Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Conspiracy Theories Fuel Climate Change Denial

5
3
On 10 Sep 2013 at 8:54pm N.W.O. wrote:
Conspiracy Theories Fuel Climate Change Denial and Chemtrail Beliefs.

Check it out here »
5
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 1:44am Queequec wrote:
There has been no global warming for 15 years.Global warming is just a con.
Who is paying you to post all this global warming anti fracking garbage on here Eh?
1
3
On 11 Sep 2013 at 11:14am Copy & Paste wrote:
Oops, more trouble for the global warming band wagon (dare I say conspiracists?)!
Oh, hang on, that's right, global cooling statistics don't count in arguments over global warming. Only statistics supporting global warming is allowed as proof in discussions.
PS - I'm not a denier, I recycle, fairly green and low polluting lifestyle, I recycle and walk when possible and I do think global pollution is causing problems (I think we all agree with that?), I want everyone to look at both sides of the statistics and not be blinkered, but that wont happen and I'll get flamed for daring to show another side that MAY mean there is no global warming.

Check it out here »
3
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 1:23pm Warming World. wrote:
The Daily Express?Now you really are grasping at straws.
Umm...whose right about the climate, NASA or the Daily Express?
Ummm.......that's a tough one.
1
3
On 11 Sep 2013 at 2:38pm Copy & Paste wrote:
I linked to the Daily Exprss because it uses shorter words, but thanks for proving my point that some people will not even listen to the other side. Go on, google it yourself and you'll find the same report from adult newspapers and scientific bodies too.
By the way, NASA have just decided that CO2 REDUCES global temperatures. Have you factored that into your opinion?
""Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2
According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.
"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."
2
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 2:59pm Warming World wrote:
Like most climate change denying scientifically illiterate numpties you don`t do your research properly.
Read and learn.You can read can`t you?

Check it out here »
 
3
On 11 Sep 2013 at 3:15pm Copy & Paste wrote:
I can read (that's how I knew you had not taken in my first post, by reading your reply, but I guess seeing another side of the story and putting all the facts together is a little bit difficult to grasp).
I am not a "climate change denying scientifically illiterate numpties" - which I said in my first post (If you can be bothered to read, but then again, as I assumed (and have been proved to be correct) people like you only read what they want).
Even your beloved NASA's data agrees that more than a million square miles of Arctic seas have frozen in the past year. This is new data and not been commented on by the likes of Whats Up With That (has it?)
And as you you asked earlier (names changed) - whose right about the climate, NASA or the Whats Up With That (that even claim themselves to be "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change", so possible not totally unpartial).
3
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 3:26pm Warming World. wrote:
You really are a total fool aren`t you.
Go away and do something useful with your life.
Maybe you could do a science G.C.S.E. or something, if you are capable ,which I doubt.
 
1
On 11 Sep 2013 at 3:42pm Copy & Paste wrote:
Hang on, now you argue your point of view so well, with reference to expert opinion and facts, I'm sorry, you must be right and obviously myself, together with experts and scientificllay proved data, are wrong. Sorry, I won't try to correct anyone ever again or dare to share data or my opinion. I'll just work on my tan with this warming world of ours (which, as I said, I accept climate change, but you may not havfe read that with your blinkers on).
1
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 3:44pm C.R.Sunstein wrote:
Why people donít fear climate change enough.

Check it out here »
1
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 4:36pm F.O.E. wrote:
This country already has wold class man made global warming denying idiot in the form of James Dellingpole.We don't need another one" Copy and paste".

 
3
On 11 Sep 2013 at 7:25pm Wake up wrote:
zzzzz...
3
 
On 11 Sep 2013 at 7:37pm zzzzz wrote:
Wake up.
1
 
On 12 Sep 2013 at 5:16pm Knoxon Cutts wrote:
You can't talk to the climate jihadists C&P you are an infidel and must die.I thought the link was amazing,was it a satire?The photo with chem trails all over the sky and he says they don't exist!
 
 
On 13 Sep 2013 at 1:23am Warming World. wrote:
They were not chem trails K.C.They were aircraft exhaust.
You speak a lot of sense on other things K.C. and but you really do have a blind spot about man made global warming.It`s bleedin`obvious mate were cooking the flamin` climate.
1
1
On 13 Sep 2013 at 4:36am clever clogs wrote:
They're not even aircraft exhaust, they're vapour trails seeded by the plane's engine exhaust and/or wing tips.
1
1
On 13 Sep 2013 at 1:55pm Wha? wrote:
That means they`re basicaly er` exhaust right.That were the vapour comes from the engine`s `er exhaust right?
 
2
On 13 Sep 2013 at 2:16pm Knoxon Cutts wrote:
I've seen vapour trails in the sky for sixty years and I can still see them,'though not quite so well! They always disappear quite quickly but certain ones do not, like the ones in the linked photo.Up until about 10 years ago no such things were seen in the sky,at least not by me.Due to the lack of any official explanation I can only assume they are part of a geoengineering project
1
 
On 13 Sep 2013 at 5:16pm Huh? wrote:
Geo engineering by Ryanair?Yes that makes a lot of sense KC. Have you forgotten to take your pills again?
1
1
On 13 Sep 2013 at 5:20pm Slarty wrote:
Wha? Nothing to do with the engine, just compression of air flowing over and around aircraft. Good picture to demonstrate here

Check it out here »
2
 
On 13 Sep 2013 at 6:00pm Eh? wrote:
The trails we see in sky that persist for some time behind jet aircraft are
condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapor-pressure air ,No?


16 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

The Ouse upstream 120:132
The Ouse upstream

You forgot to mention that the earth is flat, Tom more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone
Nancy