Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming
#61
Yes I did - it was the trusted Mail on Sunday !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LE - aka John
Reply
#62
Sorry I didn't see your previous post. Now why doesn't it surprise me that its the mail on sunday! I'm manipulating nothing, its the people that use the stat about global warming slowing down in the last 16 years that are doing the manipulating. The long term picture shows that's its rising so to use a stat over a short term period where the starting point as an unsually high temperature is quite frankly meaningless. Anyway i cant find the article. I can find one from a few months ago.
Reply
#63
(02-12-2013, 03:50 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Yes I did - it was the trusted Mail on Sunday !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh well if you're using the Mail then that explains everything! You may wish to read this article about the Daily Mail's "weather forecasters" (and I use that term very loosely):

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/g...daily-mail

It states that some of the "forecasters" listed on the website are also "a mail order bride, a hot Russian date, a hot Ukrainian date, an egg donor, a sublet property broker in Sweden, a lawyer, an expert on snoring, eyebrow threading, safe sex, green cleaning products, spanking and air purification." That's an awful lot of different professions for just a handful of people! What's quite concerning is that people actually believe some of the rubbish that the Mail, Express and others write. I particularly enjoyed the recent story from the Daily Star saying that Typhoon Haiyan was heading for the UK in the next few weeks!!

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-n...-Christmas

I don't think I've ever read such rubbish in my life.
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#64
Guardian reader critisising Mail readers mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Funny how stats of a 50 year period is deadly serious but stats of 16 of those same years is misleading.
LE - aka John
Reply
#65
(02-12-2013, 09:52 PM)Leicester Exile Wrote: Guardian reader critisising Mail readers mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Funny how stats of a 50 year period is deadly serious but stats of 16 of those same years is misleading.

I'm not comparing the two papers in general, just the weather forecasts produced by both. At least the forecasts produced by the Guardian are fairly accurate and done by people who actually exist!

And on the second point, it is well known that the longer a data series that you have, the more reliable that the data is and the better idea you can get as to any trends. Otherwise you could just take the temperatures from the winter of 10/11 and say "Oh well we must be going into a mini ice age as all of the data shows such low temperatures". It's about looking at the bigger picture.
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#66
But 16 is about a third of 50 and as the world has been around for a few million years. The much longer data shows we have had massive temperature changes over the millions of years the earth has been going around the sun.
LE - aka John
Reply
#67
We cant go back that far because we have no records going back that far and if we did how accurate would they be! Anyway all you have to look at is the latest ippc report.
Reply
#68
So you are saying the teaching that we once had an ice age may not be true.:thumbup:
LE - aka John
Reply
#69
There's probably been several ice ages.
Reply
#70
Exactly - it's called climate change and we had nothing to do with it :P
LE - aka John
Reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Leicester Exile's post:
Redditchbear, Warleybear
#71
:lol: :thumbup:
Reply
#72
ok the IPCC is 95 percent confident that humans have caused most of the observed global surface warming over the past 60 years. Their best estimate is that humans have caused 100 percent of that global warming. If you wish to ignore that then so be it.
Reply
#73
That is because we are ALL on the global surface Paul and yes everything that we do affects what happens on the global surface.

I'm still not at all convinced by the Global Warming Theorists and I still maintain that if true,our bit makes little difference.Until the major nations ie Russia,China,India and the USA keep churning out the rubbish nothing would change anyway!
ALWAYS A BEAR
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Redditchbear's post:
Leicester Exile
#74
(03-12-2013, 11:57 PM)Redditchbear Wrote: That is because we are ALL on the global surface Paul and yes everything that we do affects what happens on the global surface.

I'm still not at all convinced by the Global Warming Theorists and I still maintain that if true,our bit makes little difference.Until the major nations ie Russia,China,India and the USA keep churning out the rubbish nothing would change anyway!

That's a terrible attitude to take! We need to set an example to other countries to show that it is possible to reduce carbon emissions. Besides, the UK is the 9th highest emitter of CO2 in the world, which is hardly insignificant! But I agree, the rest of the world needs to follow suit, particularly China, India and the USA.
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#75
China are reducing their c02 emmisions

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/wars...663021.htm

The USA have cut their emissions more than any other country over the last 6 years

India aren't

We can only take responsibilty for ourselves not for others and by doing so it will force the countries like India to follow suit.
Reply
#76
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806


next they'll blame humans for affecting the sun :lol:

Build those nuclear power stations quick..... Unless you like fracking ..... :thumbup:
Reply
#77
At least we know now what has caused the floods - according to a UKIP councillor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/...tent=Title
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Terry's post:
Warleybear
#78
Good old Huff 'liberal do gooder' Post..... Gets a bit hot under the collar with UKiP :lol:

Some blame the weather on the Russians or people who over breed ... some even blame it on international cricket and all that carbon costly travel :thumbup:

With a rapidly increasing population, do we build nuclear power stations or frack or both..... To supplement the windmills of course.....
Reply
#79
Is fracking safe? 100% can you be sure it won't contaminate local water? Millions of gallons of water has to be transported to the fracking site. The fracking fluid, (water, mixed with sand and approx 40,000 gallons of toxic chemicals per fracturing) is then pumped into the drilled pipeline to extract the natural gas, methane gas and toxic chemicals leak out contaminating the water supplies.

I know you hate windmills and solar power but they are safe and clean....
Reply
#80
I love windmills....

But thousands of people freeze to death (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25100497 etc. etc.) British industry struggles to compete because we have no balanced power strategy.

So no, I don't like fracking, but people don't want nuclear, they don't want fracking, they don't even want windmills in the country side.

Buiild the windmills in the shires, build the nuclear power stations in the remote areas and get fracking. The cities take too much burden from the leafy liberal do gooders anyway when it comes to rapid population growth .... at least they can provide some of the energy production needed to facilitate their liberal NIMBY utopia. :lol:
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)