AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Prince Charles Shows Why He is not Only Ugly But Stupid Too!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
As if it is not enough to be blessed with the Windsor Horse Face, Prince Charles is also displaying why he posses a lack of brain cells within that same cranium.

At least his mother has SOME common sense. Wonder why she allows her son to make a complete fool of himself?


Quote:EU must halt climate's doomsday clock, Prince Charles tells heads of Europe

Prince Charles has demanded urgent EU action to stop the "doomsday clock of climate change".

In an impassioned speech to the Brussels parliament yesterday, he told MEPs it was their clear duty to show a more "determined" lead on the issue.

Standing in the heart of the parliament building, Charles claimed that the world was "sleepwalking its way to the edge of catastrophe".

He said: "The doomsday clock of climate change is ticking ever faster towards midnight.
He definitely is a horse face and his mommy knows how to keep quiet in respect for her position as a figurehead, but Charles usually gets it all wrong!
If all those who agree with him stppoed using electricity and autos,isn't it true that the problems would be fixed?
Palladin Wrote:If all those who agree with him stppoed using electricity and autos,isn't it true that the problems would be fixed?

Oh Patrick sweetie, silly you. This is not about him/them stopping the use of electricity, autos, or other such. It is about You being required to do what they want you do do. It is YOU who they want to make the lifestyle change.

Tsk, Tsk. 8)
John,

I know! I bug my collectivist friend about offering to pay higher taxes and it baffles him. Sort of common sense to me,think it's good,DO IT.

Makes no sense to them,but if they can force us along,now that is GOOD!
Wouldn't know what's wrong with what Charles said, Europe (and China) will suffer badly from AGW, and that's densely populated areas. What will be if hundreds of millions have to move North, Europeans to Scandinavia, and the Chinese to Siberia? That'll draw some blood, don't you agree?
Don't know whether your puss is more attractive than Charles', John, but compared to him your cranium seems to lack some understanding. I also assume he's got better sources of information. The man's okay, very much so.
Elizabeth rarely comments on such issues, one of the rare exceptions was on AGW. :lol:

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/war_...index.html
John L- What do you believe in?

AGW

GW

GC (cooling)

AGC

Nothing

Fair question John?
I believe that current solar activity, rather lack of it, is sending us into another Dalton type minimum.
scpg02 Wrote:I believe that current solar activity, rather lack of it, is sending us into another Dalton type minimum.

That makes you a GC'er. For those who don't follow the issue.

I'm a AGW'er but you probably already guessed that.
gray ghost Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:I believe that current solar activity, rather lack of it, is sending us into another Dalton type minimum.

That makes you a GC'er. For those who don't follow the issue.

I'm a AGW'er but you probably already guessed that.

I pay attention to the science.
scpg02 Wrote:I believe that current solar activity, rather lack of it, is sending us into another Dalton type minimum.

And I agree with you Maggie.
John L Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:I believe that current solar activity, rather lack of it, is sending us into another Dalton type minimum.

And I agree with you Maggie.

LOL! We are in trouble when we start finishing each others sentences.
When did you become a GC'er Maggie? Last year is supposed to be the hottest on record so I wouldn't suppose you would come to that conclusion in the last 14 months. Maybe in 05 or 06? Not that I'm trying to say that 07 proves anything because it may be an anomaly of course.

You know, the same kind of anomaly as when a GW'er turns up the thermostat in his room and he starts to believ in GW with an urgency again until his mom calls him upstairs for his dinner where the air is on.

GW'ers are whackos, I'm sure we 'both' agree there! S2
gray ghost Wrote:When did you become a GC'er Maggie? Last year is supposed to be the hottest on record so I wouldn't suppose you would come to that conclusion in the last 14 months. Maybe in 05 or 06? Not that I'm trying to say that 07 proves anything because it may be an anomaly of course.

You know, the same kind of anomaly as when a GW'er turns up the thermostat in his room and he starts to believ in GW with an urgency again until his mom calls him upstairs for his dinner where the air is on.

GW'ers are whackos, I'm sure we 'both' agree there! S2

You are Way behind the 8-Ball "GG". The temperatures have been revised and the hottest years are officially in.


Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Quote:The hottest year: 1934?

It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.


The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.


Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.


The media coverage amid this confusion has been execrable. Last week's Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. Naturally, Newsweek is not very interested in the recent data restatement.


Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: "Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years," read its front-page story, "capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday." Funny, but we thought "unprecedented" would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.


Alas, when the source of data that prompted this story, the National Climatic Data Center, adjusted its numbers in May, The Post did not correct its shrieking January story. Nor has The Post yet bothered to report NASA's latest data restatement. Instead, on Friday, we get: "Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?"


If we cannot get through 2007 without a data restatement so fundamental that it dethrones the "hottest year on record," we should not keep hearing angry intonations that "The debate is over." The debate is not over — not if such basic climate data is so disputed.]The hottest year: 1934?[/url][/u]


It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.


The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.


Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.


The media coverage amid this confusion has been execrable. Last week's Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. Naturally, Newsweek is not very interested in the recent data restatement.


Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: "Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years," read its front-page story, "capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday." Funny, but we thought "unprecedented" would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.


Alas, when the source of data that prompted this story, the National Climatic Data Center, adjusted its numbers in May, The Post did not correct its shrieking January story. Nor has The Post yet bothered to report NASA's latest data restatement. Instead, on Friday, we get: "Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?"


If we cannot get through 2007 without a data restatement so fundamental that it dethrones the "hottest year on record," we should not keep hearing angry intonations that "The debate is over." The debate is not over — not if such basic climate data is so disputed.
gray ghost Wrote:GW'ers are whackos, I'm sure we 'both' agree there! S2

No I think the AGWers are the wackos. GW is normal climate variation.

I have never believed in AGW and never believed that GW in general was bad. I have always seen it as a political movement. There is much proof of that. I personally have a posting history on this going back to 2000.

As for believing in GC, that is a result of reading the science on sun spot/climate change correlations.

And there has been no warming since '98 and slight cooling in the southern hemisphere. '98 also coincided with solar maximum.
Alright Maggie, you're both a GW'er and a GC'er.

And GW is not climate variations like turning up the thermostat in your room. GW is the belief in a trend of GW which is not 'A' global warming. I'm going to be firm on that Maggie. Don't try to bugger around with the thermostat!

I'll get around to your stuff later John but you should be forewarned that I don't always go with Nasa. Political interference ya know.
John L- Turns out I was wrong or at least may be wrong about 07 being the warmest. According to this it's the second warmest behind 05.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm

I don't know how this is going to sit with the coolers though but it's a good feeling to come clean on one's errors once in a while.
Your source is incorrect. NASA has officially revised it's temperatures, as of 8-2007, last year. The numbers are above. And here are the entire numbers.

Steve McIntyre, a mathematition from your country, and founder of Climate Audit, discovered that the NASA figures were incorrect. he is the fellow who proved the Hockey Stick incorrect, so he is well versed in the science. Faced with the overwhelming evidence, NASA was forced to quietly make the necessary agjustments.

I have the official number put out above from NASA. If you will look closely, 1934 was the warmest, 1998 second, 1921 third, and 2006 fourth.

However, I must tell you that the heating and cooling effects are influenced by celestial occurances, which ALWAYS have a timetable to their actions. Just as there is the typical 11 year sunspot activity, so too there are such things as the effect of the gas giants on the solar system's center of gravity. this causes stress on the sun, and it goes through it's regular cycle differently.

Solar scientists are telling those who will listen, that we are entering another cooling "minimum" cycle. And these cycles do not change overnight, but take time to shake out. Further, by 2030, we should be in the middle of another little ice age. It's all in the heavenly cycles, not what man does or does not do.
This debate is really odd. You can have 1 large volcano(Mt St Helens),1 sunspot,1tsunami,1 quiet period from the sun and dramatic changes occur on earth's atmosphere.

We've had total global ice packs,warming to allow human habitation and back to degrees of extreme cooling,we've had Greenland farmed by the Vikings and today we have a mantra that says industrial MAN causes climate change?

I'll sit this one out and let my worry wart leftist friends have strokes fearing this future.
I'm sorry John but I already warned you that I would be sceptical of anything Nasa says on climate. You refer to the Milankovich cycles though and perhaps you could tell me more on how much influence they have on climate change, in your opinion. (they're the solar system, gas giant thingys you mentioned)

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214

Palladin- Yes, it's always wise to sit it out on climate change because most of what people say is based on wishful thinking and political motivation. I will admit though that some denialists refine their arguments to a higher degree and in those cases it sometimes takes a bit of research to shoot them down. Most of their biggest problems come in when they try to be GW'ers and GC'ers at the same time.

I've heard them all. One found definite proof that the earth had to be cooling because the snowpack on Antarctica was getting deeper, then got cranky and went away when told why that didn't indicate global cooling. Sometimes it's as simplistic as a person hearing of record snowfalls in some areas and using that as proof positive that it means global cooling. Hehe, what would you expect from a person who lives in the southern US and thinks that snow is cold!

Just a couple of the more entertaining ones I wanted to share with you considering you are making the right decision. The fact is, it's a loser's game to start talking about complicated climate issues when one doesn't understand completely. You're doing the right thing; sit back and let God (or whatever sky fairy you believe in) figure it all out.
Pages: 1 2