Climate Change & Magnetism.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Is that all? How is he meant to compete with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN's climate change panel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847...-Pachauri.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225811553646

In a blog this week that continuously referred to him as a "millionaire businessman", British right-wing commentator Richard North suggested Dr Pachauri was profiting handsomely from his many connections, and that the climate debate was being run by a cartel of scientists with corporate links who were making money from the carbon credits market.

In a brief email response to questions from The Australian yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: "These are absolute lies, and I am sure those who are trying to perpetrate these are aware of the facts."

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by cs123

In a brief email response to questions from The Australian yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: "These are absolute lies, and I am sure those who are trying to perpetrate these are aware of the facts."

This is Richard's responce:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...-all-lies.html

It's all lies! Posted by Richard Monday, December 21, 2009 IPCC, Pachauri, Tata
... says millionaire businessman Dr Rajendra Pachauri in response to our article in The Sunday Telegraph.

"These are a pack of lies from people who are getting desperate," he tells the Times of India. They want to go after the guy whose voice is being heard. I haven't pocketed a single penny from my association with companies and institutes. All honoraria that I get goes to TERI and to its Light a Billion Lives campaign for reaching solar power to people without electricity. All my dealings are totally above board."

The poor man is having a little trouble with setting out his case though. He points out that the previous IPCC chairman was in the World Bank and the one before that was a professor. "Can you then say the university benefited from his association with IPCC?"

And the point is? In addition to his paid post as Director-General of TERI, Pachauri has taken on over twenty additional posts since becoming chairman of the IPCC – another of his paid posts.

As for the link with the Tata group, Pachauri claims, "Our ties ended when Darbari Seth, who was on our board, died in 1999. We haven't received a single penny from Tatas for years and have no ties with them." Which is why, of course, up to January 2003 the "T" in TERI stood for "Tata", only then being changed to The Energy & Resources Institute.

Then, as we recalled, TERI's own communication manager Annapurna Vancheswaran said nothing had really changed. "We have not severed our past relationship with the Tatas. It's only (the change of name) for convenience," was the official line, four years after Pachauri says he has severed all ties with them.

Then there is the little matter of one of the Tata group of companies being listed currently as a corporate sponsor. To add to that, TERI has two ongoing projects with Tata, one which started in January and the other in July, plus eight completed projects from 2001-2007. That sort of suggests not only a link, but an ongoing relationship (screen grab - one of many - below).


We also have one of Pachauri's other little enterprises, a spin-off called the TERI Business Council for Sustainable Development (TERI-BCSD). Its president is Dr RK Pachauri, its co-chair is Dr J J Irani, described as "Tata Group of Companies". One of the vice-chairs is Mr Homi Khusrokhan, Tata Chemicals Ltd. Its members include Tata Chemicals Ltd, Tata Motors Ltd, Tata Quality Management Services and Tata Steel Ltd.

And who should be on TERI's Advisory Board? Ah! the very same Dr Jamshed J Irani, this time described as Director of Tata Sons Limited, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra. Irani is right at the centre of the beast.

Tata Sons, says the company, is the promoter of all key Tata companies and holds the bulk of shareholding in these companies. The chairman of Tata Sons has traditionally been the chairman of the Tata group. Tata Sons is the owner of the Tata name and the Tata trademark, which are registered in India and several other countries.

Socially, Pachauri and Tata also seem to get on quite well. On 13 November last year, Pachauri was invited round to the residence of the Norwegian ambassador in Delhi to sign a £6.3 million (60 million Norwegian Kroners) contract between the Norwegian government and TERI. His institute was being hired for five years to carry out work on energy, environment and climate change issues "in partnership with other institutes."

To celebrate, Pachauri, described as "Chair of the Noble Peace Prize-winning, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", and Ratan Tata were guests of honour for the evening at a "Norwegian Creative Experience". Ratan Tata happens to be the Chairman of Tata Sons, the very head honcho, pictured below left being welcomed by Ambassador Ann Ollestad.

Our Dr Pachauri is not only a liar - he is not even a very good liar.

Nevertheless, this does not stop him claiming of us that we "are part of the same vested interest group which hacked the server of UK's East Anglia University." He adds: "They are getting desperate because the world is now serious about moving away from fossil fuels. I want to ask them how much money they spent in the operation? Hacking a server is a costly exercise," he said.

That isn't really worth an answer. It is not us who are desperate. This man is clutching at straws. But he doesn't give up. He argues that TERI submits its yearly accounts to the government under Section 12 of the income tax law. "We fully comply with all government laws," he said.

Hey! But that's not the point we made. Does he publish TERI's accounts in its annual report? Does he publish his salary as Director General? Er ... no. Do we even get to know what his IPCC salary is? Er ... no.

Pachauri, who recently took up the post of the head of the Climate and Energy Institute at Yale University, then says the appointment was held up for a while because he had insisted that his salary be credited to TERI. "My conscience is clear and that is why I am cool towards these allegations."

That, of course, is a good move. If his Yale salary (which is likely to be at least in six figures) was paid directly to him, he would have to pay US income tax on it. And, as Tony Blair has just found out, the details are then publicly available through the IRS. As it is, he can launder the money through TERI and take the money out of the business in India where there is less scrutiny.

On whether he intends to take legal action against us, Pachauri says he hadn’t made up his mind. "Action against these people only gives dignity to these guys," he adds.

But he dare not. If he chose to sue, we could demand full disclosure of his financial affairs, through the courts. And then the millionaire businessman would have some explaining to do – not least how he is booking his business expenses to the IPCC. And yes, I do have the evidence.

Up yours, Pachauri, you are a thief as well as a liar.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Look no further than who is financing his visit.

Geez, cant wait for him to be interviewed by Alan Jones, one cash for comment journalist interviewing another. Will Jones ask him about the one scientist Monckton uses as his evidence agw is a scam, Jones wouldnt have even bothered to find out who he is.

If the abc were to allow this self credentialed snake oil merchant on, a real journalist that does research like Tony Jones would certainly expose him.

G'day Harry and welcome to the forums. Personally I don't care how is financing who or who is interviewing who, the main thing is the whole matter is now open for debate and discussion. Then everyone can make their own minds up before it goes before the Senate next time.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by auslandau

What about rebuking the claims rather than just the person? Things are either true or false, no matter who is saying it.
.

His book has been critically reviewed by those in the know and it gets the thumb down for factual science. Its simply assertions, assumptions, opinions and unfortunately lies.

I mentioned his mining directorships as it is there to explain to all why anyone would go to the trouble of writing the jibberish he did.

Of course Plimer knew it would be exposed as bunkum, but its all part of the tactics. He got exposure, supposed esteemed scientist has written a book debunking climate change, it was announced and commented upon in every newspaper, but how much press has the exposure of his fraud received?

People are calling for a debate? , there are plenty of esteemed scientists that will speak on behalf of agw that dont have any carbon credit or whatever affiliations that anyone could roll out.

but who is going to speak for the denialists?
Plimer isnt a climate scientist, nor is he reputable. Monckton? rofl.
There just isnt anyone reputable and qualified on the denialist list.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

His book has been critically reviewed by those in the know and it gets the thumb down for factual science. Its simply assertions, assumptions, opinions and unfortunately lies....... etc.

This is the same for the Church side aswell so don't think its just the other side?.... this is where the problem lies and if you beleive that one side is so crystal clear .... why can't anyone from the Church able to show normal people (me), on a piece of paper, in black and white, that this is the absolute undeniable truth? I am willing to change my mind .... its not a football team I am barracking for .... I just, at the moment, do not believe the crap that is being spun on the issue from the Church who do obviously have vested interests along the way. (money) I am sure this is the way many would be feeling.

Last night was the hottest night in a hundred years and was still 40 degrees at 9.00pm .... one side would say "There is the proof that it is worse than it was" ..... the other side would say "It was as hot back in 1901 as it is now" Its just a matter how good you can spin it.



| [/url] |

[cs123]

Originally Posted by auslandau

why can't anyone from the Church able to show normal people (me), on a piece of paper, in black and white, that this is the absolute undeniable truth?

Because they can't. Know one knows for sure how the entire environment works. Scientists have been studying this for a very long time and each discovery leads to a new one and this is how we build our knowledge on it. Theories from the 1950s are different to now and in another 50 years we will know so much more.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that our knowledge is useless.

Here is a link about the history of climate science http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

if you really are interested in learning about climate change, and what the scientists know about it, have a look at this site. http://www.realclimate.org/ Lots of papers and discussions all laid bare.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Last night was the hottest night in a hundred years and was still 40 degrees at 9.00pm .... one side would say "There is the proof that it is worse than it was" ..... the other side would say "It was as hot back in 1901 as it is now" Its just a matter how good you can spin it.

If you feel motivated to get to the truth, spend some time at www.bom.gov.au and look at the temperature records for as many different locations in Australia as possible.

While the media get excited about extremes, if you look at the yearly average minimum temperature for each location you will see an increase at most sites of over 1-2 C in the last 30-40 years. Basically we arent cooling down at night as much, which is exactly what the satellites and science are telling us. CO2 is preventing the IR from escaping into space.
Sure there could be another explanation, but so far no one has one.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

If you feel motivated to get to the truth, spend some time at www.bom.gov.au and look at the temperature records for as many different locations in Australia as possible.

While the media get excited about extremes, if you look at the yearly average minimum temperature for each location you will see an increase at most sites of over 1-2 C in the last 30-40 years. Basically we arent cooling down at night as much, which is exactly what the satellites and science are telling us. CO2 is preventing the IR from escaping into space.
Sure there could be another explanation, but so far no one has one.

Ummm, yes, the BOM data is accurate. This point was raised by one of the videos on youtube explaining the increase in temperature. I believe the reason the temperature is increasing is due to the 'concrete jungle' we have created in and around the various weather monitoring locations.

The temperature of the upper atmosphere has not increased however.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Is that all? How is he meant to compete with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN's climate change panel.

Why is it all these big wigs right up there in the climate change panels/summits/authorities always have their hands in so many pies? It all reeks of dodgyness.... perhaps deliberate twists and turns to turn people off what their real agenda is.

Why would one (Mr. Pachauri as an example) be so into high polluting industries yet also be on a panel of climate change and a non profit organisation against polluting?

Because by raising the concern for climate change, and making a much bigger deal out of it than what it is, they can introduce carbon trading, of which he is also involved in, to make billions. Also by exploring the neat little loopholes by the Tata company in holding off on a project (which involved a lot of manufacturing and emissions) in order to gain millions in carbon credits. Tis all about money, and these fools are making a mockery of us while doing it.

[Auslandau]

I think the arguments on actual statistics are most probably correct ..... I am sure that most would agree that there is (as always) climate change .... its a matter of whether its man made or not. Boy ..... I am going way off topic here and sorry about that.

All very interesting discussions ... and we seem to be back to the same arguments as the last thread that was closed .... so if we could get the thread back on topic as per the original that would be good.

For those that have forgotten (me included) please revisit the OP
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...5&page=1&pp=40



| [/url] |

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

Ummm, yes, the BOM data is accurate. This point was raised by one of the videos on youtube explaining the increase in temperature. I believe the reason the temperature is increasing is due to the 'concrete jungle' we have created in and around the various weather monitoring locations.

The temperature of the upper atmosphere has not increased however.

While denialist tactics are to show photos of supposed weather stations located at the rear of aircon condensors to disprove global warming and form new beliefs for people, unfortunately what is being peddled is not connected to the facts. There is a whole internet out there with more info on this, why not use it?

Go to the trouble of looking at various locations around australia, and no most of them are no different to how they were 40 years ago. The urban heat effect is not unknown to climate scientists, they are smarter than you think. They will factor in that when using data from a station where the effect can be logically predicted.

see: http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~.../uhi-melb.html
Whilst climatologists now think that the warming in the temperature record from some small urban areas is partly the result of the UHI, this is not evidence that Australia's climate has remained unchanged rather than warmed over the past 100 years. Average minimum temperatures from many stations over most of Australia have shown an increase of between 0.1 deg C and 0.3 deg C per decade since 1951. Whilst some temperature records from small towns do not represent the large scale climate, it is unlikely to have any major impact upon our estimates of temperature warming over Australia. This is because there are numerious other weather stations located in remote areas such as lighthouses and regions far removed from urban areas that still indicate a warming temperature trend. The research currently taking place in Melbourne and a limited number of small towns in south eastern Australia aims to improve the quality of these particular town's climate records by accounting for the UHI effect in their temperature record and the confidence climatologists have in accurately monitoring and assessing climate change.

[MO]

Why don't you go and troll on some other forum...fool.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by MO

Why don't you go and troll on some other forum...fool.

That's a bit harsh. A debate requires arguments for and against.

[MO]

Originally Posted by cs123

That's a bit harsh. A debate requires arguments for and against.

Well that depends,my thinking is that he is one who was banned and had the username of torbirdie. Just a troll stirring the pot for the hell of it.

[olfella]

Found this article and thought it worth sharing with all.

US farmers challenge climate change data
12 Jan, 2010 03:00 PM
MUCH of current global warming theory is based on distortions of scientific evidence, blind devotion to simple notion and outright greed, according to a speaker at the American Farm Bureau's 91st annual meeting.
Christopher Horner, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, contended that the theory suffers from problems with the measurement of the earth temperature and its interpretation.

Comprehensive data collected since the Middle Ages reveal a natural process of fluctuation in average temperature.

These data have been derived from studies of tree rings, ice cores and thermometer readings.

“The climate has always changed,” Horner said. “The question is, how does society respond to it—hysterically or rationally?”

Since the late 19th century the earth’s average temperature has increased by an average of one degree Fahrenheit.

“When it’s warm, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said. Thus, the presence of higher concentrations of the gas, as detected in recent atmospheric samples, is not necessarily proof that the condition was created by human action, he asserted.

Moreover, a careful assessment of late 20th century and early 21st Century temperature data contradicts global warming theory.

“There is no net warming,” Horner declared. “In fact, there has been a slight decline (in temperature) since 2001.”

The reliability of temperature data gathered during this period is, itself, subject to question according to Horner.

“Between 1985 and 2000 we had the hottest decade in history,” he pointed out. “But there was no measurement at Siberian temperature stations.”

Much of the data collection was concentrated in urban locations in Europe and the United States.

The resultant evidence shows an “urban heat island effect”, not a comprehensive portrait of the subject.

Late last year, the revelations of leaked e-mail correspondence from certain climate scientists posed the likelihood of a more sinister danger associated with global warming theory.

The so-called “ClimateGate” episode, Horner claimed, showed that many scientists are more interested in garnering research dollars with little additional investigation than with engaging in independent investigations.

The episode “warrants an immediate stay of further steps” in any public policy guided by the theory.

Horner lampooned the reliance members of Congress have placed upon such theory in proposing climate change legislation now under consideration.

“It is all pain, no gain,” he said. “It is all empty gesture. It is a rationing scheme under which the state decides how much of something you may use. It will raise the price of energy.”

He urged farmers and ranchers to examine critically the “offsets” offered by the legislation.

These features of the legislation amount to an “accounting gimmick” that will not aid agricultural producers or most other members of US society.

“Your input costs and everybody else’s will rise,” Horner predicted. “The free lunch is not there and you will be next.”

Misguided congressional legislation should be abandoned, Horner said.

“It is premised on demonstrably false results. It would accomplish wealth transfers and not affect the climate. It's about revenues, rents and ideologies.”

He cited the product of the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, as an example of the lack of effectiveness of such schemes.

“It was a historic agreement to meet again next year,” Horner said.

Agricultural producers and other citizens of this country must confront the issue directly and insert rationality into the debate, Horner said.

He believes demand for reliable, comprehensive scientfic evidence is the first place to begin.

“We want a richer world to deal with something that is always going to happen, not a poorer world,” Horner concluded.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Go to the trouble of looking at various locations around australia, and no most of them are no different to how they were 40 years ago. The urban heat effect is not unknown to climate scientists, they are smarter than you think. They will factor in that when using data from a station where the effect can be logically predicted.
[/B]

And therein lay part of the problem. How do the Climate Scientist know what the correction factor is? It is still only guess work IMO. Like a wise man once said there are statistics and there are statistics.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by olfella

“When it’s warm, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said. Thus, the presence of higher concentrations of the gas, as detected in recent atmospheric samples, is not necessarily proof that the condition was created by human action, he asserted.

.

The one piece of "science" that he uses to support his case is wrong. True as temp increases CO2 in the atmosphere will increase, but the small amount the earth has warmed will not create a 40% increase in CO2 that we now observe.
The extra CO2 that is up there can be identified as being created by humans. analysis has revealed that the radioactivity of atmospheric CO2 has dropped, that can only be due to the burning of fossil fuels where the carbon is radioactively dead.

Mr Horner's role in a corporately sponsored think tank is typical of many denialists and its link to oil and tobacco companies:

CEI does not publish a list of its institutional donors. However, in a CEI report sent to Philip Morris, the think tank identified a range of companies and foundations as having given $10,000 or more. [5] Contributors included:

Aequus Institute
Amoco Foundation, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company, contributions were $25,000 per annum for the period 1991-1995;
E.L. Craig Foundation
CSX Corporation
Fieldstead and Co.
FMC Foundation
Ford Motor Company Fund
Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Precision Valve Corporation
Prince Foundation
Sheldon Rose
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco Foundation
Alex C. Walker Foundation
In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal." [6]

Tobacco Industry Funding
A listing of documents specifically about contributions and support from tobacco companies to CEI:

1991 - $10,000 donation to CEI from Philip Morris (PM) [7]
Feb. 9, 1993 - letter from Fred Smith of CEI to Thomas Borelli at PM thanking PM for support.[8]
1995: PM gives $200,000 grant to CEI for "general operating support" [9]
1995 : PM gives another $10,000 to CEI [10]
1997: PM gives $120,000 to CEI [11]
1998 PM Public Policy Contributions list. Says PM paid CEI $25,000 via check no. 390006 [12]
(Non-financial item) 1998: Activity Report of Beverly McKittrick of PM states, "Worked on plan for mobilization of third--party conservative groups. Met with CSE, ATRA, Chamber of Commerce,Frontiers of Freedom, and Competitive Enterprise Institute." [13]
1999 Public Policy Contributions (PM): $5,000 paid via check No. 20601 [14]
1999 Activity report of PM's Thomas Borelli states: "Secured policy group committee funding to support the Competitive Enterprise Institute dinner" [15]
Undated Brown & Williamson document listing pro-business organizations BW contributes to. CEI is on the list: [16] (see top of page 5, "Policy Organizations :Total $325,000")
In 1999 PM budgeted $25,000 for CEI: [17]

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by olfella

How do the Climate Scientist know what the correction factor is? It is still only guess work IMO.

comparison with areas where there is no uhi :

see: http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/...W/uhi-melb.html
Whilst some temperature records from small towns do not represent the large scale climate, it is unlikely to have any major impact upon our estimates of temperature warming over Australia. This is because there are numerious other weather stations located in remote areas such as lighthouses and regions far removed from urban areas that still indicate a warming temperature trend.

[MO]

Now why don't you two get back on topic this thread is about MAGNETISM and climate change.

Maybe its time for the lockwood anyway!

[olfella]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

This is because there are numerious other weather stations located in remote areas such as lighthouses and regions far removed from urban areas that still indicate a warming temperature trend.

And you left Al gore off your list...
So we are not comparing like with like, but rather somewhere near like? How long have lighthouses been recording weather? Not back to the Middle Ages I bet.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by wulos

With all the 'mumbo jumbo' surrounding the climate change debate, it is difficult to understand why there hasn't been discussion as to 'alternative theories, rather then simply pushing the CO2 argument.
Whilst there has been ongoing argument about comparing increases? in CO2, with temperature rises - even going as far as levying carbon taxes, little discussion has been forward coming about the contribution of changes in the Earths magnetic fields.
One study out there, contends that variations in the earths magnetic field effects climate.
http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
puts forward that a reduction in the earths magnetic fields, weakens the 'shielding' effect, allowing more solar radiation through
Another recently released study investigates the connection between shifts in the Earths magnetic poles, & temperature variations. Is climate change, & the fact that the shift in the magnetic poles has increased from 9km / year in the 70s, to over 40km / per year a coincidence?
Magnetic pole shift & climate change
Discussion on the correlation between changes in magnetic fields and temperature change. Tis interesting to note that the graphs comparing mag fields, and temp variations appear to be a lot closer, then similar ones comparing increases in CO2, and temp increases.
http://pool.org.au/image/peter_raven..._is_the_driver

http://sd-1.archive-host.com/membres...courtillot.pdf

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarmin...neticField.htm

I don't think that anyone out there is arguing about whether climate change is happening or not - the real question that needs solving is WHY?

This is the discussion ...... one more go at it and if anyone (including me) strays from the topic at hand will force the thread to be closed and that will not be a good thing!



| [/url] |

[Keepleft]

Dirty Hurley might like to recognise that in Nth Scotland they use to grow grapevines for wine back in 1215, it was some 3 degrees warmer!

Indeed the Russies say the same thing, grapevines in Siberia! See RT.

[Keepleft]

And another:-

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece

[MO]

@keepleft,nothing about magnetism in that !!

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

And another:-




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece

What's astonishing is our leaders i.e. government make life changing decisions effecting the entire population (via an ETS) based on 'facts' from the IPCC which are a fraud!

Let's here Wenny Pong denounce this as another denialist conspiracy, that she and the government stand hand on heart believing the IPCC data is accurate :

[Hillbilly F Truck]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...24/2752223.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225822334349

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823075213

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arming-up.html

[MO]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly F Truck

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...24/2752223.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225822334349

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823075213

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arming-up.html

No magnetism mentioned in those articles.

[joolz]

I watched a doco on this a years ago and made sense. Basically the North pole becomes the south and vice versa. Also there is NO tax in the world that can stop it. It effects everything from the tides to your CRT TV.

[Hillbilly F Truck]

Originally Posted by MO

No magnetism mentioned in those articles.

I know. They have closed all the other climate threads that I had hoped to attach it to, and rather than start another, I thought I'd just post them here to show that the house of cards that the UN's IPCC and their ilk built, is collapsing.

If those who believe in the theory that human activity is changing climate could have left the personal attacks on others out it would have benefited everyone and those threads would still be active. In fact the copenhagen thread I started was merged with others by a mod who did PM me and stated too many different climate threads as the reason. Then recently closed it stating copenhagen was over and no longer relevant, thus leaving the other merged topical threads useless. Debate the topic not the person.

Sorry for going off topic. I can see it is upsetting you.

[MO]

@hillbilly,fair enough. Lets hope it all falls flat.
EDIT, Just saw your edit,not upset at all just didn't want it closed for going off topic.