Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ?

I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics.

Nope, the storm was caused by reality...not myth..

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics.

Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :)

FriYAY wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :)

Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy.

LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D

Here something funny...

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/6133/megastorm-sandy-injects-climate-us-presidential-vote

But Republican challenger Mitt Romney maintained his silence on the subject when speaking of Sandy's victims – even after a heckler pressed him on the subject during a rally in Virginia.


"What about climate? What about climate? That's what caused this monster storm," the man shouted, brandishing a sign reading “End Climate Silence”.

He was immediately booed by the crowd, who ejected him to chants of "USA! USA!"

I guess the answer to climate change is high level patiotism.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics.

Of course not - nothing else has why would that? New orleans was a pretty big sign wasnt it.

SOB

FriYAY wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:43am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D

What more do you want.  Its pretty simple.
co2 is a green house gas.  True.
We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True.
Nature is not re-storing that co2. True.
Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True.
Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. True.
Ice sheets are melting. True.
Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True.
Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. True.

Its not rocket science.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:47am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Of course not - nothing else has why would that? New orleans was a pretty big sign wasnt it. SOB

The difference is, New York has far more influential people in it than New orleans.

Not likely when co2 had nothing to do with sandy.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy.

There wasnt much in heat content in the ocean that wasnt of normal levels.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

Here something funny... http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/6133/megastorm-sandy-injects-climate-us-presidential-vote But Republican challenger Mitt Romney maintained his silence on the subject when speaking of Sandy's victims – even after a heckler pressed him on the subject during a rally in Virginia. "What about climate? What about climate? That's what caused this monster storm," the man shouted, brandishing a sign reading “End Climate Silence”. He was immediately booed by the crowd, who ejected him to chants of "USA! USA!" I guess the answer to climate change is high level patiotism.

Still no proof then?
Wikip has a list of major storms to hit New Jersey.

There's about 100 odd of varying degrees of intensity gong back to 1800.



Care to tell us if any of these were caused by C02?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. There wasnt much in heat content in the ocean that wasnt of normal levels.

Except for 3 or 4 degrees above average.  ::)

Anyway, when you look at the damage seen on those beach front houses on staten island, it not hard to understand why Tim Flannery made sure when he brought coastal land that  it was well above 10m above sea level (ie a point, not a beach).

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:47am:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:43am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. True. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. True. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. True. Its not rocket science.

What more do you want.  Its pretty simple.
co2 is a green house gas.  True.
We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True.
Nature is not re-storing that co2. Maybe.
Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True.
Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. Maybe.
Ice sheets are melting. True.
Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True.
Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. Unproven.

Its not rocket science. No it's' climate science'

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:55am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:47am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:43am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. True. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. True. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. True. Its not rocket science. What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. Maybe. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. Maybe. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. Unproven. Its not rocket science. No it's' climate science'

Ok, tell us where Nature is storing the co2 then.  Take your own life as an example. You are pumping out about 20 tonnes a year. Over say the last 40 years, thats 800 tonnes in your life. Even if nature could compact that down to an efficient storage as coal in that short space of time, you think you would have notice it stored somewhere ?

You also agreed above that co2 is a green house gas, and more co2 is in the atmosphere, but dispute that sea temperatures are warming.  How can it not, if the first two are true ?

finally, huricanes and all tropical cyclones are definately related to sea temperature, because they mostly occur where the sea temperatures are favourable. Thats a simple link if ever there was one.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:59am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:55am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:47am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:43am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. True. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. True. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. True. Its not rocket science. What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. Maybe. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. Maybe. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. Unproven. Its not rocket science. No it's' climate science' Ok, tell us where Nature is storing the co2 then.  Take your own life as an example. You are pumping out about 20 tonnes a year. Over say the last 40 years, thats 800 tonnes in your life. Even if nature could compact that down to an efficient storage as coal in that short space of time, you think you would have notice it stored somewhere ? You also agreed above that co2 is a green house gas, and more co2 is in the atmosphere, but dispute that sea temperatures are warming.  How can it not, if the first two are true ? finally, huricanes and all tropical cyclones are definately related to sea temperature, because they mostly occur where the sea temperatures are favourable. Thats a simple link if ever there was one.

Actually...I was disputing that sea temperatures are warming due to Co2....Since the water temperature controls whether sea water collects or expels Co2, it's equally possible that the Co2 level is rising BECAUSE of the oceans warming, rather than the other way around...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:55am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:47am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:43am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. True. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. True. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. True. Its not rocket science. What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. Maybe. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. Maybe. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. Unproven. Its not rocket science. No it's' climate science' Ok, tell us where Nature is storing the co2 then.  Take your own life as an example. You are pumping out about 20 tonnes a year. Over say the last 40 years, thats 800 tonnes in your life. Even if nature could compact that down to an efficient storage as coal in that short space of time, you think you would have notice it stored somewhere ? You also agreed above that co2 is a green house gas, and more co2 is in the atmosphere, but dispute that sea temperatures are warming.  How can it not, if the first two are true ? finally, huricanes and all tropical cyclones are definately related to sea temperature, because they mostly occur where the sea temperatures are favourable. Thats a simple link if ever there was one. Actually...I was disputing that sea temperatures are warming due to Co2....Since the water temperature controls whether sea water collects or expels Co2, it's equally possible that the Co2 level is rising BECAUSE of the oceans warming, rather than the other way around...

That defies logic. Because you know very well that we putting more co2 into the atmosphere because we are taking it out of safe storage (coal, oil), and releasing. Have been doing so for 100 odd years rising exponentially.   Its an undesputed fact that we are releasing high amounts of co2 into the atmosphere "outside" the natural co2 cycle.

There is no "I dont know where the co2 is coming from" argument.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 10:06am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:55am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:47am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:43am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. LOL, nice proof.  ;D ;D ;D What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. True. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. True. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. True. Its not rocket science. What more do you want.  Its pretty simple. co2 is a green house gas.  True. We have released stored co2 (coal) for the last 100 years. True. Nature is not re-storing that co2. Maybe. Co2 is therefore in the atmosphere. True. Sea temperatures are warming because of co2. Maybe. Ice sheets are melting. True. Northern waters are warming because of lack of ice sheets. True. Hurricane intensity is directly linked to sea temperatures. Unproven. Its not rocket science. No it's' climate science' Ok, tell us where Nature is storing the co2 then.  Take your own life as an example. You are pumping out about 20 tonnes a year. Over say the last 40 years, thats 800 tonnes in your life. Even if nature could compact that down to an efficient storage as coal in that short space of time, you think you would have notice it stored somewhere ? You also agreed above that co2 is a green house gas, and more co2 is in the atmosphere, but dispute that sea temperatures are warming.  How can it not, if the first two are true ? finally, huricanes and all tropical cyclones are definately related to sea temperature, because they mostly occur where the sea temperatures are favourable. Thats a simple link if ever there was one. Actually...I was disputing that sea temperatures are warming due to Co2....Since the water temperature controls whether sea water collects or expels Co2, it's equally possible that the Co2 level is rising BECAUSE of the oceans warming, rather than the other way around... That defies logic. Because you know very well that we putting more co2 into the atmosphere because we are taking it out of safe storage (coal, oil), and releasing. Have been doing so for 100 odd years rising exponentially.   Its an undesputed fact that we are releasing high amounts of co2 into the atmosphere "outside" the natural co2 cycle. There is no "I dont know where the co2 is coming from" argument.

Yeah, right....BUT in nature there are very few circular action/reactions....and 'Co2 makes the oceans warm, which releases Co2 which makes the oceans warm' is a massively circlular logic stream...

Quote:

Its not rocket science.

True.  It's far more complex.  It makes rocket science seem easy.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 11:16am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 10:18am: That defies logic. Because you know very well that we putting more co2 into the atmosphere because we are taking it out of safe storage (coal, oil), and releasing. Have been doing so for 100 odd years rising exponentially.   Its an undesputed fact that we are releasing high amounts of co2 into the atmosphere "outside" the natural co2 cycle. There is no "I dont know where the co2 is coming from" argument. Yeah, right...

Huh?,  You dont believe burning coal and oil produces co2 ???

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 11:16am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 10:18am: That defies logic. Because you know very well that we putting more co2 into the atmosphere because we are taking it out of safe storage (coal, oil), and releasing. Have been doing so for 100 odd years rising exponentially.   Its an undesputed fact that we are releasing high amounts of co2 into the atmosphere "outside" the natural co2 cycle. There is no "I dont know where the co2 is coming from" argument. Yeah, right... Huh?,  You dont believe burning coal and oil produces co2 ???

Yes I do.. but I'm still waiting to be convinced that Co2 has anything to do with GW...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 12:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 11:16am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 10:18am: That defies logic. Because you know very well that we putting more co2 into the atmosphere because we are taking it out of safe storage (coal, oil), and releasing. Have been doing so for 100 odd years rising exponentially.   Its an undesputed fact that we are releasing high amounts of co2 into the atmosphere "outside" the natural co2 cycle. There is no "I dont know where the co2 is coming from" argument. Yeah, right... Huh?,  You dont believe burning coal and oil produces co2 ??? Yes I do.. but I'm still waiting to be convinced that Co2 has anything to do with GW...

You dont believe co2 is a green house gas ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 12:21pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 12:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 11:16am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 10:18am: That defies logic. Because you know very well that we putting more co2 into the atmosphere because we are taking it out of safe storage (coal, oil), and releasing. Have been doing so for 100 odd years rising exponentially.   Its an undesputed fact that we are releasing high amounts of co2 into the atmosphere "outside" the natural co2 cycle. There is no "I dont know where the co2 is coming from" argument. Yeah, right... Huh?,  You dont believe burning coal and oil produces co2 ??? Yes I do.. but I'm still waiting to be convinced that Co2 has anything to do with GW... You dont believe co2 is a green house gas ?

LOL here we go...

The problem is, I'm still not convinced that the greenhouse effect is in anyway responsible for the recent/current warming, or indeed that the co2 (which IS a greenhouse gas) increase is a 'cause' rather than an 'effect'...

Put simply, the possibility exists (strongly) that the change to the worlds temperature have an entire unknown or unsuspected cause, and reducing or removing any amount of Co2 from the atmosphere won't make the slightest bit of difference to any future temperature increases, and may, in fact,   
cause a catastrophic plunge in the climate...

it makes the whole world sick how eco fascists use any human catastrophe for propaganda without any shame...this should convince us all to scrap carbon pricing and repeal the privatization of energy... :) :)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

The problem is, I'm still not convinced that the greenhouse effect is in anyway responsible for the recent/current warming, or indeed that the co2 (which IS a greenhouse gas) increase is a 'cause' rather than an 'effect'... Put simply, the possibility exists (strongly) that the change to the worlds temperature have an entire unknown or unsuspected cause, and reducing or removing any amount of Co2 from the atmosphere won't make the slightest bit of difference to any future temperature increases, and may, in fact,    cause a catastrophic plunge in the climate...

Its seems you are not clear on what you do and dont believe.
We know we are increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere (The simple question is, where do you think its going from burning all this coal ?).   And we know co2 causes warming, because it already does.
More co2 = more warming.   

Nothing earth shattering there.  To cling to an argument which contradicts this bleeding obvious statement because of a belief "unknown cause" is really a bit religous, and no place in logical approaches.

We "know" bullsh1t...you cant tax chemical elements and sub atomic particles for the way they randomly interact with each other...the carbon Tax and climate change is neo-creationism...Original Sin anyone? ;D ;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 1:22pm: The problem is, I'm still not convinced that the greenhouse effect is in anyway responsible for the recent/current warming, or indeed that the co2 (which IS a greenhouse gas) increase is a 'cause' rather than an 'effect'... Put simply, the possibility exists (strongly) that the change to the worlds temperature have an entire unknown or unsuspected cause, and reducing or removing any amount of Co2 from the atmosphere won't make the slightest bit of difference to any future temperature increases, and may, in fact,    cause a catastrophic plunge in the climate... Its seems you are not clear on what you do and dont believe. We know we are increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere (The simple question is, where do you think its going from burning all this coal ?).   And we know co2 causes warming, because it already does. More co2 = more warming.    Nothing earth shattering there.  To cling to an argument which contradicts this bleeding obvious statement because of a belief "unknown cause" is really a bit religous, and no place in logical approaches.

That's the bit that hasn't been proven to my satisfaction yet...

And it has nothing to do with religion or politics.....just logic and scientific method.
A true scientist is always the first to admit that they don't know everything....and because it's unknown (or undiscovered) doesn't imply any 'intelligent' being at work.....it just means we may not have discovered the perfectly natural mechanism at work...

p.s automatically attempting to assign disbelief in unclear scientific methodology to a religious attitude is pathetic and childish......it would be just as easy to assign belief in AGW to the 'church of Gaia'...

Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:06pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 1:22pm: The problem is, I'm still not convinced that the greenhouse effect is in anyway responsible for the recent/current warming, or indeed that the co2 (which IS a greenhouse gas) increase is a 'cause' rather than an 'effect'... Put simply, the possibility exists (strongly) that the change to the worlds temperature have an entire unknown or unsuspected cause, and reducing or removing any amount of Co2 from the atmosphere won't make the slightest bit of difference to any future temperature increases, and may, in fact,    cause a catastrophic plunge in the climate... Its seems you are not clear on what you do and dont believe. We know we are increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere (The simple question is, where do you think its going from burning all this coal ?).   And we know co2 causes warming, because it already does. More co2 = more warming.    Nothing earth shattering there.  To cling to an argument which contradicts this bleeding obvious statement because of a belief "unknown cause" is really a bit religous, and no place in logical approaches. That's the bit that hasn't been proven to my satisfaction yet... And it has nothing to do with religion or politics.....just logic and scientific method. A true scientist is always the first to admit that they don't know everything....and because it's unknown (or undiscovered) doesn't imply any 'intelligent' being at work.....it just means we may not have discovered the perfectly natural mechanism at work... p.s automatically attempting to assign disbelief in unclear scientific methodology to a religious attitude is pathetic and childish......it would be just as easy to assign belief in AGW to the 'church of Gaia'...

Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier.

Prevailing wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 3:34pm:

Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :)

Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time.

You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.   

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.

Lolololol now you are equating pensioners turning a light switch on and off with pouring acid into a river as an excuse to tax them...Lolololol...give it up...you got nothing... ;D ;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:26pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:06pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 1:22pm: The problem is, I'm still not convinced that the greenhouse effect is in anyway responsible for the recent/current warming, or indeed that the co2 (which IS a greenhouse gas) increase is a 'cause' rather than an 'effect'... Put simply, the possibility exists (strongly) that the change to the worlds temperature have an entire unknown or unsuspected cause, and reducing or removing any amount of Co2 from the atmosphere won't make the slightest bit of difference to any future temperature increases, and may, in fact,    cause a catastrophic plunge in the climate... Its seems you are not clear on what you do and dont believe. We know we are increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere (The simple question is, where do you think its going from burning all this coal ?).   And we know co2 causes warming, because it already does. More co2 = more warming.    Nothing earth shattering there.  To cling to an argument which contradicts this bleeding obvious statement because of a belief "unknown cause" is really a bit religous, and no place in logical approaches. That's the bit that hasn't been proven to my satisfaction yet... And it has nothing to do with religion or politics.....just logic and scientific method. A true scientist is always the first to admit that they don't know everything....and because it's unknown (or undiscovered) doesn't imply any 'intelligent' being at work.....it just means we may not have discovered the perfectly natural mechanism at work... p.s automatically attempting to assign disbelief in unclear scientific methodology to a religious attitude is pathetic and childish......it would be just as easy to assign belief in AGW to the 'church of Gaia'... Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier.

Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils...

Prevailing wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    Lolololol now you are equating pensioners turning a light switch on and off with pouring acid into a river as an excuse to tax them...Lolololol...give it up...you got nothing... ;D ;D

Of course not. pensioners turning on a light switch is entirely their choice where they get the power from (coal /  renewable), and they dont pay any fine.

Same as if they buy products from acid-river poluters. The acid-river poluters have already factored the price of the fines into the final price of the product.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.

But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Quote: Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier. Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils...

So you are saying that co2 does make the world warmer, and a drop in co2 would make it colder, but an increase wont make it warmer ?

Thats denier logic there boy.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself..

Define "polutant" ?

Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself.. Define "polutant" ? Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima.

You are plucking out of thin air...Mormonism is more rational than your taxation theories...  :D :D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: Quote: Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier. Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils... So you are saying that co2 does make the world warmer, and a drop in co2 would make it colder, but an increase wont make it warmer ? Thats denier logic there boy.

No, Co2 helps retain the world's temperature....insulation should never be confused with a heat source....

Do the pink batts in your roof contribute to the internal temperature by generating heat???

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself.. Define "polutant" ? Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima.

Simple...a 'polLutant' is a chemical or group of chemical that do not occur naturally in the natural world without human intervention...

And what is at Fukushima is 'contamination', not really pollution


(edit) A pollutant is substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria: (1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic). (2) By the effect, regardless of origin: on an organ, specie, or ecosystem. (3) By the properties: mobility, concentration, persistence, toxicity. (4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal.


p.s And by the way......the radiation levels detected a Fukushima is about half of what you receive, annually from the average house...(the average annual dose of Radon in a normal home is 200 millirem, or 2  Millisieverts and the dose found in Fukushima locals was 1  Millisievert) which equates to an extra 6 months for every year in your house...

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics.

It will ramp up business activity in the green industry, if that's what you mean!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: Quote: Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier. Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils... So you are saying that co2 does make the world warmer, and a drop in co2 would make it colder, but an increase wont make it warmer ? Thats denier logic there boy. No, Co2 helps retain the world's temperature....insulation should never be confused with a heat source.... Do the pink batts in your roof contribute to the internal temperature by generating heat???

lol, talk about regurgitation of the basics!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:02pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: Quote: Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier. Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils... So you are saying that co2 does make the world warmer, and a drop in co2 would make it colder, but an increase wont make it warmer ? Thats denier logic there boy. No, Co2 helps retain the world's temperature....insulation should never be confused with a heat source.... Do the pink batts in your roof contribute to the internal temperature by generating heat??? lol, talk about regurgitation of the basics!

And the completely brain damaged, total embarrassment to the whole AGW idea..speaks..LOL.....Al Gore would prefer you to go away, you're making it worse...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 6:20pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:58pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:02pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: Quote: Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier. Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils... So you are saying that co2 does make the world warmer, and a drop in co2 would make it colder, but an increase wont make it warmer ? Thats denier logic there boy. No, Co2 helps retain the world's temperature....insulation should never be confused with a heat source.... Do the pink batts in your roof contribute to the internal temperature by generating heat??? lol, talk about regurgitation of the basics! And the completely brain damaged, total embarrassment to the whole AGW idea..speaks..LOL.....Al Gore would prefer you to go away, you're making it worse...

i DON'T THINK SO MATEY,.... AND THAT BEING ALL THAT MATTERS WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND GET THE LAWYERS ON THE LINE AND SUE ME!!
  :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 6:20pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:58pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:02pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: Quote: Thats just silly.  Co2 being a green house gas, and its thermo properties keeping the earth warmer than it would be without co2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 1950's.... probably earlier. Yes...all very true. It's due to the green house effect that we don't ski across the pacific ocean on holidays.......however, that doesn't necessarily mean we will melt into puddles because of it either...any more than putting hot water into a thermos flask will cause the water to increase in temperature until it boils... So you are saying that co2 does make the world warmer, and a drop in co2 would make it colder, but an increase wont make it warmer ? Thats denier logic there boy. No, Co2 helps retain the world's temperature....insulation should never be confused with a heat source.... Do the pink batts in your roof contribute to the internal temperature by generating heat??? lol, talk about regurgitation of the basics! And the completely brain damaged, total embarrassment to the whole AGW idea..speaks..LOL.....Al Gore would prefer you to go away, you're making it worse... i DON'T THINK SO MATEY,.... AND THAT BEING ALL THAT MATTERS WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND GET THE LAWYERS ON THE LINE AND SUE ME!!   :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D

That's ok...everyone else does...(even Tim Flannery is laughing at your posts)

You're loud, ignorant and so stupid that you shouldn't be allowed out without a 'keeper'...Sorry, just expressing the commonly held opinion of YOU...

Try and guess who the AGW loon is. The one that sounds like a spoilt prat who hold the AGW daily soundbytes and no science.

Dam, what an idiot.

recent talk about sandy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf1a94SyNmg

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself..

Yes.  CO2 is a natural by-product of life itself which is a pollutant above certain concentrations.  Just like manure.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself.. Define "polutant" ? Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima. Simple...a 'polLutant' is a chemical or group of chemical that do not occur naturally in the natural world without human intervention...

Making up your own definitions!!!! Good for you!

Sorry champ - but you will find that the most common pollutants do occur naturally in the real word - ie. sewage, silt/sedimentation, salt, dust, etc etc.

Even by your retarded definnition, CO2 is a pollutant, since it is the human intevention of burning fossil fuels that has caused CO2 to be present in the atmosphere at elevated levels.

CO2 can be a pollutant.  It is a simple fact.  Learn it.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:50am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. There wasnt much in heat content in the ocean that wasnt of normal levels. Except for 3 or 4 degrees above average.  ::) Anyway, when you look at the damage seen on those beach front houses on staten island, it not hard to understand why Tim Flannery made sure when he brought coastal land that  it was well above 10m above sea level (ie a point, not a beach).

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-1.png

An Inconvenient Truth: Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies along Sandy’s Track Haven’t Warmed in 70+ Years

Dont know where you are getting the 3 - 4 degrees from, but there was some fool who said 5 degrees.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:35am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself.. Define "polutant" ? Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima. Simple...a 'polLutant' is a chemical or group of chemical that do not occur naturally in the natural world without human intervention... Making up your own definitions!!!! Good for you! Sorry champ - but you will find that the most common pollutants do occur naturally in the real word - ie. sewage, silt/sedimentation, salt, dust, etc etc. Even by your retarded definnition, CO2 is a pollutant, since it is the human intevention of burning fossil fuels that has caused CO2 to be present in the atmosphere at elevated levels. CO2 can be a pollutant.  It is a simple fact.  Learn it.

Most of which are NOT pollutants......oh and sewage doesn't occur naturally..it requires human action

Sorry Rabbit, but  even though you drunk the coolaid, you should still do enough research to actually get the difference between the two

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:35am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself.. Define "polutant" ? Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima. Simple...a 'polLutant' is a chemical or group of chemical that do not occur naturally in the natural world without human intervention... Making up your own definitions!!!! Good for you! Sorry champ - but you will find that the most common pollutants do occur naturally in the real word - ie. sewage, silt/sedimentation, salt, dust, etc etc. Even by your retarded definnition, CO2 is a pollutant, since it is the human intevention of burning fossil fuels that has caused CO2 to be present in the atmosphere at elevated levels. CO2 can be a pollutant.  It is a simple fact.  Learn it. gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 11:43am: Most of which are NOT pollutants......oh and sewage doesn't occur naturally..it requires human action No.  Everythg I mentioned can be pollutants. You need to look up what the word means. You probably should look up what the word "sewage" means too.  If you use water - you have sewage.  Simple as that. [quote author=424C5F484A7A17131010250 link=1352071339/48#48 date=1352166181] Sorry Rabbit, but  even though you drunk the coolaid, you should still do enough research to actually get the difference between the two

Let me help you out.  You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you know what you are talking about.  It is clear you don't.

pollutant  (p-ltnt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollutant

Natural substances can be pollutants.  Stop trying to make up your own definitions of commonly used words.  It is a retarded thing to do.

Sediment/silt can be a pollutant.  Naturally occurring salts can be pollutants.  Animal faeces can be pollutants.  Sewage is a pollutant.  Co2 can be a pollutant.

Stop making things up -  you are making a fool of yourself.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Most of which are NOT pollutants......oh and sewage doesn't occur naturally..it requires human action Sorry Rabbit, but  even though you drunk the coolaid, you should still do enough research to actually get the difference between the two

Um, SHITE HAPPENS... JUST ASK TONY "SHITE HAPPENS" ABBOTT

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:54am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:50am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. There wasnt much in heat content in the ocean that wasnt of normal levels. Except for 3 or 4 degrees above average.  ::) Anyway, when you look at the damage seen on those beach front houses on staten island, it not hard to understand why Tim Flannery made sure when he brought coastal land that  it was well above 10m above sea level (ie a point, not a beach). http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-1.png An Inconvenient Truth: Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies along Sandy’s Track Haven’t Warmed in 70+ Years Dont know where you are getting the 3 - 4 degrees from, but there was some fool who said 5 degrees. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/

You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years.


Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?

Why do you post lies and then run away?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 11:43am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:35am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:34pm: Assigning a Tax to a chemical reaction is a farce...Tax the second law of thermo-dynamics why don't you... :) :) Assigning a penalty rate on polution has been pretty standard practice in modern economies for some time. You pour acid into the river, you get fined. You dont pour acid into the river, you dont.    But Co2 isn't a pollutant, it is a natural by-product of life itself.. Define "polutant" ? Any substance that makes the world worse off would be mine. Radiation is "natural" too.  Doesnt mean I want to live near fukushima. Simple...a 'polLutant' is a chemical or group of chemical that do not occur naturally in the natural world without human intervention... Making up your own definitions!!!! Good for you! Sorry champ - but you will find that the most common pollutants do occur naturally in the real word - ie. sewage, silt/sedimentation, salt, dust, etc etc. Even by your retarded definnition, CO2 is a pollutant, since it is the human intevention of burning fossil fuels that has caused CO2 to be present in the atmosphere at elevated levels. CO2 can be a pollutant.  It is a simple fact.  Learn it. gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 11:43am: Most of which are NOT pollutants......oh and sewage doesn't occur naturally..it requires human action No.  Everythg I mentioned can be pollutants. You need to look up what the word means. You probably should look up what the word "sewage" means too.  If you use water - you have sewage.  Simple as that. [quote author=424C5F484A7A17131010250 link=1352071339/48#48 date=1352166181] Sorry Rabbit, but  even though you drunk the coolaid, you should still do enough research to actually get the difference between the two Let me help you out.  You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you know what you are talking about.  It is clear you don't. pollutant  (p-ltnt) A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollutant Natural substances can be pollutants.  Stop trying to make up your own definitions of commonly used words.  It is a retarded thing to do. Sediment/silt can be a pollutant.  Naturally occurring salts can be pollutants.  Animal faeces can be pollutants.  Sewage is a pollutant.  Co2 can be a pollutant. Stop making things up -  you are making a fool of yourself.

LOL I'm not the fool, you're the one trying to declare 'dirt' to be a pollutant....

Cool, so when are you starting the campaign to fine farmers for polluting...after all they use animal feces (fertilisers) on their crops...

What's next...is water a pollutant too....after all too much of that can cause floods and drowning.

Seriously...you guys get funnier everyday......have you stopped breathing yet, wouldn't want to spew out all the nasty Co2 pollution...
http://www.petitiononline.com/h2o/petition.html

There you go...better sign up..

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 11:33am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:54am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:50am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:36am: FriYAY wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:22am: Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics. Can you put up the proof this storm was caused by C02 emissions please. :) Lack of artic ice sheet this year, causing northern oceans to absorb much more energy, intensifing Sandy. There wasnt much in heat content in the ocean that wasnt of normal levels. Except for 3 or 4 degrees above average.  ::) Anyway, when you look at the damage seen on those beach front houses on staten island, it not hard to understand why Tim Flannery made sure when he brought coastal land that  it was well above 10m above sea level (ie a point, not a beach). http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-1.png An Inconvenient Truth: Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies along Sandy’s Track Haven’t Warmed in 70+ Years Dont know where you are getting the 3 - 4 degrees from, but there was some fool who said 5 degrees. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/ You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years? Why do you post lies and then run away?

It is not my concern that you do not like the empirical data provided by MET that shows a 0.5 degree anomaly today, that is the same 0.5 anomaly 16 years ago. No warming for 16 years.

I cant help it that there are less hurricanes today and that sandies tracking area of ocean has not warmed for 70 years.

It is your concern that you do not like empirical data. The real world.

Now run along and answer your own question.

This petition is for the complete ban of Dihydrogen monoxide.

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:
- is the major component of acid rain
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect"
- it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
- contributes to erosion
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals
- may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes
- has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

Despite the dangers, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal.

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1LU45Nip0

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

LOL I'm not the fool, you're the one trying to declare 'dirt' to be a pollutant....

Yes.  "Dirt" is a pollutant.

If you don't believe me - do an experiment.

Dig up some "dirt" from your garden and place it in gutter in front of your house.
Then - call your local Department of the Environment (or whatever it is called in your state) and tell them what you have done.
Get back to us with what the wording is on the infringement notice you will receive.

If youare Victorian - her is a description of sediment pollution for you

CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR SEDIMENT POLLUTION CONTROL
http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/591899/construction_techniques_for_sediment_pollution_control.pdf

I suggest you read it.  You are completely clueless.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Cool, so when are you starting the campaign to fine farmers for polluting...after all they use animal feces (fertilisers) on their crops...

Fining farmers for polluting waters from fertiliser runoff has been a feature of Australian law for decades.  In Qld where I live - at least since the passing of the Environmental Protection Act in 1994

Here is some information from WA that may explain things for you:
http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/9985.pdf


gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

What's next...is water a pollutant too....after all too much of that can cause floods and drowning.

Yes. Water can be a pollutant.  Especially fresh water when it is introduced in large quantities in a marine environment


gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Seriously...you guys get funnier everyday......have you stopped breathing yet, wouldn't want to spew out all the nasty Co2 pollution...

The CO2 you breath out is part of the carbon cycle relating to the what you eat and the air you breath.  You are not adding to the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when you exhale.  CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels is a different matter.  When you burn fossil fuels you are releasing carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for millions of years,

Do you really not understand this?  Are you really that ignorant?  How old are you?!?!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: LOL I'm not the fool, you're the one trying to declare 'dirt' to be a pollutant.... Yes.  "Dirt" is a pollutant. If you don't believe me - do an experiment. Dig up some "dirt" from your garden and place it in gutter in front of your house. Then - call your local Department of the Environment (or whatever it is called in your state) and tell them what you have done. Get back to us with what the wording is on the infringement notice you will receive. If youare Victorian - her is a description of sediment pollution for you CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR SEDIMENT POLLUTION CONTROL http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/591899/construction_techniques_for_sediment_pollution_control.pdf I suggest you read it.  You are completely clueless. gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: Cool, so when are you starting the campaign to fine farmers for polluting...after all they use animal feces (fertilisers) on their crops... Fining farmers for polluting waters from fertiliser runoff has been a feature of Australian law for decades.  In Qld where I live - at least since the passing of the Environmental Protection Act in 1994 Here is some information from WA that may explain things for you: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/9985.pdf gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: What's next...is water a pollutant too....after all too much of that can cause floods and drowning. Yes. Water can be a pollutant.  Especially fresh water when it is introduced in large quantities in a marine environment gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: Seriously...you guys get funnier everyday......have you stopped breathing yet, wouldn't want to spew out all the nasty Co2 pollution... The CO2 you breath out is part of the carbon cycle relating to the what you eat and the air you breath.  You are not adding to the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when you exhale.  CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels is a different matter.  When you burn fossil fuels you are releasing carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for millions of years, Do you really not understand this?  Are you really that ignorant?  How old are you?!?!

What is so scary, is that you can sit there and make these statements without seeing how truly dangerous that sort of thinking is...

You actually sit there and talk happily about banning this, that and the other thing...with no concept of dangerous it is to society, civilisation and life on earth in general...

As for how old I am...I'm old enough to remember when these ideas would get you laughed at in the streets...

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Will Huricane Sandy, hitting home to one of the world centres, finally make the US do something about its co2 emissions ? I think its the first step. More super-storms to follow will all chip away at the deniers stranglehold on US politics.

Judging from past form, they will probably open a hurricane worship centre near where the storm hit and go on about how they are not anti-hurricane, only anti-extreme hurricane, and they'll elect Storm Boy prez at the earliest opportunity.

Hurricanes happen every year.

Planet earth is billions & billions of years old.
Measuring the last 16 years and deciding that is a comparison trend to prove theories is stupid.
It is like measuring your garden but only measuring the first 0.001mm and deciding what to do!

Isnt it better to err on the side of caution when it comes to our living space?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 7^th, 2012 at 4:54am:

Isnt it better to err on the side of caution when it comes to our living space? SOB

HaHa  completely agree  HaHa

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 9:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: LOL I'm not the fool, you're the one trying to declare 'dirt' to be a pollutant.... Yes.  "Dirt" is a pollutant. If you don't believe me - do an experiment. Dig up some "dirt" from your garden and place it in gutter in front of your house. Then - call your local Department of the Environment (or whatever it is called in your state) and tell them what you have done. Get back to us with what the wording is on the infringement notice you will receive. If youare Victorian - her is a description of sediment pollution for you CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR SEDIMENT POLLUTION CONTROL http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/591899/construction_techniques_for_sediment_pollution_control.pdf I suggest you read it.  You are completely clueless. gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: Cool, so when are you starting the campaign to fine farmers for polluting...after all they use animal feces (fertilisers) on their crops... Fining farmers for polluting waters from fertiliser runoff has been a feature of Australian law for decades.  In Qld where I live - at least since the passing of the Environmental Protection Act in 1994 Here is some information from WA that may explain things for you: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/9985.pdf gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: What's next...is water a pollutant too....after all too much of that can cause floods and drowning. Yes. Water can be a pollutant.  Especially fresh water when it is introduced in large quantities in a marine environment gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: Seriously...you guys get funnier everyday......have you stopped breathing yet, wouldn't want to spew out all the nasty Co2 pollution... The CO2 you breath out is part of the carbon cycle relating to the what you eat and the air you breath.  You are not adding to the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when you exhale.  CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels is a different matter.  When you burn fossil fuels you are releasing carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for millions of years, Do you really not understand this?  Are you really that ignorant?  How old are you?!?! What is so scary, is that you can sit there and make these statements without seeing how truly dangerous that sort of thinking is... You actually sit there and talk happily about banning this, that and the other thing...with no concept of dangerous it is to society, civilisation and life on earth in general... As for how old I am...I'm old enough to remember when these ideas would get you laughed at in the streets...

Gizmo, lolmylittleacornoff!

GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 7^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 9:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 9:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: LOL I'm not the fool, you're the one trying to declare 'dirt' to be a pollutant.... Yes.  "Dirt" is a pollutant. If you don't believe me - do an experiment. Dig up some "dirt" from your garden and place it in gutter in front of your house. Then - call your local Department of the Environment (or whatever it is called in your state) and tell them what you have done. Get back to us with what the wording is on the infringement notice you will receive. If youare Victorian - her is a description of sediment pollution for you CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR SEDIMENT POLLUTION CONTROL http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/591899/construction_techniques_for_sediment_pollution_control.pdf I suggest you read it.  You are completely clueless. gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: Cool, so when are you starting the campaign to fine farmers for polluting...after all they use animal feces (fertilisers) on their crops... Fining farmers for polluting waters from fertiliser runoff has been a feature of Australian law for decades.  In Qld where I live - at least since the passing of the Environmental Protection Act in 1994 Here is some information from WA that may explain things for you: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/9985.pdf gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: What's next...is water a pollutant too....after all too much of that can cause floods and drowning. Yes. Water can be a pollutant.  Especially fresh water when it is introduced in large quantities in a marine environment gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:50pm: Seriously...you guys get funnier everyday......have you stopped breathing yet, wouldn't want to spew out all the nasty Co2 pollution... The CO2 you breath out is part of the carbon cycle relating to the what you eat and the air you breath.  You are not adding to the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when you exhale.  CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels is a different matter.  When you burn fossil fuels you are releasing carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for millions of years, Do you really not understand this?  Are you really that ignorant?  How old are you?!?! What is so scary, is that you can sit there and make these statements without seeing how truly dangerous that sort of thinking is... You actually sit there and talk happily about banning this, that and the other thing...with no concept of dangerous it is to society, civilisation and life on earth in general... As for how old I am...I'm old enough to remember when these ideas would get you laughed at in the streets... Gizmo, lolmylittleacornoff! GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Something you want oh drugged out one??

Gizmo can't sleep!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 7^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

Gizmo can't sleep!!

Au contraire....

I'm not sleeping right now....but then it's only 4.30 pm....

Otherwise, I sleep quite well

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

What is so scary, is that you can sit there and make these statements without seeing how truly dangerous that sort of thinking is... You actually sit there and talk happily about banning this, that and the other thing...with no concept of dangerous it is to society, civilisation and life on earth in general... As for how old I am...I'm old enough to remember when these ideas would get you laughed at in the streets...

Oh dear.  A liar too are you.  Typical.  It comes with gross ignorance.

Where did I  propose " banning this, that and the other thing"?!?!
Don't tell lies.  It is  a very childish thing to do.

Now go and find yourself a dictionary and look up what the word "pollutant" means.  Even though I have already shown you, you seem to be incapable of comprehending.  Perhaps find a grown-up to explain it to you?

And then - find the piece of environmental protection legislation relevant to your State and look at what penalties are in place for polluting the environment with pollutants which are also naturally occurring substances such as silt, salt, animal waste, dirty water etc etc.

I am happy to help you out with whatever you don't understand.

Seriously - don't post about things you don't understand, and stop telling lies.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 7th, 2012 at 3:00pm: Gizmo can't sleep!! Au contraire.... I'm not sleeping right now....but then it's only 4.30 pm.... Otherwise, I sleep quite well

I know better!  ;) ;)

Fear not.
Out latest new tax will save the planet. :)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Yes I do.. but I'm still waiting to be convinced that Co2 has anything to do with GW...

You'll be waiting a long time.

So far, no credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis.

I still keep an open mind though.  But up until now, there's no convincing evidence.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 1:00am:

You'll be waiting a long time. So far, no credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis. I still keep an open mind though.  But up until now, there's no convincing evidence.

hi uncy meat, it is you after all!!!

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/sheik_yerbouti_small1.jpg

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 9^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Fear not. Out latest new tax will save the planet. :)

GO GST!!

  ;) ;)  :-*

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 1:00am:

You'll be waiting a long time. So far, no credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis.

No.  Overwhelming credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis.

You can see an detailed summary of it here, with references to all of the relevent papers providing detailed evidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 1:00am:

I still keep an open mind though.  But up until now, there's no convincing evidence.

You appear to have an open mind to whatever Andrew Bolt tells you - but that is about it.

The evidence is abundant and fully available for you to see.
I am not sure what you would consider "convincing" - since you simply blindly ignore what is available.  I realise you don't understand it - but there are plenty of people who would be willing to help you.

Make the effort and try not to be ignorant all your life.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

No.  Overwhelming credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis. You can see an detailed summary of it here, with references to all of the relevent papers providing detailed evidence. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html You appear to have an open mind to whatever Andrew Bolt tells you - but that is about it. The evidence is abundant and fully available for you to see. I am not sure what you would consider "convincing" - since you simply blindly ignore what is available.  I realise you don't understand it - but there are plenty of people who would be willing to help you. Make the effort and try not to be ignorant all your life.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS HERE: MARKETS WILL BEGIN FACTORING IT IN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

GO GST!!   ;) ;)  :-*

You really do need to keep up horse. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 3:34pm:

You really do need to keep up horse. :)

Still loving the old man long time are ya?????

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

No.  Overwhelming credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis.

Incorrect.  No credible, convincing evidence exists.

Your little AGW hypothesis is a good one though, I'll give you that.  As far as hypotheses go, it's pretty good.

However, there's just not enough credible evidence to show that humans are causing the globe to warm.

Moreover, it's hard to believe that people are actually that gullible.

Come up with something credible, and we might start listening to you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 12:15am:

Incorrect.  No credible, convincing evidence exists. Your little AGW hypothesis is a good one though, I'll give you that.  As far as hypotheses go, it's pretty good. However, there's just not enough credible evidence to show that humans are causing the globe to warm. Moreover, it's hard to believe that people are actually that gullible. Come up with something credible, and we might start listening to you.

So why do 97% of climate scientists think otherwise. Have you considered the possibility you're wrong and the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in the field are right.

Now if you are wrong, and the chances of you being right are incredibly slim, have you thought about the consequenes of your failure to understand the science.

MOTR wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 3:13am:

So why do 97% of climate scientists think otherwise. Have you considered the possibility you're wrong and the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in the field are right. Now if you are wrong, and the chances of you being right are incredibly slim, have you thought about the consequenes of your failure to understand the science.

Everyone bar you and a few loons still believe in the fraud 97%

MOTR wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 3:13am:

Have you considered the possibility you're wrong ...

Yep, and I've said so on more than one occasion.


MOTR wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 3:13am:

Now if you are wrong ... have you thought about the consequences ...

Yep, which is why I have no problem with people erring on the side of caution.  I've said this on more than one occasion.

I believe one of my posts went something along the lines of "have as many carbon taxes as you like, I couldn't care less".

You need to pay attention.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:

... you and a few loons still believe in the fraud 97%

Yes.

"I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite. 

"Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey."

“This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

"One fact that is not obvious (ie missing) from the Doran EoS paper and that surprised me, is that over 96% of the scientists that responded were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone."

"Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 12:15am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12th, 2012 at 6:48pm: No.  Overwhelming credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis. Incorrect.  No credible, convincing evidence exists.

No - there is overwhelming credible, convincing evidence,  It has been published in thousands of scientific papers over the last 3 decades or so.

Why can't you explain to where you think this where this " lack of credible, convincing evidence " actually is?  With what part of the theory is there a " lack of credible, convincing evidence " ?

Is it the fact that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you do,, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that CO2 absorbs and re-emits heat.

Is it the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly.

Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities

Is it the fact that the outgoing longwave radiation has decreased in the same wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you do,, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that outgoing longwave radiation has decreased in the same wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2

Is it the fact that downward longwave radiation longwave radiation has increased that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you do,, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that downward longwave radiation longwave radiation has increased.

Is it the fact that global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have increased that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you do,, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence thatthat global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have increased

Please tell us exactly which part of AGW you think lacks credible, convincing evidence.

And I will happily provide evidence for you.




greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 12:15am:

However, there's just not enough credible evidence to show that humans are causing the globe to warm.

No.  Overwhelming credible evidence has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis.
You just don't know about it because Bolty hasn't told you.


Please tell us exactly which part of AGW you think lacks credible, convincing evidence.

And I will happily provide evidence for you.

Stop putting your fingers in your ears and running away.  Tell us what part of the theory is it that you think lacks evidence.

oops...

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:17pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 5:36pm: ... you and a few loons still believe in the fraud 97% Yes. "I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.  "Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey." “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.” "Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..” “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” "One fact that is not obvious (ie missing) from the Doran EoS paper and that surprised me, is that over 96% of the scientists that responded were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone." "Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Perhaps you could point us to the scientific papers by scientists that argue that AGW is not occurring?
Surely if there are a significant number of these scientists, then the scientific literature must be full of such papers.  There must be a very rigourous debate going on in the scientific literature!!

Where is it?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities Is it the fact that global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have increased that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you do,, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence thatthat global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have increased

There's no credible, reliable evidence to support this hypothesis.

Sorry.

Moreover, your continual use of the word "fact" demonstrates just how ignorant you are when it comes to science.

It's the AGW hypothesis, not the AGW "fact".  You need to learn the difference.  Until then, you're just making an absolute fool of yourself.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities

Yes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities Is it the fact that global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have increased that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for?  If you do,, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence thatthat global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have increased There's no credible, reliable evidence to support this hypothesis.

No Greggery. THere is overwhelming credible evidence that has been presented to support the AGW hypothesis.

I would be happy to show some to you if you were able to explain to us what it is exactly you doubt.

Why can't you tell us what you want to see evidence for Greggery?


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

Moreover, your continual use of the word "fact" demonstrates just how ignorant you are when it comes to science.

Oh Greggery!!!  Who do you think you are fooling!!

We have a lot of facts.

It is a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
It is a FACT that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased in the past century.
It is a FACT that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has come from anthropogenic souces
It is a FACT that there has been a measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths which are absorbed by CO2
It is a FACT that there has been an observed increase in downwardlongwave radiation
It is a FACT that there has been an observed increase in global surface and ocean temperatures in recent decades


All of these FACTS support the hypothesis.
And in the absence of any FACTS contrary to the hypothesis - we have what we call an accepted theory.
A theory accepted by virtually every scientist on the planet
A theory supported by thousands of papers in the scientific literature
A theory  - which is opposed by you and your mates Jones and Bolt - and pretty much nobody else.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

It's the AGW hypothesis, not the AGW "fact".  You need to learn the difference.  Until then, you're just making an absolute fool of yourself.

Sorry Greggery - you bluster will not convince anyone.  Admit it - you are a sad old man who is frightened by things he doesn't understand, so you close your eyes and pretend they don't exist.

Tell us what you don't understand Greggery - I will happiiy explain it to you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:57pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities Yes.

Good for you Greggery!!!

You are actually going to let us know the bits you don't trust so we can show you the evidence!!!  I am so proud of you!

Now - you doubt the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities. 

OK, it is a fair point.

Now obviously - there must be some reason for the significant increase in atmospheric CO2 that has been measured - and at first look - the obvious answer would be that CO2 is a product of combustion, and in the past century, we have dug up and burnt shedloads of coal and oil and stuff.  ANd CO2 is also absorbed by vegetation - and in the past century or so we have cut down shedloads of forests.

Right?

Seems obvious - but is there evidence to confirm it?
Yes there is.

The carbon in the coal and oil laid down millions of years ago has a different ratio of C13/C12 isotopes than that in living matter:
when organic carbon is buried, more 12C is locked out of the system in sediments than the background ratio (because organic carbon is lighter).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ13C#Reference_standard

It has been measured that the C12 in the atmosphere is decreasing:

Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906).
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

So,

We have an observed effect - CO2 is increasing.
We know we have burt a lot of coal - so that carbon must be going somewhere, and it just so happens that the stuff in the air bears the isotopic fingerprint of a burnt fossil fuel.
ANd in the absence of any other explanation as to why an increase in carbon bearing the fingerprint of a burt fossil fuel should appear in the atmosphere suddenly in increasing amounts - at exactly he time we are burning a lot of fossil fuels - it would appear difficult how anyone could consider that evidence anything but  credible and convincing .

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities ...

Sorry.  This is not a "fact".

When will you learn ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:57pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities Yes.

excellent. So is it also a fact that CO2 traps heat energy?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

... it would appear difficult how anyone could consider that evidence anything but  credible and convincing .

To an AGW alarmist such as yourself, true.

Some people are simply more gullible than others, and they're willing to believe everything they read without ever questioning it.

You've demonstrated that perfectly.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

Admit it - you are a sad old man who is frightened by things he doesn't understand ...

That's just the point, I'm not frightened at all.

However, the government has you exactly where they want you - cowering in the corner waiting for the sky to fall in.

There's no need to feel too bad though - fear based control works on the majority of the population.  You and your AGW alarmist comrades are not alone.

Cheers

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:59pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 7:32pm: ... it would appear difficult how anyone could consider that evidence anything but  credible and convincing . To an AGW alarmist such as yourself, true. Some people are simply more gullible than others, and they're willing to believe everything they read without ever questioning it. You've demonstrated that perfectly.

Is that why Australia voted for the GST??? :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 7:08pm: Admit it - you are a sad old man who is frightened by things he doesn't understand ... That's just the point, I'm not frightened at all. However, the government has you exactly where they want you - cowering in the corner waiting for the sky to fall in. There's no need to feel too bad though - fear based control works on the majority of the population.  You and your AGW alarmist comrades are not alone. Cheers ;)

Lol  ::) ::)

Is THAT why Australia voted for the GST?!!?

Upton Sinclair wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:57pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities that you think there is a "lack of credible, convincing evidence" for? If you do, just say so and I will show you the published credible, convincing evidence that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities Yes. excellent. So is it also a fact that CO2 traps heat energy?

It is a fact that CO2 absorbs energy at certain wavelengths and re-emits it

  Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth.  When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state.  It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed.  Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.
http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities ... Sorry.  This is not a "fact". When will you learn ?

No Greggery.  That is a fact.

If it were not - you would be able to provide an alternative explanation


Over to you Greggery.......

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 7:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities ... Sorry.  This is not a "fact". When will you learn ? No Greggery.  That is a fact. If it were not - you would be able to provide an alternative explanation Over to you Greggery.......

Nope, merely a theory.

Sorry old boy.

Keep digging that hole though   :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 7:08pm: Admit it - you are a sad old man who is frightened by things he doesn't understand ... That's just the point, I'm not frightened at all. However, the government has you exactly where they want you - cowering in the corner waiting for the sky to fall in. There's no need to feel too bad though - fear based control works on the majority of the population.  You and your AGW alarmist comrades are not alone. Cheers ;)

What is it you don't understand Greggery.  I am happy to explain it to you.

Was the C12 isotope thing a bit too much for you?  I tried to make it a simple as possible.

Would you like a more detailed explanation of why we know it is a FACT that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropogenic sources?

Don't be frightened Greggery.  Knowledge is good.  Go on - turn off Bolty.  Turn off Jonesy.  I know you can do it!!!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 8:28pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 7:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: Is it the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to anthropogenic activities ... Sorry.  This is not a "fact". When will you learn ? No Greggery.  That is a fact. If it were not - you would be able to provide an alternative explanation Over to you Greggery....... Nope, merely a theory. Sorry old boy. Keep digging that hole though   :)

Are you denying that the C12 component of atmospheric CO2 has decreased as CO2 concentrations have risen?

Are you saying that the papers which describe the measurement of this effect are lying?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 8:29pm:

What is it you don't understand Greggery.

1. Why you AGW alarmists are so gullible.

2. Why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 8:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 8:29pm: What is it you don't understand Greggery.  1. Why you AGW alarmists are so gullible. 2. Why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.

Details Greggory.  we want details.

I don't want to have to explain 10,000 years of human scientific endevour to you.

What is it exactly you don't understand.  Broad, sweeping statement of ignorance are fine for your emails to Bolty - but they are not good enough here.

Come on old fella - don't be so frightened.  Learning is good.  Even at your age.

What didn't you understand about my explanation of how we know that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropogenic sources?  Don't just run away.  I can give you more details.

What don't you understand?

I will go as slowly as you want.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:00pm:

What don't you understand? I will go as slowly as you want.

This is what I don't understand:

1. Why you AGW alarmists are so gullible.

2. Why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.

3. Why you refuse to answer 1. and 2. 

4. Why you asked the question in the first place if you had no intentions of responding to my honest reply.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:00pm:

What don't you understand?

I'll go easy on you, and just settle for number 2:

I don't understand ...

2. Why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.

So, can you please explain, in detail?  Why is it that AGW alarmists have such a hard time accepting that some people don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis?  Why do you feel the need to push your beliefs down other people's throats?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:07pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 9:00pm: What don't you understand? I'll go easy on you, and just settle for number 2: I don't understand ... 2. Why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis. So, can you please explain, in detail?  Why is it that AGW alarmists have such a hard time accepting that some people don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis?  Why do you feel the need to push your beliefs down other people's throats?

I don't have a hard time accepting that some people don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis.  I understand that many people are ignorant.

What I have a hard time accepting is people saying there is no credible, convincing evidence AGW is occurring.

I understand that you have no interest in acknoledging the evidence that exists - but why do you deny that evidince exists?  That is a very childish thing to do isn't it?

Why do you lie and pretend there is no evidence - just because you don't understand it?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:

... but why do you deny that evidince exists?

I have never once denied that evidence exists.

I have always maintained that there is plenty of evidence.

Now you're just telling lies.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:

What I have a hard time accepting is people saying there is no credible, convincing evidence AGW is occurring.

Why?  Does it keep you up at night?  Don't you have a life?

You haven't presented any credible, convincing evidence yet anyway.   The logical thing to do is present the credible, convincing evidence - why don't you do that?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

The logical thing to do is present the credible, convincing evidence - why don't you do that?

Hmmm, went awfully quiet in here all of a sudden.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1dmtxl6MX1qzzgvbo1_400.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 9:13pm: ... but why do you deny that evidince exists?  I have never once denied that evidence exists. I have always maintained that there is plenty of evidence. Now you're just telling lies. Your memory is failing your Greggery:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

No credible, convincing evidence exists.

Never mind.  It will happen at your age.

Just tell me what you don't understand - and I will be happy to explain it to you

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 9:16pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 9:13pm: ... but why do you deny that evidince exists?  I have never once denied that evidence exists. I have always maintained that there is plenty of evidence. Now you're just telling lies. Your memory is failing your Greggery: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12th, 2012 at 6:48pm: No credible, convincing evidence exists.

You obviously have trouble reading.  Poor boy.

I have never, ever denied that evidence exists.

However, I have always maintained that no credible, convincing evidence exists.  Thanks for backing that up with your post.  Now you look like an even bigger fool (if that is at all possible).

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:

You haven't presented any credible, convincing evidence yet anyway.   The logical thing to do is present the credible, convincing evidence - why don't you do that?

You asked for evidence to support my statement that the majority of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is from anthropogenic sources.

I showed your a published scientific paper that reported on the measurement of the change in C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2.

You were shown evidence.
You were shown credible evidence.
If you think that the evidence you were shown was not credible - perhaps you may like to explain why it was not credible.

Denying that you were shown any evidence only makes you sound like an ignorant old fool.

All of the past posts are recorded here to show what you have been shown. 
You cannot deny that you have seen what you have been shown.

If you have reason to doubt what you have been shown.....why don't you explain it to us?

Come on Greggery.  I known it is time you would normally curl up with a warm mug of Milo - but how about you log out of ILoveBolt.Com and explain to us what your problem is?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 9:16pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 9:13pm: ... but why do you deny that evidince exists?  I have never once denied that evidence exists. I have always maintained that there is plenty of evidence. Now you're just telling lies. Your memory is failing your Greggery: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12th, 2012 at 6:48pm: No credible, convincing evidence exists. You obviously have trouble reading.  Poor boy. I have never, ever denied that evidence exists. However, I have always maintained that no credible, convincing evidence exists.  Thanks for backing that up with your post.  Now you look like an even bigger fool (if that is at all possible).

And you are yet to explain what is not credible about measuring the C12 isotopic content of atmospheric CO2.

What is your problem Greggery?

"Credible" doesn't mean "something only morons understand".

It means "credible".

What are you finding uncredible Greggery?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

Just tell me what you don't understand - and I will be happy to explain it to you

How many times must I answer this question?

Are you retarded?

Pay attention - this is the answer to your question:

I don't understand why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.  Why is it so important to you that everybody agrees with you?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:40pm:

You asked for evidence to support my statement that the majority of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is from anthropogenic sources.

Incorrect.

I asked for credible, convincing evidence.

So far, you've provided none.

You've produced some evidence, but no credible, convincing evidence.

Why?  Because it doesn't exist.

It was mean of me to ask really.

It's kind of like asking you to provide a copy of your Uni testamur: if it doesn't exist, how on earth can you show it to anyone?

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:33pm: Just tell me what you don't understand - and I will be happy to explain it to you How many times must I answer this question?

Once would be good Greggery.

Well - you did answer once - when you raised doubt about why I said that the majority of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration was due to anthropogenic sources.

I showed you evidence to support what I said.  Actual real empirical evidence as reported in a properly published scientific paper.

You went very quiet after that on that subject didn't you Greggery.

Why was that Greggery?

You have still not told us what you find unconvincing about the measured C12/C13 ration of atmospheric carbon?  Do you want to email Bolty about it tomorrow before you answer?

Good idea Greggery.


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Are you retarded?

I am not the one channelling Bolty Greggery


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

I don't understand why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.  Why is it so important to you that everybody agrees with you?

You question could be answered if you could pose it in a comprehnsible way Greggery.

What don't you understand about AGW?

Why can't you tell us?

You seem to understand that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen.
I have shown you evidence, that you have not refuted - that the CO2 is from anthropogenic sources.
What is the next bit you don't understand?

I am happy to help.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:40pm: You asked for evidence to support my statement that the majority of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is from anthropogenic sources. Incorrect. I asked for credible, convincing evidence. So far, you've provided none.

No Greggery.

I showed you credible, convincing evidence.


Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

It is a FACT that there has been an observed increase in global surface and ocean temperatures in recent decades

We're talking about climate, not weather.

Is there anything that you do have a basic understanding of?

If so, perhaps you should start a thread on that particular topic.  Whether it be Star Wars figures, or comics, or whatever.

You don't know the difference between 'facts' and 'hypotheses' and you don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

Hard to hold a conversation with someone lacking this basic knowledge.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:59pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 7:08pm: It is a FACT that there has been an observed increase in global surface and ocean temperatures in recent decades We're talking about climate, not weather.

No - I was actually talking about an observed increase in global surface and ocean temperatures in recent decades - which is neither climate nor weather.

Keep up Greggery.

I am happy to help you with whatever you don't understand.




greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:59pm:

Is there anything that you do have a basic understanding of? If so, perhaps you should start a thread on that particular topic.  Whether it be Star Wars figures, or comics, or whatever. You don't know the difference between 'facts' and 'hypotheses' and you don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. Hard to hold a conversation with someone lacking in this basic knowledge.

We are waiting Greggery.

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....


You have been shown credible, convincing evidence.  why do you ignore it like you are Andrew Bolt?

Answer please Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

. What is the next bit you don't understand?

Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis?

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

You have been shown credible, convincing evidence.  ....

Nope.

Still waiting on that.

Still waiting on an answer to this too:

Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis?

Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could.

I am sorry if you find that unreasonable.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:02pm: You have been shown credible, convincing evidence.  .... Nope. Still waiting on that. Still waiting on an answer to this too: Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis?

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis? Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could. I am sorry if you find that unreasonable.

Why do you think I have any objection to minimising the possible impact?

When exactly, did I say that minimising the possible impact is unreasonable?

Can you provide a link?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis? Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could. I am sorry if you find that unreasonable. Why do you think I have any objection to minimising the possible impact? When exactly, did I say that minimising the possible impact is unreasonable? Can you provide a link?

You are in denial that there is an impact Greggery.

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis? Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could. I am sorry if you find that unreasonable. Why do you think I have any objection to minimising the possible impact? When exactly, did I say that minimising the possible impact is unreasonable? Can you provide a link?

Why do you think I have any objection to minimising the possible impact?

When exactly, did I say that minimising the possible impact is unreasonable?

Link?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:11pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis? Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could. I am sorry if you find that unreasonable. Why do you think I have any objection to minimising the possible impact? When exactly, did I say that minimising the possible impact is unreasonable? Can you provide a link? Why do you think I have any objection to minimising the possible impact? When exactly, did I say that minimising the possible impact is unreasonable? Link?

You are in denial that there is an impact Greggery.

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis? Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could. I am sorry if you find that unreasonable.

Oops.  You made an (incorrect) assumption about me.  Didn't you?

You thought that just because I don't support the AGW hypothesis, that I'm against taking preventative action.

Oops.  Silly boy.

"I have no problem with erring on the side of caution."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1351704919/12#12

I have absolutely no objection to carbon taxes or any other measures you want to take which may or may not save us from climate change.

I challenge you to find a post of mine that proves otherwise.

Seems you really dropped the ball on this one. 

Sage advice for young players: don't make assumptions based on ignorance.

BTW Greg:

didn't you used to post at a different forum with a moniker referring to a male relative and a source of protein? I am sure we have had this discussion before ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 10:53pm: . What is the next bit you don't understand? Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis? Oh - and it is important Greggery because AGW will have a significant impact on the lives of my children.  I think it would be a good idea to minimise that impact if I could. I am sorry if you find that unreasonable. Oops.  You made an (incorrect) assumption about me.  Didn't you? You thought that just because I don't support the AGW hypothesis, that I'm against taking preventative action.

You are denying there is a problem.
Why would you take preventative action against a problem you deny exists?



greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

Oops.  Silly boy. "I have no problem with erring on the side of caution." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1351704919/12#12 I have absolutely no objection to carbon taxes or any other measures you want to take which may or may not save us from climate change. I challenge you to find a post of mine that proves otherwise. Seems you really dropped the ball on this one.  Sage advice for young players: don't make assumptions based on ignorance.

What does this have to do with you willfully ignoring the evidence you have been shown?

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:27pm:

You are denying there is a problem. Why would you take preventative action against a problem you deny exists?

Yes, but I have no problem in taking preventative action if it makes the AGW alarmists happy.

It's no skin off my nose (and I might be wrong about AGW).

I don't mind paying extra (carbon) taxes.

I don't mind catching the bus.

I don't mind changing my light bulbs.


If it makes other people happy, and doesn't impinge on my lifestyle, I don't mind taking precautionary measures.

I'm all about making everyone happy.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:24pm:

BTW Greg: didn't you used to post at a different forum with a moniker referring to a male relative and a source of protein?

Father Sperm?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:53pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:24pm: BTW Greg: didn't you used to post at a different forum with a moniker referring to a male relative and a source of protein? Father Sperm?

o wow...Catholic school flashback!!!!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:39pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:27pm: You are denying there is a problem. Why would you take preventative action against a problem you deny exists? Yes, but I have no problem in taking preventative action if it makes the AGW alarmists happy. It's no skin off my nose (and I might be wrong about AGW). I don't mind paying extra (carbon) taxes. I don't mind catching the bus. I don't mind changing my light bulbs. If it makes other people happy, and doesn't impinge on my lifestyle, I don't mind taking precautionary measures. I'm all about making everyone happy.

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

The floor is yours Greggery.....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2012 at 12:03am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:53pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:24pm: BTW Greg: didn't you used to post at a different forum with a moniker referring to a male relative and a source of protein? Father Sperm? o wow...Catholic school flashback!!!!!

:o


But then again ...  ;D

We know how much CO2 humans are emitting into the atmosphere and it is less than the measured increase in atmospheric CO2. That can only mean natural processes are a net absorber of atmospheric CO2.

What is your next sticking point, greggery?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:39pm:

I don't mind changing my light bulbs.

I do mind changing my lightbulbs. I can no longer see in most rooms because of those stupid dull new lightbulbs. If they actually made them bright it would be a different matter.

Not only that but these new lightbulbs are more dangerous than the old ones and harder to get rid of. They certainly arent "Green".

SOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 6:17pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 5:36pm: ... you and a few loons still believe in the fraud 97% Yes. "I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.  "Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey." “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.” "Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..” “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” "One fact that is not obvious (ie missing) from the Doran EoS paper and that surprised me, is that over 96% of the scientists that responded were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone." "Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

How about we compare the number of climate scientists who publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. Well Anderegg et al. did exactly this in 2010.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf


Quote:

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C-z1TVic4XY/TsFyEV8F4dI/AAAAAAAACL4/VVqWIaFS_7M/s1600/Consensus_publications.gif

Which is certainly why the following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

Perhaps, greggery, you could identify the scientific organisations that endorse your position.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 16^th, 2012 at 3:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15th, 2012 at 11:39pm: I don't mind changing my light bulbs. I do mind changing my lightbulbs. I can no longer see in most rooms because of those stupid dull new lightbulbs. If they actually made them bright it would be a different matter. Not only that but these new lightbulbs are more dangerous than the old ones and harder to get rid of. They certainly arent "Green". SOB

Get LED light bulbs

Quote:

Hurricane Sandy put climate change back in the political conversation, but at the moment, actual action looks unlikely. Yes, during his victory speech last week, President Obama said that he would take action on reducing emissions, but the administration has yet to put a proposal on the table. There was some hope — among liberals — that a tax on carbon could be part of a “grand bargain” related to the fiscal cliff. Rather than raising tax rates, the government would place a tax on emissions, which would both incentivize green technology and raise needed revenue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-conservatives-should-want-a-carbon-tax/2012/11/16/e96ebc4a-300f-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_blog.html