Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Eh?

Why are you dragging up the "97% of climate change scientists believe in man-made climate change" statistic? We haven't mentioned that in ages. 8

But seeing as you have raised it, let's deal with it. Not all climate change scientists are evangelical about the subject. Using your colourful analogy, they aren't all Catholics. Some are funded by the oil industry or others with a financial interest in disproving climate change. And still we have the vast majority agreeing that climate change is almost certainly man-made.10

Non-Catholics believing in God. Who would have thought it?6

What we are really saying is that people who know what they are talking about and have studied the subject mostly come to the same conclusion.

Then you say that "temperature has stalled" and we're into Christmas pantomime territory because the scientific community has to reply "Oh not it hasn't". 2015 is going to be the hottest year on record. By a long way.6

The "climate change has stalled" claim is a dead goose.10

Yes, models used for weather forecasting are highly inaccurate over the medium to long term. Weather is a chaotic system which means that we can't predict weather patterns more than about 5 to 10 days in the future. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. All chaotic systems are difficult to predict. That's why they're called chaotic systems. The clue is in the name.6

How do we measure temperature at the North Pole? There are several methods, some described here:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-...

The point is this ... we have several different agencies all using different methodologies to try to measure global temperature. And all of these agencies are saying the same thing. If there is another statistical methodology out there that might say something different then I'm sure that we'd all love to know about it.6

Or put it another way. Every single instrument we have, every organisation, every (credible) scientist, every piece of research ... they are all saying that the earth is getting hotter. So what if we don't have weather stations at the North Pole? You don't realistically think that if we did have a weather station that it would show us anything different? You're not trying to tell us that Santa has turned down his central heating to somehow fiddle the figures?9

But let's turn this on its head. If you are demanding data, where is the data to suggest that climate change isn't happening or isn't largely man made? The dwindling number of deniers try to pick holes in other people's research because that is all they can do. They have no data of their own.6

Maybe you can enlighten us. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that you are not a scientist. What evidence has convinced you that you know better than the scientific community? 6

You are doing very badly.

[Patti (baconater)]

Oh I'm so glad I pulled this thread up.

Hehehehehe

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

It seems I'm not the only one that compares climate change to religious faith.

http://thelibertycaucus.com/ipcc-admi...

[Jim]

Millennialism has always been popular amongst groups who hold the rest in contempt :-)

[Michael]

You can compare almost any belief and/or ideology to religious faith.

Capitalism, consumerism, communism, conservatism, gun ownership rights... the list is endless and it's not a new idea.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Michael Cargill wrote: "You can compare almost any belief and/or ideology to religious faith.

Capitalism, consumerism, communism, conservatism, gun ownership rights... the list is endless and it's not a new idea."

At least we haven't got to the point where climate change skeptics are burnt in public. I suppose they can't as they would be considered to be adding further CO2 to the atmosphere.

[Will]

Geoff - are you always this rude when you lose?

If you are going to play this game, you need to apply your marks accurately. None of the points that you marked as a 6 "ridicule or humiliate" are actually ridiculing or humiliating. I am explaining why I believe you are wrong. I can't help it if you feel ridiculed or humiliated by that.

Point 10 "contradicting confidently" is what people do when they debate. And I don't just select one or two to prove a point. I tackle all of your claims head on. You are the one dodging the questions.

Point 9 "exaggerate your opponent's position" - Nope. I am simply showing how your home-brew theories don't stand up to real science.

Point 8 - "distract", when I am the one answering all of your questions and you are dodging mine.

So, I am sorry, but not one of your scores sticks. I made valid points which you are now ignoring.

It's sad that you feel the need to take the debate to this level. This thread is about climate change. One of the most important topics facing mankind. Instead of taking on the debate you are hiding behind mud-slinging and silly games. You are the one deploying all the distraction tactics that you are accusing me of.

Let's bring it back to climate change. You can start by answering your three outstanding questions.

[Will]

I've still an open mind on the subject, bearing in mind the temperature records don't go too far back with any notable degree of accuracy as we would consider it now.

I was out yesterday, and passed a river at a notable beauty spot. The river has risen to a level I have not seen in 20 years of visiting the place, by a factor of, oh at least 5.

The river is normally fast flowing, has a flood plain below it and beyond that the open sea. Above the site, the river winds into the hills: which have not recently been denuded of trees (there were none ) or become over grazed with sheep (there's not enough profit in them).

So, Geoff and Will, how would you each describe and account for this flood?

[Will]

Where are you?

[Will]

At home, of course. What does it matter?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Geoff - are you always this rude when you lose?6, 7, 9 and 10

If you are going to play this game, you need to apply your marks accurately. None of the points that you marked as a 6 "ridicule or humiliate" are actually ridiculing or humiliating. I am explaining why I believe you are wrong. I can't help it if you feel ridiculed or humiliated by that. 3 and9

Point 10 "contradicting confidently" is what people do when they debate. And I don't just select one or two to prove a point. I tackle all of your claims head on. You are the one dodging the questions.9,10

Point 9 "exaggerate your opponent's position" - Nope. I am simply showing how your home-brew theories don't stand up to real science. <9, 6

Point 8 - "distract", when I am the one answering all of your questions and you are dodging mine.9

So, I am sorry, but not one of your scores sticks. I made valid points which you are now ignoring.

It's sad that you feel the need to take the debate to this level. This thread is about climate change. One of the most important topics facing mankind. Instead of taking on the debate you are hiding behind mud-slinging and silly games. You are the one deploying all the distraction tactics that you are accusing me of.9

Let's bring it back to climate change. You can start by answering your three outstanding questions.

Congratulations Will, by making the above points, you've lost control.

[Will]

Which part of the UK do you live in? The local geography could have an impact on the cause of the flooding.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "Where are you?"

That is genuinely funny.

http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/1...

[Will]

"That is genuinely funny." 6, 7, 8 and 10.

When are you going to answer those questions?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "Which part of the UK do you live in? The local geography could have an impact on the cause of the flooding."

Exactly what relevance does that have regarding anything we have discussed here? It is not difficult to find where live, as I mention it quite often in the morning thread, the same as you do.

[Will]

Will asked a question about flooding local which was local to him, so I was asking him where he was. Not asking you.

[Will]

I thought everyone knew i live in South Wales, as i'm quite open about it too! This river rises in relatively low lying moorland, not terrain like Cumbria or the Brecon Beacons.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will M, if you look back at the last time El Nino changed, the same things happened. Rain, lots of rain.

Unfortunately, last time we didn't have the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) to prevent us from dredging to reduce, or possibly prevent the flooding.

Jim provided a good article about this earlier this week:

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/n...

[Will]

Thanks - that's what I needed.

I'm not an expert on South Wales (my patch is SE England), but I found this for you:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wal...

What this suggests is that we have had a record-breaking amount of rainfall in Wales in December (as well as record temperatures). That will mean that the ground will be saturated and so less able to deal with new levels of rainfall from storm Frank.

I'm only guessing without knowing the precise location, but I would expect that the root cause here is that there has been too much prolonged rainfall for the rivers, drains and aquifers to be able to cope. If it's a beauty spot, the problem is not likely to be over development. My guess is that this is simply too much water all at once.

This does not prove that climate change is or is not happening. It is only when we look at the extremes of temperature, wind and rain across the globe that we can make an assessment of causality. We are in an el Nino year which leads to extreme weather patterns, but even accounting for that we are seeing significant rises in temperature and flooding.

[Will]

Geoff, Jim should have shared this article for balance as well...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

In fairness to Jim, he may well have been unaware of it, whereas the link he posted was for his local paper. He was probably trying to read the link off the bottom of his budgie's cage.

[Will]

So Will and Geoff, you both agree the El Nino conditions are exacerbating the issue, and I know enough meterology to appreciate that this affects both local temperatures and rainfall levels.

So in essence the present weather provides no evidence that temperature changes do or do not affect our climate, is that right?

Oh, and some experts argue that dredging works, others that dredging doesn't work, some that deforestation and increased farming is harmful and others that it isn't.

Is that a fair and accurate summary?

[Jim]

Just for completeness Jim did have a rant over on his blog as well :-)

[Will]

And an interesting rant it was too.

But in this instance there's no dispute about land treatment near the source of the river, and no building on flood plains (there's actually, incredibly, enough of Wales on hillsides that don't flood!) to take the blame.

So, climate change or not?

[Will]

Will - well, yes and no.

The current weather, on its own, is not a reliable indicator of climate. Freak weather can occur when the climate is relatively stable as well as when the climate is changing. But taken with other weather data it does add to our understanding of how the climate is changing.

So if all we had was this year's storms and flooding, then that wouldn't be enough to say that climate change was happening. But we don't have just this event. We have a long series of extreme weather patterns, across several years and across the entire globe. When all of those events are added together we can safely say that we are seeing significant climate change.

And as the rise in global temperatures over several years mirrors the increase in mankind's emissions of CO2 (plus other factors) we can also say with some certainty that man's activities are at least partly to blame.

The anti-climate change lobby made a great deal over what was called the "pause" or "stall" in climate change - the fact that global temperatures reached record levels around 2010 and then only crept up gradually between 2010 and 2014. Unfortunately (for all of us), 2015 has been considerably hotter than 2014. This flooding is a part of that evidence base.

The El Nino effect is a bit of a red herring. We get El Ninos every few years. What we are seeing at the moment is global warming plus an El Nino. Strip out the el Nino effects and we still get warming.

Dredging and deforestation have different impacts in different circumstances. A dredged river will generally transport river more quickly downstream. This is good for those upstream and bad for those downstream. It is not a case of not understanding the impacts - it is about balancing the impacts on different groups of people.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

So if all we had was this year's storms and flooding, then that wouldn't be enough to say that climate change was happening. But we don't have just this event. We have a long series of extreme weather patterns, across several years and across the entire globe. When all of those events are added together we can safely say that we are seeing significant climate change.

Really? Let's distort the facts, huh? The truth is that we live on a big planet. Look hard enough and long enough and you'll find an extreme weather event. Not evidential, or even significant.

The anti-climate change lobby made a great deal over what was called the "pause" or "stall" in climate change - the fact that global temperatures reached record levels around 2010 and then only crept up gradually between 2010 and 2014. Unfortunately (for all of us), 2015 has been considerably hotter than 2014. This flooding is a part of that evidence base.

Highly inaccurate. AG5 released by the IPCC admits that there has been a stall for the last 15 years. Confirmed in the main scientific section, not the summary. The politicians tried various methods to hide it in the summary, but failed.

The El Nino effect is a bit of a red herring. We get El Ninos every few years. What we are seeing at the moment is global warming plus an El Nino. Strip out the el Nino effects and we still get warming.

Nope, sorry. Refer to the above. Stalled for 15 years. Although locals had known about El Nino for hundreds of years, meteorologists only began studying it around 1998. That gets a 10 on the Will guff scale.

Dredging and deforestation have different impacts in different circumstances. A dredged river will generally transport river more quickly downstream. This is good for those upstream and bad for those downstream. It is not a case of not understanding the impacts - it is about balancing the impacts on different groups of people.

No it's not bad for those downstream. It is only bad for those downstream if the dredging is not deep enough and allows flooding. This can also be ameliorated with flood barriers.

[Jim]

This can also be ameliorated with flood barriers. Absolutely
It can also be ameliorated by not building on the flood plain.
If you build on the flood plain don't be surprised if it floods

[Will]

Sorry, Geoff, but you are miles out. I admire your chutzpah in arguing a lost cause, but you are wasting your time. You are wrong in several key respects.

The "It's a big planet" argument does not wash. We are seeing freak weather patterns increasingly frequently all around the world. One or two could be dismissed as random occurrences. But we can't put all this extreme weather down to chance. The Cumbrian floods were caused by several "one in a hundred years" storms happening in quick succession. The underlying rise in global temperatures cannot be explained away by random occurrences.

The "climate change has stalled" argument is a fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...
http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-clim...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/se...

And any number of other sources I could have listed. To get to this illusion of a hiatus, the denier community picked the last big El Nino year - 1998 - and tried to draw their statistics from there. But of course if you pick and choose your start point you can make statistics say almost anything. If you don't start from 1998 we can see a very clear upwards trend in global temperatures. Even if we do choose 1998 as a starting point, temperatures did rise during that period.

2015 is the nail in the coffin for the "climate change has stalled" argument. It is looking to be the hottest year on record by quite some margin. Even the deniers are starting to drop the "climate change has stalled" argument. It just does not fit the facts.

The El Nino effect may only have been documented fairly recently, but it is has been happening throughout the period we have been measuring weather. We had a very big El Nino in 1998. Whether you take El Ninos out of the equation or include them, the earth is still getting warmer. Some parts of the UK have just had the hottest and wettest December on record - including several previous El Ninos.

Dredging moves water more quickly downstream. But each area (upstream or down) has only a finite capacity to deal with excess amounts of water. So what the Environment Agency tries to do is to strike a balance between holding floodwater in upland areas, where some of it can soak into the ground, and releasing it downstream, where it could cause flooding in urban areas with reduced capacity for soaking up the excess water.

And that is the big political problem. We could (and probably should) build better flood defences, but we simply don't know what standard to build them to. After the 2009 floods in Cumbria, the Environment Agency spent more than £48 million upgrading the flood defences to cope with what they thought was a one in one hundred year event. With hindsight, they should have built the defences higher but had they done that they would have been criticised for building eyesores and for wasting public money. Who could have believed that the level of rainfall in 2015 has been as high as it has been?

Right now we should be preparing for more floods and more severe floods. We should be dredging our rivers, building better drains, putting higher flood barriers in place. Up to now, this has been a relatively easy thing to do. The EA would look at the previous high water levels and make provision for that. We can't do that any more. Because we are on a clearly increasing trend, the past is now a poor indicator of the future.

To build your flood barriers we would need to (a) admit that we needed them to cope with climate change and (b) make an estimate about how bad it could get so we know how high to build the barriers.

Build your flood barriers too high and some will complain that you are wasting public money. Build the barriers too low and we might not be able to cope with the next flood.

So, Geoff, let me appoint you to be the next UK Minister of Floods. Your job is to instruct the Environment Agency about how high to build their flood barriers. Do you say:

(a) 2015 was a freak year. It'll never happen again. Build the barriers to cope with 2015 levels of flooding, Or:

(b) We are on a rising trend for global temperatures and rainfall. It will get worse in the future. Build the barriers to cope with greater than 2015 levels of flooding?

Let's add that to the list of outstanding questions.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

You really can't help yourself, can you Will. I will keep marking your work, as you seem incapable of doing it.

Sorry, Geoff, but you are miles out. I admire your chutzpah in arguing a lost cause, but you are wasting your time. You are wrong in several key respects.6

The "It's a big planet" argument does not wash. We are seeing freak weather patterns increasingly frequently all around the world. One or two could be dismissed as random occurrences. But we can't put all this extreme weather down to chance. The Cumbrian floods were caused by several "one in a hundred years" storms happening in quick succession. The underlying rise in global temperatures cannot be explained away by random occurrences.

So, you use the IPCC report as your bible until it becomes inconvenient, then you ignore its conclusions.

The "climate change has stalled" argument is a fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...
http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-clim...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/se...

And any number of other sources I could have listed. To get to this illusion of a hiatus, the denier community picked the last big El Nino year - 1998 - and tried to draw their statistics from there. But of course if you pick and choose your start point you can make statistics say almost anything. If you don't start from 1998 we can see a very clear upwards trend in global temperatures. Even if we do choose 1998 as a starting point, temperatures did rise during that period.6 for continual use of denier.

The amount of bias even in the first article is quite amazing - " though the view was expressed that the short term warming trend had been slower than in previous periods of the same length." (supporting the hiatus - please note the language used to label them as 'views' so they are less important to "A review of scientific literature by Bristol University in November 2015 found "no substantive evidence" of a pause in global warming." which is accredited to the University. A very carefully, politically crafted page. This is why there is so much climate skepticism about.

You, like many climate change advocates, are scared to show anything openly that contradicts your arguments. This isn't science, it's misdirection and omission. True science prints everything. The IPCC never does that. All releases are controlled by politicians, not scientists. The summary is edited by a group of politicians and then passed back to the scientists to make them alter the report proper to support the summary. They are not allowed to change anything stated by the politicians in the summary, even when wrong or misleading.

2015 is the nail in the coffin for the "climate change has stalled" argument. It is looking to be the hottest year on record by quite some margin. Even the deniers are starting to drop the "climate change has stalled" argument. It just does not fit the facts.

Since when does one year become a "nail in the coffin" Will, when you deny that stalling has occurred for 15 years? Do you not see the howling contradiction in your own statement?.

The El Nino effect may only have been documented fairly recently, but it is has been happening throughout the period we have been measuring weather. We had a very big El Nino in 1998. Whether you take El Ninos out of the equation or include them, the earth is still getting warmer. Some parts of the UK have just had the hottest and wettest December on record - including several previous El Ninos.

And here we go again, cherry picking. Because we had a warmer winter, it is an indicator that the world is getting warmer faster.

Dredging moves water more quickly downstream. But each area (upstream or down) has only a finite capacity to deal with excess amounts of water. So what the Environment Agency tries to do is to strike a balance between holding floodwater in upland areas, where some of it can soak into the ground, and releasing it downstream, where it could cause flooding in urban areas with reduced capacity for soaking up the excess water.

And that is the big political problem. We could (and probably should) build better flood defences, but we simply don't know what standard to build them to. After the 2009 floods in Cumbria, the Environment Agency spent more than £48 million upgrading the flood defences to cope with what they thought was a one in one hundred year event. With hindsight, they should have built the defences higher but had they done that they would have been criticised for building eyesores and for wasting public money. Who could have believed that the level of rainfall in 2015 has been as high as it has been?

Right now we should be preparing for more floods and more severe floods. We should be dredging our rivers, building better drains, putting higher flood barriers in place. Up to now, this has been a relatively easy thing to do. The EA would look at the previous high water levels and make provision for that. We can't do that any more. Because we are on a clearly increasing trend, the past is now a poor indicator of the future.

To build your flood barriers we would need to (a) admit that we needed them to cope with climate change and (b) make an estimate about how bad it could get so we know how high to build the barriers.

Build your flood barriers too high and some will complain that you are wasting public money. Build the barriers too low and we might not be able to cope with the next flood.

So, Geoff, let me appoint you to be the next UK Minister of Floods. Your job is to instruct the Environment Agency about how high to build their flood barriers. Do you say:9

(a) 2015 was a freak year. It'll never happen again. Build the barriers to cope with 2015 levels of flooding, Or:

(b) We are on a rising trend for global temperatures and rainfall. It will get worse in the future. Build the barriers to cope with greater than 2015 levels of flooding?

Let's add that to the list of outstanding questions. 7, 8 and 10

[Will]

I can throw some info in on winter temperature here. because of the location of my heating oil tank - it's easy accessed by people of the naughty persuasion - I buy my heating oil more or less weekly.

The price of the oil has not fluctuated very much, and I can therefore tell you how much oil I needed to buy each year for a few years.

Looking at November and December:

2011 as a benchmark then:

2012 was much colder.

2013 and 2014 were about the same as 2011

2015 has been warmer, so far.

All the January's have been roughly constant, except for 2013 which was much colder.

Empirically then: Not much change. 2015 may be warmer, but 2012 was a lot colder. Some fluctuation each way is to be expected.

[Will]

No, I don't use the IPCC report(s) (there have been more than one) as a bible. The case for man made climate change is based on evidence in hundreds if not thousands of reports. The IPCC's five main reports are themselves summaries of a far larger number of pieces of research. The IPCC don't do research themselves. They report and summarise research done by a much larger group of scientists.

Cherry picking one of the reports and trying to nitpick its sources is pointless. That's not science. Look at all the data, not just the few remaining reports written by amateurs which support your opinion.

You're missing the point about the El Ninos. The only cherry picking that is going on is when the deniers (yes, I will keep using that word) try to manipulate the data by baselining from 1998 - an El Nino year.

Let's cover the so-called "pause" in climate change. The trend in global temperatures has been rising steadily from 1900 in line with CO2 emissions. That's plain for all to see.

The only way to turn the graph into a levelling off is to cherry pick a hot year and compare from there. It's incredibly bad science and something that no professional scientist would do, but it's the sort of trick that conspiracy theorists and marketeers like to pull.

It just so happens that 1998 was a relatively hot year. It was also an El Nino year. If we take 1998 as a baseline and compare the fifteen years that followed then we do indeed see an apparent slowing down of global warming. All of the years that followed 1998 were hotter than say the 1980s, but because 1998 was an unusually hot year the trend seemed to be flat. Or flatter than it had been previously.

I say that the trend "seemed" to be flat, because it only seemed that way to people who either don't understand statistics or are trying to mislead. There have been dozens of studies debunking the "climate change has stalled" theory - both by showing that the earth is getting hotter and by carrying out some proper statistical analysis.

If we choose any year as a baseline other than 1998 this trick doesn't work. You need the one hot year to make it looking like a slowing down. The ten hottest years up to now (since records began in 1880) have been :

1. 2014
2= 2010
2= 2005
4. 1998
5= 2003
5= 2013
7. 2002
8. 2006
9= 2009
9= 2007

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global...

2015 is important because it looks to be even hotter than 2014 by quite some margin. This will mean that even if we baseline from 1998, the trend will be significantly upwards.

The "climate change has stalled" argument is factually incorrect. But don't take my word for it. It is the overwhelming view of just about every credible scientist. Type "climate change has stalled" into google and read the reports for yourself.

If you want to continue arguing for a pause, produce some real data. Or a piece of research from a credible scientific organisation. Or baseline your figures on any other year than 1998.

Why are you dodging your list of questions?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "Why are you dodging your list of questions?"

As you well know, I have already answered these questions. They are all there, it's not my fault that you cannot be bothered to review the posts and find them and, to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to repeat myself if you're not going to bother to look.

As for your question about being UK Flood minister, it is clear that you are trying to use point 9 (As you obviously can't remember or look it up, this says "Exaggerate your opponent’s position. Take it way beyond its intended level and then show how ridiculous and unreasonable the exaggerated position is.").

When are you going to stop this boorish behavior?

[Vanessa (aka Dumbo)]

1976 was very hot, or was that just the summer?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

That was a very hot summer, Vanessa. I remember it well. I was working in Chingford and living in a bed and breakfast in Buckhurst Hill. It took me an hour to walk each way, across the burning golf course. I wore out a new pair of shoes in three months!

[Jim]

Yep, we had a drought in two years in the 70s and it was hot. Then in the 80s we had some pretty cold winters

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

The furthest north I got during that time was Harrogate. I remember it being bloody cold though.

[Jim]

Mind you, coldest winter of my life was the one I spent in Reading. Winters in the SE seem far colder than up here in the west

[Will]

No, Geoff, you haven't answered those questions. Here they are again:

1. Who profits from climate change being true?

2. How was the biggest Atlantic storm caused by energy redistribution?

3. What solid evidence is there that climate change isn't man-made?

4. If you were flood Minister, would you build bigger flood defences or not?

Stop dodging the issues. Answer the questions.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "No, Geoff, you haven't answered those questions. Here they are again:

1. Who profits from climate change being true?

2. How was the biggest Atlantic storm caused by energy redistribution?

3. Wh..."

Same answer as before. Get looking. I presume from this that you have run out of things to say, probably because of the fact that I call you out each time you transgress one of the rules. Must be tough, huh?

[Will]

This is getting silly.

This debate is following the same pattern over and over again. You will make a ridiculous statement, like the biggest storm ever in the Atlantic was caused by energy redistribution, or that there is a massive conspiracy where every scientist in the world is falsifying data, or that global warming has stalled (but only if you baseline from 1998).

These claims are often peppered with statistics that you don't understand, links to reports that you haven't read in full and snippets of discredited internet conspiracy theories.

In each case, I explain where you are wrong. I give you facts and figures and links to reputable websites (and not amateur blogs).

You then ignore the explanation and move on to something else. You claim to have answered the questions when you haven't. You claim you are winning when you clearly aren't and you accuse me of distraction when I am the only one answering all the questions. You resort to insulting me when you run out of arguments about the topic in hand.

You are like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I chop of all of your arms and legs and you still claim that it's just a scratch.

I've looked through this entire thread. You have not landed a single point. Not one. I've called you out time and again for the things that you don't understand. I have exploded your homebrew theories. I have asked you questions that you have dodged.

The latest silliness is your invented rules which you break far more often than me.

Here is a challenge for you. Pick one of the outstanding areas of disagreement. Any one. I'll let you choose. You could tell us all about energy redistribution. Or the so-called stalling of global warming. Or your conspiracy theory where every scientist is falsifying data.

Pick any one and we will have a debate about that. Or answer just one of the outstanding questions. It shouldn't be too hard as you claim to have answered them already.

If you can't think of one, how about this for a suggestion? You seem to like the "climate change has stalled" theory. So why not go back and respond to my post 431 from earlier today?

That's my challenge to you. A real debate like adults on a real issue. Put your silly rules and insults to one side. Facts, evidence, reasoned argument.

Will you accept the challenge?

[Will]

Vanessa (aka Dumbo) wrote: "1976 was very hot, or was that just the summer?"

I remember it very well. I was doing a lot of hang gliding at the time, and conditions for thermals were amazing.

[Patti (baconater)]

There's an incredible amount of hot air in here...

[David]

Patti (baconater) wrote: "There's an incredible amount of hot air in here..."

Who will have the last 12,000 words?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

It's awful when you lose control, isn't it Will? That's where you are now, which is why you're now ranting. The problem is you are now losing even more control.

When are you going to stop?

[Will]

Answer the question, Geoff. Pick one topic - any topic - and let's discuss it. You claim to have answered all the questions. I say you haven't answered any of them.

It's time to put up or shut up.

[Patti (baconater)]

I know which I vote for. :D

[Will]

Here's a worthwhile take on flood defence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "Answer the question, Geoff. Pick one topic - any topic - and let's discuss it. You claim to have answered all the questions. I say you haven't answered any of them.

It's time to put up or shut up."


Still trying to reclaim control I see. By trying to force people into a position that has already been answered, you are trying to exert pressure to regain control. This is nothing about questions and all about you Will. Without control you feel weak and indecisive.

[Will]

You're dodging the issue and insulting me again.

This isn't about control. The title of this thread is "Is the earth's atmosphere warming and if so why?"

So answer the question. Without insults. Without trying to dodge it. Without getting personal.

Come on. We're waiting.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "You're dodging the issue and insulting me again.

This isn't about control. The title of this thread is "Is the earth's atmosphere warming and if so why?"

So answer the question. Without insults. Without trying to dodge it. Without getting personal.

Come on. We're waiting. "

If it's not about control, why do you keep repeating the same mantra, when it has already been answered? You also don't recognise the difference between an insult and an observation. Perhaps that's the problem.