A picture really does say a thousand words. Thanks MOTR.

I have seen the skeptic version a thousand times here on this forum. Of course, they would never use a graph. It is usually something like "on may 10 1964 it was 28 degrees, and on August 16 1996 it was 24 degrees, therefor the earth is cooling". No matter how many times you point out the idiocy, they keep falling for it. Every week there is a different version of the same mistake.

The solar flare plot is also very informative, and very different from the picture painted by the 'skeptics'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338535202/6#6

---

This graph - as do most others, only go back a few decades.

You need more comprehensive figures covering at least a century or two to ascertain whether this is normal or not.

This very same pattern may have been repeated a dozen times over a few centuries.

mantra wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 5:12pm:

This graph - as do most others, only go back a few decades. You need more comprehensive figures covering at least a century or two to ascertain whether this is normal or not. This very same pattern may have been repeated a dozen times over a few centuries.

Now you're talking reconstructions. There are some instrumental records that go back past 1860 but they are limited.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I40HJv2Qck8/TUK93azdx6I/AAAAAAAAAA8/3hCTEGDxXdY/s1600/globaltemp.jpg

Graphs play an important role in communicating what is going on. This is another effective graph.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/JohnN-G_ENSO_trends.gif

It provides three trend lines. One for La Nina years, another for El Nino years and another for years unaffected by either phenomenon.

MOTR

So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years.

It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly.

mantra wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:11pm:

MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly.

Not an unusual graph over history. Just looks good until you put CO2 correlation against temperature. You have a correlation for a short period of time, then you have CO2 continuing to go up and temperature staying flat.

The AGW'ers need new fudged graphs to make their point.

mantra wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:11pm:

MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly.

The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply. 

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:24pm:

mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.

Yes those prediction have been done to death. The outcomes just fail to go along with them.

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:24pm:

mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.

::)

Here we go again.

Fear mongering based on speculation.

These AGW disciples are worse than a cult.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:43pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 9:24pm: mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.  ::) Here we go again. Fear mongering based on speculation. These AGW disciples are worse than a cult.

Opposed to ignorance based on, oh yes, IGNORANCE. ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:43pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 9:24pm: mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.  ::) Here we go again. Fear mongering based on speculation. These AGW disciples are worse than a cult.

All future warnings are based on speculation. 97% of climate scientists are telling us that these outcomes are very likely, but that's not good enough for Uncle Meat. Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified. Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat.

mantra wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:11pm:

MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly.

The second graph doesn't include the last decade of warming and may well have a different base period. I've got to get to work, I'll have a look at it when I get back.

The pace of warming is quite unusual and unexplained by anything else other than anthropogenically generated CO2. With only positive feedback effects on the horizon it is time to act.

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:43pm: muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 9:24pm: mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.  ::) Here we go again. Fear mongering based on speculation. These AGW disciples are worse than a cult. All future warnings are based on speculation. 97% of climate scientists are telling us that these outcomes are very likely, but that's not good enough for Uncle Meat. Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified. Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat.

Uncle meat surely knows that your 97% figure is total BS, so not much point trying to use it to lift a failed position.

mantra wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:11pm:

MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly.

All true, but another example of a complex system is an economy!

Should none of us listen to economists if they predict bad things to come?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:43pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 9:24pm: mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.  ::) Here we go again. Fear mongering based on speculation. These AGW disciples are worse than a cult.

UNCLE MEAT DOESN'T LISTEN TO ECONOMISTS WHEN THEY PREDICT DISASTER!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o

Still touching up the unborn Mr Meat??

  :-[

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:43pm: muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 9:24pm: mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.  ::) Here we go again. Fear mongering based on speculation. These AGW disciples are worse than a cult. All future warnings are based on speculation. 97% of climate scientists are telling us that these outcomes are very likely, but that's not good enough for Uncle Meat. Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified. Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat.

[highlight]UNCLE MEAT DOESN'T LISTEN TO ECONOMISTS WHEN THEY PREDICT DISASTER LOOMING!

... OBVIOUSLY  ::)  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  ;)[/highlight]

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 6:31am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:43pm: muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 9:24pm: mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The point is that there is underlying physics that is sound.  The predicted Greenhouse Gas emissions for the next 30 or 40 years will almost certainly result in catastrophic effects in terms of reducing crop yields, total crop failures in some cases, changes in weather patterns, a reduction in glacier mass in such mountain ranges as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Rockies. And a reduction in these glaciers' ice mass means considerably less water supply.  ::) Here we go again. Fear mongering based on speculation. These AGW disciples are worse than a cult. All future warnings are based on speculation. 97% of climate scientists are telling us that these outcomes are very likely, but that's not good enough for Uncle Meat. Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified. Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat. Uncle meat surely knows that your 97% figure is total BS, so not much point trying to use it to lift a failed position.

PROGSLOL LOVES SECOND FIDDLE I SEE!!
  :D :D

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat.

Perhaps you could provide a link that demonstrates my objection to acting on this "threat".  Hmmm?

This should be interesting ...

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat. Perhaps you could provide a link that demonstrates my objection to acting on this "threat".  Hmmm? This should be interesting ...

I think motr will provide to the circle jerk exactly what he feels like!

  ;D ;D

How's the fondling going mate??

Getting any sleep afterwards???

  8-) 8-)  ;) :D

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat.

Hmmm, what's this then?

"Therefore, seeing as I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that humans may be contributing to climate change, I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13

Doesn't sound like someone stopping others from getting "down to the business of acting on this threat".

:-/

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat. Hmmm, what's this then? "Therefore, seeing as I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that humans may be contributing to climate change, I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 Doesn't sound like someone stopping others from getting "down to the business of acting on this threat". :-/

UNCLE MEAT LIVES IN A WORLD WITH NO LIES  :D :D

  8-)  :D :D

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat.

No need to wait for me:

"Therefore, seeing as I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that humans may be contributing to climate change,
I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13

I'm not stopping anyone.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat. No need to wait for me: "Therefore, seeing as I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that humans may be contributing to climate change, I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 I'm not stopping anyone.

UNCLE MEAT LIVES IN A WORLD WITH NO LIES!!  :D :D  :o  ::)

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified.

The difference is, I'm not stopping anybody from getting into a life boat.

" ... I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13

;)

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified.  The difference is, I'm not stopping anybody from getting into a life boat. " ... I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 ;)

UNCLE MEAT LIVES IN A WORLD WITHOUT LIES!!  ;D ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified.  The difference is, I'm not stopping anybody from getting into a life boat. " ... I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 ;)

You do realise you are talking to someone on crack or unfortunately mentally challenged? :o

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:19pm: MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified.  The difference is, I'm not stopping anybody from getting into a life boat. " ... I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 ;) You do realise you are talking to someone on crack or unfortunately mentally challenged? :o

Yep.     :-/

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:22pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:19pm: MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified.  The difference is, I'm not stopping anybody from getting into a life boat. " ... I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 ;) You do realise you are talking to someone on crack or unfortunately mentally challenged? :o Yep.     :-/

Yet still he is rendered powerless!!!  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:22pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:19pm: MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Many of the passengers aboard the Titanic thought the warnings it was going to sink were unjustified.  The difference is, I'm not stopping anybody from getting into a life boat. " ... I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 ;) You do realise you are talking to someone on crack or unfortunately mentally challenged? :o Yep.     :-/ Yet still he is rendered powerless!!!  :D :D

It is a bit like a chinese man, yelling Chinese language at an Englishman who only speaks english.

Sorry, but have to go with the Englishman on this one as he has always stated that although he does not believe in the AGW hysteria, he does however concede to being cautious and take the path of insurance.

I would have thought your smack time would be better spent harassing me rather then uncle meat.

Let's keep the personal harassment out of it, DRAH.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:08am: Perhaps when Uncle Meat finishes his Gin and Tonic we can get down to the business of acting on this threat. No need to wait for me: "Therefore, seeing as I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that humans may be contributing to climate change, I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/13#13 I'm not stopping anyone.

The amount of insurance you take is directly proportional to the perceived level of risk. While the climate science is telling us the risk is very high you'll be advocating the minimum action slim risk package. It's highly unlikely you'll be out there championing the need for immediate action.

MOTR wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:14am:

mantra wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: MOTR So the first graph indicates that over 90 years the average temperature has increased by .6 of a degree. The following graph claims that the temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree over 45 years. It's still a very short period to judge where the temperatures are going especially as they're moving so slowly. The second graph doesn't include the last decade of warming and may well have a different base period. I've got to get to work, I'll have a look at it when I get back. The pace of warming is quite unusual and unexplained by anything else other than anthropogenically generated CO2. With only positive feedback effects on the horizon it is time to act.

The first graph is constructed using BEST land surface data. The baseline period is 1950-1980. The second graph is based on data from the East Anglia Climate Research unit. The period from 1961 to 1990 is the comparison point for this graph.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UoZ19hKXPJU/Tyhtq6PrDUI/AAAAAAAAESo/OXg1rU9e8fE/s1600/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I40HJv2Qck8/TUK93azdx6I/AAAAAAAAAA8/3hCTEGDxXdY/s1600/globaltemp.jpg[/quote]

muso wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

Let's keep the personal harassment out of it, DRAH.

yEH, NO WORRIES, THO CONSISTENCY IS NEXT TO GODLINESS DON'T CHA KNOW!!??!!

  ;) ;)

MOTR wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 12:57am:

While the climate science is telling us the risk is very high you'll be advocating the minimum action slim risk package.

Incorrect.  Do whatever you like, but ease up on the fear mongering.


MOTR wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 12:57am:

It's highly unlikely you'll be out there championing the need for immediate action.

Correct.  I won't be out there fighting against immediate action either.

I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis, however, I'm not standing in the way of anyone and their insurance schemes.  That seems difficult for you to comprehend.

If your vote is cast independent of the risk of global warming, you are part of the problem. If you don't take individual action to reduce your carbon footprint, you are part of the problem. If you go around calling people who warn others of the high risks associated with business as usual, fearmongers, you are part of the problem. If you recline on your deckchair while others actively work towards solving the problem, you are most certainly not part of the solution.

That is my position.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 12:57am: While the climate science is telling us the risk is very high you'll be advocating the minimum action slim risk package. Incorrect.  Do whatever you like, but ease up on the fear mongering. MOTR wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 12:57am: It's highly unlikely you'll be out there championing the need for immediate action. Correct.  I won't be out there fighting against immediate action either. I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis, however, I'm not standing in the way of anyone and their insurance schemes.  That seems difficult for you to comprehend.

Well, basically we don't believe you!

Are you going to sue me now???  ;) ;)  :o  ::)

MOTR wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 6:59am:

If your vote is cast independent of the risk of global warming, you are part of the problem. If you don't take individual action to reduce your carbon footprint, you are part of the problem. If you go around calling people who warn others of the high risks associated with business as usual, fearmongers, you are part of the problem. If you recline on your deckchair while others actively work towards solving the problem, you are most certainly not part of the solution. That is my position.

Uncle Meat believes only Liberal voters understand the concept and ramifications of stagnation on an issue in the face of big business with it's advantage of economies of scale allowing it to simply threaten economies by threatening to put off investment until it gets it's small advantages constantly implemented.

  ;D ;D  :D

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis, however, I'm not standing in the way of anyone and their insurance schemes.  That seems difficult for you to comprehend.

Which part of it are you sceptical about?

1. The fact that Carbon dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas?
2. The fact that burning fossil fuel (and the rest) adds to the Atmospheric CO2 inventory every year to the extent that iit has increased by about 1/3 over the course of the last 100 years or so?
3. The fact that (2) is significant in the scheme of things?

When you break it down, you must be sceptical about something pretty basic.

A research team working on a two-million-dollar government grant just made a shocking discovery: intense man-made heat waves are decimating bird populations throughout the globe, including the birds that were recently thriving in local neighborhoods. According to the researchers, anthropogenic warming-related activities are directly responsible. Steady temperature increases, especially when confined to small areas, target inactive birds that can no longer fly away to avoid the consequences. As technologically induced heat waves are being absorbed across the skin, the affected birds begin to turn brown.

"These incidents illustrate a need for an increase in government spending on further research in order to predict with accuracy the amount of more government spending on raising public awareness about an increase in government spending to study the effect of man-made warming events and activities on biodiversity and lifestyle," stated the report released last Tuesday by Moon Batts, a professor of biology and Paul Choom, a professor of natural studies.

The scientists indicated that the next step would be to calculate the exact avian mortality rates caused by man-made warming events and the role played in it by the condiment industrial complex as enables and facilitators of such activities.

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 7:02pm:

A research team working on a two-million-dollar government grant just made a shocking discovery: intense man-made heat waves are decimating bird populations throughout the globe, including the birds that were recently thriving in local neighborhoods. According to the researchers, anthropogenic warming-related activities are directly responsible. Steady temperature increases, especially when confined to small areas, target inactive birds that can no longer fly away to avoid the consequences. As technologically induced heat waves are being absorbed across the skin, the affected birds begin to turn brown. "These incidents illustrate a need for an increase in government spending on further research in order to predict with accuracy the amount of more government spending on raising public awareness about an increase in government spending to study the effect of man-made warming events and activities on biodiversity and lifestyle," stated the report released last Tuesday by Moon Batts, a professor of biology and Paul Choom, a professor of natural studies. The scientists indicated that the next step would be to calculate the exact avian mortality rates caused by man-made warming events and the role played in it by the condiment industrial complex as enables and facilitators of such activities.

It's always a case of balancing the risks. Anything we do has a risk associated with it. In this case, it's easy to see how solar thermal power stations could have this effect. However, I suspect that it's very minor in the scheme of things, having watched a flock of birds drop like a stone after flying into a brown cloud from coal mining-blasting operations. Cows have been known to die too, but it never makes the newspapers. Mining companies can be very genorous to local farmers in such cases as long as they sign non-disclosure statements.  Kangaroos and emus don't need compensation.

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 7:02pm:

A research team working on a two-million-dollar government grant just made a shocking discovery: intense man-made heat waves are decimating bird populations throughout the globe, including the birds that were recently thriving in local neighborhoods. According to the researchers, anthropogenic warming-related activities are directly responsible. Steady temperature increases, especially when confined to small areas, target inactive birds that can no longer fly away to avoid the consequences. As technologically induced heat waves are being absorbed across the skin, the affected birds begin to turn brown. "These incidents illustrate a need for an increase in government spending on further research in order to predict with accuracy the amount of more government spending on raising public awareness about an increase in government spending to study the effect of man-made warming events and activities on biodiversity and lifestyle," stated the report released last Tuesday by Moon Batts, a professor of biology and Paul Choom, a professor of natural studies. The scientists indicated that the next step would be to calculate the exact avian mortality rates caused by man-made warming events and the role played in it by the condiment industrial complex as enables and facilitators of such activities.

They could have given me $100 and I could have told them that inactive birds will die from starvation.

Would have saved us tax payers $1,999,900

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 7:02pm:

A research team working on a two-million-dollar government grant just made a shocking discovery: intense man-made heat waves are decimating bird populations throughout the globe, including the birds that were recently thriving in local neighborhoods. According to the researchers, anthropogenic warming-related activities are directly responsible. Steady temperature increases, especially when confined to small areas, target inactive birds that can no longer fly away to avoid the consequences. As technologically induced heat waves are being absorbed across the skin, the affected birds begin to turn brown. "These incidents illustrate a need for an increase in government spending on further research in order to predict with accuracy the amount of more government spending on raising public awareness about an increase in government spending to study the effect of man-made warming events and activities on biodiversity and lifestyle," stated the report released last Tuesday by Moon Batts, a professor of biology and Paul Choom, a professor of natural studies. The scientists indicated that the next step would be to calculate the exact avian mortality rates caused by man-made warming events and the role played in it by the condiment industrial complex as enables and facilitators of such activities.

It's appalling.i






http://www.gisbornespecials.co.nz/assets/Charcoal-Chicken-480.jpg

MOTR wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 7:02pm: A research team working on a two-million-dollar government grant just made a shocking discovery: intense man-made heat waves are decimating bird populations throughout the globe, including the birds that were recently thriving in local neighborhoods. According to the researchers, anthropogenic warming-related activities are directly responsible. Steady temperature increases, especially when confined to small areas, target inactive birds that can no longer fly away to avoid the consequences. As technologically induced heat waves are being absorbed across the skin, the affected birds begin to turn brown. "These incidents illustrate a need for an increase in government spending on further research in order to predict with accuracy the amount of more government spending on raising public awareness about an increase in government spending to study the effect of man-made warming events and activities on biodiversity and lifestyle," stated the report released last Tuesday by Moon Batts, a professor of biology and Paul Choom, a professor of natural studies. The scientists indicated that the next step would be to calculate the exact avian mortality rates caused by man-made warming events and the role played in it by the condiment industrial complex as enables and facilitators of such activities. It's appalling. http://www.gisbornespecials.co.nz/assets/Charcoal-Chicken-480.jpg

Yes, and??

Nothing more.

MOTR wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 7:02pm: A research team working on a two-million-dollar government grant just made a shocking discovery: intense man-made heat waves are decimating bird populations throughout the globe, including the birds that were recently thriving in local neighborhoods. According to the researchers, anthropogenic warming-related activities are directly responsible. Steady temperature increases, especially when confined to small areas, target inactive birds that can no longer fly away to avoid the consequences. As technologically induced heat waves are being absorbed across the skin, the affected birds begin to turn brown. "These incidents illustrate a need for an increase in government spending on further research in order to predict with accuracy the amount of more government spending on raising public awareness about an increase in government spending to study the effect of man-made warming events and activities on biodiversity and lifestyle," stated the report released last Tuesday by Moon Batts, a professor of biology and Paul Choom, a professor of natural studies. The scientists indicated that the next step would be to calculate the exact avian mortality rates caused by man-made warming events and the role played in it by the condiment industrial complex as enables and facilitators of such activities. It's appalling.i http://www.gisbornespecials.co.nz/assets/Charcoal-Chicken-480.jpg

lol. I can see how those inactive birds would have died of starvation. Nice to see someone has tried to put them back on their perch.