"Sustainable diets" and globull warming

[Geronimo]

Easy, says Thomas, Its not true!

lol

Joking aside - Id just like to see some straight talk.

Im getting tired of hidden meanings, convoluted conversations and so forth.

arnt we here to learn from each other - the quicker the better!

If someones got something important to say - say it! clearly

Now you have sussed the 'disclaimer' make it as unclear as you can and no one can accuse you of giving bad information.

[startfresh]

bodge youre on form today freshy

[p_devlin]

Had questioning of global warming not been taboo to most journalists, these stories would have doubtless merited ink and air time, not least because they tell a fresh story. Because the subject is taboo, the press censors itself.

The freshest story of all this week, which by rights should have rated stellar coverage, involved a powerful refutation of Darwin’s theory of evolution and its mechanism, natural selection. “Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps,” Darwin wrote. Now, suggests a study published by the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society, life on Earth did not evolve smoothly at all: To the contrary, the planet owes its diversity to intense periods of productivity interspersed with immense periods of stagnancy. The mechanism for this evolving theory? Climate change on Earth, driven by galactic cosmic rays originating from exploding supernovas — the final act of stars.

This study, Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth, does have a problem, although it convincingly correlates the development of life on Earth with the explosion of nearby stars over the past 510 million years. The problem is its author, Henrik Svensmark, a professor of physics at the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute, who is reviled in the global warming science establishment for studies showing that the Sun and cosmic rays, not man, drives the current climate on Earth.

Reporters on the global-warming beat and their editors have long ignored if not disparaged Svensmark. His latest study, which shows cosmic rays to have also driven the ancient climate, provides most journalists with reason enough to continue to ignore him, even though his study has been published by the world’s oldest and one of its most illustrious astronomical societies.

There is hope, however, both for Svensmark and for the information-consuming public, which is not only starved of balanced information on global warming and evolution but on numerous other politically correct scientific subjects, popularly known as junk science. Svensmark has shown that evolutionary change can occur very rapidly after long barren periods. Journalists themselves may soon evolve into science-capable skeptical practitioners.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/0 ... d-science/

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

The new global currency

[Thomas]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

How do you know that data is correct.

Well I'm not sure of the data either way (you would have to be a confused fundamentalist or shill, to say one way or the other without having true access to it.)

But I do know many so-called truth advocates who some how know it.

I've forgot how many times they say its all a con (but don't distinguish between the unnecessary carbon scam tax etc and that data.) It then seems to become fashionable for so called truthers to say scam (gullible really.)

[p_devlin]

If we're to go down this route of "trusting data" - let us first look at the the data that stated there was or is a problem with CO2 in the first place!

A theatrical life isn't it!

[Thomas]

If we're to go down this route of Not "trusting data" - let us first look at the the data that stated there was or is a problem with CO2 in the first place!

A theatrical life isn't it!

OK

Atmospheric absorption, scattering at different electromagnetic wavelengths and conduction, convection.


water vapor (H2O)
carbon dioxide (CO2)
methane (CH4)
nitrous oxide (N2O)
ozone (O3)

Trichlorofluoromethane Freon-11, R-11, CFC-11 23 CCl3F
Dichlorodifluoromethane Freon-12, R-12, CFC-12 −29.8 CCl2F2
Chlorotrifluoromethane Freon-13, R-13, CFC-13 −81 CClF3
Chlorodifluoromethane R-22, HCFC-22 −40.8 CHClF2
Dichlorofluoromethane R-21, HCFC-21 8.9 CHCl2F
Chlorofluoromethane Freon 31, R-31, HCFC-31 CH2ClF
Bromochlorodifluoromethane BCF, Halon 1211, H-1211, Freon 12B1 CBrClF2
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane Freon 113, R-113, CFC-113, 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 47.7 Cl2FC-CClF2
1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane Freon 113a, R-113a, CFC-113a 45.9 Cl3C-CF3
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane Freon 114, R-114, CFC-114, Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 3.8 ClF2C-CClF2
1-Chloro-1,1,2,2,2-pentafluoroethane Freon 115, R-115, CFC-115, Chloropentafluoroethane −38 ClF2C-CF3
2-Chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane R-124, HCFC-124 −12 CHFClCF3
1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane R-141b, HCFC-141b 32 Cl2FC-CH3
1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane R-142b, HCFC-142b −9.2 ClF2C-CH3
Tetrachloro-1,2-difluoroethane Freon 112, R-112, CFC-112 91.5 CCl2FCCl2F
Tetrachloro-1,1-difluoroethane Freon 112a, R-112a, CFC-112a 91.5 CClF2CCl3
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane Freon 113, R-113, CFC-113 48 CCl2FCClF2
1-Bromo-2-chloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane Halon 2311a 51.7 CHClFCBrF2
2-Bromo-2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane Halon 2311 50.2 CF3CHBrCl
1,1-Dichloro-2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane R-225ca, HCFC-225ca 51 CF3CF2CHCl2
1,3-Dichloro-1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane

[p_devlin]

but how can we trust the data?

[Thomas]

but how can we trust the data?

Precisely, so do you just throw caution to the wind


Since you have asked before what is the biggest sink

Answer Sea (carbonic acid, what about eco systems corals etc I.E eco systems damage one damage others.) If we just throw caution to the wind.

[p_devlin]

do you?

[Thomas]

do you?

No, do you.