|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ConorConor Date: Sep 2, 2008 01:21
> What makes you seriously imagine that the Met Office, with all their
> considerable experience and resources, is wrong with its
> interpretation of data while you alone are correct?
The fact they're funded by H.M.Govt which is making a mint out of
"green" taxes?
The fact they failed to spot a massive hurricane a decade ago even
though it had already made landfall in the UK and people were phoning
in to tell them?
Boscastle?
I can go on...
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: BoltarBoltar Date: Sep 2, 2008 01:55
On Sep 1, 9:08 pm, nik.morgan talktalk.net> wrote:> And a sizeable perfectly natural eruption tomorrow will blow all the man made
> co2 arguments away.
Well if that happens we're all screwed and theres nothing we can do
about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to do something
about our own pollution in the meantime. While I'm a very long...
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: TommyTommy Date: Sep 2, 2008 04:16
>
> Says the Daily Mail. Care to post a link to a peer reviewed paper instead?
>
> --
Why?
No one would chosse to believe it even then!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PetertPetert Date: Sep 2, 2008 04:19
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 03:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sep 1, 11:25 am, nik.morgan talktalk.net> wrote:>> It's not an island just a very large iceberg and, as we are informed,
>> icebergs are melting due to the earths cyclic temperature changes...
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BoltarBoltar Date: Sep 2, 2008 04:50
On Sep 2, 12:19 pm, Petert googlemail.com> wrote:> OK, do you know how much CO2 man produces per annum and, how does this
As someone mentioned earlier its about 30 billion tons a year.
> figure compare, as a percentage to naturally produced CO2? For
> example, how much CO2 is produced by, say, volcanic activity?
No idea. I could google but I can't be @rsed. Volcanic activity would
produce a spike , not a constant increasing amount and there arn't
many erupting volcanos around right now.
B2003
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Sep 2, 2008 05:28
On 2 Sep, 08:46, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> On 1 Sep, 18:17, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Boltar" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message>
>
>>>> On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence
>>>>> that
>>>>> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as
>>>>> above - ...
|
| Show full article (2.64Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Sep 2, 2008 05:53
> On Sep 2, 12:19 pm, Petert googlemail.com> wrote:>> OK, do you know how much CO2 man produces per annum and, how does this
>
> As someone mentioned earlier its about 30 billion tons a year.
>
>> figure compare, as a percentage to naturally produced CO2? For
>> example, how much CO2 is produced by, say, volcanic activity?
>
> No idea. I could google but I can't be @rsed. Volcanic activity would
> produce a spike , not a constant increasing amount and there arn't
> many erupting volcanos around right now.
>
Actually a Mount Etna style eruption produces an increasing amount,
over a period which could be months, which peaks and remains constant
whilst the eruption continues...
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BoltarBoltar Date: Sep 2, 2008 06:17
On Sep 2, 1:53 pm, Conor hotmail.com> wrote:> Actually a Mount Etna style eruption produces an increasing amount,
> over a period which could be months, which peaks and remains constant
> whilst the eruption continues before petering off.
A large rise over a period of months is still a sharp spike compared
to a few hundred years but I take your point.
B2003
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Sep 2, 2008 07:02
> On Sep 2, 1:53 pm, Conor hotmail.com> wrote:>> Actually a Mount Etna style eruption produces an increasing amount,
>> over a period which could be months, which peaks and remains constant
>> whilst the eruption continues before petering off.
>
> A large rise over a period of months is still a sharp spike compared
> to a few hundred years but I take your point.
>
Ah sorry, didn't realise the timescales.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Sep 2, 2008 10:34
> On 2 Sep, 08:46, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>>> On 1 Sep, 18:17, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Boltar" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message>>
>>
>>>>> On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing
>>>>>> evidence ...
|
| Show full article (4.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
