Greenpeacve protests about Danish oil driling in the Arctic
-
Quite. The amount of CO2 produced by people whose aim is to protect the environment is incredible. I saw a nature program last night that set out to protect deer in the New Forest (on previous programs they had mentioned GW). They spent: 1) a week driving up and down at night filming deer, 2) A week clearing back 10 meters of foliage over a length of a mile with chainsaws and shredded the resulting moutain of wood. 3) Digging treestumps out of a field with a massive JCB. 4) Recovering an underpass with gravel using dumper trucks and so on. Deer deaths dropped by 2 over a spave of 4 months. My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2? Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
I disagree. How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
I disagree. How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
OK, stupid or devious liars. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
I disagree. How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
Oakman wrote:
How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
No worries. A risk-taking, entrepreneurial venture by RDF/Channel 4. No grants.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Quite. The amount of CO2 produced by people whose aim is to protect the environment is incredible. I saw a nature program last night that set out to protect deer in the New Forest (on previous programs they had mentioned GW). They spent: 1) a week driving up and down at night filming deer, 2) A week clearing back 10 meters of foliage over a length of a mile with chainsaws and shredded the resulting moutain of wood. 3) Digging treestumps out of a field with a massive JCB. 4) Recovering an underpass with gravel using dumper trucks and so on. Deer deaths dropped by 2 over a spave of 4 months. My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2? Whether I agree with AGW or not, clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2?
Only two deer? Are you saying that the foliage grew back and the underpass refilled in just 4 months? Wow! What a waste! My quesiton to you would be: Given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world, is it better to let motorists be injured or die by hitting deer, and avoid that production of CO2?
fat_boy wrote:
clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Only if they are campaigning against CO2 induced AGW. Are they? Bill Baily is a comic and musician, whose take on AGW I have not been able to find. Perhaps if I ploughed through You Tube, I might determine it. Dr Sara Norris is a conservationist, who nowhere mentions AGW in her profile[^]. Jem Stansfield is an engineer turned science presenter. As he has been on 'Scrapheap Challenge', he presumably does not worry too much about the pointless production of CO2. (Engineers are always 'deniers'.) Dusty Gedge sells 'living roofs'. Quote: In the UK context, it is predicted that we will have: • Increased summer temperatures • Increased likelihood of intense summer storms Green roofs are now widely recognised as helping cities to cool during heat excesses and also reduce the need for air conditioning in individual buildings. A good green roof can help reduce the amount of rainwater leaving roofs during excess summer storms. This reduces the load on the storm water system and reduces the likelihood of summer flash storms[floods?]. His business depends on the mitigation of AGW, so he ain't stoopid.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
jschell wrote:
That would be interesting if it was in fact relevant.
That figure I quoted is an average. One can easilly imagine that on occasion the amount of oil released naturally by one fissure alone could easilly exceed the average. Especially the one just offshore of Californian that on average releases 3,000 gallons a day. Whats it going to do i n an earth quake?
jschell wrote:
The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
Entirely spurious and in fact many plants only reproduce due to wild fires which are themselves another totally natural phenomena. As for damage done by oil seepage and mans spils. What sort of damage are we talkign about? Clearly the oil eating bacteria have a field day even if some sea bird perish. Are you saying a sea bird is more important than a bacteris?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
That figure I quoted is an average. One can easilly imagine that on occasion the amount of oil released naturally by one fissure alone could easilly exceed the average. Especially the one just offshore of Californian that on average releases 3,000 gallons a day. Whats it going to do i n an earth quake?
And one can just as easily imagine that a volcano is going to release a lot of heat.
fat_boy wrote:
Entirely spurious and in fact many plants only reproduce due to wild fires which are themselves another totally natural phenomena.
That statement is irrelevant in terms of the analogy.
fat_boy wrote:
As for damage done by oil seepage and mans spils. What sort of damage are we talkign about? Clearly the oil eating bacteria have a field day even if some sea bird perish. Are you saying a sea bird is more important than a bacteris?
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said.
-
Oakman wrote:
How much of a grant did they get, and how much did they sell the program for?
No worries. A risk-taking, entrepreneurial venture by RDF/Channel 4. No grants.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
ict558 wrote:
A risk-taking, entrepreneurial venture by RDF/Channel 4. No grants.
Then the guys who made it were paid by the venturers, yes? They made a living driving around in the woods shooting movies of animals, while you had to work for a living.
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
-
ict558 wrote:
A risk-taking, entrepreneurial venture by RDF/Channel 4. No grants.
Then the guys who made it were paid by the venturers, yes? They made a living driving around in the woods shooting movies of animals, while you had to work for a living.
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
Oakman wrote:
Then the guys who made it were paid by the venturers, yes?
Yes. But no grants.
Oakman wrote:
They made a living driving around in the woods shooting movies of animals, while you had to work for a living.
Yes. But no grants. How much of a grant did they get? £0.00. They were paid a performance fee. How much did they sell the program for? £0.00. It wasn't theirs to sell. Does it bother you that some folks are well paid for work they enjoy? Tough. It's a free market. Now that ain't workin', that's the way you do it, You play the guitar on the MTV. That ain't workin', that's the way you do it, Money for nothin' and your chicks for free. Money for nothin' and chicks for free.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Oakman wrote:
Then the guys who made it were paid by the venturers, yes?
Yes. But no grants.
Oakman wrote:
They made a living driving around in the woods shooting movies of animals, while you had to work for a living.
Yes. But no grants. How much of a grant did they get? £0.00. They were paid a performance fee. How much did they sell the program for? £0.00. It wasn't theirs to sell. Does it bother you that some folks are well paid for work they enjoy? Tough. It's a free market. Now that ain't workin', that's the way you do it, You play the guitar on the MTV. That ain't workin', that's the way you do it, Money for nothin' and your chicks for free. Money for nothin' and chicks for free.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
ict558 wrote:
Does it bother you that some folks are well paid for work they enjoy? Tough. It's a free market.
You are so eager to turn this into a confrontation that you have ignored the fact that I was pointing out to fat_boy that his categorization of the film-makers as stupid was incorrect. Let me restate it and I'll type slowly in hopes you understand: They'd gotten paid, probably well for doing very little. The biggest problem with the free market, by the way, is that Gresham's law prevails in so many more ways than he ever considered.
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
-
fat_boy wrote:
My quesiton to them would be that given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world is it better to let two deer die and save all avoid that production of CO2?
Only two deer? Are you saying that the foliage grew back and the underpass refilled in just 4 months? Wow! What a waste! My quesiton to you would be: Given the supposed impact of CO2 on the world, is it better to let motorists be injured or die by hitting deer, and avoid that production of CO2?
fat_boy wrote:
clearly these people are utterly stupid.
Only if they are campaigning against CO2 induced AGW. Are they? Bill Baily is a comic and musician, whose take on AGW I have not been able to find. Perhaps if I ploughed through You Tube, I might determine it. Dr Sara Norris is a conservationist, who nowhere mentions AGW in her profile[^]. Jem Stansfield is an engineer turned science presenter. As he has been on 'Scrapheap Challenge', he presumably does not worry too much about the pointless production of CO2. (Engineers are always 'deniers'.) Dusty Gedge sells 'living roofs'. Quote: In the UK context, it is predicted that we will have: • Increased summer temperatures • Increased likelihood of intense summer storms Green roofs are now widely recognised as helping cities to cool during heat excesses and also reduce the need for air conditioning in individual buildings. A good green roof can help reduce the amount of rainwater leaving roofs during excess summer storms. This reduces the load on the storm water system and reduces the likelihood of summer flash storms[floods?]. His business depends on the mitigation of AGW, so he ain't stoopid.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
ict558 wrote:
Only two deer? Are you saying that the foliage grew back and the underpass refilled in just 4 months? Wow! What a waste!
No, just that they went back 4 months later to see what the effect had been.
ict558 wrote:
Bill Baily
It came up during some save the puffin campaign on a scotish island. Some idiot naturalist had the nerve to suugest that in the last 5 years sea temperatures aorund the British Isles had risen 1.5 degrees C. This is total guff. Given the relative specific heat capacities of water and air, to drive sea temperatures this fast and this high would reuire an air temperature increase proportionate to the ratio of those SHCs. ie, x 4000 :) (Thats kg per kg of course) Bil Bailey says: "So we are seeing GW in action" Of course totally ignorant of the fact OHC has been declining for 7 years. Yet more typical idiot celebrity/media/lying naturalist guff typical of what passes for truth these days.
ict558 wrote:
(Engineers are always 'deniers'.)
Sceptics my dear chap, sceptics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
That figure I quoted is an average. One can easilly imagine that on occasion the amount of oil released naturally by one fissure alone could easilly exceed the average. Especially the one just offshore of Californian that on average releases 3,000 gallons a day. Whats it going to do i n an earth quake?
And one can just as easily imagine that a volcano is going to release a lot of heat.
fat_boy wrote:
Entirely spurious and in fact many plants only reproduce due to wild fires which are themselves another totally natural phenomena.
That statement is irrelevant in terms of the analogy.
fat_boy wrote:
As for damage done by oil seepage and mans spils. What sort of damage are we talkign about? Clearly the oil eating bacteria have a field day even if some sea bird perish. Are you saying a sea bird is more important than a bacteris?
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said.
jschell wrote:
And one can just as easily imagine that a volcano is going to release a lot of heat.
Yes, and irrelevant to my rebuttal by stating that a sudden large spill be earthquake impacts the same as a sudden large spill by man of your falacious original statement.
jschell wrote:
That statement is irrelevant in terms of the analogy.
And chosen expressly to highlight the irrelevance of your original statement.
jschell wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said.
You did say a man made spill is bigger and therefore more damaging. I am suggesting that you define what damage means? Sea birds or oil eating bacteria. On is damaged by oil the other thrives on it. How can you call an oil spill damage if you dont rate the life of a sea bird above that of oil eating bacteria. So, define damage and justify your definition please. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
jschell wrote:
The analogy would be similar to claiming that that wild fires are equivalent to home heating.
You are saying that some heat sources are more equal than others?
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
He doesnt know what he is saying. He is a child, convinced right is right and wrong is wrong, totally unable to criticise in any way his beliefs.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
jschell wrote:
And one can just as easily imagine that a volcano is going to release a lot of heat.
Yes, and irrelevant to my rebuttal by stating that a sudden large spill be earthquake impacts the same as a sudden large spill by man of your falacious original statement.
jschell wrote:
That statement is irrelevant in terms of the analogy.
And chosen expressly to highlight the irrelevance of your original statement.
jschell wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said.
You did say a man made spill is bigger and therefore more damaging. I am suggesting that you define what damage means? Sea birds or oil eating bacteria. On is damaged by oil the other thrives on it. How can you call an oil spill damage if you dont rate the life of a sea bird above that of oil eating bacteria. So, define damage and justify your definition please. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, and irrelevant to my rebuttal by stating that a sudden large spill be earthquake impacts the same as a sudden large spill by man of your falacious original statement.
I didn't say anything about an earthquake.
fat_boy wrote:
And chosen expressly to highlight the irrelevance of your original statement.
If you disagreed with my analogy then you should have stated it. However, if even you did disagree, the statement to which I was referring was still irrelevant. Unless you didn't understand the context of my analogy.
fat_boy wrote:
You did say a man made spill is bigger and therefore more damaging.
I can only suppose you didn't read it or didn't understand it my first post. So rephrasing it. An accident like an oil tanker breach has a limited total scope. For example an arctic release will not impact the antarctic. However within the scope of what it can impact and given the amount of time it takes for the total release the impact is larger in comparison to the link you posted. I need not define damage. But if you prefer to replace "damage" with "impact" in my original statement. Doing that will not change what I said.
-
ict558 wrote:
Only two deer? Are you saying that the foliage grew back and the underpass refilled in just 4 months? Wow! What a waste!
No, just that they went back 4 months later to see what the effect had been.
ict558 wrote:
Bill Baily
It came up during some save the puffin campaign on a scotish island. Some idiot naturalist had the nerve to suugest that in the last 5 years sea temperatures aorund the British Isles had risen 1.5 degrees C. This is total guff. Given the relative specific heat capacities of water and air, to drive sea temperatures this fast and this high would reuire an air temperature increase proportionate to the ratio of those SHCs. ie, x 4000 :) (Thats kg per kg of course) Bil Bailey says: "So we are seeing GW in action" Of course totally ignorant of the fact OHC has been declining for 7 years. Yet more typical idiot celebrity/media/lying naturalist guff typical of what passes for truth these days.
ict558 wrote:
(Engineers are always 'deniers'.)
Sceptics my dear chap, sceptics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
No, just that they went back 4 months later to see what the effect had been.
Oh, come on. Surely you didn't miss the sarc. in my comment. :)
fat_boy wrote:
It came up during some save the puffin campaign on a scotish island. Some idiot naturalist had the nerve to suugest that in the last 5 years sea temperatures aorund the British Isles had risen 1.5 [1.2] degrees C.
I watched the puffin program on You Tube. :zzz: There was a temperature anomaly of ~+1.2C in 2003 (Hadley Climatic Research Unit SST Database). Being charitable, perhaps he was referring to that, and did not express himself clearly (gaff not guff). You are right though, and there should be a swift peer review of "typical idiot celebrity/media/lying naturalist" material before it's 'in the can'. Appinsys[^] performs a thorough analysis of the claim that Global Warming caused the decline in Puffins on the Isle of May. Doesn't mention the Sea [oops] Tree Mallow, though.
fat_boy wrote:
Sceptics my dear chap, sceptics.
:-D
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
modified on Friday, May 27, 2011 6:46 PM
-
ict558 wrote:
Does it bother you that some folks are well paid for work they enjoy? Tough. It's a free market.
You are so eager to turn this into a confrontation that you have ignored the fact that I was pointing out to fat_boy that his categorization of the film-makers as stupid was incorrect. Let me restate it and I'll type slowly in hopes you understand: They'd gotten paid, probably well for doing very little. The biggest problem with the free market, by the way, is that Gresham's law prevails in so many more ways than he ever considered.
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
Oakman wrote:
you have ignored the fact that I was pointing out to fat_boy that his categorization of the film-makers as stupid was incorrect
Not at all. I merely informed you that no academics had received a grant, made a film, and made money by selling it to a TV company. Just that, no grants. "Then the guys who made it were paid by the venturers, yes? They made a living driving around in the woods shooting movies of animals, while you had to work for a living." is not about academics and grants, but about documentary presenters and their fees, and I don't give a Big Grand Coulee. Hence the restatement of my reply to your original comment.
Oakman wrote:
Let me restate it and I'll type slowly in hopes you understand: They'd gotten paid, probably well for doing very little.
Let me restate: So bloody what? That is between them and the production company.
Oakman wrote:
The biggest problem with the free market, by the way, is that Gresham's law prevails in so many more ways than he ever considered.
I'm sure it does, if you say so.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
ict558 wrote:
Only two deer? Are you saying that the foliage grew back and the underpass refilled in just 4 months? Wow! What a waste!
No, just that they went back 4 months later to see what the effect had been.
ict558 wrote:
Bill Baily
It came up during some save the puffin campaign on a scotish island. Some idiot naturalist had the nerve to suugest that in the last 5 years sea temperatures aorund the British Isles had risen 1.5 degrees C. This is total guff. Given the relative specific heat capacities of water and air, to drive sea temperatures this fast and this high would reuire an air temperature increase proportionate to the ratio of those SHCs. ie, x 4000 :) (Thats kg per kg of course) Bil Bailey says: "So we are seeing GW in action" Of course totally ignorant of the fact OHC has been declining for 7 years. Yet more typical idiot celebrity/media/lying naturalist guff typical of what passes for truth these days.
ict558 wrote:
(Engineers are always 'deniers'.)
Sceptics my dear chap, sceptics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
In 2006 the Wild Thing team arrived at Craigleith Island to determine the cause of 'Catastrophic Puffin Decline', concluding that it was the Tree Mallow. (The Green Team goes to Puffin Island[^] 07 September 2006) In 2005 The Guardian published Puffins being wiped out as shrub chokes nesting sites[^], the shrub being - the Tree Mallow. "The plant has already covered a couple of islands so thickly that puffins cannot make their nests on the ground," said Dr René van der Wal, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, in Banchory. Not the same Dr René van der Wal who assisted the Wild Thing team, investigating the possibility that the Tree Mallow might be to blame? He of the 1.2C temperature rise over 5 years? Could it be that he forgot that he had already found the cause? :)
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, and irrelevant to my rebuttal by stating that a sudden large spill be earthquake impacts the same as a sudden large spill by man of your falacious original statement.
I didn't say anything about an earthquake.
fat_boy wrote:
And chosen expressly to highlight the irrelevance of your original statement.
If you disagreed with my analogy then you should have stated it. However, if even you did disagree, the statement to which I was referring was still irrelevant. Unless you didn't understand the context of my analogy.
fat_boy wrote:
You did say a man made spill is bigger and therefore more damaging.
I can only suppose you didn't read it or didn't understand it my first post. So rephrasing it. An accident like an oil tanker breach has a limited total scope. For example an arctic release will not impact the antarctic. However within the scope of what it can impact and given the amount of time it takes for the total release the impact is larger in comparison to the link you posted. I need not define damage. But if you prefer to replace "damage" with "impact" in my original statement. Doing that will not change what I said.
jschell wrote:
I didn't say anything about an earthquake.
I was refering to my rebuttal not yours.
jschell wrote:
If you disagreed with my analogy then you should have stated it.
I thought I would do it differently.
jschell wrote:
An accident like an oil tanker breach has a limited total scope. For example an arctic release will not impact the antarctic. However within the scope of what it can impact and given the amount of time it takes for the total release the impact is larger in comparison to the link you posted.
An assertion without and logic. And almost impossible to understand. As a rephrase it fails, its worse than the original. :)
jschell wrote:
But if you prefer to replace "damage" with "impact"
Which you just did in the above assertion. I still want you to define 'impact/damage' by the way. You also need to show that man made spills cause more of it than natural ones (using as an example the largest natural spill (if known)). Untill you do you have no basis for your original assertion.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
No, just that they went back 4 months later to see what the effect had been.
Oh, come on. Surely you didn't miss the sarc. in my comment. :)
fat_boy wrote:
It came up during some save the puffin campaign on a scotish island. Some idiot naturalist had the nerve to suugest that in the last 5 years sea temperatures aorund the British Isles had risen 1.5 [1.2] degrees C.
I watched the puffin program on You Tube. :zzz: There was a temperature anomaly of ~+1.2C in 2003 (Hadley Climatic Research Unit SST Database). Being charitable, perhaps he was referring to that, and did not express himself clearly (gaff not guff). You are right though, and there should be a swift peer review of "typical idiot celebrity/media/lying naturalist" material before it's 'in the can'. Appinsys[^] performs a thorough analysis of the claim that Global Warming caused the decline in Puffins on the Isle of May. Doesn't mention the Sea [oops] Tree Mallow, though.
fat_boy wrote:
Sceptics my dear chap, sceptics.
:-D
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
modified on Friday, May 27, 2011 6:46 PM
ict558 wrote:
Oh, come on. Surely you didn't miss the sarc. in my comment. :)
Sorry, I did. :) Sarcasm and the internet are not natural allies. If indeed there was a sea temp anomoly like that its massive, it would be interesting to know where it came from. (And not have some idiot on TV saying 'so we are seeing GW in action' which REALLY pisses me off and makes me want to start breaking things.:mad: And even madder that there is a scientist ther who doesnt correct him by saying 'nope, the heat needed for that is WAY more than could ever be produced by CO2')
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
In 2006 the Wild Thing team arrived at Craigleith Island to determine the cause of 'Catastrophic Puffin Decline', concluding that it was the Tree Mallow. (The Green Team goes to Puffin Island[^] 07 September 2006) In 2005 The Guardian published Puffins being wiped out as shrub chokes nesting sites[^], the shrub being - the Tree Mallow. "The plant has already covered a couple of islands so thickly that puffins cannot make their nests on the ground," said Dr René van der Wal, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, in Banchory. Not the same Dr René van der Wal who assisted the Wild Thing team, investigating the possibility that the Tree Mallow might be to blame? He of the 1.2C temperature rise over 5 years? Could it be that he forgot that he had already found the cause? :)
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
I dont recal but there was some assertion that the tree mallow was growing due to warmer conditions. Of course the other two islands werent affected, but lever let a fact get in the way of a belief eh? :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I dont recal but there was some assertion that the tree mallow was growing due to warmer conditions. Of course the other two islands werent affected, but lever let a fact get in the way of a belief eh? :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
some assertion that the tree mallow was growing due to warmer conditions
I have noticed that biennials often become perennials when we have a run of warmer winters. This gives them several years of seed production, rather than just the one.
fat_boy wrote:
but never let a fact get in the way of a belief eh?
Come on. The agent by which the sea-borne seeds were transported from the shore to fertile soil may be hit or miss. You are such a cynic. :)
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah