On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 09:33:57 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"Vidcapper" wrote in message
...

My view remains that : even if the world *is* warming, that still doesn't
prove that man is responsible - it's warmed before without our 'help'...

Experts are saying that because the world is warming 0.6 degrees
superficially, it proves that man is responsible.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which means that it make the air warmer
in the outer atmosphere thus both cooling the earth and blanketing it
Venus -which is much closer to the sun, is a lot warmer but kept within
bounds by carbon dioxide.

No weather records predate the Industrial Revolution (instigated after burning
all the trees to make iron) when we discovered we could produce sulphur free
iron by roasting coal. Now nearly all power is supplied as electricity
generated in fossil fuelled power stations.
It is the production of carbon dioxide which creates the power needed.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution when the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere was about 280 parts per millions (give or take 100 ppm) that
level was recently thought to be nearly 400 ppm, an increase of around 40%.

Now the people responsible for that massive scare disputes it.
And of course the rise due to mankind is nothing like the output of the
unknown number of active volcanoes. Yet they have been going a damn sight
longer than any pottery, lime kiln or iron smelter.

Obviously burning fossil fuels increases CO2 levels but nobody knows if
it causes global warming or what. The world was warmer before mankind was
around when CO2 levels were as high as they are now, the Greenland ice sheet
did not exist and sea levels were 80 feet higher.

I'd like to know how you knew what the earth was like if by definition of the term prehistoric, there were no men around to make reliable weather records.

On Monday, September 16, 2013 7:03:20 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Monday, 16 September 2013 17:16:48 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.



You are the bizarre one saying "the hack had lied". Judith Curry felt David Rose was totally accurate in the article so are you now saying a bona fide top respected climate scientist is lying as well?



Judith Curry says

"David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately)."



http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/le...ed-in-the-msm/



In her blog piece at no time does she criticise the Rose article and in fact says the leaks are a good thing.



So yet once again the Dawlish Dabbler gets it wrong. You always chose what you feel is the 'winning ' side, for you its all or nothing. Pretty soon you are going to have to change your tune.

Here's one hack attacking another. I don't particularly care about either, but Monibot's criticism is backed by the MetO on its site. Find it and read.. It has already been posted on here.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...limate-science

In addition, Rose lies frequently. Try these:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arct...telegraph.html

The man gets paid a salary to write these lies that will help grumpy old idiots like you to believe that AGW simply isn't happening. The Daily Mail says it isn't happening; Rose lies to support that and you are stupid enough to be taken in. *Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660 scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent publications on climate science, 97% of 12,000 authors in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel the opposite is true, but people like you get their science and their opinion from papers like the Daily Mail. Good luck to you, but don't expect anyone with a brain to be taken in.

Wait until AR5 is produced and read it cover-to-cover. You won't and you will refer to lies and nonsense written by people like Rose instead.

"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...

On Monday, 16 September 2013 17:16:48 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him
and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.

You are the bizarre one saying "the hack had lied". Judith Curry felt David
Rose was totally accurate in the article so are you now saying a bona fide
top respected climate scientist is lying as well?

Judith Curry says
"David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately)."

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/le...ed-in-the-msm/

In her blog piece at no time does she criticise the Rose article and in fact
says the leaks are a good thing.

So yet once again the Dawlish Dabbler gets it wrong. You always chose what
you feel is the 'winning ' side, for you its all or nothing. Pretty soon you
are going to have to change your tune.

================================================== ==================================
Just been googling both names David Rose is a known Climate sceptic and
although not a sceptic Judith is a known scientistfor downplaying concerns
over global warming see
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894...climate-change

Stan

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 15:51:42 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2013 7:03:20 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Monday, 16 September 2013 17:16:48 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:



The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.







You are the bizarre one saying "the hack had lied". Judith Curry felt David Rose was totally accurate in the article so are you now saying a bona fide top respected climate scientist is lying as well?







Judith Curry says



"David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately)."







http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/le...ed-in-the-msm/







In her blog piece at no time does she criticise the Rose article and in fact says the leaks are a good thing.







So yet once again the Dawlish Dabbler gets it wrong. You always chose what you feel is the 'winning ' side, for you its all or nothing. Pretty soon you are going to have to change your tune.



Here's one hack attacking another. I don't particularly care about either, but Monibot's criticism is backed by the MetO on its site. Find it and read. It has already been posted on here.



http://www.theguardian.com/environme...limate-science



In addition, Rose lies frequently. Try these:



http://www.skepticalscience.com/arct...telegraph.html



The man gets paid a salary to write these lies that will help grumpy old idiots like you to believe that AGW simply isn't happening. The Daily Mail says it isn't happening; Rose lies to support that and you are stupid enough to be taken in. *Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660 scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent publications on climate science, 97% of 12,000 authors in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel the opposite is true, but people like you get their science and their opinion from papers like the Daily Mail. Good luck to you, but don't expect anyone with a brain to be taken in.



Wait until AR5 is produced and read it cover-to-cover. You won't and you will refer to lies and nonsense written by people like Rose instead.

The same UKMO you accused of using 'tea boys' to run their website? Moron.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:53:46 UTC+1, Stan wrote:
"Lawrence13" wrote in message

...



On Monday, 16 September 2013 17:16:48 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him

and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.



You are the bizarre one saying "the hack had lied". Judith Curry felt David

Rose was totally accurate in the article so are you now saying a bona fide

top respected climate scientist is lying as well?



Judith Curry says

"David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately)."



http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/le...ed-in-the-msm/



In her blog piece at no time does she criticise the Rose article and in fact

says the leaks are a good thing.



So yet once again the Dawlish Dabbler gets it wrong. You always chose what

you feel is the 'winning ' side, for you its all or nothing. Pretty soon you

are going to have to change your tune.



================================================== ==================================

Just been googling both names David Rose is a known Climate sceptic and

although not a sceptic Judith is a known scientistfor downplaying concerns

over global warming see

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894...climate-change



Stan

Yes Stan I know that. But surely that works both ways and in our 21st century of spin and bias , The trick is to get history and that of our human past into perspective and then see what is the greatest danger to us all.

Their coughing fits might catch the eye — but in between tantrums, the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year.

We now know that the CO2 released during volcanic eruptions is almost insignificant compared with what happens after the camera crews get bored. The emissions that really matter are concealed. The silent, silvery plumes which are currently winding their way skyward above the 150 or so active volcanoes on our planet also carry with them the bulk of its carbon dioxide.

We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago:


We've only actually measured 33.


If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community's current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there's no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It's like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet's isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.

http://www.livescience.com/40451-vol...adline+Feed%29

On Thursday, 17 October 2013 12:37:17 UTC+1, Ug tycoon wrote:

..... Hello all buyer from all country .....

---------------- THANKS SO MUCH, LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU SOON

Think nothing of it, you bloody idiot.

Love the name though. Is your surname Li?
Just asking, not really interested but please feel free to keep us informed of your progress.