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

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:34am

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

why??

no idea.. seems almost a moral quandary for some..

admit WE have a major hand in the decimation of our only planet..?? God NO/// we are the pinnacle of evolution/// WE could NOT do such damage..!!

??
Get real.. Sad

do you honestly STILL CLAIM that WE.. you know HUMANS.. >>/???
are innocent..??

You haven't shown me any reason to give the title of the topic anything BUT ridicule.
Tell me.. in just a short sentence...

WHY ??

are you really such a ..? No No sorry.. you are probably a Virgo.! Grin

Hey Emma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Retrofitting electrostatic precipitators – soot capture.

3. Retrofitting fabric filter bags – soot capture

4. Retrofitting CO2 scrubbers – carbon sequestration

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:41am by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 10982 Australia Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #1 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:35am
Back to top	« Last Edit: Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:41am by Ajax » 1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #2 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:36am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78

Quote:

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

http://joannenova.com.au/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:05pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #3 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:56am

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

This seems a bit of an over reach here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #4 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 1:22pm

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

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

This seems a bit of an over reach here.

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

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

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

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

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

Well said.

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

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 #5 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:34am

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

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

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

This seems a bit of an over reach here.

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

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

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

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

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

Well said.

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

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

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

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

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #6 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:15pm

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

This seems a bit of an over reach here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Plus straight from the horses mouth here....

Quote:

In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated about climate policy........

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

7000/50 = 140

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

400000/650 = 615

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:21pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #7 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:09pm

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

Your follow up does little better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"
pol·lu·tant
[puh-loot-nt] Show IPA

noun
1.
something that pollutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #8 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:50pm

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

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

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

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

Because pricing carbon only addresses this issue and nothing more.

My argument for and against is in the OP.

Sceptics don't disagree that the Earth is warming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #9 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:14pm Ajax wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:34am: I’m against the anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) hypothesis because it places any nation that signs up for it into financial slavery for ever. You deny the science for political reasons in other words.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #10 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:17pm

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

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

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

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

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #11 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

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

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

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

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

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

Oooh nice approach Muso.

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #12 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:09pm

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

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

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:21pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #13 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:03am

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

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

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

You deny the science for political reasons in other words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #14 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:17pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:40pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged