[pave]

Not sure if this link has been posted,had a quick look on the threads,delete if already used..


http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warm...rticle6544.htm

[njp]

I don't think we've had that particular link, but we've certainly dealt with the subject area in relation to alleged Martian warming.

Denialists desperately want anthropogenic CO2 emissions not to be the cause of global warming, and will seize on any scrap of information they think supports that position. But I'm afraid claims for increased solar activity or cosmic radiation as the root cause evaporate when you look into them more closely.

[Steve.J.Davies]

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...ndex.php#notes
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...3_07/index.php

[chriszzzzzz]

Originally Posted by njp

I don't think we've had that particular link, but we've certainly dealt with the subject area in relation to alleged Martian warming.

Denialists desperately want anthropogenic CO2 emissions not to be the cause of global warming, and will seize on any scrap of information they think supports that position. But I'm afraid claims for increased solar activity or cosmic radiation as the root cause evaporate when you look into them more closely.

[njp]

Originally Posted by chriszzzzzz

Sorry, I'm not familiar with your terminology - was that a defence of increased solar activity as a cause of global warming, or of cosmoclimatology, or perhaps both?

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

Denialists desperately want anthropogenic CO2 emissions not to be the cause of global warming, and will seize on any scrap of information they think supports that position.

Definition of a 'denialist': people who deny that our climate changes, and when it does, blame humans for doing it; people who deny good evidence to support an alternative hypothesis; people who speculate on the spinoffs from their acceptance of dodgy theories and maintain we are doomed; those that ridicule valid objections to their accepted beliefs.

Of course once the greens latch on to a phenomenon that supports their agenda there's no let up. They always shoot themselves in the foot when the only credible alternative to 'dirty' power generators is shown to be nuclear and yet they dismiss this out of hand. Similarly they ranted for alternatives to fossil-based fuels - so called biofuels - then pull their hair out when developing countries want to tear down their rain forests in order to replace them with oil palms to meet the demand! I could go on giving other examples of how the greens shoot down credible alternatives to the very policies they object to, the ulimate in hypocracy. But i think most sensible people have cottoned on to their stupidity by now.

[njp]

Your ranting seems rather unfocussed, Blearyeyes...

I do not know who these "greens" are that vex you so much, nor do I see how their alleged beliefs have any bearing on the increasingly solid science that explains recent climate change. Nobody who understands that science makes the claim that climate is not subject to natural cycles. Indeed, it is our understanding of natural cycles that allows us to determine that the present warming is acyclic.

I do not know where this "good evidence" in support of an alternative hypothesis (cosmoclimatology? increased solar activity? malevolent fire-breathing space pixies?) can be found. I certainly haven't seen any.

I do not know what these "valid objections" are to the mainstream position, that are so cruelly ridiculed. Did you perhaps have in mind Chriszzzzzz's erudite response to my earlier post?

In fact, I don't recognise any of your opponents, who seem to be constructed entirely out of straw!

[blearyeyes]

I see you don't defend the anti-nuclear power stance nor the biofuel debacle created by the 'climate chaos' farce. Nor the charge that the greens, once they get behind any issue - GMOs, DDT ban, anti-nuclear, conservation - make a complete ars* of it.

[njp]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

I see you don't defend the anti-nuclear power stance nor the biofuel debacle created by the 'climate chaos' farce.

Once again, I do not recognise this "climate chaos" farce of which you speak. The pros and cons of nuclear power and biofuel have no bearing on the reality of anthropogenic global warming. They do have some bearing on mitigation strategies, and I have already made my views on nuclear power known in this forum. In case you weren't paying attention, I'm reluctantly in favour of expanding our use of nuclear fission, and very much in favour of continued research into nuclear fusion. I'm sceptical about biofuels, but open to persuasion.

Nor the charge that the greens, once they get behind any issue - GMOs, DDT ban, anti-nuclear, conservation - make a complete ars* of it.

All of which (even if it were true) is entirely irrelevant...

[chriszzzzzz]

Originally Posted by njp

Sorry, I'm not familiar with your terminology - was that a defence of increased solar activity as a cause of global warming, or of cosmoclimatology, or perhaps both?

I think you will find it closely (restricted by choice of emoticons) reflects my emotions on reading yet another of your meaningless posts. The only positive is that the last emotion means you at least give me a good laugh on an almost daily basis....Thankyou. Look you did it again!

[njp]

Sounds like pathological laughter. Quite worrying.

[pave]

Found out what I wanted to know......please could a mod close the thread....cheers...

[Zone]

With pleasure.

I really dont know why certain individuals continue to make every thread a personal slanging match, gets very boring!