Jump to content

Kieran00001

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    3,420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,055 Excellent

About Kieran00001

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They spoke about the weapons that they had sold to them in the 80's and early 90's, ignoring the fact that the UN had already destroyed them.
  2. They are evidence in an ongoing investigation, by making them public it hampers their chance of being used in court against them, this is not about scoops, this is about removing a tyrant, shame the NRA aren't on this.
  3. No, just that one. On the far left you can see the Bay of Biscay fringed by orange, and just to the North, where the English Chanel is now, is blue, so under the ice cap. The UK and Ireland, all of Scandinavia and the Baltic countries as well as Northern Russia are within the blue area.
  4. Yes, that was the last time we know of.
  5. Take a look at this map, Glaciers of about 20,000 years ago are shown in blue, Red shows the extended land area due to low sea levels about 20,000 years ago, and green and yellow show areas favourable for human habitation in wet and dry periods, respectively. It should be clear to you from looking at this that there was a lot less habitable land lost than gained from the ice age. The Times Atlas of World History (Times Books (4th ed) 1993)
  6. We have a pretty good idea of how quickly the temperatures increased following the last ice age, there was a global average temperature increase of about 5C and we know that it took thousands of years, we don't know exactly how many years but we know it was thousands. We don't know of any other global temperature increases of 5C in history other than following ice ages. There is nothing to suggest that any of the other ice ages within the past 65 million years happened at substantially faster rates than the last one. Perhaps there was some period in history where the temperatures rose at the rate they are currently rising but there is no evidence of it whereas there is plenty of evidence that rises of this amount happened following ice ages and took thousands of years. We also know that if we maintain the current rate of increase in the global average temperature seen in the past 100 years, we have already risen 2C since 1900, we will see a 5C rise happen within the next 100 years. There is no evidence of a rise in temperature of 5C over a couple of hundred years since the extinction of the dinosaurs.
  7. Why should the family pay? Which members of his family?
  8. No, it doesn't mean that at all, for instance in the last ice age we lost 30% of land to ice, we also gained a little usable land in what had been deserts, but that was nowhere near 30%, more like 1%, so we just lost. Losses do not equal gains, what made you think they did? As for increased biodiversity, perhaps in a million years, but we are actually concerned primarily with the relatively near future and so no, there will just be a loss.
  9. Can I try telling you that actually it completely depends on the individual plants efficiency in using CO2 for photosynthesis and that for many plants, such as the most commonly grown plant on earth, which is corn, the yield suffers with any CO2 concentration increase, or are you a brainwashed anti-ecology person who won't listen to the actual truth?
  10. Just read about it anywhere other than your shrill site, try the newspapers, wiki, or any other referenced source. I am not going to teach you how to find verifiable info, that is your problem.
  11. No, I am saying that any source that has clear bias, such as yours who are being paid by fossil fuel companies to present a climate change denying stance, needs to be scrutinized, which when done to yours reveals the fact that they are not scientists at all, they are mere lobbyists who claim that the scientists have it wrong, by misrepresenting facts, such as the ones you blindly re-posted, not actual scientists demonstrating any facts of their own. Show us the evidence, all you have shown us so far are corporate shrills telling you it is so and resorting to lying in order to make themselves sound more convincing. As for you final comment, again, I am not stating that any source that is paid should be disregarded, I am saying that they should always be scrutinized if there is even the remotest chance that they might be biased, something you seem uneasy with regarding your own source, which makes sense seeing as just the first tiny little bit of scrutiny reveals them to not be scientists and instead to be lobbyists paid by the very companies they claim are not causing climate change. A half wit could see their game, but not you, oh no.
  12. I just read some unbiased info about the Hockey Stick Graph, I suggest you do the same, what you have posted is just plain drivel, not based on any resemblance of fact, look it up, you are currently blindly repeating what the lobbyists for fossil fuel have told you, no scientists agree with them, they agree with Mann. What he was asked to produce was not the evidence it was based on, but the exact code that was used for the simulation, that is what he will not give up because that is his intellectual property and they have no right to demand that he gives that up, he has given the evidence from the start, and that is the problem with listening to lobbyists with vested interests and then pretending you have read about the actual subject.
  13. As for cfact.com - ever heard of a biased source? That climate change denying organization is funded by fossil fuel companies, Exxon and the Koch brothers, to be honest I am astounded that anyone could be so foolish as to believe them, but hey ho.
  14. Show me these studies, all I see are people demonstrating that it was nowhere near as warm, but I am happy to see the evidence, if there actually is any.
  15. Great, so you should be able to link the current rises in temperatures, which are increasing faster than at any point in the past 65 million years, to another point in these continual changes in climate in the past, so when was that?
×