Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

I was talking about palm oil for electricity generation. In terms of land use for food, it takes significantly more land per kg of food produced to produce meat than it does for vegetables.

If you took a straight line average through both sets of data there's fairly close direct correlation.

I think this is a fair guess (red being fuel, blue temperature):

.

and I was talking about the fact fron'tier like Soya plantations ravage vast areas of tropical rainforest ala Chipco...

but if you are talking energy... they then have to be trucked out of the rainforest, and have to be shipped halfway across the world and processed which uses far more energy and produces far more emmissions than a dairy farm in Wales..

Explain then.

the whole factor in any of these matters is just 1 thing and 1 thing only that nobody ever brings to the point !!

WE ARE OVER POPULATED !!!!

we need to seriously stop reproduction in the world for some time,less people =
less fuel used
less cars needed
less animal produced foods/less animals
less paper/furniture/crops/coal/wood/plastics/rubbers/and all plant made materials
less pollution full stop

A correlation on its own is useless, that's why I included the pirate graph, which gives you an inverse correlation that I'm sure would reach statistical significance.

The difference with carbon is that we have a plausible mechanism by which it might be responsible. We do not have this for pirates.

I've already said that only a duplicate world with some external input of carbon would be the only way to prove it scientifically, therefore we're reduced to substandard evidence, not necessarily because the theory's wrong, but because we don't have the means to test it.

The question here isn't 'is carbon responsible for the initiation of the rise in global temperatures?', rather I'd suggest 'can cutting our carbon emissions reduce climate change?' is nearer the mark.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

That's a nice theory but it isn't reflected in the graph, we see slight fluctuations of fuel consumption on two occassions between the timespan in question... while the tamprature appears to plumit in an unconnected manner.

A more insightful graph would be:


In which solar energy is alligned with global temprature and suprise suprise.... The sun which heats the earth is in unity with the temprature rises and decreeses

If you're main gripe is that the thing's done in Paint and posted on Nucastle then you're talking out your arse.

I'd say both temp anomaly/time and fuel consumnption/time have roughly the same correlation coefficient. Using a fitted line is pretty common to check correlation. Not the most accurate admittedly, but I was just showing there is some correlation.

As you've already said though, doesn't necessarily mean the two are associated.

When carbon dioxide takes up 0.052% of the earths atmosphere and humans only produce 1% of that 0.052% I'd say its HIGHLY unlikely

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say it's highly likely, and I know who I'm more inclined to trust:

Publsihed: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

you trust those that are paid millions to provide you with an answer that would lead to the end of their employment?

nice one....

And what about the cattle ranches for beef? It takes more land to produce meat than it takes to produce the equivalent amount of vegetables.

Which was my point - even the renewables we are using aren't environmentally friendly and need to be rethought.

If you doubt the scientific integrity of all 600 of its members, and the failure of any to speak out against what you seem to be accusing them of - fixing the numbers - then you could download the full version and pull the numbers apart if you wish. You would be world famous!

Who exactly should conduct the research if you think this international, intergovernmental panel is inappropriate?