[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

hainey said

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.

No you are categorically wrong. That is just a conspiracy theory cooked up by moon scientists so that they can carry on getting their funding from all the dairy companies who don't want us mining moon cheese and putting them out of business.

I only have an engineering degree, but I'm going to start a petition to say I believe in moon cheese and once I've got 30,000 undergraduates to sign it and a couple of tabloids to report on it I dare say it will count as a valid anti-thesis to the ludicrous "moon/rock" dogma you keep spouting.

rightpalcerighttime- that is a genius answer!

burn Hainey! - the moon-cheese heretic!

could people who say the world is getting colder please confirm that they're not using 1998 as the starting point for this cooling?

meanwhile, i'm going sledging...

(lord summersisle - i don't understand your reply to my last post, i find your use of grammer confusing
"a single year is weather when it's cold" ?)

Hainey you clearly don’t grasp science and what it does and does not do. Much of what you say is just wrong, unsubstantiated or just plain daft. Science cannot prove anything no matter how ludicrous -that is the point of the moon being made of cheese argument with you. You will not convince him as he will produce as much evidence as you do to counter global warming-NONE and you cannot prove a negative. Perhaps our measures and models are all just wrong. We have not drilled to the centre have we and even if we did think of all the taxes and money they make out of this lie why should we then believe them?

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!

You may recall on a previous thread of this you actually accepted you had no evidence to support your suggestion that man made global warming is not occurring and now you criticise someone for doing the same.
As for your proofs can you have a go at explaining how gravity has been proved please?
Now by this clearly I mean non Newtonian gravity [as I am sure you know his inverse square law is an excellent approximation but has been supereceeded by Einstein]and the gravity proposed by Einstein. Within this clearly you will be able to explain to us why it cannot be accounted in a universal theory of everything, You will realign quantum and non quantum physics and explain why other explanations of gravity - oh you did not realise that bit did you?what non consensus even over gravity SHOCKER-and also why Goedelisation will not occur.
Science is about eliminating infinite error not about finding truth. NOTHING CAN BE PROVED -no scientist will tell you otherwise [including Einstein] and the fact you keep saying shows you are no scientists.

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?

I didnt say I believed it, I said prove to me it isnt. I studied at UEA (BSc Ecology), Lancaster (MRes Environmental Science), Newcastle (PhD) and worked doing research at Reading.

this thread makes me 🙂

some right spanners on here...

Junkyard, I am astounded that you don't think Science can prove anything? Seriously astounded. You quite obviously aren't a scientist and have no grasp at all of the subject.

The simple matter is that you can not prove that global warming at the moment is down to man. You can't. No one can. Just like i can't prove that it isn't.

I don't know why you can't see that people have different points of view, again back to the burn him he's a heretic style.

Whilst i am quite happy to say that i definitly can not prove that global warming is not down to man, you are so arrogant to sit there and say it is. By your own reasoning you are saying you can not prove anything.

The issue we have is that the warming at the moment can be interpreted in many different ways, and historically we have seen this AND much worse climate change, which would suggest that there it may not be down to mans influence.

out of interst hainey have you ever done any science?

Yes.

care to expand that answer?

Not on an internet forum no.

at what sort of level then?

Is it top secret?

[img] [/img]

[b]Is it top secret? [/b]

[img] [/img]

We probably know too much already.

Any more and ........... we can expect a "knock on the door"

PhD from the Institute of Spurious Statistics?

Junkyard, I am astounded that you don't think Science can prove anything? Seriously astounded. You quite obviously aren't a scientist and have no grasp at all of the subject.

I don't have any scientific background at all so this proof thing is a tad confusing

Are NASA scientists lying in this article? or something else?
Where they claim [b][i]"These results are direct proof that dark matter exists." [/i][/b]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

junkyard.... eh? whats an axiom?

Uplink, not lying as such just over egging the soufle, they wouldnt get away with that language in a peer reviewd paper. Would it be semantics to say theres a difference between proof which is like evidence and saying something is proven.

It also says 'These observations provide the strongest evidence yet' - ie not 'these observations prove once and for all'

Proof is different to truth, if i said it is true that all swans are white, you might believe me, but if you travelled to NZ and saw a black swan you might bring one back to PROVE black swans exists, being able to show that white and black swans both exits doesn't mean you are true if you say swans are only black or white... surely you did this when you were 11?

Axiom-the fundamantal building blocks of a system- assumptions really that are taken as self evident truths example include parallel lines do not touchin geometry.Now if you base your geometry on this then you can never test whether it is true or not as everything follows from this axiom/rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

No report will end with and that proves that X is such and such It will strongly suggest, refute,support , etc

That NASA one has

These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.

THe IPCC report strongly suggests that it is man made it has notproved it because it cannot.

Ok, O scientific ones. here is a serious Q. Take Mr Average;ME in this example, we recycle everything we can.We cycles rather than take the car if we can.If poss food etc come from sustainable sources (fish,for example, home grown veg) I have two kids (sorry, overcrowding not really on my mind at the time.)I would suggest that that is a similar story to a vast % of families...So; what is the point in me doing these small things if third world Countries are commited to building a million fridges (India) or China which has made a promise to provide electricity to 99% of population by 2020? These countries are just trying to increase the standard of living to a level we would consider basic.So do we explain nicely how they shouldn't have chilled food because we have already damaged the planet too much.What is the solution? I am curious.If everybody in the "developed world" did the wee things that most on here already do, would it make the slightest difference, bearing in mind the speed at which climate is changing?

Hainey wrote, "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"

Wait, wuh. You're saying that because you can't prove either case, neither is correct? That there is anthromorphic global warming, and also that there isn't?

Interesting.

Wait, wuh. You're saying that because you can't prove either case, neither is correct? That there is anthromorphic global warming, and also that there isn't?

hang on - don't you go calling it global warming again after everyone's said it's not, it's climate change
I'll be getting all confused again

😕

duckman, I dont know but we cant hope to convince them to do anything at all if we carry on unchanged .

You see again its so easy to try and digress away from the real point by poking fun and discussing rediculous scenarios. From the majority of your discussion you have essentially said that there is no proof of climate change due to man - my point exactly. The data can and IS being interpreted in different ways so preaching and shouting down in a religious heretic style doesn't help things. I am being completly open minded about the whole subject where as, again like a religious fanatic, you are being so closed off and arrogant that it couldn't possibly be anything else. That does not stand true with a scientific point of view and so really does undo your debate.

Are you so arrogant to argue on one hand that climate change is definitly down to man, but on the other hand argue that science can not prove anything and hence completly contradict yourself? Seemingly so.

Throughout all this I have tried to point out that there is not proof that climate change is down to man, from your arguments you seem to agree with this but on the flip side of your seemingly multi personality disorder you argue the complete opposite.

It is all too easy to take focus away from the real debate, all too hard to admit that you may not be right!

I have a question... Alot of people are talking about 40 years ago people were predicting global cooling. This was before some legislation about chimney height, people burning wood/coal etc etc. If the case is that sut in the atmosphere that was low down so light wasn't able to reach the ground would it actually have been 'local' cooling?

I know its abit off topic but there seems to be alot of people making wildclaims about this and using it to 'prove' that climate change/'global warming' is a conspiracy.

I'm not questioning whether by the way I just think that this might help clear up some peoples lack of understanding.

I do have another question but I'll ask that later once this one has been cleared up.

hainey, who are you directing your arguments to? I'll try and explain my view. I think that climate change is real and that to some extent its man made. I base this on a kind of blind acceptance of the current scientific opinions I admit. However having been an ecologist by trade I would in order to be totally convinced I'd have to spend months sat down reading the evidence from primary sources and I really cant be bothered.

Your position seems to be that it cant be proven to be man made and so therefore you dont think its worth trying to reduce CO2 production. However this totally misses the point, you are expecting the scientists to do something they are not able to do.

Not once have i said that i don't think it is worth reducing CO2 output, if you read previous posts i also say on multiple occasions that the way we pilege this planet for natural resources is completly unacceptable. Your opinion that i want to destroy this planet single handedly is born out of the fact that i disagree with you on one point only!

our opinion that i want to destroy this planet single handedly is born out of the fact that i disagree with you on one point only!

Have you always struggled to read? Anway we dont disagree we agree man made climate change is not proven. We disagree on how this truism should be interpreted.

Ok, as long as we agree.

I would also like to congratulate Junkyard on some of the best cut and pasting i think i have seen on this forum!!! 😀

Now about that moon being made of cheese thing....

I would also like to congratulate Junkyard on some of the best cut and pasting i think i have seen on this forum!!!

Throughout all this I have tried to point out that there is not proof that climate change is down to man, from your arguments you seem to agree with this but on the flip side of your seemingly multi personality disorder you argue the complete opposite

There is no need or point for insults - it adds nothing to your argument and just shows again that you do not understand what is being said.

I understand it is difficult to understand -no matter how many people explain this ... OK one more time for you.

We cannot prove either position to to be True- that is correct. However as both are mutually exclusive we know that both cannot be true - that is we cannot both have and NOT have manmade global warming at the same time. One must be True - we just cannot prove which one. Now when we look at the evidence using scientific methodology which explanation is the most convincing- by which I mean has the most data,has the strongest evidence,can explain most observations, etc? That is what science does. If you cannot grasp this it is probably better to just trust those who can grasp this.

Now when we look at the evidence using scientific methodology which explanation is the most convincing- by which I mean has the most data,has the strongest evidence,can explain most observations, etc?

Well based on that, natural cycles has the most data, strongest evidence and can explain the observations!

I'll give you another hour to go and cut and paste something from another website. 😆

yeah, but they don't...

its the RATE of climate change which is most worrying imo.

oh, and the science of CO2 aiding the greenhouse effect has been around for a long time. we know (roughly) how much CO2 there [i]should[/i] be in the atmosphere, we know (roughly) how much we are and have emitted, and we know how and why it has an effect.

and yes, natural cycles ARE taken into account in SCIENCE.

Rates that have been seen before and levels of CO2 that have been seen before.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9 ]Earth The Climate Wars[/url]

Well worth a watch.

3rd episode, ~35 minutes has a great section on the historic record showing a 5 degree jump in 1-3 years (max). So... we have seen much more rapid climate change than we're seeing now. Should be fuel for both sides I'm sure. 😉

hainey, just because something has happend before dos it make it any less damaging or likely to happen again, this natural cycle you talk of has had so few goes around that I reckon it would be hard to show its actually a valid phenomenon. Using your view of climate its most likely just chance.

Fifth
You have posted that clip before here is the answer -it is cut and pasted [from myself] so Hainey will be delighted as well 😉

What you have done is take a measure from one location and think that it was occuring globally.WHY oh why ahve you done this? Global warming is quite likely to do the same locally in the UK. When the large quantity of fresh and cold water enters the sea – from melting of ice caps and glaciers due to global warming. This then has a massive effect on the thermohaline circulations- due to salinity and temperature differences. Locally at the UK the North Atlantic Drift no longer arrives - we would cool drastically even though the global temperature was increasing- I knwo imagine that- and by degrees in years /decades – check what countries we are level with and see their temperatures. Once a new thermohaline circulation is established if it follows the same pattern you get rapid rising as the even warmer water returns to increase the temperature again by a number of degrees in a few years and to higher levels than before.

You have posted that clip before

The 'answer' suggests you didn't watch the documentary as I don't see any connection to it at all. In fact you may have cut-and-pasted an 'answer' to a completely different 'question' altogether.

So in answer to your answer:
[img] [/img]

Oh, what a surprise, another spirited discussion on global warming and whether it is or isn't happening.

The dogmatic approach from some of the usual faces on these things always amuses me. For those of you who believe in climate change (and always get all heated over it when people like me poke your ideas with a stick) I'll ask you this; do you?

1 - own a bike made from virgin ores and/ or carbon fibre that was produced in a polluting factory and then shipped halfway round the world?
2 - strap said bike to the back or roof of your car (really quite bad for fuel consumption) and then drive quite a few miles to a manufactured site created on forestry commission land (which was probably once quite useful arable or pasture land) to ride it?
3 - swap components for new salmost obsessively because the new ones are the latest thing even though the old ones are probably fine and have years worth of life left in them?
4 - spend hours typing drivel like this on an energy inefficient computer (that heat coming out the back represents waste)?

If so then sorry guys, you're just a bunch of bike riders and not the sort of people I'll be taking advice from on the issue of climate change.

Had to get that off my chest.

Junkyard you need to read some of the information you are researching instead of just cut and pasting. No, unless you believe the flintstones, dinosaurs did not have cars, but CO2 and temperature fluctuations equal and in excess of what we have seen recently have been seen many times before on this planet far before man had any influence.

bigdave theres a difference between understanding how science works and taking a view on the evidence and doing anything about it. Just because I accept the (vast) majority scientific view doesnt mean I want to live in a cave. Its the same as people who didnt really understand that just because I worked as an ecology researcher I didnt just eat lentils

but CO2 and temperature fluctuations equal and in excess of what we have seen recently have been seen many times before on this planet far before man had any influence.

That is very true but of little relvance to deciding if current climate change is caused by humans

It is AS relevant as computer simulations based on assumptions.

Out of interest there is an interesting article in the Sunday Times today regarding the complete rubbish spouted at Copenhagen summit regarding sea level rises because of an "over-simplified computer model".

copenhagen is about politics not science.

It is AS relevant as computer simulations based on assumptions

You cannot have it both ways, could you try clarifying your position as I fail to understand what your wibbling on about.

What assumptions are you referring to?

I'll admit I have made some assumptions myself. I assumed they were plugging data from ice cores and other carbon sinks into the models. Are they making these computer models up without using any actual real world data or something? That's ruddy terrible if they are! Hainey, can you tell me exactly what assumptions they are making that you know of?

Its easy, try and follow:

Historical evidence of natural cycles which can explain the current climate change are, well in my opinion, MORE relevant than computer simulations based on hypotheses and predictions. Never underestimate the importance of historical data, its in fact the only true facts out there to base understanding on.

Sorry... You must excuse me.. I'm not being very clear..
What are the assumptions, hypotheses and predictions that you are referring to? And aren't the models that are being presented by the countless research institutions around the world producing graphs of predicted temperature change based on historical data? I mean, I had assumed that all the models used historical data as their starting point, after all ice core measurements from Greenland is historical data by it's very definition...

Or have I got that all wrong?

And I'm puzzled.. You say that the models are 'based on predictions'.. Call me stupid but I thought the whole point of a model was to be used as a tool to MAKE a prediction. What's the point of a model if you need a prediction before you start to build it?

Historical evidence of natural cycles which can explain the current climate change are, well in my opinion, MORE relevant than computer simulations based on hypotheses and predictions.

Which natural cycles explain current climate change?

There we go. That's about as simple a question as I could ask. See if you can answer that one question without going off on a tangent. Take into account that I am not (yet) saying that I think you are wrong, just asking for an explanation.

If you could maybe give us some details on the period, magnitude and causes of these cycles and explain how they work together that would be great.

Oh nearly forgot: How have these natural cycles been measured over time? (As you've said yourself I think, you're not a fan of proxy measurements, so I guess we're talking about direct measurements?)

fair play to you hainey, you have no clue what you are talking about, but it doesnt stop you saying what you think and having the arrogance to think the vast majority of the scientific community are wrong and you are right. I admire you, I wish I was more like you and could well be falling in love. Could you email me a picture of yourself?

Never underestimate the importance of historical data, its in fact the only true facts out there to base understanding on.Historical evidence of natural cycles which can explain the current climate change are, well in my opinion, MORE relevant than computer simulations based on hypotheses and predictions.

so again then for you
[b]why and by what mehanism has the CO2[ harmful gas as you call it without irony] not altered the natural cycles?[/b]
Surely CO2 has a forcing effect? If not why not?
Please explain this instead of just saying it is all a natural cycle- the increased release of stored co2 by burning fossil fuels is in no sense a natural cycle is it?
When you say natural cycle what time scale are you meaning in Thousands of years please?
Finally

CO2 and temperature fluctuations equal and in excess of what we have seen recently have been seen many times before on this planet far before man had any influence

I don't have the time or the patience to really satisfy your religous arrogant style when it comes to accepting that the jury is still out on climate change. Is it SO hard to accept that people have different opinions, not just me and you, but countless scientists around the world?

YES? Well there you go, that is why this "debate" is going round and round in circles.

The simple facts are as follows:

1. Climate change is happening
2. We don't know whether we are still in a natural cycle
3. We don't know whether it is down to man
4. We do know that whatever we can do to reduce our consumption of our natural resources can only be a good thing.

It doesn't matter what predictions computers make on the next 10, 50 or 100 years, they are just that, predictions based on what we know today. But, what we also know today is that for the last 10,000 years we have seen the same sort of rises and falls as we are doing today, any a lot of people believe that we are just in the same cycle.

Go on, shout me down, HERETIC, NON BELIEVER, or maybe just cry in your pillow that you can't actually prove you are right.

It is this sort of fanatical arrogance that winds me up, and to do it in the name of science is also arrogant. Don't drag science down with you.

Junkyard, i would look past IPCC and Wikipedia for your cut and pastes and also have some sort of knowledge to back it up with. 😉

Junkyard, i would look past IPCC and Wikipedia for your cut and pastes and also have some sort of knowledge to back it up with

Ok C02 is at a 650,000 year high -so we have not seen these levels in the last 10,000 years –to me that is evidence to you a fact. You are WRONG.Do you want a reference or will that just be copying and pasting?

It is this sort of fanatical arrogance that winds me up, and to do it in the name of science is also arrogant. Don't drag science down with you.

WTF are you talking about ?

Ok, and for whoever it was who wanted just 1 out of many historic examples.

From about 850AD to about 1000AD the temperature rose 0.8degC, then from 1000AD to 1200AD it fell 0.9degC.

Sound familiar?

Is it SO hard to accept that people have different opinions

It is when they don't answer reasonable questions.

Which natural cycles explain current climate change?

rom about 850AD to about 1000AD the temperature rose 0.8degC, then from 1000AD to 1200AD it fell 0.9degC.

How was this measured?

How do you know this is part of a cycle?

Ice core samples

How do you know it wasn't?

We could go on all day but to be honest i'm rather bored with the arrogance and Junkyards lack of intelligence.

How do you know it wasn't?

I don't. But you said it was. Remember?

And aren't the models that are being presented by the countless research institutions around the world producing graphs of predicted temperature change based on historical data?

Mark, one of the key problems here is the validity of that data, there are huge discrepancies between the raw data and the homogenised data that goes to form the "global record" from which we draw conclusions about what has happened in the past:

Now, there are often good reasons why data might need to be adjusted, and as you'll know good scientific protocol would point towards flagging and explaining any adjustment to raw data, however there are also cases where a 'one size fits all' homogenisation algorithm gets applied to data - if we look at one example, thats become known as "darwin zero" then we can see how involved the issues for just one site can become, repeat that over hundreds of data points, and it becomes easy to wonder just how accurate the data is, that we then type into the supercomputers to work the model.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

Edited to add - you mentioned Ice cores, of course these are one of several proxies (another being tree core records, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/ ) - these have to be validated/calibrated against more recent records (baseline) so if the recent record is wrong, the error which can creep in becomes unpredictable, and thats before we look at problems like divergence)

I feel bad, but I'm just not that concerned by global warming. I'll be long gone before it starts having any real effect. I know we need to be sensible for our children and our children's children but i just don't lose any sleep over it. Maybe that makes me a selfish pig. I always liked cycling through mud anyway.

What have I started here? 😆

It is this sort of fanatical arrogance that winds me up

You made some statements... several people have asked questions of you.. So far as I can tell you've not answered many of them. Instead you seem to keep avoiding them and in so doing you have stumbled over your own arguments.. That's not arrogance.. it's straightforward question and answer. In my experience it tends to be those with little understanding and knowledge that accuse others of arrogance when they suddenly realise they've dug themselves in a logical hole.

repeat that over hundreds of data points, and it becomes easy to wonder just how accurate the data is, that we then type into the supercomputers to work the model.

Isn't that the fundamental issue behind developing statistical trends? Reproducable experiments and methods here are vital so that once a set of data has been produced others can reproduce and improve on it.. Then following that process to it's conclusion the data is being constantly updated and 'improved'.. Once we have lots of data points on the graph (meta analysis) we can then look at it as a whole and see if we can spot trends..

Once you start isolating a single particular study and pulling it to pieces and then declaring that the trend is wrong you are sort of missing the whole point of science. Of course there will always be rogue studies that are full of holes and bollocks data - that's because they have been produced by humans.. Which is why good science never accepts one set of data as 'proof' or 'the truth' and always strives to do more and more detailed studies that will either back up or counter previous data.. The whole process needs to be taken as a whole.. when you do that you start to use the term 'weight of evidence'.. When you have that much bigger picture in front of you it is valid to try and make interpretations and draw conclusions and even try and think of new experiments and ways to test the conclusion.... and round and round we go.. science never stops.. it keeps going, testing, interpreting and constantly adding to the weight of evidence, either strengthening the trend or otherwise.. It's all good 🙂

Currently, the 'weight of evidence' is leading to the conclusion (conclusion does not equate to truth or proof or worse.. 'belief'.. it's just an interpretation of the data) that man made global warming is the reason the climate is changing.

We can all google and dig out data that suggests it isn't. And if we do find it we should add it to the weight of evidence to improve the interpretation.

I'm all for continued additions to the data in order that we can refine that conclusion.

Personally, I have no 'belief' in man made global warming. The data suggests it is the case though and I believe in the data.

No, its when people start preaching and shouting at people who disagree with their opinion that they start posting pictures of Laurel and Hardy and Conspiracy theories to try and detract from the original statements. Thats when you know a debate is lost.

Is it too hard to admit that you can not prove climate change is due to man? Is it?

Is it too hard to admit that you can not prove climate change is due to man? Is it?

are we not saying that man is causing a alteration in the rate of change in the cycle, rather than man is causing the change per se?

Is it too hard to admit that you can not prove climate change is due to man? Is it?

jesus, can you really not read?

You cannot prove climate change is man made, but the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it is. The converse is also true, you cannot prove that climate change isnt man made. Which brings me back to the moon and cheese again, and around and around we go because you dont understand how science works.

Which brings me back to the moon and cheese again, and around and around we go because you dont understand how science works.

Let's talk cheese. I think this thread is lacking cheese content...

Did I use big words?

sigh!

You cannot prove climate change is man made

but the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it is

There is NOT overwhelming evidence, there is data that has been interpreted in one way.

I would do yourself a favour and drop the moon being made from cheese thing, you really are making yourself look very stupid and i am sure you are not.

I got home really late last night and realised I had sod all food in the fridge.. I had a block of white stilton and some bread. White stilton is awesome as cheese on toast! I realise of course that this study and conclusion is just a single data point on the overall chart of cheese on toast study and therefore it would be irresponsible to declare that it's awesomeness is the truth or declare I have proved anything. A meta analysis is required of cheese on toast recipes and so I ask that others attempt to reproduce my results and even suggest new recipes to be compared against my white stilton study. Once we have many studies and lots of data we can then attempt to detect a trend and perhaps announce a conclusion base on the weight of evidence..

Is there a nobel prize for cheese?

🙂

I'm officially giving up Hainey now.. There is simply no hope 🙂

Did I use big words?

sigh!

Nice diversion!!

Go on, you know you want to, bring out the Daily Mail comment, its the final straw in knowing you are losing a debate!! 😆

I have to admit, you have got me worried with this whole not being able to prove science thing. I mean have you told all the engineers around the world that suddenly archimedes based buoyancy theory is going to change and all the boats they are designing will sink suddenly, oh and those aerodynamic lift calculations based on science, you best get on the phone to Boeing and Airbus and warn them before all the planes drop out of the sky!

hainey you dont understand the meaning of the words you are using. Theres are fundamental experiments showing that CO2 can affect climate and we know the actions of man produce lots of CO2 this is called evidence, its thought by the majprity of the scientific community who know more about assessing this evidence that man made climate change is real.

Now if you want to not believe them thats fine but dont try to use science to justify it.

This moon being made of cheese thing is a very simple example used to show very simple people that science doesnt need to prove things and cannot anyway. If you think it makes me look very stupid, I feel sorry for you.

lol 🙂

Love it

🙂

hainey , sorry to but in but were you educated at public expense? if so can we get a refund ?

Blue cheeses are good. How about Roquefort?

Crankboy, great contribution, i assume you haven't reached the age for secondary education yet?

If we are on cheese - Oxford Blue.

Hainey, just out of interest, what would you consider as acceptable 'proof' that GHG emissions from our activities are increasing global temperatures?