Like most of australians Im sick to death of HOW THE LEFT SIDE OF POLITICS HAVE HIJACKED THE ENVORIMENTAL AGENDA, AND FROM THIS TO THIS DAY WE GET THIS C**P FROM THEM ABOUT TAXING US FOR BEING HUMAN.



But there is something more serious that the left, the greens and everyone involved in that political spectrum that LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT A CARBON TAX A NEW TAX MIND YOU IS GOING TO BE THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICE BREAD.


Now the PROPAGANDA COMING OUT OF THE MEDIA, mind you that they like to kick NEWS LIMITED, but never question some in the media that dont question the science behind the CONCLUSION of climate change, AND THERE IS SOME DATA OUT THERE THAT 3% OF HUMANS CONTRIBUTE THROUGH THERE TECHNOLOGY TO GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 97% of global carbon emissions that come through NATURE ITSELF. from the oceans themselves and the land. is that data right or wrong ??????

FOR ME THE WHOLE CLIMATE CHANGE AND CARBON CONTROL SCHEMES IS ALL TO DO WITH CONTROL, MANIPILATION AND THE GOVERNMENTS THIRST FOR MORE TAX DOLLARS OVER WHAT LOOKS LIKE A VAGUE AND UNCLEAR SCIENCE.

All together now....

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Quote:

All together now.... Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You better believe it, IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE OPINION POLLS LABOR ARE STUFFING THEMSELVES UP WITH THIS NOT THE TONY ABBOTT OR THE OPPOSITION,  ;D ;D

yes it is bi partisan hoodwinkery and freemasons on both

sides of the political paradigm

forgiven

namaste

I don't vote. I don't care which party is in government.

Just for amusement I'd love Tony Abbott to have the PM role.

It's all a laugh to me.

MOST AUSTRALIANS DONT LIKE THE LOOK, THE SOUND AND SMELL OF THIS NEW TAX,

But unfortunatley we are with a silly unpleasant looking prime minister who seems to LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS AND ACTIVISTS THAN THE SILENT MAJORITY .

Quote:

Just for amusement I'd love Tony Abbott to have the PM role. It's all a laugh to me

Good laugh at the serious, THE SERIOUS WONT GIVE A ****

"The best things in life are free, but sooner or later the government will find a way to tax them." - anonymous

Quote:

THAN THE SILENT MAJORITY .

Perhaps the so-called "silent majority" should do something a bit more noticable and far less "silent" than simply bleating about sh!t on the net?

While they remain silent they will be ignored..... or even have their existance denied.

Quote:

Perhaps the so-called "silent majority" should do something a bit more noticable and far less "silent" than simply bleating about sh!t on the net? While they remain silent they will be ignored..... or even have their existance denied.

Yeeeaaah WHATEVER,  ;D ;D

For me this about a vague idea about the climate being chased up by politicians which has allowed this collusion between some many scientists and politicians to sound this sudden alarm siren about the climate of our globe and that our EXTRA TAXES IS JUST GOING TO SOLVE IT OUR OF THIN AIR OVER AN UNCERTAIN SCIENCE.

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 9:08pm:

For me this about a vague idea about the climate being chased up by politicians which has allowed this collusion between some many scientists and politicians to sound this sudden alarm siren about the climate of our globe and that our EXTRA TAXES IS JUST GOING TO SOLVE IT OUR OF THIN AIR OVER AN UNCERTAIN SCIENCE.

If you see a one world government come into play, then you know you have allowed it to go too far.

The carbon tax is definitely a big con that is forced onto the suffering citizens.
Now they have the compulsory super firmly imbeded, now comes the carbon tax and then the credits trading.
Read recently, that the finacial industry is fully supporting the carbon tax, because it will produce more opportunities for them to make profits from trading, like the super industry is a bonanza for the financial industry, but this usually written only in the Financial media, which very few people read.
Long live the Great Australian Super Fraud, and come on the carbon con.

it_is_the_light wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 8:49pm:

yes it is bi partisan hoodwinkery and freemasons on both sides of the political paradigm forgiven namaste

Leaving aside the Freemasons issue, I agree that manipulation is one of the basic Political "tools of the trade", for all Politicians!

However, I disagree, in that I do not forgive them!

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

WHAT LOOKS LIKE A VAGUE AND UNCLEAR SCIENCE. [/size][/font]

The issue here is that your obviously looking in the wrong places. The science is very clear.

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

AND THERE IS SOME DATA OUT THERE THAT 3% OF HUMANS CONTRIBUTE THROUGH THERE TECHNOLOGY TO GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 97% of carbon emissions that come through NATURE ITSELF. from the oceans themselves and the land. is that data wrong ??????

And for that reason - I have been asking laborites and other lefties the question

In percentage terms can they tell us how much humans contribute to global carbon emissions?

I've asked this question for 5 years now - they can't answer it

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 9:08pm:

For me this about a vague idea about the climate being chased up by politicians which has allowed this collusion between some many scientists and politicians to sound this sudden alarm siren about the climate of our globe and that our EXTRA TAXES IS JUST GOING TO SOLVE IT OUR OF THIN AIR OVER AN UNCERTAIN SCIENCE.

It's an Observational Science at best

This is like calling "Voodoo" a science

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

FOR ME THE WHOLE CLIMATE CHANGE AND CARBON CONTROL SCHEMES IS ALL TO DO WITH CONTROL, MANIPILATION AND THE GOVERNMENTS THIRST FOR MORE TAX DOLLARS OVER WHAT LOOKS LIKE A VAGUE AND UNCLEAR SCIENCE.

And then there's the deliberate suppression of all the facts so as to deliberately confusing some into actually believing that global warming exists.
Then they change their models when they don't explain everything or when those models prove that global warming doesn't exist.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

And for that reason - I have been asking laborites and other lefties the question In percentage terms can they tell us how much humans contribute to global carbon emissions? I've asked this question for 5 years now - they can't answer it

Yes they have, you liar, you're a pathological denier. I've answered it in this thread; 2%.

Quote:

laborites

Heh.... what a f-ckin' wanker.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 11th, 2011 at 8:34pm: AND THERE IS SOME DATA OUT THERE THAT 3% OF HUMANS CONTRIBUTE THROUGH THERE TECHNOLOGY TO GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 97% of carbon emissions that come through NATURE ITSELF. from the oceans themselves and the land. is that data wrong ?????? And for that reason - I have been asking laborites and other lefties the question In percentage terms can they tell us how much humans contribute to global carbon emissions? I've asked this question for 5 years now - they can't answer it

They could, but then that would be admitting that global warming was all crap, and that the Co2 tax wont change a thing!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 11th, 2011 at 8:34pm: AND THERE IS SOME DATA OUT THERE THAT 3% OF HUMANS CONTRIBUTE THROUGH THERE TECHNOLOGY TO GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 97% of carbon emissions that come through NATURE ITSELF. from the oceans themselves and the land. is that data wrong ?????? And for that reason - I have been asking laborites and other lefties the question In percentage terms can they tell us how much humans contribute to global carbon emissions? I've asked this question for 5 years now - they can't answer it

I post this here, because it's relevant -

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 9:34pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on Jun 11th, 2011 at 8:49pm: yes it is bi partisan hoodwinkery and freemasons on both sides of the political paradigm forgiven namaste Leaving aside the Freemasons issue, I agree that manipulation is one of the basic Political "tools of the trade", for all Politicians! However, I disagree, in that I do not forgive them!

And, I have to say, I was wrong!

What I should have said was -

I agree that manipulation is one of the basic Political "tools of the trade", for all Politicians and their SPIN MACHINE HELPERS!

However, I disagree, in that I do not forgive them!

Hello Maqqa!

Quote:

The issue here is that your obviously looking in the wrong places. The science is very clear.

By astro surf


IF THERE IS STILL NO CONCLUSIVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE OR PROOF THAT MAN MADE CO2 IS CAUSING HARM AND CHANGING OUR CLIMATE FOR THE WORST, THEN THE SCIENCE REMAINS UNCLEAR THEN, DOES IT ????


NOT EVEN YOUR OWN CARBON SPIN WILL MAKE IT ANY CLEARER. ASTRO.  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 11th, 2011 at 8:34pm: AND THERE IS SOME DATA OUT THERE THAT 3% OF HUMANS CONTRIBUTE THROUGH THERE TECHNOLOGY TO GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 97% of carbon emissions that come through NATURE ITSELF. from the oceans themselves and the land. is that data wrong ?????? And for that reason - I have been asking laborites and other lefties the question In percentage terms can they tell us how much humans contribute to global carbon emissions? I've asked this question for 5 years now - they can't answer it

Yes maqqa ,Abbott and the coalition have a lot to answer for with their manipulation of climate and carbon fears to appease the dumb retarded confusionalists in the community, ever so small as they may be.

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:15am:

MADE CO2 IS CAUSING HARM AND CHANGING OUR CLIMATE FOR THE WORST,

See, this is what happens when you inhabit an ideological bubble where you quarantined any information that in any way conflicts with your ideological worldview.

The science IS quite clear, that's why it is accepted by EVERY mainstream scientific peak body on the planet

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

The skeptic argument...

There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

What the science says...
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif
Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Quote:

The science IS quite clear, that's why it is accepted by EVERY mainstream scientific peak body on the planet

A SETTLED SCIENCE THAT ISNT BASED ON ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE,

AND THEY LIKE TO CALL IT REAL SCIENCE,  ;D ;D ;D

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean-heat-2000m.gif
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

Just out of interest.

If you wanted to be funded to work on climate change. Do you have to come up with an answer that supports man made climate change or in another way, what happens if your answer doesn't support man made climate change.

Does anyone have any numbers on this or information.

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

Quote: The science IS quite clear, that's why it is accepted by EVERY mainstream scientific peak body on the planet A SETTLED SCIENCE THAT ISNT BASED ON ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, AND THEY LIKE TO CALL IT REAL SCIENCE,  ;D ;D ;D

No, you've just been hopelessly misled by vested interests that seek to manufacture doubt in the minds of idiots like yourself.  :D  :D  :D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming The skeptic argument... There's no empirical evidence "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans) What the science says... Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows: We're raising CO2 levels Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA). Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring. Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958. CO2 traps heat According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001). When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

They filter out water vapour. Doesnt it exist or would it over shadow the results.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:36am:

Just out of interest. If you wanted to be funded to work on climate change. Do you have to come up with an answer that supports man made climate change or in another way, what happens if your answer doesn't support man made climate change. Does anyone have any numbers on this or information.

Ah, the conspiracy! Who is in control of all of this funding? What shadowy body could be coordinating research funding across national borders so as to ONLY fund scientists that make findings that support AGW and to what end?  :D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:36am: Just out of interest. If you wanted to be funded to work on climate change. Do you have to come up with an answer that supports man made climate change or in another way, what happens if your answer doesn't support man made climate change. Does anyone have any numbers on this or information. Ah, the conspiracy! Who is in control of all of this funding? What shadowy body could be coordinating research funding across national borders so as to ONLY fund scientists that make findings that support AGW and to what end?  :D

It is a legitimate question and one that could surely be answered.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:37am:

They filter out water vapour. Doesnt it exist or would it over shadow the results.

That's a complete lie of course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&feature=player_embedded

Quote:

What the science says... Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows: We're raising CO2 levels Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

ASTRO, THIS ISNT CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE, THIS IS JUST VAGUE LOOKING GRAPHS THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED BY MANY OTHER ANGLES FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS,

You should know better than that.


Astro boy, IM TALKING ABOUT CONCRETE IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE,

What you just posted is not CONCRETE and can be REFUTED AND DENIED by any OPEN MINDED SCIENTISTS WHO ARE NOT RESTRAINED BY A BELIEF IN CLIMATE DOOMSDAYING

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

It is a legitimate question and one that could surely be answered.

Please do! I'm gagging to scratch the surface a bit deeper and just see how far down the rabbit hole you lot have really gone! :D

Who IS coordinating this global effort? Is it the UN? The Bilderbergers? Shape shifting reptoids from the constellation of Drakos?? Or is it the Reverse Vampires? :D :D :D

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:41am:

Quote: What the science says... Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows: We're raising CO2 levels Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA). ASTRO, THIS ISNT CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE, THIS IS JUST VAGUE LOOKING GRAPHS THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED BY MANY OTHER ANGLES FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS, You should know better than that. Astro boy, IM TALKING ABOUT CONCRETE IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE, What you just posted is not CONCRETE and can be REFUTED AND DENIED by any OPEN MINDED SCIENTISTS WHO IS NOT CONSTRUED BY BELIEF IN CLIMATE DOOMSDAYING

Yeah, you're a complete wingnut. You're too dumb to understand the evidence, evidently!

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 8:45pm:

Quote: All together now.... Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You better believe it, IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE OPINION POLLS LABOR ARE STUFFING THEMSELVES UP WITH THIS NOT THE TONY ABBOTT OR THE OPPOSITION,  ;D ;D

Coalition maintains big lead: Newspoll
May 30, 2011 10:34PM

According to the latest Newspoll survey, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, the Coalition's primary vote fell from 46 per cent to 44 per cent over the past fortnight, while Labor's rose one point to 34 per cent and the Greens jumped four percentage points to 14 per cent.

Based on preference flows at last year's election, the Coalition's two-party preferred vote dropped from 54 per cent to 52 per cent and Labor's rose from 46 per cent to 48 per cent. At the August election last year Labor got 50.1 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to the Coalition's 49.9 per cent.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-maintains-big-lead-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226065992783


Yeah, gotta LUV that Murdoch SKEW !

Quote:

Yeah, you're a complete wingnut. You're too dumb to understand the evidence, evidently!

Gimme something better than that if you can, ASTRO TWIT  ;D ;D ;D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:37am: They filter out water vapour. Doesnt it exist or would it over shadow the results. That's a complete lie of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&feature=player_embedded

What are peter sinclairs credentials in climate science?

When you are shown evidence, you deny it, that's why you are a denier.

Quote:

Coalition maintains big lead: Newspoll May 30, 2011 10:34PM According to the latest Newspoll survey, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, the Coalition's primary vote fell from 46 per cent to 44 per cent over the past fortnight, while Labor's rose one point to 34 per cent and the Greens jumped four percentage points to 14 per cent. Based on preference flows at last year's election, the Coalition's two-party preferred vote dropped from 54 per cent to 52 per cent and Labor's rose from 46 per cent to 48 per cent. At the August election last year Labor got 50.1 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to the Coalition's 49.9 per cent.

OH THAT WAS A MASSIVE SEISMIC SHIFT OF WHAT 2% BUZZZZZ, I GUESS THATS THE ONLY GOOD NEWS HE COULD GET IN 6 MONTHS  ;D ;D ;D


THE LAST TIME I CHECKED ON THAT TONY ABBOTT AND THE LIBERALS ARE STILL IN FRONT BUZZZZ BRAIN

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:39am: It is a legitimate question and one that could surely be answered. Please do! I'm gagging to scratch the surface a bit deeper and just see how far down the rabbit hole you lot have really gone! :D Who IS coordinating this global effort? Is it the UN? The Bilderbergers? Shape shifting reptoids from the constellation of Drakos?? Or is it the Reverse Vampires? :D :D :D

It could quite easily be shaped by an environmental movement. Look at governments. They get infiltrated all the time.

If you want to be stupid enough to believe everything you hear, without question, then go ahead. In the mean time ill do my thing.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:40am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:37am: They filter out water vapour. Doesnt it exist or would it over shadow the results. That's a complete lie of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&feature=player_embedded What are peter sinclairs credentials in climate science?

How does that in anyway relate to your demonstrably false claim that water vapour is "filtered" out? Just trying to change the subject now, are we? ::)

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:54am: astro_surf wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:40am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:37am: They filter out water vapour. Doesnt it exist or would it over shadow the results. That's a complete lie of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&feature=player_embedded What are peter sinclairs credentials in climate science? How does that in anyway relate to your demonstrably false claim that water vapour is "filtered" out? Just trying to change the subject now, are we? ::)

Im keeping it on subject. Sceptics are denied all the time. What are his credentials to bring us this video.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:57am:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:42am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:39am: It is a legitimate question and one that could surely be answered. Please do! I'm gagging to scratch the surface a bit deeper and just see how far down the rabbit hole you lot have really gone! :D Who IS coordinating this global effort? Is it the UN? The Bilderbergers? Shape shifting reptoids from the constellation of Drakos?? Or is it the Reverse Vampires? :D :D :D It could quite easily be shaped by an environmental movement. Look at governments. They get infiltrated all the time. If you want to be stupid enough to believe everything you hear, without question, then go ahead. In the mean time ill do my thing.

An "environmental movement" has infiltrated every university and research facility on the planet and now has transnational control over all geoscience funding? And they've done it "easily"?  LMAO! What is this "environmental movement", KAOS or something?? Surely, a conspiracy this elaborate and wide reaching, surely you'd have some EVIDENCE??? ;D

Seriously, have a listen to yourself, you're staring to sound like its_the_light or whatever the hell his name is! ;D

Quote:

When you are shown evidence, you deny it, that's why you are a denier.

by astro surf.


DONT BE SUCH AN ASTRO TWIT, that you dont understand english.

CONCRETE
IREFUTABLE
UNDENAIBLE

Evidence, what you post and call EVIDENCE IS ABSENT OF ALL THOSE THAT MAKES IT REAL CLEAR EVIDENCE

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:57am: astro_surf wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:42am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:39am: It is a legitimate question and one that could surely be answered. Please do! I'm gagging to scratch the surface a bit deeper and just see how far down the rabbit hole you lot have really gone! :D Who IS coordinating this global effort? Is it the UN? The Bilderbergers? Shape shifting reptoids from the constellation of Drakos?? Or is it the Reverse Vampires? :D :D :D It could quite easily be shaped by an environmental movement. Look at governments. They get infiltrated all the time. If you want to be stupid enough to believe everything you hear, without question, then go ahead. In the mean time ill do my thing. An "environmental movement" has infiltrated every university and research facility on the planet and now has transnational control over all geoscience funding? And they've done it "easily"?  LMAO! What is this "environmental movement", KAOS or something?? Surely, a conspiracy this elaborate and wide reaching, surely you'd have some EVIDENCE??? ;D Seriously, have a listen to yourself, you're staring to sound like its_the_light or whatever the hell his name is! ;D

We are well aware that universities are the breeding ground for extreme left nutjobs and of the educated kind, which makes it worse. It is not a leap by any means.

It also would not be a problem to find out what happens to your funding if your answer does not comform or whether you get funding at all because you believe your outcome would show climate change is not man made.

Surely you would want that answered.

Surely you would want that answered.

What intrigues me and why I want it answered is, have you noticed that any skeptic material that comes along from a climate scientist, is one that is not funded, but retired or nearing retirement.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 1970 at 10:21am:

We are well aware that universities are the breeding ground for extreme left nutjobs and of the educated kind, which makes it worse. It is not a leap by any means. It also would not be a problem to find out what happens to your funding if your answer does not comform or whether you get funding at all because you believe your outcome would show climate change is not man made. Surely you would want that answered.

I'd love an answer from you wild-eyed kooks! So, go on, who is behind this most elaborate of all conspiracies ever foisted on the world? I mean it must have started back in the 1860's, John Tyndall and Svente Arrenhius must have both been in on it! Please, please answer it! ;D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 1970 at 10:21am: We are well aware that universities are the breeding ground for extreme left nutjobs and of the educated kind, which makes it worse. It is not a leap by any means. It also would not be a problem to find out what happens to your funding if your answer does not comform or whether you get funding at all because you believe your outcome would show climate change is not man made. Surely you would want that answered. I'd love an answer from you wild-eyed kooks! So, go on, who is behind this most elaborate of all conspiracies ever foisted on the world? I mean it must have started back in the 1860's, John Tyndall and Svente Arrenhius must have both been in on it! Please, please answer it! ;D

Extreme environmentalism is not a single person or group. You cant hunt it down to that singularity. It is more like a religion, similar to how climate change nut jobs are. It is a movement of religous proportions and feeds on group think and the ultimate answer from its god (man made climate change, CO2).

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

Surely you would want that answered. What intrigues me and why I want it answered is, have you noticed that any skeptic material that comes along from a climate scientist, is one that is not funded, but retired or nearing retirement.

Old people get set in their ways. Old people don't want to give up on fights they fought decades ago. Old people want to believe their scientific position should be some sort of legacy. There is any number of reasonable reasons based on human psychology that DON'T involve elaborate conspiracies to explain them.

Lex parsimoniae and all that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:13pm:

Extreme environmentalism is not a single person or group. You cant hunt it down to that singularity. It is more like a religion, similar to how climate change nut jobs are. It is a movement of religous proportions and feeds on group think and the ultimate answer from its god (man made climate change, CO2).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

Quote:

I mean it must have started back in the 1860's, John Tyndall and Svente Arrenhius must have both been in on it! Please, please answer it!

by Astro surf

No the modern LEFTARD movement really started back in the 1960s, which its thinking and ideas which you have seem to EMBRACE with open arms.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 12:09pm: Surely you would want that answered. What intrigues me and why I want it answered is, have you noticed that any skeptic material that comes along from a climate scientist, is one that is not funded, but retired or nearing retirement. Old people get set in their ways. Old people don't want to give up on fights they fought decades ago. Old people want to believe their scientific position should be some sort of legacy. There is any number of reasonable reasons based on human psychology that DON'T involve elaborate conspiracies to explain them. Lex parsimoniae and all that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

You may be right, but intriguing none the less.

And, I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than just saying it's the vibe of it. An amorphous feeling of "extreme green religion" would have to be a bit bloody better organised than that to be able to transnationally coordinate funding across the globe. That's just ridiculous.

You're so far off the deep end, for an otherwise reasonable and rational person,. you have really, really drank the kool aid when it comes to your denialism. You just don't want to admit that something the lefties seem to like could possibly be right so you will instead embrace any whackjob assumption, no matter how ludicrous, and try to make it fit reality.

It's really quite sad to observe.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

And, I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than just saying it's the vibe of it. An amorphous feeling of "extreme green religion" would have to be a bit bloody better organised than that to be able to transnationally coordinate funding across the globe. That's just ridiculous. You're so far off the deep end, for an otherwise reasonable and rational person,. you have really, really drank the kool aid when it comes to your denialism. You just don't want to admit that something the lefties seem to like could possibly be right so you will instead embrace any whackjob assumption, no matter how ludicrous, and try to make it fit reality. It's really quite sad to observe.

Have you seen the riots accross the globe. Do you think it is cordinated? Whom do you think is cordinating it? It is known.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:

Have you seen the riots accross the globe. Do you think it is cordinated? Whom do you think is cordinating it? It is known.

LOL, what riots?  :o And "ti's known"? Please, pray do tell! ;D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 12:22pm: Have you seen the riots accross the globe. Do you think it is cordinated? Whom do you think is cordinating it? It is known. LOL, what riots?  :o And "ti's known"? Please, pray do tell! ;D

Come back with better than 'what riots'. Your pure denial of anything other than what is in your head does not do you justice.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

Come back with better than 'what riots'. Your pure denial of anything other than what is in your head does not do you justice.

What on Earth are you talking about?  :o What centrally coordinated global; riots ARE you talking about? Have I missed something in the news his morning?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 12:34pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 12:26pm: Come back with better than 'what riots'. Your pure denial of anything other than what is in your head does not do you justice. What on Earth are you talking about?  :o What centrally coordinated global; riots ARE you talking about? Have I missed something in the news his morning?

One at a time for you then.

Have you seen the riots accross the globe?

[quote author=smcgill link=1307788448/60#60 date=130784690
One at a time for you then.

Have you seen the riots accross the globe?[/quote]


No. I have no idea what you are talking about. Source, or it didn't happen.

Does ANYONE know what proglol is on about with these riots?

stryder wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 8:52pm:

MOST AUSTRALIANS DONT LIKE THE LOOK, THE SOUND AND SMELL OF THIS NEW TAX, But unfortunatley we are with a silly unpleasant looking prime minister who seems to LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS AND ACTIVISTS THAN THE SILENT MAJORITY .

John Howard also listened to the science.....Tony Abbott is all on his own when it comes to political leaders who accept fiction over science!!!

;)

Quote:

John Howard also listened to the science.....Tony Abbott is all on his own when it comes to political leaders who accept fiction over science!!!

REALLY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCRETE IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE, ?????

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Quote: John Howard also listened to the science.....Tony Abbott is all on his own when it comes to political leaders who accept fiction over science!!! REALLY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCRETE IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE, ?????

Do you deny that CO2 levels have increased by almost 40% in the last 200 years?

Do you deny that CO2 traps heat?

Do you deny that the planet is accumulating heat?

Which of the facts to you dispute?

Quote:

Do you deny that CO2 levels have increased by almost 40% in the last 200 years? Do you deny that CO2 traps heat? Do you deny that the planet is accumulating heat?

THE FACT IS THERE IS NOOOO CONCRETE, IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ANYWHERE BECAUSE ITS MOSTLY RESTRICTED TO EARTH BASED OBSERVATIONS


AND WHEN YOUR ASKING A PEOPLE THAT YOU MAY PAY EXTRA FOR THIS MASSIVE NEW TAX, YOU ARE GOING TO GET A MAJORITY OF A PEOPLE WHO WILL BE SUSPICIOUS AND KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS AFTER MORE TAX DOLLARS THAN EXPECTING A CLIMATE FIX.

Quote:

Do you deny that CO2 levels have increased by almost 40% in the last 200 years? Do you deny that CO2 traps heat? Do you deny that the planet is accumulating heat? Which of the facts to you dispute?

What do you think ??

Do you think these are good staring points for MANIPULATION OF CLIMATE AND CARBON FEARS, ???

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 10:26pm:

THE FACT IS THERE IS NOOOO CONCRETE, IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ANYWHERE BECAUSE ITS MOSTLY RESTRICTED TO EARTH BASED OBSERVATIONS

Yes there is.

CO2 levels have risen

CO2 traps heat

The planet is accumulating heat.

QED

Disprove any of those facts or STFu.

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

Quote: Do you deny that CO2 levels have increased by almost 40% in the last 200 years? Do you deny that CO2 traps heat? Do you deny that the planet is accumulating heat? Which of the facts to you dispute? What do you think ?? Do you think these are good staring points for MANIPULATION OF CLIMATE AND CARBON FEARS, ???

stryder they had a lass on TV during the week saying that her home [small island]which she hadnt been to in a long long time was being swallowed by the ocean..and we see pounding seas.lapping th shore.. we also see the size of said island that acually look like a sand bar..you can see one side of the island from the otherside.. it was as flat as a tack..

of course it will be swallowed by the ocean all in good time along with many before it .. probably in another 1000 years the british isles will also be swallowed up..this tiny island would go there is nothing that will stop it.

but its alright for a news PANIC isnt it..

I see where Cate Blanchett has bought a beach front lot in Vanuatu.right on the front..where the big waves come crashing down.24/7..

must be on the side of the island that wont get swallowed by the ocean.due to Climate Change..and smelly gas works..lol

Its still just a theory, is just conjecture given POLITICAL WEIGHT,

THERE IS NO ACTUAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE OUT THERE EXCEPT HERSAY FROM MANY SCIENTISTS WHO PASSIONALTEY BELIEVE IN IT AND MAY BE SOME WHO ARE POLTICALLY MOTIVATED ENOUGH TO SEE EVERY EFFORT TO PUSH THIS THEORITICAL SCIENCE FORWARD IN THE HANDS OF POLITICIANS WITH A LEFTIST BENT, AND BEYOND  

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Its still just a theory, is just conjecture given POLITICAL WEIGHT,

A theory, yes, a scientific theory:


Quote:

[i]A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

Quote:

THERE IS NO ACTUAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE OUT THERE EXCEPT HERSAY FROM MANY SCIENTISTS WHO PASSIONALTEY BELIEVE IN IT AND MAY BE SOME WHO ARE POLTICALLY MOTIVATED ENOUGH TO SEE EVERY EFFORT TO PUSH THIS THEORITICAL SCIENCE FORWARD IN THE HANDS OF POLITICIANS WITH A LEFTIST BENT, AND BEYOND

That's a lie. Just because you keep repeating something does not make it true.

I put it to you again, do you deny that:

A. Co2 levels are rising?

B. That CO2 traps heat?

C. That the planet is accumulating heat?

Simple yes and no answers will be fine.

.



Quote:

via astro-surf: A. Co2 levels are rising? B. That CO2 traps heat? C. That the planet is accumulating heat?

A. Co2 levels are rising?  The records show that atmospheric CO2 levels are raising from human emissions of CO2.


B. That CO2 traps heat?  Taken by itself and excluding any feedbacks the science says we will get just over one degree celcius for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The actual discusion is reference the feedbacks.. :)  


C. That the planet is accumulating heat?  Where ?.. :-?





.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:02pm:

. Quote: via astro-surf: A. Co2 levels are rising? B. That CO2 traps heat? C. That the planet is accumulating heat? A. Co2 levels are rising?  The records show that atmospheric CO2 levels are raising from human emissions of CO2.

One out of three ain't bad.



Quote:

B. That CO2 traps heat?  Taken by itself and excluding any feedbacks the science says we will get just over one degree celcius for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The actual discusion is reference the feedbacks.. :)

Point to me a negative feedback that will  negate the damage already done. Point to me a positive feedback that you think isn't a strong as predicted.



Quote:

C. That the planet is accumulating heat?  Where ?.. :-?

In the atmosphere and in the oceans


Quote:

When the Earth is in energy imbalance, with more energy coming in than radiating back out into space, we experience global warming. How do we know if there's an energy imbalance? This can be determined empirically in two ways. Firstly, by using satellites to directly measure the difference between incoming energy from the sun and outgoing radiation from the earth. Secondly, by adding up the energy content of the atmosphere and ocean over time. The newly published paper An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) does both. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-Earths-energy-imbalance.html

.



Quote:

via astro-surf: Point to me a negative feedback that will  negate the damage already done. Point to me a positive feedback that you think isn't a strong as predicted.

Your the one selling the scam astro-surf. YOU tell me all about them "feedbacks" that back up yer claims.. :)





.

Quote:

I put it to you again, do you deny that: A. Co2 levels are rising? B. That CO2 traps heat? C. That the planet is accumulating heat? Simple yes and no answers will be fine.

I will play your game if you play mine ??? Astro surf


IS CO2 ONE OF THE SEVEN GASES ESSENTIAL TO LIFE ON EARTH ?


DO PLANTS BREATHE CO2 ?


DOES MAN MADE CO2 CONTRIBUTE TO 3% OF GLOBAL CARBON EMMISSIONS WHILE NATURE CONTRIBUTES 97% OF GLOBAL CARBON EMMSSIONS, ??


NOW REMEMBER JUST A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL BE FINE ;D ;D ;D

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:26pm:

I will play your game if you play mine ??? Astro surf IS CO2 ONE OF THE SEVEN GASES ESSENTIAL TO LIFE ON EARTH ? DO PLANTS BREATHE CO2 ? DOES MAN MADE CO2 CONTRIBUTE TO 3% OF GLOBAL CARBON EMMISSIONS WHILE NATURE CONTRIBUTES 97% OF GLOBAL CARBON EMMSSIONS, ?? NOW REMEMBER JUST A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL BE FINE ;D ;D ;D

Yes to all of them, none of which in any way contradict the science of AGW. Now are you going top answer my questions?

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 11:24pm:

Your the one selling the scam astro-surf. YOU tell me all about them "feedbacks" that back up yer claims.. :)

I'm not the one making 'claims'. I am stating scientific facts, you are disputing them, it's up to you to support WHY you dispute them.

But, since I am on the side of scince, what the hell. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

.


Quote:

via astro-surf: I'm not the one making 'claims'. I am stating scientific facts, you are disputing them, it's up to you to support WHY you dispute them. But, since I am on the side of science, what the hell. Here you go:

"I am stating scientific facts" astro-surf, where are you stating scientific 'facts' ?.. :-?





.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:26pm: THE FACT IS THERE IS NOOOO CONCRETE, IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ANYWHERE BECAUSE ITS MOSTLY RESTRICTED TO EARTH BASED OBSERVATIONS Yes there is. CO2 levels have risen CO2 traps heat The planet is accumulating heat. QED Disprove any of those facts or STFu.

Given that CO2 traps heat and MAN only contributes 3% to the equation

then how does reducing this 3% make any difference

more importantly how does reducing 10% of 1.5% of 3% make any difference?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 12:07am:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:24pm: Your the one selling the scam astro-surf. YOU tell me all about them "feedbacks" that back up yer claims.. :) I'm not the one making 'claims'. I am stating scientific facts, you are disputing them, it's up to you to support WHY you dispute them. But, since I am on the side of scince, what the hell. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

3rd paragraph

"Some observed and potential effects of global warming are positive feedbacks, which contribute directly to further global warming"


As I have said - this is an Observational Science at best

same reference from astro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positive

There have been predictions, and some evidence, that global warming might cause loss of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems


That inspires confidence doesn't it?

"PREDICTIONS and SOME EVIDENCE"




next paragraph

"Observations show that soils in England have been losing carbon at the rate of four million tonnes a year for the past 25 years"


"OBSERVATIONS show"

England's land mass is barely 2% the size of the Australian land mass but because it's OBSERVED in England therefore it must be occurring EVERYWHERE else around the global

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 8:39am:

same reference from astro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positive There have been predictions, and some evidence, that global warming might cause loss of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems That inspires confidence doesn't it? "PREDICTIONS and SOME EVIDENCE" next paragraph "Observations show that soils in England have been losing carbon at the rate of four million tonnes a year for the past 25 years" "OBSERVATIONS show" England's land mass is barely 2% the size of the Australian land mass but because it's OBSERVED in England therefore it must be occurring EVERYWHERE else around the global

all this science really has a chrystal ball feel about it dont you think?...

maybe that why us skeptics..are skeptic after all..lol.

I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else..

Quote:

I put it to you again, do you deny that: A. Co2 levels are rising? B. That CO2 traps heat? C. That the planet is accumulating heat? Simple yes and no answers will be fine.

By astro surf



Quote:

Yes to all of them, none of which in any way contradict the science of AGW. Now are you going top answer my questions?

By Astro surf


Well to be fair to Astro,.

A. Yes B. Yes. C. BIG FAT NO

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 9:57am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 8:39am: same reference from astro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positive There have been predictions, and some evidence, that global warming might cause loss of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems That inspires confidence doesn't it? "PREDICTIONS and SOME EVIDENCE" next paragraph "Observations show that soils in England have been losing carbon at the rate of four million tonnes a year for the past 25 years" "OBSERVATIONS show" England's land mass is barely 2% the size of the Australian land mass but because it's OBSERVED in England therefore it must be occurring EVERYWHERE else around the global all this science really has a chrystal ball feel about it dont you think?... maybe that why us skeptics..are skeptic after all..lol. I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else..

Isn't it interesting how a lefty reading that article can absolutely claim it's a scientific fact

while the rest of us reading the same article immediately spot the voodoo science

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Isn't it interesting how a lefty reading that article can absolutely claim it's a scientific fact while the rest of us reading the same article immediately spot the voodoo science

Lefties are handicapped maqqa, that is why we shouldn't show them up too much.

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 9:57am:

I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else..

LOL

creep wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:09am:

cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 9:57am: I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else.. LOL

do you think astro is having a sleep in this morning comforted in the knowledge this bloody great TAX will fix all this co2.methane,. carbon.dioxide.farting and burping.

and stop the waves and the icemelting. overnight.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 8:29am:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:35pm: stryder wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:26pm: THE FACT IS THERE IS NOOOO CONCRETE, IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ANYWHERE BECAUSE ITS MOSTLY RESTRICTED TO EARTH BASED OBSERVATIONS Yes there is. CO2 levels have risen CO2 traps heat The planet is accumulating heat. QED Disprove any of those facts or STFu. Given that CO2 traps heat and MAN only contributes 3% to the equation then how does reducing this 3% make any difference more importantly how does reducing 10% of 1.5% of 3% make any difference?

Do you deny the greenhouse effect, Maqqa? How can the planet retain heat if CO2 at 280 ppm DOESN'T retain exactly the level of heat it has been calculated to for well over 150 years? And if it retains that much heat at 280 ppm why WOULDN'T increasing concentrations to 380 ppm or worse still 560 ppm?

Regardless of how small a proportion of the total emissions, that 3% (it's actually more like 2% but why quibble) is the portion that the planet can't naturally absorb and is accumulating in the atmosphere.

You have had this explained to you time and time again yet you STILL deny the facts and keep repeating the same logical fallacy. This is because yiu are a denier-tard.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Isn't it interesting how a lefty reading that article can absolutely claim it's a scientific fact while the rest of us reading the same article immediately spot the voodoo science

Maqqa thinks geology, astronomy, evolution and epidemiology and palaeontology are all voodoo sciences as well. Do you deny plate tectonics, Maqqa? Do you deny cancer research? Do you deny evolution? You sure share a lot of pathological traits with creationist!

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

C. BIG FAT NO

So you deny basic, demonstrable facts, that even in the  midst of both a La Nina season AND the deepest solar minimum in over a century (hint: both of those events should result in LOWER THAN AVERAGE temperatures) we STILL managed the warmest year on record in 2010?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/21/3117825.htm

And that came at the end of the warmest decade on record?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm

Meanwhile ocean temperatures have increased exponentially over the last forty years

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

But you deny all of this because you haven't been told so by the likes of Andrew Bolt, you poor, ignorant fool.

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

creep wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:09am: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 9:57am: I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else.. LOL do you think astro is having a sleep in this morning comforted in the knowledge this bloody great TAX will fix all this co2.methane,. carbon.dioxide.farting and burping. and stop the waves and the icemelting. overnight.

First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot!

2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat?

3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference?

creep wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:00am: Isn't it interesting how a lefty reading that article can absolutely claim it's a scientific fact while the rest of us reading the same article immediately spot the voodoo science Lefties are handicapped maqqa, that is why we shouldn't show them up too much.

First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot!

2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat?

3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference?

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

Quote: I put it to you again, do you deny that: A. Co2 levels are rising? B. That CO2 traps heat? C. That the planet is accumulating heat? Simple yes and no answers will be fine. By astro surf [quote]Yes to all of them, none of which in any way contradict the science of AGW. Now are you going top answer my questions?

By Astro surf


Well to be fair to Astro,.

A. Yes B. Yes. C. BIG FAT NO[/quote]


First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot!

2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat?

3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 8:29am:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:35pm: stryder wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:26pm: THE FACT IS THERE IS NOOOO CONCRETE, IREFUTABLE AND UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ANYWHERE BECAUSE ITS MOSTLY RESTRICTED TO EARTH BASED OBSERVATIONS Yes there is. CO2 levels have risen CO2 traps heat The planet is accumulating heat. QED Disprove any of those facts or STFu. Given that CO2 traps heat and MAN only contributes 3% to the equation then how does reducing this 3% make any difference more importantly how does reducing 10% of 1.5% of 3% make any difference?

First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot!

2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat?

3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference?

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference?

Let me see who the idiot is

Lets look at the third point of "how small to make a lethal difference"

It's the same freaking carbon

Human produced carbon and nature produced carbon are the same

human just contribute 3% to it while nature contribute 97% - it still adds up to 100% carbon

so you must be a moron for even trying to relate it to a "lethal difference"

if 3% carbon from human is a "lethal difference" - then what do you call the other 97% from nature?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 10:17am: C. BIG FAT NO So you deny basic, demonstrable facts, that even in the  midst of both a La Nina season AND the deepest solar minimum in over a century (hint: both of those events should result in LOWER THAN AVERAGE temperatures) we STILL managed the warmest year on record in 2010? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/21/3117825.htm And that came at the end of the warmest decade on record? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Meanwhile ocean temperatures have increased exponentially over the last forty years http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif But you deny all of this because you haven't been told so by the likes of Andrew Bolt, you poor, ignorant fool.

The calibration of these equipment must be the same since 1950's then!!

In the previous 5 Ice Ages - volcanoes were used ti explain the phenomenon

Yet now they are blaming it on man made carbon emissions which accounts for 3% of emissions

But they think the other 97% is irrelevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age


Surprise surprise they use Positive and Negative Feedback as an explanation as well

Guess Gillard won't be supporting the use of fire extinguishers Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - Red with a black band or label for fires from Electrically energised equipment.
How will such fires now be put out?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

In the previous 5 Ice Ages - volcanoes were used ti explain the phenomenon Yet now they are blaming it on man made carbon emissions which accounts for 3% of emissions But they think the other 97% is irrelevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Surprise surprise they use Positive and Negative Feedback as an explanation as well

Well the gullible gerties will try and convince you that there are no longer any active volcanoes on earth!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:42am: creep wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:09am: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 9:57am: I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else.. LOL do you think astro is having a sleep in this morning comforted in the knowledge this bloody great TAX will fix all this co2.methane,. carbon.dioxide.farting and burping. and stop the waves and the icemelting. overnight. First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot! 2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat? 3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference?

mm all those intelligent questions.. let me seeeeee...


as we stoop to the abuse I wont bother thank you.. when you grow up lets us know.. then again.. dont bother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Interesting graph

Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water

So what was the cause of the carbon peak about 330 years ago?

And what was the variation in temperature from peak to trough?

About 10C!!!!

---

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Interesting graph Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water

can you spare us the graphs please....its all so boring and only proves you can pop up a graph...so what??..

did anyone actually do the graphs themselves or are they all courtesy of someone else?? this is what gets me macca.. you are arguing over someone elses work.. someone elses theories..

its like arguing over the bible..or the Aztecs. or Incas..or even Atlantis..

I mean there are those out there that have spent their life trying to prove that the holocaust was a scam it didnt happen.

they even say the Yanks were behind the 9/11.

they have the science to prove it..so they say..

scientists do disagree dont they??..scientists are humans are they not?.. and humans make mistakes..some with the best intentions but they are still mistakes.

I dont doubt there is some science in all of this...but when they cant tell us what will happen when we do do something...


LIKE TAX THE HELL OUT OF US..

I want to know why they cant tell us...if they can say without blushing, we have a decade to fix what we have done...then they must be able to tell us. what to expect when this TAX comes in..

wil the wind drop or can we expect more rain. or less rain.. what will happen???????..

I dont care what went on 30.000 years ago... I want to know about tomorrow.. and they dont seem to be able to tell us that.

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:12pm: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:42am: creep wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:09am: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 9:57am: I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else.. LOL do you think astro is having a sleep in this morning comforted in the knowledge this bloody great TAX will fix all this co2.methane,. carbon.dioxide.farting and burping. and stop the waves and the icemelting. overnight. First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot! 2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat? 3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference? mm all those intelligent questions.. let me seeeeee... as we stoop to the abuse I wont bother thank you.. when you grow up lets us know.. then again.. dont bother.

Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Interesting graph Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water So what was the cause of the carbon peak about 330 years ago? And what was the variation in temperature from peak to trough? About 10C!!!!

Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS!

In fact, in your case Maqqa, you are an idiot - 1st class!

WHY, you ask?

Well, the charts you referred to DIDN't show a "pre-industrial" carbon level peak, about 330 years ago.
It actually showed a "pre-human" Carbon Peak, ABOUT 330,000 YEARS AGO!!!

And, the 10C Temperature variation, from trough to Peak, that you infer was insignificant, was HUGE, when you consider they were referring to the Global Annual Average temperature, which is about 14C.

The 10C they refer to, is not YOUR usual description of the variation between the daily minimum & maximum, IT TAKES IN ALL SEASONS, DAY & NIGHT, FROM THE EQUATOR TO BOTH POLES!!!    


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg



AS I SAID, "YOU ARE A BONA FIDE F@CKING IDIOT"!!!

Actually, you're worse, you are a "mouth piece" for the SPIN MACHINE of a Political Party and the Liberal/CONServatives, at that!!!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Interesting graph Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water So what was the cause of the carbon peak about 330 years ago? And what was the variation in temperature from peak to trough? About 10C!!!!

The end of an ice age, you numpty ::) It's funny watching morons try and reinterpret ti gs they don't understand!  ;D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:45pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Interesting graph Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water So what was the cause of the carbon peak about 330 years ago? And what was the variation in temperature from peak to trough? About 10C!!!! The end of an ice age, you numpty ::) It's funny watching morons try and reinterpret ti gs they don't understand!  ;D

The last ice age was 330 years ago?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::)

Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::) Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o

It's right in the middle of the graph numb nuts

or click on the link

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 4:18pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 3:53pm: That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::) Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o It's right in the middle of the graph numb nuts or click on the link

Watch as the child spits the dummy again when proved wrong again and declare it all a lie again LOL

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 4:18pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 3:53pm: That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::) Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o It's right in the middle of the graph numb nuts or click on the link

IT'S THOUSANDS OF YEARS, YOU GIBBERING IDIOT

creep wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 4:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 4:18pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 3:53pm: That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::) Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o It's right in the middle of the graph numb nuts or click on the link Watch as the child spits the dummy again when proved wrong again and declare it all a lie again LOL

You mean Maqqa, right? Because there is no way in the world that graph shows ANYTHING from 330 years ago.

And just in case the retards don't get it yet; please refer to the following image and explain exactly where you can see anything that has happened in the last 500 years.

---

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

And just in case the retards don't get it yet; please refer to the following image and explain exactly where you can see anything that has happened in the last 500 years.

Astro,
The expression, "as thick as two bricks", originated with people like Maqqa, Cods, the creep, stryder etc!!!

Not only does this F@CKING idiot Maqqa -
1) Have no idea about the difference between 330 years & 330,000 years.
or
2) Not know what 10C means, in Global Terms.
or
3) Have no comprehension what she reads, nor can she understand what simple graphs/charts mean.  

But, she just doesn't care anything about the long term future of the species.

In fact, all she is, is a small time mouth piece, with limited knowledge, for a small time organisation (the CONServatives/Liberals), who also have limited knowledge and who also don't give a rats ass, for the future of OZ or the human species!


perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:45pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Interesting graph Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water So what was the cause of the carbon peak about 330 years ago? And what was the variation in temperature from peak to trough? About 10C!!!! Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS! In fact, in your case Maqqa, you are an idiot - 1st class! WHY, you ask? Well, the charts you referred to DIDN't show a "pre-industrial" carbon level peak, about 330 years ago. It actually showed a "pre-human" Carbon Peak, ABOUT 330,000 YEARS AGO!!! And, the 10C Temperature variation, from trough to Peak, that you infer was insignificant, was HUGE, when you consider they were referring to the Global Annual Average temperature, which is about 14C. The 10C they refer to, is not YOUR usual description of the variation between the daily minimum & maximum, IT TAKES IN ALL SEASONS, DAY & NIGHT, FROM THE EQUATOR TO BOTH POLES!!!   http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg AS I SAID, "YOU ARE A BONA FIDE F@CKING IDIOT"!!! Actually, you're worse, you are a "mouth piece" for the SPIN MACHINE of a Political Party and the Liberal/CONServatives, at that!!!

astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 4:18pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 3:53pm: That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::) Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o It's right in the middle of the graph numb nuts or click on the link IT'S THOUSANDS OF YEARS, YOU GIBBERING IDIOT

I am glad you can read

Then you should be able to correlate why Carbon Emissions peaked and troughed during those thousands of years with ZERO human intervention

but now humans contribute 3% and we are the main culprit

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 6:43pm:

I am glad you can read Then you should be able to correlate why Carbon Emissions peaked and troughed during those thousands of years with ZERO human intervention but now humans contribute 3% and we are the main culprit

Nice backpedal. Not ::)

It was the end of an ice age - the orbital change that triggers a slight increase in temperature, which in turn triggers a release of methan and carbon dioxide, which amplifies the warming - that's what caused it. Even then it never go higher than 300 p.p.m but that graph doesn't show CURRENT levels which are at 390 p.p.m - ie. another FOUR STEPS on that graph higher than the highest they've been in over a million years. Human activity has taken CO2 levels 40% HIGHER than they have been in A MILLION YEARS.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Rp1PdEsjetg/S5X0AuSA5KI/AAAAAAAAAYY/eeqZcDwlhPw/s400/co2_vostok.jpg

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:44pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:12pm: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:42am: creep wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:09am: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 9:57am: I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else.. LOL do you think astro is having a sleep in this morning comforted in the knowledge this bloody great TAX will fix all this co2.methane,. carbon.dioxide.farting and burping. and stop the waves and the icemelting. overnight. First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot! 2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat? 3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference? mm all those intelligent questions.. let me seeeeee... as we stoop to the abuse I wont bother thank you.. when you grow up lets us know.. then again.. dont bother. Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS!

well gy=uess what we dont need your approvale we dont have time for you either.. just because your rude and abusive doesn make you right.....

and when your messiah changes her mind about this MASSIVE TAX that wont change a thing.. you will be begging our pardon...

idiot  yes you are.. a brainwashed one.

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 2:33pm: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:44pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 1:12pm: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:42am: creep wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:09am: cods wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 9:57am: I read my horoscope all the time...if I dont like its predictions I read someone else.. LOL do you think astro is having a sleep in this morning comforted in the knowledge this bloody great TAX will fix all this co2.methane,. carbon.dioxide.farting and burping. and stop the waves and the icemelting. overnight. First, let me congratulate you, you are a bona fide idiot! 2nd, how long would it take you, to get fat? 3rd, how small, is too small, to make a difference, even a lethal difference? mm all those intelligent questions.. let me seeeeee... as we stoop to the abuse I wont bother thank you.. when you grow up lets us know.. then again.. dont bother. Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS! well gy=uess what we dont need your approvale we dont have time for you either.. just because your rude and abusive doesn make you right..... and when your messiah changes her mind about this MASSIVE TAX that wont change a thing.. you will be begging our pardon... idiot  yes you are.. a brainwashed one.

Like I said, "you & others of your ilk, are a bona fide idiots"!

Obviously, you are referring to Gillard and the Labor governments Carbon Tax.

Neither Gillard, nor the Labor party, are much better than Abbott-a-bad & the Liberal CONServatives, as I have said many times. Gillard is certainly no messiah of mine, but nor is Abbott-a-bad!

And, as far as the Carbon Tax is concerned, I have also said many times, that the Carbon Tax is primarily a TAX Revenue raiser, it will not solve or even remotely address the Climate issue, unless the Tax was horrendously greater than anything currently mooted and if it was that large, it would destroy the OZ Economy completely.

There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon!

Idiot, yes you are and you also have a problem with reading & comprehension, as does Maqqa, LW & others of your ilk!

 

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

And, as far as the Carbon Tax is concerned, I have also said many times, that the Carbon Tax is primarily a TAX Revenue raiser, it will not solve or even remotely address the Climate issue, unless the Tax was horrendously greater than anything currently mooted and if it was that large, it would destroy the OZ Economy completely. There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon!

OH NO

he's come to the dark side

Swan is your Father perception
:D :D

Quote:

Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS!

by perceptions now



AND YOU PERCEPTIONS ARE LEFT WING LYING SCUMBAG WHO IS HAPPY TO HELP PERPETUATE A HOAX



What evidence can you really show apart from 50 year scenarios ????? which has nothing to do with evidence accept making hypothetical ifs and maybes in 50 years time.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon!

And what are "the climate" issues?

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:

Quote: Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS! by perceptions now AND YOU PERCEPTIONS ARE LEFT WING LYING SCUMBAG WHO IS HAPPY TO HELP PERPETUATE A HOAX What evidence can you really show apart from 50 year scenarios ????? which has nothing to do with evidence accept making hypothetical ifs and maybes in 50 years time.

Stryder, It doesn't even know what global warming is and yet it believes it.
Classic gullible gertie!

Quote:

Stryder, It doesn't even know what global warming is and yet it believes it. Classic gullible gertie!

You know Creeps, Perceptions used to be inteligient, either that or IT WAS AN ILLUSION I HAD OF HIM, I MEAN THIS CARBON DOOMSDAYING HAS TURNED HIM INTO A BIT OF A TWIT.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:23pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 10:45pm: And, as far as the Carbon Tax is concerned, I have also said many times, that the Carbon Tax is primarily a TAX Revenue raiser, it will not solve or even remotely address the Climate issue, unless the Tax was horrendously greater than anything currently mooted and if it was that large, it would destroy the OZ Economy completely. There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon!   OH NO he's come to the dark side Swan is your Father perception :D :D

Oh dear, now you've really hurt me?

A Politician, for a father, no thanks!

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:

Quote: Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS! by perceptions now AND YOU PERCEPTIONS ARE LEFT WING LYING SCUMBAG WHO IS HAPPY TO HELP PERPETUATE A HOAX What evidence can you really show apart from 50 year scenarios ????? which has nothing to do with evidence accept making hypothetical ifs and maybes in 50 years time.

1) Can't help you with the "left wing fixation" of yours!
Sorry, as I have said numberous times, I am neither Left, nor Right!

2) If anyone is trying to PERPETUATE A HOAX, it's you, Maqqa. LW etc!

3) What 50 year scenario are YOU into now?

creep wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:35pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 10:45pm: There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon! And what are "the climate" issues?

When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research and finally realise what a TWAT you have made of yourself!

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:41pm:

Quote: Stryder, It doesn't even know what global warming is and yet it believes it. Classic gullible gertie! You know Creeps, Perceptions used to be inteligient, either that or IT WAS AN ILLUSION I HAD OF HIM, I MEAN THIS CARBON DOOMSDAYING HAS TURNED HIM INTO A BIT OF A TWIT.

You have something in common with a few others on here, "stereotyping and plain ignorance".

When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research and finally realise what a TWAT you have made of yourself!

creep wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 4:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 4:18pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 3:53pm: That chart doesn't have the resolution to SEE anything from 330 years ago, numb nuts. Look at the bottom of the bottom of the graph it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. 330 THOUSAND YEARS, you freaking eejit ::) Seriously, no wonder you're a science denier, you lack the comprehension skills to INTERPRET A smacking GRAPH!  :o It's right in the middle of the graph numb nuts or click on the link Watch as the child spits the dummy again when proved wrong again and declare it all a lie again LOL

Obviously, you have "Maqqa's disease", you have no idea what you are talking about!

Maqqa was wrong and she even admitted it.

Quote:

1) Can't help you with the "left wing fixation" of yours! Sorry, as I have said numberous times, I am neither Left, nor Right!

Perceptions, You are a LEFTIE, Deny it with yourself, but not me, AND DONT YOU DARE SAY YOUR ON THE CENTRE WHEN YOUR ALWAYS OBVIOUSLY LEANING ON THE LEFT YOU TWIT,


You are such a scumbag of a leftie

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Interesting graph Looking at the "pre-industrial" carbon level claims it's totally shot out of the water So what was the cause of the carbon peak about 330 years ago? And what was the variation in temperature from peak to trough? About 10C!!!!

In fact, Maqqa's comprehension is that good, she actually said (back in the Yahoo days) that NOAA & NASA GISS, were both Peak Oil organisations!

Can you believe that? It's like saying that the "Oil Drum" is an authority on Climate Change?  

Lol

Lefties trying to distance themselves from the idiocy and debacles they have created

Lol

Quote:

You have something in common with a few others on here, "stereotyping and plain ignorance". When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research and finally realise what a TWAT you have made of yourself!

By Perception now


You dont comprehend information, YOU DONT QUESTION IT, YOU DONT REALLY ANALYSE IT OR NOTHING, YOU JUST ACCEPT EVERYTHING ALL THE CARBON PROPAGANDA FROM CANBERRA, DONT YOU, LINE, HOOK AND SINK, Like a good little commie boy from the Old Soviet Union.

Quote:

When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research and finally realise what a TWAT you have made of yourself!

by Perception now

YOU ARE THE TWIT, YOUR THE ONE WHO IS GOING OFF INSULTING PEOPLE FIRST, I GUESS THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A MIND SO WARPED UP IN CARBON DOOMSDAYING DOES TO YOU  ;D ;D


And lastly there is still, no CONCRETE, IREFUTABLE and UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of MAN MADE CO2, if you still cant bring any ??? then I suggest what dont you STFU.

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 12:09am:

Quote: 1) Can't help you with the "left wing fixation" of yours! Sorry, as I have said numberous times, I am neither Left, nor Right! Perceptions, You are a LEFTIE, Deny it with yourself, but not me, AND DONT YOU DARE SAY YOUR ON THE CENTRE WHEN YOUR ALWAYS OBVIOUSLY LEANING ON THE LEFT YOU TWIT, You are such a scumbag of a lefties

Why not?

As far a I'm concerned, both labor & YOU RIGHT LEANING RIGHTARDS (Liberals) are in the same mould, there is very little difference between them!

Your reading or comprehension is letting you down, because I have said on numberous ocassions, I AM NEITHER RIGHT NOR LEFT.

If I am anywhere on YOUR scale it would be centre, but that's not really correct, from my perspective, I'm simply a true Realist.


Oh and ouch, that would have hurt, if I was a leftie, but I'm not, so we are back to sticks & stones?

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 12:14am:

Quote: You have something in common with a few others on here, "stereotyping and plain ignorance". When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research and finally realise what a TWAT you have made of yourself! By Perception now You dont comprehend information, YOU DONT QUESTION IT, YOU DONT REALLY ANALYSE IT OR NOTHING, YOU JUST ACCEPT EVERYTHING ALL THE CARBON PROPAGANDA FROM CANBERRA, DONT YOU, LINE, HOOK AND SINK, Like a good little commie boy from the Old Soviet Union.

Did I notice you or any of the other Rightards correct two glarring mistakes of Maqqa?

NO!

So, don't talk to me about "JUST ACCEPT EVERYTHING", look in your own backyard!

Time for beddy-bye, you'all have a good nights sleep now, ya hear.

Quote:

Your reading or comprehension is letting you down, because I have said on numberous ocassions, I AM NEITHER RIGHT NOR LEFT.

bY Perception now

YOU LEAN ON THE LEFT, I DONT CARE IF YOU DONT REALISE IT OR NOT, WHETHER YOU DENY IT OR NOT, YOU SIMPLY JUST DO

And for me thats good enough for you to be called LEFTIE

Quote:

If I am anywhere on YOUR scale it would be centre, but that's not really correct, from my perspective, I'm simply a true Realist.

by Perceptions now


;D ;D ;D ;D WITH A LEFTIST BENT


REALIST ???? CMON PERCEPTIONS STOP HAVING YOURSELF ON.  ;D ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

creep wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:35pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 10:45pm: There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon! And what are "the climate" issues? When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research

So you admit that you do not know what the climate issues are.
That's ok.
It shows that you are quite ignorant of the issues but that hasn't prevented you from running your mouth off. :D:DLOL:D:D

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:59pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:41pm: Quote: Stryder, It doesn't even know what global warming is and yet it believes it. Classic gullible gertie! You know Creeps, Perceptions used to be inteligient, either that or IT WAS AN ILLUSION I HAD OF HIM, I MEAN THIS CARBON DOOMSDAYING HAS TURNED HIM INTO A BIT OF A TWIT. You have something in common with a few others on here, "stereotyping and plain ignorance". When you can read & comprehend, basic information, then you MAY do your own research

And now the ignorant one is going off like a broken record LOL

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:41pm:

Quote: Stryder, It doesn't even know what global warming is and yet it believes it. Classic gullible gertie! You know Creeps, Perceptions used to be inteligient, either that or IT WAS AN ILLUSION I HAD OF HIM,

You're extremely generous, but would suggest that it was all an illusion.

stryder wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:41pm:

I MEAN THIS CARBON DOOMSDAYING HAS TURNED HIM INTO A BIT OF A TWIT.

It is its natural ability showing through.
It was probably deliberately trying to suppress it's twitness, but now it is blossoming quite enthusiastically.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 12:03am:

Obviously, you have "Maqqa's disease", you have no idea what you are talking about!

And you have an abundance of callouses, and we can all understand why that is :D :D :D


Surprised you still have some eyesight, but not surprised that your reading ability has faltered :D :D :D

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 12:31am:

Quote: Your reading or comprehension is letting you down, because I have said on numberous ocassions, I AM NEITHER RIGHT NOR LEFT. bY Perception now YOU LEAN ON THE LEFT, I DONT CARE IF YOU DONT REALISE IT OR NOT, WHETHER YOU DENY IT OR NOT, YOU SIMPLY JUST DO

It is about as neither left nor right as what Stalin & Hitler were!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 11:23pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 10:45pm: And, as far as the Carbon Tax is concerned, I have also said many times, that the Carbon Tax is primarily a TAX Revenue raiser, it will not solve or even remotely address the Climate issue, unless the Tax was horrendously greater than anything currently mooted and if it was that large, it would destroy the OZ Economy completely. There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon!   OH NO he's come to the dark side Swan is your Father perception :D :D

I'm surprised you showed your face in this thread again. Predictably though, it wasn't to respond to this:


astro_surf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 7:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 6:43pm: I am glad you can read Then you should be able to correlate why Carbon Emissions peaked and troughed during those thousands of years with ZERO human intervention but now humans contribute 3% and we are the main culprit Nice backpedal. Not ::) It was the end of an ice age - the orbital change that triggers a slight increase in temperature, which in turn triggers a release of methan and carbon dioxide, which amplifies the warming - that's what caused it. Even then it never go higher than 300 p.p.m but that graph doesn't show CURRENT levels which are at 390 p.p.m - ie. another FOUR STEPS on that graph higher than the highest they've been in over a million years. Human activity has taken CO2 levels 40% HIGHER than they have been in A MILLION YEARS.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Rp1PdEsjetg/S5X0AuSA5KI/AAAAAAAAAYY/eeqZcDwlhPw/s400/co2_vostok.jpg

You massive douchebag. You're too stupid to hold an opinion on climate change.

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 12:35am:

Quote: If I am anywhere on YOUR scale it would be centre, but that's not really correct, from my perspective, I'm simply a true Realist. by Perceptions now ;D ;D ;D ;D WITH A LEFTIST BENT REALIST ???? CMON PERCEPTIONS STOP HAVING YOURSELF ON.  ;D ;D

According to the likes of Stryder, Maqqa, LW, the Creep, Cods etc, anyone who does not believe the "Right Mantra", is a leftie/Leftard.

Problem is, there is much more going on, than the "Right Mantra" has any knowledge of, let alone any control over.

So, to all of you Exclusive Bretheren of the "Right Mantra", get over yourselves and start looking at reality, instead of trying to maintain YOUR status quo (via your rose coloured glasses), which is a simple extension of the past and is a situation that can not remain as is!

Btw, I am still neither Left, nor Right, I am a true Realist.  

Quote:

ccording to the likes of Stryder, Maqqa, LW, the Creep, Cods etc, anyone who does not believe the "Right Mantra", is a leftie/Leftard.

By Perception now


YOU DAMN RIGHT I THINK SO,

There is the left and the right within our political spectrum, Now its very hard to stay on the centre because whatever issue you tend to try and understand youll either swing to the left or to the right viewpoint of the issue

For me its hard for any human being to try and stay politically unbias, because there is tendency of human nature to SWING either to the left or right NO MATTER HOW UNBIAS OR IN YOUR CASE, REAL.

NOW ITS QUITE OBVIOUS, PERCEPTIONS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE CARBON ISSUE FROM THE LEFTS POINT OF VIEW, AND YOU SUPPORT IT FROM THERE VIEW.

AND YOU GOT THE HIDE TO TELL ME YOU DONT LEAN TO THE LEFT !


YOU TAKE A GOOD READ OF EVERYTHING YOU POSTED ABOUT THE CARBON ISSUE AND YOU TELL ME IF ITS LEANING ON THE RIGHT OR THE CENTRE, AND LETS SEE HOW MUCH OF A REALIST YOU REALLY ARE. ?

Quote:

Well, for starters, the real truth is not something that diehard Liberal or Labor supporters, PR SPIN MASTERS or Politicians, have any remote interest in!   That said, the truth is that the Global Climate is changing, that change is materially affected by human input, as the majority of world scientists agree and the leading edge of that Climate Change is already starting to impact the Australian & Global Economy, via events such as Floods (in OZ & elsewhere), severe hurricanes/cyclones, droughts/heatwaves & more! However, Climate Change is not the only thing different, there is actually a paradigm change in progress, where a number of factors are coming together, at around the same time, the overall effect of those factors, on the OZ & Global Economy, are adverse and that trend is only just commencing!

 by Perceptions Now, opening tread to his THE REAL TRUTH\

Now you tell me, Perceptions THIS IS YOUR POST MIND YOU.

Could this post lean more on the lefts viewpoint
or the right
?????

astro_surf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 11:23pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 10:45pm: And, as far as the Carbon Tax is concerned, I have also said many times, that the Carbon Tax is primarily a TAX Revenue raiser, it will not solve or even remotely address the Climate issue, unless the Tax was horrendously greater than anything currently mooted and if it was that large, it would destroy the OZ Economy completely. There are other ways to address the Climate issues and that must start to happen soon!   OH NO he's come to the dark side Swan is your Father perception :D :D I'm surprised you showed your face in this thread again. Predictably though, it wasn't to respond to this: astro_surf wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 7:22pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 6:43pm: I am glad you can read Then you should be able to correlate why Carbon Emissions peaked and troughed during those thousands of years with ZERO human intervention but now humans contribute 3% and we are the main culprit Nice backpedal. Not ::) It was the end of an ice age - the orbital change that triggers a slight increase in temperature, which in turn triggers a release of methan and carbon dioxide, which amplifies the warming - that's what caused it. Even then it never go higher than 300 p.p.m but that graph doesn't show CURRENT levels which are at 390 p.p.m - ie. another FOUR STEPS on that graph higher than the highest they've been in over a million years. Human activity has taken CO2 levels 40% HIGHER than they have been in A MILLION YEARS. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Rp1PdEsjetg/S5X0AuSA5KI/AAAAAAAAAYY/eeqZcDwlhPw/s400/co2_vostok.jpg You massive douchebag. You're too stupid to hold an opinion on climate change.

And the earth has heated up based on carbon levels much lower than it is now

So picking just Carbon out of the atmospheric line-up to pin climate change on is lunacy

Further - carbon represent less than 0.0012% of the atmosphere

Of that humans contribute 3%

ie 3% of 0.0012%

of that Australia contributes 1.35%

ie 1.35% of 3% of 0.0012%

even if we changed the mix to 96% nature and 4% humans - it makes no difference

Maqqa wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:

And the earth has heated up based on carbon levels much lower than it is now So picking just Carbon out of the atmospheric line-up to pin climate change on is lunacy Further - carbon represent less than 0.0012% of the atmosphere Of that humans contribute 3% ie 3% of 0.0012% of that Australia contributes 1.35% ie 1.35% of 3% of 0.0012% even if we changed the mix to 96% nature and 4% humans - it makes no difference

We need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere!

More Co2 means more trees, more luscious green growth.
And that means a healthier planet!

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 6:10pm:

Quote: Well, for starters, the real truth is not something that diehard Liberal or Labor supporters, PR SPIN MASTERS or Politicians, have any remote interest in!   That said, the truth is that the Global Climate is changing, that change is materially affected by human input, as the majority of world scientists agree and the leading edge of that Climate Change is already starting to impact the Australian & Global Economy, via events such as Floods (in OZ & elsewhere), severe hurricanes/cyclones, droughts/heatwaves & more! However, Climate Change is not the only thing different, there is actually a paradigm change in progress, where a number of factors are coming together, at around the same time, the overall effect of those factors, on the OZ & Global Economy, are adverse and that trend is only just commencing!  by Perceptions Now, opening tread to his THE REAL TRUTH\ Now you tell me, Perceptions THIS IS YOUR POST MIND YOU. Could this post lean more on the lefts viewpoint or the right ?????

That's just CRAP!

Everything in that post of mine is factually accurate, including the start where I said, as I have often done, that both the Right & Left of Politics are into SPIN and neither has any interest in the truth.

You and others, simply turn off & put people into buckets of either Right or Left, that's your problem!

I simply post what I see as factually correct, after researching the issues and you may like to bear in mind that my background is/was some 40 years in the financial sector, mainly insurance with a little banking.

Sometimes, my opinion will happen to co-incide with what you call the Left & sometimes it will co-incide with what you would call the Right, but on all ocassions my opinions are what I understand to be correct, given my indenpendent view on reality, as you may have cause to think on after my next post!

No it's not!

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

Quote: ccording to the likes of Stryder, Maqqa, LW, the Creep, Cods etc, anyone who does not believe the "Right Mantra", is a leftie/Leftard. By Perception now YOU DAMN RIGHT I THINK SO, There is the left and the right within our political spectrum, Now its very hard to stay on the centre because whatever issue you tend to try and understand youll either swing to the left or to the right viewpoint of the issue For me its hard for any human being to try and stay politically unbias, because there is tendency of human nature to SWING either to the left or right NO MATTER HOW UNBIAS OR IN YOUR CASE, REAL. NOW ITS QUITE OBVIOUS, PERCEPTIONS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE CARBON ISSUE FROM THE LEFTS POINT OF VIEW, AND YOU SUPPORT IT FROM THERE VIEW. AND YOU GOT THE HIDE TO TELL ME YOU DONT LEAN TO THE LEFT ! YOU TAKE A GOOD READ OF EVERYTHING YOU POSTED ABOUT THE CARBON ISSUE AND YOU TELL ME IF ITS LEANING ON THE RIGHT OR THE CENTRE, AND LETS SEE HOW MUCH OF A REALIST YOU REALLY ARE. ?

Then why would I have said, on many ocassions, that Labor's Carbon Tax was PRIMARILY a Tax Revenue raiser and that it WILL NOT SOLVE THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE?

Like I said, I tell it as I see it and I don't see it purely from the Right or Left eye, I see things as a whole and over the correct time span!

Btw, whilst I disagree with Labor's Carbon plan and also think very little of the Liberal plan, the Climate Change issue is very real and still requires urgent action, if there is to be any chance of a reasonable life, for future generations.

Quote:

Everything in that post of mine is factually accurate, including the start where I said, as I have often done, that both the Right & Left of Politics are into SPIN and neither has any interest in the truth. You and others, simply turn off & put people into buckets of either Right or Left, that's your problem! I simply post what I see as factually correct, after researching the issues and you may like to bear in mind that my background is/was some 40 years in the financial sector, mainly insurance with a little banking. Sometimes, my opinion will happen to co-incide with what you call the Left & sometimes it will co-incide with what you would call the Right, but on all ocassions my opinions are what I understand to be correct, given my indenpendent view on reality, as you may have cause to think on after my next post!

By Perceptions Now





Quote:

Well, for starters, the real truth is not something that diehard Liberal or Labor supporters, PR SPIN MASTERS or Politicians, have any remote interest in!   That said, the truth is that the Global Climate is changing, that change is materially affected by human input, as the majority of world scientists agree and the leading edge of that Climate Change is already starting to impact the Australian & Global Economy, via events such as Floods (in OZ & elsewhere), severe hurricanes/cyclones, droughts/heatwaves & more! However, Climate Change is not the only thing different, there is actually a paradigm change in progress, where a number of factors are coming together, at around the same time, the overall effect of those factors, on the OZ & Global Economy, are adverse and that trend is only just commencing!

By Perceptions Now

LIKE I SAID, WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS POST OF YOURS LEANS ON, ??? THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT ???

Quote:

Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS!

by Perceptions Now


Quote:

Actually, you're worse, you are a "mouth piece" for the SPIN MACHINE of a Political Party and the Liberal/CONServatives, at that!!!

by Perceptions Now

You went out of your way to try and offend myself and other people who believe in the right/conservative side of POLITICS ????


IN YOUR SO CALL REALISM, THERE IS PATTERN OF BIAS MOSTLY AGAINST THE RIGHT AND MOSTLY UNBIAS FOR THE LEFT, DESPITE THE FACT YOU MAY HAVE A GO AT LABOR SOMETIMES COMPARED TO THE LIBERALS WHICH YOU NEARLY HAVE A GO ALL THE TIME,

My Opinion still stands, you lean mostly to the left.

hello SHOUTY :D
DOES SHOUTING MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT MORE VALID?

Quote:

hello SHOUTY DOES SHOUTING MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT MORE VALID?

OH IT DOES,  ;D ;D ;D


So why dont you do yourself a favour and find a road, stand in the middle, and just stand there.

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Quote: hello SHOUTY DOES SHOUTING MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT MORE VALID? OH IT DOES,  ;D ;D ;D So why dont you do yourself a favour and find a road, stand in the middle, and just stand there.

BUSY OR COUNTRY? ;D

Quote:

BUSY OR COUNTRY?

Take your pick, couldnt care less.  :)

WERE YOU ON Q&A ON MONDAY?

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 9:41pm:

Quote: Everything in that post of mine is factually accurate, including the start where I said, as I have often done, that both the Right & Left of Politics are into SPIN and neither has any interest in the truth. You and others, simply turn off & put people into buckets of either Right or Left, that's your problem! I simply post what I see as factually correct, after researching the issues and you may like to bear in mind that my background is/was some 40 years in the financial sector, mainly insurance with a little banking. Sometimes, my opinion will happen to co-incide with what you call the Left & sometimes it will co-incide with what you would call the Right, but on all ocassions my opinions are what I understand to be correct, given my indenpendent view on reality, as you may have cause to think on after my next post! By Perceptions Now [quote]Well, for starters, the real truth is not something that diehard Liberal or Labor supporters, PR SPIN MASTERS or Politicians, have any remote interest in!   That said, the truth is that the Global Climate is changing, that change is materially affected by human input, as the majority of world scientists agree and the leading edge of that Climate Change is already starting to impact the Australian & Global Economy, via events such as Floods (in OZ & elsewhere), severe hurricanes/cyclones, droughts/heatwaves & more! However, Climate Change is not the only thing different, there is actually a paradigm change in progress, where a number of factors are coming together, at around the same time, the overall effect of those factors, on the OZ & Global Economy, are adverse and that trend is only just commencing!

By Perceptions Now

LIKE I SAID, WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS POST OF YOURS LEANS ON, ??? THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT ???


[/quote]

I've already answered that!

In fact, I answer much more than you lot do and usual provide reasons and back up information, which you lot usually don't.

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Quote: Well, now that I've had time to contemplate my statements and reviewed the thoughts that you, Maqqa, stryder, the creep & others have put into your comments, I would like to say that my earlier comment of "you are a bona fide idiot", STILL STANDS! by Perceptions Now [quote]Actually, you're worse, you are a "mouth piece" for the SPIN MACHINE of a Political Party and the Liberal/CONServatives, at that!!!

by Perceptions Now

You went out of your way to try and offend myself and other people who believe in the right/conservative side of POLITICS ????


IN YOUR SO CALL REALISM, THERE IS PATTERN OF BIAS MOSTLY AGAINST THE RIGHT AND MOSTLY UNBIAS FOR THE LEFT, DESPITE THE FACT YOU MAY HAVE A GO AT LABOR SOMETIMES COMPARED TO THE LIBERALS WHICH YOU NEARLY HAVE A GO ALL THE TIME,

My Opinion still stands, you lean mostly to the left.[/quote]

To be honest, which is something lacking in some comments on these boards, I find some of what you & some others on the "Right" side of Politics say, is self-serving, obnoxious, sanctimonious, claptrap, as well as being just plain wrong, even more so than some comments that come from those on the Left.

In terms of you saying, that I nearly always have a go at the Liberals, that may well be correct, because I think the Liberal policies, on balance, are even worse than Labors and theirs are not flash, which I clearly say, also.  

Finally, you are entitled to your opinions, as am I to mine.

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Quote: hello SHOUTY DOES SHOUTING MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT MORE VALID? OH IT DOES,  ;D ;D ;D So why dont you do yourself a favour and find a road, stand in the middle, and just stand there.

Talking about being offensive?

Quote:

In terms of you saying, that I nearly always have a go at the Liberals, that may well be correct, because I think the Liberal policies, on balance, are even worse than Labors and theirs are not flash, which I clearly say, also.

 ;D ;D ;D


THERE YOU GO YOUR MOSTLY BIAS AGAINST THE RIGHT.



NOW WAS THAT SOOO BAD TO ADMIT.????


I REST MY CASE

WWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHOUTY and BOLD

Quote:

WWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOUTY and BOLD

By dsmithy



Quote:

Talking about being offensive?

by Perceptions Now


Well she wanted to have a little dig at me first, I RESPONDED IN KIND,  ;D ;D ;D, JUST LIKE I DID WITH YOU. !

stryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

Quote: In terms of you saying, that I nearly always have a go at the Liberals, that may well be correct, because I think the Liberal policies, on balance, are even worse than Labors and theirs are not flash, which I clearly say, also.    ;D ;D ;D THERE YOU GO YOUR MOSTLY BIAS AGAINST THE RIGHT. NOW WAS THAT SOOO BAD TO ADMIT.???? I REST MY CASE

If that's the way YOU want to take it, then so be it.

Now, off you go, take a nice sleepy pill and catch up on some rest, you need it!

TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can't think of a better man for the job.
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission.
His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.
This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.
He's had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.
Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery's predictions, we're now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.
And we're also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.
So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record.
Ready?
In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney 's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".
Check Sydney 's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."
Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane 's dam levels: 100 per cent full.
All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.   So let's check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming .

"In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."
One premier, Queensland 's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".  
But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned. (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.
Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam. "There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.
"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."

Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin , the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.
The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't.
One of Geodynamics' five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.
The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further "delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region".
The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it's no surprise the company's share price has almost halved in four months.
Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.
His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to "provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community" and "build the consensus about reducing Australia 's carbon pollution".

If Flannery had been a Druid in Briton 2000 years ago, the tribes would have sacked him for getting not one prediction right.
Lucky for him, Labor has no such scruples.

Quote:

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney 's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water". Check Sydney 's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start. In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009." Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent. In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ". Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane 's dam levels: 100 per cent full. All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.   So let's check on them, too. In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming . "In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months." One premier, Queensland 's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".   But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned. (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year. Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

The fact that you idiots have to resort to brazen misrepresentation to make your argument belies just how pathetic and weak your position really is.

I've seen those same cherry picked quotes used before and whenever you get to the whole quote and see the point Flannery was making it is always that IF such conditions were to have continued then those cities could well run out of water (true) and that the drought conditions we were/are facing will only get worse as the climate changes (also true). Flannery wasn't making predictions and you're pathological need to demonise him by lying about his real position just how wrong you deniers really are.