"Snow thing of the past"

I missed that one, sounds interesting.

From snow to Hitler in a blizzard of rhetoric. It has been said that the Allies didn't want Hitler dead as he countermanding his Generals advice and making military blunders that benefited the Allies.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

CO2/climate change is only dangerous to the extent they want you to pay more in taxes, but it seems even they are not stupid enough to let their "facts" get in the way of keeping the country running.

The power stations of which they speak are GAS FIRED, not nuclear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20608948

Chancellor George Osborne has approved the building of over 30 new gas-fired power stations to replace the UK's ageing coal, nuclear and gas stations. The new capacity could produce up to 26 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2030, a net increase of 5GW. The plans will dismay environmentalists who want more emphasis placed on lower-carbon, renewable energy sources.

The best part? They will run on SHALE GAS, apparently the most CO2-creating fuel during production.

"Do as I say, not as I do". aka HYPOCRISY. If they are prepared to risk Armageddon ( ) for the sake of energy production, then it suggests they might just be lying about the future impacts.

Again, we can't escape the fact we run out of oil soon, and need alternatives if we are not to return the 1850s in a few decades.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Here is a scientific run-through of some of the trash the IPCC talk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/

Before you write this guy off, he's qualifications include:

I have a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Even in your book that makes him qualified to speak.

The opposite is occurring. Why this test was not performed eludes me. Perhaps that is because it provides yet another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that we have simply overstated the sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide.

No doubt you'll still try and suggest I only read biased, unqualified individuals.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

 Here we go, in regard to Vulcan's Daily Fail article took me a few seconds, typical Daily Fail...

Ha ha, you played right into my hands there.

I don't care. Given that he is indeed one of the most famous deniers, it didn't cross your mind I might have chosen him on purpose? See... yet another example of you failing to think about what I actually write, instead taking it at face-value and completely missing the point. Maybe I'm being too subtle?

What I do care about however is that you still have not read the paper that analyzed the temperature records used by the IPCC (that would be REAL science, BTW. You know, research, analysis, questioning investigations, asking "is this wrong", etc.. - something the pro camp never do).

We can dance all day - but the point is you are avoiding the topic.

The one in denial here is you. You took the MMGW scam hook line and sinker, and can't accept that you've been conned (as has most of the world). OIL is what it is about, and getting beyond 2050 without a visit back to the dark ages when we no longer have electricity.

The Government bought their own trash to the point they are closing perfectly serviceable coal fired power stations. Thanks to Fukushima the nuclear industry was rocked and nearly led to the collapse of the next gen of nuclear power (unfortunately not quite, though Germany banned it at least).

China expands so much that one years expansion exceeds the entire annual CO2 output of the UK, so the maths of CO2 targets is a joke to start with! Somehow though you seem to think the numbers stack up (which they don't).

You read journals that are biased towards the pro-MMGW, then accuse me of being biased. The sad thing is you can't see it.

Your mind is so closed, you won't even read articles that question the current state of things that are counter to your position. I don't need to research the pro side that much as it is shoved in my face daily through the press. The other side of the argument however is not, not least, because it does not tow the party line.

I don't think I need to remind you that it was only the late 70s they were fearing an ice-age. It's all very well to say "they got it wrong", "they know better now", but in 20 years we will say the same of this, too.

Just remember how they sacked Professor David Nutt because he said drugs were less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. It didn't fit with the party line, so they got rid of him, yet his science and research were solid, and empirical evidence supports his argument. The exact same thing is happening with MMGW. It's "not cool" to question the MMGW Gods.

Galileo said the Earth was not the center of the Universe, so they threw him in jail as a heretic.

Right now they say man's emissions of CO2 are wholly to blame for any warming, and future disaster, which is absurd, but anyone who says "prove it", or dares to question it, is simply laughed at.

Well.... the joke is on you.

Vulcan.

VulcanB2 wrote: Maybe I'm being too subtle?

I don't care. Given that he is indeed one of the most famous deniers, it didn't cross your mind I might have chosen him on purpose? See... yet another example of you failing to think about what I actually write, instead taking it at face-value and completely missing the point. Maybe I'm being too subtle?

What we do know, is that our emissions are in step with temperature rise since the industrial revolution.

"Correlation does not indicate causation". A common mistake. It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years, and to say the last 16 years is "too short" makes a mockery of the temperature records that only go back 100 years or so (16 years of 100 represents 16% of the data set - no mere rounding error).

Do you remember I created a graph of the temperature records available from the Met Office? I plotted the data sets and various running averages. It was clear there was a slowdown in the warming trend towards the end of the 90s, then my decadal running average actually went negative in the 2000's up to 2007 IIRC. It was plotted against CO2 records. The second order CO2 rise was increasing (meaning the rate of change was increasing) at the same time as the running average temperature started to plateau then decrease slightly.

How do you explain that? I seem to recall you wrote it off as "too short" or "weather".

Well here we are some 3 or 4 years later, and the picture hasn't changed yet - still on a slight down slope. Explain please. I'm waiting.

Best regards,
Vulcan.