Dear Hasbeen,

All the nastiness I put out? Hardly old cock, I try and employ a strict measure for measure regime. If you cop it from me there there is a fair chance you have dished it out. Remember it is a real trait of bullies that they complain of the very treatment they employ themselves.

As to “merely uses them to empty his spleen on a long suffering world” well that is projection if I have ever seen it.

Back to the topic, how can one of your local weather stations experience in the previous two years six of the highest temperatures recorded for a particular month since records began at that station and you not blink an eye?. That is January, March, June, July, September and November all clocking up record maximums against 60 years of data in the last three years.

I'm not sure if head in the sand quite cuts it. Perhaps frog in a boiling pot is closer.

Dear ALTRAV,

I agree, discussions about the redheaded bimbo are fun but to those who worship him any criticisms have them disrupting topics like this to defend him.

As to your view from space of CO2 emissions this video from NASA is an excellent perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

It is pretty easy to see why Arctic ice is the most impacted.

Charles another virtue signaller. If I had treated Dianna like he did I suspect I would need a cause to sprout off my moral superiority in order to cover up inward rottenness. Seems very common among Hollywood and the elite.

Foxy - Please learn how to read before commenting.

Quote "So you think that the Pew Research Center, NASA, Lowy, et al,
are all biased?"

I wrote "Also the questions were biased."

You I will bet you found the link to Lowy then put it here I would also say you did not go the extra mile and find the actual questions they asked.

IF the questions have absolutely make no reference to man made and natural warming it is biased, if you can't see that please just don't waste my time.

As for Pew. Here is what I wrote "When you can't see the exact questions asked and to who, I am not going to waste my time."

As for Stanford.
Now for your Stanford link
1,000 people get to represent 150 million or so adults.

Look who conducted the survey. "The study was conducted with ABC News and Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization."

That above is what I wrote and you come back with this pathetic excuse for a rebuttal.

"Philip S.,

So you think that the Pew Research Center, NASA, Lowy, et al,
are all biased? And this from someone who prefers the
RACV to NASA on climate change?

Well, what can I say? You've said it all.
Shades of Monty Python - here we come."

I can now see why people troll you and are less than civil to you on occasions.

I am not going to waste anymore time with you here.

runner,

What does the private past life of Prince
Charles have to do with the scientific
evidence of climate change?

Just like your standing in judgement over
others as a self-proclaimed Christian -
does that indicate an "inner rotting" on
your part for going against the teachings
of Christ?

"Judge not ..."

Foxy are you aware of the term Conflict of Interests.

Paradise Papers: Prince Charles lobbied on climate policy after shares purchase

Prince Charles campaigned to alter climate-change agreements without disclosing his private estate had an offshore financial interest in what he was promoting, BBC Panorama has found.

The Paradise Papers show the Duchy of Cornwall in 2007 secretly bought shares worth $113,500 in a Bermuda company that would benefit from a rule change.

The prince was a friend of a director of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd.

The Duchy of Cornwall says he has no direct involvement in its investments.

'Conflict of interest'

He added Prince Charles was "free to offer thoughts and suggestions on a wide range of topics" and "cares deeply" about the issue of climate change but "it is for others to decide whether to take the advice".

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said Prince Charles's actions amounted to a serious conflict of interest.

He said: "There's a conflict of interest between his own investments of the Duchy of Cornwall and what he's trying to achieve publicly.

"And I think it's unfortunate that somebody of his importance, of his influence, becomes involved in such a serious conflict."

The prince began campaigning for changes to two important environmental agreements weeks after Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) sent his office lobbying documents.

Prince Charles's estate almost tripled its money in just over a year although it is not clear what caused the rise in the share value. Despite his high profile campaign, the environmental agreements were not changed.

Foxy, why do you insist on NOT reading my posts, yet you comment on them.
I looked at your link reference to NASA, and guess what? the very point/question I pose, is all but explained in the first paragraph.
I direct your attention to the following words in that first paragraph which accentuate my points;
warming 'trend', 'most' of it is extremely 'likely'.
As I said, and this article alone implies, that it is based on theory.
I'll say it again; I know there is pollution, I'm not that dense.
What I and everyone else does not/cannot know, is how much of it is our fault.
Given that the first world may be forced (politically) to stop industries who are deemed to be the 'high' polluters, they will simply move production to a third world country, thereby increasing their bottom line and because the third world does not care about pollution they will increase their pollution output because of the extra work coming from first world countries to avoid the costs and rhetoric of the govt's and the greens.
So the net result will be, (and this you can take to the bank, it's not a theory), that the first world will suffer and go into recession/depression, the third world will rise to a higher lever of status, closer to second and even first world, as the first world slips down into second or third world status.
And the net result of all this will be that the pollution or CO2 levels will shoot up exponentially to a 'real' level of danger, because the third world has no reason to give a toss about pollution.