GLOBAL WARMING

[Happy Face 29]

The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us.

 

 

What type of argument is that?

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on.

 

Typical smokers opinion like.

 

We'll die eventually, might as well enjoy ourselves even if it speeds up the process.

[donaldstott 0]

The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us.

 

 

What type of argument is that?

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on.

 

No climate scientist is denying that natural cooling and heating happens. It is the rate that current trends are happening that is concerning.

 

“Climate change is here, in our country; it is an issue for our generation as well as future generations; and those who deny it are the flat earthers of the 21st century.” David Miliband..

[Park Life 71]

The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us.

 

 

What type of argument is that?

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on.

 

Typical smokers opinion like.

 

We'll die eventually, might as well enjoy ourselves even if it speeds up the process.

 

Speed up the process?!! What utter rubbish.

 

Get back to me when we have the skills to control sunspot activity.

[Park Life 71]

The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us.

 

 

What type of argument is that?

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on.

 

No climate scientist is denying that natural cooling and heating happens. It is the rate that current trends are happening that is concerning.

 

“Climate change is here, in our country; it is an issue for our generation as well as future generations; and those who deny it are the flat earthers of the 21st century.” David Miliband..

 

David who? Yeah cause a career politician must know about global warming....Does he have next weeks lotto as well?

[Park Life 71]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oc...2-million-homes

 

These kinds of things we should do anyway.

[Park Life 71]

I was very enthusiastic about the prospects of wind turbines and other forms of alternative energy to save the environment, until I wasn’t. This was my experience, as I write in a recent report, “Wind Turbines Disrupt the Flow of Prana”:

 

“…One weekend in October 2008, I stopped my car in upstate New York, about 40 miles north of Syracuse in the Tug hill area, to take a photograph of some windmills. The second I stepped out of my car, I got a severe headache that felt as if my head was being squeezed in a vise. I took out my dowsing rods to determine what was creating the severe pain in my head. Within a few minutes I realized that the flow of prana was being disrupted by the large blades of the many wind turbines around me.”

 

I visited several wind farms to determine the effect upon the environment. I found that wind turbines disrupt the flow of the life force, what acupuncturists and feng shui practitioners call chi, or qi, and what Hindu Vedanta calls prana.

 

“…Earth prana is released from ducts on the surface of the earth and is drawn to an earth chakra a few hundred meters away. Like a human chakra the vortex of the earth chakra draws the prana in and recycles it through the earth before it is sent back into the air. Prana moves in a fairly straight line in the ether around us. Material objects and other factors can alter or even disrupt its flow.”

[donaldstott 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oc...2-million-homes

 

These kinds of things we should do anyway.

 

I agree, it's mental the amount we stick in the ground.

 

I remember watching a programme about the incinerator in Vienna...

 

[Renton 22003]

I was very enthusiastic about the prospects of wind turbines and other forms of alternative energy to save the environment, until I wasn’t. This was my experience, as I write in a recent report, “Wind Turbines Disrupt the Flow of Prana”:

 

“…One weekend in October 2008, I stopped my car in upstate New York, about 40 miles north of Syracuse in the Tug hill area, to take a photograph of some windmills. The second I stepped out of my car, I got a severe headache that felt as if my head was being squeezed in a vise. I took out my dowsing rods to determine what was creating the severe pain in my head. Within a few minutes I realized that the flow of prana was being disrupted by the large blades of the many wind turbines around me.”

 

I visited several wind farms to determine the effect upon the environment. I found that wind turbines disrupt the flow of the life force, what acupuncturists and feng shui practitioners call chi, or qi, and what Hindu Vedanta calls prana.

 

“…Earth prana is released from ducts on the surface of the earth and is drawn to an earth chakra a few hundred meters away. Like a human chakra the vortex of the earth chakra draws the prana in and recycles it through the earth before it is sent back into the air. Prana moves in a fairly straight line in the ether around us. Material objects and other factors can alter or even disrupt its flow.”

 

Vise.

 

What lunatic wrote that? They want sectioned.

[Happy Face 29]

The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us.

 

 

What type of argument is that?

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on.

 

Typical smokers opinion like.

 

We'll die eventually, might as well enjoy ourselves even if it speeds up the process.

 

Speed up the process?!! What utter rubbish.

 

Get back to me when we have the skills to control sunspot activity.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report states that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the effect due to greenhouse gases.

[Park Life 71]

I was very enthusiastic about the prospects of wind turbines and other forms of alternative energy to save the environment, until I wasn’t. This was my experience, as I write in a recent report, “Wind Turbines Disrupt the Flow of Prana”:

 

“…One weekend in October 2008, I stopped my car in upstate New York, about 40 miles north of Syracuse in the Tug hill area, to take a photograph of some windmills. The second I stepped out of my car, I got a severe headache that felt as if my head was being squeezed in a vise. I took out my dowsing rods to determine what was creating the severe pain in my head. Within a few minutes I realized that the flow of prana was being disrupted by the large blades of the many wind turbines around me.”

 

I visited several wind farms to determine the effect upon the environment. I found that wind turbines disrupt the flow of the life force, what acupuncturists and feng shui practitioners call chi, or qi, and what Hindu Vedanta calls prana.

 

“…Earth prana is released from ducts on the surface of the earth and is drawn to an earth chakra a few hundred meters away. Like a human chakra the vortex of the earth chakra draws the prana in and recycles it through the earth before it is sent back into the air. Prana moves in a fairly straight line in the ether around us. Material objects and other factors can alter or even disrupt its flow.”

 

Vise.

 

What lunatic wrote that? They want sectioned.

 

http://soulofthecities.net/2009/04/wind-turbines/

[Park Life 71]

The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us.

 

 

What type of argument is that?

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on.

 

Typical smokers opinion like.

 

We'll die eventually, might as well enjoy ourselves even if it speeds up the process.

 

Speed up the process?!! What utter rubbish.

 

Get back to me when we have the skills to control sunspot activity.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report states that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the effect due to greenhouse gases.

 

Not all bad then.

[Park Life 71]

f you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

 

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

 

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

 

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

 

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

 

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

 

Manipulation of evidence:

 

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

 

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

 

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

 

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

 

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

 

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

 

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

 

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

 

Next

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat

the crap out of him. Very tempted.

 

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

 

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

 

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

 

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

 

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

 

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

 

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

 

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

 

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

 

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

Funny how the only science the deniers can produce to back up their argument is that the planet warms and cools naturally. As if ANYONE denies that.

 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007

 

Changes in the atmosphere

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived greenhouse gases.

 

"Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values."

*The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).

*The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb).

*The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution.

*The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use. How much each contributes is not well determined.

*Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.

 

Warming of the planet

Cold days, cold nights, and frost events have become less frequent. Hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent. Additionally:

 

*Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850, towards the end of the Little Ice Age).

*Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature. This is up from the 0.6 °C increase in the 100 years prior to the Third Assessment Report.

*Urban heat island effects were determined to have negligible influence (less than 0.0006 °C per decade over land and zero over oceans) on these measurements.

*Observations since 1961 show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, and that ocean temperatures have increased to depths of at least 3000 m (9800 ft).

*"Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years."

*It is likely that greenhouse gases would have caused more warming than we have observed if not for the cooling effects of volcanic and human-caused aerosols. See global dimming.

*Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years (a time near the beginning of the Little Ice Age).

 

Ice, snow, permafrost, rain, and the oceans

The SPM documents increases in wind intensity, decline of permafrost coverage, and increases of both drought and heavy precipitation events. Additionally:

 

*"Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres."

*Losses from the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely (>90%) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.

*Ocean warming causes seawater to expand, which contributes to sea level rising.

*Sea level rose at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/year during the years 1961-2003. The rise in sea level during 1993-2003 was at an average rate of 3.1 mm/year. It is not clear whether this is a long-term trend or just variability.

*Antarctic sea ice shows no significant overall trend, consistent with a lack of warming in that region.

 

Hurricanes

*There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.

*The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.

*There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes.

*Other regions appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity as well, but there are concerns about the quality of data in these other regions.

*It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.

*It is likely (>66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the 21st century.

 

http://unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Def...D=5506&l=en

Edited November 23, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

It will probably turn out like butter that Co2 was after all good for the planet....{Plants love it anyway.

[DannyBoyFromOz 0]

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

 

Blokes a nutter, ultra conservative journalist over here who basically argues against or slags anything with an idea that might be even slightly left of center, doesn't matter if its a domestic or international issue. He's been on about climate change being bollocks before but everyone basically ignored him, so its not surprising to see him come out with this shite.

[Park Life 71]

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

 

Blokes a nutter, ultra conservative journalist over here who basically argues against or slags anything with an idea that might be even slightly left of center, doesn't matter if its a domestic or international issue. He's been on about climate change being bollocks before but everyone basically ignored him, so its not surprising to see him come out with this shite.

 

So manipulating data is shite?

[Happy Face 29]

Exxon Mobile alone gave $23million to climate change deniers who organize wholescale media blitz operations to suppress the reality of climate change.

 

I hardly think it's news that the people trying to combat that without any PR budget discuss how to best present their findings.

 

....or that it seems to have been a far bigger story than the $23million investment in denial.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

 

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

[Park Life 71]

Exxon Mobile alone gave $23million to climate change deniers who organize wholescale media blitz operations to suppress the reality of climate change.

 

I hardly think it's news that the people trying to combat that without any PR budget discuss how to best present their findings.

 

....or that it seems to have been a far bigger story than the $23million investment in denial.

 

Well, don't really understand why you think energy companies should sit around and accept a theory that is clearly bollocks and one that puts at risk their business.

[Happy Face 29]

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

 

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=694395

[Happy Face 29]

Exxon Mobile alone gave $23million to climate change deniers who organize wholescale media blitz operations to suppress the reality of climate change.

 

I hardly think it's news that the people trying to combat that without any PR budget discuss how to best present their findings.

 

....or that it seems to have been a far bigger story than the $23million investment in denial.

 

Well, don't really understand why you think energy companies should sit around and accept a theory that is clearly bollocks and one that puts at risk their business.

 

But Exxon now accept the 'theory' is true...

 

The ExxonMobil report says: "In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

 

Although....

 

ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."

 

Profit before principle.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...nge.fossilfuels

[Renton 22003]

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

 

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

 

I'm pretty sure that last paragraph is an outright lie that climate change deniers love to spout.

 

As for the NW passage, isn't the change that it will now be open even in winter?

 

At the end of the day, none of us on this board has a clue about climatology so it's all a matter of who you choose to believe. Do you believe the vast majority of climatologist scientists (many of whom are independent), or do you choose to believe the small minority of scientists (usually oil company sponsored), Jeremy Clarkson, and various internet nut jobs? I know who I have faith in.

[Happy Face 29]

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

 

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

 

I'm pretty sure that last paragraph is an outright lie that climate change deniers love to spout.

 

A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

 

It's a shame it works and they've managed to place climate change science on the same level as 'research' presented in the tabloids about boffins scientifically proving how to pour the perfect pint or evidence of the perfect pair of tits.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

 

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

 

I'm pretty sure that last paragraph is an outright lie that climate change deniers love to spout.

 

As for the NW passage, isn't the change that it will now be open even in winter?

 

At the end of the day, none of us on this board has a clue about climatology so it's all a matter of who you choose to believe. Do you believe the vast majority of climatologist scientists (many of whom are independent), or do you choose to believe the small minority of scientists (usually oil company sponsored), Jeremy Clarkson, and various internet nut jobs? I know who I have faith in.

 

I don't think there is any such thing as an independant scientist.

 

It is a given now after a decade of revelations about data manipulations, that the AGW brigade are bancrupt.

 

IMO the biggest danger to us is over population and it might be money better spend looking into this.

[Renton 22003]

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

 

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

 

I'm pretty sure that last paragraph is an outright lie that climate change deniers love to spout.

 

As for the NW passage, isn't the change that it will now be open even in winter?

 

At the end of the day, none of us on this board has a clue about climatology so it's all a matter of who you choose to believe. Do you believe the vast majority of climatologist scientists (many of whom are independent), or do you choose to believe the small minority of scientists (usually oil company sponsored), Jeremy Clarkson, and various internet nut jobs? I know who I have faith in.

 

I don't think there is any such thing as an independant scientist.

 

It is a given now after a decade of revelations about data manipulations, that the AGW brigade are bancrupt.

 

IMO the biggest danger to us is over population and it might be money better spend looking into this.

 

You're not a scientist and have never worked with scientists, so I'll take your view with a pinch of salt. Needless to say I strongly disagree (I consider myself independent).

 

Overpopulation is a huge problem but is due to political, economical, and religious reasons. Good luck on solving that problem with money.