Australian Politics Forum - Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #135 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 7:23pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Akasofu_Prediction.png (187 KB | 17 )

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #136 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 7:32pm

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #137 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:12pm Your hard at it I see Vuk. So what time did you Bundy on?
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #138 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:13pm Your hard at it I see Vuk. So what time did you Bundy on?
Back to top	IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #139 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:25pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But hey everyone is entitled to the opinion.

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

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

Just to be really clear.

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

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #140 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:33pm

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

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

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

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

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #141 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:37pm

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

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

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

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

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

AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #142 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:40pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #143 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:48pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer

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

debate?

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

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

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

it must be very lonely in your church congregation.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #144 - Oct 17^th, 2013 at 10:04pm

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #145 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 6:33am .
Back to top	« Last Edit: Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:57am by ImSpartacus2 » IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #146 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 6:34am .
Back to top	« Last Edit: Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:58am by ImSpartacus2 » IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #147 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 6:34am

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #148 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:50am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND THAT QUESTION requires a yes or no answer

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

Define a vacuum.

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

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

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

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #149 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:51am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged