A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 8th, 2013, 11:04 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
Surreyman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:43:31 PM UTC, Islamic Dog Eater wrote:
Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed



"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in

Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60

years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earths

temperature over the last 100 years.



R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-

Carleton Geoscience Center of Canadas Carleton University, says that

CO2 variations show little correlation with our planets climate on

long, medium and even short time scales.



Google:



"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and

better eyes with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact

on Earths climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our

planet combined.



And theyre worried about global cooling, not warming."


"Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed "
Good Lord!
  #12  
Old March 8th, 2013, 02:16 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

In article ,
Surreyman wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:43:31 PM UTC, Islamic Dog Eater wrote:
Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed



"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in

Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60

years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earths

temperature over the last 100 years.



R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-

Carleton Geoscience Center of Canadas Carleton University, says that

CO2 variations show little correlation with our planets climate on

long, medium and even short time scales.



Google:



"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and

better eyes with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact

on Earths climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our

planet combined.



And theyre worried about global cooling, not warming."


"Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed "
Good Lord!


Talk about having a fantastic grasp of the obvious!
  #13  
Old March 8th, 2013, 03:20 PM posted to soc.retirement,uk.sci.weather,alt.horror,alt.global-warming,rec.travel.europe
Ethel Merman Gring
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default It's Official and Confirmed! His Majesty, Conservative LordChristopher Walter Monckton, the expert on such matters, says that the Moonhas influenced climate change for 4 Billion years

Gaping Asshole O'Donovan wrote:
Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in
Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60
years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earths
temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Center of Canadas Carleton University, says that
CO2 variations show little correlation with our planets climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.

Google:

*"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and
better eyes with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact
on Earths climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our
planet combined.

And theyre worried about global cooling, not warming."


More lies.

Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, the expert on such matters, says
that the Moon has influenced climate change for 4 Billion years yet Al
Gore's liars at NASA continue to say that it's caused by the
flatulence of elderly, insane old fools like you! What do you expect
from the same government employed "scientists" who everybody knows,
lied about the Lunar landings; according to renowned expert and
lunatic, Bart Sibrel.

Science is for Leftists.


From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/colu...cle1027502.ece

Why scientists are seldom Republicans

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists?

Ask the Republican Party.

It lives in such a world.

Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table.

It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."

Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
as the basis for public policy development.

The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
from their leaders.

They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.

Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
GOP's Hispanic deficit.

Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
or lean toward the Republican Party.

But that's a full house compared with scientists.

Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
Democratic.

We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.

The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
agenda or corporate greed.

But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
is warming the planet.

It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.

Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
practice the scientific method.

Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties ?
while the other party attempts to obstruct them.

Global warming is a prime example.

Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
arrested.

All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.

Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
suppressing scientific concerns.

Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
gas emissions.

Their alternative is to offer nothing.

Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?

Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
not wont to do.

Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
good education, complex charts and empirical data.

They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
science.

That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment ?
advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with substantial
majorities.

But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
resurgence could very well come.

Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
government better keep its hands off their Medicare.

Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
describe it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel



  #14  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:34 PM posted to soc.retirement,uk.sci.weather,alt.horror,alt.global-warming,rec.travel.europe
:ПеаБраин
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

On Mar 8, 9:55*am, mg wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:23*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"









wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:00*pm, mg wrote:


On Mar 7, 5:41*pm, ПЈО'Донован wrote:


On Mar 7, 6:08*pm, mg wrote:


On Mar 7, 1:43*pm, :ПеаБраин wrote:


Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed


"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in
Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60
years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s
temperature over the last 100 years.


.................................................. .......................... **......................................... R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that
“CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”


.................................................. .......................... **.................................... *"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and
better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact
on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our
planet combined.


And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming."


.................................................. .......................... **...................................... "Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar
System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:


"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now
be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels
of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the
greater impact.[73]


.................................................. .......................... **.............................................
google: "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s
climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”


About 101,000 results (0.39 seconds)


"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth.”


“Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before,
and it most likely will again, If we were to have even a medium-sized
solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than
‘global warming’ would have had"


As I said, Max Planck Institute agrees with the scientific consensus
that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is
attributable to human activity.


In regard to R. Timothy Patterson's denial of Global Warming theory,
he's part of a small minority. "In the scientific literature, there is
a strong consensus

.................................................. .................................................. ..........
You like that word, "consensus" don't you? *It almost precludes any
dissenting opinion, doesn't it?


It depends on the type of dissenting opinion it is....


"The man-made climate change concept based on mankind's industrial
greenhouse gas emissions has never shown itself to be a reliable
predictor of climate change. On the contrary, it has been routinely
wrong. Further, recent developments have shown that anthroprogenic
global warming has been based on faulty and manipulated data, driven
in part by political motives rather than reliable scientific
rationale. This has led to unsound and misleading conclusions and
predictions by the theory's leading advocates...

....Given what we now know, there is only one reliable approach for
climate change prediction: that which is based primarily on the Sun's
activity, influenced by the other planets of the solar system and
their combined effect on the Earth-Moon system..."


  #15  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:44 PM posted to soc.retirement,uk.sci.weather,alt.horror,alt.global-warming,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

On Mar 8, 1:35*am, :ПеаБраин wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:00*pm, mg wrote:



On Mar 7, 5:41*pm, ПЈО'Донован wrote:


On Mar 7, 6:08*pm, mg wrote:


On Mar 7, 1:43*pm, :ПеаБраин wrote:


Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed


"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in
Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60
years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s
temperature over the last 100 years.


.................................................. .......................... *......................................... R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that
“CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”


.................................................. .......................... *.................................... *"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and
better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact
on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our
planet combined.


And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming."


.................................................. .......................... *...................................... "Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar
System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:


"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now
be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels
of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the
greater impact.[73]


.................................................. .......................... *.............................................


.................................................. ..........................*...................... ............................. google: "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s
climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”


About 101,000 results (0.39 seconds)


.................................................. ..........................*.................... "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth.”


“Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before,
and it most likely will again, If we were to have even a medium-sized
solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than
‘global warming’ would have had"


As I said, Max Planck Institute agrees with the scientific consensus
that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is
attributable to human activity.


In regard to R. Timothy Patterson's denial of Global Warming theory,
he's part of a small minority.


.................................................. ..........................*...................... .........................

"In the scientific literature, there is
a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in
recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced
emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national
or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy


Natural CO2 emissions completely swamp manmade CO2 emissions in our
atmosphere
Its something we've always know that the manmade CO2 emissions are
completely dwarfed by the Natural CO2 emissions from the ecosystems.

But for the lurkers that dont know here is a refresher.

Total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%, that percentage right
so total amount is 0.00039 out of 100.

From this total amount 97% comes from the ecosystems (sea, land and
animals/plants) thats 97%.

From this total amount 3% is manmade CO2 from fossil fuel emissions.

The IPCC through their parametric computer generated projections are
telling us that the 3% will destroy the Earth unless we are all
committed to financial slavery through the carbon tax to reduce our
CO2 emissions.

Depending on what phase our sun is in and our position on our
eliptical orbit around the sun and whether we are having a el nino or
a la nina.

The ecosystems have the potential to throw up even more CO2 in our
atmopshere which can eclipse any manmade CO2 emissions.

Any punter seeing this evidence will know straight away that AGW is a
lie and the carbon tax is a scam.

Proffessor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie
University and he has been researching CO2 in our atmosphere.

He has come to the conclusions that,

It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they
don’t even control global CO2 levels.

There goes another “fingerprint”…

Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute,
there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.

Listen to the speech: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The
Contribution from Natural Sources”

Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie
University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm,
Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology
in Australia.

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and
CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-
made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not
just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t
even control global CO2 levels.

The higher levels of CO2 in recent decades appear to be mostly due to
natural sources. He presented this research at the IUGG conference in
Melbourne recently, causing great discussion and shocking a few
people. Word reached the Sydney Institute, which rushed to arrange for
him to speak, given the importance of this work in the current
Australian political climate.
The ratio of C13 to C12 (two isotopes of carbon) in our atmosphere has
been declining, which is usually viewed as a signature of man-made CO2
emissions. C12 makes up 99% of carbon in the atmosphere (nearly all
atmospheric carbon is in the form of CO2). C13 is much rarer — about
1%. Plants don’t like the rarer C13 type as much; photosynthesis works
best on the C12 -type -of-CO2 and not the C13-type when absorbing CO2
from the air.

Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than
the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot
of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus
fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from
plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their
“signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more
C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we
can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.

Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we
can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all
precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum,
but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a
total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows
of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each
other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a
convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional
changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human
emissions

Read the rest here


The Wikipedia article entitled "Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere"
explains it all very well, including the issue of natural vs. manmade
CO2. Here's a small excerpt from Wikipedia's report:

"While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of
natural processes, the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the
atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity.[20]
Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on
various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various
carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[20] as the burning of long-buried
fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic
ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish
between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause
of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major
cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2)
were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide,
compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[21] In addition, land use change
contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in
1990.[21] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated
to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions
caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single
year.[22][23][24] In the period 1751 to 1900 about 12 gigatonnes of
carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning
of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334
gigatonnes.[25]

This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is
sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[26] As a result,
carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of
2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere
  #16  
Old March 9th, 2013, 01:24 PM posted to soc.retirement,uk.sci.weather,alt.horror,alt.global-warming,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

On Mar 8, 8:34*am, :ПеаБраин wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:55*am, mg wrote:



On Mar 7, 8:23*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"


wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:00*pm, mg wrote:


On Mar 7, 5:41*pm, ПЈО'Донован wrote:


On Mar 7, 6:08*pm, mg wrote:


On Mar 7, 1:43*pm, :ПеаБраин wrote:


Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed


"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in
Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60
years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s
temperature over the last 100 years.


.................................................. .......................... **......................................... R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that
“CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”


.................................................. .......................... **.................................... *"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and
better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact
on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our
planet combined.


And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.."


.................................................. .......................... **...................................... "Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar
System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:


"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now
be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels
of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the
greater impact.[73]


.................................................. .......................... **.............................................
google: "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s
climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”


About 101,000 results (0.39 seconds)


"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth.”


“Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before,
and it most likely will again, If we were to have even a medium-sized
solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than
‘global warming’ would have had"


As I said, Max Planck Institute agrees with the scientific consensus
that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is
attributable to human activity.


In regard to R. Timothy Patterson's denial of Global Warming theory,
he's part of a small minority. "In the scientific literature, there is
a strong consensus


.................................................. ..........................*...................... ...........

You like that word, "consensus" don't you? *It almost precludes any
dissenting opinion, doesn't it?

It depends on the type of dissenting opinion it is....


"The man-made climate change concept based on mankind's industrial
greenhouse gas emissions has never shown itself to be a reliable
predictor of climate change. On the contrary, it has been routinely
wrong. Further, recent developments have shown that anthroprogenic
global warming has been based on faulty and manipulated data, driven
in part by political motives rather than reliable scientific
rationale. This has led to unsound and misleading conclusions and
predictions by the theory's leading advocates...

...Given what we now know, there is only one reliable approach for
climate change prediction: that which is based primarily on the Sun's
activity, influenced by the other planets of the solar system and
their combined effect on the Earth-Moon system..."


How come you deleted my post and then went off on a tangent about
something else?



  #17  
Old March 11th, 2013, 08:24 AM posted to soc.retirement,uk.sci.weather,alt.horror,alt.global-warming,rec.travel.europe
josephus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

emoneyjoe wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:00:02 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:41 pm, ???'??????? wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:08 pm, mg wrote:



On Mar 7, 1:43 pm, :???????? wrote:

Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed

"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in
Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60
years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s
temperature over the last 100 years.

.................................................. .........................*....................... .................. R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that
“CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”

.................................................. .........................*....................... ............. "Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and
better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact
on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our
planet combined.

And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming."

.................................................. .........................*....................... ............... "Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar
System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:

"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now
be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels
of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the
greater impact.[73]

.................................................. .........................*....................... ......................
google: "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s
climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.”

About 101,000 results (0.39 seconds)

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth.”

“Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before,
and it most likely will again, If we were to have even a medium-sized
solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than
‘global warming’ would have had"


As I said, Max Planck Institute agrees with the scientific consensus
that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is
attributable to human activity.

In regard to R. Timothy Patterson's denial of Global Warming theory,
he's part of a small minority. "In the scientific literature, there is
a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in
recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced
emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national
or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy


They don't realize that when the East European
weather stations were closed, there were no cold
ones to replace them with.


my data is only a little piece of this.
josephus


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruise ship designer talks about his influence on the industry Janet Wilder Cruises 9 September 19th, 2010 04:18 AM
Beach babes under influence dip crotch into face [email protected] Europe 0 May 16th, 2008 01:16 PM
Influence of Places on Our Psychology Auntie Em USA & Canada 0 November 30th, 2004 04:51 AM
Influence of Places on Our Psychology Norm Goldman USA & Canada 1 November 30th, 2004 04:51 AM
Media influence James Robinson Air travel 2 September 23rd, 2003 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.