Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The Nonsense That is Global Warming


WhiteXmas

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Renfrewshire
  • Weather Preferences: Snow/Blizzards, Storms, Sun, Lightening
  • Location: Renfrewshire

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

In almost every newspaper around the world and at least once a week, some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured, but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles will have all melted, the sealevels will have risen and all low-lying atolls and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide. And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour.

We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the so-called problem, that we don't even think to question it on any basic level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny sample data and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines.

The result is that the picture many now have is of the Earth heating up and hotter now than it has ever been. But... 1999 was cooler than the year before and since 1998 the world has been cooling. The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years. Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory. Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started getting burst pipes.

Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to global warming. Er..pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was, apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario of Greenhouse gases.

Look outside. Do you see any global catastrophe? Point to an ocean that is rising. Point to a methane cloud. Demonstrate in any lab how CO2 could rise past a few hundred feet of what we used to call haze, or significantly increase in the atmosphere and therefore be harmful.

Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.

Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do. Question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?

CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2 produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea, then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own.

Fact: The atmosphere on the planet Venus is 100% CO2, produced entirely from volcanoes. Because it is closer to the Sun , its atmosphere is in turmoil all the time. On the other hand Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2, which we call dry ice. The coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun . If CO2 alone heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is.

Fact: More CO2 is absorbed by young plants than by grown-up trees. If all we are worried about is CO2 absorption, it would make more sense to cut down the rain forests and plant saplings or even leave it as grass, both of which would absorb far more CO2 than mature trees do. It is hard to imagine environmentalists advocating the cutting down of the rain forests.

Fact: Many scientists argue correctly that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. But the Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence. According to satellite data, air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the past 20 years. Satellite data from NASA says the Earth has only heated by 0.04 of one degree in the last century, that which would be expected from natural fluctuation causes. This data conflicts with that of land-based thermometers and so is not released widely. But landbased measurements are less accurate because they are taken from cities, which are getting warmer all the time due to their expansion and replacing of trees and grasslands with asphalt.(source: science@NASA, October 20th, 2000)

Satellite data gives more of a global picture. 75% of the earth is covered by oceans. Of the rest, nearly 3% is covered by ice and of the remaining 24% less than 2% is habitable, when you take out swamps, deserts, lakes, ranges etc. In fact we live only on 1.4% of the surface of the Earth, hardly representative of the planet. According to National Geographic, all of Earth's metropolitan areas would only fit into an area less than the size of Spain. It is only a human vanity to imagine that our relatively small inhabited percentage of global surface has the ability to alter the climate of the whole planet. And if we only occupy 1.4%, that means 98.6% of Earth is mostly uninhabited.

Nearer to the truth is that the climate has always had its ups and downs. In 1100 AD the Earth enjoyed a much warmer environment than it does now - closer to a Meditterranean climate in the north of England. Around 549AD it appears a fireball may have swept through much of Europe, melting the facias of some castles. For many years the Vikings wandered around in their shirtsleeves. The Great Fire of London in 1666 came in a year of tremendous drought. This century just gone saw higher temperatures and heavy droughts around particular recurring years. Each drought in the past was described as the worst in living memory. But there is a simple mathematical pattern here.

But Why Invent Global Warming?

Answer: to get research funds that have been made available. The Australian government recently granted $7.8 million to the CSIRO to investigate Greenhouse Gases. Some gases are sure to be found. In the 1960s geophysicists believed that with enough resources they could predict earthquakes, lobbied hard, and in 1966 the Japanese government funded a $270million per year program. In 1997, after wasting $2.7 billion dollars on no results, the program was axed. A research team is presently in Antarctica to study ice depth. They envisage this to be a 10 year project. In 2004 $4.3 billion was earned by the global warming industry. Most was invested in research and development, but media fed at the trough too, while various governments instituted new bureacracies and taxed emissions industries. Fear is bankable. If a population can be convinced that global warming is occurring, there is money to be made. What started off as a small group now has thousands of employees drawing wages.

In the 1980s the term "Greenhouse Effect" came into our vocabulary to try to explain the high temperatures the world was experiencing. The fact that in the following early 1990s we were in a below average period which saw cooler temperatures, particularly during the winter months in both hemispheres, went unreported and unnoticed by those now firmly entrenched on the GW bandwagon. By now other 'problems' found research funds that were being willingly provided. Ozone-depletion, first written up in 1974 and immediately laughed at by the world of science, suddenly became an area of serious study, as did CO2, El Nino/La Nina and just recently, methane, as funds again started to flow into researchers' pockets.

Some scientists are sometimes outrageously wrong. In March 1998 they declared that a 2km wide asteroid called 1997 XF11 was on a near collision course with Earth. It was later discovered that the asteroid would miss the earth by at least a million kilometres.

Halley’s Comet was another fizzer. After all the hype, you needed high powered binoculars to even see it. There has been a recent call to look at the possibility of future meteor strikes and what to do if they presented a threat to mankind. Then there's volcanoes, earthquakes, comets, gamma rays - someone only has to suggest something no one else has thought of to worry over for a while for it to hit the big headlines.

During the Gulf War there was the fear of a permanent oil shortage, and everyone installed LPG in their vehicles. Before that, the threat of nuclear war, and lots of people had bunkers built in their gardens. Then in Auckland, the water scare, and everyone put in their own water tanks. Then there was Y2K, which had those with a PC panicking for a while. But these pass and things return to normal.

Perhaps another threat is surely coming to a neighborhood near you. Someone will be asking for research grants, paid for by you, the taxpayer. Recently the then NZ Associate Minister for the Environment said global warming is "inextricably related to climate instability and poses one of the biggest threats to our economy". NZ's current Energy Minister has said the science of global warming is undeniable. But perhaps there is a bigger and more direct economic threat to every country's economy; the creaming off of massive funds to study non-existent dangers.

There are other arguments against any possibility that runaway global warming could be occurring. Let us for one moment assume that the world IS heating up. Firstly, the evaporation cycle would increase due to the heat. This would also happen if the sealevels rose, because of the greater surface of water available for that evaporation. A greater evaporation cycle means more rain will form and fall back on Earth and, as rain is not selective, there would be more to fall on the poles too, creating more ice and snow there.

The clouds are white which makes them efficient heat-reflectors. That is why a cloudy day is mild in temperature - clouds hold the heat in. But they also hold heat out, because the top of the clouds reflect 50% of the sun’s heat back into space. Clouds are second only to snow(85%) in heat reflection. With less heat coming in due to reflection off the top surface of the clouds and back into space, the result should be less heat getting to earth so the Earth should cool. Because clouds hold heat in, any measuring equipment set up to measure global warming would give wrong results every time clouds were overhead. Measuring apparati don’t have eyes to see clouds. Actually scientists know this and build in an error called ’average cloudiness'. The trouble is, ‘average cloudiness’ is not an annual constant. Clouds are never stationary, so can’t be pinned to a measuring location. Average Cloudiness has NOT been proven.

Thought this may be of some interest, giving hope to all anti- mild folk out there :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norton, Stockton-on-Tees
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold in winter, warm and sunny in summer
  • Location: Norton, Stockton-on-Tees
Thought this may be of some interest, giving hope to all anti- mild folk out there :D

Oi! I've got a copyright on this name you know?

Good post. Very long, informative.................. and long!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Renfrewshire
  • Weather Preferences: Snow/Blizzards, Storms, Sun, Lightening
  • Location: Renfrewshire
Oi! I've got a copyright on this name you know?

Good post. Very long, informative.................. and long!

Thank you very much. Sorry for the breach of copyright and the length. I shall consult you next time :):):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire

So,over the years weve put xxxxxgigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and the temp has gone up by (allegedly) 0.02C or whatever. Thank goodness for CO2 then,without our input we'd all be frozen to death by now! :D

Edited by laserguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Darton, Barnsley south yorkshire, 102 M ASL
  • Location: Darton, Barnsley south yorkshire, 102 M ASL
Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

...

*snip*

...

Thought this may be of some interest, giving hope to all anti- mild folk out there :)

Stunning post :D

I've just never had the nerve or patience to put it like you white xmas, for fear of the whole GW bickering that goes on here!

I think you are spot on in your post and, The basic molecular weight theroy and all but no dbout someone will be prepared to argue against your post.

Edited by Wibs
Snipped to save space
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

Looks like the post is lifted from a Ken Ring post!

Some of it may be true, or at least partly true (I can't be bothered to check everything). However, I can point out some fiction in there also:

1. The Earth has not been cooling since 1998. Rather, 1998 featured an exceptional El Nino episode, and the globe cooled dramatically in 1999/2000 due to a similarly exceptional La Nina event. Since then, the global temperature has returned to near-record levels, with 2005 being comparably warm to 1998 (NCDC has 2005 as warmest, while CRU has 1998 slightly warmer than 2005). There are perhaps signs that, for now, the warming trend isn't accelerating, but it is still evident if you factor out the background variations caused by El Nino/La Nina.

2. The 1922 Libya temperature reading is dubious, as discussed at length in Philip Eden's latest book.

3. Evidence of 'straw man' arguments- dismissing proponents of AGW by attacking the position of the extremists, and using this to 'refute' AGW as a whole. To be more convincing, the arguments would need to contest the views of the more moderate AGW proponents as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs

First post from long time lurker.

Great stuff White Xmas.

I guess all the AGW worshippers (yes, that's meant to be religious) are too busy at the Al Gore shrine to "crucify" you just now.

No doubt they'll get round to it. If crucifiction fails, death by boredom will doubtless ensue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City
Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.'

About every three months someone posts something like this, while it is good that people out there are prepared to take a different side to the argument, I have to ask, how much of that did you research yourself and how much of it do you really understand?

The climate is sooooooo complicated, its just hard to think about it.

I've highlighted this quote because it sums of all of your post, some of it is good, true and vaild, some of it is scientific nonsense and there is also some naivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will adress the scientific points you made, I have much better things to do than debate the sly political and personal attacks.

Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do. Question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?

CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2 produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea, then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own.

44 is "nearly double" 29? Well, that's news to me. CO2 is not a "super heavy gas".

Are seriously saying that CO2 will not rise into the high atmosphere? CO2 can get high into atmosphere through many methods. It can be carried up by thermals, wind, air mixing and diffusion, even though it is heavier than air. How did the CO2 orginally get up there in the first place?

Sorry, but to say that CO2 doesn't rise is utter nonsense. Pollen, dust, ash all can get high high into the atmosphere, and they are much heavier than air and much heavier than CO2.

Fact: The atmosphere on the planet Venus is 100% CO2, produced entirely from volcanoes. Because it is closer to the Sun , its atmosphere is in turmoil all the time. On the other hand Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2, which we call dry ice. The coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun . If CO2 alone heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is.

Firstly, Venus is actually 96.5% CO2, 3.5% nitrogen and a variety of small amounts of other gases. Please don't clear state factual errors and claim them as fact.

Secondly, nobody has ever said that CO2 alone causes planets to heat up.

Fact: Many scientists argue correctly that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. But the Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence. According to satellite data, air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the past 20 years. Satellite data from NASA says the Earth has only heated by 0.04 of one degree in the last century, that which would be expected from natural fluctuation causes. This data conflicts with that of land-based thermometers and so is not released widely. But landbased measurements are less accurate because they are taken from cities, which are getting warmer all the time due to their expansion and replacing of trees and grasslands with asphalt.(source: science@NASA, October 20th, 2000)

How can you say that satellite data only shows a warming of 0.04 in the last century when satellite measurements of temperature have only been around for 20 years or so? It is wrong besudes, because surface measurements from weather stations around the world have recorded much more than a 0.04 increase in temperature. The increase is more like 0.8c, with more warming at higher latitudes. Also, it is nonsense that temperature from weather stations is only recorded from cities. Measurements are taking from a wide variety of places, and most show appreciable warming. As for antarctica ice growing... it may well be, and this is predicted by climate models. More heat = more evaporation = more preciptation = more ice growth.

First post from long time lurker.

Great stuff White Xmas.

I guess all the AGW worshippers (yes, that's meant to be religious) are too busy at the Al Gore shrine to "crucify" you just now.

No doubt they'll get round to it. If crucifiction fails, death by boredom will doubtless ensue.

I'm fed up of nonsense like this. If you don't have a scientific point to make, give up the personal jibes and leave things alone.

Damn, this place is bad for my blood pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Renfrewshire
  • Weather Preferences: Snow/Blizzards, Storms, Sun, Lightening
  • Location: Renfrewshire
Stunning post :lol:

I've just never had the nerve or patience to put it like you white xmas, for fear of the whole GW bickering that goes on here!

I think you are spot on in your post and, The basic molecular weight theroy and all but no dbout someone will be prepared to argue against your post.

Thank you chassisbot. Oh and sorry I meant to mention that it was from a site. Just had a read at it and thought to pick out some points made in the article :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs

"I'm fed up of nonsense like this. If you don't have a scientific point to make, give up the personal jibes and leave things alone."

Good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
First post from long time lurker.

Great stuff White Xmas.

I guess all the AGW worshippers (yes, that's meant to be religious) are too busy at the Al Gore shrine to "crucify" you just now.

No doubt they'll get round to it. If crucifiction fails, death by boredom will doubtless ensue.

If you care to think about it, with all the scientific evidence of a warming climate and subsequent climate change that can be read by any of us, the religious ones are actually those who have blind faith that it isn't happening and have no evidence to assert their view.

I for one am sceptical. Of both extremes. However the evidence tells me that on a scale of 0-10 where 0 is no climate change and 10 is rampant Anthropomorphic Global Warmning, and therefore by considering the evidence through reason I'd put myself at about 7.5 - 8.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Darton, Barnsley south yorkshire, 102 M ASL
  • Location: Darton, Barnsley south yorkshire, 102 M ASL
Thank you chassisbot. Oh and sorry I meant to mention that it was from a site. Just had a read at it and thought to pick out some points made in the article :)

Still a stunning post :lol:

As I thaught, some hostile responses, "I'm fed up with nonsense like this"

We all have our varied opinions, this will help us all learn, evolve and get the hell of this planet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

White Xmas........I like your post. It all makes sense to me.

I asked the other day how Co2 was weighed and couldn't understand how it could get "up" into the atmosphere.

A really refreshing post.

Personally, I am totally dismayed at the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC. What hope is there when such propaganda, some of which has been disproven, some of which has not been proven, wins such an award?

I am genuinely dismayed.

On a lighter note and re your opening paragraph, I hereby announce that I am a woman and I too have a corn on my foot. Bloomin' painful it is, too!

Edited by noggin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: sw london
  • Location: sw london

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

was it the daily express by any chance?

i trust that your 'facts' are from an equally well-respected source. maybe the daily mail or viz, or perhaps a website that just so happens to support your wishful thinking.

science.peer-reviewed scientific studies. who needs 'em eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

See the link I provided in my previous post- that's where it comes from. Ken Ring, 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex

Talking of white, I've just heard that global warming is all down to white paint!

Apparently, the Stevenson screens were designed to be simply whitewashed, with a lime-based whitewash, and this reapplied annually or as required. In effect a coating of calcium carbonate, which has a characteristic emissive spectrum in the infrared wavelengths.

More and more over recent years, whitewash has become commercially unavailable, so the screens have been painted with a variety of oil and latex based paints with pigments based on lead, and more recently titanium oxides, which have excellent visual wavelength reflectivity, but totally different infrared properties from calcium carbonate.

"Almost all the paint pigments have the same properties as Si and gallium arsenide. They are transparent to infrared light. This transparency to IR occurs because the paint pigments are nearly all oxides (such as titanium white, titanium oxide) or sulfides (such as the red vermilion, mercury sulfide). In pure form, they are insulators or semiconductors with almost no electrons available for light absorption in the IR."

from: http://acept.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/irnuv/irnuv.shtml

Some brilliant white paints actually absorb parts of the ultraviolet spectrum and fluoresce in the visible part of the spectrum, and lose some of the energy as radiated heat.

Moreover these paints are more permanent, and anyone who has painted a louvre knows, the paint builds up and forms drips which build up the thickness of the paint, reducing the aperture of the louvres over time.

Thus over time, the same old Stevenson screen gets hotter and less well ventilated. So that seems to sum it up that GW is due to radiative effects alone, and the build up of CO2 is down to no one using CaCO3 in paint anymore, and all that unused carbonate has to go somewhere, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .

The more I see the way AGWers behave the more I doubt the science. Sociologically they are sooooooo like religious cult members, some of them. Really quite frightening - especially when you see otherwise intelligent people close out their minds to any emerging evidence, or even to the possibility that they might just have some things wrong.

Scary. Very scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs

Agree WIB

I posted similar thoughts 2 hours ago, but they've mysteriously disappeared.

Lucky there's no hidden agenda at work here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Renfrewshire
  • Weather Preferences: Snow/Blizzards, Storms, Sun, Lightening
  • Location: Renfrewshire

Sorry but for anyone seeming to think I did this deliberately, I was not trying to pass it as my post. I simply read it agreed with it, and extracted some (not all) of it for the benefit of the users on this. Sorry for any confusion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
Agree WIB

I posted similar thoughts 2 hours ago, but they've mysteriously disappeared.

Lucky there's no hidden agenda at work here!

Less of the sarcasm please. The team work hard to keep this place running smoothly and some posts which were little more than attempts to stir things up and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread, were removed. It appears yours was removed because it consequently was no longer relevent.

Perhaps you could take more than a handful of posts before you start accusing the volunteers that run this place of having an "agenda"? It's highly irritating and very disrespectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dublin, ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Snow , thunderstorms and wind
  • Location: Dublin, ireland

Have to agree with you TWS. It is straight from Ken Ring's website as your link shows.

Two points:

WhiteXmas, it is quite disingenious to Ken Ring not to put your post in quotes and state its origin. I note your apology and it was probably just naievity on our part.

Any one could have done what you did and as a result you now have to defend what you say.

Secondly, I tend to agree with a lot that is in the article. My stand has always been that man has very little influence on the earth's climate.

Edited by John Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...