[questionmark]

www.newscientist.com said:

TWO-hundred-and-fifty billion tonnes. That's the bottom line. If we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, 250,000 megatonnes is the maximum amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. Keep going at current rates and we will have used up that ration in 20 years.

The challenge for delegates at the week-long meeting in Denmark's capital is to agree on ways of ensuring we do not exceed it - ever.

Read more...

[Bullseye]

Why do they keep going on about "Carbon",when they used to say CO2 ?.Totally different things !.

Why is it now Climate Change,when it used to be Global Warming ?.

Why have temperatures not gone up for the last 10 years ?.

Why is the Met Office refusing to release its historic temp data ?.

Why is there a greater ice extent in Antarctica today than for many years ?.

Why does no one check this stuff out themselves,most of the data is available online,you just have to search for it.

Alternatively, we could all just believe the politicians,they always tell the truth !,and of course those famous "computer models" for climate change from the people who can't get next weeks weather correct but can forecast 20,40 or 60 years ahead !.

[questionmark]

Bullseye, on 06 November 2009 - 12:47 AM, said:

Why do they keep going on about "Carbon",when they used to say CO2 ?.Totally different things !.

Why is it now Climate Change,when it used to be Global Warming ?.

Why have temperatures not gone up for the last 10 years ?.

Why is the Met Office refusing to release its historic temp data ?.

Why is there a greater ice extent in Antarctica today than for many years ?.

Why does no one check this stuff out themselves,most of the data is available online,you just have to search for it.

Alternatively, we could all just believe the politicians,they always tell the truth !,and of course those famous "computer models" for climate change from the people who can't get next weeks weather correct but can forecast 20,40 or 60 years ahead !.

You should look up what CO₂ actually is before spewing crap. Or at least not put it in the first sentence of your post...makes people not read the rest.

This post has been edited by questionmark: 05 November 2009 - 11:06 PM

[Wickian]

questionmark, on 05 November 2009 - 10:55 PM, said:

You should look up what CO₂ actually is before spewing crap. Or at least not put it in the firts sentence of your post...makes people not read the rest.

Well to be fair, CO2 and carbon are two different things. One is a base element and the other is a gas comprised of two elements.

Calling a gas by the name "Carbon" is technically wrong.

This post has been edited by Wickian: 05 November 2009 - 11:16 PM

[questionmark]

Wickian, on 06 November 2009 - 01:07 AM, said:

Well to be fair, CO2 and carbon are too different things. One is a base element and the other is a gas comprised of two elements.

Calling a gas by the name "Carbon" is technically wrong.

Right, but the problem is not carbon dioxide appearing from nowhere but by the combustion of carbon...and that carbon ends up bound in the atmosphere bound to oxygen... oops but it IS carbon... time out ...hmmm...

[The Silver Thong]

I said this in another thread as some think Obama will not be there. He will be there and I'll bet 5 bucks on it

[questionmark]

The Silver Thong, on 06 November 2009 - 01:53 AM, said:

I said this in another thread as some think Obama will not be there. He will be there and I'll bet 5 bucks on it

Only if there is a chance for an agreement...the last thing he wants is to be associated with a failure. He will be there for the second round for sure, whenever there is an agreement. But that won't be in Copenhagen this December (as far as I can see it).

[Mattshark]

Bullseye, on 05 November 2009 - 10:47 PM, said:

Why do they keep going on about "Carbon",when they used to say CO2 ?.Totally different things !.

Combustion of carbon gives what?

Quote

Why is it now Climate Change,when it used to be Global Warming ?.

It is a name that prevents confusion from people who think it means every point of the planet is warming.

Quote

Why have temperatures not gone up for the last 10 years ?.

Yes it has, that is myth.

Quote

Why is the Met Office refusing to release its historic temp data ?.

Have you asked them?

Quote

Why is there a greater ice extent in Antarctica today than for many years ?.

Is there? How about the fact that while some of it is cooler than average quite a lot (just over half) is warmer than average. How about the NSIDC showing a declining Arctic too.

Quote

Why does no one check this stuff out themselves,most of the data is available online,you just have to search for it.

Why don't people use scientific literature as a source instead of political sites.

Quote

Alternatively, we could all just believe the politicians,they always tell the truth !,and of course those famous "computer models" for climate change from the people who can't get next weeks weather correct but can forecast 20,40 or 60 years ahead !.

Or we could use scientific literature and evidence and learn to tell the difference between weather and climate, that last bit is a basic that you might want to get a grip on.

[Bullseye]

LMFAO, I can see some of you have REALLY looked into this !,a bit of understanding of basic chemistry would help,enjoy your future taxes on this huge con,I'd love to come back to this in 10 or 20 years,unfortunately I will probably not be alive then,but hey,I can look up and have a really good laugh !.

[SQLserver]

Quote

LMFAO, I can see some of you have REALLY looked into this !,a bit of understanding of basic chemistry would help,enjoy your future taxes on this huge con,I'd love to come back to this in 10 or 20 years,unfortunately I will probably not be alive then,but hey,I can look up and have a really good laugh !.

I seriously hope you aren't being serious.

[The Silver Thong]

questionmark, on 05 November 2009 - 05:01 PM, said:

Only if there is a chance for an agreement...the last thing he wants is to be associated with a failure. He will be there for the second round for sure, whenever there is an agreement. But that won't be in Copenhagen this December (as far as I can see it).

Damn I think I just lost 5 bucks Q lol. That does make sence hmmmm

[Mattshark]

Bullseye, on 06 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

LMFAO, I can see some of you have REALLY looked into this !,a bit of understanding of basic chemistry would help,enjoy your future taxes on this huge con,I'd love to come back to this in 10 or 20 years,unfortunately I will probably not be alive then,but hey,I can look up and have a really good laugh !.

What like the fact that CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas
A basic understanding of the carbon cycle
A basic understanding that we are exponentially increase CO2 output
A basic understanding that we are losing carbon sinks


Or you could just spout debunked rubbish that goes against the evidence.

[Bullseye]

AGW has become almost a religion to some,please just do some basic research for yourselves,the World Weird Interwebs can help you with this ...stuff..please dont just believe what you are told,look it up for yourselves,I remember in the 70's (a cooling period) some of the same "scientists"that are now banging on about AGW were saying we were heading for a new iceage.I do actually know a few "scientists"(I even helped one get her MA in chemistry !) personally,their opinion on AGW ?,"Absolute b*llocks", "If you want funding,just mention AGW", "It's not science,it's just bad computer modeling".I guess most posters here are in their teens,twenties maybe early thirties,whereas I'm an old senile bugger who's in their 50's and has seen all sorts of weather, "Oh I remember when........no,sorry I'm too decrepid to have an opinion on anything in the modern world".Do the research and then think for yourselves,this applies to EVERYTHING !.Like I said before this will not be sorted out before I'm dead,but the most horrible thing is that when people finally realise it's a great big con,will they ever trust "science" again ?.

[Mattshark]

Bullseye, on 08 November 2009 - 11:33 PM, said:

AGW has become almost a religion to some,please just do some basic research for yourselves,the World Weird Interwebs can help you with this ...stuff..please dont just believe what you are told,look it up for yourselves,I remember in the 70's (a cooling period) some of the same "scientists"that are now banging on about AGW were saying we were heading for a new iceage.I do actually know a few "scientists"(I even helped one get her MA in chemistry !) personally,their opinion on AGW ?,"Absolute b*llocks", "If you want funding,just mention AGW", "It's not science,it's just bad computer modeling".I guess most posters here are in their teens,twenties maybe early thirties,whereas I'm an old senile bugger who's in their 50's and has seen all sorts of weather, "Oh I remember when........no,sorry I'm too decrepid to have an opinion on anything in the modern world".Do the research and then think for yourselves,this applies to EVERYTHING !.Like I said before this will not be sorted out before I'm dead,but the most horrible thing is that when people finally realise it's a great big con,will they ever trust "science" again ?.

Really, do you remember that Global warming is a product of the early 70's and countered the 1 paper predicting cooling (which was not accepted by the scientific community). You are talking nonsense and you have done nothing but back up your claims with debunked arguments.

I doubt you helped anyone get MA (or much more likely an MSc) in Chemistry.

You don't even understand the subject at a basic level nor do you understand science.

Don't confuse media with science.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 09 November 2009 - 01:45 AM

[Siara]

Bullseye, on 06 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

LMFAO, I can see some of you have REALLY looked into this !

No, I suspect he hasn't "REALLY looked into it". This is run of the mill science that even English majors like me understand. I'm sure Mattshark learned this in the UK's equivalent of high school and didn't have to make any big effort to look it up.