The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate apocalypse postponed > Comments

Climate apocalypse postponed : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 1/9/2010

Seasonal weather forecasting has a dismal track record.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Mark Lawson here
Atman - true. I was too late to be villified, but I think the real break was not copenhagen but the climategate emails. That seemed to break the spell. After that there was a distinct reducion in articles and posts on climate, and fewer people claiming it was all gospel. The "hottest year" declarations got pushed back in the paper.. with temperatures falling over the next few years as they are expected to do the heat will go out of the debate (pun intended). It may happen even faster if carbon diox concentrations in the air start falling by themselves.. may yet happen..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 September 2010 11:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I picked up Mark's book from Abbeys in York Street today and look forward to reading it as soon as I finish "The Puritan Gift", an incredible book on the degradation of American business, through promotion of the corrosive "Cult of the Expert".

I wonder how all the money losing "green industries" will fare, when people finally realise the truth about the AGW fraud, and the poll driven politicians, who backed the emissions nonsense while the electorate was fooled, will change direction. Obama has already dropped off the green bandwagon.

Al Gore has estate planned himself, separating from his wife, of 40 years, when they suddenly realised that they were incompatible, and putting a swag of assets in her name, then placing those he retains in a trust.

He has obtained huge funds from investors for "green" projects which will be rendered worthless when the truth seeps in, and politicians have to align themselves with reality.

When bigmouth Al is sued for the losses, there will be nothing in the bin to cover the verdicts.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 2 September 2010 4:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH

Thanks for link. Heard Stern talking the other day about the temperatures being at a certain level 14 million years ago. I did not know whether to laugh or cry at such stupidity. It was said with a straight face and to think our Government has been totally conned by this Greens religion. I tend to think that if people are gullible enough to vote for these people with such idiotic faith then we must be all to wealthy. More billions down the drain as people starve to death.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 2 September 2010 4:54:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gullibility is rampant, stick to what the scientists are saying, not the wack-jobs, try
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf
for a basic update of what's happened in the last 50 years, these aren't based on proxy values.
I think we need a list of those that do believe that AGW is occurring and those that don't to be published so future generations can know who to ridicule, mark john conley, yes AGW is occurring and CO2 is partly responsible and the 3% that we are contributing is 3% more than the earth can handle in such a short time period
Posted by justoneperson, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 10:47:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do you not refer to the science, before making these statements, justoneperson?

The IPCC have no science backing their opinion that AGW is “very likely”.

The settled and accepted science is that global warming (and cooling) is governed by natural cycles, with no evidence of any measureable effect by human emissions.

The “very likely” opinion of the IPCC is backed by five of the seven scientists who reviewed it. Another 55 scientists, of the “Climategate” variety (i.e. closely involved with the IPCC), endorse it.

Part of the backing of this now threadbare opinion was the anticipation at the time that satellite instruments would show a “hotspot” in the troposphere, which would be the “signature” for AGW.

When this did not happen, did we have an announcement of “No AGW”? No, we had an announcement that the scientific instruments must be faulty, as they did not back the fabricated IPCC propaganda.

A petition asking that no action be taken on AGW, until there is some scientific backing for the assertion, is signed by 31,000 scientists, with more signatures constantly being added.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 11:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, the IPCC reports are FULL of evidence of AGW and CO2 as the main driver.
Select a topic, any topic which supports your stance, and then let's discuss.
I love the 'accepted' opinion. What bollocks. Amongst deniers yeah. Amongst climate scientists, those who actually study the subject, what was that US study, 97% think AGW is occurring.
And the 31,000 scientists, humbug, they've got names of architects, and engineers and so many with no details whatsoever of credentials. Who put that together, mmmmmh, I wouldn't be pushing that one Leo.
Now a topic, mark conley
Posted by justoneperson, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy