MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I'm still interested in hearing if anyone has any idea on my question from earlier
I've looked about a bit but haven't come across anything that really addresses it
I don't really follow this sort of stuff too closely but at the Copenhagen conference there was a commitment [or talk] of restricting global temp rise to less than 2C over n years
How exactly can that be managed?What I mean is, is it as easy as saying "we're warming up a bit fast, we'll ease back for a while"
Can we really see an effect of our actions that quickly?
Hainey has hit the nail on the head.
I however do believe however that climate is influenced by industrialisation, but my arguments are exactly the same - there is an inconsistent approach from politicians who have been utterly inept at provisioning for alternative energy production, public transport and being straight with the public about the biggest sources of man made carbon emissions.
The research must be open to reasoned criticism, we don't live in the dark ages and screaming "heretic!" at someone who doesn't agree with you isn't the way to go. We live in the 21st century and not under the threat of the Spanish Inquisition.
Whatever happens, we all need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels - the sooner the better.
However there is no evidence or proof that climate change is due to man.
Its not proveable so thats not a suprise.
uplink, to answer your question, I would imagine its just a best guess based on current models, I thought at the time it was a fairly stupid thing to try to do, but I suppose it enables politicians to put a price tag and look at costs and benefits.
Where has anyone ever called anyone a heretic in any scientific literature?
It is a label that those given to themselves as they like to think they are victims of some sort of global conspiracy - if there is one it is an attempt to educate them. It is like when people who believe in psychic powers accuse you of having a closed mind – it is a pointless insult/slur that adds nothing to your argument.
reasoned criticism - what like research being peer reviewed by other experts in the field - yes why have they never thought of that 🙄
people seem to be unable to understand that science never prooves anything.
Tthey also seem to want to ignore the weight of evidence and data and give equal eight to any theroy /hypothesis no matter how [prima facia] ludicrous. Creationism or evolution, astrology or astronomy, psychic powers or psychology. you can never prove a negative- nothing can be proved to be right or wrong in science it either has no evidence/poor evidence/weak evidence to support it or lots. In this example which set off evidence is the strongest.
hainey will be along in a minute to explain why gravity and other things are proved and this is just theory.
The reality of the situation is that our lives are hugely impacted by green taxes, initiatives and policies all in the name of man-made global warming. Some impacts are always good - encouraging less reliance on fossil fuels is always a win win for example.
Don't agree. What "green" taxes are you talking about?
I would say the reverse is true, for example no fuel duty on aviation fuel, which encourages people to fly more, relative to other forms of transport (as opposed to 50+ p / litre on petrol/diesel)
But in any case you seem to be making the very common mistake of thinking that tax is something that is just taken away, which of course it isn't because all of our taxes are used for something.
Tax is about redistribution and any government will try to balance the amount of tax it collects with the program of spending it wants to put in place. In doing that it can try to modify behaviour by taxing one thing more or less relative to another.
So if there were no fuel duty on petrol (say), then something else would have to be taxed to keep our hospitals open (say).
But in any case you seem to be making the very common mistake of thinking that tax is something that is just taken away, which of course it isn't because all of our taxes are used for something.
Porn, duckhouses, the scottish parliament, nice office chairs, £250K salaries for council managers. Yep, it gets used. For worthless crap.
The planet is 4billion years old? I'm sure it will bo ok for another 40 years or so, after that I dont care.
And that's (possibly, or possibly not) how we got in this mess in the first place.
At what point should we start caring?
Gen 1: "Ah the waters only up to my ankles, I'll be dead before it reaches my calfs"
Gen 2: "Ah the waters only up to my calfs, I'll be dead before it reaches my knees"
Gen 3: "Ah the waters only up to my knees, I'll be dead before it reaches my nuts"
Gen 4: "Brrrr...."
🙂
For what it's worth, I reckon if you live 40 years from today then it is quite likely that your life will be impacted by climate change (man-made or not) and population pressure. Certainly the lives of your children or grandchildren will be.
Porn, duckhouses, the scottish parliament, nice office chairs, £250K salaries for council managers. Yep, it gets used. For worthless crap.
All emotive and controversial stuff. Sell papers well, but it's also a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean of tax expenditure and public finance.
In any case I wasn't really talking about WHAT the tax gets spent on, (though I believe more gets spent on the national health service than on duck houses).
What I was trying to get across is that any government will tax some things in order to pay for some other things. Whether the things being taxed are 'green' things or not won't increase or decrease the overall tax take significantly.
Again...
Green taxes.. Just so I can work out how much of my own earnings go on them can someone please give me a list of them?
...Some of them?
..one of them?
What are these green taxes that are having such a huge impact on my life?
<Tumbleweed>
Whether the things being taxed are 'green' things or not won't increase or decrease the overall tax take significantly.
Unless presumably, the "green tax" actually does what it is supposed to do. In which case, the government will have to put up tax/find new ways to tax, to make up for the shortfall.
Because as far as I am aware, green taxes are the only taxes which are specifically designed to encourage people not to pay them.
Don't like green taxes ? Simply solution ......... don't pay them.
Sorted.
Tax the bads........not the goods.
er..
What Green Taxes?
we should all try to consume as little as possible. that includes fewer flat screens, cars, cans, bottles or anything else that requires large volumes of energy and resources to produce.
we should try to leave as small a trail as possible all the way to the grave.
if we keep using up the earth's resources mankind will be ****ed.
population growth will have a bigger impact upon the earth than global warming - or climate change depending upon which paper you read. have a look at Easter Island for an example of what the depletion of resources does to a community.
as long as you all keep having kids, mankind is ****ed.
er..What Green Taxes?
Well they are obviously having very little effect on your life.........Excellent ! ........carry on as you were 8)
What Green Taxes?
there's got to be some - hasn't there?
Landfill tax?
Just checked my bank statements and I seem to be in the clear on that one..
Any more?
as long as you all keep having kids, mankind is ****ed.
er... Hmmm.. what's wrong with this statement? 🙂
Just checked my bank statements and I seem to be in the clear on that one.
I would guess that if you pay council tax - it's in with that
Along with the supermarkets & shops etc.
in fact anyone that produces waste that you buy goods or services off
there's got to be some - hasn't there?
Well of course there is. "Green taxes" is an accepted term to describe taxes which are designed to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour.
A quick Google will give you lots of results for the term :
I agree that the comment, "[i]our lives are hugely impacted by green taxes[/i]" is complete nonsense though.
Which is a shame really - because if they were [i]that[/i] effective, we'd all be a whole lot better off.
Mark - Resident Grumpyas long as you all keep having kids, mankind is ****ed.
er... Hmmm.. what's wrong with this statement? 🙂
thinly vieled swearing....? i apologise profusely... 😉
A quick Google will give you lots of results for the term : [green taxes]
But a quick glance through the first page of results shows that none of them are about actual "green taxes"
They are all stories reporting "fears that...", "suggestions that...", "moves to impose...", etc.
In fact just the sort of media hysteria that prompts the ill informed comments of the likes of Hainey.
But a quick glance through the first page of results shows that none of them are about actual "green taxes"
What about the landfill one?
What about the landfill one?
Well alright..........[b]let me also Google that one for you[/b] :
How's that ? Any more ?
Sorry uplink, I hadn't seen the preceding post to yours....I had assumed that you had wanted someone to google "landfill taxes" LOL ! 😀
Sorry ..... 😳
have a look at Easter Island for an example of what the depletion of resources does to a community.
Although all the raids by slave traders and outbreaks of smallpox and TB brought by outsiders probably didn't help.
Fuel duty has increased in the name of green taxes
Road Fund license has increased in the name of green tax
Airline tax has increased in the name of green tax
Where does the money come from for the car scrappage scheme?
Where does the money come from for the boiler scrappage scheme?
Where does the money come from that we have pledged under the various treaties for combating climate change?
Where does the money come from for building wind turbines - the most mind boggling useless, environmentally unfriendly thing ever?
It all grows on the magic government money tree i am sure!
Road Fund license has increased in the name of green tax
Did VED actually increase though? I thought they just altered the way they determined what band you were in?
Certainly this was one of the change that was touted as "revenue neutral" - i.e. they didn't gain or lose money from it, just altered who was paying it to make it "greener".
Yeah i am sure that all the struggling families out there were really happy when to tax there people carriers it suddenly cost twice as much.
VED tax rates in the 2008 budget looked something like this
VED for petrol and diesel cars
Band A (up to 100g/km CO2) no fee
Band B (101-120g/km CO2) £35
Band C (121-150g/km CO2) £120 - £5 increase
Band D (151-165g/km CO2) £145 - £5 increase
Band E (166-185g/km CO2) £170 - £5 increase
Band F (185g/km to 225 CO2)£210 - £5 increase
Band G* (226g/km and above ) £385 - £100 increase
Now try and find many cars out there under 120g/km!
no fee
£35
£120 - £5 increase
£145 - £5 increase
£170 - £5 increase
£210 - £5 increase
£385 - £100 increase
So none have "[i]suddenly cost twice as much[/i]" then ?
BTW, why do "struggling families" need people carriers ? .......can't they struggle in saloon cars ?
Well... they brought in the change in the way VED was charged in March 2005, moving from a system based on engine capacity to a scale based on CO2 emissions - but [u]it only applies to cars registered after March 2001[/u]. Older cars stayed on the old system.
So "all the struggling families" that apparently suddenly found themselves paying twice as much must have been driving pretty new people carriers, with remarkably small engines, yet terrible emissions. 🙂
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524
Thats fine to scorn families, go for it if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that with most of these so called green taxes it is families that are worst hit.
I'm not scorning anyone, I'm saying that they don't exist 🙂
Under the old system the costs are:
Under 1549cc: £125
Over 1549cc: £190
I don't know of many 1.5l people carriers built between 2001-2005, but assuming you were driving one at the time then it would have to have Band K (201-225g/km) or worse to come anywhere even close to paying twice the amount (£215 vs £125)
[size=1]Note: I'm using current VED rates because I can't be arsed finding the rates circa March 2005 when the change was brought in. Feel free to find them and adjust my figures[/size]
Now try and find many cars out there under 120g/km!
# Nissan Note 1.5 dCi Acenta 5dr with 119g/km CO2 and 62.8mpg combined.
# Citroen Nemo 1.4 HDi 8v 5dr with 119g/km CO2 and 62.8mpg combined.
# Fiat Qubo 1.3 Multijet Active 5dr with 119g/km CO2 and 62.8mpg combined.
-- according to http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/02/27/top-5-green-car-people-carriers/
Hainey said:
The reality of the situation is that our lives are hugely impacted by green taxes, initiatives and policies
"Hugely impacted"?
Well, you had a good long time to think about it and your list looks a bit thin to me.
VED's been done, so I'll move onto some of the others.
The fuel duty escalator has been repeatedly not applied in recent years.
Airline tax - as I already mentioned the airlines get a massive subsidy from those of us who don't fly as they pay no fuel duty and any other taxes that are paid on flights do very little to restore a balance.
The car scrappage scheme wasn't a "green tax" it was a response to the recent financial crisis to save jobs in the motor industry.
The boiler scheme hasn't started yet, so really it hasn't "hugely impacted" on anyone has it?
What money have we pledged under "various treaties" for combatting climate change?
The money for building wind turbines comes from private industry - not out of taxation.
So in fact you've not managed to name one "green tax" although you are sure that green taxes HUGELY IMPACT on our way of life.
Grow up mate.
Oou look GrahamS, all those examples you have given are 119g/km, which is just a touch under 120g/km.
It's almost as if the car manufacturers have [i]done it on purpose[/i] to keep the emission levels below 120g/km.
What a happy coincidence, as it happens to comply rather favourably, with the governments "green tax" policies.
Not that "green tax" policies have any sort of positive effect ....... you understand.
fools you should have agreed they were all secret green taxes to fuel his paranoia ...pun intended 😉
Thats fine to scorn families, go for it if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that with most of these so called green taxes it is families that are worst hit.
No one is scorning families.. Instead your own numbers and quotes have just been used to comprehensively dismantle your entire argument by showing up your opinions for the media driven, headline soundbite nonsense that it actually is..
Just taking for a brief second your own argument.. if I were to buy a small car having scrapped my old one, then get a new boiler, could actually benefit by several thousand pounds!
I like these green taxes! But don't they usually get taken away rather than handed out?
Oh wait! Now I remember... Governments collect taxes in order to spend on the country and in order to modify the behaviour of society as a whole.
Do you actually have a problem with that? I don't. It all sounds logical, rational and overall rather sensible.. Kind of like what your arguments so far have not been 🙂
🙂
Oou look GrahamS, all those examples you have given are 119g/km...
I must have cherry-picked my data 😀
Also they all would have cost nearly FOUR times as much under the old "non-green" version of VED (£125 vs £35), making them an ideal choice for struggling families. 😉
lol 🙂
doffs cap to grahamS and mark is correct half your taxes are actually subsidies
Out of interest why do you hate wind turbines so much?
are you guys still on this? - the rest of us have been snowboarding.
it's cold, and it snowed a couple of times: that's weather.
it doesn't usually do this: that's climate.
an Italian friend of mine has just come back from Sicily, where it's unusually warm for this time of year; he was expecting some snow, he got 18dC.
what about all these 'green' taxes then? - i can't think of any that impact me directly, but if my office manager thinks we can afford to have the heating set to 25 then i think we should have a few more green taxes...
Well 'ahwiles' - a single year is weather when its cold - but i seem to remember it being widely covered that the floods in Cumbria were a sign of 'climate change' but when does it become a climate trend.
It seems the IPCC's assertion that the earth will warm at 2°C per 100 years was based on the temperature trend from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. And as such they can't understand why the temperature records for the last 10 years show no warming, and have declined when their models show it should have warmed.
for example
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
[b]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. [i]Our observing
system is inadequate.[/i][/b]
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2] http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, [b]as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000.[/b] I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F: 650 725 4387
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: 415-812-7560
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [8] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[9] http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
References
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
note also that Schneider, who earlier was linked to as showing that sun spots have no effect on the climate is there emailing to say that with no sunspots theres a few watts less forcing
10 years ago we had articles like [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html ]this[/url] saying
Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
is this thread about the snow?
It seems the IPCC's assertion that the earth will warm at 2°C per 100 years was based on the temperature trend from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. And as such they can't understand why the temperature records for the last 10 years show no warming, and have declined when their models show it should have warmed
it seems that someone wants to misrepresent the IPCC -or lie - it is just another innaccurate slur
The e-mails the first one looks like someone joking about the cold weather the rest insignificant as they want to challenge deniers -surprising that eh It also said
Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat??
Hopefully enough pictures for you to grasp.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Lord Summerisle,
What exactly are you trying to show with the e-mails you have posted?
Apart from the fact you can't read?
Only point I picked up was that one e-mail pointed out that lack of sunspot activity accounted for "a few tenths of a watt less forcing" which you say at the bottom is evidence that sunspots account for a "few watts" of forcing.
I don't really know exactly what the significance of that is, but I do note you got it wrong.
Amazing isn't it that some people can occasionally write things that come across wrong in e-mails (and forum posts), that other people then pounce on as "evidence" of something or other?
Someone post the pirate graph. It's overdue.
Please, not the pirate graph.
I think you'll find the pirate graph is widely discredited due to the fact that it only shows a continuing upwards trend in temperature against a decline in pirate numbers. Latest peer reviewed data clearly shows the global temperature in decline dur to increase in Somali Pirate action.
😀
who realy cares, its snowing ,
Lord Summerisle, you need to stop citing blogs and random emails, it isn't doing your arguement any favours. If you want some more sophisticated ammunition go and read about whether the Greenland icesheet ever reached any sort of equilibrium after the last glacial maximum.
If you're geniunely interested though, and not just trolling for kicks, some other things you might want to look up are methane clathrates, ice stream surges in Antarctica, rates of glacier retreat and high latitude temperature anomalies.
Also for future reference the Y axis scale on that flash graph you posted a few pages ago is nonsense. It says it's currently -31 degrees C ?
Again, my point stands true. You can't prove global warming due to man exists, neither can i prove the contrary. So please just accept that neither are correct instead of the usual burn him he's a heretic or daily mail reader nonsense!
Good to see that Paul Hudson has caused a commotion amongst climate scientists, makes a nice change from the strained 'banter' with the other Look Leeds presenters before he tells us what the weather was like yesterday in the Yorkshire area.
Can I mention return to mean again yet or is everyone still looking at Pirate graphs?
And you hainey cannot prove that the moon isn't made of cheese.
Your "point" does not stand "true" because your "point" is that you are not interested in scientific evidence.
There is "proof" and there is "balance of evidence"
You prefer "denial"
You can't prove global warming due to man exists, neither can i prove the contrary.
That's not how science works, as has been explained many times. 🙄
There is NO proof that there is climate change due to man. Just interpretation of data in a certain way.
The moon isn't made of cheese - do you REALLY think that helps your argument? Seriously? Like other comments gravity, the world is flat etc. Its only designed to try and rubbish any opinion that anyone has against climate change due to man.
Gravity - there is proof
The world not being flat - there is proof
The moon not being made of cheese - there is proof
Climate change DUE TO MAN - there is NO proof.
That's not how science works, as has been explained many times.
Science uses data and interprets it in a certain way. Just like a multitude of scientists take ice core sample data, historical and current temperature readings and conclude that we are in a natural cycle.
So some people have taken the same data, and interpreted it in different ways and there is now debate as to who is right - no one can prove the other wrong, hence why you can't categorically say either way!
show me your proof of gravity
proove to me the moon isnt made of cheese in the middle
Grow up and enter an adult debate!
well thats a great answer by someone who doesnt have the first clue how science works
I would suggest that you have absolutly no grasp of science fundamentals and are just trolling if you have to ask questions like that.
You need to go back and repeat your GCSE Physics exam that is assuming you are old enough to have taken it yet.
how science works
Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it
can you lot go out and ride a bike to relax now please and just accept that other people have different beliefs than you. You can't change an entrenched view (on either side) so why bother trying?
if you don't want to ride a bike, build a snowman. It may be something to tell the grandchildren about if the species lasts that long.
Bikes?
yep bikes, you know the things that eveyone on here has in common that use vast ammounts of energy to collect the raw material, refine it, manufacture all the bits and bobbins,paint them using enviormentally damaging VOC laden paints, ship round the world to greedy consumers who then post about man made climate change and how we should all reduce our carbon footprint on the tinterweb using electricity powered by burning bits of dinosaur dug up from the ground.
think that about sums it up. 😀
😆
I would suggest that you have absolutly no grasp of science fundamentals
Funny that seeing as how I have a science phd, 5 years research experience and now teach it
HOLY CRAP!?
And you are asking on an internet forum if the moon is made of cheese?
Quick, someone call Ofsted.
at least I can read, I said proove to me the middle of the moon isnt made of cheese.
Oh come on, your not doing yourself any favours by coming on here and professing to be the all knowing Dr Science and then asking me to prove that the centre of the moon is not made from cheese?
Is it just a deflection technique away from the real debate as to why you can't prove global warming due to man.
no it isnt its as idiotic a your view that seeing as how man made climate change cannot be proved its not true or you dont accept it. IMO your making yourself look stupid. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE unless we find another earth and eliminate man and even then we would need to repeat it.
So you agree, that there is no proof of man made climate change?
I don't know why you are getting so worked up!?
there's evidence but its not and cannot be proven so asking for it to be proven is overly simplistic tabloid stupidity.
There is evidence of climate change, yes. Due to man? - No proof.
At least we agree on that.
Now with the whole moon made of cheese thing.........
there is evidence that climate change is man made too, there's evidence that the centre of the moon is not made ofcheese but there is no proof. Do you really not get it?
Through samples, scans and monitoring moonquakes they are able to ascertain the percentage composition of the moon, the percentage iron content at the core and this is also backed up my mass analysis due to the diameter, volume and orbit the moon has in relation to the earth. ALso there is the small factor that cheese comes from cows and is a man made product. So yes there is proof that in fact the centre of the moon is in fact not made of cheese no matter what you think.
Where as with climate change they have collected data on temperature rises but in fact they can not actually prove this is due to man, only assume it is. Where as in fact a lot of scientists that contradict this and say this it is actually in keeping with natural cycles.
I don't think you will find ANY scientist out there who would agree with you that the centre of the moon is made from cheese
Where did you study again?