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


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.

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


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.

.

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


Yeah mate gotta get those oil dollars in hey...??

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.

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.

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


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

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


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.