shows warming will be low even after doubling CO2:
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming ? The Register
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming ? The Register
-
I'm alright Jack -
Great shivering hockeysticks!!!!
“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain” -
In other Climate news.....
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire - Telegraph
Kerrrrrrrrrchiiiiiinggggggggggggg!Comment
-
I must admit to being slightly disappointed with myself for not spotting this scam earlier and booking myself a seat on one of the greatest gravy trains in history.Originally posted by DimPrawn View PostYou won't be alerting anyone to anything with a mouthful of mixed seeds.Comment
-
shocking isn't it that the world having been around for the past 2 billion odd years is actually capable of coping with relatively small changes in various parameters.
and to think the humans thought they were soooooo clever...
Oooh look apparently this is old news...Comment
-
Meanwhile there was a bloke on One Planet on the Word Serviee the other day saying how the results of the NASA 10-year analysis of temperature / CO2 / cloud cover show that CO2 has no effect on temperature because the increased cloud cover completely negates it.
Believe what you want. It's all just a heap of wank™.My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
-
It's an interesting development, but there's one small problem....
There are hundreds of variables affecting our climate, always have been , always will be.
Why oh why did the greens pick on CO2 ? I dont know why. But as the evidence on C02 comes in, it will make those greens and their claims look foolish.
We need a lot more focus on the other variables, forget CO2
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
CO2 is one thing that really is rising hockey stick style though isn't it? Doomed.Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostIt's an interesting development, but there's one small problem....
There are hundreds of variables affecting our climate, always have been , always will be.
Why oh why did the greens pick on CO2 ? I dont know why. But as the evidence on C02 comes in, it will make those greens and their claims look foolish.
We need a lot more focus on the other variables, forget CO2
Comment
-
Because that's how chlorophyll works, silly!Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostMy all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
-
Due Diligence
Per-leeze. Always amusing when the 'sceptics' fail to show even basic scepticism. Take some comfort, your chances of becoming a 'carbon billionaire' are about the same as Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore's [who donates all profits from his prizes, books and movies to an educational charity, actually]. The Telegraph headline is based on this ....I must admit to being slightly disappointed with myself for not spotting this scam earlier and booking myself a seat on one of the greatest gravy trains in history.
Yeah - and Barack Obama's trip to India cost $200 million a day.Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire,"
Look - when a media outlet bases a headline on pure hearsay (polite word) is it not time to engage some of that much-vaunted 'scepticism'?
Here are two reasons to doubt the Telegraph group's ability to convey the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the business interests of major climate change players.
1. On December 20th, the Sunday Telegraph carried a long and prominent feature "Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri." It's since been pulled.
The subtitle alleged that Pachauri has been “making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies”. The article maintained that the money made by Pachauri while working for other organisations “must run into millions of dollars”.
It described his outside interests as “highly lucrative commercial jobs”. It proposed that these payments caused a “conflict of interest” with his IPCC role. It also complained that we don’t know “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC.
Sadly none of it was true, natch and after a protracted complaints process involving libel lawyers and an audit of Pachauri's financial interests the Telegraph published an apology and retraction.
2. On 12th December the Telegraph published a story claiming that the closure of a steelworks in Redcar by the Tata group was motivated by a prospective £1.2 billion profit from carbon credits
Balony again. Here's the apology
Scepticism is a wonderful thing. Uncritically parrotting a headline is the opposite.My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
Comment