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

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139651 Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #75 - Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:48pm http://www.adolphus.me.uk/emx/simply/paragraph.htm
Back to top	IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #76 - Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:59pm

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

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

Sh#t I think the aztecs used that exact same speel just before they stabbed some poor front bottom right through the heart to appease the vengeful god of the Sun eclipse

Back to top

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 #77 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am

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

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

Hey Spartacus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is where I have ended up.

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:23am 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

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #78 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 10:29am I think we all started out as AGW believers, then our concerns led us to seek out further information only to find that there is actually more evidence against AGW than for AGW but for reasons best known to themselves the global warming hysterics pretend that evidence doesn't exist.
Back to top	IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #79 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:04am

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

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

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

Back to top

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 #80 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am If most of the people that support AGW took the time to look at the science and the organisations that are pushing it. It wouldn't be long before only the true greenies (those that worship gaia) would be left holding the AGW banner aloft. And that wouldn't be that many people at all...!!!
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

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #81 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:53am

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

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

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

AND

every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world.

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

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

good luck.

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

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #82 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:24pm

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

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

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

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

AND

every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world.

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

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

good luck.

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

Back to top

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 #83 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:27pm

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

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

AND

every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world.

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

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

good luck.

Hey chimp

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

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

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

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

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

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

When empirical data is saying otherwise.

Quote:

Appendix H: Sample List of References Adhering to the Back-Radiation Model of the GHE

All the references and quotations below conform to the to the “back-radiation model” of the GHE, which is based on a comparison with actual greenhouses made of glass.

The problem is that this well-known comparison is incorrect. Like anything else, the interior surfaces of a greenhouse warm up by absorbing sunlight. But what the glass enclosure then does is trap the surface-heated
air, acting as a physically rigid barrier to convective heat dissipation.

This is why a greenhouse gets warmer than the outside air.

This fact can be verified by alternately opening two small panels of the greenhouse: first, open a wall panel at ground level. No significant temperature decrease will be
observed.

Next, open a roof panel; the temperature will drop noticeably and quickly.

Now, if trapped radiation were involved, radiation would escape equally well from either the base or the top when an escape hatch appears.

The fact that the greenhouse only cools when a roof
panel is opened indicates that the increased warmth comes about only because heated air has been trapped.

Thus, the premise that radiation-trapping in the atmosphere is analogous to radiationtrapping
in a real greenhouse, is unsound. Yet this analogy is consistently used to justify an atmospheric form of the GHE.

Although the glass in a real greenhouse does not cause additional warming by trapping radiation, we are told that trace gases do perform this task - by virtue of a
comparison to something that does not actually occur!

Greenhouses were invented by human beings to protect a pocket of air against the cooling forces in the atmosphere;

i.e., they do the

opposite thing that the atmosphere actually does, so to compare the atmosphere to a physical greenhouse is just silly.

We are not without remit to state that this line of justification or reasoning is obfuscatory at best or outright fraudulent at worst.

If back-radiation augments the warming that sunlight provides, as alleged in the references and quotations in this appendix and by the heat-flow equation developed earlier in this report, then the atmospheric GHE should be able to generate more warmth than real-time insolation can
provide, even at its maximum.

To this author's knowledge, however, this has never been
demonstrated.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_...

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

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #84 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:47pm

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

Hey Spartacus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is where I have ended up.

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #85 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:53pm

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

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

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 #86 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 12:53pm

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

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

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

AND

every major fossil fuel and mining corporation in the world.

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

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

good luck.

Hey chimp

Your forgetting that there are just as many scientific papers refuting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as there are proclaiming it.
The difference is the papers that refute AGW have been written by well known scientists that aren't on the AGW gravy train.

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

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

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

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

When empirical data is saying otherwise.

Quote:

Appendix H: Sample List of References Adhering to the Back-Radiation Model of the GHE

All the references and quotations below conform to the to the “back-radiation model” of the GHE, which is based on a comparison with actual greenhouses made of glass.

The problem is that this well-known comparison is incorrect. Like anything else, the interior surfaces of a greenhouse warm up by absorbing sunlight. But what the glass enclosure then does is trap the surface-heated
air, acting as a physically rigid barrier to convective heat dissipation.

This is why a greenhouse gets warmer than the outside air.

This fact can be verified by alternately opening two small panels of the greenhouse: first, open a wall panel at ground level. No significant temperature decrease will be
observed.

Next, open a roof panel; the temperature will drop noticeably and quickly.

Now, if trapped radiation were involved, radiation would escape equally well from either the base or the top when an escape hatch appears.

The fact that the greenhouse only cools when a roof
panel is opened indicates that the increased warmth comes about only because heated air has been trapped.

Thus, the premise that radiation-trapping in the atmosphere is analogous to radiationtrapping
in a real greenhouse, is unsound. Yet this analogy is consistently used to justify an atmospheric form of the GHE.

Although the glass in a real greenhouse does not cause additional warming by trapping radiation, we are told that trace gases do perform this task - by virtue of a
comparison to something that does not actually occur!

Greenhouses were invented by human beings to protect a pocket of air against the cooling forces in the atmosphere;

i.e., they do the

opposite thing that the atmosphere actually does, so to compare the atmosphere to a physical greenhouse is just silly.

We are not without remit to state that this line of justification or reasoning is obfuscatory at best or outright fraudulent at worst.

If back-radiation augments the warming that sunlight provides, as alleged in the references and quotations in this appendix and by the heat-flow equation developed earlier in this report, then the atmospheric GHE should be able to generate more warmth than real-time insolation can
provide, even at its maximum.

To this author's knowledge, however, this has never been
demonstrated.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_...

false statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers

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

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 #87 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:05pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Australians are leading skeptics and more polarized than anywhere else

The Australian reports it as “Sceptics put heat on climate change.”

CLIMATE change sceptics outnumber believers, according to an OECD study that shows how the debate has sharply divided Australians

It shows 45 per cent of Australians think environmental dangers are exaggerated and are reluctant to pay for government environmental policies.

In contrast, 42 per cent of Australians believe the environmental challenges are real and think the government should take action, which they are prepared to pay for even if the amount is not matched by other nations.

The most skeptical nations were the Netherlands and Korea. The most polarized: Australia.

The OECD surveyed 12,000 households across Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. This survey was carried out in 2011, so the data is already a bit out of date.

There are three main groups: those who are skeptics, those who believe, and the technology optimists who think there is a problem but figure that we’ll find a way to solve the problem.

Most of the graphs here came from this OECD link.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11327-australian-skeptics-outnumber-believe...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:23pm 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

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #88 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:11pm

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

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 #89 - Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:19pm

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

false statement.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

The radiation that atmospheric CO2 is specifically
interacting with is in the INFRARED region of the spectrum.
THat is, infrared light that is reflected from the earths various surfaces.

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

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

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

380ppm are natural from the ecosystems

20ppm are from manmade CO2 emissions.

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

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

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

Quote:

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

.

Never asked you to.

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Fine......I thought ostriches put their heads in the sand not chimps....!!! Cheesy

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