|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 1, 2009 14:34:45 GMT
I am not quite sure the appropiate thread to post this terrific news; so here seems to be as good a place as ever. Please visit jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/For the first time, at a UNFCCC conference, there will be an OFFICIAL delegation of climate skeptics, headed by William Kinninmomth; an almost perfect choice to be in Copenhagen. Now it will be impossible to keep the skeptics out of the news conferences, as happened in Bali, and skeptics should get a lot more news coverage. At the same time, we have wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/31/tipping-point-in-the-media/which shows that skeptical comments have increased enormously. Things seem to be going in the right direction in the political/media field. |
|
|
|
Post by gdfernan on Apr 1, 2009 15:18:49 GMT
I am not quite sure the appropiate thread to post this terrific news; so here seems to be as good a place as ever. Please visit jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/For the first time, at a UNFCCC conference, there will be an OFFICIAL delegation of climate skeptics, headed by William Kinninmomth; an almost perfect choice to be in Copenhagen. Now it will be impossible to keep the skeptics out of the news conferences, as happened in Bali, and skeptics should get a lot more news coverage. I believe that this may be an April Fool joke. Need to check a few more sources before we can determine this conclusively. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 15, 2009 11:36:32 GMT
How immoral, to hold the wrong viewsWarning, much of this may be incomprehensible unless you know a little of the goings on of Australian politicians....Quote: Take climate change. The way the argument is being presented you can be for aggressive targets to cut emissions or you are for rising tides, mass drownings, increased heat-related deaths, the destruction of the planet and the death of polar bears. Characterising this as a moral question allows the high priests of emission targets to actually measure the morality of their opponents. Supporters of a 20 per cent cut are moral, 10 per cent morally inferior, supporters of 5 per cent are grossly immoral, and so on. If anyone questions whether these targets will be met, if they will make a difference without the co-operation of major emitters, or what will happen to those who lose their jobs in industries affected, they can be dismissed as engaging in moral subterfuge. This is a moral argument, and such people are really in favour of destroying the planet. www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-immoral-to-hold-the-wrong-views-20090414-a674.html?page=-1
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 15, 2009 14:03:44 GMT
Kiwi
Sounds like a church function to me. I do not think it is a social but more like an inquisition. The only difference is that I must buy relief for my transgressions. I think the EPA is the authority of the high tribunal. So many priests being anointed like pigs at a trough.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 27, 2009 0:11:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Apr 27, 2009 17:41:01 GMT
Sorry, but what is AGW? Anti-global warming? Or accelerated global warming? Google didn't help...
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Anti-Global Warming
AGW Access Gateway
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW All Going Well
AGW Accelerated Global Warming
AGW Actual Gold Weight
AGW Application Gateway (telecom)
AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGW Actual Gross Weight
AGW American Wire Gauge
AGW Automatic Girth Welder
AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon
AGW Allowable Gross Weight
AGW Anganwadi Worker (India)
AGW Accident Generated Water
|
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 27, 2009 18:42:51 GMT
Sorry, but what is AGW? Anti-global warming? Or accelerated global warming? Google didn't help... AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW Anti-Global Warming AGW Access Gateway AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada) AGW All Going Well AGW Accelerated Global Warming AGW Actual Gold Weight AGW Application Gateway (telecom) AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum) AGW Actual Gross Weight AGW American Wire Gauge AGW Automatic Girth Welder AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon AGW Allowable Gross Weight AGW Anganwadi Worker (India) AGW Accident Generated Water The top result. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 27, 2009 22:01:28 GMT
Given that the North Pole came close to being ice free in 2007, there was a good possibility of it becoming ice free in 2008:  |
|
|
|
Post by LakeEffectKing on Apr 27, 2009 22:28:50 GMT
Given that the North Pole came close to being ice free in 2007, there was a good possibility of it becoming ice free in 2008: And yet, here we sit, with 100+ years of "us" spewing extra CO2 into the atmosphere, global sea ice is ABOVE NORMAL, and Arctic sea ice extent is JUST SHY of normal!!! Its gotta be tough defending a warming/hysterical/fear mongering hypothesis that (given a 100+ years worth of forcing), we actually have MORE ICE on this planet than normal. Charles Manson would be proud of the group manipulation tactics that are ongoing. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 28, 2009 0:34:15 GMT
Socold is free to provide evidence that CO2 had even a smidgen to do with 2007 Arctic ice conditions. As always is the case in every forum I've asked for evidence, none is given.
The standard reply is "CO2 is a greenhouse gas", or "it's high school physics". Sorry, that doesn't get it.
The point is, AGW "scientists" are on record for hyping up 2007 as the death knell for the Arctic; worse than climate models predicted.
Greenland was considered the 'canary-in-the-coalmine', but as AGW promoters can't show Greenland isn't doing anything more than mimicking the 1930's, they switched gears and concentrated on the Arctic as it appeared it was spiraling downward to oblivion.
Give it time and we'll be told the Arctic increasing in ice extent is also consistent with CO2 AGW.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 28, 2009 1:26:22 GMT
Given that the North Pole came close to being ice free in 2007, there was a good possibility of it becoming ice free in 2008: LOL! Lets see normal is 5mmsq km, it dropped to 4 in about 10 years, then dropped to 3. No ice is a good chance? Only if you are dumber than a cockroach it is. I know some folks that really want to see your arse at the poker club!!! |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 28, 2009 3:50:00 GMT
Given that the North Pole came close to being ice free in 2007, there was a good possibility of it becoming ice free in 2008: That's rather simplistic logic. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 29, 2009 15:48:12 GMT
Given that the North Pole came close to being ice free in 2007, there was a good possibility of it becoming ice free in 2008: LOL! Lets see normal is 5mmsq km, it dropped to 4 in about 10 years, then dropped to 3. No ice is a good chance? Only if you are dumber than a cockroach it is. I know some folks that really want to see your arse at the poker club!!! You are confusing the North Pole with the Arctic. Not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 29, 2009 15:49:37 GMT
Given that the North Pole came close to being ice free in 2007, there was a good possibility of it becoming ice free in 2008: That's rather simplistic logic. That's why it is so clear. It's a simple concept. The 2007 minimum saw the ice extent shrink back to the "gates" of the North Pole. A deeper minimum in 2008 could very well have seen the North Pole outside the ice extent. I am sure we will see that happen in the future if decline continues. Then you'll be able to surface a whole amarda of submarines at the north pole. |
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 29, 2009 20:22:05 GMT
" I am sure we will see that happen in the future if decline continues. Then you'll be able to surface a whole amarda of submarines at the north pole."
You are using "decline continues" as though it were current and true. As the decline reversed a couple of years back, it would seem rather unlikely now unless it reverses again in the distant future. Of course it may well start to decline again in 30 years but people will have forgotten about CO2 hysteria by then.
|
|
