| global warming kicking in on 09:11 - Dec 18 with 868 views | R_from_afar |
| global warming kicking in on 13:42 - Dec 17 by FDC |
[doffs cap to Rfa for his patience and good humour on this thread] |
Thanks for that comment, FDC, much appreciated! 
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
|  |
| global warming kicking in on 09:24 - Dec 18 with 865 views | doogi55 |
ice ages are caused by the earth moving a few degress on its axis.
then you get ice building on ice over the years it works the other way as well.
i would belive in climate change if the polticians didnt use it as an excuse for us to pay more. |  | | |
| global warming kicking in on 13:11 - Dec 18 with 829 views | R_from_afar |
| global warming kicking in on 13:34 - Dec 17 by TheBlob |
I'm afraid you'll find the price of food has gone up because the demand is outstripping supply.They try to hide the shortages in many cases by downsizing products to give the illusion of plenty.I've always said the Climate debate was a devised smokescreen(no pun intended)to divert the attention away from the population question and the quasi-religious - no dammit,overtly religious - status of childbirth. |
Demand absolutely plays a role, but so does climate change. There's more here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13597657
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 13:17 - Dec 18 with 820 views | R_from_afar |
| global warming kicking in on 17:02 - Dec 17 by Bluce_Ree |
We're still in an ice age. |
Your ice age theory is not supported by temperature measurements, though. The list of hottest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (2001—2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 13:20 - Dec 18 with 818 views | GloryHunter |
| global warming kicking in on 20:04 - Dec 17 by Jigsore |
wow you actually believe what you're saying don't you? maybe we deserve annihilation |
See what I mean? The warmists always resort to insults. |  | | |
| global warming kicking in on 13:23 - Dec 18 with 818 views | R_from_afar |
| global warming kicking in on 17:18 - Dec 17 by GetMeRangers |
The rising cost of food:
Grocery prices have risen 2-3% each year between 1990-2011. There are four global policy shifts that are causing this inflation in world food prices.
First, the U.S. government subsidizes corn production that is used for bio-fuels. This takes corn out of the food supply, raising prices.
Second, the World Trade Organization (WTO) limits the amount of corn and wheat that the U.S. and European Union (EU) can subsidize and store in stockpiles. This reduces the cushion available to add to the food supply when there are shortages, thus adding to food price volatility.
Third, as more people around the world are growing more affluent, they eat more meat. Grains are going to feed the animals that provide meat, further reducing the supply and increasing price volatility.
Fourth, higher oil prices lead to higher food prices. Food is transported great distances, especially if imported. Higher oil and gas prices increase shipping costs, which translates into higher food prices.
Point missed on this list relates the oil input to crops in producing fertilisers and culture of the crops (machinery) etc
Very little of it is to do with climate change |
Some of it is to do with climate change, about 20% in the last decade; research indicates that. Some regions are already marginal for agriculture so throw in higher temperatures and reduced, yet more intense, rainfall and you have problems. The southern US has suffered a massive drought, for example.
I think your other points are spot on though. As an example, city dwellers - of which there are more and more - eat more meat, statistically, than those in rural areas.
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 13:39 - Dec 18 with 804 views | R_from_afar |
| global warming kicking in on 09:24 - Dec 18 by doogi55 |
ice ages are caused by the earth moving a few degress on its axis.
then you get ice building on ice over the years it works the other way as well.
i would belive in climate change if the polticians didnt use it as an excuse for us to pay more. |
That is one of the reasons, this is the full one (I had to look it up, I confess):
Position of the continents
Changes in Earth's atmosphere
Fluctuations in ocean currents
Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snowline
Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) - Your one
Chelsea fans
Variations in the Sun's energy output
Volcanism.
I can understand why you make that point about politicians but climate change is going to cost us if we can't stop it. For a start, 1 in 6 properties in England are at risk of flooding. That means higher insurance costs, the cost of river and tidal defences, the cost of disruption to businesses, the cost of destroyed property...
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 13:46 - Dec 18 with 800 views | MrSheen |
| global warming kicking in on 13:23 - Dec 18 by R_from_afar |
Some of it is to do with climate change, about 20% in the last decade; research indicates that. Some regions are already marginal for agriculture so throw in higher temperatures and reduced, yet more intense, rainfall and you have problems. The southern US has suffered a massive drought, for example.
I think your other points are spot on though. As an example, city dwellers - of which there are more and more - eat more meat, statistically, than those in rural areas.
RFA |
It's only right to mention higher population increasing demand, at the same time that population growth itself reduces the amount of cultivable land through urbanisation, road-building etc, on top of terminal degradation...pollution and draining of water resources in north China are monumental problems. Crop yields are no longer increasing at the same rate they used to, but GM development is being resisted in many places. But that's another issue...
Where does 20% come from? Is that a common estimate? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| global warming kicking in on 13:48 - Dec 18 with 799 views | GloryHunter |
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur (The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived - Petronius, 27-66 AD) | | | |
| global warming kicking in on 13:49 - Dec 18 with 798 views | TheBlob |
| global warming kicking in on 13:20 - Dec 18 by GloryHunter |
See what I mean? The warmists always resort to insults. |
Is that perceived as an an insult?You've led a sheltered life. |  |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 13:57 - Dec 18 with 796 views | R_from_afar |
| global warming kicking in on 13:48 - Dec 18 by GloryHunter |
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur (The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived - Petronius, 27-66 AD) |
As a linguist and someone with a Latin O level, I have to respect that, nice quote!
However, who is doing the deceiving? Is it those who are sticking to their dogma in spite of the weight of scientific evidence, evidence which clearly attributes GW and CC to mankind? That IPCC report was worked on by over 1000 highly qualified contributors from myriad organisations based all over the world and was peer reviewed to death, arguably more than any other piece of research in history.
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 14:14 - Dec 18 with 787 views | GetMeRangers |
No it doesnt. There is no food shortage. There is problem with shortages in countries that can not afford the prices dictated by demand and supply, there is huge food wastage in Western countries, let alone food crops being diverted for bio-fuel and animal feed
To put a cat amongst the pigeons... GM crops are the answer. Crops are now being developed that can fix their own nitrogen (in the same way that leguminous crops do), along with increased pest resistance (reducing a reliance on pesticides derived from oil), let alone drought tolerance |  | | |
| global warming kicking in on 14:17 - Dec 18 with 786 views | TheBlob |
| global warming kicking in on 13:17 - Dec 18 by R_from_afar |
Your ice age theory is not supported by temperature measurements, though. The list of hottest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (2001—2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
RFA |
I see no mention of conditions under the Roman occupation of Britain.The climate was compared to the modern day Loire Valley,Britain exported wine to the rest of the Empire,and was also the bread basket of the Romans.Tacitus points out the main exports as being grain, hides, cattle, iron, silver, slaves, and clever hunting dogs.Not a sign of a Fordus or Nissanus. | |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 14:32 - Dec 18 with 780 views | elnombre |
Hmm, I wonder if any of the 'science' quoted here was executed by this 'gentleman':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524730/John-C-Beale-climate-change-expe
Seems like a nice trustworthy chap?
I love the quote from the EPA Inspector General, excusing the fact they missed some fairly blatant crookedness,
'There’s a certain culture here at the EPA... they tend to be very trusting and accepting'.
They sound just the sort of healthy skeptics to be peer-reviewing all this unimpeachable climate change reporting, no? | | | |
| global warming kicking in on 15:12 - Dec 18 with 768 views | MrSheen |
| global warming kicking in on 14:17 - Dec 18 by TheBlob |
I see no mention of conditions under the Roman occupation of Britain.The climate was compared to the modern day Loire Valley,Britain exported wine to the rest of the Empire,and was also the bread basket of the Romans.Tacitus points out the main exports as being grain, hides, cattle, iron, silver, slaves, and clever hunting dogs.Not a sign of a Fordus or Nissanus. |
Britain as Rome's bread basket? You've made that up. Sicily, Egypt and the rest of North Africa were vital to feeding Rome, but Britain? There's no way that Roman era merchant fleets could have made trips with bulk cargoes frequently enough on ocean routes from Britain to be relied on for a staple crop. Metals and skins yes, dogs possibly. | | | |
| global warming kicking in on 15:18 - Dec 18 with 766 views | TheBlob |
| global warming kicking in on 15:12 - Dec 18 by MrSheen |
Britain as Rome's bread basket? You've made that up. Sicily, Egypt and the rest of North Africa were vital to feeding Rome, but Britain? There's no way that Roman era merchant fleets could have made trips with bulk cargoes frequently enough on ocean routes from Britain to be relied on for a staple crop. Metals and skins yes, dogs possibly. |
Tacitus said so,look him up. | |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 15:41 - Dec 18 with 753 views | NW5Hoop |
But the problem is that previous warm periods weren't caused by people putting shedloads of crap into the atmosphere. While the earth's natural cycles correct themselves, human impact does not correct itself. So to say "things turned out fine after that hot spell 2000 years ago" doesn't have any relevance.
There are some myths that get endlessly trotted out on these threads, and that's what they are — myths.
- There's a divide among scientists about climate change. No, there isn't. 99% of scientists who've studied it believe there is climate change, that it is caused by humans, and will have long term ill effects on the world.
- Climate change has become orthodoxy because there's so much money in it for scientists. No, it hasn't and no there isn't. Anyone who believes universities — which is where the vast majority of the research is done — are throwing money at scientists is deluded. These people do not make much money at all. On the other hand, the petrochemical industries, which have long opposed the idea of climate change — or have at least sought to play it down — actually have spent enormous sums on PR and on lobbying politicians. That they haven't succeeded in convincing the world reflects the weakness of their case, not the might of the university academics lobby.
- That one random temperature reading from somewhere odd proves climate change is rubbish. No, it doesn't. It proves a particular set of conditions came together at a particular place at a particular time. That's the nature of one-off events. Patterns are what matters. It's like me claiming the A1 is getting better because it took me less than two hours to drive to Newark the other day — no, all that proves is that there wasn't much traffic that day, and all the lights at the southern end were in my favour. | | | |
| global warming kicking in on 16:14 - Dec 18 with 744 views | TheBlob |
| global warming kicking in on 15:41 - Dec 18 by NW5Hoop |
But the problem is that previous warm periods weren't caused by people putting shedloads of crap into the atmosphere. While the earth's natural cycles correct themselves, human impact does not correct itself. So to say "things turned out fine after that hot spell 2000 years ago" doesn't have any relevance.
There are some myths that get endlessly trotted out on these threads, and that's what they are — myths.
- There's a divide among scientists about climate change. No, there isn't. 99% of scientists who've studied it believe there is climate change, that it is caused by humans, and will have long term ill effects on the world.
- Climate change has become orthodoxy because there's so much money in it for scientists. No, it hasn't and no there isn't. Anyone who believes universities — which is where the vast majority of the research is done — are throwing money at scientists is deluded. These people do not make much money at all. On the other hand, the petrochemical industries, which have long opposed the idea of climate change — or have at least sought to play it down — actually have spent enormous sums on PR and on lobbying politicians. That they haven't succeeded in convincing the world reflects the weakness of their case, not the might of the university academics lobby.
- That one random temperature reading from somewhere odd proves climate change is rubbish. No, it doesn't. It proves a particular set of conditions came together at a particular place at a particular time. That's the nature of one-off events. Patterns are what matters. It's like me claiming the A1 is getting better because it took me less than two hours to drive to Newark the other day — no, all that proves is that there wasn't much traffic that day, and all the lights at the southern end were in my favour. |
Good grief. | |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 16:16 - Dec 18 with 741 views | MrSheen |
| global warming kicking in on 15:18 - Dec 18 by TheBlob |
Tacitus said so,look him up. |
I did. He didn't.
In his "Agricola", he mentions British agriculture, and specifically says that it was suitable for most things, except vines, olives and other southern fruits. There were grain tributes, but he doesn't say they were sent to Rome directly. They may have been parcelled out to armies in Britain and across the channel. in his "Annales", he describes how Vespasian took control of Egypt to cut off the grain supply to Rome and help unseat Emperor Vitellius.
More on Roman grain imports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome%27s_grain_supply
Britain doesn't get a mention, because Rome didn't have ocean-going fleets that could have supplied it regularly. Not that there wasn't inter-regional trade with Rome's northern possessions, or the neighbours, just that Rome itself didn't/couldn't rely on supply from Britain.
I didn't say anything to dispute the warm period! | | | |
| global warming kicking in on 16:57 - Dec 18 with 731 views | TheBlob |
| global warming kicking in on 16:16 - Dec 18 by MrSheen |
I did. He didn't.
In his "Agricola", he mentions British agriculture, and specifically says that it was suitable for most things, except vines, olives and other southern fruits. There were grain tributes, but he doesn't say they were sent to Rome directly. They may have been parcelled out to armies in Britain and across the channel. in his "Annales", he describes how Vespasian took control of Egypt to cut off the grain supply to Rome and help unseat Emperor Vitellius.
More on Roman grain imports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome%27s_grain_supply
Britain doesn't get a mention, because Rome didn't have ocean-going fleets that could have supplied it regularly. Not that there wasn't inter-regional trade with Rome's northern possessions, or the neighbours, just that Rome itself didn't/couldn't rely on supply from Britain.
I didn't say anything to dispute the warm period! |
That's strange I thought Tacitus often paraphrased the writings of others.Much the same as ST Coleridge paraphrased Marco Polo to produce Kubla Khan.
As in Strabo....
"It(Britain) bears grain, cattle, gold, silver, and iron. These things, accordingly, are exported from the island, as also hides, and slaves, and dogs that are by nature suited to the purposes of the chase."
Anyway,it's all hair-splitting.Nothing has been proved or disproved in the Climate debate - just like other religions. [Post edited 18 Dec 2013 16:59]
| |
| |
| global warming kicking in on 17:00 - Dec 18 with 1069 views | GetMeRangers |
| global warming kicking in on 15:41 - Dec 18 by NW5Hoop |
But the problem is that previous warm periods weren't caused by people putting shedloads of crap into the atmosphere. While the earth's natural cycles correct themselves, human impact does not correct itself. So to say "things turned out fine after that hot spell 2000 years ago" doesn't have any relevance.
There are some myths that get endlessly trotted out on these threads, and that's what they are — myths.
- There's a divide among scientists about climate change. No, there isn't. 99% of scientists who've studied it believe there is climate change, that it is caused by humans, and will have long term ill effects on the world.
- Climate change has become orthodoxy because there's so much money in it for scientists. No, it hasn't and no there isn't. Anyone who believes universities — which is where the vast majority of the research is done — are throwing money at scientists is deluded. These people do not make much money at all. On the other hand, the petrochemical industries, which have long opposed the idea of climate change — or have at least sought to play it down — actually have spent enormous sums on PR and on lobbying politicians. That they haven't succeeded in convincing the world reflects the weakness of their case, not the might of the university academics lobby.
- That one random temperature reading from somewhere odd proves climate change is rubbish. No, it doesn't. It proves a particular set of conditions came together at a particular place at a particular time. That's the nature of one-off events. Patterns are what matters. It's like me claiming the A1 is getting better because it took me less than two hours to drive to Newark the other day — no, all that proves is that there wasn't much traffic that day, and all the lights at the southern end were in my favour. |
your first point...
Not sure many are disagreeing with you on that. What is complexing to many is the inability of scientists to form a consensus on what will happen in the future and how "bad" this will be. Anyone knows that many different scenarios can be "proved" statistically yet there is no common model that has overwhelming support in the scientific community that is going to convince sceptics. People have a right to question some of the madder forecasts as we have all seen in out lifetime scares that never came to fruition, even though there were was a lot of media noise for the doom-mongers. I am sure that you would find that many scientists who support the GW theories are still at a loss to understanding the mechanisms of nature and precisely how things will pan out
Add to that there is less proof as to how much we need to restrain carbon emissions to control the situation. Some say the damage is already done and we are doomed. If that is the case, presumably long term planning should be focused as much solving the "outcomes" (flooded low lands and coastal towns)... just a thought
Your second point has some validity, yet very little research is nowadays carried out with out external funding from one interested party or other (not very much pure research). This can, though not necessarily, skew experimental method and evaluation of results. We have all seen ludicrous research suggesting that something or other is going to shorten our lives irrevocably if we dont cut back on. As poor as some that research is, it is possible that the same flaws appear in climate change research. Even "good" research can go wrong. Take thalidomide, which had diastrous consequences when used as a sedative, yet now is making a come back for treating leprosy, HIV related mouth ulcers and body wasting and some cancers such as leukaemia and myeloma.
Your third point is very valid and is better known (described as ) 'regression to the mean', where one extreme result is unlikely to be proceeded by one that is more extreme. Such improvements this year in polar ice extent and thickness should not be viewed in isolation but viewed over a longer period of time.
Questions I would like answered:
If the melting North polar cap is going to affect the gulf stream, at what point will we start to experience the climate of Adak Alaska, Calgary Canada or Poznan Poland, as we lie on the same latitude.
What causes ice ages?
Is there any possibility that science and technology will find solutions to the "doom laden" future that the climatologists are promising
If 90% of the frozen water on earth is at the south pole, and there seems to be some strong evidence that some of this is getting colder and the ice thicker, that the models might be wrong?
And many others too | | | |
| global warming kicking in on 17:17 - Dec 18 with 1050 views | Jigsore |
| global warming kicking in on 13:20 - Dec 18 by GloryHunter |
See what I mean? The warmists always resort to insults. |
if you're insulted by that maybe you should yourself down to Loose Women and start writing angry letters to your local rag about broken Britain
What else am I meant say mate? People post numerous sources and you've got your fingers in your ears shouting 'LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. There are practically no reputable scientific documents that are against the theory of humans adversely effecting the climate. |  |
| “The thing about football - the important thing about football - is that it is not just about football.†|
| |
| global warming kicking in on 17:35 - Dec 18 with 1043 views | TheBlob |
| global warming kicking in on 17:17 - Dec 18 by Jigsore |
if you're insulted by that maybe you should yourself down to Loose Women and start writing angry letters to your local rag about broken Britain
What else am I meant say mate? People post numerous sources and you've got your fingers in your ears shouting 'LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. There are practically no reputable scientific documents that are against the theory of humans adversely effecting the climate. |
Do rational human beings produce documents on what ISN'T happening? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
