Fish 'n' tits

I'll take two, mum ...

God save the queens.

i had to laugh at that photo. it belongs on the daily mail's website. i would think it is a tad inappropriate for MSNBC.

@rockjog:

Eating all that fat will make those mountains and valleys sag in a few years. I guess the British have the same eating habits that we have....

Boobs eating chips - so newsworthy. I bet the men didn't even notice that her bikini had sequins.

But they will appreciate the reason to scroll back up to confirm.

And they could use some tartar sauce.

good job paying attention to the article, because the headline totally doesn't say it's the hottest day on record

Then why, pray tell, doesn't any article on climate mention vineyards in England in the 13th century? Farming in the Shetlands was far more extensive too as their climate was far warmer than today. Know where the Shetlands are? 60 degrees north.

They Also recently discovered that Volcanoes spew 100,000,000 times more crud into the atmosphere then they thought.

Pryor to this knowledge they had been saying Volcanoes accounted for only 2 to 3%.

Even if the guy who reported this got his finger stuck on the zero key & you eliminated 6 of the zero's you still have a hundred times more. So much for their DATA being precise.

Some of the Scientists when pushed & confronted with certain facts will admit this is a natural phenomena, but the human race Probably? sped up the process by a few decades. It's inevitable.

They Also say we would need to reduce CO2 by 50% or more to reverse the problem, however man accounts for much less then 50%. Wipe us out & the problem sill exists.

Here's a novel Idea. Lets adapt. We are suppose to be the most adaptable species on earth.

Here's another thought. Say OK to CAP & TRADE Scheme. Say OK to quadrupling of energy costs through energy taxing, But with 1 stipulation. ABSOLUTELY EVERY PENNY has to be spent on these technologies that's supposed to negate the problem. Take away the money & these people will lose interest real quick. People kill people for $50 bucks. Would they propagate a Lie onto the world for 10 Trillion a year. What do you think.

NOTE: 10 Trillion a year is THEIR guesstimate on world wide Energy taxes & Cap & Trade fee's & the people still have to foot the bill for the technology to boot. All fee's would be permanent. There is no sunset clause. But it's not about the money. Right!!!

Where in the world did the "100,000,000 times more crud" figure come from, and what kind of "crud"?? Sounds like either some "urban legend" or some big misquote that someone is spreading around the Internet.

Omega

Provide a citation for that Bogus claim, or admit you are lying....

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

When your argument is so weak that you must resort to lies to support it- maybe you should just stop.

You lied, and you knew it was a lie.

The only recent publication that says anything REMOTELY akin to your asinine claim is:

Observations of nucleation of new particles in a volcanic plume

Volcanic eruptions caused major weather and climatic changes on timescales ranging from hours to centuries in the past. Volcanic particles are injected in the atmosphere both as primary particles rapidly deposited due to their large sizes on time scales of minutes to a few weeks in the troposphere, and secondary particles mainly derived from the oxidation of sulfur dioxide. These particles are responsible for the atmospheric cooling observed at both regional and global scales following large volcanic eruptions. However, large condensational sinks due to preexisting particles within the plume, and unknown nucleation mechanisms under these circumstances make the assumption of new secondary particle formation still uncertain because the phenomenon has never been observed in a volcanic plume. In this work, we report the first observation of nucleation and new secondary particle formation events in a volcanic plume. These measurements were performed at the puy de Dôme atmospheric research station in central France during the Eyjafjallajokull volcano eruption in Spring 2010. We show that the nucleation is indeed linked to exceptionally high concentrations of sulfuric acid and present an unusual high particle formation rate. In addition we demonstrate that the binary H₂SO₄ - H₂O nucleation scheme, as it is usually considered in modeling studies, underestimates by 7 to 8 orders of magnitude the observed particle formation rate and, therefore, should not be applied in tropospheric conditions. These results may help to revisit all past simulations of the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/30/1104923108.abstract

The article states the aerosol production rates may be 7-8 orders of magnitude higher than previously thought- (10,000,000 to 100,000,000)

Now, do I need to explain why this actually works against you?

1) This has nothing to do with CO2, it has to do with aerosols...

2) Aerosols actually have a COOLING effect...

And now on to JACK-2510943'S MISLEADING CLAIM:

They just found out plants use 25% more CO2 than they had thought. That's a lot.

The actual story (emphasis mine):

The ability of forests, plants and soil to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air has been under-estimated, according to a study on Wednesday that challenges a benchmark for calculating the greenhouse-gas problem.

Like the sea, the land is a carbon "sink", or sponge, helping to absorb heat-trapping CO2 disgorged by the burning of fossil fuels.

A conventional estimate is that soil and vegetation take in roughly 120 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon each year through the natural process of photosynthesis.

The new study, published in the science journal Nature, says the uptake could be 25-45 percent higher, to 150-175 gigatonnes per year.

But relatively little of this extra carbon is likely to be stored permanently in the plant, say the researchers. Instead, it is likely to re-enter the atmosphere through plant respiration.

This will be a disappointment for those looking for some good news in the fight against climate change.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jW0kA7PTnBGatTddlJXOtLJ_FoJA?docId=CNG.fc32c44ca0bc036286e4d286d16f1818.321

So two dishonest denier arguments refuted in one thread- WHO'S NEXT?

And all this over boobs!!!

And as someone else observed, where is the tartar sauce?

My point: If the numbers are wrong, the numbers are wrong.

NASA has stated the heat loss into space is much greater then theorized. Huge amounts of CO2 can't be accounted for. They don't know where it went.

If you feed garbage numbers into a modeling program, it will spit garbage out. It's Invalid

The climate has been warming since the last Ice Age. If not few if any of us would be here.

15,000 years ago Most of North America was covered with over 5000 feet of Ice.

My point: If the numbers are wrong, the numbers are wrong.

And my point is that you dont have the faintest clue as to what you are talking about- you are simply parroting BS that you have read on some website that spreads misinformation (most likely 'watts up with that')

NASA has stated the heat loss into space is much greater then theorized.

The claim you open with was debunked already- it was BS...

On one side you have every international and national science organization stating that man-made global warming is a fact- on the other you have discredited people and PR firms organized to spread and sell misinformation...

You can either learn the science, or become a mindless parrot for those who are paid to sell you lies.

domer, what about the fish and chips?

I agree Joe - we must not forget the fish and chips!

lol

You think you are sick of rain, rain, rain, visit England they have rain, rain, rain, rain, rain, rain, rain, rain, and more rain all year. :)

"I was in Ireland a couple weeks ago. They have palm trees. So heat in England doesn't surprise me."

You should be surprised that there is this much heat in England in October.

London is about 51 degrees latitude. The 51st parallel is about 170 miles north of the Canadian/U.S. border in the U.S. western states. Cooler up there than the New York City area, which is about 40 degrees latitude.

Gainsville, Florida close the Georgia/Florida state line is about 29 degrees latitude. I'm thinking we didn't see palm trees until somewhat further south, don't remember for exactly where.

One of the southernmost points in Ireland is close to the 51 degree parallel, same as London. We too saw palm trees when our ferry landed on the west coast of Ireland, about 53 degrees latitude, don't remember the exact location. Not likely to see palm trees on the 51st parallel in Canada, right?

Yes, there are palm trees in Ireland (transplanted from much more southern latitudes) because the Gulf Stream dumps a lot of warm air over the west coast of Ireland. England does not benefit from the Gulf stream. So London's average temperature is much lower than the temperature along Ireland's west coast.

Comparing palm trees in Ireland to the weather in London does not translate.

Besides, I just read that those palm trees in Ireland are not actually palm trees. They are small evergreen palm-like tree.

I think the Palm trees are fed Guinness and Jameson.

I live in San Diego and we had the coldest year on record

The weather statistics for San Diego don't support that statement...