jonboy

At least we agree on something. But equally sometimes just continually asking for evidence when a poster is trying to expand a thought doesn't help people to expand their knowledge and involvement in the debate. If anything this is what is wrong with the overall debate on Climate Change it has become so polarised from the extreme ends that those who are trying to find or challenge the accepted are drowned out by those who so convinced that they are right that no alternative can or will be accepeted. I will now go back to my own little corner and try and find sufficent evidence to back up my thought processes

When you quote a particular post it is fair to assume the comments are related to that post. If your post was truely intended to be general then don't use individual quotes. Back to my original point in that using the examples I did in there time they were extolling new theories without the scientific evidence you so crave which went against the understood believes of their times and they were castigated by those in charge. I was trying to make the point that simply because a point does not yet have scientific evidence does not automatically make it invalid. Science sometimes needs to catch up with thinking. Without open minds and thought processes then breakthrough's would not occur. So banning. blacklisting people simply because they dare think outside the box is plainly wrong.

Where was the personal attack. Now the above is personal and derogatory talk about pram's and toy's

Intresting that I make this post in the other thread about a censureship post in that thread and it gets moved here!!!! Strikes me unless you are part of the gang then don't go there.

So back to the dark ages when if you dared to disagree with so called consensus death was a real possibility. Some of those deamonised at the time who have been proven right over time: Copernicus 1473-1543, Brahe 1546-1601, Bruno 1548-1600, Galilei 1564-1642 So simple because we don't agree with you please don't treat us as someone to be removed!!!!!

There is a difference between volume and cover this is about volume at the end of the last melt season which is factual and hardly a ramp

As people want to discuss the artic hear then Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season. This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012. It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years.

Well Knocker if you bother to read some of my previous posts you would see what my take is but then that would seem hard work for some who would rather use sarcasm as a mean's of debate

The BBC reports the following lets hope this is a new trend as we enter a deep solar min over the next 10/20 years Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season. This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012. It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years.

And you never know GW we might actually find out CO2 isn't the great evil and that CFC's and other pollutants don't have the the catastophic influence on our atmosphere that the 'THEORIES' and 'MODELS' would have us believe

Hang on Knocker presents a paper dated 2007 to justify your points yet you dismiss a 2012 paper that counters that presented by Mike so how does a 2012 paper show its age I would suggest its the 2007 paper showing its age so your argument seems a little lame

This is not a gloat GW but given what you have just said we have probably 4/5 years to see if your basket is fatally flawed.

I never said its all or nothing but if you put all your eggs in one basket and you find your basket has a major flaw then you run the risk of losing all your eggs.One could argue we are beggining to see this effect with yet another major offshore wind farm scheme being cancelled today. Rather than just saying we need to go green because the planet is warming we should have been saying in both environmental and likely running out of oil terms we need to change our dependency on oil and gas as our main energy source. With this percieved pause then the discussion has been sidelined by cost rather than benefit. If you look at the small number of posts I do make you will see I am firmly in the skeptic camp that doesn't mean I don't think that the planet will not warm again but personally I don't think we will see this again before 2050/60 and I do believe it will by 2100 be around 2 to 3 degree warmer In my opinion poor arguements lose key oppourtunities to make progress.

Ok but.... CFCs may well have a role in reducing ozone and certainly the theory and research would suggest that however if there was a significant decrease in ozone production and transportation at that same time is it little wonder we then saw an increasingly large ozone hole over the southern hemisphere. Before you ask I cannot prove this point as I have found little research on ozone production but to my simple mind we need to consider both sides of the equation before we can come to a conclusion

Agree Mike I have found little research on the ozone generation cycle. We do know that ozone is formed bythe interaction of O2 with ultra violet light of given wave lenghth etc which makes you think that if there is a variation in that input then the amount of ozone would naturally vary and if again this change is in line with the strength of solar cycles then what is the greater impact man or natural cycle. To many variables at this time in my opinion to be making such claims about when or even if ozone holes or otherwise will disappear.

You forgot to add plants and animals!!!!

But not mildest in 60 years is it!!!!

As the cycle is estimated at around 700,000 years and its about 640,000 years since the last major eruption I think CM you might be safe for a little while longer. But then we do only have two data points to compare it with so it could go soon!!!!

Recorded gusts of 70+ here in York this morning

Probably very much like the warming deniers or climate misleaders so oft refered to in the other place!!!!!

An interesting read but no doubt it will be dished by the cooling deniers

That's a big leap Knocker at no time has SI called either you or GW fanatical. There are clearly fanatics on both sides of this debate outside of these forums which SI was refering. Clearly you must have some insecurities about your arguments to even think SI was refering to either of you

Other than the quoted linkage to global warming he does actually make some very valid points in regard to some of the underlying causes to the conflict and the impact that drought in the region has created. There is no doubt that different regions suffer drought at different times we need to understand so much better how this occurs and what drives these changes if we are to prevent conflict as a result of these changes. He also makes valid points about environmental stewardship so we shouldn't dismiss what he says out of hand.

4.0 for me please

It was very disappointing to hear a lead within Oxfam this morning on the BBC blame the intensity of the Philippines Typhoon on climate change and that the world could and should stop said climate change. Were do these people get their advice. You cannot change/stop our climate changing when its is down to natural cycles. What will they say when temperatures globally fall yet the Philippines get hit by more and more typhoons (Chinese research indicates historically typhoons take a more northerly during mini ice ages) Really frustrating to see this today