On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:39:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
USA is a federation of quasi autonomous States.

.... and counties, and townships and towns... I've been pleasantly
surprised at how well it works. There's still a lot of insanity and rot at
the high level, of course (possibly far worse than the UK), but at the
local level - which is where I think it really matters anyway - things
seem to run themselves pretty well.

'course we also get a health system that's ****ed up beyond any hope of
repair, but that just teaches one to have more respect for the angle
grinder :-)

cheers

Jules

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hawi:"
saying something like:

Perhaps you'd like to wander over to
http://transitionnetwork.org/ and be enlightened.

More greeny cock.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hawi:"
saying something like:

Goodbye.

Door, arse, etc.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.
There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the last
century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in average
global temps.
And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the
planet until a couple of decades ago.

On Dec 3, 8:12*am, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:01:33 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

snip



But the green agenda is much more than that single point. It
is, in summary:
1. Global warming is occurring
2. Global warming is manmade
3. Global warming will be an epic disaster
4. Humans can stop global warming by reducing energy consumption
5. The cost to human life of doing so will be minimal compared to the
cost of global warming
6. We should therefore cut back heavily on energy consumption.

1&2 I might agree with you on, but its far from certain. But the rest
aren't remotely established. Point 5 is grossly wrong, the cost to
human life of the green agenda would be appalling.

To warrant following the green agenda all above points would need to
be correct. This is far from the case.

NT

Well, we agree on some of the above, at least. I would add at least
two other of the above to my 'agree with' list. But that is also
assuming that those 6 items make up the difinitive list; which I don't
believe it does - even remotely.

Please feel free to add to or modify it.


And I'm clueless about what you mean
by 'the green agenda'. Even if there is such a thing, there are many
different flavours and concentrations.

There are, but the agenda is to a fair degree the same, and its to
dramatically reduce fossil fuel use in order to avoid an expected
climate catastrophe. A policy which sadly would kill a sickening
number of people.


We've probably done this to death now.

We'd only just started. There have been people here with way more
knowledge to offer, and they didn't convince us either.


NT

dennis@home wrote:

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.

So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one side.

There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the
last century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the
planet until a couple of decades ago.

You wish. Typical for the deniers to rubbish the data that doesn't agree
with their prejudices. But even if you restrict the period to 20 years
the warming trend is there in any period of 10 years within that period
and all 10 of the warmest years on record are also there.

in 244066 20091204 082851 Roger Chapman wrote:

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

In a major extinction event 251m years ago a rise of 6degC was enough to
wipe out over 90% of all life on earth. Took millions of years before any
significant degree of recovery took place.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.

snip

Just an afterthought. The 'island effect' is of course entirely manmade
and only indirectly attributable to CO2 emissions. Indeed when the
greenies get their way and all power comes from renewable sources it
will still be at least as great as it is now (as long as we don't have
power shortages which seems likely). Whether it has a disproportionate
effect on the figures for global averages depends on who you believe. I
have tended to incline towards the Global Warmers in recent years
precisely because I find it ridiculously easy to see through the
arguments from the Deniers but much more difficult to find any flaws
with the opposite point of view. The Warmers might not be perfect (and
there are complete nutters on both sides) but they are much more
consistent and have much more real science behind them.

On Dec 4, 8:53*am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 244066 20091204 082851 Roger Chapman wrote:

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

In a major extinction event 251m years ago a rise of 6degC was enough to
wipe out over 90% of all life on earth. *Took millions of years before any
significant degree of recovery took place.


Today we're able to heat, cool, and move.


NT

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.

So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one side.

I have told you before, you have zero evidence only a few models.
When you can understand this you will realise how stupid you are being now.


There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the last
century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

But you can't prove they have gone up by 1C as there isn't enough data for
the first 60 years.
What data you have is from cities and we all know that cities get warmer as
they grow.
This doe not mean the average temp for the rest of the world has gone up.


And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the
planet until a couple of decades ago.

You wish. Typical for the deniers to rubbish the data that doesn't agree
with their prejudices. But even if you restrict the period to 20 years the
warming trend is there in any period of 10 years within that period and
all 10 of the warmest years on record are also there.

Oh yes! the last ten have shown an increase of how much?

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
m...
in 244066 20091204 082851 Roger Chapman wrote:

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

In a major extinction event 251m years ago a rise of 6degC was enough to
wipe out over 90% of all life on earth. Took millions of years before any
significant degree of recovery took place.

What makes you think the rise caused the extinction?
There are many things that could have caused the extinction and the rise
including.. volcanoes, gamma ray bursts, asteroid impact you just choose
temp rise without any evidence as it suits your agenda.

Bob Martin wrote:
in 244066 20091204 082851 Roger Chapman wrote:

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

In a major extinction event 251m years ago a rise of 6degC was enough to
wipe out over 90% of all life on earth. Took millions of years before any
significant degree of recovery took place.
well thats no strictly accurate.

we know that

1/. 90% of life was wiped ouyt and

2/. teh earth suffered a 6 degeree rise,

the two events are almost certainly correlated, but not necessarily
directly causally.

I.e. 90% of dead bodies might generate aneogh methane to warm the erath
that much ;-)|

Or something else cased both. Major eruption or asteroid strike, or
indeed, both.

dennis@home wrote:

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.

So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one
side.

I have told you before, you have zero evidence only a few models.
When you can understand this you will realise how stupid you are being now.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dismal Dennis can't distinguish between data
from the past and models predicting the future.

There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the
last century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

But you can't prove they have gone up by 1C as there isn't enough data
for the first 60 years.

The data is there, I don't have to prove anything. But you can't prove
that your claim is anything other than a lie.

What data you have is from cities and we all know that cities get warmer
as they grow.

Plumbing new depths of stupidity there Dennis. Three fifths of the
world's surface is sea and most of the rest is countryside.

This doe not mean the average temp for the rest of the world has gone up.

Your whole hypothesis is nonsense.

And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of
the planet until a couple of decades ago.

You wish. Typical for the deniers to rubbish the data that doesn't
agree with their prejudices. But even if you restrict the period to 20
years the warming trend is there in any period of 10 years within that
period and all 10 of the warmest years on record are also there.

Oh yes! the last ten have shown an increase of how much?

Not a lot but some. You can take the sophisticated Met Office approach
(factor out ENSO and apply statistics) or you can work it out as I did.
The sum of the averages for the second 5 years is greater than the sum
for the first 5 years which is also true for most 10 year periods over
the last 40 years that you might care to pick including all those that
have 1998 in the first five years. 1998 being the year deniers have been
using to prove the world has since been cooling.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.

So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one
side.

I have told you before, you have zero evidence only a few models.
When you can understand this you will realise how stupid you are being
now.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dismal Dennis can't distinguish between data from
the past and models predicting the future.

I can but you apparently can't.
The data from the past does not support your view of global warming.
The models do.
Therefore you have zero evidence to base your beliefs on.
I know it must make you feel dismal but there is no need to try and make
others that way.

There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the
last century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

But you can't prove they have gone up by 1C as there isn't enough data
for the first 60 years.

The data is there, I don't have to prove anything. But you can't prove
that your claim is anything other than a lie.

You fanatics always say that sort of thing.
Your data does not support what you claim, I don't need to supply any more
data to disprove what your own data fails to prove.


What data you have is from cities and we all know that cities get warmer
as they grow.

Plumbing new depths of stupidity there Dennis. Three fifths of the world's
surface is sea and most of the rest is countryside.

Correct, now you are making progress..
how many of the data points relate to those areas and how many to cities?
once you work it out you will see how you are wrong.


This doe not mean the average temp for the rest of the world has gone up.

Your whole hypothesis is nonsense.

My hypothesis is correct, it being that there isn't data to support your
claims.
You yourself have said that the majority of the planet isn't cities, however
the majority of data points in the 80 year period you chose are in cities.
How you can expect to get sensible results for the world in general from
that situation is puzzling.


And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the
planet until a couple of decades ago.

You wish. Typical for the deniers to rubbish the data that doesn't agree
with their prejudices. But even if you restrict the period to 20 years
the warming trend is there in any period of 10 years within that period
and all 10 of the warmest years on record are also there.

Oh yes! the last ten have shown an increase of how much?

Not a lot but some. You can take the sophisticated Met Office approach
(factor out ENSO and apply statistics) or you can work it out as I did.
The sum of the averages for the second 5 years is greater than the sum for
the first 5 years which is also true for most 10 year periods over the
last 40 years that you might care to pick including all those that have
1998 in the first five years. 1998 being the year deniers have been using
to prove the world has since been cooling.

I bet you will still be denying the facts next year and the year after too.

in 244207 20091204 215935 "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...
in 244066 20091204 082851 Roger Chapman wrote:

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for they
home.

In a major extinction event 251m years ago a rise of 6degC was enough to
wipe out over 90% of all life on earth. Took millions of years before any
significant degree of recovery took place.

What makes you think the rise caused the extinction?
There are many things that could have caused the extinction and the rise
including.. volcanoes, gamma ray bursts, asteroid impact you just choose
temp rise without any evidence as it suits your agenda.

You wish. I'm quoting Professor Michael Benton in his book
"When Life Nearly Died - The greatest mass extinction of all time"

Of course many things could have caused the rise, but the point is that
what sounds like a small rise was catastrophic.
The idea of asteroid impact has been discarded.
What makes you think I have an agenda?

dennis@home wrote:

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.

So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one
side.

I have told you before, you have zero evidence only a few models.
When you can understand this you will realise how stupid you are
being now.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dismal Dennis can't distinguish between data
from the past and models predicting the future.

I can but you apparently can't.

I sometimes wonder why I continue to argue with people like Dennis and
Dribble who make and continue to defend the most outrageous statements
in the apparent belief that if they lie long enough and loud enough they
will prove their point.

The data from the past does not support your view of global warming.
The models do.

As I said before Dennis cannot distinguish between data from the past
and models which predict the future. So come on Dennis show us how
stupid you can really be by explaining precisely how models predict the
past.

Therefore you have zero evidence to base your beliefs on.

There is plenty of evidence out there. Try:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...ce/monitoring/

So where is your evidence that there is no evidence?

I know it must make you feel dismal but there is no need to try and make
others that way.

I have to admit that you are world class at clutching at straws.

There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over
the last century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise
in average global temps.

The rises are what most people would consider very modest. 1C (the
difference over the last 80 years) is much less than the range of
temperatures that the population at large consider reasonable for
they home.

But you can't prove they have gone up by 1C as there isn't enough
data for the first 60 years.

The data is there, I don't have to prove anything. But you can't prove
that your claim is anything other than a lie.

You fanatics always say that sort of thing.
Your data does not support what you claim, I don't need to supply any
more data to disprove what your own data fails to prove.

You are the fanatic. The data clearly points to some degree of global
warming over the last 100 years but you continue to swear black is white
while being blind to the reality.

What data you have is from cities and we all know that cities get
warmer as they grow.

Plumbing new depths of stupidity there Dennis. Three fifths of the
world's surface is sea and most of the rest is countryside.

Correct, now you are making progress..
how many of the data points relate to those areas and how many to cities?
once you work it out you will see how you are wrong.

Nice of you to agree that you have been plumbing new depths of stupidity
Dennis.

This doe not mean the average temp for the rest of the world has gone
up.

Your whole hypothesis is nonsense.

My hypothesis is correct, it being that there isn't data to support your
claims.
You yourself have said that the majority of the planet isn't cities,
however the majority of data points in the 80 year period you chose are
in cities. How you can expect to get sensible results for the world in
general from that situation is puzzling.


Try this again:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...ce/monitoring/


And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps
up without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of
the planet until a couple of decades ago.

You wish. Typical for the deniers to rubbish the data that doesn't
agree with their prejudices. But even if you restrict the period to
20 years the warming trend is there in any period of 10 years within
that period and all 10 of the warmest years on record are also there.

Oh yes! the last ten have shown an increase of how much?

Not a lot but some. You can take the sophisticated Met Office approach
(factor out ENSO and apply statistics) or you can work it out as I
did. The sum of the averages for the second 5 years is greater than
the sum for the first 5 years which is also true for most 10 year
periods over the last 40 years that you might care to pick including
all those that have 1998 in the first five years. 1998 being the year
deniers have been using to prove the world has since been cooling.

I bet you will still be denying the facts next year and the year after too.

You don't have any facts to back up your fantasy and, unlike you, I am
open to facts whether they are inconvenient or not.

I said to Terry Fields a year or two back that we wouldn't be sure
whether the warming had ceased for a number of years and so far at least
the warming trend has continued. The Met Office has apparently (I can't
find the source) predicted that the next 10 years will exhibit warming
at a rate similar to that experienced during the 1980s and 1990s. On the
other hand the Deniers (or at least some of those who accept there has
been warming in the past) are predicting a prolonged period of cooling.
They can't both be right and only time will tell.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
m...

You wish. I'm quoting Professor Michael Benton in his book
"When Life Nearly Died - The greatest mass extinction of all time"

Of course many things could have caused the rise, but the point is that
what sounds like a small rise was catastrophic.

The point is they don't know that the rise did anything at all.
As I said there are many things that could have caused the extinction and
the rise, there is little if any evidence that the rise caused the
extinction, or was even in the same millennia.

The idea of asteroid impact has been discarded.

How about the gamma burst then?
Nasty things.. turn air in nitrous compounds, destroy ozone, cause mass
extinction due to UV exposure, etc.

Or a volcano.. lots of dust and CO2 in the atmosphere, easy to mistake the
CO2 as causing a warmed climate when in reality its the cold that kills the
species off.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.
There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the
last century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.
And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the
planet until a couple of decades ago.




Lets see if this blows a hole in your argument Dennis

160 years worth of data, including ocean temperatures
I'd shut up if I were you before you dig your hole even deeper



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8396696.stm


" ...Now the Met Office has written to 188 countries for permission to
publish material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather
stations around the world, which it says proves climate change is caused
by humans.

Its database is a main source of analysis for the UN's climate change
science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which joins
talks next week at the long-awaited Copenhagen summit. ..."

--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...

You wish. I'm quoting Professor Michael Benton in his book
"When Life Nearly Died - The greatest mass extinction of all time"

Of course many things could have caused the rise, but the point is that
what sounds like a small rise was catastrophic.

The point is they don't know that the rise did anything at all.
As I said there are many things that could have caused the extinction
and the rise, there is little if any evidence that the rise caused the
extinction, or was even in the same millennia.

The idea of asteroid impact has been discarded.

How about the gamma burst then?
Nasty things.. turn air in nitrous compounds, destroy ozone, cause mass
extinction due to UV exposure, etc.

Or a volcano.. lots of dust and CO2 in the atmosphere, easy to mistake
the CO2 as causing a warmed climate when in reality its the cold that
kills the species off.

Or the dennisosaur - it just bored the rest of life on earth to death


--
geoff

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.

So is the existence for your God but all the real evidence is on one
side.

I have told you before, you have zero evidence only a few models.
When you can understand this you will realise how stupid you are being
now.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dismal Dennis can't distinguish between data
from the past and models predicting the future.

I can but you apparently can't.

I sometimes wonder why I continue to argue with people like Dennis and
Dribble who make and continue to defend the most outrageous statements in
the apparent belief that if they lie long enough and loud enough they will
prove their point.

The data from the past does not support your view of global warming.
The models do.

As I said before Dennis cannot distinguish between data from the past and
models which predict the future. So come on Dennis show us how stupid you
can really be by explaining precisely how models predict the past.

Therefore you have zero evidence to base your beliefs on.

There is plenty of evidence out there. Try:

Look I have tried to avoid calling you an idiot but you just can't listen
can you.

That evidence does not support GW as the temps back from about 1980 are
unreliable due to a lack of actual direct measurements and have been
"adjusted" to fit what they believe was true.

You should have noticed by now that the majority of educated people in this
group do not agree with you.
However you still keep on with the same old story.
I don't know why you bother.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

I sometimes wonder why I continue to argue with people like Dennis and
Dribble who make and continue to defend the most outrageous statements
in the apparent belief that if they lie long enough and loud enough
they will prove their point.

The data from the past does not support your view of global warming.
The models do.

As I said before Dennis cannot distinguish between data from the past
and models which predict the future. So come on Dennis show us how
stupid you can really be by explaining precisely how models predict
the past.

Therefore you have zero evidence to base your beliefs on.

There is plenty of evidence out there. Try:

Surprise, surprise, Dennis has cut the link without commenting on it and
the chances are without even looking at it. That is the second time in
the recent past that a denier has done that but the other seems to have
retired from the fray.

Look I have tried to avoid calling you an idiot but you just can't
listen can you.

Go right ahead. It is a privilege to be called an idiot by the likes of
you or Dribble. Frankly I would wonder if I had somehow go something
wrong if either of you ever agreed with anything I said.

That evidence does not support GW as the temps back from about 1980 are
unreliable due to a lack of actual direct measurements and have been
"adjusted" to fit what they believe was true.

You can repeat your lies as long as you like but as long as you fail to
provide any evidence to back them up you are unlikely to convince anyone
on here, let alone me.

You should have noticed by now that the majority of educated people in
this group do not agree with you.

I have to say I have been surprised at the attitude taken by at least a
couple of contributors but if a GOM of science like David Bellamy can be
taken in by the wholesale deceit put about by the leading deniers then I
suppose anyone can.

However you still keep on with the same old story.

Facts have a surprising habit of not changing without due cause. But
just for the record I will reiterate what I currently believe.

1) The world has been warming up, with only the odd blip, for at at
least the last 100 years and so far at least shows no sign of reversing
the trend.

2) CO2 has had a significant part to play in that warming and it really
is of no consequence how big a share of that is due to the activities of
humankind.

3) A warmer world is very bad news indeed for a sizeable proportion of
the world's population.

4) If the world continues to warm at some time in the not too distant
future the equilibrium will break down and we will swap the current
inter-glacial for an ice free hot world.

5) Nothing we do in this country will be enough to effect the outcome.
If countries with large populations fail to act to cut their carbon
output and, perhaps more crucially, stop breeding like rabbits, then the
rest might just as well not bother.

Now will all those "educated people in this group" who Dennis claims
disagree with me please stand up (metaphorically speaking) so I can see
who they are.

I don't know why you bother.

I think I have already said that further up the thread. Can't you think
of anything original to say.

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.
There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the last
century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.
And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of the
planet until a couple of decades ago.




Lets see if this blows a hole in your argument Dennis

160 years worth of data, including ocean temperatures


A whole 1000 weather stations including some that measure sea temps at the
surface?
You are grasping at straws.

Why don't you plot the temps and the CO2 concentrations on a graph and see
which one rises first.
Oh you can't because the data isn't there.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


Surprise, surprise, Dennis has cut the link without commenting on it and
the chances are without even looking at it. That is the second time in the
recent past that a denier has done that but the other seems to have
retired from the fray.

I did comment on it are you deaf?

dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


Surprise, surprise, Dennis has cut the link without commenting on it
and the chances are without even looking at it. That is the second
time in the recent past that a denier has done that but the other
seems to have retired from the fray.

I did comment on it are you deaf?

Oh I am sorry. I thought that:

"That evidence does not support GW as the temps back from about 1980 are
unreliable due to a lack of actual direct measurements and have been
"adjusted" to fit what they believe was true."

Was you talking out of your arse again rather than carefully weighing up
the evidence. Talking of evidence where pray is your evidence to support
your ridiculous claims? The reason that you haven't managed to come up
with any evidence is because there isn't any credible evidence out there
to support the pack of lies you keep on regurgitating.

dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

That is debateable.
There is evidence that measured temps in cities has gone up over the
last century.
However there is far less evidence that there has been a big rise in
average global temps.
And we all know about the heat island effect which puts city temps up
without affecting the average much.
Shame they didn't keep temp records with much accuracy over much of
the planet until a couple of decades ago.




Lets see if this blows a hole in your argument Dennis

160 years worth of data, including ocean temperatures


A whole 1000 weather stations including some that measure sea temps at
the surface?
You are grasping at straws.

No, grasping at straws is about the only think you have a talent for.

Why don't you plot the temps and the CO2 concentrations on a graph and
see which one rises first.
Oh you can't because the data isn't there.

Seems to me you are losing the plot as well as your mind. Surely it is a
given for the deniers that temperatures lag CO2 and conclusive proof
that CO2 has absolutely nothing to contribute in the way of warming.

go into the webb and put in your request you will have several groups
listed

url:http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/1391147415.aspx