourse of the ballot box at least.

But just in case, remember this:

Be very scared if we get a UN mandate to manage CO2-e mitigation. They are fully unaccountable.

Regards to all

Wombat.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

Seeker1 wrote:

Wombat wrote:

However, I do dispute your view that there is a consensus that anthropogenic CO2-e is partly the cause. The statement is a very bald assertion. This is where the science appears to be fundamentally flawed.

I accept other models. I just question their validity.

It's solar variation? Doesn't seem supported by solar monitoring, or the temperatures of the rest of the solar system.
It's Milankovich cycles, eccentricity of Earth's orbit? Maybe, but those seem to cause slower periods of change.
Cosmic rays? Fine, but what I do not understand from your theory is why the level of cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth has increased over the last 60 years, and appears to continue to be increasing.

It seems logical to me it's anthropogenic.

a) the natural greenhouse effect of Venus causes it to have an artificially higher temperature.
b) the natural greenhouse effect of Earth causes its global temperature to be higher than it should be (this was demonstrated by Arrhenius and Fourier in the 19th century)
c) adding manmade greenhouse gasses to natural greenhouse gasses should therefore add to an existing natural effect

No one can dispute CO2 levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing, and you said you don't dispute we're warming. I understand correlation is not causation.

But the above scientific model suggests exactly why one should correlate with the other, and may in fact be causing the other.

I've never seen a skeptic show why the greenhouse model shouldn't work - to question a model, you have to suggest what about it is wrong - I haven't seen that yet.

Model appears to be valid. Model explains the variation we've seen. Where's the problem? I'll ask you again. If it works on Venus, why doesn't it work here?

Quote:

Alternative (green) technologies at the current time do not provide the same leap in productive capacity and efficiency. Until they do, there will be a net cost to the societies that are forced into them. Subsidies and taxes don’t drive economic competitiveness.

Mostly because

a) there hasn't been a century of R & D into improving their efficiency as there has been with fossil fuels
b) the real COSTS (externalities - pollution) of fossil fuels are usually dumped as "externalities" that don't show up at the pump/meter - society just pays them in health bills and other ways

Finally, there's one other problem. We haven't even talked about the issue of whether we're running out or not. I don't know if the Peak Oil scenario is true, but it seems likely we're going to confront Hubbert's Peak eventually, even if we haven't passed it already.

At that point, cheap oil itself will rapidly start becoming a thing of the past. And although I don't like conspiracy theories, as you know, there is quite a bit of reason to suspect increased interest in geopolitical control over Central Asia and the Middle East may have to do with some possible hinting that control over the remaining, dwindling resources may be critical for those with power & money at stake.

BTW, I'm not against nuclear power, although I'd prefer to see more R & D going into nuclear fusion, which I believe is less dangerous for the environment than fission.

The ice core records show that in the past temperature has always risen BEFORE CO2 levels have risen.

The temperature drives the CO2 levels not the other way around.

We've got to be careful what data we are using now since most of it we now know is faked.

I presume you know that the real records are showing that the average world temperature has been DROPPING for nine years. This is why they've had to lie about it

Wombat · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2009 2:36 pm

To confirm.

Roscoe says:

Quote:

The ice core records show that in the past temperature has always risen BEFORE CO2 levels have risen.

The temperature drives the CO2 levels not the other way around.

See my post above at page 1 of this thread:

Quote:

“Trenberth to Professor Mann on 12 October 2009 saying:

“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate”.

In others words, what we see is wrong because it doesn't fit our model. And green left governments want to use this level of analysis to justify bringing in a Carbon tax? Get away!

These models are predicated on the CO2-e / GATA correlation. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the fact that they can’t account for what is happening might mean that it may be something else that drives the GATA increase. Why can’t these guys get it?”

Please note ..please note... the large lag between the CO2 movement and the temperature increase. Temperature lifts first and CO2 follows; temperature falls first and CO2 follows; CO2 lags temperature.

Roscoe also says:

Quote:

We've got to be careful what data we are using now since most of it we now know is faked.

See my post also on page 1 of this thread:

Quote:

.....according to McIntyre and McKitrick (who eventually were able to access Mann’s data and check it over):

" The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, ‘MBH98’ hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components."

And this is what they found should be the case:

Now this is serious stuff.

How true is it?

Well, a USA House of Representatives committee sought advice from independent statisticians to determine how best to assess it. Dr Edward Wegman, a prominent statistics professor at George Mason University who is chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, agreed to independently assess the data on a pro bono basis. Wegman is also a Board member of the American Statistical Association.

See: http://republicans.energycommerce.house ... _sheet.pdf

What did he find? He found that:

“Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.”

And if that’s not damaging enough, how about this further conclusion of Wegman’s:

“A social network analysis revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appear to review each other’s work, and reuse many of the same data sets, which calls into question the independence of peer review and temperature reconstructions.”

Specifically, the Report to the house Committee stated: “It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications".

And finally roscoe says:

Quote:

I presume you know that the real records are showing that the average world temperature has been DROPPING for nine years. This is why they've had to lie about it

See my other earlier post above also at page 1:

Quote:

……on one fact the science is clear. We are currently in a cooling phase – have been since 1998 – not a warming phase. Even Professor Phil Jones from the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) accepts that fact (although, until the leaking/hacking of CRU documents, nobody was to know since he wasn’t telling the whole truth in his public pronouncements). Nevertheless, this is what he said to a colleague at NSSTC UA-H, in email 1120593115.txt in 2005:

“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.”

As I say that was in 2005. It’s now 2009 – and the decline continues; that’s now eleven years of decline.

The Alarmists have been drawing a very long bow and have been found out, it would seem.

Appalling science, appalling ethics and appalling morality.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Wombat · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2009 3:56 pm

Seeker says:

Quote:

I've never seen a skeptic show why the greenhouse model shouldn't work - to question a model, you have to suggest what about it is wrong - I haven't seen that yet.

OK Seeker, what is wrong about it, you ask?

1. Let me suggest this: basically, the science produced by the CRU at East Anglia University demonstrates that it doesn't work in the real World.

Trenberth's model is predicated on the greenhouse theory, is it not?

Question: What did he say about the outputs of his model?

Answer:The real world observations don't agree with the model's forecasts.

Trenberth's conclusion? there's something wrong with the real World observations!

2. Added to this is the Vostok evidence (see above) that corroborates that Trenberth's assumptions about CO2 and GATA are wide of the mark.

3. Added to this is the cooling period between 1940 something and 1980 +/- a bit, when CO2 continued to rise but GATA fell.

4. Added to this is the current 11 year cooling period that even the CRU's (now stood down) Professor Phil Jones admits exists, notwithstanding the continued increase in CO2.

As Einstein said – it only takes one fact to prove me wrong.

There's four "wrongs" for a start.

Regards to all

Wombat.

lovuian · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2009 4:14 am

A monster iceberg nearly twice the size of Hong Kong island has been spotted drifting towards Australia in what scientists called a once-in-a-century event.

Dang Sorry Wombat
No party for you :lol:

Party on the iceberg cancelled

A change of weather has melted the hopes of some Australians who were planning to hold a party on an iceberg which was drifting towards New Zealand.

The flotilla of icebergs, which had been drifting towards New Zealand, is now being blown away from the country by strong winds.

Australians Phil Meadows and Earl Roberts wanted to helicopter out to one of the icebergs, carve an ice bar and stage a party.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2760053.htm?section=justin

The icebergs broke off the Ross Sea Ice Shelf.

Wombat · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2009 6:56 am

Wonderful majestic photo, lovuian.

As the Antarctic ice grows (unlike the Arctic ice) we will probably see more these and you will see fewer.

This graph shows the growth trend in the Antarctic ice. It’s from the Polar Research Group - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

We rarely get to see this sort of information in the main stream media because it doesn’t tell of catastrophe and nor does it fit with their Alarmist bias. But if you search you can find it tucked away, quietly telling the truth.

Regards to all

Wombat.

lovuian · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2009 11:45 am

Wombat
I see the graph
and yet I see that Ice burg floating around

:?:

It is a puzzle

richard.webster · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2009 1:38 am

Another good piece by the sceptical Christopher Booker, from the UK Telegraph, entitled "What Links the Copenhagen Conference with the Steelworks Closing in Redcar?" It's about the surreal world of carbon trading and how it is to impact in one specific case on a UK steel town, with the loss of hundreds of jobs, and how in a case such as this, great profit can be made without there being any reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... edcar.html

Quote:

Last year, on official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. This market, now enriching many of our leading financial institutions (not to mention Al Gore), is growing so fast that within a few years it is predicted to be worth trillions, making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world.
Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon.Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a "pollutant", worth more than diamonds, let alone oil. And many of those now gathered in Copenhagen are making a great deal of money out of it.

Wombat · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2009 8:19 am

Thanks R.W a very good piece.

And here’s another that seems to be getting the balance right and correcting the nonsense.

Rowan Callick the “Australian”s (Weekend Australian) Asia –Pacific Editor

Quote:

“The Australian Associated Press report from Copenhagen described "some scientists" as saying that "low-lying island nations such as Fiji are vulnerable to rising sea levels". They must indeed be some scientists.
Every tourist who arrives at Fiji's Nadi airport gazes up at the mountains that tower nearby. Fiji's main island, Viti Levu, which contains 70 per cent of the population, rises to Mt Tomaniivi's 1324m. Vanua Levu island rises to Mt Batini's 1111m, Taveuni to Mt Uluigalau's 1241m and Kadavu to Mt Washington 822m. In comparison, it is "low-lying island nations" such as England that are truly vulnerable, with a highest peak rising only 978m, or Denmark at just 173m.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op ... 5809552679

The whole article is worth a close read.

Regards to all

Wombat.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

Whatever happened to Dr David Bellamy?

The man who first coined the phrase "The Greenhouse effect"

A man once all over our TV screens. Everyone's favourite scientist (At least in the UK)

Here's what happened.

He dared to say in 2004 that man made global warming was poppycock and his TV career took a nosedive.

They doth protest too much methinks.

Wombat · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2009 6:53 am

Roscoe wrote:

Quote:

Whatever happened to Dr David Bellamy?

That's the C21st equivalent to burning them at the stake, is it not?

They will eventually realise.

I'm on the road at the moment. Crossed the Nullarbor Plain yesterday in 45 degree heat. The locals were wearing sweaters because they "felt the cold", or so they said.

Null = Nil; Abor = Trees. Latin not Pitjanjatjara.

Bloody hot , Australian not English

Regards to all

Wombat.

Eginolf · **Posted:** 19 Dec 2009 9:01 am

roscoe wrote:

Whatever happened to Dr David Bellamy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
>>>
Dr Bellamy's later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views completely. A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but no such article exists. Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

Eginolf wrote:

roscoe wrote:

Whatever happened to Dr David Bellamy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
>>>
Dr Bellamy's later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views completely. A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but no such article exists. Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".

So what's the message then?

You see how this works now don't you? Because the info on glasiers misquoted by Dr Bellamy the fact that global warming is therefore manmade and we need to allow ourselves to be taxed to the hilt and we now must go quietly into the night?

Yes?

No.

Watch the argument switch here. Nobody thinks that the earth hasn't been emerging from the mini Ice Age since 1850 (a fact backed up by scientific data). The glasiers should be retreating, although it is true that in the past nine years the earth has been cooling again.

It isn't man made

Beware the argument switch.

Cutting carbon emissions in the third world will kill millions and that's the whole idea. What's worse, we in the west will be paying for the genocide.

It's worth bringing up a point made by Dr Bellamy.

If the sea levels are about to rise then what is all the building work that is currently being planned at the side of the Thames in the City of London? According to the scientist they will be inundated with the rising sea.

The Thames barrier is not designed to withhold a permanent rise in sea levels, it's only designed to stop a water piling phenomenon similar to the one that occurred in 1953.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

The Copenhagen Talks were a resounding success by the way.

They acheived precisely what they set out to do.

Demonstrations? Faked.

Supposed disagreements? Faked.

No Obama set up a "Bureaucratic Infrastructure" or to give it it's proper name.

World Government.

If anyone thinks that this $100 billion is going to find it's way to the third world then go back to sleep. They ain't getting a brass farthing. That's to set up and pay the new unelected NGOs.

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Dec 2009 5:17 pm

I agree Roscoe Copenhagen was a complete farce
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_sc/climate_322

30 Billion to give to the poor nations to shut up with it being 100 billion by 2020
a drop in the bucket considering what the dollar will be worth in 2020 or if there will be a dolla then

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — rejected by the U.S. — 37 industrial nations were already modestly cutting back on their emissions of greenhouse gases. Under the new, nonbinding agreement, those richer nations, including the U.S., are to list their individual emissions targets, and developing countries must list what actions they will take to reduce the growth in their global warming pollution by specific amounts.

"The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash," said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International.

The Copenhagen conference also failed to act on one issue many thought was near success here: A plan to protect the world's rain forests, vital to a healthy climate, by paying some 40 poor tropical countries to protect their woodlands.

Deforestation for logging, cattle grazing and crops has made Indonesia and Brazil the world's third- and fourth-biggest carbon emitters, after China and the United States.

The overall outcome was a significant disappointment to those who had hoped Obama could put new life into the flagging prospects for some kind of legally binding agreement this year. Instead, it envisions another year of negotiations and leaves myriad details yet to be decided. The next major U.N. climate conference is planned for a year from now in Mexico City.

It is all voluntary and we know that is a joke

So Roscoe more CO2 will continue ...nothing has changed except the 100 Billion
payoff ... and that is shared by America China Germany France all industrial nations IndiaJapan

Guess we will see if you guys are right and CO2 is a joke
I hope you are right and I am wrong

Pilrig · **Posted:** 20 Dec 2009 7:54 pm

Global warming ? It's snowing outside as I write. Looks like we're about to have our first White Christmas for quite a few years.
Global warming ? Bah humbug !!

richard.webster · **Posted:** 20 Dec 2009 10:59 pm

More from the tireless Christopher Booker on the carbon trading scam.

Copenhagen Accord Keeps Big Carbon in Business
The Copenhagen summit achieved its main aim, to maintain the carbon-trading system established by the Kyoto Protocol, says Christopher Booker

Quote:

Copenhagen was not about global warming but money. The cash that Hillary Clinton so dramatically plonked on the table, rising to $100 billion by 2020, which includes the £1.5 billion offered by Gordon Brown (money which of course he hasn't got) and which like a crazed gambler he last week upped to £6 billion (even more money he hasn't got), was merely a "sweetener" to persuade the developing countries to maintain the money-machine set in motion by Kyoto.
This is the new global industry based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year, which through schemes such as the UN's Clean Development Mechanism and the EU's Emissions Trading System is making a small minority of people, including Al Gore, extremely rich.
The only really concrete achievement of Copenhagen was to win agreement to the perpetuating of those Kyoto rules that have created this vast industry, which has two main beneficiaries. On one hand are that small number of people in China and India who have learnt how to work this system to their huge advantage. On the other are all those Western entrepreneurs who have piled into what has become the fastest‑growing commodity market in the world.

Read the whole article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... iness.html

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Dec 2009 11:25 pm

I agree Copenhagen was a farce
CO2 will continue

The Carbon trading system is a farce
I don't think US signed Kyoto
So we are all voluntary

I was never far the carbon trading scam
I was for CO2 to decrease... I don't believe these levels are good for the world
I think the reason Pilrig we are seeing the cold system in the North like this is because of the conveyor belt slowing

I guess we will take a wait and see

Wombat · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2009 12:16 pm

Pilrig wrote:

Quote:

Global warming ? It's snowing outside as I write. Looks like we're about to have our first White Christmas for quite a few years.
Global warming ? Bah humbug !!

Bah humbug, indeed Pilrig.

The truth about man-made Global warming is the "hidden knowledge" of the C21st.

The paradox is that cattle in Australia seem to be thriving on this so-called man made drought. Even though the dams are empty!

Wyangala dam, New South Wales, 20 December 2009. (c)Wombat.

This is a natural phenomenon in this country, notwithstanding those who want to portray it in an alternative "Copenhagen" light.

Regards to all (5,400 kms later, I'm now on the Pacific coast). Cousins wombat are in fine fettle too.

Wombat.

Pilrig · **Posted:** 22 Dec 2009 12:42 am

Wombat wrote:

Pilrig wrote:

Quote:

Global warming ? It's snowing outside as I write. Looks like we're about to have our first White Christmas for quite a few years.
Global warming ? Bah humbug !!

Bah humbug, indeed Pilrig.

The truth about man-made Global warming is the "hidden knowledge" of the C21st.

The paradox is that cattle in Australia seem to be thriving on this so-called man made drought. Even though the dams are empty!

Wyangala dam, New South Wales, 20 December 2009. (c)Wombat.

This is a natural phenomenon in this country, notwithstanding those who want to portray it in an alternative "Copenhagen" light.

Regards to all (5,400 kms later, I'm now on the Pacific coast). Cousins wombat are in fine fettle too.

Wombat.

Glad to hear that the Aussie cattle and the wombats are in fine fettle. What's the score with the Tasmanian Devils ? Last I heard these charming wee beasties were under threat with a facial carcinoma virus.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

We need to adapt to a continually changing climate, just like Homo Sapiens have been doing for 200,000 years. Neanderthal couldn't adapt and became extinct.

The reason Homo Sapiens survived and Neanderthal didn't? We traded goods with other Homo Sapiens groups. The Neanderthal didn't know how to do this and they starved. Evidence shows that they became so desperate that they started eating each other.

Good News for the UK is that we may become the world's best wine producers. The Highlands and Islands of Scotland will become the new Riviera.

The Bad news

We may lose Scunthorpe when the sea level rises. (Or is that the good news?)

Global warming is not my fault and I'm not paying for it. The reality is that we can do the square root of Zippady Doo Dah about it. But we'll survive.

Rising CO2 levels follows warming and plants love CO2, man's activity is about as disruptive as a flea on an elephants bum.

If the ozone level gets destroyed we cool down, someone explain to me urgency to ban the CFCs if we are in fact warming up.

Pilrig · **Posted:** 22 Dec 2009 11:13 am

roscoe wrote:

We need to adapt to a continually changing climate, just like Homo Sapiens have been doing for 200,000 years. Neanderthal couldn't adapt and became extinct.

The reason Homo Sapiens survived and Neanderthal didn't? We traded goods with other Homo Sapiens groups. The Neanderthal didn't know how to do this and they starved. Evidence shows that they became so desperate that they started eating each other.

Good News for the UK is that we may become the world's best wine producers. The Highlands and Islands of Scotland will become the new Riviera.

The new Riviera ?

BTW, as you probably have seen our friend Tony Robinson has been fronting a series about the impact of climate change on mankind, and he came to the same conclusions about reasons for the extinction of the Neanderthals. Perhaps it is somehow sobering that the last resting place of the species was the most southerly tip of western Europe - Gibraltar. My own uninformed opinion was that the Neanderthals were hunted to down and killed by our Cro-Magnon ancestors, the fate William Golding gives them in his novel The Inheritors . I found Stan Gooch's theories on the Neanderthals - that they interbred with certain Homo Sapien races - plausible at the time when I read Gooch's books, but subsequent genetic research shows that this didn't happen, not in the last quarter of a million years at least.

Wombat · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2009 5:19 am

Pilrig wrote:

Quote:

What's the score with the Tasmanian Devils ? Last I heard these charming wee beasties were under threat with a facial carcinoma virus

Well, there is a bit of an issue with the poor old Devils. However, I understand that the scientists are working on it.

The thing that I'm really surprised about is that the Warmists have yet to blame man-made global warming for the little Devils' health issues. Are they slipping?

Regards to all

Wombat.

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Permanent Arctic Ice Vanishing - Satellite Images Misleading

Who is online