learn to live with the fact that humans are genetically designed to look after number 1 and offspring and embrace the fact that we are just another animal no matter how we try to dress it up otherwise.
Well you certainly provide an excellent example ............ I can't deny that.
learn to live with the fact that humans are genetically designed to look after number 1 and offspring and embrace the fact that we are just another animal no matter how we try to dress it up otherwise.
Sorry you feel that way. I disagree.
Sorry you feel that way
don't be, it's keeps me sane as it's the most brutally honest way to look at life
I didn't say I was sorry for you.
no you said you were sorry for my personal belief which implies pity on your part for the fact that you think I'm an emotional cripple 😉
It might mean something else. But you might not be able to work it out.
care to explain to a dimbo like me then? xx
I might be sorry for those who suffer your scornful attitude.
LMFAO bless you, you darling little sanctimoniuos c**t
Well you did ask.
I'll get back under my bridge now and wait for some goats
cheers for the banter 😀
You suggest the whole theory (house of cards) is built on a single study?Back to that old 'I see a single dot on a chart and I'll extrapolate that to fit my prejudice' issue again aren't we
nope.
wow Lord you should get that published 🙄
Can I see your good evidence please?
Apparently the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis ]620 authors of IPCC report[/url] missed it the fools If only they had thought to get MTB ers to write about global warming I bet those experts feel really foolish now.
to go with some examples.
the research of [url= http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ]Professor David H. Douglass[/url]
one such example of how the MMCC try to suppress what they view as damaging or skeptical research is this paper: [url= http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf ]here[/url] with its addendum [url= http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/addendum_A%20comparison%20of%20tropical%20temperature%20trends%20with%20model_JOC1651%20s1-ln377204795844769-1939656818Hwf-88582685IdV9487614093772047PDF_HI0001 ]here[/url]
with an explanation of those from the CRU and others trying to discredit any work which questions the MMCC belief [url= http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html ]here[/url]
[url= http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html ]This[/url] is an explanation of the background to the Hockey Stick - and how it is based on flawed maths - and how the attempt to show Mcintyre as getting his sums wrong, subsequently showed him to be correct.
This is important as much of the IPCC 3rd assessment was based on Manns hockey stick graph.
and a follow up to that was the Yamal data - explained [url= http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html ]here[/url]
Which included data from "the most influential tree in the world" YAD061 [url= http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/yad061.html ]Data[/url]
Don't forget recently Russian Climatologists accusing the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey of cherry picking data from the Russian temperature centers - not for lack of data - but because they didn't show any warming.
unprecidented warming?
[img] 
[/img]
i could go on - theres lots out there to go on.
That's evidence best summed up as 'several studies'.
So... back to that 'meta-study' homework. You do know what I'm referring to right? Could you demonstrate your understanding of the term 'meta-study' to the class please?
Thats more like it, I wondered when the really clever guys with pointy heads and lab coats would be along.This thread has been to easy to follow so far.
Summary;
1)OP suggests recent cold snap may suggest global thingimy is not happening.
2)Flaming from stw users is eq to total output of coal fired power station.
3)Rightplace and tazzy get in a fight (one of the playground ones where nobody gets hurt)
4) Junkyard and Lsummerisle (like the name btw, you BETTER be a Donald) come along with their pocket protectors and their science books.
Carry on chaps
ah, i'm sorry - i wasn't aware i had to post up all of the several decades of research that question the MMCC theory!
Rightplace and tazzy get in a fight (one of the playground ones where nobody gets hurt)
really? I hadn't realisied it came across like that! I must try harder not to take the piss and poke things/people/badgers to see what happens.
Appologies to STW forum massive and to Mr righplacerighttime if I cause any offence.
big kisses xx
You missed step 5
5) Duckman adds utterly pointless post.
Mark, much as I hate to give potential fuel to the sceptics, I dont like meta-analysis as a general rule. Your just taking everyones evidence and error and multiplying them together, they are monumentally difficult to interept. I prefer a balanced approach looking at individual studies and assessing them on their own merit. However I know next to nothing about climate studies, so am not a lot of help in this thread (although at least I know that I dont know much rather than the self proclaimed experts on here).
Rightplace,any more and I will jump in for tazzy.
The problem you have is that no one is denying that climate change exists. The issue is that if you cast doubt on mans influence then you are automatically labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake.
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.
However there is no evidence or proof that climate change is due to man. No matter which way you argue it or look at it or what graphs you put up, its all been seen before, many times, over thousands of years. Just to balance things out there is also no proof that mans influence isn't having an effect either. A lot of peoples opinion is that its natural cycle both short term and long term and historical evidence and trends agree with that. Just as its a lot of peoples opinion to the contrary. That is what stems debate.
To label people as heretics, denyers, etc is just the usual method of trying to rubbish there opinion in an argument where neither side has proof either way.
I think my main point on all this is that there is no consistency to the world governments approach in terms of methods for combating climate change via taxation. Tax is piled high on top of airline travel, fuel etc etc which whilst are contributors to so called green house gases, aren't main contributors when compared to say beef production. But imagine the uproar if Mr and Mrs Smith couldn't have their sirloin steak every dinner because it now cost 80% more due to government levied tax.
If green taxes were fairly distributed and if they were auditable against green initiatives then i don't think many people would have much of a problem with it (whether they agree climate change is man made or not). The reality however is that its seen, and essentially is, an easy method for the government to collect additional revenue in the name of the environment but to fund pretty much the opposite (Road expansion, Wars, New Aircraft Carriers etc).
The other main issue I have is that funding is given only to scientists to prove man made global warming. Its not given to fund more research into historical temperature fluctuations. Its ignored, and this some of the most important and fundamental research this is required to understand our planet. This is where a lot of the IPCC work falls down.
I think we should be more concerend about trying to stop other natural cycles like it getting dark or the tides going in or out.
This to me is the real issue.
The planet is 4billion yers old? I'm sure it will bo ok for another 40 years or so, after that I dont care.
Could someone please list some/all of these 'green taxes' that our lives are 'hugely impacted' by?
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? 🙂
