Emma wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:24pm:

why?? no idea.. seems almost a moral quandary for some..   admit WE have a major hand in the decimation of our only planet..??  God NO///  we are the pinnacle of evolution///  WE could NOT do such damage..!!  ??  Get real.. :( do you honestly STILL CLAIM that WE..  you know  HUMANS..  >>/???  are innocent..??  You haven't shown me any reason to give the title of the topic anything BUT ridicule.  Tell me.. in  just a short sentence...  WHY ?? are you really such  a ..?   No  No  sorry.. you are probably a Virgo.!   ;D

Hey Emma

Trying to explain to you in one sentence why we should all be against the AGW hypothesis as a nation in one sentence is like you trying to explain why we should be for it in one sentence.

I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever based on the pseudo-science of the IPCC and other alarmist organisation that are being fed billions of dollars from the elite moguls and their corporations to prove that AGW is real.

This financial slavery includes all generations that will come after us, until carbon pricing is put to an end.

It sends billions of Australian tax payer dollars to overseas institutions and corporations by creating a carbon credit derivatives market on wall street to the value of somewhere between $2 to $10 trillion dollars per annum on a global scale.

The same people that control the technical booms and busts of the supposed free market are now writing the laws that will govern carbon credit derivatives and their trading on the supposed free market.

Do you honestly think that once this market is up and running the main intention of these moguls will be to curb manmade CO2 emissions….????

Have a look at the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EETS) it has failed to reduce manmade CO2 emissions and their first priority is keeping the market healthy…????....the only way to do that is keep the manmade CO2 emissions on an ever increasing scale rather than reducing them.

Once their goal of global participation has been achieved all this rhetoric of manmade CO2 emissions will fade into the background and CO2 emissions will not be an issue any more in the mainstream media, but we will be left with a carbon tax and financial slavery that will be for life.

Look at all your energy bills they have double from a few years ago and things are only going to get worse, once all nations have signed and committed their resources to a carbon tax/ETS the price on carbon will become like the price on petrol, it will rise and fall at their will.

The greens have always wanted a starting price of about $80/tonne, take your current energy bills and multiply them by two and a half to work out a ball park figure, then you have to include all the services that will also rise from an ever increasing carbon price.

Why not keep all the billions of tax payer monies here in Australia and invest them into alternatives and clean energy technologies, in the mean time we could do something at grass roots level as well.

That is our governments will force corporations that pollute to curb their emissions by passing legislation that forces them to adopt the latest technologies in reducing manmade emissions, such as,

1. Switching to LNG fired boilers – this will reduce our CO2 footprint by 25%.

2. Retrofitting electrostatic precipitators – soot capture.

3. Retrofitting fabric filter bags – soot capture

4. Retrofitting CO2 scrubbers – carbon sequestration

http://i42.tinypic.com/2r557pz.png

http://i42.tinypic.com/2mo5hnc.jpg

This will make us one of the cleanest polluters in the world.

Now about the pseudo-science of the IPCC and others who are on the AGW gravy train, this is not a new phenomenon by the way they tried to scare the world in the 1920’s, 1930’s & 1940’s when we had thirty years of global warming up until the 1940’s into pricing carbon but failed.

Then from the 1940’s til the 1970’s we had thirty years of global cooling and these very same clowns where calling for a new mini ice age and what has to be done economically to curb the trend, they even thought about melting the arctic by spraying it with black soot so it absorbs heat, they didn’t think about those poor cuddly polar bears back then.

Most of the evidence the IPCC presents to the world is from the computer circulation (climate) models (CCM), their mantel piece of evidence was the hot spot in the tropopause and how this would cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

Weather balloon radio sonde data and later satellite data failed to find this hot spot in the tropopause, they have since abandoned the hot spot theory in their AR5 paper.

The correlation of temperature and CO2 cannot be proven and if you look into our history you will find that CO2 has NEVER controlled temperature here on Earth, in fact CO2 follows temperature by a lag of about 800 years.

They never ever tell the public that in our past we have had CO2 levels in our atmosphere twenty times (7000ppm) the amount we have today and life flourished on Earth, they act as though this level of CO2 is unprecedented and never before has this level of CO2 been in our atmosphere.

Since 1998 more than one third of all manmade CO2 emissions (440 giga tonnes) have gone up into our atmosphere, yet temperatures have remained flat, where is the correlation……?????

The IPCC’s computer models predicted in the 1990’s that we will have unequivocal warming of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade (I’m being generous here using their lowest value), for the last fifteen years we have had 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade and they were at a loss to explain this.

So they said the missing heat has gone into our deep oceans (3000 metres), meanwhile all the good little disciples of the IPCC started to defend this missing heat and that it had gone into the deep oceans.

The new IPCC AR5 paper clearly says most of the heat in the oceans is in the top 700 metres, this is a back flip and has left all the disciples defending the 3000 metres missing heat with their willies in the wind.

The problem with the missing heat in the top layers of the ocean is that the ARGO system which is a network of 3000 buoys all over the world which dive down to 2000 metres and every two weeks relays data including temperature has failed to once again find this missing heat.

The only place you will find the hot spot and the missing heat is in their CCM, they don't exist in the real world observations.

There are so many holes in the AGW religions armour it would take all day to document them all,

Like for example climate gate, the hockey stick, no glaciers by the year 2035 etc. etc.

Why should we let the United Nations through the IPCC tell Australia when how and why we can use our natural resources?

I say bugger them the only thing they will do for us is give a hefty fine if we don’t meet the 5% reduction by 2020, we have always been a country with innovators and inventors and I don’t want to blow our whistle too hard but I’m sure we can fix our part of the problem without giving sovereign rights of our resources to the UN and without sending billions of tax payer monies to foreign overseas institutions and corporations.

If we are going to pay through the nose for something that might not exists, then I want hard scientific evidence not some clowns opinion on whether it may happen or not.

Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78
http://i39.tinypic.com/2lsjsqc.gif

Quote:

Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition. Column 3 states whether or not the process is irreversible in the context of abrupt change, and also gives the typical recovery time scales. Column 4 provides an assessment, if possible, of the likelihood of occurrence of abrupt change in the 21st century for the respective components or phenomena within the Earth system, for the scenarios considered in this chapter.

http://joannenova.com.au/

"I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever based on the pseudo-science of the IPCC and other alarmist organisation that are being fed billions of dollars from the elite moguls and their corporations to prove that AGW is real."

This seems a bit of an over reach here.

The solution being put forward is what you are really saying that you're against in this sentence.

Real science very rarely appears in the actual debate from my observations of it. Further, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that what has most of the deniers (what an awful term) up in arms is that which you point out, having to take some financial responsibility.

I agree fully that it will most likely not work because the monetary costs will always be filtered down to those with the least financial capitol and, arguable, the lowest polluting impact. In that sense I concur that a financial solution is not really an effective solution.

Does that disprove AGW theory though? I think not, it merely points out the offered solution is most likely flawed.

Please note too that I try to not engage in the AGW debate generally because I think the actual debate has ignored the real and easily proven issue, ongoing pollution of the environment will ultimately create a butcher's bill that all species may have to pay. The other clear truth in that, is that a majority capitalise fully from these destructive practices, whilst many commentators (on both sides) capitalise from drawing out a ridiculous circle jerk of a debate. Thus avoiding taking any action or owning any responsibility.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

"I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever based on the pseudo-science of the IPCC and other alarmist organisation that are being fed billions of dollars from the elite moguls and their corporations to prove that AGW is real." This seems a bit of an over reach here. The solution being put forward is what you are really saying that you're against in this sentence. Real science very rarely appears in the actual debate from my observations of it. Further, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that what has most of the deniers (what an awful term) up in arms is that which you point out, having to take some financial responsibility. I agree fully that it will most likely not work because the monetary costs will always be filtered down to those with the least financial capitol and, arguable, the lowest polluting impact. In that sense I concur that a financial solution is not really an effective solution. Does that disprove AGW theory though? I think not, it merely points out the offered solution is most likely flawed. Please note too that I try to not engage in the AGW debate generally because I think the actual debate has ignored the real and easily proven issue, ongoing pollution of the environment will ultimately create a butcher's bill that all species may have to pay. The other clear truth in that, is that a majority capitalise fully from these destructive practices, whilst many commentators (on both sides) capitalise from drawing out a ridiculous circle jerk of a debate. Thus avoiding taking any action or owning any responsibility.

Well said.  :)
My only gripe is with the highlighted, it's less about taking financial responsibility and more about the consequences of rising costs against more suitable solutions. Because once costs go up, poverty goes up and poverty kills, that means they are potentially killing people today, not a hundred years from now.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:56am: "I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever based on the pseudo-science of the IPCC and other alarmist organisation that are being fed billions of dollars from the elite moguls and their corporations to prove that AGW is real." This seems a bit of an over reach here. The solution being put forward is what you are really saying that you're against in this sentence. Real science very rarely appears in the actual debate from my observations of it. Further, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that what has most of the deniers (what an awful term) up in arms is that which you point out, having to take some financial responsibility. I agree fully that it will most likely not work because the monetary costs will always be filtered down to those with the least financial capitol and, arguable, the lowest polluting impact. In that sense I concur that a financial solution is not really an effective solution. Does that disprove AGW theory though? I think not, it merely points out the offered solution is most likely flawed. Please note too that I try to not engage in the AGW debate generally because I think the actual debate has ignored the real and easily proven issue, ongoing pollution of the environment will ultimately create a butcher's bill that all species may have to pay. The other clear truth in that, is that a majority capitalise fully from these destructive practices, whilst many commentators (on both sides) capitalise from drawing out a ridiculous circle jerk of a debate. Thus avoiding taking any action or owning any responsibility. Well said.  :) My only gripe is with the highlighted, it's less about taking financial responsibility and more about the consequences of rising costs against more suitable solutions. Because once costs go up, poverty goes up and poverty kills, that means they are potentially killing people today, not a hundred years from now.

Good point, perhaps I should have said enforce financial responsibility, which probably still does not fully cut it.

The thing is, that any costs will always be passed down which will in effect absolutely cause the poverty you highlight. I guess what I am saying is that a financial solution is ultimately no solution at all.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

This seems a bit of an over reach here.

Why....????....do you pay rates and energy bills....???

How much have they soared since witchy poo announced the carbon tax.....???

How much more will they go up once the market kicks off on a global scale...???

Remember the greens wanted a starting price of about $80/tonne....!!!!

Now what guarantees have we got that once the carbon credit derivatives market kicks off this will reduce manmade CO2 emissions......?????

You want examples have a look at Europe's ETS, it failed and those poor suckers are paying a tax for WHAT...????


Quote:

The solution being put forward is what you are really saying that you're against in this sentence.

The science doesn't stack up either, everything the IPCC has said has been way off why should we not be sceptical..??

Plus straight from the horses mouth here....


Quote:

In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated about climate policy........ "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

They even tell us what they're all about yet people for some reason or another think yeah man we're going to clean up pollution, it must make them feel good about themselves.

Pricing carbon will not clean up pollution being dumped in rivers and oceans, it will not clean up landfill...etc etc.

Its simply just going to put a price on manmade CO2 and will not even attempt to reduce it....cause the health of the market will depend upon manmade CO2 increasing...!!!


Quote:

Real science very rarely appears in the actual debate from my observations of it. Further, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that what has most of the deniers (what an awful term) up in arms is that which you point out, having to take some financial responsibility.

What has most of the skeptics up in arms is that the science the IPCC presents for their case that ALL warming in the last 60 odd years or so is due to MANMADE CO2 emissions doesn't stack up.

They are continually been proven wrong so they then jump onto another cause reason, just look it up yourself.

Add to this the stupidity that pricing carbon will some how reduce manmade CO2 emissions, this will make corporations pack up and go to third world countries where there is no carbon tax ETS.


Quote:

I agree fully that it will most likely not work because the monetary costs will always be filtered down to those with the least financial capitol and, arguable, the lowest polluting impact. In that sense I concur that a financial solution is not really an effective solution.

Everything will continue to go up under a pricing carbon scheme, problem is your wages will not match this increase.

Its kind of like when the banks pushed up the cost of houses, but our wages didn't follow suit.

My dad bought his house in 1965 for $7000, he was a factory worker and earned $50 per week.

7000/50 = 140

Average house price today is about $400,000, minimum average wage is about $650 per week, but many people get less than this.

400000/650 = 615

You can work out the rest......!!!!!


Quote:

Does that disprove AGW theory though? I think not, it merely points out the offered solution is most likely flawed.

How can you say this when their science doesn't stack up, for instance, the hot spot, the deep oceans warming, glaciers melting by 2035, unequivocal warming of 0.2 degrees Celsius when its only been about 0.05 for the last fifteen years.

And there are so many more......................?????

So how can you say that............................!!!!!!


Quote:

Please note too that I try to not engage in the AGW debate generally because I think the actual debate has ignored the real and easily proven issue, ongoing pollution of the environment will ultimately create a butcher's bill that all species may have to pay. The other clear truth in that, is that a majority capitalise fully from these destructive practices, whilst many commentators (on both sides) capitalise from drawing out a ridiculous circle jerk of a debate. Thus avoiding taking any action or owning any responsibility.

Again you sound confused..........................!!!!

Carbon pricing will only put a price on CO2, it will not clean up the pollution in our rivers and oceans and land.

Do you consider CO2 a pollution.........????

You breath it out every time you exhale..........!!!!!

You drink CO2 in your beer...all those lovely little bubbles...??

Green houses use CO2 to make the plants grow quicker, its like fertilizer for plants.

CO2 is to PLANTS what oxygen is to HUMANS......!!!!

Still think CO2 is a pollutant......................?????

Firstly Ajax, your OP did not address the actual title, it said why you don't believe and then went on at length about the measures put in place - hence the over reach comment.

Your follow up does little better.

I pay rates and electricity bills and it is difficult to avoid irony here, but, electricity took some major hikes (in NSW at least) long before the Carbon Tax was implemented. These hikes were due to the abysmal approach in maintaining and improving the infrastructure. That problem has been a very long term one, so, both teams are responsible, yet we the sucker public get the tab....

Not much of an increase since though in reality, at least where I am. Although my local council applied for and was granted an extraordinary rate rise, because, just like successive state Governments they too have failed to do that which they are in place to do, maintain and develop existing infra structure. Nothing at all about Carbon Tax or CO2 for that matter. Just a rate rise....

As to the science, simply put, neither you or I are in a position to make a well informed decision about the overall science. I guess you can run with your beliefs all you want, but please do not assume they are necessarily that well informed.

This person who you seem to take great delight in quoting by the way is not the horse as such, he is one more mouth piece in the inane debate about Climate Change. Thanks to the mess that has come into this because of "beliefs" there will be no end to the debate and no good outcome. I am sure that will make future generations ecstatic. From what I have witnessed, by the by, the sceptics have not actually proven anything right or wrong. Generally their proof does not stack up all that well under scrutiny. That is not to say the IPCC has got it all right either so please don't bother with that chestnut. I am pointing out that both sides have their flaws and the only thing reliable is that neither side is demonstrably that good at accepting their own cock ups.

I am not sure what gave you the impression that I am confused. I am very clear, this idiotic no win, circle jerk debate will not solve anything one way or the other. The real problem is that we (our industry in particular) cause immense amounts of pollution that we pump into our closed environment (being closed is a very important feature to grasp), so at some point, our impact will become toxic. Make no mistake, the planet might be ok, but it won't sustain humans all that well... IS that the outcome you would strive for?

No where have I ever stated that CO2 is a pollutant by the way. Of course, it is not too difficult to deduce that it would be harmful to people, i.e. CO2 is like oxygen to plants, but it aint anything like oxygen to humans.... Get enough of it and we are in big trouble. As such, according to the definition of the word pollutant, CO2 actually does qualify in many ways. Don't be too upset though, in the right circumstances, so too would oxygen.

"
pol·lu·tant
  [puh-loot-nt]  Show IPA 

noun 
1.
something that pollutes.

2.
any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. "

See number 2. - the important bit there in context of my comment is that end bit "unsuitable for a specific purpose"....

Supposing the specific purpose is sustaining human life, too much CO2 would certainly make that a bit unsuitable.

So again, I say, I don't think your OP supported the thread title. That said, I partially do agree with you that Carbon Pricing is probably not the best solution. In fact, in a capitalist regime it would seem counter intuitive. If a market for CO2 (a price on Carbon) is created, then presumably that would increase production to gain a bigger market share.....

Now that is about economics and not environmental or climate science.

We are all individuals and we all have our opinions that's to be expected.

Sceptics just like alarmists do want to clean up manmade pollution, there is no grey area here.

But pricing carbon will not stop corporations from dumping chemicals into our rivers, oceans and land.

The crux of the argument is HOW are we going to clean up manmade pollution in the form of manmade CO2 emissions.

Because pricing carbon only addresses this issue and nothing more.

My argument for and against is in the OP.

Sceptics don't disagree that the Earth is warming.

Sceptics don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Sceptics don't disagree that human CO2 emissions have a part in the current warming.

What sceptics disagree on is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for all the warming that has occurred in the last 60 odd years or so.

What sceptics disagree on is the pseudo science of the alarmists that all the warming is due to human CO2 emissions.

Sceptics are p!ssed that snake oil is being offered up as scientific evidence that the Earth has been warming only because of the increase in manmade CO2 emissions.

And your right i'm not an expert on the climate, but I can read and from what I have learnt the anthropogenic global warming religion is a scam based on a lie.

Ajax wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever.

You deny the science for political reasons in other words.

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

What sceptics disagree on is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for all the warming that has occurred in the last 60 odd years or so. What sceptics disagree on is the pseudo science of the alarmists that all the warming is due to human CO2 emissions.

OK, I can work with that. However if I explain why it is the case and you are convinced, will you still deny the science for political reasons?

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:50pm: What sceptics disagree on is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for all the warming that has occurred in the last 60 odd years or so. What sceptics disagree on is the pseudo science of the alarmists that all the warming is due to human CO2 emissions. OK, I can work with that. However if I explain why it is the case and you are convinced, will you still deny the science for political reasons?

Oooh nice approach Muso.

I have lost track of that thread you put aside for the discussion after the release of the fifth IPCC report.

Just a question I've been pondering (I really don't factually know this, anyone else can answer too), at that stage in history where C02 was really high (2000-8000ppm) and Solar Irradiance was lower, what were the causes for the removal of the c02 from that atmosphere? Was it a combination of carbon sinks with reduced solar activity?

Carbonate minerals tend to form either from surface reaction with igneous rocks or the buildup of carbonate skeletons from dying marine life.

There are many factors that could have contributed, such as the configuration of the continents, (which was basically just one enormous continent at that time, located around the South Pole plus some minor landmasses), ocean currents, atmospheric ozone,  increased volcanicity.

In fact, there is a lot of uncertainty about events 500 million years in the past. Nobody can know for sure.   

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:34am: I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever. You deny the science for political reasons in other words.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:50pm: What sceptics disagree on is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for all the warming that has occurred in the last 60 odd years or so. What sceptics disagree on is the pseudo science of the alarmists that all the warming is due to human CO2 emissions. OK, I can work with that. However if I explain why it is the case and you are convinced, will you still deny the science for political reasons?

muso what I've said is there in black and white for all to read.

If you have a hard time comprehending it well too bad for you.

Why are you reading something other than was written....!!!

Stop this deceitful re-interpretation of what I have written.......!!!!!!!!!!!

If I wanted to say what your second guessing I would have said it......!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:03am:

muso what I've said is there in black and white for all to read. If you have a hard time comprehending it well too bad for you. Why are you reading something other than was written....!!! Stop this deceitful re-interpretation of what I have written.......!!!!!!!!!!! If I wanted to say what your second guessing I would have said it......!!!!!

It's an implication of what you said. Your opening statement was with regards to a tax.  Therefore, your main objection is political.


Quote:

I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever based on the pseudo-science of the IPCC and other alarmist organisation that are being fed billions of dollars from the elite moguls and their corporations to prove that AGW is real.

You did say that. It was actually the first point you made.

OK, Let's start with the established fact that you don't believe in the Greenhouse Effect then.


Ajax wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 11:34am:

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.

If you ask any smart high school student studying science, they will call that causation the "Greenhouse Effect". By the above statement, you are denying the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

It's an implication of what you said. Your opening statement was with regards to a tax.  Therefore, your main objection is political. You did say that. It was actually the first point you made.

Any one in their right mind would look at the overall picture right.........?????

I mean even if we spend the last dollar on Earth on the carbon credit derivatives market for no net gain what is the point................????

http://youtu.be/Zw5Lda06iK0


Quote:

OK, Let's start with the established fact that you don't believe in the Greenhouse Effect then.

Are you going to change my mind...........????


Quote:

If you ask any smart high school student studying science, they will call that causation the "Greenhouse Effect". By the above statement, you are denying the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Hey, they also teach that the sun is at the gravitational centre of the Solar System. That's known with the same level of confidence.

Why does it not surprise me that you don't believe in the Greenhouse effect?
 
So are you saying that these Spectra that show CO2 peaks at 15 microns, are fabrications?
http://www.markelowitz.com/Terrestrial-Planets-Spectra.png

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Yes, it is brainwashing.

However, some of these alarmists actually believe that the science is settled (thus, they totally reject the scientific method).

As hard as it is to believe, there are alarmists on here who actually think that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

If you can find a more closed-minded bunch of people, let me know.  I won't hold my breath though.

Don't get out of bed tomorrow morning.  There is only a 95-100% certainty that you won't get run over by a bus or meet your demise in some other way.

Are you going to risk it? Maybe you've been brainwashed and you're putting your life in danger subconsciously.

It's not a fact that you'll survive tomorrow. Better stay in bed.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:

Don't get out of bed tomorrow morning.  There is only a 95-100% certainty that you won't get run over by a bus or meet your demise in some other way. Are you going to risk it?

Oh dear.

You're struggling now.

You really should have quit while you were behind.

This is fascinating to watch though.  Do continue ...

http://www.beaker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CheckmateD.jpg


Too easy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:37pm:

If you can find a more closed-minded bunch of people, let me know.  I won't hold my breath though.

The Taliban?  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:37pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 9:01pm: How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!! Yes, it is brainwashing. However, some of these alarmists actually believe that the science is settled (thus, they totally reject the scientific method). As hard as it is to believe, there are alarmists on here who actually think that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

The very fact that you use the word "alarmist" shows that you have closed your mind on the possibility that AGW is valid, even though the vast majority of experts in the field say that it is with an unprecedented degree of certainty.

You are drawn to the subject. You are interested in the subject as a kind of morbid curiousity, but that's all. 

Why?


Because AGW is the greatest fraud/contrick/fabrication/lie/mass hysteria/  in human history.


OC

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:37pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 9:01pm: How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!! Yes, it is brainwashing. However, some of these alarmists actually believe that the science is settled (thus, they totally reject the scientific method). As hard as it is to believe, there are alarmists on here who actually think that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". The very fact that you use the word "alarmist" shows that you have closed your mind on the possibility that AGW is valid ...

Incorrect.  More lies from muso (it seems to be all you have these days).

I have consistently maintained that the AGW theory might be correct.  I'm very open minded on the subject (find me a post where I've said that AGW is 100% crap with no possibility of being correct - just one).

However, alarmists like you and Chimp just want to shut down debate. Chimp makes a ridiculously naive statement like "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT", and you actually support him.  Unbelievable.

"undeniable"?  Really?  That doesn't sound very open-minded.  In fact, it sounds like you guys have made up your minds and nothing will ever change them.

And, your comment on the term "alarmist" is laughable.

The shoe fits perfectly.

"alarmist

"A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

"The alarmist prefers intimidation and coercion to reasoned debate, and is often motivated by the desire to bring themselves to the forefront of discussion.

"a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities."

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

Hey, they also teach that the sun is at the gravitational centre of the Solar System. That's known with the same level of confidence. Why does it not surprise me that you don't believe in the Greenhouse effect?   So are you saying that these Spectra that show CO2 peaks at 15 microns, are fabrications?

I'm not interested in someone's opinion i'm interested in the science.

And when did,

Low confidence

Very unlikely

Became science fact


Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78
http://i39.tinypic.com/2lsjsqc.gif

Quote:

Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition. Column 3 states whether or not the process is irreversible in the context of abrupt change, and also gives the typical recovery time scales. Column 4 provides an assessment, if possible, of the likelihood of occurrence of abrupt change in the 21st century for the respective components or phenomena within the Earth system, for the scenarios considered in this chapter.

http://joannenova.com.au/

Gosh, it all gets a tad challenging when credibility actually comes along though;

Someone did some reeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeearch here;

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

oh noes, not scientific credibility. Damn, don't bring that in to a opinion laden debate bullshit argument...

That was not very difficult to find, so I have to say, I am astounded at the deliberate reframing of information.

This from the linked article, now, take note of the word (and link) methodology - Generally speaking in any research, offering methodology demonstrates your process, assumptions and potential flaws/challenges to the information. Hell one would even include, as this bloke did, what information you left out and why.

"Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology."

and this is just priceless'

"By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

A graph too,

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:24am:

This from the linked article, now, take note of the word (and link) methodology - Generally speaking in any research, offering methodology demonstrates your process, assumptions and potential flaws/challenges to the information. Hell one would even include, as this bloke did, what information you left out and why. "Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature. I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology." and this is just priceless' "By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

Its  a bit like the consensus isn't it...a joke.....?????


Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”   So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

This is how John Cook from sceptical science tried to prove the consensus...!!!


Quote:

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus. Read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

And their "methodology"?

It's all about presenting stuff with integrity mate.

They can "Comment" all they want, and sell you just a different version of snake oil (which kind of demonstrates you only dislike certain brands of snake oil, but not snake oil per se).

Without rigorous (hell even tawdry) methodology, all they are doing is throwing you a bunch of numbers that could well have been pulled out of their arseholes.

So, the words methodology and integrity need to be demonstrated a bit in what you link...

Put all the enlarged lengthy quotes you like in, they will not make it true, just unbelievably big...

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:48am:

And their "methodology"? It's all about presenting stuff with integrity mate. They can "Comment" all they want, and sell you just a different version of snake oil (which kind of demonstrates you only dislike certain brands of snake oil, but not snake oil per se). Without rigorous (hell even tawdry) methodology, all they are doing is throwing you a bunch of numbers that could well have been pulled out of their arseholes. So, the words methodology and integrity need to be demonstrated a bit in what you link... Put all the enlarged lengthy quotes you like in, they will not make it true, just unbelievably big...

The paper exposed John Cook at the sceptical science blog as anything BUT sceptical.

In fact you could say his paper was very much indeed fraudulent.

And his alarmist views along with his ties to Al Gore are just proof that he's one of those alarmists that tries to scare the be-jesus out of his readersand doesn't think twice about bending the truth.


Quote:

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Quote:

"This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. [...] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. [...] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we're doing" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011 http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:21pm:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html

So much for "skeptical science", I heard that the sites creator was a bit of a religious guy but damn that's pretty bias. I mean of course they are bias they are for AGW, just like WUWT is against CAGW, but with Al Gore? I'm going to forever consider this another arm of Gore propaganda, I think that's fair enough.

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/16/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-again-not-debunked/

I briefly considered copying, enlarging and pasting certain comments from this, but then thought, meh, people will either read the link or not.

There are always more rebuttals to rebuttals etc etc.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 4:21pm: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html So much for "skeptical science", ...

Before you go worshipping populartechnology.net, consider his behaviour in this forum:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379993344
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380542450

Which is the more credible source?

.....have the denialist religious cultist crack pot priests in here managed to explain the increase in global thermal retention rate observed over the past 5 or 6 decades?

It seems as though they are even trying to convince themselves of their own lies and spin.

maybe they are sceptical about their own deranged denialist lunacy

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

.....have the denialist religious cultist crack pot priests in here managed to explain the increase in global thermal retention rate observed over the past 5 or 6 decades?

All you anthropogenic global warming nutcases should know that we have been warming for the last 400 years or so, coming out of the mini ice age.

So to blame all the warming on human CO2 emissions is a grave error that you somehow cannot comprehend.


Quote:

It seems as though they are even trying to convince themselves of their own lies and spin.

Show me an example..............??????


Quote:

maybe they are sceptical about their own deranged denialist lunacy

Only sceptical about the pseudo science of the IPCC that wants to place a tax on alll humanity on the air we breath.

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 11th, 2013 at 8:36pm: .....have the denialist religious cultist crack pot priests in here managed to explain the increase in global thermal retention rate observed over the past 5 or 6 decades? All you anthropogenic global warming nutcases should know that we have been warming for the last 400 years or so, coming out of the mini ice age. So to blame all the warming on human CO2 emissions is a grave error that you somehow cannot comprehend. Quote: It seems as though they are even trying to convince themselves of their own lies and spin. Show me an example..............?????? [quote]maybe they are sceptical about their own deranged denialist lunacy

Only sceptical about the pseudo science of the IPCC that wants to place a tax on alll humanity on the air we breath.
[/quote]
Hey Ajax.  Its Monday morning and you have bundied on I see. I didn't see you on the weekend.  Tell me do you work at this cut and paste thing 5 days a week or 7 days a week.  Do you just come on this site or a number of sites treating people to your cut and paste skills.  Is there any money in it for you? I suspect there is.  Come on you can tell us.  Do you get paid to come onto sites like this and post stuff you have cut and pasted from denialist sites?  Who would pay you and would they pay by the paste or by the hour?  The cut and paste operative with no meaningful climate science qualifications telling us the IPCC practices in pseudo science. What a joke. Seems to me with that kind of a background you either got to be really stupid or a real liar.   

# wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 4:21pm: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html So much for "skeptical science", ... Before you go worshipping populartechnology.net, consider his behaviour in this forum: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379993344 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380542450 Which is the more credible source?

I like WUWT.com it's not bad.
Even plantsneedc02.org isn't too bad (I've heard it's big oil or gas or something), I only use it for the graphs they post on there. The creator of the website doesn't really need credibility if they are posting legitimate graphs to prove a point.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

# wrote on Oct 11th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 4:21pm: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html So much for "skeptical science", ... Before you go worshipping populartechnology.net, consider his behaviour in this forum: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379993344 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380542450 Which is the more credible source? I like WUWT.com it's not bad. Even plantsneedc02.org isn't too bad (I've heard it's big oil or gas or something), I only use it for the graphs they post on there. The creator of the website doesn't really need credibility if they are posting legitimate graphs to prove a point.

Hehehe, Im sure you have absolutely no interest in credibility. That's totally unimportant if your only purpose is to confuse and mislead especially kids just new to the debate.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Hehehe, Im sure you have absolutely no interest in credibility. That's totally unimportant if your only purpose is to confuse and mislead especially kids just new to the debate.

No we've been through credibility too much, it's done to death and has almost nothing to do with the data they present other than to determine which bias they have AGW or anti-AGW. At this point we all have our opinions of each group from Monckton and the IPCC to skepticalscience and the NIPCC. What more is there to say? Skepticalscience is an Al Gore supporter site run by a religious guy, plantsneedc02 is apparently linked to big oil, IPCC is governmental, the NIPCC is skeptical, evidence of big oil/gas/coal are being thrown around all the time for both skeptics and AGW supporters. What more is there to say?

I'm interested in credibility sure, but it should be taken with a grain of salt and data used by these people shouldn't be held up to the same scrutiny as it all comes from independent scientists, though I think the "trend lines" are ridiculously arbitrary, that much is obvious.

So what more is there to say? Say it and be done.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: Hehehe, Im sure you have absolutely no interest in credibility. That's totally unimportant if your only purpose is to confuse and mislead especially kids just new to the debate.    No we've been through credibility too much, it's done to death and has almost nothing to do with the data they present other than to determine which bias they have AGW or anti-AGW. At this point we all have our opinions of each group from Monckton and the IPCC to skepticalscience and the NIPCC. What more is there to say? Skepticalscience is an Al Gore supporter site run by a religious guy, plantsneedc02 is apparently linked to big oil, IPCC is governmental, the NIPCC is skeptical, evidence of big oil/gas/coal are being thrown around all the time for both skeptics and AGW supporters. What more is there to say? I'm interested in credibility sure, but it should be taken with a grain of salt and data used by these people shouldn't be held up to the same scrutiny as it all comes from independent scientists, though I think the "trend lines" are ridiculously arbitrary, that much is obvious. So what more is there to say? Say it and be done.

Its hard to know whether you mean this to be taken seriously. Of course the advantage it has for your fossil fuel industry masters is that you can now argue that the opinion of the non scientists who you rely on to deny human caused global warming are equal in value to the opinion of the dedicated climate scientists who contribute to the IPCC. And taken to its logical extension a preschoolers opinion on climate change is just as credible as a climate scientist's opinion. This really is one of the most absurd propositions I have heard in a very long time. It will be very interesting to see if we see global warming deniers start repeating it throughout the net.  I mean, its so nonsensical and illogical  that if we start seeing it repeated we really got to wonder about the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has employed minions to spread their propaganda around the net. Can you enlighten us on that? Do you know how extensive it is and how much of what the minions say is pre-organized and orchestrated, complete with suggested arguments and talking points?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

Its hard to know whether you mean this approach to be taken seriously. Of course the advantage it has for your fossil fuel industry masters is that you can now argue that the opinion of the non scientists who you rely on to deny human caused global warming are equal in value to the opinion of the dedicated climate scientists who contribute to the IPCC. And taken to its logical extension a preschoolers opinion on climate change is just as credible as a climate scientist's opinion. This really is one of the most absurd propositions I have heard in a very long time. It will be very interesting to see if we see global warming deniers start repeating it throughout the net.  I mean, its so nonsensical and illogical  that if we start seeing it repeated we really got to wonder about the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has employed minions to spread their propaganda around the net. Can you enlighten us on that? Do you know how extensive it is and how much of what the minions say is pre-organized and orchestrated, complete with suggested arguments and talking points?

So now there's a global conspiracy to debate on the internet? O.o careful I think you've lost the plot mate. I don't think policy decision opinions are swayed by infiltrating small internet communities, I would think that would be left up to the main stream media. The whole point of a forum is to talk and debate, if the opinions of people who disagree with you don't matter then what are you doing here?

If the opinion of someone who disagrees is not important then either is yours neither is anyone's on this forum for that matter. Except maybe Muso due to his experience? lol but I don't think we are here to debate who has the best anecdotal evidence are we?

You also act as if its the oil companies VS the scientists and any scientist that doesn't agree can be ignored and any evidence or opinion put forward that disagrees with you can be discounted. Sounds pretty fascist to me, way to black and white to be taken seriously. The accusations of who the oil/gas/coal companies are funding have been thrown around everywhere. I didn't think you would be blinded by propaganda to ignore debate. Though it doesn't matter, whether you or anyone thinks our opinions matters or not, it's irrelevant, we have a life, we have a voice and I see no reason why I or anyone should not share that with others.

Relax enjoy some graphs or something :)
Also on the IPCC, investigation or not the climategate emails have sown distrust for them for many including myself and are not so easily brushed aside. Especially the claim that the IPCC is comprised of "the world leading scientists",  with information about some authors/members barely being graduates and having bugger all experience. You can brush it aside all you want, but it matters to some people and it's better to convince then to force.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

This really is one of the most absurd propositions I have heard in a very long time.

Really?  More absurd than this?


ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

It will be very interesting to see if we see global warming deniers start repeating it throughout the net.  I mean, its so nonsensical and illogical  that if we start seeing it repeated we really got to wonder about the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has employed minions to spread their propaganda around the net. Can you enlighten us on that? Do you know how extensive it is and how much of what the minions say is pre-organized and orchestrated, complete with suggested arguments and talking points?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mOxFpBH6YP0/UWBZWOdR2BI/AAAAAAAAMFY/goZ9_59wsHs/s1600/z+tinfoil+hat.jpg

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

Hey Ajax.  Its Monday morning and you have bundied on I see. I didn't see you on the weekend.  Tell me do you work at this cut and paste thing 5 days a week or 7 days a week.  Do you just come on this site or a number of sites treating people to your cut and paste skills.  Is there any money in it for you? I suspect there is.  Come on you can tell us.  Do you get paid to come onto sites like this and post stuff you have cut and pasted from denialist sites?  Who would pay you and would they pay by the paste or by the hour?  The cut and paste operative with no meaningful climate science qualifications telling us the IPCC practices in pseudo science. What a joke. Seems to me with that kind of a background you either got to be really stupid or a real liar.

What's a matter Spartacus you want a shoulder to cry on..???

OR

Are you one of those that says this is the science sit down listen and shut up....!!!

Sorry champ don't work that way.

We want to see the science that justifies a world tax on the air we breath.

And so far I haven't seen anything but political propaganda.

For those of you who don't know, "astroturfing" is a device increasingly used on internet sites like ozpolitics to build credibility for an implausible position and to give the appearance of greater support for that position then there actually is. Indeed, the Heartland Institute has a history of engaging in astroturfing to push its global warming denier agenda. So I suggest you be very wary of those on this site who seem to be almost exclusively interested in global warming and take every opportunity to rehash the same absurd arguments over and over and cut and paste large screeds of the same tired graphs from denier sites because they might well be minions of the fossil fuel industry pretending to be interested in global warming when in fact they're here on a mission to serve the interests of their corporate masters. And above all don't be fooled by these people into thinking that there's an increase in global warming deniers because thats what they want you to think.  Wikipedia has a good article on the increasing use of astroturfing and "sock puppets" on the internet (any bets on whose the sock puppets in here?).

Irony much?

OMG "warmists" are conspiracy theorists too, so the "deniers" obviously are not conspiracy theorists too...

Every single argument presented about the "type" of people and the kind of actions that warmists take can be applied tenfold to the denier camp. Who would have thunk it.

Ironic that neither side recognises this simple feature of the paltry argument.

Yet we still have a pollution issue largely ignored. Now, one has to wonder (and only one it would seem) who stands to gain the most from this ongoing debate (regardless of the now irrelevant outcome)... That would be the area of genuine concern. Whoever gains or profits from this ongoing debate is the real evil in this sorry saga.

Continue on with your graphs, misinformation, predictions, counter arguments and half truths the lot of you. In the end polluters are the winners from all of your dithering.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 1:30am:

For those of you who don't know, "astroturfing" is a device increasingly used on internet sites like ozpolitics to build credibility for an implausible position and to give the appearance of greater support for that position then there actually is. Indeed, the Heartland Institute has a history of engaging in astroturfing to push its global warming denier agenda. So I suggest you be very wary of those on this site who seem to be almost exclusively interested in global warming and take every opportunity to rehash the same absurd arguments over and over and cut and paste large screeds of the same tired graphs from denier sites because they might well be minions of the fossil fuel industry pretending to be interested in global warming when in fact they're here on a mission to serve the interests of their corporate masters. And above all don't be fooled by these people into thinking that there's an increase in global warming deniers because thats what they want you to think.  Wikipedia has a good article on the increasing use of astroturfing and "sock puppets" on the internet (any bets on whose the sock puppets in here?).

To people who are genuinely concerned about the environment, politics and our standard of living.

All I have to say is don't take what the so called "experts" are telling us all verbatim.

Do some research, view both sides of the argument and make up your own mind.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:33am:

Irony much? OMG "warmists" are conspiracy theorists too, so the "deniers" obviously are not conspiracy theorists too... Every single argument presented about the "type" of people and the kind of actions that warmists take can be applied tenfold to the denier camp. Who would have thunk it. Ironic that neither side recognises this simple feature of the paltry argument. Yet we still have a pollution issue largely ignored. Now, one has to wonder (and only one it would seem) who stands to gain the most from this ongoing debate (regardless of the now irrelevant outcome)... That would be the area of genuine concern. Whoever gains or profits from this ongoing debate is the real evil in this sorry saga. Continue on with your graphs, misinformation, predictions, counter arguments and half truths the lot of you. In the end polluters are the winners from all of your dithering.

Phemanderac like I keep telling you carbon pricing will not stop corporation from dumping chemicals in our creeks, rivers, estuaries, oceans and land.

You keep saying to clean up pollution, you wrap pollution in with carbon pricing.

Carbon pricing will only attempt to clean up manmade CO2 and nothing else.

If you are so concerned about pollution why aren't you talking about it.

For example the Spanish company that wants to dump its nuclear waste in central Australia, this deal is on the verge of being signed off and yet we haven't heard anything about it.......??????

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

... To people who are genuinely concerned about the environment, politics and our standard of living.

Note that quality of life doesn't get a mention.


Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

... don't take what the so called "experts" are telling us all verbatim. Do some research, view both sides of the argument and make up your own mind.

Take care to consider the quality of sources. The views of the highest quality are pretty consistent.

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

... carbon pricing will not stop corporation from dumping chemicals in our creeks, rivers, estuaries, oceans and land.

Who has said that it will?

On the other hand, the do what they're designed to do very well.


Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

... you wrap pollution in with carbon pricing. ...

Who does?

I've never known anyone to confuse carbon pricing with all pollution. Except you.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Note that quality of life doesn't get a mention.

I thought that would be covered by standard of living, but yeah by all means include it, its not a conspiracy that I left it out......!!!!


Quote:

Take care to consider the quality of sources. The views of the highest quality are pretty consistent.

I agree........... :D ;D 8-)

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

Who has said that it will?

The way some of you guys carry on, you make it sound like carbon pricing will fix all our pollution problems.


Quote:

Who does? I've never known anyone to confuse carbon pricing with all pollution. Except you.

Your sides does.......!!!!!

So reader beware carbon pricing will only place a tax on human CO2 emissions, it will not clean up other forms of pollution......... :o 8-)

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:41am: Who has said that it will? The way some of you guys carry on, you make it sound like carbon pricing will fix all our pollution problems. Quote: Who does? I've never known anyone to confuse carbon pricing with all pollution. Except you. Your sides does.......!!!!! So reader beware carbon pricing will only place a tax on human CO2 emissions, it will not clean up other forms of pollution......... :o 8-)

You assert much and substantiate nothing.

At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution.

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:33am: Note that quality of life doesn't get a mention. I thought that would be covered by standard of living, ...

The two are very different.

In very broad terms:-
Standard of living: what we have.
Quality of life: how we feel.

Beyond a point, having more doesn't make us feel better. It can have the opposite effect.

Much unhappiness springs from confusing the two.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

You assert much and substantiate nothing.

I don't assert anything.

I substantiate what I say with posts of what the scientists that aren't on the AGW religion's gravy train are saying.


Quote:

At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution.

Can you really be that naïve.......????

Do you honestly think once bankers and other moguls have the $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market up and running that they will care how much manmade CO2 will be released into our atmosphere...????

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:54am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:33am: Note that quality of life doesn't get a mention. I thought that would be covered by standard of living, ... The two are very different. In very broad terms:- Standard of living: what we have. Quality of life: how we feel. Beyond a point, having more doesn't make us feel better. It can have the opposite effect. Much unhappiness springs from confusing the two.

Whatever....!!!!....i'm not going to argue trifles.

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:30am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:25am: You assert much and substantiate nothing. I don't assert anything. I substantiate what I say with posts of what the scientists that aren't on the AGW religion's gravy train are saying. Quote: At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution. Can you really be that naïve.......???? Do you honestly think once bankers and other moguls have the $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market up and running that they will care how much manmade CO2 will be released into our atmosphere...????

Of course, it's all a grand conspiracy.

I should have realised.  ::)

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:30am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:25am: You assert much and substantiate nothing. I don't assert anything. I substantiate what I say with posts of what the scientists that aren't on the AGW religion's gravy train are saying. Quote: At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution. Can you really be that naïve.......???? Do you honestly think once bankers and other moguls have the $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market up and running that they will care how much manmade CO2 will be released into our atmosphere...???? Of course, it's all a grand conspiracy. I should have realised.  ::)

Look at the European Emissions Trading Scheme....??????

Which we would have joined under the labor green government...???

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:41am: Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:30am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:25am: You assert much and substantiate nothing. I don't assert anything. I substantiate what I say with posts of what the scientists that aren't on the AGW religion's gravy train are saying. Quote: At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution. Can you really be that naïve.......???? Do you honestly think once bankers and other moguls have the $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market up and running that they will care how much manmade CO2 will be released into our atmosphere...???? Of course, it's all a grand conspiracy. I should have realised.  ::) Look at the European Emissions Trading Scheme....?????? Which we would have joined under the labor green government...???

Carbon Markets Cut Emissions 17x Cheaper

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 1:30am:

For those of you who don't know, "astroturfing" is a device increasingly used on internet sites like ozpolitics to build credibility for an implausible position and to give the appearance of greater support for that position then there actually is. Indeed, the Heartland Institute has a history of engaging in astroturfing to push its global warming denier agenda. So I suggest you be very wary of those on this site who seem to be almost exclusively interested in global warming and take every opportunity to rehash the same absurd arguments over and over and cut and paste large screeds of the same tired graphs from denier sites because they might well be minions of the fossil fuel industry pretending to be interested in global warming when in fact they're here on a mission to serve the interests of their corporate masters. And above all don't be fooled by these people into thinking that there's an increase in global warming deniers because thats what they want you to think.  Wikipedia has a good article on the increasing use of astroturfing and "sock puppets" on the internet (any bets on whose the sock puppets in here?).

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/38165079.jpg

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:33am:

OMG "warmists" are conspiracy theorists too, so the "deniers" obviously are not conspiracy theorists too... Every single argument presented about the "type" of people and the kind of actions that warmists take can be applied tenfold to the denier camp. Who would have thunk it.

Umm mate, no one is saying each side is a conspiracy theory side.....we are saying Iamspartacus is a  conspiracy theorist to suggest big oil companies waste money trying to make sock accounts to push an agenda on small internet communities as opposed to main stream media where Al Gore has already pushed his agenda.



Quote:

Yet we still have a pollution issue largely ignored. Now, one has to wonder (and only one it would seem) who stands to gain the most from this ongoing debate (regardless of the now irrelevant outcome)... That would be the area of genuine concern. Whoever gains or profits from this ongoing debate is the real evil in this sorry saga.

Big oil and Gas benefit from global warming induced taxation on c02 due to their biggest competitor "Coal" pumping out a sh*t tonne more c02 then the other two do. They also benefit from the carbon credit/market scheme and pass the expense onto tax payers and blame the government. Then when it's all used up they can easily transfer to another energy market.


Quote:

Continue on with your graphs, misinformation, predictions, counter arguments and half truths the lot of you. In the end polluters are the winners from all of your dithering.

How is presenting evidence contrary misinformation? I've even been using IPCC graphs, as well as neutral graphs that both the IPCC and skeptics use. How is it misinformation to just present observable fact and try and use logic? The only potential misinformation on BOTH sides is the credibility argument about who's a big oil shill and who's got what agenda. But even then you ignore blatant examples of data manipulation (Burt Rutan), IPCC's poor method (Donna Laframboise) and the climategate information suppression. (investigation or not that stuff is suss)

Please tell me how the following IPCC graph is misinformation about their failures:
(grey band removed, min max included)

---

For those that can't understand it this was kindly added by WUWT the skeptic website. :)

---

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:57am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:41am: Who has said that it will? The way some of you guys carry on, you make it sound like carbon pricing will fix all our pollution problems. Quote: Who does? I've never known anyone to confuse carbon pricing with all pollution. Except you. Your sides does.......!!!!! So reader beware carbon pricing will only place a tax on human CO2 emissions, it will not clean up other forms of pollution......... :o 8-) You assert much and substantiate nothing. At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution.

you mean CO2 pricing and CO2 'pollution' right???  you do know that carbon and CO2 are completely different molecules?  ones a gas, one isn't etc?

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

you mean CO2 pricing and CO2 'pollution' right???  you do know that carbon and CO2 are completely different molecules?  ones a gas, one isn't etc?

Haha good one, people still think it's a pollutant aaaahahaha!
Al Gore's gotten to they heads mhmm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 6:59pm: This really is one of the most absurd propositions I have heard in a very long time. Really?  More absurd than this? ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 6:59pm: It will be very interesting to see if we see global warming deniers start repeating it throughout the net.  I mean, its so nonsensical and illogical  that if we start seeing it repeated we really got to wonder about the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has employed minions to spread their propaganda around the net. Can you enlighten us on that? Do you know how extensive it is and how much of what the minions say is pre-organized and orchestrated, complete with suggested arguments and talking points? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mOxFpBH6YP0/UWBZWOdR2BI/AAAAAAAAMFY/goZ9_59wsHs/s1600/z+tinfoil+hat.jpg

one of the most obnoxious comments from hysterics is that sceptics are funded by the oil and gas industry,  it probably never occurred the them that people might make up their own mind without a bribe.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:14am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 8:00pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 6:59pm: This really is one of the most absurd propositions I have heard in a very long time. Really?  More absurd than this? ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 6:59pm: It will be very interesting to see if we see global warming deniers start repeating it throughout the net.  I mean, its so nonsensical and illogical  that if we start seeing it repeated we really got to wonder about the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has employed minions to spread their propaganda around the net. Can you enlighten us on that? Do you know how extensive it is and how much of what the minions say is pre-organized and orchestrated, complete with suggested arguments and talking points? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mOxFpBH6YP0/UWBZWOdR2BI/AAAAAAAAMFY/goZ9_59wsHs/s1600/z+tinfoil+hat.jpg one of the most obnoxious comments from hysterics is that sceptics are funded by the oil and gas industry,  it probably never occurred the them that people might make up their own mind without a bribe.

And Spartacus is probably the most obnoxious hysteric in this forum.

As another poster pointed out, he has certainly "lost the plot".

How about that skeptical blogger over at the alarmist Skeptical Science Blog.

He works for big oil...............!!!!!

He helped John Cook write that bullshit consensus 97% crap. (John Cook et al 2013)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-oil-and-gas/

http://i41.tinypic.com/8vyd11.png

http://www.tetratech.com/markets/oil-a-gas.html

These guys are pathetic, hypocritical garbage...??

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

How about that skeptical blogger over at the alarmist Skeptical Science Blog. He works for big oil...............!!!!! He helped John Cook write that bullshit consensus 97% crap. (John Cook et al 2013) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-oil-and-gas/ http://i41.tinypic.com/8vyd11.png http://www.tetratech.com/markets/oil-a-gas.html These guys are pathetic, hypocritical garbage...??

That guy is an absolute joke.

I can't believe the alarmists still listen to the fool.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/05/warmist-dana-nuccitelli-chokes-on-his-own-vomit-cites-his-own-laughable-97-study-to-push-carbon-tax-climate-debate-is-settled-carbon-tax-is-vital/

Quote:

"UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Tol on Cook’s 97% Consensus study: ‘Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral’"

Muh 97% herpa derp :P
No no no wait, the IPCC lead author was bought by big oil! He must be an oil shill!!
Am I right? ;)

---

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:25am: Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:57am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:41am: Who has said that it will? The way some of you guys carry on, you make it sound like carbon pricing will fix all our pollution problems. Quote: Who does? I've never known anyone to confuse carbon pricing with all pollution. Except you. Your sides does.......!!!!! So reader beware carbon pricing will only place a tax on human CO2 emissions, it will not clean up other forms of pollution......... :o 8-) You assert much and substantiate nothing. At least you seem to concede that pricing carbon will reduce carbon pollution. you mean CO2 pricing and CO2 'pollution' right???  you do know that carbon and CO2 are completely different molecules?  ones a gas, one isn't etc?

Yes, longweekend58, I'm well aware of the chemistry. Do you deny common usage?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

Quote: "UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Tol on Cook’s 97% Consensus study: ‘Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral’" ...

Given that the paper passed peer review, I'll give it more credence than a single unsubstantiated quote.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

Quote: "UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Tol on Cook’s 97% Consensus study: ‘Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral’" Muh 97% herpa derp :P No no no wait, the IPCC lead author was bought by big oil! He must be an oil shill!! Am I right? ;)

Nuccitelli is an attention whore.  Little else.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:43am: Quote: "UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Tol on Cook’s 97% Consensus study: ‘Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral’" ... Given that the paper passed peer review, I'll give it more credence than a single unsubstantiated quote.

You know they peer review each other right? :D
If the lead author calls it crap, that counts for something. Although a little bit of common sense and background checking would tell anyone that.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:14am:

[quote author=greggerypeccary link=1381019696/43#43 date=1381744829] one of the most obnoxious comments from hysterics is that sceptics are funded by the oil and gas industry,  it probably never occurred the them that people might make up their own mind without a bribe.

You really have a problem with fundamental logic don't you. Now work through it, slowly, one thought at a time and you will see that its possible for the oil and gas industry to fund the denialist agenda and at the same time for some people to make up their own minds without a bribe.  In your case I think you have made up your own mind for your own but still for selfish reasons because you figure it wont hurt you in your life time so you dont care.   In the case of Ajax and Vuk I have absolutely no confidence that they care in the truth or otherwise about global warming.  I think they're motives are entirely different and I would not exclude the very real possibility that they get benefits for cutting and paseting their garbage propaganda here and your hysterical denials that this could be possible (even though this kind of thing has happened before and is on the increase) carries no weight with me because you lack logic, common sense and objectivity.  With particular regard to your lack of objectivity I had to laugh the other day when I read your long winded confused piece on why you can't accept catastrophic climate change and the reason you gave seemed to come down to your claim that your a sceptical kinda guy and can't take things on faith. You, the Christian' can't take things on faith! And I thought pretty soon this guys going to click and everyone will have to look the other way from embarrassment but No. You didn't click, because you have absolutely no objectivity.  All you see is your own interests and lifting a finger to ensure the survival of your species and your planet just don't figure against that.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/w/s/jhfnilag.jpeg


http://www.adolphus.me.uk/emx/simply/paragraph.htm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

You really have a problem with fundamental logic don't you. Now work through it, slowly, one thought at a time and you will see that its possible for the oil and gas industry to fund the denialist agenda and at the same time for some people to make up their own minds without a bribe.  In your case I think you have made up your own mind for your own but still for selfish reasons because you figure it wont hurt you in your life time so you dont care.   In the case of Ajax and Vuk I have absolutely no confidence that they care in the truth or otherwise about global warming.  I think they're motives are entirely different and I would not exclude the very real possibility that they get benefits for cutting and paseting their garbage propaganda here and your hysterical denials that this could be possible (even though this kind of thing has happened before and is on the increase) carries no weight with me because you lack logic, common sense and objectivity.  With particular regard to your lack of objectivity I had to laugh the other day when I read your long winded confused piece on why you can't accept catastrophic climate change and the reason you gave seemed to come down to your claim that your a sceptical kinda guy and can't take things on faith. You, the Christian' can't take things on faith! And I thought pretty soon this guys going to click and everyone will have to look the other way from embarrassment but No. You didn't click, because you have absolutely no objectivity.  All you see is your own interests and lifting a finger to ensure the survival of your species and your planet just don't figure against that.

Sh#t I think the aztecs used that exact same speel just before they stabbed some poor front bottom right through the heart to appease the vengeful god of the Sun eclipse  http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

You really have a problem with fundamental logic don't you. Now work through it, slowly, one thought at a time and you will see that its possible for the oil and gas industry to fund the denialist agenda and at the same time for some people to make up their own minds without a bribe.  In your case I think you have made up your own mind for your own but still for selfish reasons because you figure it wont hurt you in your life time so you dont care.   In the case of Ajax and Vuk I have absolutely no confidence that they care in the truth or otherwise about global warming.  I think they're motives are entirely different and I would not exclude the very real possibility that they get benefits for cutting and paseting their garbage propaganda here and your hysterical denials that this could be possible (even though this kind of thing has happened before and is on the increase) carries no weight with me because you lack logic, common sense and objectivity.  With particular regard to your lack of objectivity I had to laugh the other day when I read your long winded confused piece on why you can't accept catastrophic climate change and the reason you gave seemed to come down to your claim that your a sceptical kinda guy and can't take things on faith. You, the Christian' can't take things on faith! And I thought pretty soon this guys going to click and everyone will have to look the other way from embarrassment but No. You didn't click, because you have absolutely no objectivity.  All you see is your own interests and lifting a finger to ensure the survival of your species and your planet just don't figure against that.

Hey Spartacus

When I watched Al Gore's inconvenient truth I was converted to the anthropogenic global warming religion.

I thought to myself poo yeah we have to do something about this, I believed.

Gore said we are on then precibus of no return and only have 5 to 10 years to turn things around, ofcourse I was ignorant of the science back then and took his word verbatim.

The first thing that hit me between the eyes was that in order to save ourselves we had to create a carbon credit market on wall street.

The second thing that struck me as odd was that companies could keep on polluting as long as they bought carbon credits to of set their emissions.

What happened to the ten years or so that we had left..??

After those two points I started looking into everything about the AGW religion.

And this is where I have ended up.

I'm just your average joe blogs and no i'm not funded by big oil as you would like to believe.

I think we all started out as AGW believers, then our concerns led us to seek out further information only to find that there is actually more evidence against AGW than for AGW but for reasons best known to themselves the global warming hysterics pretend that evidence doesn't exist.  :D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

I think we all started out as AGW believers, then our concerns led us to seek out further information only to find that there is actually more evidence against AGW than for AGW but for reasons best known to themselves the global warming hysterics pretend that evidence doesn't exist.  :D

To true, I watched the inconvenient truth at the end of high-school. When my parents sold their house my dad was arguing with this horticulturist that bought it about how Global Warming is a scam. I always wondered why then some info about Al-Gore and corruption came out and since then it's been like looking at a statue of Aphrodite, you see the cracks and flaws and they try to cover them up with excuses. I just don't buy the political speech anymore and it's a shame "scientists" are trying to skew data to prove their theory rather than change their theory to match the data. But yes we are all oil shills getting paid big bucks to mess around with a dozen or so onlookers on a small internet community :)

If most of the people that support AGW took the time to look at the science and the organisations that are pushing it.

It wouldn't be long before only the true greenies (those that worship gaia) would be left holding the AGW banner aloft.

And that wouldn't be that many people at all...!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

If most of the people that support AGW took the time to look at the science and the organisations that are pushing it.

What like the CSIRO, All countries, every single international scientific organisation and society, every single University,

AND

every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world.

Why is EXXON, the worlds largest corporate entity in human history advocating urgent action on AGW and climate change?

It may be easier for you to list the corporations and international scientific bodies that REFUTE the science that underpins AGW

good luck.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 11:27am: If most of the people that support AGW took the time to look at the science and the organisations that are pushing it. What like the CSIRO, All countries, every single international scientific organisation and society, every single University, AND every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world. Why is EXXON, the worlds largest corporate entity in human history advocating urgent action on AGW and climate change? It may be easier for you to list the corporations and international scientific bodies that REFUTE the science that underpins AGW good luck.

what can I say, other than the fish rots from the head.....

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

What like the CSIRO, All countries, every single international scientific organisation and society, every single University, AND every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world. Why is EXXON, the worlds largest corporate entity in human history advocating urgent action on AGW and climate change? It may be easier for you to list the corporations and international scientific bodies that REFUTE the science that underpins AGW good luck.

Hey chimp

Your forgetting that there are just as many scientific papers refuting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as there are proclaiming it.

The difference is the papers that refute AGW have been written by well known scientists that aren't on the AGW gravy train.

We all know how many billions of dollars have been handed over to scientific companies like the CSIRO & NASA to prove AGW is real.

The bankers and all the corporations they control, including big oil, the United Nations and the universities that are on their payroll ofcourse will be in favour of AGW.

They don't want their funds to dry up, heaven forbid.

But I tell you this, once the AGW religion falls into a scrap heap, never again will humanity put their trust in a scientific consensus based on the pseudo science of computer models.

When empirical data is saying otherwise.



Quote:

Appendix H: Sample List of References Adhering to the Back-Radiation Model of the GHE All the references and quotations below conform to the to the “back-radiation model” of the GHE, which is based on a comparison with actual greenhouses made of glass. The problem is that this well-known comparison is incorrect. Like anything else, the interior surfaces of a greenhouse warm up by absorbing sunlight. But what the glass enclosure then does is trap the surface-heated air, acting as a physically rigid barrier to convective heat dissipation. This is why a greenhouse gets warmer than the outside air. This fact can be verified by alternately opening two small panels of the greenhouse: first, open a wall panel at ground level. No significant temperature decrease will be observed. Next, open a roof panel; the temperature will drop noticeably and quickly. Now, if trapped radiation were involved, radiation would escape equally well from either the base or the top when an escape hatch appears. The fact that the greenhouse only cools when a roof panel is opened indicates that the increased warmth comes about only because heated air has been trapped. Thus, the premise that radiation-trapping in the atmosphere is analogous to radiationtrapping in a real greenhouse, is unsound. Yet this analogy is consistently used to justify an atmospheric form of the GHE. Although the glass in a real greenhouse does not cause additional warming by trapping radiation, we are told that trace gases do perform this task - by virtue of a comparison to something that does not actually occur! Greenhouses were invented by human beings to protect a pocket of air against the cooling forces in the atmosphere; i.e., they do the opposite thing that the atmosphere actually does, so to compare the atmosphere to a physical greenhouse is just silly. We are not without remit to state that this line of justification or reasoning is obfuscatory at best or outright fraudulent at worst. If back-radiation augments the warming that sunlight provides, as alleged in the references and quotations in this appendix and by the heat-flow equation developed earlier in this report, then the atmospheric GHE should be able to generate more warmth than real-time insolation can provide, even at its maximum. To this author's knowledge, however, this has never been demonstrated. http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

Ajax wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

Hey Spartacus When I watched Al Gore's inconvenient truth I was converted to the anthropogenic global warming religion. I thought to myself poo yeah we have to do something about this, I believed. Gore said we are on then precibus of no return and only have 5 to 10 years to turn things around, ofcourse I was ignorant of the science back then and took his word verbatim. The first thing that hit me between the eyes was that in order to save ourselves we had to create a carbon credit market on wall street. The second thing that struck me as odd was that companies could keep on polluting as long as they bought carbon credits to of set their emissions. What happened to the ten years or so that we had left..?? After those two points I started looking into everything about the AGW religion. And this is where I have ended up. I'm just your average joe blogs and no i'm not funded by big oil as you would like to believe.

Hey Ajax,
Its interesting how, just like Vuk , you go on about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as the point from which you came to your revelation. So whose the sock puppet you or him. Wikipedia points out that its not that difficult for one person to assume hundreds of different identities and recently its proven to be an extremely effective tool in influencing people at the grass roots level. Of course once you start getting people at that level its extremely difficult to change their minds back again and they of course go on to influence others. You spend a lot of time here on just one message and about something you really have no qualifications to properly understand and regardless of the extremely catastrophic consequences to humanity and our planet if your wrong you persist in insisting that you are right against the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. And what do you do to demonstrate your case. You don't go to the IPCC, no because you say they're corrupt and just making this whole thing up to get funding for their personal projects (talk about conspiracy theory). No you go to the denialist pages funded by the fossil fuel industry and your not bothered by their obvious conflict of interest and potential to distort the facts for their interests.  And so you go on repeating their same arguments almost word for word ( just like Vuk ) and take every opportunity to cut and paste the latest screeds of graphs (just like Vuk) and not withstanding that those arguments and graphs have been demonstrated to be suspect you make absolutely no reference to that (just like Vuk) and go on saying see, see. No sorry mate, you don't fit the profile of someone trying to get to the truth of the climate change debate. You fit the profile of someone spreading propaganda. Its the 21st Century and the era of the internet. This is the new way of winning hearts and minds (albeit deceptively) and people with the money to invest and the interests to protect won't hesitate to use it with the aid of a few unconscionable characters willing to sell their soul for a few silver pieces.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Hey Ajax, Its interesting how, just like Vuk , you go on about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as the point from which you came to your revelation. So whose the sock puppet you or him. Wikipedia points out that its not that difficult for one person to assume hundreds of different identities and recently its proven to be an extremely effective tool in influencing people at the grass roots level. Of course once you start getting people at that level its extremely difficult to change their minds back again and they of course go on to influence others. You spend a lot of time here on just one message and about something you really have no qualifications to properly understand and regardless of the extremely catastrophic consequences to humanity and our planet if your wrong you persist in insisting that you are right against the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. And what do you do to demonstrate your case. You don't go to the IPCC, no because you say they're corrupt and just making this whole thing up to get funding for their personal projects (talk about conspiracy theory). No you go to the denialist pages funded by the fossil fuel industry and your not bothered by their obvious conflict of interest and potential to distort the facts for their interests.  And so you go on repeating their same arguments almost word for word ( just like Vuk ) and take every opportunity to cut and paste the latest screeds of graphs (just like Vuk) and not withstanding that those arguments and graphs have been demonstrated to be suspect you make absolutely no reference to that (just like Vuk) and go on saying see, see. No sorry mate, you don't fit the profile of someone trying to get to the truth of the climate change debate. You fit the profile of someone spreading propaganda. Its the 21st Century and the era of the internet. This is the new way of winning hearts and minds (albeit deceptively) and people with the money to invest and the interests to protect won't hesitate to use it with the aid of a few unconscionable characters willing to sell their soul for a few silver pieces.

http://www.millan.net/anims/gifs/kookoo.gif

Ajax wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 11:53am: What like the CSIRO, All countries, every single international scientific organisation and society, every single University, AND every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world. Why is EXXON, the worlds largest corporate entity in human history advocating urgent action on AGW and climate change? It may be easier for you to list the corporations and international scientific bodies that REFUTE the science that underpins AGW good luck. Hey chimp Your forgetting that there are just as many scientific papers refuting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as there are proclaiming it. The difference is the papers that refute AGW have been written by well known scientists that aren't on the AGW gravy train. We all know how many billions of dollars have been handed over to scientific companies like the CSIRO & NASA to prove AGW is real. The bankers and all the corporations they control, including big oil, the United Nations and the universities that are on their payroll ofcourse will be in favour of AGW. They don't want their funds to dry up, heaven forbid. But I tell you this, once the AGW religion falls into a scrap heap, never again will humanity put their trust in a scientific consensus based on the pseudo science of computer models. When empirical data is saying otherwise. Quote: Appendix H: Sample List of References Adhering to the Back-Radiation Model of the GHE All the references and quotations below conform to the to the “back-radiation model” of the GHE, which is based on a comparison with actual greenhouses made of glass. The problem is that this well-known comparison is incorrect. Like anything else, the interior surfaces of a greenhouse warm up by absorbing sunlight. But what the glass enclosure then does is trap the surface-heated air, acting as a physically rigid barrier to convective heat dissipation. This is why a greenhouse gets warmer than the outside air. This fact can be verified by alternately opening two small panels of the greenhouse: first, open a wall panel at ground level. No significant temperature decrease will be observed. Next, open a roof panel; the temperature will drop noticeably and quickly. Now, if trapped radiation were involved, radiation would escape equally well from either the base or the top when an escape hatch appears. The fact that the greenhouse only cools when a roof panel is opened indicates that the increased warmth comes about only because heated air has been trapped. Thus, the premise that radiation-trapping in the atmosphere is analogous to radiationtrapping in a real greenhouse, is unsound. Yet this analogy is consistently used to justify an atmospheric form of the GHE. Although the glass in a real greenhouse does not cause additional warming by trapping radiation, we are told that trace gases do perform this task - by virtue of a comparison to something that does not actually occur! Greenhouses were invented by human beings to protect a pocket of air against the cooling forces in the atmosphere; i.e., they do the opposite thing that the atmosphere actually does, so to compare the atmosphere to a physical greenhouse is just silly. We are not without remit to state that this line of justification or reasoning is obfuscatory at best or outright fraudulent at worst. If back-radiation augments the warming that sunlight provides, as alleged in the references and quotations in this appendix and by the heat-flow equation developed earlier in this report, then the atmospheric GHE should be able to generate more warmth than real-time insolation can provide, even at its maximum. To this author's knowledge, however, this has never been demonstrated. http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

false statement.

Your knowledge concerning the greenhouse effect is very poor and contaminated with political emotion.

Do you know how CO2 acts as a thermal retention component within the earths atmosphere?

The radiation that atmospheric CO2 is specifically interacting with is in the INFRARED region of the spectrum.

THat is, infrared light that is reflected from the earths various surfaces.

Anyway I don't have time to provide free online science tutorials for your benefit - especially seeing as you have made up your political mind on the issue purely based on some paranoia, conspiracy theory.

You publically insult every single scientist that has been researching this important issue on the basis that they are being paid off.

You discredit the CSIRO, one of the worlds premier scientific research organisation.

And yet the fossil fuel industry itself accepts the science that validates AGW and climate change, and has recommended urgent action be taken on a global level to mitigate its effects.

I really don't have time to engage with your ridiculous and silly statements online - you may need to find another sparring partner to dump your lies and paranoia upon

cheers

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Hey Ajax, Its interesting how, just like Vuk , you go on about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as the point from which you came to your revelation. So whose the sock puppet you or him. Wikipedia points out that its not that difficult for one person to assume hundreds of different identities and recently its proven to be an extremely effective tool in influencing people at the grass roots level. Of course once you start getting people at that level its extremely difficult to change their minds back again and they of course go on to influence others. You spend a lot of time here on just one message and about something you really have no qualifications to properly understand and regardless of the extremely catastrophic consequences to humanity and our planet if your wrong you persist in insisting that you are right against the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. And what do you do to demonstrate your case. You don't go to the IPCC, no because you say they're corrupt and just making this whole thing up to get funding for their personal projects (talk about conspiracy theory). No you go to the denialist pages funded by the fossil fuel industry and your not bothered by their obvious conflict of interest and potential to distort the facts for their interests.  And so you go on repeating their same arguments almost word for word ( just like Vuk ) and take every opportunity to cut and paste the latest screeds of graphs (just like Vuk) and not withstanding that those arguments and graphs have been demonstrated to be suspect you make absolutely no reference to that (just like Vuk) and go on saying see, see. No sorry mate, you don't fit the profile of someone trying to get to the truth of the climate change debate. You fit the profile of someone spreading propaganda. Its the 21st Century and the era of the internet. This is the new way of winning hearts and minds (albeit deceptively) and people with the money to invest and the interests to protect won't hesitate to use it with the aid of a few unconscionable characters willing to sell their soul for a few silver pieces.

Are you implying that Vuk and I are the same person....??

You really are a sick puppy dude........!!!!!!

What about if I told you that sceptics out number alarmists...???...in Australia.

And I'll tellya why, cause we aussies are pretty good at smelling out snake oil......!!!!


http://i40.tinypic.com/24y8j1t.gif


Quote:

Australians are leading skeptics and more polarized than anywhere else The Australian reports it as “Sceptics put heat on climate change.” CLIMATE change sceptics outnumber believers, according to an OECD study that shows how the debate has sharply divided Australians It shows 45 per cent of Australians think environmental dangers are exaggerated and are reluctant to pay for government environmental policies. In contrast, 42 per cent of Australians believe the environmental challenges are real and think the government should take action, which they are prepared to pay for even if the amount is not matched by other nations. The most skeptical nations were the Netherlands and Korea. The most polarized: Australia. The OECD surveyed 12,000 households across Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. This survey was carried out in 2011, so the data is already a bit out of date. There are three main groups: those who are skeptics, those who believe, and the technology optimists who think there is a problem but figure that we’ll find a way to solve the problem. Most of the graphs here came from this OECD link. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11327-australian-skeptics-outnumber-believers-say-oecd-globally-63-don-t-want-their-dollars-spent-on-the-environment.html

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Hey Ajax, Its interesting how, just like Vuk , you go on about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as the point from which you came to your revelation. So whose the sock puppet you or him.

Umm, Al-Gore is the flag runner for the global warming movement. That's how most people have gotten into it dude how else?


Quote:

You spend a lot of time here on just one message and about something you really have no qualifications to properly understand and regardless of the extremely catastrophic consequences to humanity and our planet if your wrong you persist in insisting that you are right against the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

People are still debating whether rising c02 and temperature would be catastrophic. Especially with increased crop yields and potential increased c02 sinks. Also THERE IS NO consensus. Ignoring the fact that science is not politics and is not decided by a vote, there is no consensus. I will accept there is a consensus when it's actually shown, do you ignore the flaws in the Cook et al survey and all the cook et al clones? Even if there was a consensus, it's funny how you tote political voting above objective truth.


Quote:

And what do you do to demonstrate your case. You don't go to the IPCC, no because you say they're corrupt and just making this whole thing up to get funding for their personal projects (talk about conspiracy theory). No you go to the denialist pages funded by the fossil fuel industry and your not bothered by their obvious conflict of interest and potential to distort the facts for their interests.  And so you go on repeating their same arguments almost word for word ( just like Vuk ) and take every opportunity to cut and paste the latest screeds of graphs (just like Vuk) and not withstanding that those arguments and graphs have been demonstrated to be suspect you make absolutely no reference to that (just like Vuk) and go on saying see, see. No sorry mate, you don't fit the profile of someone trying to get to the truth of the climate change debate. You fit the profile of someone spreading propaganda. Its the 21st Century and the era of the internet. This is the new way of winning hearts and minds (albeit deceptively) and people with the money to invest and the interests to protect won't hesitate to use it with the aid of a few unconscionable characters willing to sell their soul for a few silver pieces.

We make our case with IPCC remarks, NIPCC remarks, paper abstracts and the two you have a problem with blog interviews (how else do you get someone's opinion on the IPCC unless you ask them ? lol) and graphs (yes Spartacus we are using DATA to support our claims).

A few people on this forum have this overwhelming obsession with disregarding everything that challenges their point of view, they have an emotional attachment and despite being proved wrong over and over you guys just dismiss everything.

Apparently interviews on blog sites aren't credible enough to show a scientists opinion on a survey/organisation, neither is their personal twitter posts, neither is video interviews. Oh but that's right they just become "deniers" the moment they disagree.

Apparently graphs mean nothing, so observed recorded data that is used as evidence to prove a point is meaningless because a "denier" blog posts the same graph? Dude the graphs we post come from the IPCC and come from "peer reviewed" papers themselves, they are just used by many different people.

You guys don't want discussion, nor debate, nor truth, you just want to dismiss everything and lash out from an emotional perspective based on fear, fear of what Mr Gore has told you would happen. Despite Mr Gore and the IPCC being proved wrong you eat up their excuses and cling to your fear. Yet the most amazing thing is you guys tote the potential consequences if "deniers" are wrong (still up for debate) and ignore the potential consequences of if AGW is wrong. You can only seek truth if you are objective and try to understand multiple perspectives.

Yes we are all similar because Mr Gore was the propaganda machine that drew people like moths to a flame to the CAGW cause, now we are realizing the cracks and you lash out at us, imply we are....internet propagandists and spies for big oil? Didn't you just say EXXON was supportive of the AGW theory...??????

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

false statement.

Have you worked on such matters to be able to tell of the top of your head that its a false statement.....????


Quote:

Your knowledge concerning the greenhouse effect is very poor and contaminated with political emotion.

Absolute rubbish..........!


Quote:

Do you know how CO2 acts as a thermal retention component within the earths atmosphere? The radiation that atmospheric CO2 is specifically interacting with is in the INFRARED region of the spectrum. THat is, infrared light that is reflected from the earths various surfaces.

I do.......!!!...that is the theory....I agree.

So your talking about all the CO2 in our atmosphere, all 0.04% that's natural and manmade.

(0.04% of the atmosphere), 400 parts per million, 400ppm which from that about 5% is manmade.

380ppm are natural from the ecosystems

20ppm are from manmade CO2 emissions.

So man's 20ppm will absorb  the infra red heat and cause a runaway green house effect...........??????

But hold on a minute millions of years ago we had 7000ppm and all from nature.

Why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse effect then....???


Quote:

Anyway I don't have time to provide free online science tutorials for your benefit - especially seeing as you have made up your political mind on the issue purely based on some paranoia, conspiracy theory

.

Never asked you to.


Quote:

You publically insult every single scientist that has been researching this important issue on the basis that they are being paid off.

You mean like Michael Mann who conveniently forgot the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

If it wasn't for sceptics you yourself would believe that these phenomenon never happened.


Quote:

You discredit the CSIRO, one of the worlds premier scientific research organisation.

That's because they are funded to prove AGW is real, instead of giving us the facts they too give us the pseudo science that comes out of computer circulation models.

Just exactly how are the CSIRO explaining the missing heat of the last 15 years.


Quote:

And yet the fossil fuel industry itself accepts the science that validates AGW and climate change, and has recommended urgent action be taken on a global level to mitigate its effects.

That's because they are owned by the elite moguls that want to place a tax on the air we breath so they can play their games on wall street.


Quote:

I really don't have time to engage with your ridiculous and silly statements online - you may need to find another sparring partner to dump your lies and paranoia upon cheers

Fine......I thought  ostriches put their heads in the sand not chimps....!!! :D ;D >:( 8-)

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Hey Ajax, Its interesting how, just like Vuk , you go on about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as the point from which you came to your revelation. So whose the sock puppet you or him. Wikipedia points out that its not that difficult for one person to assume hundreds of different identities and recently its proven to be an extremely effective tool in influencing people at the grass roots level. Of course once you start getting people at that level its extremely difficult to change their minds back again and they of course go on to influence others. You spend a lot of time here on just one message and about something you really have no qualifications to properly understand and regardless of the extremely catastrophic consequences to humanity and our planet if your wrong you persist in insisting that you are right against the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. And what do you do to demonstrate your case. You don't go to the IPCC, no because you say they're corrupt and just making this whole thing up to get funding for their personal projects (talk about conspiracy theory). No you go to the denialist pages funded by the fossil fuel industry and your not bothered by their obvious conflict of interest and potential to distort the facts for their interests.  And so you go on repeating their same arguments almost word for word ( just like Vuk ) and take every opportunity to cut and paste the latest screeds of graphs (just like Vuk) and not withstanding that those arguments and graphs have been demonstrated to be suspect you make absolutely no reference to that (just like Vuk) and go on saying see, see. No sorry mate, you don't fit the profile of someone trying to get to the truth of the climate change debate. You fit the profile of someone spreading propaganda. Its the 21st Century and the era of the internet. This is the new way of winning hearts and minds (albeit deceptively) and people with the money to invest and the interests to protect won't hesitate to use it with the aid of a few unconscionable characters willing to sell their soul for a few silver pieces.

http://i.qkme.me/3u1h80.jpg

Ajax wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

But hold on a minute millions of years ago we had 7000ppm and all from nature. Why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse effect then....???

The reply I've gotten on that question was that Solar Irradiance/activity was down in that period. Funny how Solar Irradiance has been on a downward trend this time too :)


The greatest AGW supporter website has a response for you Ajax.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm

In short this is a conceded point, however excuses are made in comparison to today.
I love how the data supports these claims but there's always some sort of vague excuse that can be "substantiated" by much evidence. Muso can probably clear it up a lot better.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:19pm: But hold on a minute millions of years ago we had 7000ppm and all from nature. Why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse effect then....??? The reply I've gotten on that question was that Solar Irradiance/activity was down in that period. Funny how Solar Irradiance has been on a downward trend this time too :) The greatest AGW supporter website has a response for you Ajax. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm In short this is a conceded point, however excuses are made in comparison to today. I love how the data supports these claims but there's always some sort of vague excuse that can be "substantiated" by much evidence. Muso can probably clear it up a lot better.

Hi Vuk

As usually that global warmist alarmist site sceptical science has some poor point to justify anything that might refute their precious religion.

Its happening again right, man has released 440 gigatonnes of CO2 into our since 1998 yet temperatures have flatlined.

Nature is throwing so many curved balls at the AGW religion some time soon there might be a cry of  you're OUT...!!!

http://i43.tinypic.com/fp5c7o.png

Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change.

You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories.

You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT.

On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you.

Cheers

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers

Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look.

Its a little bit like shane warne bowling a leg break to rugby league player. Not much of a contest.

Bit of a waste of time don't you think?

I am sure you recognise the incompetence and ignorance of denialists priest like Ajax. Not worth the energy in engaging in a meaningful discussion.

I am sure you understand and aren't offended by the truth.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look. Its a little bit like shane warne bowling a leg break to rugby league player. Not much of a contest. Bit of a waste of time don't you think? I am sure you recognise the incompetence and ignorance of denialists priest like Ajax. Not worth the energy in engaging in a meaningful discussion. I am sure you understand and aren't offended by the truth.

Good to see it was just an idle threat to take bat and ball home. Now slog one out of the park and prove that (what people say) fraudulant AGW. That will shut him up.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look. Its a little bit like shane warne bowling a leg break to rugby league player. Not much of a contest. Bit of a waste of time don't you think? I am sure you recognise the incompetence and ignorance of denialists priest like Ajax. Not worth the energy in engaging in a meaningful discussion. I am sure you understand and aren't offended by the truth. Good to see it was just an idle threat to take bat and ball home. Now slog one out of the park and prove that (what people say) fraudulant AGW. That will shut him up.

Does your doctor know that you stopped taking your medication?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:24pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look. Its a little bit like shane warne bowling a leg break to rugby league player. Not much of a contest. Bit of a waste of time don't you think? I am sure you recognise the incompetence and ignorance of denialists priest like Ajax. Not worth the energy in engaging in a meaningful discussion. I am sure you understand and aren't offended by the truth. Good to see it was just an idle threat to take bat and ball home. Now slog one out of the park and prove that (what people say) fraudulant AGW. That will shut him up. Does your doctor know that you stopped taking your medication?

Thats funny, he didnt mention I had to take medication in order to believe in catastrophic AGW.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:24pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look. Its a little bit like shane warne bowling a leg break to rugby league player. Not much of a contest. Bit of a waste of time don't you think? I am sure you recognise the incompetence and ignorance of denialists priest like Ajax. Not worth the energy in engaging in a meaningful discussion. I am sure you understand and aren't offended by the truth. Good to see it was just an idle threat to take bat and ball home. Now slog one out of the park and prove that (what people say) fraudulant AGW. That will shut him up. Does your doctor know that you stopped taking your medication? Thats funny, he didnt mention I had to take medication in order to believe in catastrophic AGW.

.....must have been your priest then.

My sincere apologies for casting any aspersions with regards to your mentors and mental state, you putrid filthy drenched up puppet clown weasel maggot

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 5:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:45pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:24pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Ajax, you make many FALSE statements with regards to AGW and climate change. You are paranoid about tax agendas and globalists and conspiracy theories. You don't understand how science works let alone what the evidence is that has validated the AGW FACT. On this basis alone its really nor worth while anyone discussing the topic with you. Cheers Sorry to see you lose, take your bat and ball and go home. Its not a good look, but it is a look. Its a little bit like shane warne bowling a leg break to rugby league player. Not much of a contest. Bit of a waste of time don't you think? I am sure you recognise the incompetence and ignorance of denialists priest like Ajax. Not worth the energy in engaging in a meaningful discussion. I am sure you understand and aren't offended by the truth. Good to see it was just an idle threat to take bat and ball home. Now slog one out of the park and prove that (what people say) fraudulant AGW. That will shut him up. Does your doctor know that you stopped taking your medication? Thats funny, he didnt mention I had to take medication in order to believe in catastrophic AGW. .....must have been your priest then. My sincere apologies for casting any aspersions with regards to your mentors and mental state, you putrid filthy drenched up puppet clown weasel maggot

You really have lost havent you.  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1381904570/4#4

Progressivelol,

What's the antithesis of thinking progressively?

You don't even understand your own stance you putrid foul odouress freak maggot.

You gallop in here like Ajax, intellectually defenceless and incapable of rudimentary levels of scepticism and exit like the cowardice dung beetle of Jericho.

the impure stench waft that you emit in here is causing localised corrosion and degradation issues.

be gone with your carcass Thou filth ridden catacyl, be gone

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

Progressivelol, What's the antithesis of thinking progressively? You don't even understand your own stance you putrid foul odouress freak maggot. You gallop in here like Ajax, intellectually defenceless and incapable of rudimentary levels of scepticism and exit like the cowardice dung beetle of Jericho. the impure stench waft that you emit in here is causing localised corrosion and degradation issues. be gone with your carcass Thou filth ridden catacyl, be gone

I be pleasured by the comrad. Wasnt expecting that. Much love to you.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 5:58pm: Progressivelol, What's the antithesis of thinking progressively? You don't even understand your own stance you putrid foul odouress freak maggot. You gallop in here like Ajax, intellectually defenceless and incapable of rudimentary levels of scepticism and exit like the cowardice dung beetle of Jericho. the impure stench waft that you emit in here is causing localised corrosion and degradation issues. be gone with your carcass Thou filth ridden catacyl, be gone I be pleasured by the comrad. Wasnt expecting that. Much love to you.

You welcome Mr Fossil

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

...  the AGW FACT.

http://replygif.net/i/1126.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT.

don't under quote me in public

AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT

get it right

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right

http://replygif.net/i/926.gif

Of all the OECD countries, Australia will be hit the hardest by AGW and its effects.

Only fitting seeing as Australia has the highest carbon emission rate per capita in the world

Karma has a way of catching up to the stench

And globally, Australia stinks to high heaven at the moment

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right

Give us an example of you observing it (and I don't mean give us a newspaper reference).

Give us YOUR experience of observing undeniable AGW.

Soren wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right Give us an example of you observing it (and I don't mean give us a newspaper reference). Give us YOUR experience of observing undeniable AGW.

Listen Soren, go back to your usual racist paranoid rants in your usual hate filled forums

Not much time for you I am afraid ya DH

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right Give us an example of you observing it (and I don't mean give us a newspaper reference). Give us YOUR experience of observing undeniable AGW. Listen Soren, go back to your usual racist paranoid rants in your usual hate filled forums Not much time for you I am afraid ya DH

So that's a NO to personally observed AGW, then.

Soren wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right Give us an example of you observing it (and I don't mean give us a newspaper reference). Give us YOUR experience of observing undeniable AGW. Listen Soren, go back to your usual racist paranoid rants in your usual hate filled forums Not much time for you I am afraid ya DH So that's a NO to personally observed AGW, then.

Its a big smacking NO for you

rarely waste my time with racists

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

Of all the OECD countries, Australia will be hit the hardest by AGW and its effects.

Since when?
According to whom?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:43pm: Of all the OECD countries, Australia will be hit the hardest by AGW and its effects. Since when? According to whom?

seek and ye shall findeth verily

thy spoon feeding is over

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:10pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:05pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right Give us an example of you observing it (and I don't mean give us a newspaper reference). Give us YOUR experience of observing undeniable AGW. Listen Soren, go back to your usual racist paranoid rants in your usual hate filled forums Not much time for you I am afraid ya DH So that's a NO to personally observed AGW, then. Its a big smacking NO for you rarely waste my time with racists

So AGW is now about me, you stupid ape?

AGW is now only for the initiated, group-thinking inner circle of monkeys??

I realise you are stupid but I didn't know you actually rejoice in being an incoherent idiot. This is new.
Tell us more.i

Soren wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:24pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:10pm: Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:05pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:53pm: ...  the AGW FACT. don't under quote me in public AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT get it right Give us an example of you observing it (and I don't mean give us a newspaper reference). Give us YOUR experience of observing undeniable AGW. Listen Soren, go back to your usual racist paranoid rants in your usual hate filled forums Not much time for you I am afraid ya DH So that's a NO to personally observed AGW, then. Its a big smacking NO for you rarely waste my time with racists So AGW is now about me, you stupid ape? AGW is now only for the initiated, group-thinking inner circle of monkeys?? I realise you are stupid but I didn't know you actually rejoice in being an incoherent idiot. This is new. Tell us more.

my my mr Soren

the racist label hit a raw nerve it seems

You know what they say don't you Soren.

Now observe the FACT that my energy is no longer rendered in your direction

BE GONE, you putrid foul stenched racist freak of Hades

nothing personal  -  I am that you understand

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

AGW is an UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT

What undeniable observations of fact have YOU made?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:15pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:43pm: Of all the OECD countries, Australia will be hit the hardest by AGW and its effects. Since when? According to whom? seek and ye shall findeth verily thy spoon feeding is over

awww, thought you was gonna edumacate all of us dumb 'ums about glowball spinnin' - you've got nothing but your religious fervour - back on your knees chump

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:15pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:43pm: Of all the OECD countries, Australia will be hit the hardest by AGW and its effects. Since when? According to whom? seek and ye shall findeth verily thy spoon feeding is over

Fool! The IPCC doesn't even say Australia will be hard hit in the fifth report, from what I can see from the future projections chapters. I don't ask to be spoon fed, just prove your claim and we can all move on. Or are you dodging the question?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:15pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:43pm: Of all the OECD countries, Australia will be hit the hardest by AGW and its effects. Since when? According to whom? seek and ye shall findeth verily thy spoon feeding is over Fool! The IPCC doesn't even say Australia will be hard hit in the fifth report, from what I can see from the future projections chapters. I don't ask to be spoon fed, just prove your claim and we can all move on. Or are you dodging the question?

you are finished as a hominid

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 7:33am: Irony much? OMG "warmists" are conspiracy theorists too, so the "deniers" obviously are not conspiracy theorists too... Every single argument presented about the "type" of people and the kind of actions that warmists take can be applied tenfold to the denier camp. Who would have thunk it. Ironic that neither side recognises this simple feature of the paltry argument. Yet we still have a pollution issue largely ignored. Now, one has to wonder (and only one it would seem) who stands to gain the most from this ongoing debate (regardless of the now irrelevant outcome)... That would be the area of genuine concern. Whoever gains or profits from this ongoing debate is the real evil in this sorry saga. Continue on with your graphs, misinformation, predictions, counter arguments and half truths the lot of you. In the end polluters are the winners from all of your dithering. Phemanderac like I keep telling you carbon pricing will not stop corporation from dumping chemicals in our creeks, rivers, estuaries, oceans and land. You keep saying to clean up pollution, you wrap pollution in with carbon pricing. Carbon pricing will only attempt to clean up manmade CO2 and nothing else. If you are so concerned about pollution why aren't you talking about it. For example the Spanish company that wants to dump its nuclear waste in central Australia, this deal is on the verge of being signed off and yet we haven't heard anything about it.......??????

Um, you don't "tell" me all that much at all mate. Further, you don't have the right to "tell" me jack, who are you?

Also, as to starting another thread. I did start a thread, admittedly not called, let's talk about pollution (that was my bad, I gave posters credit for brains, silly really), which YOU immediately lept all over with your Carbon Tax, Denier hysteria.

When that failed you moved onto photos of women... How to avoid the real debate ol son.

By all means, when you have run your one trick pony into the ground come back for a grown up talk.

Don't "TELL" me anything, you are not qualified!
Take some time and fully dissect your own information with the high level of scrutiny you seem to think occurs about the "science".
Demonstrate the errors, flaws and poorly researched information from your team, then you might (I say might advisedly) come armed with an ounce of credibility.

I have read plenty where the "scientific" community acknowledge flaws and errors. Not so from the denier community, it just doesn't happen.

Credible research always demonstrates the clear issues that it will address, assumptions made prior to research and limitations impacting on research results. Never seen anything like that from camp sceptic, even from the "scientists" who put their name to this stuff. Perhaps, when credibility is put squarely on the table for all to see, then maybe some genuine debate might occur.

Until then it would seem that we non scientific peeps have the internet to derail difficult arguments on, make posts in really big font (because everyone knows that makes it realer), post and re post the same tawdry lines regardless of whether it is credited or discredited and basically spin round in ever diminishing circles at least until a new thread is made and it all starts over again....

Now I know it will be almost beyond tempting to not try to claim the above paragraph as the operating style of the "hysterical warmists....(always good to have a double banger label when logic and reason falls over isn't it?)" but, I make the statement very pointedly at the sceptic (aka denier) camp.

OH, and I did not wrap anything up in carbon pricing.

In fact, if you were the great reader you claim to be, then you would have already noted that on more than one occasion I have clearly asserted that I am not convinced that a price on carbon is any kind of solution. I could not have been more clear.

So, either, you do not read thoroughly that which is posted for you. Or, you do not fully comprehend that which you read, or you got caught up in your own inner monologue and went on a rant, or, finally you blatantly lie about that which I have said, in order to somehow further your argument.

I am extremely clear about my views. You don't have to like them, but, please ensure you are clear about them before you misrepresent them. That my friend only serves to discredit any reasonable information you may post up some time.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:57am:

Um, you don't "tell" me all that much at all mate. Further, you don't have the right to "tell" me jack, who are you? Also, as to starting another thread. I did start a thread, admittedly not called, let's talk about pollution (that was my bad, I gave posters credit for brains, silly really), which YOU immediately lept all over with your Carbon Tax, Denier hysteria. When that failed you moved onto photos of women... How to avoid the real debate ol son. By all means, when you have run your one trick pony into the ground come back for a grown up talk. Don't "TELL" me anything, you are not qualified! Take some time and fully dissect your own information with the high level of scrutiny you seem to think occurs about the "science". Demonstrate the errors, flaws and poorly researched information from your team, then you might (I say might advisedly) come armed with an ounce of credibility. I have read plenty where the "scientific" community acknowledge flaws and errors. Not so from the denier community, it just doesn't happen. Credible research always demonstrates the clear issues that it will address, assumptions made prior to research and limitations impacting on research results. Never seen anything like that from camp sceptic, even from the "scientists" who put their name to this stuff. Perhaps, when credibility is put squarely on the table for all to see, then maybe some genuine debate might occur. Until then it would seem that we non scientific peeps have the internet to derail difficult arguments on, make posts in really big font (because everyone knows that makes it realer), post and re post the same tawdry lines regardless of whether it is credited or discredited and basically spin round in ever diminishing circles at least until a new thread is made and it all starts over again.... Now I know it will be almost beyond tempting to not try to claim the above paragraph as the operating style of the "hysterical warmists....(always good to have a double banger label when logic and reason falls over isn't it?)" but, I make the statement very pointedly at the sceptic (aka denier) camp.

Fair enough, it just puzzled me that you used pollution so freely when discussing CO2 & the carbon tax.

But hey everyone is entitled to the opinion.

Believe me when I say I too want corporations to clean up there acts when it comes to chemical dumps in our water ways and land.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:58am:

OH, and I did not wrap anything up in carbon pricing. In fact, if you were the great reader you claim to be, then you would have already noted that on more than one occasion I have clearly asserted that I am not convinced that a price on carbon is any kind of solution. I could not have been more clear. So, either, you do not read thoroughly that which is posted for you. Or, you do not fully comprehend that which you read, or you got caught up in your own inner monologue and went on a rant, or, finally you blatantly lie about that which I have said, in order to somehow further your argument. I am extremely clear about my views. You don't have to like them, but, please ensure you are clear about them before you misrepresent them. That my friend only serves to discredit any reasonable information you may post up some time.

I understand exactly what you have been writing, all I wanted was for you to distinguish between carbon pricing and corporations polluting our water ways and land.

I wasn't trying to change your views as so much as getting a better definition between pollution in general and carbon pricing in your statements.

.

Gee U started early this morning Ajax. Another day another dollar?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

Gee U started early this morning Ajax. Another day another dollar?

Yeah mate gotta get those oil dollars in hey...?? :D ;D >:( 8-) :P

.

Hey Ajax, what do you do for a living, when your not on here I mean. I saw you post somewhere that your in your late 40s and might have a family, is that correct.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

Hey Ajax, what do you do for a living, when your not on here I mean. I saw you post somewhere that your in your late 40s and might have a family, is that correct.

I don't ask your privates.....??????

generally, fossil fuel combustion can be represented as

C* + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O + ENERGY (+*)

Now lets look at some basic scientific FACTS that almost every person accepts.

1. CO2 is a by product of fossil fuel combustion

2. Isotopic analysis has verified that the bulk of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past century or so is due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion (as well as de-forestation etc)

3. CO2 is a greenhouse or thermal retentive component in the earths atmosphere.

For AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) to be a false assertion or observation, one or more of the above FACTS needs to be refuted or rendered incorrect.

You can argue as to how much the earth will warm, OR what effects this warming will have on geological and biological systems on the earth which includes the climate in general, BUT to deny the AGW fact is more than a delusional stance to take - its utterly indefensible.

So if anyone in here can show how one or more of the FACTS listed above are false or non factual statements, I am all ears.

If you cant then, return to your crack pot denialist religious temples and pray to your spin priests.

You don't have to refute those, there are two that you seem to be missing Chimp:

First the observable data doesn't match the theory, meaning that skepticism is the null-hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the AGW supporters to prove the theory.

Second their lack of knowledge in some aspects of the climate(climate sensitivity and the inter relations of climate drivers NOT being independent) has caused them overshoot their predictions.

With new data and new knowledge of certain driver interactions + climate sensitivity, the theory should be changing to match the change in both data and knowledge. Except the IPCC is dogmatic and seeks to change the data and warp the knowledge with disgusting data manipulation and political speech to suit their agenda. They are doing precisely the opposite of what they should be doing.

This is why REAL scientists that study parts of the climate are making sure that where their name is used, it will be for no opinion. This is why so many angry authors are complaining about the 97% survey because it misrepresents their opinion and they don't like to be lumped into a political debate, they have jobs and they just want to do them. They know it's an evolving process and they always state that you can't be conclusive with the climate, the knowledge is far from sufficient to do so.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

You don't have to refute those, there are two that you seem to be missing Chimp: First the observable data doesn't match the theory, meaning that skepticism is the null-hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the AGW supporters to prove the theory. Second their lack of knowledge in some aspects of the climate(climate sensitivity and the inter relations of climate drivers NOT being independent) has caused them overshoot their predictions. With new data and new knowledge of certain driver interactions + climate sensitivity, the theory should be changing to match the change in both data and knowledge. Except the IPCC is dogmatic and seeks to change the data and warp the knowledge with disgusting data manipulation and political speech to suit their agenda. They are doing precisely the opposite of what they should be doing. This is why REAL scientists that study parts of the climate are making sure that where their name is used, it will be for no opinion. This is why so many angry authors are complaining about the 97% survey because it misrepresents their opinion and they don't like to be lumped into a political debate, they have jobs and they just want to do them. They know it's an evolving process and they always state that you can't be conclusive with the climate, the knowledge is far from sufficient to do so.

does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

Hey Ajax, what do you do for a living, when your not on here I mean. I saw you post somewhere that your in your late 40s and might have a family, is that correct.

http://www.youryoure.com/

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not?

Only in a vacuum.
It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether.

---

I find it incredibly interesting that even SkepticalScience hasn't even attempted to "debunk" Burt Rutan's data analysis of the IPCC and Al-Gore's data manipulation.

The only article SkepticalScience has of him is attacking him for having his name as signatory to a specific "opinion-editorial". I wonder why that is? Because we can all see he's right in showing how the hockey stick is fake along with many other bogus claims by the IPCC and "Skeptical Science".

Some interesting points:
- "90% of US sensors do not meet site quality standards." (next to waste treatment plants and air con hot air vents)
- Hockey stick tree ring cherry picking
- Arbitrary trend lines misleading in the grand scope
- Observed negative feed back VS predicted positive feed back
- Missing atmosphere heat spot
- Ocean cooling before the removal of certain ARGO float data that was "too cool" xD
- Extra natural c02 lagging temperature
- "Darwin Australia Data manipulation/adjustments"
- Southern Hemisphere stable, Northern Hemisphere slight increase
- Even the fake hockey stick VS observed historical data doesn't even look scary, even being how false it is
- Reduced frequency of extreme weather
- Reduced deaths from floods and extreme weather etc
- Human adaptation to desert/snow
- Reviewer comments rejected by the IPCC

Add in some climategate emails and AGW supporters have their hands-full sifting through the manipulated BS fed to them by the IPCC and Mr Gore. Almost every single graph shown to support global warming is a piece of cherry picked, manipulated crap when compared to total data sets and observable history. Don't forget all the climate model failures! :D

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

This is an interesting prediction by Dr Syun Akasofu, a lot more sensible wouldn't you say?

---

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether.

yeah we've seen the simple lab test, couple of bottles and lamps, plugs and away the co2 goes....this was #'s major proof of glowball doom. tried to warn him it was daft but he was convinced we all lived in a sealed bottle  ;D ;D ;D

Your hard at it I see Vuk. So what time did you Bundy on?

Your hard at it I see Vuk. So what time did you Bundy on?

Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:57am: Um, you don't "tell" me all that much at all mate. Further, you don't have the right to "tell" me jack, who are you? Also, as to starting another thread. I did start a thread, admittedly not called, let's talk about pollution (that was my bad, I gave posters credit for brains, silly really), which YOU immediately lept all over with your Carbon Tax, Denier hysteria. When that failed you moved onto photos of women... How to avoid the real debate ol son. By all means, when you have run your one trick pony into the ground come back for a grown up talk. Don't "TELL" me anything, you are not qualified! Take some time and fully dissect your own information with the high level of scrutiny you seem to think occurs about the "science". Demonstrate the errors, flaws and poorly researched information from your team, then you might (I say might advisedly) come armed with an ounce of credibility. I have read plenty where the "scientific" community acknowledge flaws and errors. Not so from the denier community, it just doesn't happen. Credible research always demonstrates the clear issues that it will address, assumptions made prior to research and limitations impacting on research results. Never seen anything like that from camp sceptic, even from the "scientists" who put their name to this stuff. Perhaps, when credibility is put squarely on the table for all to see, then maybe some genuine debate might occur. Until then it would seem that we non scientific peeps have the internet to derail difficult arguments on, make posts in really big font (because everyone knows that makes it realer), post and re post the same tawdry lines regardless of whether it is credited or discredited and basically spin round in ever diminishing circles at least until a new thread is made and it all starts over again.... Now I know it will be almost beyond tempting to not try to claim the above paragraph as the operating style of the "hysterical warmists....(always good to have a double banger label when logic and reason falls over isn't it?)" but, I make the statement very pointedly at the sceptic (aka denier) camp. Fair enough, it just puzzled me that you used pollution so freely when discussing CO2 & the carbon tax. But hey everyone is entitled to the opinion. Believe me when I say I too want corporations to clean up there acts when it comes to chemical dumps in our water ways and land.

Fair enough. Of course, in certain circumstances, CO2 could easily be a pollutant. Now, to clarify, CO2 firstly, would be harmful to oxygen breathers like us. Of course, it is a necessary one, kind of like Ozone, which at low altitude is a pollutant, however, at high altitude acts as (whilst it lasts at least) a pretty effective filtering system (in a sense at least). In short, could be pretty harmful in the wrong situation, but essential in the right one, like CO2.

Just to be really clear.

As to Carbon Tax - like I said, I am not convinced that it is or will be an effective solution. I do think that when it comes time to actually put some effort in to stopping pollution (should we actually get that clever as a species), then money will definitely be an issue. Whether that is a tax or not though I do not know. To my mind though, I think either way we (humans) are going to pay, my preference would be to pay with money...

I have to say that it is somewhat of a relief that the lead petrol debate has been and gone long before the internet. Not that the lead in the atmosphere has all gone yet.

Same too with carcinogenic effects of tobacco products. Would hate to have seen that stuff debated on line.

Just some food for thought there from someone adamantly not convinced that a Carbon Tax will fix the problem, however, beyond reasonable doubt there is a problem.

As to "soda bottle" experiments, those who see absolutely no merit at all in that experiment (to clarify for those who need it, I am not saying the experiment was perfect, however, it had merit), I would suggest some pretty intensive reading up on what a closed system is. It may be a shock to some that we actually live in a closed system.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether.

aren't you embarrassed at the content and accuracy of your public pseudo scientific ramblings?

AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether. aren't you embarrassed at the content and accuracy of your public pseudo scientific ramblings? AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer

Sorry but the answer to your question is conditional, if it wasn't there wouldn't be debate.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 9:37pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether. aren't you embarrassed at the content and accuracy of your public pseudo scientific ramblings? AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer Sorry but the answer to your question is conditional, if it wasn't there wouldn't be debate.

debate?

I didn't realise that there was a debate with regards to whether rising atmospheric CO2 concentration causes the earth to warm/

after all, this is the basis of AGW, what it entails.

even the fossil fuel corporations accept the scientific fact commonly referred to as AGW. Their CEOs collectively called for an urgent international response to mitigate climate change that is driven by AGW.

it must be very lonely in your church congregation.

The debate is whether it will have an effect now/in future with regards to climate sensitivity, other drivers and carbon sinks. The "17 year temperature stall" that has been blamed on ocean carbon sinks is proof that it isn't as simple as a high-school lab test.

Surely you can see the complexity just by the observed data contradicting the theories basics, meaning it isn't a simple situation. Like I said it would warm in a controlled environment, however the Earth is hardly a controlled lab.

.

.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether.

What Vuk,  did you just pull this out of your ars#. Like I say your either a stupid kid or dishonest to the core. Let's all just forget what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and accept what this grub with his confused high school science is telling us.  FFS Chimp, you want a debate on global warming, go debate some real scientists, not these sock puppets who don't know shi# and couldn't care less anyways because they're pushing an agenda.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 9:37pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether. aren't you embarrassed at the content and accuracy of your public pseudo scientific ramblings? AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer Sorry but the answer to your question is conditional, if it wasn't there wouldn't be debate.

Define a vacuum.

How does CO2 exhibit thermal retention properties ONLY in a vacuum?

by definition the presence of gaseous CO2 implies a pressure, or partial pressure.

So explain to everyone in here, how CO2 can behave as a greenhouse gas in vacuum ONLY.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 5:07pm: does an increase in CO2 in the earths atmosphere warm the earth or not? Only in a vacuum. It's not a yes or no answer nor is it a black and white question. It would increase temperature in a perfectly controlled environment, without carbon sinks, without fluctuating solar activity, without precipitation fluctuations, without Methane cooling, without observed negative feed backs, without the climate adapting with the use of multiple drivers. The simple fact is, yes in a little test lab you can get c02 to do a perfectly controlled greenhouse effect, the rest of the earth is an entirely different beast altogether. What did you just pull this out of your ars#. Like I say your either a stupid kid or dishonest to the core. Let's all just forget what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and accept what this grub with his confused high school science is telling us.  FFS Chimp, you want a debate on global warming, go debate some real scientists, not these sock puppets who don't know shi# and couldn't care less anyways because they're pushing an agenda.

I thought vuk was merely a denialist deceiver, but now it has become very apparent that he is seriously ill

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 6:34am:

What Vuk,  did you just pull this out of your ars#. Like I say your either a stupid kid or dishonest to the core. Let's all just forget what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and accept what this grub with his confused high school science is telling us.  FFS Chimp, you want a debate on global warming, go debate some real scientists, not these sock puppets who don't know shi# and couldn't care less anyways because they're pushing an agenda.

Prove the vast majority BS or stop saying it. The 97% studies have already been destroyed.
Ease up on the conspiracy stuff, you seem to be losing your mind mate. :)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:50am:

Define a vacuum. How does CO2 exhibit thermal retention properties ONLY in a vacuum? by definition the presence of gaseous CO2 implies a pressure, or partial pressure. So explain to everyone in here, how CO2 can behave as a greenhouse gas in vacuum ONLY.

I really didn't think you would misunderstand me but lo and behold you've gone literal. Alright I'll apologize for saying a "vacuum" I was merely making a point but seems to have been misunderstood. What I meant by vacuum was without the presence of all of those factors that I listed above (negative feedbacks, carbon sinks, climate sensitivity, other non-independent climate drivers etc etc)

C02 causes warming in a controlled environment which is far from what we have.

I might ask you two to re frame from the ad hominem bs, it makes you look desperate and petty.

Sorry bout the double posts. Might be my tablet that's the problem.

.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 6:34am: What Vuk,  did you just pull this out of your ars#. Like I say your either a stupid kid or dishonest to the core. Let's all just forget what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and accept what this grub with his confused high school science is telling us.  FFS Chimp, you want a debate on global warming, go debate some real scientists, not these sock puppets who don't know shi# and couldn't care less anyways because they're pushing an agenda. Prove the vast majority BS or stop saying it. The 97% studies have already been destroyed. Ease up on the conspiracy stuff, you seem to be losing your mind mate. :)

The vast majority is proved. Its your baseless denials in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence that is not proved.  The 97% stand unscathed by the denialist BS to discredit them.  Again, its your baseless and persistant assertions that are not proved. You last answer re co2 demonstrates how you just pull it out of your ar$e and don't care what you say as long as there is one or 2 suckers out there who might fall for your BS.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 8:50am: Define a vacuum. How does CO2 exhibit thermal retention properties ONLY in a vacuum? by definition the presence of gaseous CO2 implies a pressure, or partial pressure. So explain to everyone in here, how CO2 can behave as a greenhouse gas in vacuum ONLY. I really didn't think you would misunderstand me but lo and behold you've gone literal.

You were asked if rising atmospheric CO2 concentration causes the planet to retain extra heat and therefor warm, and your answer was

ONLY IN A VACUUM

are you retracting this answer?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

The vast majority is proved. Its your baseless denials in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence that is not proved.  The 97% stand unscathed by the denialist BS to discredit them.  Again, its your baseless and persistant assertions that are not proved. You last answer re co2 demonstrates how you just pull it out of your ar$e and don't care what you say as long as there is one or 2 suckers out there who might fall for your BS.

I urge you to pay attention to what I write in this post and use your own brain to work it out.

I have posted a graph below of the TRUE results as taken from their website. Not only was it not a survey of authors it was a survey of papers of the 12000+ many authors had 7 or so papers rated (not 7 different scientists but the single scientist 7 papers). No just this but many have written back angry that their papers were miss-classified. (the below link please read it, this is the quotes from the scientists themselves that are p*ss*ed off)


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

One of the lead authors of the IPCC has dismissed the 97% survey and was attacked by Cook as a denier, this is posted above as the twitter post by the author.

When doing the survey they explicitly said they would count no opinion papers as "no votes", however they have manipulated the data. They took a small proportion of ones that gave an opinion and expanded that to include the entire f*ck*ng scientific community! It's like me going to Woodridge (welfare capital of Queensland) and doing a survey on "should centrelink payments be raised" then when I get the results 97% in woodridge say Yes so I expand that to include all of Australia!

Only 8% of the 12000+ papers Explicitly endorsed AGW. I'm not lying I took the numbers from their website these are their numbers. Not only this but so many "explicit" endorsements aren't even supporting AGW!

The following was classified by AGW supporter reviewers as "Explicitly endorsing AGW without quantifying" Or Category 2:

"The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering."
Source: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985

The real results for the survey:
Category      Abstracts
1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%      
2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise      
3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it      
4. No Position      8269
5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW      
6. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify      
7. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%      

Results:
1. 65
2. 934
3. 2934
4. 8269
5. 53
6. 15
7. 10

Of the above results look on the web and the links posted at how many were misrepresented. How many more have been that haven't written back? How can you seriously defend this paper in light of all this manipulation and lies!? I am not a shill, I am outraged at the amount of BS being peddled by these people.

I'm guessing you guys are going to stick your finger in your ears and spit some conspiracy theory lies out among something like "good try priest" or some other ad hominem.


Also what about my c02 comment was pulled out of my arse? Are you saying that c02 creates warming in conjunction with all the factors I've listed that reduce it ?

---

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:21pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 8:50am: Define a vacuum. How does CO2 exhibit thermal retention properties ONLY in a vacuum? by definition the presence of gaseous CO2 implies a pressure, or partial pressure. So explain to everyone in here, how CO2 can behave as a greenhouse gas in vacuum ONLY. I really didn't think you would misunderstand me but lo and behold you've gone literal. You were asked if rising atmospheric CO2 concentration causes the planet to retain extra heat and therefor warm, and your answer was ONLY IN A VACUUM are you retracting this answer?

Yes Chimp you psycho! I would like to replace Vacuum with a word you guys can understand "Controlled environment". I even said in the same post CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. I'm not talking about the vacuum in space it was an analogy (You know what they are right?) to a situation WITHOUT EXTERNAL INFLUENCES. Get it? "Only in a controlled environment" ie VACUUM. Not a vacuum in space. Okay I'll say it one more time In a controlled environment devoid in external factors that are present on our planet!

I know you will misquote the above post so I will repeat it.

Vacuum was analogy for a situation without external factors.
C02 increases cause increased temperature in a controlled environment without other factors. I have listed this factors in my prior posts and won't do so again.


Vacuum = Without external factors.
c02 increase = temperature increase, without external factors.
Our earth has factors outside of just green house gasses.

Got it yet?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:19pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 6:34am: What Vuk,  did you just pull this out of your ars#. Like I say your either a stupid kid or dishonest to the core. Let's all just forget what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and accept what this grub with his confused high school science is telling us.  FFS Chimp, you want a debate on global warming, go debate some real scientists, not these sock puppets who don't know shi# and couldn't care less anyways because they're pushing an agenda. Prove the vast majority BS or stop saying it. The 97% studies have already been destroyed. Ease up on the conspiracy stuff, you seem to be losing your mind mate. :) The vast majority is proved ... The 97% stand unscathed by the denialist BS to discredit them.

Total garbage.

"The Doran paper  has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with."

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

An absolute joke.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 6:34am: What Vuk,  did you just pull this out of your ars#. Like I say your either a stupid kid or dishonest to the core. Let's all just forget what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and accept what this grub with his confused high school science is telling us.  FFS Chimp, you want a debate on global warming, go debate some real scientists, not these sock puppets who don't know shi# and couldn't care less anyways because they're pushing an agenda. Prove the vast majority BS or stop saying it. The 97% studies have already been destroyed. Ease up on the conspiracy stuff, you seem to be losing your mind mate. :)

the number of lies and distortions you have posted on this topic may well be a record

you should be ashamed of your self deluded deceptions and embarrassing level of public incompetence

be gone, freak clown maggot of spin YOUR TIME IS UP

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

the number of lies and distortions you have posted on this topic may well be a record you should be ashamed of your self deluded deceptions and embarrassing level of public incompetence be gone, freak clown maggot of spin YOUR TIME IS UP

Dude I haven't lied at all. I posted for you the true results of the Cook et al survey. I explained to you how they manipulated the data, it's all there it's all factual there is no if buts opinions about it. 8% explicitly endorsed AGW, of those 8% many were miss classified, the IPCC lead author DID blast the survey and he WAS labeled a denier by the Survey's leader. Those quotes in my above links were from the authors of papers used in the survey complaining about the survey.

You are the biggest troll on this forum if you refuse to read and refuse to acknowledge fact, not just that, but the opinions of scientists are clear, they don't support the survey the only people that do are the folks and followers over a skepticalscience.com.

I had a feeling you would just ignore and call us liars. You must be in denial ignoring all those facts and all those quotes and all those links.

Have you had a chance to read Burt Rutan's data analysis? He destroys the IPCC and almost every single graph they and SkepticalScience use for their arguments. Bogus temperature readings, bogus hockey stick, the data is ridiculously against the AGW theory. This isn't attack against you, it's just us shedding light on facts, opinions, logic and data. If you want to ignore them go ahead. Just lay off the ad hominems would ya?  ;)

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 1:47pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:21pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 8:50am: Define a vacuum. How does CO2 exhibit thermal retention properties ONLY in a vacuum? by definition the presence of gaseous CO2 implies a pressure, or partial pressure. So explain to everyone in here, how CO2 can behave as a greenhouse gas in vacuum ONLY. I really didn't think you would misunderstand me but lo and behold you've gone literal. You were asked if rising atmospheric CO2 concentration causes the planet to retain extra heat and therefor warm, and your answer was ONLY IN A VACUUM are you retracting this answer? Yes Chimp you psycho! I would like to replace Vacuum with a word you guys can understand "Controlled environment".

Youre digging a bigger ditch for yourself to ferment in vuk11.

Are you now saying that CO2 does NOT act as a greenhouse gas in the earths atmosphere because the earths atmosphere is an UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT??

You are becoming more and more self contradictory and delusional with every post you stenched up clown, maggot freak

c02 Does act like a green house gas, however there are external factors besides greenhouse gasses that minimize or reverse the effects. An increase in c02 does not always coincide with an increase in temperature. c02 helps increase temperature but raising it does not mean temperature will raise due to these external factors like carbon sinks.

Is that clear enough?
Your original point was c02 causes temperature to increase.
I have said that I am not disputing the greenhouse effect, that's why I said you or someone was before confusing AGW with "green house effect".
My dispute was that it's not black and white and doesn't increase temperature unless in certain controlled conditions that we currently don't have.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

c02 Does act like a green house gas, however there are external factors besides greenhouse gasses that minimize or reverse the effects. An increase in c02 does not always coincide with an increase in temperature. c02 helps increase temperature but raising it does not mean temperature will raise due to these external factors like carbon sinks. Is that clear enough? Your original point was c02 causes temperature to increase. I have said that I am not disputing the greenhouse effect, that's why I said you or someone was before confusing AGW with "green house effect". My dispute was that it's not black and white and doesn't increase temperature unless in certain controlled conditions that we currently don't have.

Now that's a little bit better

I will withdraw my custom made signature

Even when the evidence gets shoved right under your noses you refuse to aknowledge it.

Like I said you people remind me of the orange people.

With Rajendra Kumar Pachauri as your swami......!!!!...LMFAO

So no answers about Burt Rutan's PDF?
I guess you guys are still going to tout "muh 97%!", in the face of the clear manipulation and the contradiction of the actual facts. But that's okay facts and bias mean little to people that come from a position of "world ending" fear.