co2 me hole

good logs...

global warming is it co2 ????? or was it all the big bombs they tested under the sea and in the desert ???????

good logs...

good logs... wrote: »

global warming is it co2 ????? or was it all the big bombs they tested under the sea and in the desert ???????

Why would CO2 not cause global warming?

Why would bombs cause it?

good logs...

Im talking about atomic bombs that they started to test from the 1950s right up today......

mickdw

Its all crap, we have natural cycles which result in temperature change but people are using this to tax the little people.

Im just glad we had all those Porsches to help us out of the ice age.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

Why would CO2 not cause global warming?

Why would CO2 Cause Global Warming????

Why would bombs cause it?

Why Would Bombs Not Cause it

Swampy

I like the pun in the thread title.

good logs...

good logs... wrote: »

Im talking about atomic bombs that they started to test from the 1950s right up today......

Yes I figured as much. But by what mechanism would they cause global warming?
And why do you believe CO2 cannot?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Why would CO2 Cause Global Warming????

Why Would Bombs Not Cause it

Several reasons. However I'm just asking how the OP came to these conclusions.

Mahatma coat

Heres an interestin Concept

How about you tell us How YOU came to the conclusion that it is?

squod

good logs... wrote: »

global warming is it co2 ????? or was it all the big bombs they tested under the sea and in the desert ???????

How about a tax on nuclear explosions, back dated to 1950. Let's say $1,000,000/megaton, then lets add some compound interest........

namelessguy

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Heres an interestin Concept

How about you tell us How YOU came to the conclusion that it is?

Shouldn't the OP offer any explanation or reason to back up his conclusions? As opposed to demanding others to prove him/her/them wrong?

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Heres an interestin Concept

How about you tell us How YOU came to the conclusion that it is?

So I take it that asking very simple questions here is some sort of crime?

The reason I came to the conclusion that CO2 can be responsible for global warming is because of a very simple scientific concept, shown by fellow Carlow man John Tyndall. He was the first to show that the greenhouse effect actually existed and the CO2 specifically was very good at absorbing heat in the form of infra-red radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

Here's a very good demonstration of the effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

Also it's hard for even the most ignorant of antiscience crank to seriously pretend that we haven't been pumping a lot more of the gas into the air.

So putting two and two together, I reach the conclusion that CO2 can cause climate change.
Of course the real story in much more complex.

As for the reason why I don't think nuclear testing is responsible is because I fail to see a plausible mechanism as to why it could.
Which is why I asked.

espinolman

Nuclear fallout is in the ice cores and it melts from the inside out , melting the ice caps .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Nuclear fallout is in the ice cores and it melts from the inside out , melting the ice caps .

So how would this cause the rise in tempurature?
How does the fallout get into the ice cores and not just land on the surface?
How does the fallout only go to the poles?

Mahatma coat

in fairness there were a LOT of Nuclear tests in the 50's they released Massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere, we dont know what that has done to the Atmosphere.

CO2 is a natural output from most Animal lifeforms on the planet, Plants need it to survive, yet all of a sudden over the last decades it has become this big bogeyman responsible for everything bad thats happening, I think shennanigans.

Mahatma coat

it makes sense that the radiation would acumulate at the Poles, thats where the Ozone depleters collected.

BTW, who here remembers the O-zone Hole??

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in fairness there were a LOT of Nuclear tests in the 50's they released Massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere, we dont know what that has done to the Atmosphere.

What kind of energy are you taking about exactly?
Heat? Light? Sound?

How would any form of energy released cause lasting global effects in the atmosphere?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

CO2 is a natural output from most Animal lifeforms on the planet, Plants need it to survive, yet all of a sudden over the last decades it has become this big bogeyman responsible for everything bad thats happening, I think shennanigans.

It's a natural part of the planet alright.
But in case you haven't been noticing, we've been putting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere that had been previously been stored in the crust.
And on top of that we are destroying large parts of the forests that normally absorb a lot of the Co2 in the atmosphere.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

it makes sense that the radiation would acumulate at the Poles, thats where the Ozone depleters collected.

Except that 1) fallout isn't radiation 2) fallout is entirely different to CFCs.
So no, it doesn't make sense.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

BTW, who here remembers the O-zone Hole??

I do. I also remember that it was largely a different issue to climate change and the green house effect.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in fairness there were a LOT of Nuclear tests in the 50's they released Massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere, we dont know what that has done to the Atmosphere

They didn't release that much energy, no matter what way you look at it.

A megaton is a unit of energy, which wikipedia (yes, yes, I know) puts at just over 4 petajoules. (thats a 4 with 15 0s after it).

In 2008 alone, world consumption of energy was (again, wikipedia, I know) 474 exajoules. Rounding down, thats a 4 with 20 0s after it. Thats one year. Even if output increased by a factor of 10 over the 50-60 years we're talking about, the "noughties" alone will amount to (roughly) 100,000 megaton equivalent. The largest bomb (at least that we know of) ever tested was Tsar Bomba, which clocked in at 50MT. There was exactly one of those tested, but just to match the energy output from the noughties, we'd need 2000 such bombs over the 10 years, or roughly one every 2 days.

10,000MT a year is over 25MT a day, every day. Even when output was 10 times lower, thats still 2.5MT a day, every day.

See where this is going? Its very clear that if one believes that nuclear testing released sufficient energy into the atmosphere over decades to cause climate shift, global warming or whatever else you might want to call it....then it is inescapably true that world energy generation also released sufficient energy, and that's only considering the energy, and ignoring the pollutant effects.

CO2 is a natural output from most Animal lifeforms on the planet, Plants need it to survive, yet all of a sudden over the last decades it has become this big bogeyman responsible for everything bad thats happening, I think shennanigans.

And yet, if you were locked into a sealed room, and the concentration of CO2 massively increased, the fact that its a natural output thats necessary for life wouldn't stop it killing you.

Picking the benign aspects of something and ignoring the rest, so as to cast it in a favourable light....that is shennanigans.

No-one has ever argued that CO2 isn't a major part of the natural world, nor a major part of the carbon cycle to which life is tied. That doesn't mean it can't cause global warming.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

BTW, who here remembers the O-zone Hole??

Remember it? Its still there.

good logs...

look its like this ,the yanks at the moment are fighting two wars they have no time to be testing bombs ,hence dose no one notice we are geting back the cold winters of years past.........:D

good logs...

good logs... wrote: »

look its like this ,the yanks at the moment are fighting two wars they have no time to be testing bombs ,hence dose no one notice we are geting back the cold winters of years past.........:D

But the last few years have been some of the warmest on record, particularly around the poles.
Local weather does not equal global climate.

Also there hasn't been any nuclear tests in America since 92.
What exactly leads you to the conclusion that there has been more?

And again:
By what mechanism would they cause global warming?
And why do you believe CO2 cannot?

good logs...

King Mob wrote: »

But the last few years have been some of the warmest on record, particularly around the poles.
Local weather does not equal global climate.

Also there hasn't been any nuclear tests in America since 92.
What exactly leads you to the conclusion that there has been more?

And again:
By what mechanism would they cause global warming?
And why do you believe CO2 cannot?

do u live in or around the poles ??????? or do you believe everything you google....................

good logs...

good logs... wrote: »

do u live in or around the poles ??????? or do you believe everything you google....................

No. I just keep up to date with science and understand the difference between weather and climate.

How do you know that they are faking the temperature data?

And what about the questions you don't seem to want to answer.

What reason do you have to believe nuclear testing went on in the states past 92?
By what mechanism would they cause global warming?
And why do you believe CO2 cannot?

RGDATA!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Heres an interestin Concept

How about you tell us How YOU came to the conclusion that it is?

here's another interesting concept. since OP thought it important enough to start a thread on the matter, maybe the onus is on him to elabourate on his opinion

good logs...

king mob this is for you i started this post for bit of a craic as for my mechanism its called a doll a drum a kick in the bum and a chase around the table :P:P:D:D as i have looked back through some for posts i have never come across such a ??????? i dont know what ....any way all the best and try and shake of the bad feels you harbour with in your self....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

good logs...

good logs... wrote: »

king mob this is for you i started this post for bit of a craic as for my mechanism its called a doll a drum a kick in the bum and a chase around the table :P:P:D:D as i have looked back through some for posts i have never come across such a ??????? i dont know what ....any way all the best and try and shake of the bad feels you harbour with in your self....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh well. My own fault for asking questions I suppose.

but don't worry I assure you I harbour no bad feels.

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote: »

Remember it? Its still there.

OK, Remember that it was the Worst catastrophe to befall Humanity in our entire existence, until the pool of Research Grants dried up, now CO2 is the big bad Bogeyman, until someone comes up with something else to Scare money out of imbecilic government bodies.

as you Pointed out the O-zone hole is Still there, but it dosent command the Scare Capital of yesteryear :rolleyes:

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Remember that it was the Worst catastrophe to befall Humanity in our entire existence, until the pool of Research Grants dried up, now CO2 is the big bad Bogeyman, until someone comes up with something else to Scare money out of imbecilic government bodies.

as you Pointed out the O-zone hole is Still there, but it dosent command the Scare Capital of yesteryear :rolleyes:

Well, research led to understanding the problem. The release of CFCs and other ozone depleting gases by humans caused it. Then with that knowledge, we were able to ban CFCs. Now the size of the hole has been diminished, and is expected to repair in the long term.

So the system works...

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Remember that it was the Worst catastrophe to befall Humanity in our entire existence, until the pool of Research Grants dried up, now CO2 is the big bad Bogeyman, until someone comes up with something else to Scare money out of imbecilic government bodies.

as you Pointed out the O-zone hole is Still there, but it dosent command the Scare Capital of yesteryear :rolleyes:

Umm, no.

It was billed as a catastrophe in the making, which would become massively worse if we didn't take immediate and significant action to cut CFC emissions. We were told that even if we did cut them, it would take years to stop getting worse, and decades to recover.

We then went and took the significant actions proposed.

Since then, there's nothing much we can do. Monitoring continues, and report that although the behaviour is somewhat slower then predicted, we appear to have reached the point where things are no longer getting worse, and are slowly getting better.

So its not that research dried up....its that we did what was recommended, its having the predicted effect, so there's no longer any real story there for the news.

What do you expect? Regular news articles reporting "oyone layer behaving as predicted. No further action needed" ???

If China or someone started massive use of CFCs, then we could expect
the story to resurface...given that there'd be a new threat, and new action required.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Remember that it was the Worst catastrophe to befall Humanity in our entire existence, until the pool of Research Grants dried up, now CO2 is the big bad Bogeyman, until someone comes up with something else to Scare money out of imbecilic government bodies.

as you Pointed out the O-zone hole is Still there, but it dosent command the Scare Capital of yesteryear :rolleyes:

Because you seem to be confusing media hype with actual science.
Ozone depletion is still a major concern, and CO2 has always been a concern.

Also isn't stating that there's a vast global conspiracy kinda the exact same boogeymaning you're accusing others of?

Atlantic Dawn

It's not called global warming any more due to the fact that the UK and Ireland have actually for a fact got much colder in the past 10 years, instead this gimic is being now labelled as "climate change" as they can't decide on whether it's better to tell us it's getting warmer or colder to make us fear something which is a natural cycle.

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's not called global warming any more due to the fact that the UK and Ireland have actually for a fact got much colder in the past 10 years, instead this gimic is being now labelled as "climate change" as they can't decide on whether it's better to tell us it's getting warmer or colder to make us fear something which is a natural cycle.

1) It's always been properly called climate change, "Global Warming" is the colloquial name for it in the media.
2) Both Ireland and the UK have had a lot of record breaking hot summers in the last decade.
The global temperature has been rising, it's a fact not even the deniers are trying to ignore.

sligopark

Mahatma coat wrote: »

BTW, who here remembers the O-zone Hole??

or that other crock of sh1te that because of humans we were heading for an ice age - Greens what a bunch of tossers - unfortunately world financiers and drivers of economic (and in charge of hoovering up money from the liberal do gooders of the middle class and the stupid working classes) now have worked out the more naive amongst the slaves will vote in majority to pass up their cash in the form of CO2 taxes ....

sligopark

sligopark wrote: »

or that other crock of sh1te that because of humans we were heading for an ice age - Greens what a bunch of tossers - unfortunately world financiers and drivers of economic (and in charge of hoovering up money from the liberal do gooders of the middle class and the stupid working classes) now have worked out the more naive amongst the slaves will vote in majority to pass up their cash in the form of CO2 taxes ....

Again, this was the media, not what was being said in the scientific literature.

MRPRO03

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350994/Greenland-glaciers-flow-slower-hot-summers-adapting-climate-change.html

MRPRO03

MRPRO03 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350994/Greenland-glaciers-flow-slower-hot-summers-adapting-climate-change.html

Ah, the Daily Mail, bastion of science.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, the Daily Mail, bastion of science.

how about you refute the content of the article rather than attacking the source.

Mahatma coat

Because you seem to be confusing media hype with actual science.
Ozone depletion is still a major concern, and CO2 has always been a concern.

Also isn't stating that there's a vast global conspiracy kinda the exact same boogeymaning you're accusing others of?

this little doozie strikes me as a Pot-Kettle situation

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this little doozie strikes me as a Pot-Kettle situation

How?

The reality (or not) of climate change is a scientific issue. The discussion should be first and foremost about the science, and not about what the media say about the science, nor what the politicians want to do on the back of the science.

Whether or not you or I think carbon tax is a good idea has nothing at all to do with the science of climate change.
Whether or not the media are accurately reporting the science (they're not) has nothing at all to do with the science.

This is what I really find hard to understand about the whole "conspiracy" of climate change, to be honest.

We're told that governments lie to us. To an extent, that's unquestionably true.
We're told that the media mislead us, Again, to an extent, thats unquestionably true.

So along comes climate change as an issue. There are three "angles" here :

- What the science says
- What the governments say
- What the media says

Virtually no-one will argue that the media are giving an honest and accurate picture of the science.
Equally few will argue that the governments are reacting honestly and responsibly to the science.

So do we have a conspiracy that the governments are taking science and twisting it to their own ends? Do we have a conspiracy that the media are, in effect, assisting them with this?
Yes...but we have an additional conspiracy that the science is wrong in the first place....for no discernible reason that I can see.

And when we start looking at this "conspiracy of science"...what gets trotted out as the evidence? Mostly, the media and government....the people who we all accept (to greater or lesser degrees) are misrepresenting the science and turning it to their own ends anyway.

Interestingly, the ozone layer - which you brought up - was a case where arguably there was a conspiracy. DuPont, who owned the patent for the manufacture of Freon stood in the way of regulation, and they were also a major force behind much of the counter-claims regarding the whole ozone-depletion issue (its not CFCs, its something else...honest). Then, in 1986, duPont secured patents on a replacement for Freon (HCFCs, which weren't a threat to the ozone) and suddenly they had a miraculous change of heart, condemned CFCs (for which the patent had expired in the meantime), and became a key player in driving for the banning of these dangerous chemicals.

The science was always there. It was vested interests who funded and fought the "anti" position...and only once it was financially advantageous to them did they shift positions...and their position shift was the key to legislation being passed and accepted by governments around the world.

Now, compare that to today's world. People supporting climate change science are saying what was said in the late 70s and early 80s about the ozone depletion issue. Look at the science, and not what the media, the big business, nor the governments are telling you. How is that a pot/kettle situation?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how about you refute the content of the article rather than attacking the source.

You do realise it's the Daily Mail right?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this little doozie strikes me as a Pot-Kettle situation

Well cept for the small problem that CO2 and climate change actually exist.

But you do actually see the hypocrisy of accusing the media/government of using a boogeyman, while you are doing the same thing?

Mahatma coat

Interesting Point Bonkey, Yes I agree that we shouldnt trust what the Media of the Govt spoonfeed us, but I still Question the Science of ANTHROPORMOPHIC (sp) Climate change, Yes we are havin an effect but NO its not to the level that is beig claimed

Science is never cut and dry, there is always more to learn, more that we just dont understand, thats where the media come intoplay, the bombardmaent of the populus with one single concept, WE are Killing the planet, the conclusion is subjective, the 'Science' used to reach that conclusion is Ropey at best, yet we are expected to take it as Gospel, Science is NOT ar religion however the champions of AGW treat it as such.

Mahatma coat

Well Duh, CO2 exists, tell ya what do your bit and stop Breathing Out :D:D:D

climate change is a Reality, once upon a time the northern shores of Africa grew enough grain to Feed the Roman conquest of Europe, that climate changed, was it because the roman army travelled everywhere in Supercharged V8's?????????

Mahatma coat

yeah I can read a URL

what specificaly in the article do you contest??????

Climate change may not be as catastrophic for Greenland's icecaps as scientists first thought after researchers found hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers.

Increased melting in the warmer summer months is causing the internal drainage system of the ice sheet to 'adapt' and accommodate more melt-water, without speeding up the flow of ice toward the oceans.

This is because in hot conditions there is initially so much melt-water that it runs off into channels below the ice, thereby decreasing the lubricating layer which sits on top of the ice sheets and causes melting over a much larger surface area.
Adapting? An iceberg off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers, scientists believe

Adapting? An iceberg off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers, scientists believe
HIMALAYAN GLACIERS 'ARE ADVANCING' AS WELL

Scientists today said Himalayan glaciers are actually growing and not shrinking.

Half of the ice flows in the Karakoran range of the mountains are advancing and not retreating, researchers announced in the first major study since a 2007 United Nations report warned the glaciers would melt by 2035.

The new research, carried out by scientists at the University of California and the University of Potsdam, concluded that global warming is not directly responsible for how glaciers fare.

Dr Bodo Bookhagen told the Daily Telegraph that 'there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier' and said the UN's report 'lumps all Himalayan glaciers together'.

Owing to this, the acceleration of melting appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool ones.

The findings, reported in the journal Nature, have important implications for future assessments of global sea level rise.


More...

* Chilly future for Britain with regular freezing winters if the Arctic continues to warm up, scientists warn

The Greenland ice sheet covers roughly 80 per cent of the surface of the island and contains enough water to raise sea levels by 7 metres if it were to melt completely.

Rising temperatures in the Arctic in recent years have caused the ice sheet to shrink, prompting fears that it may be close to a 'tipping point' of no return.

Some of the ice loss has been attributed to the speed-up of glaciers due to increased surface melting.

Each summer, warmer temperatures cause ice at the surface of the sheet to melt.
Temperature controlled: The acceleration of melting ice appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool summers

Temperature controlled: The acceleration of melting ice appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool summers

This water then runs down a series of channels to the base of the glacier where it acts as a lubricant, allowing the ice sheet to flow rapidly across the bedrock toward the sea.

Summertime acceleration of ice flow has proved difficult for scientists to model, leading to uncertainties in projections of future sea level rise.

'It had been thought that more surface melting would cause the ice sheet to speed up and retreat faster, but our study suggests that the opposite could in fact be true,' said Professor Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, who led the study.

'If that's the case, increases in surface melting expected over the 21st century may have no affect on the rate of ice loss through flow. However, this doesn't mean that the ice sheet is safe from climate change, because the impact of ocean-driven melting remains uncertain.'
A fjord near Ilulissat, Greenland. The country's ice contains enough water to raise sea levels by 7 metres if it were to melt completely

A fjord near Ilulissat, Greenland. The country's ice contains enough water to raise sea levels by seven metres if it were to melt completely

The researchers used satellite observations of six landlocked glaciers in south-west Greenland, acquired by the European Space Agency, to study how ice flow develops in years of markedly different melting.

Although the initial speed-up of ice was similar in all years, slowdown occurred sooner in the warmest ones.

The authors suggest that in these years the abundance of melt-water triggers an early switch in the plumbing at the base of the ice, causing a pressure drop that leads to reduced ice speeds.

This behaviour is similar to that of mountain glaciers, where the summertime speed-up of ice reduces once melt-water can drain efficiently.

Despite their findings, however, the researchers were keen to emphasise that the ice sheet is 'not safe from climate change'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350994/Greenland-glaciers-flow-slower-hot-summers-adapting-climate-change.html#ixzz1CLMq0gUE

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Interesting Point Bonkey, Yes I agree that we shouldnt trust what the Media of the Govt spoonfeed us, but I still Question the Science of ANTHROPORMOPHIC (sp) Climate change, Yes we are havin an effect but NO its not to the level that is beig claimed

So what leads you to this conclusion?
Are you sure you're not confusing media hype and actual science again?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Science is never cut and dry, there is always more to learn, more that we just dont understand, thats where the media come intoplay, the bombardmaent of the populus with one single concept, WE are Killing the planet, the conclusion is subjective, the 'Science' used to reach that conclusion is Ropey at best, yet we are expected to take it as Gospel, Science is NOT ar religion however the champions of AGW treat it as such.

Well you see the science for AGW is quite strong, there's not as much debate as the media has been implying there is.
Aside from a small few (who are actually doing proper work in the field and producing real papers) who disagree, most climate scientists agree that the Earth is heating up and we are causing it.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well Duh, CO2 exists, tell ya what do your bit and stop Breathing Out :D:D:D

climate change is a Reality, once upon a time the northern shores of Africa grew enough grain to Feed the Roman conquest of Europe, that climate changed, was it because the roman army travelled everywhere in Supercharged V8's?????????

So then why is it so evil for the big bad media to use scaremongering, yet there's nothing wrong with your alternative media doing the exact same thing?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah I can read a URL

what specificaly in the article do you contest??????

The fact it's from the Daily Mail.
They are notoriously bad in reporting any science story, climate change being one of their favourites to misrepresent.

So whatever the point was that the poster was trying to make took a shot to his credibility either way.

Mahatma coat

where am I scaremongering??????????

I'm appealing to the rational scientific and analytical mind in all of us to look at not just the Crap being presented to us but the actual HISTORY recorded of our planet, it has been colder and Hotter within recorded history, that leads me to the presumption that this is a Natural cycle

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

The fact it's from the Daily Mail.
They are notoriously bad in reporting any science story, climate change being one of their favourites to misrepresent.

So whatever the point was that the poster was trying to make took a shot to his credibility either way.

OK heres the GIG

if you think the article misrepresents the Science

SHOW US

cos I think you will understand if I dont just take your word for it

gbee

good logs... wrote: »

global warming is it co2 ????? or was it all the big bombs they tested under the sea and in the desert ???????

The link to CO2 is, IMO correct. Where I'd have issues with is the volumes. Without looking up figures, industrial mankind has not produced enough, even if we stored it up in some huge balloon and released it in one go, as appears in core samples at other times in pre history.

Those bombs will have effected people's general health with exposure to harmful radiation. Underground bombs would be relatively safe, however, I'm seriously dismayed at the hundreds and possibly thousands of air and impact bursts in the atmosphere.

And to think these clowns wanted to detonated in orbit and EMP half the bleeding planet. I kinda seriously can't get my mind around that. It's like a group of children who find a stick of dynamite with a fuse attached and they light it for fun ..............

Mahatma coat

they did detonate in orbit, there are some amazin photos of the explosions, mini stars for a nanosecond and a giant bubble of energy that lasted days

gbee

Mahatma coat wrote: »

they did detonate in orbit, there are some amazin photos of the explosions, mini stars for a nanosecond and a giant bubble of energy that lasted days

More reading for me for another day. Thanks.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

where am I scaremongering??????????

So you don't think there's a vast global conspiracy to use climate change to extort money and force restrictive laws?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm appealing to the rational scientific and analytical mind in all of us to look at not just the Crap being presented to us but the actual HISTORY recorded of our planet, it has been colder and Hotter within recorded history, that leads me to the presumption that this is a Natural cycle

And don't you think that climate scientists have already considered this?
And that maybe the natural cycles don't account for the warming trend?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK heres the GIG

if you think the article misrepresents the Science

SHOW US

cos I think you will understand if I dont just take your word for it

I don't particularly remember saying that this article was misrepresenting the science, just that the Daily Mail was a wholly unreliable source for science news.

But at a quick glance, it's clear to see that the article and the bombastic headline don't match up.

The glaciers that are actually GROWING, not shrinking

Mahatma coat

OK Its 2AM here and I'm off to bed

So YOu dont See anything WRONG in the dailymail article, you just felt the need to attack the dailymail because of a Personal Bias

Is that a good summation of your reaction????????