ARTICLES without comment boxes - Climate, CO2, Anything authored by L. Page...

Bah!

Green deserts? Hurrah, We're saved! In your face "Mr Scientist"!

Ethel, we're tradin' in that there Prius for a '72 Caddy Sedan DeVille!

Greening of deserts - not a surprise

Climate change is not extinction of humans it is disruption of the way of life of people in different places. For some the disruption will be good for others not so much. Modern civilization is an expensive endeavor. It will continue until it becomes prohibitively expensive. In the mean time there will be floods, famines, social unrest ... the same old litany of our history but on a larger scale. But know this, any changes will be driven by commercial interests. The search for the opportunity to shift wealth and power from others is the ever present carrot that dangles in front of us.

I can already imagine Monsanto scientists trying to develop weather models for the next 20 years so the execs can decide when it would be most opportune to start buying arid land cheap before it becomes productive.

I'd caution against assuming they've accurately teased out all the possible alternatives

for essentially the same reasons I am highly doubtful about AWG: modeling anything that complicated is prone to more errors than a blind man would make when hanging patterned wall paper.

The inconsistent Mr Page

How come he spends so much time denying global warming, but then trumpets a global change in foliage as a direct cause of rising CO2?

If there is enough additional CO2 to increase foliage in deserts by 11% (in deserts? - stats fans beware - 11% of f-all is really f-all), and CO2 really is a heat trap (see videos online of thermal cam watching a candle, then CO2 introduced in space between - candle heat vanishes until CO2 blows away - it's simply a fact, Mr Page), then why can't he cope with the idea that all that CO2 might also be trapping heat in the atmosphere?

If he doesn't understand, then he's not competent to write on the subject. If he does understand and is trolling us for lucrative Ad clicks, then he is a corrupt little sheet who should be sacked.

The pity is, I enjoy his other defence / science articles - it's just the moronic global warming ones that make we want to quit supporting the site..

Green deserts created by additional CO2, water no longer required.

Especially considering how deserts are by nature extremely dry. Perhaps, the intrepid authors of that paper discovered a new phenomenon in botany, where plants no longer require water to grow, only increased CO2.

Next week: How global warming helps pigs fly.

I wouldbe wary of accpting LewisPage's word on the sun rising

especially in a field where he is a politically motivated amateur

In the field he IS supposed to know something about, Defence, he has been slavering and joyously promoting US kit that doesn't work and seems unlikely to see service

'There is no scientific consensus' on sea-level rise, say scientists - no, actually they didn't. They said there is no consensus on the drivers behind ice sheet melting.

Of all the Denier tossers venting garbage on the internet, this Page guy really takes the biscuit. The Register really is way, way beyond its sell by date.

MMCC or no MMCC

Why cant we have the comments section attached to the article as is the norm? Why must I go to the forum and dig around for the comments, if they exist, to the articles?

I like to read the opinions related to the article but more than one poster here has commented on more than one article in the same post. To find said post was luck on my part as it was to find this thread on the forum front page.

I dont want to search for the comment section.

I dont want to dig to find readers comments.

I praise the other writers who have comment sections linked to the article and I hope lewis returns to having a comment section

Journos on El Reg please read this:

"Consensus has *nothing* to do with science."

Please read again:

"CONSENSUS has *NOTHING* TO DO WITH SCIENCE."

There is NO SUCH THING AS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

CONSENSUS and SCIENCE SHOULD NEVER BE SEEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE unless it is to point out that THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER!

SCIENCE is what scientists do. CONSENSUS is what you read in the DAILY FAIL.

YES - Move Mr. Page to Forums.

All one has to do is read this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/

and then read the actual paper referenced in the article:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1874.html

to see that Mr. Page is not a reporter, but rather an opinion editor. What a joke. A reporter would reference the article and summarize without adding the blatant editorial interpretation.

At this point, Mr. Page is no better than a troll.

I'm lost!

Where is the place to comment on Lewis's Trident Article?

Solar Panels

I wanted to put some upon my house. The local Council planners said No and added, it will be 'more that our jobsworth to allow this'

simply because they could be seen from the road and the OTHER side of the road is a conservation area.

They offered to let me put them on the NORTH side of the house.

What frigging use is that?

Then I applied for a ground heat pump thingy. I have 1/4 acre out the back.

Nope came back the reply. 'It is not proven technology'. I can't afford to appeal.

I give up, I really do.

Yay!

"(Don't worry, normal comments policy will be restored in the near future.)"

As seen at the bottom of the Iberian Lynx article.

> How come he spends so much time denying global warming,

> but then trumpets a global change in foliage as a direct cause

> of rising CO2?"

CO2 is plant food, commercial nurseries pump CO2 into greenhouses to increase yields.

> and CO2 really is a heat trap (see videos online of thermal cam watching

> a candle, then CO2 introduced in space between - candle heat vanishes until

> CO2 blows away - it's simply a fact, Mr Page), then why can't he cope with the

> idea that all that CO2 might also be trapping heat in the atmosphere?

That would be the CO2 that's been contained in a pressurised cylinder, and which massively cools when released, masks the heat from a candle, until it warms up or disperses?

Impressive, until you think about what you're seeing happen.

I bet that 'Private Page, Lewis, Sir!' is just plain chicken.

He can't take the heat of mocking debunkery of his special needs kick-the-scientists rants.

A sort of Howard Phelps of climate change... the rest of the world is wrong and they'll rot in eternal damnation.

Hall Lay Loo Yer!

Sure, I'm chicken

All those years as an EOD operator and mine clearance diver ... but I'm frightened of internet gobshites? That'll be the day. I just don't like having rude little twerps like you scrawling personally insulting graffiti at the foot of my articles.

Anyway, you're zapped for using a spurious email address. Cheerio

The Musings of a Bored Person

You know what? I was reading an exchange of comments posted to a local rag site just earlier today, where the readers were discussing anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Along came a perfectly natural enquiry from a layman (as most of us are) questioning certain aspects of AGW. Needless to say the doom-sayers immediately pounced all over the poor guy. Unfortunately, thereafter name-calling became the order of the day. The AGW crowd were lambasting the poor sod for simply raising a perfectly reasonable question for a lay-person to raise. He had dared assault/insult the foundations of their church. They would not tolerate it. After all, how dare he?!

Now, in response one particularly vocal AGW started droning on about Venice and how it was the perfect fit for AGW that any fool could not fail to understand. Mr AGW said it's a disaster of human proportion engineered by man's obsession to pollute our fair planet with CO2. But oh, dear. Mr AGW had just made a complete arse out of himself.

It was subsequently pointed out to him that contrary to his belief that positive eustasy (or negative, depending upon your perception) was going to drown the Venetians, the Venetians were perhaps slightly more to blame than AGW.

He shuddered when told that recent research (Bock et.al, 2012) acknowledged that seal-level rise thereabouts was about 2mm/year but that subsidence caused natural factors and by over-draining of a deep aquifer was also responsible for between 1-4mm/year (depending upon location). Further, he was aghast at the idea of the Adriatic plate daring to subduct by maybe 1mm/year.

Venice subsided around 120 mm during the previous century due to natural process and human activity. It experienced a sea level rise 110 mm during the same period. So, was AGW (or just general eustasy) the main culprit? Of course not. But lo, MR AGW was having none of it.

My point? Some AGW proponents treat science and debate too much like a religion. Some even like to use the term 'scientific concensus' as if it has some real meaning. But as pointed out in an above post, it's an absurdity of monumental proportion. Scientific consensus? Pah!

Are we on a solely man-made path to CO2 oblivion? Nah. But we certainly don't help matters though. The AGW crowd are however just too hysterical at times.

Also, one other point has interested me of late. Many hereabouts (me included) are mortified with the governments insistence to censor legal material on the internet. I wonder, how many of those who have called for Lewis Page to be silenced from publishing his climate articles are shouting 'censorship' in relation to the porn filters? Censorship - You can't have it both ways.

Oh. When I created my account here some arse quickly lent over my shoulder whilst I was on the phone and gave me a stupid handle. Can I change it without losing previous posts?