CLIMATE CHANGE 
World is   warming !
May 1950
SYDNEY. Sunday. — The Director of the Museum of Technology and Applied Science (Mr.A. R. Penfold) said that Sydney climate was be- coming hotter. The change had been most marked in the past two decades, but had been going on for the past 100 years. People who have lived on the North Shore line for the past 25 years, have had plenty of evidence of the temperature change, he said. Plants that used to flourish facing the north now have to be planted facing the south. House-paint, in spite of im- proved quality, does not last so long as it did 25 years ago. The sun is too strong for it. Everywhere Temperatures everywhere had changed, he said. Rain and snow falls had altered; trees had bigger   growths on them, and there had been marked changes in the natural distribution of birds, animals, and trees. The Arctic Ocean had risen about an inch in the last 80 years, due to the sun melting the ice packs.


http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49734531?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

You really need to run ALL of this by Mr Andrew Bolt and perhaps even Lord Monckton

WE WOULDNT WANT TO MAKE ANY MISTAKES AND REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

Apparently Mr Andrew Bolt was a groupie for the Iron Lady - he absolutely loves Maggie Thatcher.

No mention of the fact that Thatcher was the first major world leader to WARM about the man made effects Global Warming - and pushed for a reduction in global carbon emissions. So even though the IRon Lady was very destructive to British society and commenced the economic rationalist madness we see today, her Chemistry degree came in very handy when looking at the global warming data as far back as the 1980s.

I wish Mr Andrew Bolt would run for government so that I can enjoy election day - he is perhaps the most vibrant, supreme intellectual the world has seen since Pythagoras

Bolt is my hero - he is so honest

We've been pumping crap into the atmosphere since the dawn of thwe industrial age ... what do you think your story proves progs? Çlimate change isn't something new ..... I'd say Mr Penfold was ahead of his time, sounds like a bright fellow.

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

We've been pumping crap into the atmosphere since the dawn of thwe industrial age ... what do you think your story proves progs? Çlimate change isn't something new ..... I'd say Mr Penfold was ahead of his time, sounds like a bright fellow.

You are so close and dont even know it.

Crap(think about it... and some more). Work with that (crap) and keep clear of the co2 dogma.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

No mention of the fact that Thatcher was the first major world leader to WARM about the man made effects Global Warming - and pushed for a reduction in global carbon emissions. So even though the IRon Lady was very destructive to British society and commenced the economic rationalist madness we see today, her Chemistry degree came in very handy when looking at the global warming data as far back as the 1980s.

"In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

"She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.

"In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 1:56pm: We've been pumping crap into the atmosphere since the dawn of thwe industrial age ... what do you think your story proves progs? Çlimate change isn't something new ..... I'd say Mr Penfold was ahead of his time, sounds like a bright fellow. You are so close and dont even know it. Crap(think about it... and some more). Work with that (crap) and keep clear of the co2 dogma.

What's the "CO2 dogma" that you're talking about? Are you disputing that Carbon dioxide absorbs and re-radiates longwave infrared radiation?

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 2:23pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 1:56pm: We've been pumping crap into the atmosphere since the dawn of thwe industrial age ... what do you think your story proves progs? Çlimate change isn't something new ..... I'd say Mr Penfold was ahead of his time, sounds like a bright fellow. You are so close and dont even know it. Crap(think about it... and some more). Work with that (crap) and keep clear of the co2 dogma. What's the "CO2 dogma" that you're talking about? Are you disputing that Carbon dioxide absorbs and re-radiates longwave infrared radiation?

No.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Quote: What's the "CO2 dogma" that you're talking about? Are you disputing that Carbon dioxide absorbs and re-radiates longwave infrared radiation? No.

Well we're getting somewhere.  Do you have a problem with the Radiative Forcing equation for CO2 then?

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:07am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:04am: Quote: What's the "CO2 dogma" that you're talking about? Are you disputing that Carbon dioxide absorbs and re-radiates longwave infrared radiation? No. Well we're getting somewhere.  Do you have a problem with the Radiative Forcing equation for CO2 then?

It might be best for you to reference your material on radiative forcing. A reference that best describes radiative forcing in your mind.

Is this an empirically measurable theory?