Re: Snapshots

On Nov 3, 9:24 am, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Nov, 22:13, Dawlish <pjg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

With Arctic Sea ice nearing the lowest ever at this time of year,
Antarctic Sea ice being close to average, global sea ice being way
below average, tropospheric temperatures back to warmer than last year
and global surface temperatures close to the warmest ever for
September, where's Lawrence, or any other sceptic going to get their
next snapshot from?

I know a snow symbol appeared on a couple of people's Davis pros
tonight, but even the most desperate sceptic wouldn't claim that as
evidence of global cooling.......

..........would they? *>))

There's plenty of other evidence surfacing, Dawlish.  MY position
isn't likely to change, particularly as more and more heads are
appearing above parapets with AGW myth-shattering material.  AGW is
manufactured rubbish, and though you will never admit it, you know it
as well as the rest of us.  You must be reading different material,
but then you would, wouldn't you!
And as I have always said, even if warming WERE taking place, none of
us will fry, or drown, just facing being robbed blind and controlled
by blinkered governments - and anyway, a warmer climate is a far
better prospect for life all round than cooling could ever be.  Either
way, alarmism is wrong, and counter productive.  We've never
influenced what the planet does in terms of climate, and never will -
that prerogative is reserved for far more powerful forces than mankind
could ever have the capability (and arrogance) to muster. Despite the
forlorn belief that chucking money at a non-existent "problem" and
depriving people of hard-won comforts and cash will make everything
"better", it wont.

CK

So strange that so many scientists feel like I do - and are far more
who are sure that GW is actually AGW, because I'm not sure - wheras so
few feel that AGW is "manufactured rubbish".

In addition if there is so many "AGW myth-shattering" materials
around, why don't these scientists (and it really is the vast
majority) understand this? They read the same mainstream materials and
peer reviewed papers as I do, I'm sure. Papers which are are also
available to sceptics/denialists like yourself.

Also, why on earth hasn't this "AGW shattering" had any outcomes in
terms of falling global temperatures? In 2008, everything appeared to
be in place to see a significant fall in global temperatures and there
simply wasn't one. It was a "perfect storm" for sceptics and no
lowering of temperatures happened. Why?

Unlike you, MY position certainly *would* change, should global
temperatures show a significant fall over a number of years. As that
isn't happening and hasn't happened, I find your point of view highly
incongrous with the current situation of warmth.

I'd rather trust the science, the scientists and more importantly, the
outcomes. You can believe what you like.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: climate facts anyone?
    ... And could I have a link to the specific predictions, and the actual measured temperatures, so I can see for myself? ... when an AGW skeptic does the same thing. ... So those studies which claimed that the last time the earth had CO2 levels this high the climate was 10 degrees warmer are useless? ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... "This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing ... temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years ... I guess a PhD precludes someone from mistakes or, even worse, dishonesty. ... to the conclusion that AGW is taking place, ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... "This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing ... temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years ... I guess a PhD precludes someone from mistakes or, even worse, dishonesty. ... to the conclusion that AGW is taking place, ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Good news on the weather front
    ... You could half the CO2 and ... The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations are historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high levels. ... This additional factorare so strong they completely dominate and reverse the expected positive correlation of temperature and CO2 levels - extremely low CO2 levels but high temperatures. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Cryo Treated Valves ... ??
    ... will align in a more uniform, compact structure through the removal of ... - I thought the only way molecules could move in solid ... If you wish materials to 'crystallise' then in general you may find it ... isn't clear cooling them to very low temperatures will do what is claimed. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)