Pick It Down

Unfortunately for the climate change fraudsters, people actually want to see evidence that their predictions have worth. The present cooling shows that man's impact on climate is negligible.

So what events have happened due to manmade warming that would otherwise not have occurred?

Of course climate change is happening - it always will do so. However we have seen no climatic warming for over a decade. If you properly correct for the cooling effect of Pinatubo in 1992 we have seen no warming since then. We have no evidence that weather extremes get worse in a warmer climate. Computer models are not evidence. Just the facts.

Aye, find what you like and do that. Although I'm happier now I've got about about 1 year's living expenses saved up as it means I can relax more at work and have a laugh without having to stress about losing my job, mortgages etc. My outgoing boss asked me where I wanted ot be in a few years, and I just told I have no masterplan, just to take each day and do my best at work and make sure I'm enjoying it. As someone trying to climb up (and looking horrifically unhealthy and strssed because of it) he just couldn't understand it and swiftly brought the meeting to a close as he thought I was being noncommittal. Weird.

Geographical features aren't very easy to discern once we have built houses and completely changed the terrain. The 1-in-1000 year nonsense is just wild speculation.

Yes, we have cooled 0.2c globally since 1998 and over 1c in England since about four years ago. This incident was due to an anchored high pressure over the continent feeding mild and humid south-westerlies up its western flank. It's weather. Once these hit the hills in the lakes, the moisture has nowhere to go upwards as the air is saturated so must rain out. Just the facts.

I don't have an enormous amount. About 50% in NS&I, 30% in a large European utility that I work for, and 20% cash that I could live on for a year (if unemployed I would bite the bullet and move back to the parents for a while, if they let me). I've stopped saving up for a deposit as I feel there is little point, I'm better spending it now and "investing in memories" now, and I now see my current savings and investment as a fallback. There's no point moving things around as I can't beat the market. I'm diversified as much as I feel I need to be.

Yep, reforming the planning restrictions is the one thing that would sort out the housing market once and for all. If you want greenery, there's plenty still around. It's clear those with houses want to protect their house's value so will will be against greenbelt on that rationale, and then find a nice-sounding excuse to defend it "don't build on greenbelt". If you want 100% greenery you can go to mid Wales or Scotland and live there. Suburban gardens are better for nature than fields of grass anyway.

Can someone bookmark this to return to in five years, I bet this little stunt is long forgotten.

The lady in front of me in Morrison's had her first card declined - told to "call Amex" The second one worked. I've only got about £10 cash at the moment (a full fridge though), so I'm considering popping out for a couple of ton.

I've been spending it for fear of losing* my job. No point having a stash if it stops you freeloading it off your productive neighbour. * Please note spelling of losing.

It will take a generation (or a revolution) to rid the outrageous moral hazard the last 15 years have provided.

Well if we don't all take on mortgages to buy the baby boomers' houses off them, we'll be paying for them to retire early in our taxation anyway, so the OP is right in that respect also.

They are estimates of past growth. I think it's an admission that even historical figures are subject to change. It's a bit like climate data - they feel they can change the past to suit the present policy.

On what timeframe? I recall from several years back it was very low short-term but in the long-term it all depended on the statistical method used. Regardless of this uncertainty, the elasticity of demand is higher long-term.

Get something expensie yet light and self-scan it as loose broccoli. Eg a nice 12oz rump steak. £3 goods for pennies.

Here, you can see last year was cooler than 1979. I've also added some key moments on there.

Global warming isn't happening. Look at the temperature data - 2008 was cooler than 1979.

Threads like this make me glad I live a pleasant 15 minute riverside walk from work. That's the alternative.

You'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis that a climatic change equates to being a problem. Warmer periods in history such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or Roman Warm Period are associated with human prosperity and success, whereas cooling periods are worse for us. Or for example I'm glad our ancestors developed the forests into farmland as it enabled them to prosper rather than remaiing as hunter-gatherers. We're not the only species that can cause climatic changes. Do you think other species have developed self-hating mechanisms when they change their environment?

We are in a decadal cooling trend, please see here, an article by esteemed BBC meteorologist and climate expert Paul Hudson. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml Venus is a completely different planet to earth, and not comparable. The best comparison we can make is to previous centuries/millennia on earth, as we have information of different CO2 levels here and the best eidence shows that changes in CO2 on earth do not drive changes in temperature. I can understand why you wanted to divert attention away from this point of mine rather than address it (obfuscation).

Carbon dioxide levels have varied throughout history and we can detect this in various places such as sediments and ice cores. The problem AGWers have to explain is that carbon dioxide levels only follow changes in temperature and have not appeared to drive them. You have failed to explain this quite clear contravention of the theory, The likelihood is that earth has a natural thermostat and is fairly resilient to changes in atmospheric make-up. The main proposed way is whereby a rise in temperature increases water vapour, which then leads to more cloudiness and reflected sunlight back out to space. A natural negative feedback, though plenty more could exist and this might be overwhelmed at certain times. You should read Lindzen et al (2009) as this paper provides evidence that nature actually operates with a net negative feedback, and not the positive feedback that AGWers believe in with no evidence.

But manmade climate change is not controversial - witness for example the precipitation changes after deforestation or urban heat islands. What is highly controversial is the theory of catastrophic carbon dioxide driven warming - there is no historical evidence for this as ice cores show that carbon dioxide changes follow temperature changes rather than the other way around, and we are currently in a decadal cooling trend.

The pound's fall hasn't fed through to inflation yet as we still have lots of spare capacity.

We're in the appalling situation where government policy and monetary policy are the main determinants of stock price movements. :angry: I'm sure there's no insider betting going on.