Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[Stargeezer]

Global warming may be happening, but not all of it or even that much of it is caused by us.
Do any of you know how much gases, chemicals, particles etc., are released or shot into the atmosphere by a single volcanic eruption. Don't forget about the undersea eruptions as well.
The amount of animals in the world have increased in the modern times, cows, horses, pigs
and other wild critters, which all expel methane and other gasses. agriculture contributes as well.
example, some countries still burn off one crop before planting the next. Oops guess that last one is man caused. Spending tons of money on researching the global warming in order to throw fines on companies around the world because they may be a very small part of the increase is just another money grab from some Government or other body who sees a means of getting easy money from others. I do try to recycle as much of waste as I can and where I live has a recycle bin as well as the general garbage bins. There is an area in the city that has organic bins to recycle things like vegetable waste, coffee grounds, banana skins, and other organics, but not sure how successful that is.
I do regret knowing that a lot of coastal areas will be affected when the ocean levels rise. Even some small island nations will lose a lot of their land masses. That is the hard reality of Global Warming.

[PeteC]

Watch 63 years of climate change in one horrifying GIF

http://news.yahoo.com/watch-63-years-cl ... 00932.html

[MrPlum]

Some members may recall me, last year, being beaten over the head by MrS, with a giant 97% 'consensus' club. i.e. 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused by human activity. Obama played his part in the Great Global Warming Caper by tweeting the same figure. Despite such a high figure in itself being suspect, if you were taking a skeptical position, the obvious conclusion to be drawn was you were deluded. Now, surprise... surprise... it seems that 97% figure might in fact have been only 0.5%.

0.5%

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... nsus-fraud
'...after deconstructing Cook’s data that was publicly available, Shollenberger found that only 65 (yes, 65) of the 12,000+ scientific abstracts Cook and his team of volunteers studied can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming.'

Another article explains how Cook 'cooked the books'... http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... w-debunked

Warning. These claims may be 'tenuous' or 'non-existent'.

[sand_dancer]

Mods....

As a mark of respect...... For a sadly departed forum member and contributor to this thread.....

Would you please lock Global Warming 2......

I am sure that the Global Warming warriors are more than capable of starting a Global Warming 3 thread.....

Thank you.......

[MrPlum]

Brilliant. Honour his memory by removing his thoughts from public view. Are you going to request this for every topic he posted to?

You knew him for far less than many members of this forum and now you set yourself up as the defender of his legacy. Why not pay your respects privately instead of using the forum to work out your stupid animosity. What's next? 'MrP killed sarge.'

Idiot.

[sand_dancer]

Bawbag.....

Who mentioned you.....

Got a guilty conscience......?

You are now an accident waiting to happen......

[JD]

Taking my moderator hat off for this one.

All a bit cowardly done if you ask me. Especially as the man is not around to defend his comments that you now ridicule.

Bad taste indeed.

You set 'yourself' up very well Mr P. What next, another complaint to the Mods that members are calling you names again. Or should I say WHEN the membership start calling you names again.

[MrPlum]

MrS is SANDMAN!!!

[MrPlum]

Off-topic but I would just like to answer JD and deal with some misunderstanding...

What next, another complaint to the Mods that members are calling you names again. Or should I say WHEN the membership start calling you names again.

Not at all. I wouldn't wish to take away the obvious pleasure some members get from hurling abuse. It beats debating the subject matter. But when a member brings in my ex-wife, that crosses a line. Don't you think? If I complained every time I was called names, I would have complained thousands of times. In 6 years of being mauled and outnumbered, it has only been a relative few.

sand-dancer appears to have misunderstood, although I don't know why he would since I have never called sarge 'MrS'. In light of that, I apologize for my sharp response to him. And before this particular issue gets raised again, as it surely will, I would like to make it clear I was very saddened by sarge's death. Yes, it is the reason I took a break from the forum. Not out of 'guilt' as some uncharitable member stated but because participation in the forum seemed trivial in light of his passing.

Sarge ploughed his own furrow and he obviously gained pleasure from mixing it up. 5 years of him dogging my every post demonstrated that. Whether I engaged with him or not, he could not resist doing battle. Despite this, I always said I bore no malice towards him and often warned him his battles were stressful and not good for someone with a heart condition. Margaret I believe also said the same. That he still chose to engage, was his decision.

He was a larger than life character and I know missed by some members. I would ask any member who is considering using sarge's passing as ammunition in any future argument to really show respect to his memory and resist the temptation. Let his posts stand, especially on this topic, where he had so much to say and we were largely in agreement.

[caller]

Some members may recall me, last year, being beaten over the head by MrS

If you mean Sandman, then say so. It's pretty dumb to use the term, in view of your tete-a-tete you had with Sarge, without thinking of the consequences.

Especially as Sandman hasn't really involved himself with this thread for about 18 months, apart from one post in December last year.

[charlesh]

Strange how any one who has an opposing opinion is castigated.
I read an article this week which indicated that a female tv presenter (slender/blond/yank) berated anyone who disagreed with "climate change" being due to human involvement while on air. I suppose that's one way of winning an argument but is typical of a great many who are unable to debate issues logically and almost impossible for attractive blond women who invariably end up on tv and become self professed arbiters of quasi scientific knowledge.
Then I watched a program that suggested that the earth was a snow ball 650 million years ago and that was followed by large volcanic activity that produced CO2 et al which then initiated the start of life albeit slowly with the breakdown of H2O2 around 630 million years ago. Strange that O2 levels were apparently much the same then as they are today but yes CO2 levels have risen and O3 has subsequently <'d.
Now if we could only plug those volcanoes !

[MrPlum]

If you mean Sandman, then say so. It's pretty dumb to use the term, in view of your tete-a-tete you had with Sarge, without thinking of the consequences.

Are you back again? I expect it of malcontents and those who use verbal violence in place of reasoned argument but you should know better. What is dumb is assuming I was referring to someone else and calling for moderator intervention without checking first.

How far are you guys going to push it, to work out your moronic animus? Give it a break.

Strange how any one who has an opposing opinion is castigated.

I think it's because a typical expat membership is largely made up of retirees who are too old to change and who have been inculcated all their lives, to the extent that it is THEY who are closed. Some respond with maximum venom to defend their beliefs, rather than have their mental house of cards come crashing down. When has it been any different?

I look forward to just one of them conceding that the 97% 'consensus' that was so widely used by politicians and the media, was bogus. Or is this another 'tenuous' or 'non-existent' invention?

They can't.

[Grim Reaper]

MrPlum you seem intent on antagonising other members on this forum. Every response you make has just enough bait in it to induce yet another member response.

Control the nature of your posts, before we are left with no option to control them for you.

[STEVE G]

Last month was the 350th consecutive month above the 20th century average temperature.The last time an April was below that average was in the mid seventies.

[MrPlum]

Control the nature of your posts, before we are left with no option to control them for you.

Certainly but please clarify. Are you talking about expressing different viewpoints or the bunfights that tend to follow them? If the latter I will certainly keep my powder dry but if you mean refrain from posting opinions that SOME members don't like, then will your warning also apply to those who hold the same views? Is it the style or the substance?