1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today

Re: Dear Reg editors :-

When the human race is due for extinction anyway what is the point in worrying about global warming?

Here in the UK we bend over and take the green issues up our backsides. We do all this to set an example to the rest of the world....

In return developing countries, China, India etc increase outputs of greenhouse gasses at a rate that leave the UK' s savings infinitesimal. Then of course there is the USA which does it's best to stick two fingers up at us.

So what's the point?

You're missing the point

Poking fun at the established popular view is a key charm of El Reg. It's the spice that makes the meal. If they stop this they will have no special offer.

If you don't like that why are you here? There are many places where you can get your preferred pablum bland though it may be. That is the common fare. Why do you have to come here and demand the common gruel when there is no lack of supply elsewhere?

Is there some drive in you that insists that because you cannot bear spice that there must be none anywhere? What right have you to impose on all the world your intolerance of variety?

@TheOtherHobbes - YUH ALL WRONG! - - GLOBAL WARMING'S DUE TO SEX.

In a lifetime, the average person consumes about 100 tonnes of food. In addition to the energy required to feed a person over a lifetime, add his/her consumption of everything else from goods, housing, transport, plasma TV etc. etc. and the figure's gawd-awful huge.

It's brain-dead simple. Stop breeding and global warming will go away.

(Of course, the global-warming do-gooders never mention population growth, as that's much too close to home.)

Nah this is what desperation is ....

Eco-loons organising trolling into a fine art:

whenever a "climate holocaust denier" story appears on any major news site or blog ..

the CACC mailing list kicks into action... alerting all "right thinking" ecotards with the url

and if you don't believe it -> http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

PS: But, since you’re here now eco-loons .. look at the article that woke up the apathetic majority and put the Reg on the eco-loons hitlist

(and as an added bonus it's guaranteed to make any watermelon explode)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

global warming is still exceeding IPCC projections

Well we've had twenty years of IPCC predictions and none of them have turned out right. The IPCC was projecting a warming of a nearly 6 degrees by 2100. Over the past twenty years the earth has warmed by about 0.5 degree, so how will it suddenly shoot up exponentially to reach 6 degrees in another 80 years.

Re: Lewis is getting desperate

Yet, the entire state of Alaska has had a net increase in glaciation, and so have other regions. Nice try. The truth is that the warmingistas have no clue regarding actual atmospheric dynamics and climatology, and more studies than not prove that there is no AGW. So far no min/max ice coverage extent, sea-level fluctuation, nor temperature change has been witnessed which exceeds the threshold of well established natural variables, hence, no backing proof exists of such absurd notions as those presented by the IPCC. As a matter of fact, regarding Greenland, much of its glaciation didn't even exist before the LIA, so even if much of it were to sublimate or melt, it would only be reforming itself to the era preceding the aforementioned. Again, none of this can be formulated as proof of AGW, at least not if you understand the real science behind it (Best believe it as well, the air temperatures in most of Greenland are still far too cold for ice to melt).

"the argument against AGW"

I want to point out that this is ambiguous. There are a set of arguments against the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming as a factual condition. Some take issue with each of the three words of the phrase individually (Anthropogenic, Global, Warming), some each subset of two words in the three-word phrase in three pairs (Anthropogenic Global, Anthropogenic Warming, Global Warming), and some all three words as a group (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Another opposing class presumes the existence of the condition expressed by the trio as proved fact and is opposed to its evolution and is committed to its reversal. All can be said to "argue against Anthropogenic Global Warming", so your meaning is completely unclear.

The rare few who care you've left out are those who may acknowledge the cause and condition with varying degrees of certainty but welcome its effect as a boon, like me. If I must choose between warming or cooling then for me and mine I choose warming because it's hard to grow crops on a glacier and a lack of crops leads inevitably to some unpleasantness for future generations. Of the cause of this needful warming, I don't care from whence it comes as long as it does.

It's doubtful that it matters. The vast mass of humanity we can put in the "don't know and don't care" group anyway. Most of us have more immediate concerns. Since reversing global warming - whether it exits and by whatever cause - would require a global unanimous concerted effort centuries long directly against the immediate interests of most participants, and that's not going to happen, the whole thing seems moot to me. You may as well ask the world to agree to and achieve a 300M static global human population as a sustainable load. There are 7 billion of us and each has considerable freedom of action and genetic motivation to prevent this outcome. A global event or government that could achieve this end would be dire, and is not to be wished.

My main point here though is that you've said something and linguistically it amounts to almost nothing. You may as well have not bothered. Words mean things. If you're going to express yourself please try to be clear about what you're trying to say.

Re: Oh dear.

You know Matt ... that makes perfect sense, I believe you may have discovered the real cause of global warming !

The increase of emissions of TetraHydroCannabinol does correlate perfectly with the increase in global mean temperature.

and there's no need to fudge a hockey stick chart to support that fact

Although looking at the down votes your getting, It seems the spliff huffing greentards won't be too pleased.

Re: "Box theorises that this is likely to be...

"Climate deniers" don't deny that human activities do change the cimate. Where they disagree with the AGW lot is in terms of the degree of change. We don't think it'll be 6 degrees by 2100 and we think human activities could just as easily cause the temperate to drop with negative feedback. We just don't know what will happen as climate is such a complex mechanism and don't believe that models which aren't backed by any emperical evidence can predict the future.