As Britain told to expect snow for 'next 10 days', how is the rest of the world is coping with this Arctic weather?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Oh really? Which ones? And state exactly where they said so....not because Inhofe says so.

Go back and read the article I posted. Or here, for your convenience...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

why bother when you've not even read the one i posted? here's another for you!

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

[Darnell 8,478]

Well, personally ....

I've got a huge pile o wood, and an old wood stove that radiates heat - so I put that in the house 3 weeks ago (very nice to keep warm, I like the smell o burning wood ) . It's a seasonal thing, there's a place for it, inside the house, connections already there...

Then I cover the winter beds every night, uncover when there is some sun, cover with black stuff when no sun.

My greenhouse full o strawberries is coming along, is weird growing season for them, I not worry about freezing, is a greenhouse But - I have a bank of black covered brick inside it, in weird configurations, so the thing stays warmer overnight than 'normal'.

There's already been 2 snows in Houston this season - which is crazy (it rarely snows here).

I can't think what 'the city' will do, nor do I care. As long as I'm warm, the internet works inside the house, and the strawberries keep growing, I really don't care much about it.

It does suck when yer trying to fly, though, if some snow. I hate snow, mostly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

why bother when you've not even read the one i posted? here's another for you!

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

Still reaching I see. Science Daily is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal....something you just can't seem to wrap your head around. Second, the article itself does NOT refute the scientific consensus of Global Warming. And since neither one of us are scientists, Dr. Know, why don't you let the bodies of science (you know, all the major bodies of science who study climate) who have already stated that Global Warming is real be the scientists? Why don't you trust them?

Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between 'airborne fraction of CO2 emissions' (not changing very much) and 'CO2 fraction in the air' (changing very rapidly), led in no small part by a misleading headline (subsequently fixed) on the ScienceDaily news item

http://www.realclimate.org/

Edited January 4, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[mawilson 2,133]

Still reaching I see. Science Daily is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal....

Well it says (at the bottom of the article),

"The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters."

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Still reaching I see. Science Daily is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal....something you just can't seem to wrap your head around. Second, the article itself does NOT refute the scientific consensus of Global Warming. And since neither one of us are scientists, Dr. Know, why don't you let the bodies of science who have already state the consensus be the scientists? Why don't you trust them?

oh it's not? darn......

i'm sure if you believed scientists 100%, you'd also believe in eugenics.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

oh it's not? darn......

i'm sure if you believed scientists 100%, you'd also believe in eugenics.

No beer for failure, Chuck. Sorry.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

No beer for failure, Chuck. Sorry.

so how long have you been dry?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steve says: I have facts that there is global warming and by god I can prove it! Anyone for a cold beer?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve says: I have facts that there is global warming and by god I can prove it! Anyone for a cold beer?

You want a six pack of beer, prove all the major bodies of science are in fact wrong.

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You want a six pack of beer, prove all the major bodies of science are in fact wrong.

Let me run this bye you. A hundred years of humans burning fossil fuels and such (industrial age). Versus millions of years of unchecked forest fires, volcanic eruptions, so on and so fourth. The climate change hoax is all about control.

Your just a very insecure person who loves a good drama. I see you convincing yourself daily of this tripe. Start thinking for yourself, you will feel better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I see the personal agendas continue here unchecked.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The climate change hoax is all about control.

:rofl:

[Kathryn41 3,205]

You are allowed to have differences of opinion but please do not insult others just because you do not agree with their comments. Personal attacks and insults are still a violation in Off Topic as well.

[Peikko 1,575]

The control of who by what? Carbon tax? This is not an invention of the left, but of the free market. Yes, business does know how to make a buck out of controlling emissions. That is documented fact.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

the article steven keeps re posting, it is from dec 2004.......... mine is more recent.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to

know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC

Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical

chemist.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself

solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate

changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in

man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC

committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation

between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports

and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have

distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip

Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed

publications.

i'm torn between warsteiner and bitburger.....