Member Info for Quady

Apologies BNC and all others, I will desist. I posted on this board, so everyone could see the arguments, rather than in isolation. As I for one consider this to be the most important question of our age.

I have answered your questions, will now return to the subject of Solg. 800 ppm for plants. Laughable lots of plants. Just a planet with no human activity.

Lastly point 5, global cooling will lower yields in farming. Let's explore how temperatures are measured to try to explain this age old myth. Starting by remembering we are talking about the climate, and not just CO2. NASA collects data, from space on climate. But this is not enough. We must use this as a baseline, and use datasets, from weather stations all round the world. Now the problem with this is population growth, over the last 150 years. We are not comparing like with like. So for example New York, which was called New Amsterdam. Had a fraction of the population it had today, and so the degree of localised heating was less. But the Sahara desert is the same. So we invoke localised cooling and heating algorythums to take this into account. So when you say that cooling with harm crops. Yes that's true if you try to grow crops in the North pole. But plant life evolves as we do, to it's environment, and if it gets a shock, because of drastic temperature rise or fall, this will have an impact. Lastly I would say, read the science. Inform yourself of the real reasons. Anyone can say what about this. All the arguments that you have given are tangential and not true. I personally have never been one for conspiracy theories. I wish you well on your reading.

Point 4, raised CO2 levels will increase farming yields. No it won't. Although CO2 is necessary for plant life. We are talking about the climate. This is about much more than CO2. I often get frustrated with the simplicity that our media and green parties around the world, simplify this information. An important point to make here. People talk about CO2 and a component of CO2 equivalency . This often confused the argument, as it's equivalent, is a CO2 number, that's made up of all green house gases, and is not a true representation. CO2 rises above 450 parts per million, will seriously destroy large parts of our agriculture, as hard to grow crops in the desert. Remember the nutrients and composition of our soil, is part of the ecosystem.

Madpunter, that's my point. You are misunderstanding the science. The graphs for hundreds of millions of years, are irrelavant, No human activity then and the planets climate vastly different then. We are talking about the man made component. This is not disputed, as we can clearly observe this. The reason we use datasets from the last 150 years, is that this takes into account the lag and cooralation in temp rise and CO2. It's important we concentrate on the man made part, and not try to confuse the data, by saying , what about CO2, before man existed. If anything it again shows our impact on the planet.

On your third point that CO2, is not a pollutant. No one says it is. However our climate, although self regulating, can only self regulate, when not stress tested to distraction. The world will continue, Humanity will as well. However, large parts of the world will be uninhabitable, we will poison our oceans, and the soil will be unable to substain many types of crops. These facts are not in dispute. I refer you to what a fact is. It is an observation that is directly or indirectly observed.

Your next point that there is no coronation between CO2, and global warming, is just plain wrong. Let me expand. What we are talking about, is a relationship, between the man made part of CO2. Remember we are talking about the man made part. Go look at NOAA data. This is the most accurate data anywhere on climate change, and it's what the IPCC use to constantly update world climate models, and provide us with the datasets going forward. Yes that's right, we make new datasets, from existing datasets, as this stuff is complicated, and we have to drill down and use a level of granularity, that just wasn't possible even 5 years ago. HPC is making this possible. NOAA data shows a direct relationship between CO2 and man made climate change, with the appropriate lag.

On the 31,000 scientists, this was not their finest hour. Many scientists are also religious, particularly in the USA. The question over getting funding in the USA, has always been contentious. However, much better these days. I have already mentioned people like Behe, but now will mention institutions like the Templeton institute. These are so called scientific organisations setup to prove the Bible. They are some of the best funded institutions in the USA. Lots of scientists work for them on good salaries. To my mind this is not science. Even one scientist from NASA, when to the above institution.

Good morning Madpunter, lot to answer here, but let's have a go. Yes playing with percentages is not always honest. When you say thousands of scientists, that is less than 3%. Also you can be a scientist and not working in the climate change arena. The science you study has to be in a relevant field. It's the same distinction between fact and theory. A fact is an observation, that is directly or indirectly observed. A scientific theory, is a collection of all relevant facts, that is disputed by none. That's the important part. Climate change stands because of all it's observations cannot be disputed. I will answer each of your other points in seperate posts, so as to add detail and content.

All right Rusty, just got you down as an Idiot and a nasty piece of work. Your reason for it being 150 years, you just made that up. Even the nutters know we have just over 200 years of what you call accurate data. I have explained below, why its 150 years. You are obviously so intelligent that you know more than anyone in this world. Your comments on Immigration are just nasty. You just got the honour of being the 3rd person on my filter list. This is really hard to achieve, as you have to be a complete and utter idiot. Just for the record, you qualified easily.

Rusty, you don't even understand the reason for the 150 year period. It's because of industrialism and clearly shows the man made element. Yes studies go back far further than that. But are not relevant to the man made element. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Just so you don't try to make a conspiracy out of this statement. Yes some are 140 year studies. Some more or less.

Hahahaha, Ian Pilmer, you found another of the 3% of nutters.

Good morning m_wall, I referred earlier to the 97%, supported climate change, and wrote a letter to the G20. Here is another independent reference. I dare Say the skeptics don't believe NASA or NOAA. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp

Good morning smickster, the IPCC has many funding streams, so no one can say this is not based on fact. Also it takes into account pier reviewed papers from the scientific profession all around the world. They are currently looking at glacial melt, and shift. And emerging weather patterns, through the ocean currents. Lastly their is a huge difference between climate change, and man made climate change. The first is natural, and again idiots quote this believing their are clever. The second is what it says, man made, and if you look at the last 150 years, of worldwide temperature, you can clearly see the difference. Also look for the lag between industrial production and rising temperatures. It lays but the graphs are almost identical.

Good morning Rusty, no one has ever called me left wing, and I voted Brexit on economic grounds. The 97% figure I quoted was when the worldwide Scientific community got together, and signed a letter, which was sent to the G20, some years ago. I mentioned Professor Michael Behe, because he refused to sign it, saying it wasn't proven. This is the same idiot, who doesn't believe in evolution, and had to apologise to a judge in the USA, declaring that irreducible complexity, was based on science. It wasn't and made himself look an idiot again. If you align yourself with the crazies of this world, then you yourself, are judged to be one of them. For evidence, read the latest IPCC report, but I warn you, it's got some big words in it.

Good morning Rusty, what a load of *******s you talk . I am now retired. But was a technical analyst in virtualization and AIX , I am am also a an astronomoner and part qualified actuary and astro physicist. Will qualify in the next two years. To put things in prospective. 97% of scientists tell us about man made climate change. However you are correct that 3% don't. These are the likes of Michel Behe and co. These are religous nutters . If you wish to align your beliefs with these people , so be it. You mark yourself out for the idiot you are .

Good afternoon Snuggtopz, what a strange thing to say. Some people think research is reading RNS's and various news stories. Its much more than that. It's understanding what you are reading. What is conjecture, what carries legal weight and how to understand ore grades at depth, and access. everyone keeps quoting copper figures, without understanding what is accessible and with how much ease. I believe the story is good here, but not going to pretend their not risks. How we make our judgements, are of course the choice of the individual. I have learnt to be more cautious in my approach, as I have invested over the years. So what is published in chatrooms is not research.

Good morning easyp, I have now been doing this for 39 years, never in all that time has any broker rating been correct. As for tearsheet, this is an algo, which takes no account of really any changes. I would pay absolutely no attention to any of this stuff.

Good morning TheFacts. Always nice to see an upbeat post, but in my experience, broker ratings are not worth anything.

Maybe a chance of MRE3 tomorrow. Be nice to appear same time as half year results.