As predicted the climate change sceptics were quite wrong.yet again.LOL!

Bring on the silly semantics then!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since
instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World
Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth
warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming,
have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record
will be set "in the next one or two years".

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Met Office scientists have
been giving details of the new analysis at the UN climate summit in
Copenhagen.

The WMO said global temperatures were 0.44C (0.79F) above the long-
term average.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in
North America were there conditions that were cooler than average,"
said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud..."

Oops! That must have been what the sceptical deniers were mistakenly
referring to when they pointed to 'GLOBAL cooling' over the last 15
years.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'...

How many more times do you need to be told that it is not global warming
that is being disputed, but what causes it?

Colin Bignell

"Doug" wrote in message
...
Bring on the silly semantics then!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since
instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World
Meteorological Organization.

Is this really a cycling topic?

How on earth can it be relevant that this decade was the warmest on record?
There was a very cold winter in 1962/3. That also proves nothing.

No reputable scientist would conclude that a warm decade, or a series of
floods and hurricanes, actually proves anything about any long term trend
let alone what has caused that trend.

On 8 Dec, 16:16, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Doug wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'...

How many more times do you need to be told that it is not global warming
that is being disputed, but what causes it?

Colin Bignell

______________________________

Quite. I'm a sceptic and I can tell you I wholeheartedly 'believe' in
naturally occurring global warming/climate change because it is a
verifiable FACT. Unlike so-called 'man-made' climate change which is
nothing but a theory. Even the IPCC's own reporting suggests man-made
climate change as a mere set of 'probabilities'; nowhere do they ever
claim the theory as FACT. I'm afraid all Doug is doing, like so many
other MMCC evangelists, is the footwork for his masters running the
$multibillion Global Carbon Exchange; a transnational casino run by
criminals and frauds. His blind faith (for, like any religion, MMCC is
all a matter of faith in the absence of hard proof) for his cause
won't allow him to see the wider picture, the fingers pulling the
strings.

On 8 Dec, 16:16, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Doug wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'...

How many more times do you need to be told that it is not global warming
that is being disputed, but what causes it?

Yeah sure! Then why were you claiming recent declines in temperature?

"Among the most damaging is one which appears to suggest using a
'trick' to
massage years of temperature data to 'hide the decline'.""

and

"Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are
starting
to shatter climate change theory"

and

"For example, the 1960s cooling while CO2 continued to rise are rather
inconvenient for the
latter, while hysterysis explains why a drop in temperatures over
several decades (some 1950s climate records were not broken until the
1990s) has not yet resulted in a reduction of the rate that CO2 levels
are rising."

So you are denying not only man-made but global warming itself. Don't
try to wriggle out of it. Its there plain for all to see your obvious
denial. And the same goes for all your sceptical chums here.

So do you now feel guilty while driving you car or do you have some
new justification for polluting up your sleeve?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:06:41 -0800 (PST), Doug wrote:

Bring on the silly semantics then!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'

snip

Oops! That must have been what the sceptical deniers were mistakenly
referring to when they pointed to 'GLOBAL cooling' over the last 15
years.

Decade... 15 years... fah. Give me a couple of eras and then we can talk about
climate change. The climate is ALWAYS changing, and that's not a bad thing. The
last SIGNIFICANT climate change was 50 million years ago during the Eocene, when
we fell off the warm phase and entered our present cool glacial phase. Our
present situation - in a slightly warmer spot of a warmer interglacial - isn't
even a pinprick on the graph. Almost everyone in this argument - but especially
the 'climate change proponents' - is thinking FAR too short-term.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On 8 Dec, 16:40, "The Todal" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

Bring on the silly semantics then!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since
instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World
Meteorological Organization.

Is this really a cycling topic?

Yes because bicycles are a much less environmentally unfriendly form
of personal transport compared to other well-known forms of transport,
for obvious reasons. Hence the connection with MMGW.

How on earth can it be relevant that this decade was the warmest on record?
There was a very cold winter in 1962/3. *That also proves nothing.

No reputable scientist would conclude that a warm decade, or a series of
floods and hurricanes, actually proves anything about any long term trend
let alone what has caused that trend.

What is it about the word 'WARMEST' you do not understand?

"The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since
instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World
Meteorological Organization."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
Bring on the silly semantics then!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'

I am not denying climate change. I am disputing the cause of it.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

"The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest

Uh-huh.

since instrumental records began

Ooooh! THAT long, huh?

BTW, you might like to look in to whether those "instrumental records"
are actually consistent, in terms of the location and accuracy of the
instruments.

On 8 Dec, 16:41, "..." wrote:
On 8 Dec, 16:16, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Doug wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

"This decade 'warmest on record'...

How many more times do you need to be told that it is not global warming
that is being disputed, but what causes it?

Colin Bignell

______________________________

Quite. I'm a sceptic and I can tell you I wholeheartedly 'believe' in
naturally occurring global warming/climate change because it is a
verifiable FACT. Unlike so-called 'man-made' climate change which is
nothing but a theory. Even the IPCC's own reporting suggests man-made
climate change as a mere set of 'probabilities'; nowhere do they ever
claim the theory as FACT. I'm afraid all Doug is doing, like so many
other MMCC evangelists, is the footwork for his masters running the
$multibillion Global Carbon Exchange; a transnational casino run by
criminals and frauds. His blind faith (for, like any religion, MMCC is
all a matter of faith in the absence of hard proof) for his cause
won't allow him to see the wider picture, the fingers pulling the
strings.

You are referring to well-known greenwash exploitation, like Carbon
trading, which is regularly debunked by environmentalists.

There are fingers pulling both sets of strings. On your side are the
oil companies and nations like the Saudis, car manufacturers and some
governments, to name a few who want to see a greater consumption of
fossil fuels with its attendant heavy pollution.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.