Emission Trading and climate change

Page 220 of 377 FirstFirst ... 120 170 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 270 320 ... LastLast
Results 10,951 to 11,000 of 18819
  1. #10951
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "Just to prove something a 10 year old can grasp, can you tell me what the global temperature approximately was when CO2 levels were greater than 7000 PPM in the globes past?"

    and

    "And how much did the suns energy increase over say 600 M yrs & show us this increase with an impact on the increase in global temperature?"

    and

    "I asked a simple question in response to your claim the lack of solar energy somehow offset the temperature increased by a CO2 concentration of around 7000 PPM by showing us how much the global temperature actually rose by?"

    This is going to be entertaining seeing this unfold!
    regards inter
    You are easily amused. However the ball is in your court. Bluster like "it fails miserably in answering the posed question for the umpteenth time!" is not worthy of a response when you are yet to provide some basis for why you think you are right and thousands of others who have studied the topic are wrong. That's what's funny.


  2. #10952
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You are easily amused. However the ball is in your court. Bluster like "it fails miserably in answering the posed question for the umpteenth time!" is not worthy of a response when you are yet to provide some basis for why you think you are right and thousands of others who have studied the topic are wrong. That's what's funny.

    i was certainly wrong about there being an interesting response, it's funny you should parrot the hide behind the thousands that have studied the topic, maybe all involved haven't the common sense to understand if a 1700% greater concentration of CO2 to offset a 5% solar gain 600my ago somehow equates to justifying a 30% increase in CO2 driving a 0.8'c temperature increase with no measurable solar gain! It is lunacy to imagine CO2 all of a sudden having such a multiplying effect on the atmospheric temperature.
    As you haven't answered any questions on the topic it would be delusional to imagine the ball being anywhere but in your court
    regards inter

  3. #10953
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i was certainly wrong about there being an interesting response, it's funny you should parrot the hide behind the thousands that have studied the topic, maybe all involved haven't the common sense to understand if a 1700% greater concentration of CO2 to offset a 5% solar gain 600my ago somehow equates to justifying a 30% increase in CO2 driving a 0.8'c temperature increase with no measurable solar gain! It is lunacy to imagine CO2 all of a sudden having such a multiplying effect on the atmospheric temperature.
    As you haven't answered any questions on the topic it would be delusional to imagine the ball being anywhere but in your court
    regards inter
    You have to actually hit the ball for it to leave your court. The effect of CO2 well understood to be non-linear and only a delusional person clutching at straws thinks it isn't.

    It is easy to measure the effect of CO2 on irradiance both in the laboratory, and in the atmosphere which has been done for the past few decades, and the effect is real, measurable and as good as proven as science gets - no history or models required. NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

    It has been proven to the same extent by the same method of science that describes how minute quantities of impurities (parts per billion) in certain insulating materials turn them into semiconductors that enable the manufacturing of electronics, computers, and subsequently allows this conversation to take place.

  4. #10954
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You have to actually hit the ball for it to leave your court. The effect of CO2 well understood to be non-linear and only a delusional person clutching at straws thinks it isn't.

    got it a graph of that showing how a CO2 concentration of 7000 ppm ( 1700 % more than present ) didn't produce uncontrollable warming of the planet?

    It is easy to measure the effect of CO2 on irradiance both in the laboratory, and in the atmosphere which has been done for the past few decades, and the effect is real, measurable and as good as proven as science gets - no history or models required. NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

    see above

    It has been proven to the same extent by the same method of science that describes how minute quantities of impurities (parts per billion) in certain insulating materials turn them into semiconductors that enable the manufacturing of electronics, computers, and subsequently allows this conversation to take place.

    See above again!
    its funny how some can't understand the globe has tried, tested & proven to the extreme what effect CO2 has on the climate.

    Regards inter

  5. #10955
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    its funny how some can't understand the globe has tried, tested & proven to the extreme what effect CO2 has on the climate.
    What's even funnier is that there is a tiny pocket of people who don't understand that conditions on the planet and the solar system are not the same as they were when the CO2 was higher in the past.

    Do publish inter, if you are correct, (doubtful) you will save a lot of work:



    James Powell's latest analysis of the state of published climate science.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  6. #10956
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Do publish inter, if you are correct, (doubtful) you will save a lot of work:
    Yes, the fast way to fame and fortune in science is to show that your scientific colleagues were wrong or missed the point.

    And for the first person who shows that current climate change is not predominantly manmade there will be a Nobel Prize guaranteed.

    That's how it works in science and there is only one teensy weeny caveat - you have to be able to show your premise fits the observed data better than anyone else's!

  7. #10957
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    What's even funnier is that there is a tiny pocket of people who don't understand that conditions on the planet and the solar system are not the same as they were when the CO2 was higher in the past.

    Do publish inter, if you are correct, (doubtful) you will save a lot of work:



    James Powell's latest analysis of the state of published climate science.
    what more politics! And not one measly fact or graph in relation to your claim! Just one will do.
    regards inter

  8. #10958
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Yes, the fast way to fame and fortune in science is to show that your scientific colleagues were wrong or missed the point.

    And for the first person who shows that current climate change is not predominantly manmade there will be a Nobel Prize guaranteed.

    That's how it works in science and there is only one teensy weeny caveat - you have to be able to show your premise fits the observed data better than anyone else's!
    do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?
    regards inter

  9. #10959
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what more politics! And not one measly fact or graph in relation to your claim! Just one will do.
    regards inter
    My claim is that I doubt you will be successful in changing the accepted science should you publish. I can not offer a graph or fact in relation to that claim because you have not published, but I have shown that you would have become the third publisher to reject man made global warming out of 10,885 (+1) papers if you had published last year.

    Maybe get in early this year so the numbers look better.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  10. #10960
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change.
    Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is A driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here.

    Perhaps you're a luke warmer too?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  11. #10961
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?
    regards inter
    I think it would be fair to say your debate is more a meandering succession of posts, some of them to me appear contradictory, so what do you think the main driver of climate change is? Natural variation seemed to be your argument but I note with interest that you claim to not dispute man made climate change but reject CO2 which would indicate you have an alternative man made mechanism. Just curious what do you tribute warming to?

  12. #10962
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I think it would be fair to say your debate is more a meandering succession of posts, some of them to me appear contradictory, so what do you think the main driver of climate change is? Natural variation seemed to be your argument but I note with interest that you claim to not dispute man made climate change but reject CO2 which would indicate you have an alternative man made mechanism. Just curious what do you tribute warming to?
    Time to get some popcorn on this one johnc

    If we look back at the history of this thread, I think our skeptics have come a long way. Other than there not being many of them left, we have at least 2 here now who accept that man made climate change is even a possibility. Who would have thought?

    I'm sure there will be a rapid backing away from this, but channelling Leonard Cohen, it's good to see that there is a crack letting some light in.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  13. #10963
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Catalyst’s catastrophism

    4 June, 2014 — 9 Comments


    In cinemas now!
    Catalyst is supposed to be a science programme, but ends up looking more like a low-budget disaster movie.
    Last night’s episode was a case in point:
    NARRATION
    … But fire is changing. Over the past decade, every forested continent has seen an alarming surge in large, uncontrollable fires. [pause for dramatic effect] Mega-fires.
    Prof David Bowman
    The sort of metaphoric equivalent of an atomic bomb, that’s what a mega fire is, it’s muscular, it’s mean, it’s big, it’s aggressive.
    Prof Tom Swetnam
    Really fast burning fires. And their local intensity is just amazing.… these are extraordinary fire events.
    NARRATION
    So extraordinary, they demolish the very ecosystems that have thrived with fire for millennia.
    Get the idea? And it doesn’t take much to work out where this is heading, given Catalyst’s past form:
    Sandra Whight
    Because of climate change we’re going to get changes in our vegetation type and our ecosystems that mean there will be more fuel available to burn that previously wouldn’t have burnt. That will mean fires will become harder to suppress. Because of climate change our fire seasons are getting longer. And so we have less time available to us to do the fuel treatments we need before it’s no longer safe to do those sorts of fuel treatments.
    and:
    Prof David Bowman
    I am worried that the worst case scenario is that we get a tumbling out of control of the feedbacks between more fires, more emissions of CO2, more climate change, more hotter weather, less rain, you can go into a fire spiral making it harder for us to pull the brakes back on.
    Holy crap, we’re all gonna die!
    While there have been some significant ‘megafires’ in the past few years, people (especially environmentalists who have a vested interest) have such short memories, that they do not even bother to look back at the historical records – which themselves are a blink of an eye in geological terms.
    On the very same day that Catalyst was spreading alarmism, the Environment and Public Works Committee of the US Senate was conducting hearings into this exact topic.
    Dr David South, retired Emeritus Professor from the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University, gave evidence regarding the relative importance of climate change and human activity:
    In the lower 48 states there have been about ten “extreme megafires,” which I define as burning more than 1 million acres. Eight of these occurred during cooler than average decades. These data suggest that extremely large megafires were 4-times more common before 1940 (back when carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than 310 ppmv). What these graphs suggest is that we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.Seven years ago, this Committee conducted a hearing about “Examining climate change and the media” [Senate Hearing 109-1077]. During that hearing, concern was expressed over the weather, which was mentioned 17 times, hurricanes, which were mentioned 13 times, and droughts, which were mentioned 4 times. In the 41,000 word text of that hearing, wildfires (that occur every year) were not mentioned at all. I am pleased to discuss forestry practices because, unlike hurricanes, droughts, and the polar vortex, we can actually promote forestry practices that will reduce the risk of wildfires. Unfortunately, some of our national forest management policies have, in my view, contributed to increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.In conclusion, I am certain that attempts to legislate a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on reducing the size of wildfires or the frequency of droughts. In contrast, allowing active forest management to create economically-lasting forestry jobs in the private sector might reduce the fuel load of dense forests.


    Catalyst concluded thus:
    NARRATION
    In the politically-charged debate over whether climate change or high fuel loads are responsible for severe fires, it’s important to go back to basics. Fires need three things: oxygen, fuel and heat. By adding not one, but two of these critical elements, we are stoking the furnace in an age of mega-fires.
    Far from being equal contributors to mega-fires, changes in climate are barely significant when compared with other factors and influences. But that doesn’t fit with the apocalyptic view of climate change required by Catalyst and the ABC.

    Not to mention that mental illness is the cause of most bushfires....then again mental illness seems to be prevalent in the ABC ... so can we conclude that the ABC causes bushfires? perhaps then that the ABC causes "climate change" ? I propose that they do and earthquakes for good measure.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  14. #10964
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Catalyst’s catastrophism

    4 June, 2014 — 9 Comments


    In cinemas now!
    Catalyst is supposed to be a science programme, but ends up looking more like a low-budget disaster movie.
    Last night’s episode was a case in point:
    NARRATION
    … But fire is changing. Over the past decade, every forested continent has seen an alarming surge in large, uncontrollable fires. [pause for dramatic effect] Mega-fires.
    Prof David Bowman
    The sort of metaphoric equivalent of an atomic bomb, that’s what a mega fire is, it’s muscular, it’s mean, it’s big, it’s aggressive.
    Prof Tom Swetnam
    Really fast burning fires. And their local intensity is just amazing.… these are extraordinary fire events.
    NARRATION
    So extraordinary, they demolish the very ecosystems that have thrived with fire for millennia.
    Get the idea? And it doesn’t take much to work out where this is heading, given Catalyst’s past form:
    Sandra Whight
    Because of climate change we’re going to get changes in our vegetation type and our ecosystems that mean there will be more fuel available to burn that previously wouldn’t have burnt. That will mean fires will become harder to suppress. Because of climate change our fire seasons are getting longer. And so we have less time available to us to do the fuel treatments we need before it’s no longer safe to do those sorts of fuel treatments.
    and:
    Prof David Bowman
    I am worried that the worst case scenario is that we get a tumbling out of control of the feedbacks between more fires, more emissions of CO2, more climate change, more hotter weather, less rain, you can go into a fire spiral making it harder for us to pull the brakes back on.
    Holy crap, we’re all gonna die!
    While there have been some significant ‘megafires’ in the past few years, people (especially environmentalists who have a vested interest) have such short memories, that they do not even bother to look back at the historical records – which themselves are a blink of an eye in geological terms.
    On the very same day that Catalyst was spreading alarmism, the Environment and Public Works Committee of the US Senate was conducting hearings into this exact topic.
    Dr David South, retired Emeritus Professor from the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University, gave evidence regarding the relative importance of climate change and human activity:
    In the lower 48 states there have been about ten “extreme megafires,” which I define as burning more than 1 million acres. Eight of these occurred during cooler than average decades. These data suggest that extremely large megafires were 4-times more common before 1940 (back when carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than 310 ppmv). What these graphs suggest is that we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.Seven years ago, this Committee conducted a hearing about “Examining climate change and the media” [Senate Hearing 109-1077]. During that hearing, concern was expressed over the weather, which was mentioned 17 times, hurricanes, which were mentioned 13 times, and droughts, which were mentioned 4 times. In the 41,000 word text of that hearing, wildfires (that occur every year) were not mentioned at all. I am pleased to discuss forestry practices because, unlike hurricanes, droughts, and the polar vortex, we can actually promote forestry practices that will reduce the risk of wildfires. Unfortunately, some of our national forest management policies have, in my view, contributed to increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.In conclusion, I am certain that attempts to legislate a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on reducing the size of wildfires or the frequency of droughts. In contrast, allowing active forest management to create economically-lasting forestry jobs in the private sector might reduce the fuel load of dense forests.

    Catalyst concluded thus:
    NARRATION
    In the politically-charged debate over whether climate change or high fuel loads are responsible for severe fires, it’s important to go back to basics. Fires need three things: oxygen, fuel and heat. By adding not one, but two of these critical elements, we are stoking the furnace in an age of mega-fires.
    Far from being equal contributors to mega-fires, changes in climate are barely significant when compared with other factors and influences. But that doesn’t fit with the apocalyptic view of climate change required by Catalyst and the ABC.

    Not to mention that mental illness is the cause of most bushfires....then again mental illness seems to be prevalent in the ABC ... so can we conclude that the ABC causes bushfires? perhaps then that the ABC causes "climate change" ? I propose that they do and earthquakes for good measure.
    Bushfires are mainly caused by lightning (about 26%) about 25% are deliberately lit of which only a portion can be attributed to mental illness. Play your silly games but leave the mentally ill out of this it is inappropriate and very low act to demonise those who deserve sympathy not bigotry.

  15. #10965
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Bushfires are mainly caused by lightning (about 26%) about 25% are deliberately lit of which only a portion can be attributed to mental illness. Play your silly games but leave the mentally ill out of this it is inappropriate and very low act to demonise those who deserve sympathy not bigotry.
    In the recent bush fires during the heatwave in Victoria, 256 fires were started by lightning in the space of 7 hours and one fire was suspected as the work of an arsonist. It's not at all inconsequential that the rate of lighting strikes increases substantially during extreme heat waves.

    No Cookies | Herald Sun

  16. #10966
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    My claim is that I doubt you will be successful in changing the accepted science should you publish. I can not offer a graph or fact in relation to that claim because you have not published, but I have shown that you would have become the third publisher to reject man made global warming out of 10,885 (+1) papers if you had published last year.

    Maybe get in early this year so the numbers look better.

    It seems you too have the same problem, are you too trolling to many sites to keep up with the specifics of the debate?

    regards inter

  17. #10967
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I think it would be fair to say your debate is more a meandering succession of posts, some of them to me appear contradictory, so what do you think the main driver of climate change is? Natural variation seemed to be your argument but I note with interest that you claim to not dispute man made climate change but reject CO2 which would indicate you have an alternative man made mechanism. Just curious what do you tribute warming to?
    You can tell some people, just not very much it seems!
    I work on the KISS principle, but it seems that's too complex.
    regards inter

  18. #10968
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is A driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here.

    Perhaps you're a luke warmer too?
    Maybe if I was to print it in capital letters you maybe able to understand a simple sentence?
    What are trying to make yourself out as?
    regards

  19. #10969
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Maybe if I was to print it in capital letters you maybe able to understand a simple sentence?
    What are trying to make yourself out as?
    regards
    With respect, Inter, your questions are exactly what some people would like to ask you....

  20. #10970
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Maybe if I was to print it in capital letters you maybe able to understand a simple sentence?
    What are trying to make yourself out as?
    regards
    What I am "making myself out as" in this instance is someone who is trying to get a clear answer to a simple question:

    Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is A driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here.

    I'm happy for you to spell it out in capital letters and colour them blue if that makes it easier for you to answer the simple question. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

    If you need me to spell the question out in capital letters, I'm happy to oblige. Just ask.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  21. #10971
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    You can tell some people, just not very much it seems!
    I work on the KISS principle, but it seems that's too complex.
    regards inter

    You seem to have a problem answering simple questions which can be assumed to mean you either don't have an answer or you are aware you are wrong. Don't worry there is no need to respond, however you may reflect on why you feel the need to ask a lot of questions of others and be offended when there is a response that is not to your liking.

  22. #10972
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Bigotry? yes! why not misogyny? ... hum ... wait a minute, there should be a woman involved in that case right? ... well, who cares, if we can attribute global warming to us and the cows passing wind there must be someone out there that would love to call me misogynist.
    After all "we" all know that most of the world ills can be attributed to white affluent male including global warming, global cooling and lack of interest in the change.

    I say kill them all and distribute the spoil to the virtuous poor, that would cool the earth down.

    Then we all go to live in caves ... well not me I would be dead right? Learn to live off those marvelous native fruit trees who give diarrhea even to cockatoos, and we will live happily ever after... well with a bit of a runner but who wants to know the details right?

    “I did not attend his funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”

    Mark Twain
    __________________________________________________ _____________________

    PS
    Listen to MP3 of this story (minutes)ALTERNATE WMA VERSION | MP3 DOWNLOAD

    MARK COLVIN: Our final story could easily be headlined simply: Yeah Right.

    In news that's certain to work out perfectly and have absolutely no cost overruns, the US Secret Service has published a tender for an app to detect sarcasm online.

    According to the Secret Service's requirements, the software should have the "ability to detect sarcasm and false positives" and identify the "influencers" on social media website Twitter.

    Will Ockenden reports.

    Uhuuuuu I wonder if it will detect global warming and sea rise ?


    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  23. #10973
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    ‘Angry Summer’ gives way to ‘Abnormal Autumn’

    3 June, 2014 — 9 Comments


    Chief Alarmist
    I wonder if the propagandists, sorry, er ‘scientists’, at the Climate Council sit around all day thinking of these cheesy monikers?
    According to head agitprop generator Will Steffen, the climate is in a foul mood. No, really:
    The climate system is in a foul mood. From “angry summer” to “abnormal autumn” – we’re running out of words to describe the relentless extreme weather that Australia is experiencing as global temperatures continue to increase because of climate change. Now the exceptional heat has carried on into the autumn of 2014 in Australia.
    What we are witnessing here is the final crazy rantings of a scare that is in its death throes. Nobody is listening any more and we have to scream, shout and throw tantrums to get any attention.
    Yes, we have had a warm start to Autumn, but other parts of the globe are colder than average, meaning, surprisingly, that global temperatures have still barely changed since 2001. As for the climate being in a ‘foul mood’, the weather outside today is a beautiful Autumn day, thanks very much. The only ones in a foul mood are the hysterical alarmists who aren’t getting their way any more.
    That won’t stop them, however. We will no doubt have Wild Winter, Stormy Spring, Sweltering Summer… all thanks to our crazy catastrophist climatologists.

    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  24. #10974
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    The point of those last two posts is?


    Seems to be nothing about not very much.

  25. #10975
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    What I am "making myself out as" in this instance is someone who is trying to get a clear answer to a simple question:

    Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is A driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here.

    I'm happy for you to spell it out in capital letters and colour them blue if that makes it easier for you to answer the simple question. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

    If you need me to spell the question out in capital letters, I'm happy to oblige. Just ask.
    "do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?"

    Just so we can can all make out what is clearly obvious from either side!


    Any relevant answer to a relevant question is what is needed, if that comes by the way of capital letters everyone would be happy, how your going to parrot somebody else's graph of figures or numbers with capital letters proving your case is anyone's guess!
    regards inter

  26. #10976
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The point of those last two posts is?


    Seems to be nothing about not very much.

    Some will never understand it as displayed by the response, a nice demonstration of the exact thing that sets apart the easily led garden variety types from the free thinking individuals.............. Propaganda!
    regards inter

  27. #10977
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Some will never understand it as displayed by the response, a nice demonstration of the exact thing that sets apart the easily led garden variety types from the free thinking individuals.............. Propaganda!
    regards inter
    The effect of elevated CO2 levels on reduction of outward bound energy radiation from Earth in today's contexts is well understood, undisputed scientifically, ("proven" if you like), measurable and measured, but:

    "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know
    ."

    Or the biblical version for Marc:

    "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."

    Still waiting for Inter to present his new scientific theory of thermodynamics that overturns the currently accepted science and shows the last 150 years of science on CO2 is wrong...

  28. #10978
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?"

    You have made it clear that you believe that atmospheric CO2 is NOT a factor in the current global warming effect. But you have not made it clear WHY you are disputing the effect of CO2.

    Note: If CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT have the effect attributed to it by science on the energy balance of Earth, it would overturn practically all currently adopted scientific principles.

  29. #10979
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The point of those last two posts is?


    Seems to be nothing about not very much.
    The point, my dear John a, b, or c, is a simple one:
    Public figures and paid supporters of the hypothesis of human induced global warming have joined a cult style movement and use a cult style method of proselytising and a cult style method of misinformation and defence. The repetitive use of such systematic and monolithic pack of bull$hit has, in my view changed those mercenary supporters to a point that they actually believe what they are saying over and over.
    Sad really, I hope it will end soon so that they can return to be normal members of society and (dare I say it?) part of a scientific process in a not too distant future.

    Present company excluded of course
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  30. #10980
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Q: What do you do when you have no arguments?

    27 May, 2014 — 30 Comments


    A: Appeal to emotion instead. From Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science:
    Mawkish sentimentality
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  31. #10981
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?"

    Just so we can can all make out what is clearly obvious from either side!

    Any relevant answer to a relevant question is what is needed, if that comes by the way of capital letters everyone would be happy, how your going to parrot somebody else's graph of figures or numbers with capital letters proving your case is anyone's guess!
    regards inter
    LOL. You can't say it can you?

    IS CO2 A DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE OR NOT?

    I wait with bated breath for the next wriggle.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  32. #10982
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Empirical / Tests Myths
    The key test of a hypothesis is whether it can stand up to real world observations. Real observations reveal that the "CO2 is a major cause of global climate change" hypothesis is FALSE!
    Myth: The close correlation of CO2 and temperature, as temperature has gone up and down over the last 400,000 years, proves that CO2 is causing the climate changes.
    Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.
    Antarctic Temperature and CO2 history from ice core analyses. Note the amazing rhythmical similarities of the four cycles, which indicate the very strong solar-orbital influences on Earth's climate. Since Earth's CO2 level do not drive the solar-orbital cycles, your can see why many scientists doubt the currently popular "CO2 CAUSES harmful global warming" argument. On the other hand, an increase in CO2 may provide some slight positive feedback (support) to a warming Earth, but the magnitude or even the direction of positive or negative feedback is still being debated.

    Adapted from Pettit, et. al., 1999
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  33. #10983
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Climate Change >>
    Critical Climate Change Facts

    ** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  34. #10984
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    LOL. You can't say it can you?

    IS CO2 A DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE OR NOT?

    I wait with bated breath for the next wriggle.
    this is so funny it is almost ridiculous, Ive made myself clearly obvious and you have made it obvious your clearly living in your own parallel universe no ordinary person can comprehend, apparently there is a fine line between genius & insanity, a simple fact could put us all at ease.
    regards inter

  35. #10985
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Climate Change >>
    Critical Climate Change Facts

    ** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).
    sums it up perfectly! but it might as well be in hieroglyphics for the cultists who are clutching at the ever slimming CO2 straw
    regards inter

  36. #10986
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    this is so funny it is almost ridiculous, Ive made myself clearly obvious and you have made it obvious your clearly living in your own parallel universe no ordinary person can comprehend, apparently there is a fine line between genius & insanity, a simple fact could put us all at ease.
    regards inter
    Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice.

    Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"

    Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change.

    Here it is visually for you:



    wriggle away

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  37. #10987
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    What? No knocking off for a Long Weekend? Shame on you all.

    The firefighter and I actually watched the Catalyst episode that Mark was blatting on about. I'm not clear as to whether Mark did but no matter.

    The episode actually pointed out that the rise of so-called mega-fires weren't so much linked to actual climate change as they were to the best part of 150 years of inappropriate fire management (at least in both Australia and the US). Basically, habitual fire suppression simply out of fear instead of the regular and systematic use of fire to control fuel loads means that a fire adapted ecosystem is actually loaded to burn and burn repeatedly. The impacts of a changing climate is that it has provided more days where dangerous fire conditions are possible and so provide greater potential to create 'mega-fires'.

    The implication was demonstrated quite vividly - widespread landscape change within just a few years. In New Mexico, they've had huge areas of conifer forest converted into scrublands while here in Oz there are chunks of the high country where significant areas of what was mountain ash forests have been converted to a grassy weedland - basically an ecological work in progress. Neither of these areas will get these forests back within a human lifespan without human intervention such as aerial reseeding. Mainly because while these particular ecosystems are fire adapted they are only adapted to cool fires that don't crown - big, hot fires kill them dead. They can only come back from seed. But these megafires have even burnt the soils in some areas. Even if the seeds don't get burnt and they get going then if they get another fire before the next cohort has set seed - that's the end of any regeneration of these trees in this area for a significant time period...if at all.

    It's quite fascinating in a grim kind of way. Bit like this thread actually.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  38. #10988
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice.

    Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"

    Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change.

    Here it is visually for you:



    wriggle away

    What is the point of the above?
    Replay no point.
    Is passing wind by cows a variable in the vast amount of variables that have a variable influence on the large number of variables that vary the climate?
    Uhuu ... what about the butterfly effect? Do we account for that too?

    What on earth is your point? CO2 is a consequence of the existence of humans. We exist therefore we make CO2 and that is a good thing.
    CO2 positives are way more than the negatives if you actually can make up a negative, (who cares if you do anyway).

    Do you propose euthanasia? Because there is no other way to "reduce emissions" that is a myth, not possible, even if we find a way to split the water molecule in an energy efficient way, we will not be able to produce less CO2, we will increase CO2 production unless there is a war that kills off 2/3 of the population.
    And then there will be a rebound in the population anyway like it happened after every war and we will produce even more CO2.

    Find something else to demonise, something you can actually change, say tobacco or alcohol consumption, now there you have something to demonise.
    Stop embarrassing yourselves with this CO2-is-bad business, because it is as old hat as dancing the Twist.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  39. #10989
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice.

    Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"

    Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change.

    Here it is visually for you:



    wriggle away

    What is the point of the above?
    Replay no point.
    Is passing wind by cows a variable in the vast amount of variables that have a variable influence on the large number of variables that vary the climate?
    Uhuu ... what about the butterfly effect? Do we account for that too?

    What on earth is your point? CO2 is a consequence of the existence of humans. We exist therefore we make CO2 and that is a good thing.
    CO2 positives are way more than the negatives if you actually can make up a negative, (who cares if you do anyway).

    Do you propose euthanasia? Because there is no other way to "reduce emissions" that is a myth, not possible, even if we find a way to split the water molecule in an energy efficient way, we will not be able to produce less CO2, we will increase CO2 production unless there is a war that kills off 2/3 of the population.
    And then there will be a rebound in the population anyway like it happened after every war and we will produce even more CO2.

    Find something else to demonise, something you can actually change, say tobacco or alcohol consumption, now there you have something to demonise.
    Stop embarrassing yourselves with this CO2-is-bad business, because it is as old hat as dancing the Twist.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  40. #10990
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Uhuu .. Co2 is bad, bad, bad,
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  41. #10991
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice.

    Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"

    Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change.

    Here it is visually for you:



    wriggle away

    What still nothing to parrot in regards to proving CO2 being the main driver of climate change, which has the capacity to disprove the past evidence that shows CO2 has never had the capacity to change the climate & cause uncontrollable warming! What sort of person adds their own twisted addendum to someone else's statement of views, then still pushes that barrow for some unknown reason, especially when my statement already answers the question anyway!
    regards inter

  42. #10992
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    [EDIT]
    Climate Change >>
    Critical Climate Change Facts
    While plants certainly need CO2, any modern informed discussion of the impact on increased CO2 on plant productivity in agricultural or natural systems, must (obviously) also take into account rising temperatures, which most of the studies on the linked web site do not do. So while increased CO2 can be beneficial on many measures in many cases, there are relatively few studies that address the complex interaction of elevated CO2 and elevated temperature on plant productivity, and even fewer that assess the impact on larger scales under non-ideal conditions.

    Simply saying "increased CO2 increases plant productivity" is ignoring the complexity .... rising CO2 isn't the only issue...

  43. #10993
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    my statement already answers the question
    Look again:



    Your statement does not answer the question, sorry. Your statement answers a different question, the first one, and leaves the second question hanging. The kind of person who asks such questions is one that seeks clarity over obfuscation without resorting to personal attacks. So far we're not seeing much clarity and too much of the latter.

    The discussion about CO2 being the main driver of climate change was answered previously in the thread by john2b. If you want to continue that discussion you might like to show why the accepted role of CO2 in current climate change is incorrect and propose a better theory and main driver of climate change.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  44. #10994
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Climate Change >>
    Critical Climate Change Facts

    ** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).
    Read again, the answer you seek is in the above point form to put it into context.
    Must I translate in a different language perhaps?

    The point is much simpler than the enormously complex and mostly unknown mechanisms that drive variations in climate. The Sun is the only source of heat therefore the only one responsible for energy input. How this energy intake moves around, sinks, transfers and is lost is way more complex than the idiotic graphs of our mutual friend Al Gore.
    The only reason the warmist agitators dance around the CO2 is bad lunacy, is a completely different one that has nothing to do with climate.
    It is painstakingly obvious that HUMAN produced CO2 is a byproduct of human existence. Demonising just that minuscule proportion of the total CO2 that constitute another minuscule part of the atmosphere, has just one clear purpose, to demonise humanity as a whole and therefore propose changes to power and resources of the kind we have never seen before and comparable to the inquisition the crusades and world war 3 all at once.
    I said this before, it is not possible to reduce humanity's CO2 without attacking humanity itself.
    If you add to that the fact that even suppressing 100% of humans CO2 will have NO EFFECT on climate, you have the complete picture.
    Global warming agitators have a political and social agenda not to do with anything climate. The small players that come to this thread, are just a byproduct of social dissatisfaction and left wing confession seeking for a flag to fly.

    I say, try to find a good cause and forget this lost cause.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  45. #10995
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I said this before, it is not possible to reduce humanity's CO2 without attacking humanity itself.
    Yet humanity has means and methods in place to reduce CO2 without 'attacking' humanity. We can see that tipping usage patterns towards alternative energy reduces CO2 emissions for the energy consumed.

    For example, this 5kw domestic solar system has accumulated savings of 22.3 Tonnes of CO2:



    Same result from other alternative energy options as well as efficiency improvements in energy use, all of which leave fossil fuels in the ground, reducing CO2 emissions without 'attacking' humanity. In fact, there is a good case that doing nothing about CO2 is effectively 'attacking' future humanity by reducing the quality of the environment they will be living in.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  46. #10996
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The point is much simpler than the enormously complex and mostly unknown mechanisms that drive variations in climate. The Sun is the only source of heat therefore the only one responsible for energy input. How this energy intake moves around, sinks, transfers and is lost is way more complex than the idiotic graphs of our mutual friend Al Gore.
    The only reason the warmist agitators dance around the CO2 is bad lunacy, is a completely different one that has nothing to do with climate.
    It is painstakingly obvious that HUMAN produced CO2 is a byproduct of human existence. Demonising just that minuscule proportion of the total CO2 that constitute another minuscule part of the atmosphere, has just one clear purpose, to demonise humanity as a whole and therefore propose changes to power and resources of the kind we have never seen before and comparable to the inquisition the crusades and world war 3 all at once.
    I said this before, it is not possible to reduce humanity's CO2 without attacking humanity itself.
    If you add to that the fact that even suppressing 100% of humans CO2 will have NO EFFECT on climate, you have the complete picture.
    Global warming agitators have a political and social agenda not to do with anything climate. The small players that come to this thread, are just a byproduct of social dissatisfaction and left wing confession seeking for a flag to fly.
    Holy Smoking Angels, Marc-man! And I thought I had a distorted World View...I don't feel quite so alone now. Fortunately mine's based on apathy rather than conspiracy...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I say, try to find a good cause and forget this lost cause.
    Ever considered heeding this statement?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  47. #10997
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Originally Posted by MarcI say, try to find a good cause and forget this lost cause.



    Ever considered heeding this statement?
    Since you ask, think about it. Who threw the first punch? Who drew blood? Certainly not the skeptics. The millions who like me reacted to being pushed around and robbed by political interest and pretences of altruism and accused of selfishness by ignorant unemployed professional activist who have nothing to lose, are REACTING to a poisonous religion that has our asset and our income and our freedom in their sights.
    As simple as that. Lets say we are like partisans fighting the aliens' invasion.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  48. #10998
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    As simple as that. Lets say we are like partisans fighting the aliens' invasion.
    Or perhaps you are the aliens fighting the humans trying to save their world.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  49. #10999
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Look again:



    Your statement does not answer the question, sorry. Your statement answers a different question, the first one, and leaves the second question hanging. The kind of person who asks such questions is one that seeks clarity over obfuscation without resorting to personal attacks. So far we're not seeing much clarity and too much of the latter.

    Well you defiantly haven't left us hanging proving the ridiculousness of your pursuit in trying to manipulate someone else's statement

    The discussion about CO2 being the main driver of climate change was answered previously in the thread by john2b. If you want to continue that discussion you might like to show why the accepted role of CO2 in current climate change is incorrect and propose a better theory and main driver of climate change.

    far from it! And I haven't let up waiting for proof to appear either, yet all that is regurgitated is limp propaganda with not even one parroted fact to back it up.

    .
    regards inter

  50. #11000
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Or perhaps you are the aliens fighting the humans trying to save their world.
    you forgot the other species of beings you seem to be associated with.
    regards inter

Page 220 of 377 FirstFirst ... 120 170 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 270 320 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •