On Sat 18 Jan at 6:21pm speedbird wrote:
Do you think you a really helping your cause leaving all your rubbish around AGAIN...
On Sat 18 Jan at 6:25pm speedbird wrote:
..
On Sat 18 Jan at 6:38pm Sleeveless wrote:
Which one?
On Sun 19 Jan at 5:31pm Local99 wrote:
So, let's all guess how long that lot have been concerned about our 'last chance'.
A year? Maybe a bit longer. I'll say 16 months.
On Sun 19 Jan at 7:02pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Local99 - relax and chill then if their message isn't getting through to you. I'm sure if you were to take a cursory glance at the loss of ice in Antarctica since 1980 would cause you absolutely no concern either, so....as you were.
On Sun 19 Jan at 9:38pm Tom Pain wrote:
Again I can only agree with greenie, before 1980 there was so much ice in the arctic that climatologists were predicting an ice age. Climate change is cyclical. Newspapers love crises ,they sell papers. Look at the fuss they're making over the Australian bush fires. In1974 eleven times as much was burned, if they told you that it wouldn't be nearly so exciting.
On Mon 20 Jan at 10:45am SHS wrote:
Urgenda seem to be having a much bigger impact than ER, without the disruption to the working population. One to watch.
On Mon 20 Jan at 11:58am The Old Mayor wrote:
Australia has species of trees that can only reproduce by being set alight, that must tell you something. No room for nature anymore !! Which tells you a lot about us !!
On Mon 20 Jan at 12:54pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Don't bother, Tom Pain, with your false equivalence. There was never a scientific consensus on "global cooling" which gets you climate deniers all giddy with excitement. No matter how many times you repeat debunked claims and conspiracy theories. It does your credibility no favours.
On Mon 20 Jan at 7:37pm Tom pain wrote:
It's wonderful,to see the sultan of snide back in form again. Just stick to the ad hominems and insinuations, let's face it~ when you have no facts to offer what else can you do? Checking the raw data might leave you with a red face.
On Wed 22 Jan at 5:12pm Nevillman wrote:
Your posts are considerably more snide than green sleeves Tom. There are many more 'facts' supporting a belief that the climate is warming due to human action than your beliefs. I'm not sure if you believe that the climate is not warming or that it is but not because of human activity. I'm not sure if you know what you believe either and certain you have no facts to support either view.
On Fri 24 Jan at 9:23pm Tom pain wrote:
I suggest that you look up the meaning of snide Nev. I think I'm quite openly abusive, there's nothing hidden or sly about it. If you were to read my comment, could you tell me what conspiracy theory or debunked claim I'm propagating or what false equivalence I'm making? If I'm wrong about the amount of sea ice in the seventies, or the bush fires of 75, please tell me. Are they facts ? If they are, what conclusions would you draw from them?
On Sat 25 Jan at 9:09pm Tom pain wrote:
If you weren't so busy yawning you might have read my post which was not about predicting climate trends. I asked two specific questions and I can't think why you don't answer them. Or can I??
On Sun 26 Jan at 11:10am Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom, you haven't read the link, clearly.
If you're referring to your previous remarks about there being an increase in a short time period during the 70s of sea ice, and there being significant bush-fires in 1975, then nobody is denying these events of extreme weather occurred - you sound almost like Donald Trump in your grasp of this subject. The fact the frequency of extreme weather events are increasing and intensifying only further back up the argument for man-made climate change. The previous link explains all of this as well. Just read it and stop peddling outdated conjecture - its boring, and you're clearly not learning anything.
On Sun 26 Jan at 8:25pm Tom pain wrote:
For your pleasure, I offer statistics from Wikipedia ~ the top ten deadliest hurricanes in the Atlantic ~1 in 1790 when 22,000 were killed 2 in1998, I'll leave out the fatalities, you'll see them when you check it.3~1974, 4~1900, 5~1963, 6~1776, 7~1928, 8~1775, 9~1909, 10~1930. It may interest you to note that nine of them happened when CO2 levels were below 350 ppm.
On Mon 27 Jan at 12:48pm Nevillman wrote:
I'm not sure that any of your statistics negate the overwhelming body of evidence that the earth is currently warming due to human activity Tom. Everyone accepts that climate changes over time for a number of reasons and that freak weather events have always happened. What evidence have you got that the current predictions are wrong? Incidentally it's actually more relevant to rank hurricanes by wind speed and atmospheric pressure Tom. For all sorts of reasons we are better at preventing deaths from hurricanes in recent times so ranking the deadliest hurricanes is irrelevant. Looking at the list of strongest hurricanes is slightly more useful although how accurate assessments of hurricanes before weather recording became as accurate as it is now is questionable.
I know you see yourself as the maverick able to make his own mind up on the issues of the day rather than following the crowd and that is up to you Tom but I think you would spend your time more wisely if you looked into the evidence put forward for human activity causing global warming rather than grasping at the views of the odd internet crackpot.
I do know what snide means Tom and will make my own mind up on whether you are more snide than green sleeves.
On Mon 27 Jan at 5:49pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Speaking on hurricane Florence. 'One of the wettest we've ever seen, from the standpoint of water' - Donald Trump, 2018.
Another old, attention-seeking bloke who thinks he understands science and climate change.
On Mon 27 Jan at 6:02pm Tom pain wrote:
I'm a bit long in the tooth for romantic self images Nev, so your endless stream of ad hominems are wasted on me. I'm sorry the wiki data wasn't good enough to satisfy you but I'm sure you could find the wind speeds of American hurricanes if you check their meteorological records. Perhaps this will reassure you of my sanity~U.S.Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend _ NYTimes.com On January 26 1989 the New York Times reported on a study by scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration~"no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over the last hundred years."
On Mon 27 Jan at 6:57pm Nevillman wrote:
The evidence we are referring to is much more recent than 1895 or even 1989 Tom. It's hard not to make the odd slightly personal attack on you Tom but the overwhelming number of points made that you refuse to address are concerning data, not the 'ad hominems' you think you see. If you look up the largest hurricanes by wind speed, radius and atmospheric pressure they are almost all very recent. Hurricanes are only one of the factors used as evidence for global warming in any case. Why don't you address the issues or provide some proper evidence to support your viewpoint which I am still unclear on.
On Tue 28 Jan at 10:24pm Tom pain wrote:
If the original evidence of NOAA isn't enough for you I don't know what could be. If the last thirty years have been getting hotter, a look at the 1930s records will show you that it's nothing unprecedented. Political expediency has motivated a certain amount of tampering with records in recent years. Remember,97% of climate scientists who don't want to lose their jobs agree with a.g.w. The thing that have rise to my viewpoint was billionaire,oil baron Al Gore setting up his CO2 credit exchange and coining billions more$$$. Somehow I smelled a rat. Something else recently confirmed my feeling... Climate alarmist extraordinaire Obama has just bought a multi million BEACH FRONT property!!! Rising sea levels don't seem to bother him, I wonder what he knows?
On Wed 29 Jan at 12:22pm Nevillman wrote:
So your evidence for saying that human activity is not causing global climate change is as follows Tom.
NOAA evidence from 31 years ago. If you look at their website now it says among other things that 9 of the ten warmest years on record have happened since 2005 with last year very long the 43rd consecutive year of above average temperatures.
Politicians are falsifying climate records.
97% of scientists are involved in a conspiracy to pretend there is global warming.
Al gore has made money out of global warming.
Obama has a beach side residence.
That is it Tom. Afraid it's not quite persuasive for me but keep trying if you wish. I might or might not decide to bother trying to understand your posts and then examine the evidence.
On Thu 30 Jan at 8:22am Tom pain wrote:
No wonder you think I'm daft Nev, that's not what I said. Some of the words are there but most are missing along with any sense or meaning they might have conveyed. Maybe you have a faulty internet connection and only an intermittent signal is getting through.
On Thu 30 Jan at 8:42am Nevillman wrote:
It appears to me exactly what you said. How about instead of speculating on my internet connection you try again to tell me what you are trying to say. It might help to go through your points one by one.