Sack all Cabinet climate change sceptics, say the Greens

The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Published 14 February of 2014.

Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said the rule must apply to all senior advisers, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues.

David Cameron says he suspects recent storms are linked to climate change.

Speaking recently, the prime minister said that while a single weather pattern could not be attributed to climate change, many scientists were talking of a link between the two and the UK should be prepared for more extreme weather.

But some Tory MPs and peers, Lord Lawson being the most prominent, have cast doubt on scientific theories on climate change which argue human activity is predominately responsible for recent rises in global temperatures.
‘Emergency’

The Greens are now insisting the government gets rid of any cabinet minister who takes a different view on climate change


[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711[/url]

David Cameron...the bloke who sought to comfort the victims of Sri Lanka's violent repressive regime while Tony Abbott handed ships to the regime to stop those victims escaping persecution, torture and death.
Is it any wonder that most conservative leaders of western nations have a totally different view of almost everything to One Term Tony.
Cameron is an educated man who believes in science ...Abbott is the total opposite  :D

You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you?

Herbie—you do realise that fossil fuel industries have sought to make AGW a Right v Left thing instead of a science thing?

Actions like the market–based Carbon Price are not Trojan horses for socialism. (A new Red under the Bed nonsense.)

We cannot combat AGW without bringing the electorate along with us. Greens are a problem here, not the solution.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:28am:

You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you?

In that the business as usual model of greed capitalism is driving AGW damage … yes.

A more democratic socialistic world in around the corner so to starve off mass starvation and climate wars.

A more socialistic world is part of the solution.

More landfill.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:35am:

Herbie—you do realise that fossil fuel industries have sought to make AGW a Right v Left thing instead of a science thing? Actions like the market–based Carbon Price are not Trojan horses for socialism. (A new Red under the Bed nonsense.) We cannot combat AGW without bringing the electorate along with us. Greens are a problem here, not the solution.

I would of thought one of Australia's problems is both old parties have AGW denialists in them.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:36am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28am: You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you? In that the business as usual model of greed capitalism is driving AGW damage … yes. A more democratic socialistic world in around the corner so to starve off mass starvation and climate wars. A more socialistic world is part of the solution.

You see why Greens will never be a Party of government, not even if they held a majority of seats.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:36am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28am: You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you? In that the business as usual model of greed capitalism is driving AGW damage … yes. A more democratic socialistic world in around the corner so to starve off mass starvation and climate wars. A more socialistic world is part of the solution.

You only want a more socialist world so you can continue to bludge and not feel like a lazy free loader.

Socialism fails because it entices the lazy and the stupid to do nothing, hoping what ever they need is taken from someone else.

BTW socilalism has starved more people to death over the last century than any other form of government, so not realy a good idea now is it.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:42am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:36am: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28am: You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you? In that the business as usual model of greed capitalism is driving AGW damage … yes. A more democratic socialistic world in around the corner so to starve off mass starvation and climate wars. A more socialistic world is part of the solution. You see why Greens will never be a Party of government, not even if they held a majority of seats.

Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government.
As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:44am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:36am: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28am: You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you? In that the business as usual model of greed capitalism is driving AGW damage … yes. A more democratic socialistic world in around the corner so to starve off mass starvation and climate wars. A more socialistic world is part of the solution. You only want a more socialist world so you can continue to bludge and not feel like a lazy free loader. Socialism fails because it entices the lazy and the stupid to do nothing, hoping what ever they need is taken from someone else. BTW socilalism has starved more people to death over the last century than any other form of government, so not realy a good idea now is it.

Lets see how many people will die before greed capitalism overtakes …
We are only about 15 years from peak phosphorus & peak phosphate.

We are close to peak soil

We are overpopulated due to capitalism being a pyramid scheme.


And what do greed capitalists want … to speed up the collapse.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:45am:

Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways.

Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers.


Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:51am:

Lets see how many people will die before greed capitalism overtakes … We are only about 15 years from peak phosphorus & peak phosphate. We are close to peak soil We are overpopulated due to capitalism being a pyramid scheme. And what do greed capitalists want … to speed up the collapse.

Well that is enough bullsh1t to fertilise the country for a decade or two.

We got a lying conman who parades around in speedos and a strop hat and who is making Australia into a global laughing stock and the poms got an educated statesman who is respected across the globe.
It just shows that not all conservative pollies are the same  :D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:53am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people.

The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race.

People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens.
We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:56am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:51am: Lets see how many people will die before greed capitalism overtakes … We are only about 15 years from peak phosphorus & peak phosphate. We are close to peak soil We are overpopulated due to capitalism being a pyramid scheme. And what do greed capitalists want … to speed up the collapse. Well that is enough bullsh1t to fertilise the country for a decade or two.

Food production and consumption is in for a major shake up and in our lifetime.
AGW denial is speeding this up and especially the denialists in government.

Sadly the Greens shot themselves in the foot when along with the Libs they voted down the ETS.
There is still no viable alternative when it comes to left of centre progressives but if there was the Greens would sink without a trace.
By voting down the ETS they gave Abbott a platform on which to launch his grab for power so they are pretty much to blame for where we are now with a far right wing nutjob for PM.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:36am:

A more democratic socialistic world is around the corner to stave off mass starvation and climate wars.

A one-size-fits-all New World Order headed up by a committee composed of Elites whose jobs are protected by Secret Global Police of the sort that every good dictatorship finds is an essential part of their equipment for keeping the Great Unwashed as docile and manageable as flocks of sheep destined for the slaughter-house.


____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:36am:

A more socialistic world is part of the solution.

I hope you realise that Britain and Australia practice real socialism WAY more so than is the case in China?

The Unemployed. The disabled. The Aged pensioners. Our prisoners. Etc... All enjoy WAY better conditions than is available to their peers in China or Russia.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:06am:

Sadly the Greens shot themselves in the foot when along with the Libs they voted down the ETS. There is still no viable alternative when it comes to left of centre progressives but if there was the Greens would sink without a trace. By voting down the ETS they gave Abbott a platform on which to launch his grab for power so they are pretty much to blame for where we are now with a far right wing nutjob for PM.

It's not the Greens fault labor tried to con the public with a fixed couple of dollars a tonne price for ever ETS on pollution and wanting to lock it is so it would cost billions of tax money to repair it.

It is not Greens fault labor really doesn't believe in AGW and so half heartily went in to selling a market mechanism. Then didn't fight even when Abbott started the lie that it's a tax when it's a levy.

If anything, the current environment suits the Greens because even if Abbott removes the market mechanism and then erects the dud direct action, when Greens push carbon pricing at future elections, the conservatives will not be able to spoil and labor will not be able to drive the climate support onto the rocks.

Then we will get a real and deep change of the economy towards sustainability.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:15am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:36am: A more democratic socialistic world is around the corner to stave off mass starvation and climate wars. A one-size-fits-all New World Order headed up by a committee composed of Elites whose jobs are protected by Secret Global Police of the sort that every good dictatorship finds is an essential part of their equipment for keeping the Great Unwashed as docile and manageable as flocks of sheep destined for the slaughter-house. ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:36am: A more socialistic world is part of the solution. I hope you realise that Britain and Australia practice real socialism WAY more so than is the case in China? The Unemployed. The disabled. The Aged pensioners. Our prisoners. Etc... All enjoy WAY better conditions than is available their peers living in China or Russia.

I think you are mistaking fascism with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism like that used in Scandinavia.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs.

You know you have been trolling out that old line every election for the past few years and guess what?

The greens alway poll 10% or less, even where there is massive opportunity to gain seats, they are still ignored by pretty much everyone with a brain.


If there is a problem, the last people that will be involved in the solution will the parlimentry laughing stock greens


It's a political party for little girls and those that think like little girls, which it seems is 10% of the adult population.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:47am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs. You know you have been trolling out that old line every election for the past few years and guess what? The greens alway poll 10% or less, even where there is massive opportunity to gain seats, they are still ignored by pretty much everyone with a brain. If there is a problem, the last people that will be involved in the solution will the parlimentry laughing stock greens It's a political party for little girls and those that think like little girls, which it seems is 10% of the adult population.

I can see you rocking back and forward in your little dark room typing that … you have a bigger fear of the Greens than what I had calculated previously.

Remember … what you fear you attract.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

I can see you rocking back and forward in your little dark room typing that … you have a bigger fear of the Greens than what I had calculated previously. Remember … what you fear you attract.

Yes that must be it, for some reason I fear a party of irrelevant hipsters and old commos.


So fearful that I continure to not bother voting at every election just in case I brush past one of you.


You moron.  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers?

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:02am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:59am: I can see you rocking back and forward in your little dark room typing that … you have a bigger fear of the Greens than what I had calculated previously. Remember … what you fear you attract. Yes that must be it, for some reason I fear a party of irrelevant hipsters and old commos. So fearful that I continure to not bother voting at every election just in case I brush past one of you. You moron.  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

You should watch that personal abuse … we would prefer you posting as much as possible so advantage the progressive side … so don't end up in the sin bin.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:08am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:02am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:59am: I can see you rocking back and forward in your little dark room typing that … you have a bigger fear of the Greens than what I had calculated previously. Remember … what you fear you attract. Yes that must be it, for some reason I fear a party of irrelevant hipsters and old commos. So fearful that I continure to not bother voting at every election just in case I brush past one of you. You moron.  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D You should watch that personal abuse … we would prefer you posting as much as possible so advantage the progressive side … so don't end up in the sin bin.

You are personnally the greatest disadvantage to the so called progressives, being of massive limited intellect, this  will ensure the greens remain at the 10% joke they always have been.


If you want to run off and report me like a little b1tch, not a lot I can do about your b1tch like tendencies, now can I?

Im more used to conversing with adult males than little girls with fragile feelings.


Maybe you should go to a pre-teen girl message board and hang with those of your own type.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:08am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:02am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:59am: I can see you rocking back and forward in your little dark room typing that … you have a bigger fear of the Greens than what I had calculated previously. Remember … what you fear you attract. Yes that must be it, for some reason I fear a party of irrelevant hipsters and old commos. So fearful that I continure to not bother voting at every election just in case I brush past one of you. You moron.  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D You should watch that personal abuse … we would prefer you posting as much as possible so advantage the progressive side … so don't end up in the sin bin. You are personnally the greatest disadvantage to the so called progressives, being of massive limited intellect, this  will ensure the greens remain at the 10% joke they always have been. If you want to run off and report me like a little b1tch, not a lot I can do about your b1tch like tendencies, now can I? Im more used to conversing with adult males than little girls with fragile feelings. Maybe you should go to a pre-teen girl message board and hang with those of your own type.

Tut tut...the personal abuse of fellow forum members is frowned upon  :D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:08am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:02am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:59am: I can see you rocking back and forward in your little dark room typing that … you have a bigger fear of the Greens than what I had calculated previously. Remember … what you fear you attract. Yes that must be it, for some reason I fear a party of irrelevant hipsters and old commos. So fearful that I continure to not bother voting at every election just in case I brush past one of you. You moron.  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D You should watch that personal abuse … we would prefer you posting as much as possible so advantage the progressive side … so don't end up in the sin bin. You are personnally the greatest disadvantage to the so called progressives, being of massive limited intellect, this  will ensure the greens remain at the 10% joke they always have been. If you want to run off and report me like a little b1tch, not a lot I can do about your b1tch like tendencies, now can I? Im more used to conversing with adult males than little girls with fragile feelings. Maybe you should go to a pre-teen girl message board and hang with those of your own type.

I'm the adult here so will return to topic





.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers?

Well no, he has nothing to do with it.
Why don't you go in his stead and apologise for the weather. ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:28am:

You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you?

Do you post this kind of crap on internet forums because people look at you funny if you say this in public?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:18am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:07am: While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers? Well no, he has nothing to do with it. Why don't you go in his stead and apologise for the weather. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFkJ6X33S4


Abbott is a denialist on AGW

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:33am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:18am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:07am: While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers? Well no, he has nothing to do with it. Why don't you go in his stead and apologise for the weather. ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFkJ6X33S4 Abbott is a denialist on AGW

So what.
He's still not responsible for the weather.
One of the only certainty a farmer can count on in this country is drought.
And this has always been so.

The parliament should represent the view of the public and most of the public now thinks man made climate change is a bunch of BS, thats how we ended up with Tony "climate change is crap" Abbott and thats why the staunch AGW greens went backwards   ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:37am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:33am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:18am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:07am: While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers? Well no, he has nothing to do with it. Why don't you go in his stead and apologise for the weather. ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFkJ6X33S4 Abbott is a denialist on AGW So what. He's still not responsible for the weather. One of the only certainty a farmer can count on in this country is drought. And this has always been so.

He is responsible for future human caused climate change though. And that means more extremes including deeper and more intense droughts.

He should apologies for driving agricultural in Australia towards extinction. Driving more farmers to take their guns and shoot a bullet through their heads.

Abbott is an enemy amongst the ranks.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

The parliament should represent the view of the public and most of the public now thinks man made climate change is a bunch of BS, thats how we ended up with Tony "climate change is crap" Abbott and thats why the staunch AGW greens went backwards   ;D

Got any polling on that … the election was not a referendum on the science of climate change … and we all know abbott is terrorfied of going to a DD election over climate catastrophy with all these wildfires and extreme weather occurances happening.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:37am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:33am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:18am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:07am: While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers? Well no, he has nothing to do with it. Why don't you go in his stead and apologise for the weather. ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFkJ6X33S4 Abbott is a denialist on AGW So what. He's still not responsible for the weather. One of the only certainty a farmer can count on in this country is drought. And this has always been so. He is responsible for future human caused climate change though. And that means more extremes including deeper and more intense droughts. He should apologies for driving agricultural in Australia towards extinction. Driving more farmers to take their guns and shoot a bullet through their heads. Abbott is an enemy amongst the ranks.

Well he's not going to apologise for the weather, and neither will any one else for that matter eh.
And he is especially not going to apologise after only being in office five months.

Not after an sorry over weather … it's a sorry over opposing action on reducing human caused climate change over the years.


denialists are the enemy amongst us.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs.

Greens win you make a great advertisement for the Greens, long may you advocate for them. 

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 11:49am: The parliament should represent the view of the public and most of the public now thinks man made climate change is a bunch of BS, thats how we ended up with Tony "climate change is crap" Abbott and thats why the staunch AGW greens went backwards   ;D Got any polling on that

LOL, you're such a parody  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

The parliament should represent the view of the public

No, the Parliament should represent the INTERESTS of the public. The two are not the same.


Quote:

and most of the public now thinks man made climate change is a bunch of BS,

Bogus statistics. In other words, you're making up rubbish.


Quote:

thats how we ended up with Tony "climate change is crap" Abbott

No, Abbott did not win his only term as PM due to his Palaeolithic stance on AGW, he won because the public voted out the previous government. His climate change policies - or lack of them - were not at the top of most people's lists of reasons for choosing a vote - and unlike you I have seen the polling to support this.


Quote:

and thats why the staunch AGW greens went backwards   ;D

No, that's got nothing to do with it.

Your whole post is unsupported conjecture.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs.

The Greens will continue to exist only as long as there is a gap between the policies of the major parties and policies that put the protection of the environment first.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:56am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:51am: Lets see how many people will die before greed capitalism overtakes … We are only about 15 years from peak phosphorus & peak phosphate. We are close to peak soil We are overpopulated due to capitalism being a pyramid scheme. And what do greed capitalists want … to speed up the collapse. Well that is enough bullsh1t to fertilise the country for a decade or two. Food production and consumption is in for a major shake up and in our lifetime. AGW denial is speeding this up and especially the denialists in government.

What is needed is a pragmatic approach. One need not be entirely convinced of the evidence to support AGW to understand that there is a risk that needs to be managed. It's like buying insurance. We spend too much time arguing about whether AGW is real and not enough time evaluating the risks.

I recommend that people watch this video. It explains the four possible outcomes with AGW and risk management.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Bam wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs. The Greens will continue to exist only as long as there is a gap between the policies of the major parties and policies that put the protection of the environment first.

yet the Greens ever since Brown have been known as the Watermelon Party because the true conservationsist left or were booted out of the party and the socialists came flooding in and their policies have reflected this change ever since.

Yet the Greens are conservatives!

Hitler got rid of all the people who didn't share his views either...

Poor old fascist left, they are unable to convince people by fair means so they try foul means, they are just trying to convert everyone to idiocy.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:44am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:36am: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28am: You do realise of course that 'Climate Change' is a Stalking Horse for socialism, don't you? In that the business as usual model of greed capitalism is driving AGW damage … yes. A more democratic socialistic world in around the corner so to starve off mass starvation and climate wars. A more socialistic world is part of the solution. You only want a more socialist world so you can continue to bludge and not feel like a lazy free loader. Socialism fails because it entices the lazy and the stupid to do nothing, hoping what ever they need is taken from someone else. BTW socilalism has starved more people to death over the last century than any other form of government, so not realy a good idea now is it.

So says the guy who screams for more socialism for the AGW "please give me another hand out" farmers.    Whose the lazy freeloading bludgers????

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:14am:

Sack all Cabinet climate change sceptics, say the Greens The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Published 14 February of 2014. The Greens are now insisting the government gets rid of any cabinet minister who takes a different view on climate change

The greens are fascists who demonise anyone who disagrees with their myopic world views.

Do the greens tolerate people who do not agree with green lunacy?

adelcrow wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers?

Probably not. Because the farmers would laugh at him if he tried to blame AGW for what ( the farmers well know) are natural, common occurrences.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 1:48am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:07am: While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers? Probably not. Because the farmers would laugh at him if he tried to blame AGW for what ( the farmers well know) are natural, common occurrences.

Thats not nice gimo, implying farmers are uneducated hicks who listen to shock radio all day and so deny basic science.

Good that the greens give an outright example of their little dictator traits.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 6:40am:

Good that the greens give an outright example of their little dictator traits.

That's a bit rich, coming from someone who supports Rightist filth such as Abbott and Newman.

Got a bit of a hide calling others 'dictators'.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

Poor old fascist left, they are unable to convince people by fair means so they try foul means, they are just trying to convert everyone to idiocy.

In your case, no conversion is necessary.

You are already there.

____ wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 5:23am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 1:48am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:07am: While Abbott is touring the drought stricken parts of Australia this weekend will he be apologising to them about lying about the effects of atmospheric pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change on our farmers? Probably not. Because the farmers would laugh at him if he tried to blame AGW for what ( the farmers well know) are natural, common occurrences. Thats not nice gimo, implying farmers are uneducated hicks who listen to shock radio all day and so deny basic science.

Quite the opposite Greens. I'm stating (not implying) that farmers are NOT over educated, gullible fools who choose to believe politicised science, instead of the evidence of their own senses and experience (both personal and that of their parents/grandparents).

Grendel wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 1:35pm: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs. The Greens will continue to exist only as long as there is a gap between the policies of the major parties and policies that put the protection of the environment first. yet the Greens ever since Brown have been known as the Watermelon Party because the true conservationsist left or were booted out of the party and the socialists came flooding in and their policies have reflected this change ever since.

Do you have evidence to support this?

True Blue... wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

Hitler got rid of all the people who didn't share his views either...

So did Howard.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

Poor old fascist left, they are unable to convince people by fair means so they try foul means, they are just trying to convert everyone to idiocy.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 10:38pm:

The greens are fascists who demonise anyone who disagrees with their myopic world views. Do the greens tolerate people who do not agree with green lunacy?

You are both labelling the Greens "fascists" without any proof. Fascism is a RIGHT-WING ideology. The Greens are a party of the LEFT. It is an inaccurate comparison to the extent of being deliberately deceitful.

If you had called the Greens socialists that might have got off the ground, but fascist?  ;D

“Politicised science”—the weird words of deniers.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:41am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:35am: Herbie—you do realise that fossil fuel industries have sought to make AGW a Right v Left thing instead of a science thing? Actions like the market–based Carbon Price are not Trojan horses for socialism. (A new Red under the Bed nonsense.) We cannot combat AGW without bringing the electorate along with us. Greens are a problem here, not the solution. I would of thought one of Australia's problems is both old parties have AGW denialists in them.

Australia's inconvenience is having Green twats like you come into the country and bludge off it, then offer your ridiculous tree-hugging shyte about what it should or shouldn't do without invitation.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 8:50am:

“Politicised science”—the weird words of deniers.

But don't you 'believe' that skepticism ( it's not denial, no matter how much you try to spin it) is politically motivated???

The alarmist side is very much motivated by politics, not science.

Science doesn't call for purges when confronted by differences of opinion.

viewpoint wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:00am:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:41am: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:35am: Herbie—you do realise that fossil fuel industries have sought to make AGW a Right v Left thing instead of a science thing? Actions like the market–based Carbon Price are not Trojan horses for socialism. (A new Red under the Bed nonsense.) We cannot combat AGW without bringing the electorate along with us. Greens are a problem here, not the solution. I would of thought one of Australia's problems is both old parties have AGW denialists in them. Australia's inconvenience is having Green twats like you come into the country and bludge off it, then offer your ridiculous tree-hugging shyte about what it should or shouldn't do without invitation.

Listen, chum, I maybe green but would never be a Green. I have lived here since 1957. I have worked since I was 18 and started and ran two businesses that employed people—I have put bread on peoples’ tables! You?

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

viewpoint wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:00am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:41am: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:35am: Herbie—you do realise that fossil fuel industries have sought to make AGW a Right v Left thing instead of a science thing? Actions like the market–based Carbon Price are not Trojan horses for socialism. (A new Red under the Bed nonsense.) We cannot combat AGW without bringing the electorate along with us. Greens are a problem here, not the solution. I would of thought one of Australia's problems is both old parties have AGW denialists in them. Australia's inconvenience is having Green twats like you come into the country and bludge off it, then offer your ridiculous tree-hugging shyte about what it should or shouldn't do without invitation. Listen, chum, I maybe green but would never be a Green. I have lived here since 1957. I have worked since I was 18 and started and ran two businesses that employed people—I have put bread on peoples’ tables! You?

I was referring to Greenswine the originator of this stupid thread, but if you want to jump in, I can only think you have a guilty conscience.  Go back to sleep "chum".

No guilty conscience here at all, chum, but you did quote one of my posts in your garbage.

Kat wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 6:50am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 6:40am: Good that the greens give an outright example of their little dictator traits. That's a bit rich, coming from someone who supports Rightist filth such as Abbott and Newman. Got a bit of a hide calling others 'dictators'.

Yeh I guess. The coalition want to shut corruption up, greens want to shut ordinary australians up

The LNP want to hide corruption by companies so have show trials called Royal Commissions into unions. Sometimes these RCs turn around and bite the originator on the bum.

Bam wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28pm: Poor old fascist left, they are unable to convince people by fair means so they try foul means, they are just trying to convert everyone to idiocy. Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 10:38pm: The greens are fascists who demonise anyone who disagrees with their myopic world views. Do the greens tolerate people who do not agree with green lunacy? You are both labelling the Greens "fascists" without any proof. Fascism is a RIGHT-WING ideology. The Greens are a party of the LEFT. It is an inaccurate comparison to the extent of being deliberately deceitful. If you had called the Greens socialists that might have got off the ground, but fascist?  ;D

They have no idea of what socialism (small 's') is, and in their ignorance equate it with Communism.

Not the same thing. At all.

Never was, never will be.

Socialism morphs into communism eventually, its well known that once you head down that slippery slope thats where you end up, I mean picture a country being run by a bunch of people like Kat, you know its going to end in total disaster, be like the old East Germany where they have to plant land mines and have machine gun posts everywhere to stop the sane from escaping.    :D

Kat wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 8:22am: Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:28pm: Poor old fascist left, they are unable to convince people by fair means so they try foul means, they are just trying to convert everyone to idiocy. Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 10:38pm: The greens are fascists who demonise anyone who disagrees with their myopic world views. Do the greens tolerate people who do not agree with green lunacy? You are both labelling the Greens "fascists" without any proof. Fascism is a RIGHT-WING ideology. The Greens are a party of the LEFT. It is an inaccurate comparison to the extent of being deliberately deceitful. If you had called the Greens socialists that might have got off the ground, but fascist?  ;D They have no idea of what socialism (small 's') is, and in their ignorance equate it with Communism. Not the same thing. At all. Never was, never will be.

No Bam, Fascism is NOT specifically either Left or Right. It combines the worst points of both.

And Kat, the reason most people confuse fascism and socialism with communism is that almost ALL Fascist/Communist regimes have claim (in public) to be Socialist regimes.
Orwell's book Animal Farm is, in truth, a pretty accurate description of modern human Socialist governments.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 8:50am: “Politicised science”—the weird words of deniers. But don't you 'believe' that skepticism ( it's not denial, no matter how much you try to spin it) is politically motivated???

(1) Scare quotes is a sure sign of bias.
(2) Your affixing the label "skepticism" does not make it so. (And that's not scare quotes, by the way, that's a direct quotation.) There's a clear difference between a sceptic and a denier. A sceptic is willing to consider contrary evidence. A denier is not.
(3) People are motivated for all sorts of reasons. Politics is important, but a bigger motivation is money. Most of the organisations that obfuscate climate science have financial links to the fossil fuel industry.


Quote:

The alarmist side is very much motivated by politics, not science.

Do you honestly think deniers are not?


Quote:

Science doesn't call for purges when confronted by differences of opinion.

Science is not a matter of opinion, only differences in interpretation.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 1:44pm:

Socialism morphs into communism eventually, its well known that once you head down that slippery slope thats where you end up, I mean picture a country being run by a bunch of people like Kat, you know its going to end in total disaster, be like the old East Germany where they have to plant land mines and have machine gun posts everywhere to stop the sane from escaping.    :D

And capitalism morphs into fascism, as we see today.  :(

Got anything but BS and insults?

If not, smack off.

Bit 'over' this crap.

With the world continuing to warm it is not skepticism but denial.

Kat wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Got anything but BS and insults? If not, smack off.

LOL, oh the ironing. 

Bam wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 4:27pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:01am: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 8:50am: “Politicised science”—the weird words of deniers. But don't you 'believe' that skepticism ( it's not denial, no matter how much you try to spin it) is politically motivated??? (1) Scare quotes is a sure sign of bias. (2) Your affixing the label "skepticism" does not make it so. (And that's not scare quotes, by the way, that's a direct quotation.) There's a clear difference between a sceptic and a denier. A sceptic is willing to consider contrary evidence. A denier is not. (3) People are motivated for all sorts of reasons. Politics is important, but a bigger motivation is money. Most of the organisations that obfuscate climate science have financial links to the fossil fuel industry. Quote: The alarmist side is very much motivated by politics, not science. Do you honestly think deniers are not? [quote]Science doesn't call for purges when confronted by differences of opinion.

Science is not a matter of opinion, only differences in interpretation.
[/quote]

And 80% of people who don't accept AGW (or ACC) are skeptics, not deniers. YES there is a small group of people in the 'don't believe in AGW camp' who refuse to believe that any warming has occurred/is occurring, but they are mostly the 'New Earth Creationists who just want to bag out science in general, because that means they can also debunk evolution and paleontology (so they hope to bring the Adam and Eve thing back into favour). Of course there is also a small group in the pro-warming camp who push AGW (ACC_ because they think humans are a plague and hate any sort of technology (and/or because they think Gaia/Mother Earth is telling them to). However, most people, on both sides are all about the science, and the different viewpoints on the science. So labeling everyone who disagrees with the mainstream version of AGW is as dishonest as labeling everyone who agrees with the mainstream version as a brainless treehugger.

Deniers are deniers are deniers.

Datalife wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 4:44pm: Got anything but BS and insults? If not, smack off. LOL, oh the ironing.

Yep  ;D

Datalife wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 4:44pm: Got anything but BS and insults? If not, smack off. LOL, oh the ironing.

Better get back to it then, ought'nt you?

Don't want an 'Oh my goodness, the chips' incident, do you?

AGW boosters should not be in government.
There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change.

Soren wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change.

We’ll serve this one up for supper, dear. Do you think we should drizzle some gravy over it?

It looks a bit empty on its own.

Soren wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change.

Perhaps not.

But, if there is even a chance that we can mitigate it, shouldn't we try?

Or should the almighty dollar triumph at any cost, including that of the
existence of the human race as we know it?

Forget the 'man-made' BS for a moment and just accept that the place
is getting warmer.

Which, obviously, it is.

Now! If we can't do anything, then so be it. We're fecked, as a 'civilised'
species (but the species WILL survive, as it has through similar warming
and cooling incidents in the past).

But, having said that, should we give up and not even try?

And, if 'disaster' happens to NOT eventuate, then we still win because
of the development of new technology which can only be of benefit to
mankind.

**(Oh, sorry. I forgot. I'm a 'leftie' and so have no idea. Yeah, and root you, too.)**

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:14am:

Sack all Cabinet climate change sceptics, say the Greens The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Published 14 February of 2014. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said. Party leader Natalie Bennett said the rule must apply to all senior advisers, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues. David Cameron says he suspects recent storms are linked to climate change. Speaking recently, the prime minister said that while a single weather pattern could not be attributed to climate change, many scientists were talking of a link between the two and the UK should be prepared for more extreme weather. But some Tory MPs and peers, Lord Lawson being the most prominent, have cast doubt on scientific theories on climate change which argue human activity is predominately responsible for recent rises in global temperatures. ‘Emergency’ The Greens are now insisting the government gets rid of any cabinet minister who takes a different view on climate change [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711[/url]

You Greens are all barking mad and horribly dictatorial.
You should be - are - shunned by decent people. You not only tolerate but encourage the eco-fascists among you.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 4:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:01am: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 8:50am: “Politicised science”—the weird words of deniers. But don't you 'believe' that skepticism ( it's not denial, no matter how much you try to spin it) is politically motivated??? (1) Scare quotes is a sure sign of bias. (2) Your affixing the label "skepticism" does not make it so. (And that's not scare quotes, by the way, that's a direct quotation.) There's a clear difference between a sceptic and a denier. A sceptic is willing to consider contrary evidence. A denier is not. (3) People are motivated for all sorts of reasons. Politics is important, but a bigger motivation is money. Most of the organisations that obfuscate climate science have financial links to the fossil fuel industry. Quote: The alarmist side is very much motivated by politics, not science. Do you honestly think deniers are not? [quote]Science doesn't call for purges when confronted by differences of opinion. Science is not a matter of opinion, only differences in interpretation.

And 80% of people who don't accept AGW (or ACC) are skeptics, not deniers. YES there is a small group of people in the 'don't believe in AGW camp' who refuse to believe that any warming has occurred/is occurring, but they are mostly the 'New Earth Creationists who just want to bag out science in general, because that means they can also debunk evolution and paleontology (so they hope to bring the Adam and Eve thing back into favour). Of course there is also a small group in the pro-warming camp who push AGW (ACC_ because they think humans are a plague and hate any sort of technology (and/or because they think Gaia/Mother Earth is telling them to). However, most people, on both sides are all about the science, and the different viewpoints on the science. So labeling everyone who disagrees with the mainstream version of AGW is as dishonest as labeling everyone who agrees with the mainstream version as a brainless treehugger. [/quote]
Why are you making up bogus statistics?

And the rest of your post goes downhill from there.

Soren wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change.

Rubbish.

Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from?

Secondly, what does CO2 do to infrared radiation? It blocks it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

Bam wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:25pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Secondly, what does CO2 do to infrared radiation? It blocks it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube?

At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect.

This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by.

Soren wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Secondly, what does CO2 do to infrared radiation? It blocks it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube?

Assuming that the tube is 100% CO₂ and its pressure is atmospheric, there are still fewer CO₂ molecules in that tube than would exist in a column of air from the ground to space. Considering that you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the topic and have resorted to the personal incredulity fallacy, I do not expect you to understand why this is important.


Quote:

At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect. This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by.

That is fallacious reasoning.

Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity

Quote:

Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

Soren wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube? At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect. This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by.

You have not answered the highlighted question.

Where did the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from?

People that can see the continued rise in temperature cannot be called “alarmists” because they are pointing to something real. Satellites observe more solar radiation entering earths atmosphere than heat leaves it. The arctic, Greenland and even the Antarctic are all losing ice every summer.

“Deniers” want to deny observable increases in temperature have happened or claim they don’t mean anything more than variation “as has happened before” and quote Medieval Warm Period even though present temperatures are well above the MWP. So it is deniers not skeptics.

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

Soren wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 8:59am: Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube? At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect. This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by. You have not answered the highlighted question. Where did the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from?

Perhaps from out-gassing from the oceans as the Little Ice Age ended??

And is it still outgassing?

Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc.

Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something!

Greens went to the 2013 election with this view and lost 30% of their voter base

Soren wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change.

How do you explan heat trapping cities that effect the local climate

Human caused deforestation which effects climate


Humans can and do effect the climate.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

Greens went to the 2013 election with this view and lost 30% of their voter base

And Greens will go to the DD election in a few months with this position and gain it's vote back plus more because people have woken up to Abbott's AGW denial and lies.

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:29am: Greens went to the 2013 election with this view and lost 30% of their voter base And Greens will go to the DD election in a few months with this position and gain it's vote back plus more because people have woken up to Abbott's AGW denial and lies.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Jennifer-Lawrence-Thinks-Youre-Funny-Gif.gif


[smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif]

viewpoint wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

____ wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:40am: Maqqa wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:29am: Greens went to the 2013 election with this view and lost 30% of their voter base And Greens will go to the DD election in a few months with this position and gain it's vote back plus more because people have woken up to Abbott's AGW denial and lies. http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Jennifer-Lawrence-Thinks-Youre-Funny-Gif.gif [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif]

Latest Polling, Greens 12%

They're Back !!!

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 7:45am: Just because we are not liberal or labor does not mean we will not form majority government. As the collapse continues and speeds up, voters will dump old parties and old ways. Unless there is a massive change in belief and behaviour by the greens you will always be nothing more than a party of spoilers and fringe dwellers. Even children eventually grow out of their childish ways and realise that behaving like a whiney petulant child wears thing with most people. The core values of the Greens are the key to future survivial of the human race. People will dump the old parties and either build satellite parties alongside the Greens or join the Greens. We all know the old parties can not morph into new parties because they are full of dinosaurs.

The world loves a dreamer.........and sympathises with idiots........but you are a cut below either.......

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

And is it still outgassing? Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something!

From what I've read in the peer-reviewed literature, yes it is.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:22am:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 10:55am: Soren wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 8:59am: Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube? At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect. This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by. You have not answered the highlighted question. Where did the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Perhaps from out-gassing from the oceans as the Little Ice Age ended??

You are grasping at straws here. Where is your proof that (1) this has happened, (2) this is a plausible mechanism, (3) this is responsible for ALL of the rise in atmospheric CO2, (4) that burning millions and millions of tonnes of carbon-containing fossil fuels has had no impact on atmospheric CO2?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: And is it still outgassing? Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! From what I've read in the peer-reviewed literature, yes it is.

So show us so we may read it too. Links please.

Also, are you reading all of the literature, or just selectively reading those bits of it that support your preconceptions and ignoring the bulk that does not?

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something!

There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2.

Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen.

Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants?

Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?]

https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 10:55am: Soren wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 8:59am: Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube? At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect. This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by. You have not answered the highlighted question. Where did the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Perhaps from out-gassing from the oceans as the Little Ice Age ended?? You are grasping at straws here. Where is your proof that (1) this has happened, (2) this is a plausible mechanism, (3) this is responsible for ALL of the rise in atmospheric CO2, (4) that burning millions and millions of tonnes of carbon-containing fossil fuels has had no impact on atmospheric CO2?

Well were's your proof that
a) there was a 100ppm increase in Co2? No one was around to measure the 1850s levels, and paelo data isn't 100% accurate.
b) that Co2 actually has any effect on temperatures?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 12:13pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen.

Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent.

(1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂ due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO₂ molecule lacks.
(2) Methane decomposes in the presence of oxygen and sunlight to CO₂ and water.


Quote:

Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants?

Yes, they do. What's your point?


Quote:

Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?] https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator

This is fallacious reasoning.

Your fallacy is appeal to nature

Quote:

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

delete

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen. Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks. (2) Methane decomposes in the presence of oxygen and sunlight to CO2 and water. Quote: Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants? Yes, they do. What's your point? [quote]Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?] https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator

This is fallacious reasoning.

Your fallacy is appeal to nature

Quote:

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

[/quote]

Sorry bam, it's not a 'fallacy'.
The difference is that 'man caused' warming is something we can affect, but 'natural' warming is something we CAN'T affect.

IF the recent (since 1850 ish) increases in global temperatures are a result of human industry, then yes we might be able to affect the temps by changing our industrial/power systems.

IF however, the increases are not the result of human action, but instead part of a purely natural cycle, then nothing we do will affect the increases or the rate of increase and our only choice is to adapt our behaviour or living methods to meet the changes to climate.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:03pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 10:55am: Soren wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 8:59am: Bam wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Soooo..... what was the CO2 concentration in that tube? At the beginning of the experiment, it was exactly the same as everywhere in the atmosphere : the said-to-be 'dangerous' current CO2 concentration that is supposed to be nearing the tipping point of no return. Yet nothing was blocked, the picture was perfect. This is the kind of idiotic experiment that a lot of unthinking people are taken in by. You have not answered the highlighted question. Where did the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Perhaps from out-gassing from the oceans as the Little Ice Age ended?? You are grasping at straws here. Where is your proof that (1) this has happened, (2) this is a plausible mechanism, (3) this is responsible for ALL of the rise in atmospheric CO2, (4) that burning millions and millions of tonnes of carbon-containing fossil fuels has had no impact on atmospheric CO2? Well were's your proof that a) there was a 100ppm increase in Co2? No one was around to measure the 1850s levels, and paelo data isn't 100% accurate. b) that Co2 actually has any effect on temperatures?

Where are your answers to my questions? I did ask first.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 2:06pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen. Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks. (2) Methane decomposes in the presence of oxygen and sunlight to CO2 and water. Quote: Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants? Yes, they do. What's your point? [quote]Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?] https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator This is fallacious reasoning. Your fallacy is appeal to nature [quote]You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

[/quote]

Sorry bam, it's not a 'fallacy'.[/quote]
Yes, it is.

You said this: "Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2"

That is appeal to nature, giz.


Quote:

The difference is that 'man caused' warming is something we can affect, but 'natural' warming is something we CAN'T affect. IF the recent (since 1850 ish) increases in global temperatures are a result of human industry, then yes we might be able to affect the temps by changing our industrial/power systems. IF however, the increases are not the result of human action, but instead part of a purely natural cycle, then nothing we do will affect the increases or the rate of increase and our only choice is to adapt our behaviour or living methods to meet the changes to climate.

This non sequitur does not support your earlier point.

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 2:17pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 2:06pm: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen. Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks. (2) Methane decomposes in the presence of oxygen and sunlight to CO2 and water. Quote: Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants? Yes, they do. What's your point? [quote]Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?] https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator This is fallacious reasoning. Your fallacy is appeal to nature [quote]You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

Sorry bam, it's not a 'fallacy'.[/quote]
Yes, it is.

You said this: "Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2"

That is appeal to nature, giz.


Quote:

The difference is that 'man caused' warming is something we can affect, but 'natural' warming is something we CAN'T affect. IF the recent (since 1850 ish) increases in global temperatures are a result of human industry, then yes we might be able to affect the temps by changing our industrial/power systems. IF however, the increases are not the result of human action, but instead part of a purely natural cycle, then nothing we do will affect the increases or the rate of increase and our only choice is to adapt our behaviour or living methods to meet the changes to climate.

This non sequitur does not support your earlier point.
[/quote]

Where did I actually say that?

Or are you one of those nitwits who think that every skeptic on here is the same person, using 'socks'??

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen. Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks. (2) Methane decomposes in the presence of oxygen and sunlight to CO2 and water. Quote: Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants? Yes, they do. What's your point? [quote]Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?] https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator

This is fallacious reasoning.

Your fallacy is appeal to nature

Quote:

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

[/quote]

If CO2 is so bad why are the greenies quiet about CO2 generators used for horticulture and only whinge about CO2 caused by industry?

If you had studied chemistry you would know methane is stable with one carbon atom for every 4 hydrogen atoms, sunlight or oxygen cannot break the covalent bond with methane

Please cite a credible chemistry source that says methane decomposes with oxygen or sunlight to CO2 and water, there is no end of fallacious reasoning by green loonies.

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks.

You have proven you are totally clueless on this subject.

How does this triatomic vibration affect methane which is one carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atom's?

Does CO2 which is one carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms have triatomic vibration?

How many atoms are in a triatomic molecule?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks. You have proven you are totally clueless on this subject.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Quote:

How does this triatomic vibration affect methane which is one carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atom's?

Because those five atoms have six different ways of grouping three atoms. If you actually knew anything about the topic - anything at all - you would know this.


Quote:

Does CO2 which is one carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms have triatomic vibration?

It does, but being a straight molecule it is much less responsive to those vibration modes that only work in bent molecules.


Quote:

How many atoms are in a triatomic molecule?

Triatomic vibration modes involve GROUPINGS of three atoms in a molecule, not necessarily MOLECULES with exactly three atoms.

Next time you accuse others of not knowing anything about the topic, do some research before posting clueless crap that makes you look like an idiot.

Oh, and by the way, if you're going to go around making baseless accusations about other people's knowledge, make sure you learn how to spell "atoms" consistently and correctly. No apostrophe.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 2:17pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 2:06pm: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 11:26am: Nah—industrial production, population growth, the use of cars and trucks etc is causing the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. Now we are getting outgassing—melting methane clathrates in the Arctic ocean as the tundra melts. Methane can be seen bubbling up—time for bullcrapping is over, it is time, high time to do something! There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen. Right there is ample proof that your grasp of facts on this issue is almost nonexistent. (1) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the presence of triatomic vibration modes that the CO2 molecule lacks. (2) Methane decomposes in the presence of oxygen and sunlight to CO2 and water. Quote: Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants? Yes, they do. What's your point? [quote]Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2,should the leftists be restricting the sales of CO2 generators used in horticulture, why do the leftists ignore the use of CO2 generators in agriculture?] https://www.google.com.au/#q=co2+generator This is fallacious reasoning. Your fallacy is appeal to nature [quote]You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable. Sorry bam, it's not a 'fallacy'.

Yes, it is.

You said this: "Of course many know plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2"

That is appeal to nature, giz.


Quote:

The difference is that 'man caused' warming is something we can affect, but 'natural' warming is something we CAN'T affect. IF the recent (since 1850 ish) increases in global temperatures are a result of human industry, then yes we might be able to affect the temps by changing our industrial/power systems. IF however, the increases are not the result of human action, but instead part of a purely natural cycle, then nothing we do will affect the increases or the rate of increase and our only choice is to adapt our behaviour or living methods to meet the changes to climate.

This non sequitur does not support your earlier point.
[/quote]

Where did I actually say that?

Or are you one of those nitwits who think that every skeptic on here is the same person, using 'socks'??[/quote]
No I am not.

On the other hand, you did jump in on a discussion that did not involve you and did not delete irrelevant text. By doing this, you had inadvertently misled me.

Nevertheless, this small error on may part is irrelevant to the argument. It is another non sequitur.

Since you won't refute the central arguments - despite having an opportunity to do so - you concede them by default.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: There is no CO2 in methane or nitrous oxide NO2. Methane is CH4,one carbon 4 hydrogen.Do CO2 levels rise at night when the sun is not shining on the plants? Yes, they do. What's your point?

Hmm. No answer to this?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

If CO2 is so bad why are the greenies quiet about CO2 generators used for horticulture and only whinge about CO2 caused by industry?

Do you have something to support this?


Quote:

If you had studied chemistry you would know methane is stable with one carbon atom for every 4 hydrogen atoms, sunlight or oxygen cannot break the covalent bond with methane Please cite a credible chemistry source that says methane decomposes with oxygen or sunlight to CO2 and water, there is no end of fallacious reasoning by green loonies.

Sunlight (mostly the UV component) creates free radicals in the atmosphere. These are responsible for a lot of chemistry in the atmosphere - creating the ozone layer, depleting the ozone layer, decomposing methane, etc.

O₂ + sunlight -> 2O

This oxygen radical can then react with methane, although it is not the primary route by which methane is decomposed in the atmosphere. It is the hydroxyl radical:

H₂O + sunlight -> OH + H

I do not need to cite sources though because the precise mechanism by which methane is removed from the atmosphere is not relevant to the discussion.

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. How do you explan heat trapping cities that effect the local climate Human caused deforestation which effects climate Humans can and do effect the climate.

'ello, 'ello, 'ello?! Is it only me who notices the none-too-subtle shift from climate change to effect on climate?
We started with catastrophic warming, then shifted to change, and now we have shifted further down to mere effects. Next it will be the very existence of humanity that will be blamed.

Having an effect is not the same as changing something.  There is evidently no strong correlation between human CO2 and warming which is not surprising as the billions of tonnes of CO2 is still only a tiny drop in the atmosphere. After a century and more of rapid global industrialisation atmospheric CO2 rose from the 'normal' 0.03% to the dangerously, alarmingly high concentration of 0.04%. Run for the hills stuff.

Much more significant climate determinants are ignored or downplayed because they are not as easily measured as human CO2 output. And so human effects are grotesquely overplayed for political reasons. Dissent - which is political dissent - is shouted down by people like you.

The Green Left cadres are terrific diversity mongers - except when it comes to the diversity of political views, when the hoof comes into view and your rigidly oppressive and dictatorial animus comes through, loud and clear.

Bam wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:25pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:48pm: AGW boosters should not be in government. There is no evidence for climate change being man-caused. There is only conjecture. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does not mean that humans cause climate change. Rubbish. Firstly, where does the 100ppm increase since 1850 in CO2 in the atmosphere come from?

You mean where does the change from 0.03% atmospheric CO2 to 0.04% come from?
Undoubtedly some of it is due to human activity. Some of it is due to volcanic activity - the vast majority of which is happens on the ocean floors, pretty much completely beyond our understanding.



Quote:

Secondly, what does CO2 do to infrared radiation? It blocks it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

SO? The experiment is a phoney one. The concentration of CO2 in that tube is exactly the same as the CO2 concentration anywhere else. You say that there is numerically fewer CO2 molecules in the tube than in the column of atmosphere. This is true - but then the experiment is, as I say, phoney. Shifting from concenratration to amount is a sleight of hand. Most importantly, the experimenter didn't restrict the the amount of CO2 pumped into the tube to 0.04% or 0.05% or 0.06% (the various predictions made for the end of the 21st century).

In other words, it replicated (modelled) absolutely nothing relevant to the climate debate. It is a crap experiment designed to bamboozle fools.

And the fools have been silenced!