Tired of all the BS peddled by corrupt scientists, pollies and crazy activists and want some real facts instead?    :)i
http://thefacts2014.ipa.org.au/books.png





The Institute of Public Affairs is proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts 2014, featuring 22 chapters on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts 2014 features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts 2014 include:

Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.

Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.

Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.

Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters.

Svengali wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:34am:

Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters.

Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;)

Thanks for that. Looks like a worthwhile read.

I'll see if I can afford it next pension day.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:36am:

Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;)

No facts were evident in the nonsense innocentbystander posted. Just blather and unsupported opinion.

Svengali wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:38am:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:36am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;) No facts were evident in the nonsense innocentbystander posted. Just blather and unsupported opinion.

Like the 'faithful' on here spew out all the time about AGW, you mean??

Svengali wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:38am:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:36am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;) No facts were evident in the nonsense innocentbystander posted. Just blather and unsupported opinion.

I know it is subtle, I think the tip is read the book.

However you may just roll out your inner Alinsky attack dog...your choice  :D

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:42am:

Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:38am: innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:36am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;) No facts were evident in the nonsense innocentbystander posted. Just blather and unsupported opinion. I know it is subtle, I think the tip is read the book. However you may just roll out your inner Alinsky attack dog...your choice  :D

he doesnt read scientific articles.  He doesnt understand them.  IN fact, the more people study the FACTS of climate change the less impressed they are with it.  I work regularly with some of australias senior environmental people and it is amazing how many think ACC is crap.  Even the beleivers in human caused climate change dont swallow the catastrophic line.

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:42am:

However you may just roll out your inner Alinsky attack dog...your choice  :D

Inner Alisnky attack dog LOL ... Chihuahua cross Poodle cross Pomeranian with a large over bite  ;D




http://www.bullytree.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Underbite-Dog.jpeg

Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change?

Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time.

The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander.

Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not.

bogarde73 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:05am:

Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time.

Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible.

issuevoter wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:11am:

The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not.

Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) actually has anything whatsoever to do with Global Warming.

issuevoter wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:11am:

Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not.

This is true but I think it is also true that volcanoes around the world have been pumping out similarly harmful materials on a greater scale and continue to do so. Stand to be corrected, ravings by the likes of Bhudda imitations excepted.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:15am:

which is NOT a poison

Who said it is a poison?  I don't think I have ever heard that before.

i mean too much will cause problems, but that is true of literally everything.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:36am:

Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;)

where are these facts then  ;) ;)

bogarde73 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:20am:

issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. This is true but I think it is also true that volcanoes around the world have been pumping out similarly harmful materials on a greater scale and continue to do so. Stand to be corrected, ravings by the likes of Bhudda imitations excepted.

link, thanx  ;) ;)

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53am:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:42am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:38am: innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:36am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;) No facts were evident in the nonsense innocentbystander posted. Just blather and unsupported opinion. I know it is subtle, I think the tip is read the book. However you may just roll out your inner Alinsky attack dog...your choice  :D he doesnt read scientific articles.  He doesnt understand them.  IN fact, the more people study the FACTS of climate change the less impressed they are with it.  I work regularly with some of australias senior environmental people and it is amazing how many think ACC is crap.  Even the beleivers in human caused climate change dont swallow the catastrophic line.

You're a liar  :) :)

Ian Plimer- geologist with a background in mining, rather the
Patrick Michaels climatologist, doesn't deny climate change, only denies impact
Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist
Willie Soon solar physicist, published a severely flawed paper with Monckton, currently under investigation for funding disclosure violations
Robert Carter- palentologist
John Abbot research chemist
Jennifer Marohasy actually agreed with the need to reduce CO2

Nigel Lawson conservative politician, not a scientist
Alan Moran- economist
James Delingpole- commentator, not a scientist
Garth Paltridge . atmospheric physicist, not a true AGW skeptic
Jo Nova ran Questacon, actually is not an AGW skeptic
Kesten Green- commerce, not a scientist
Scott Armstrong-marketing, not a scientist
Rupert Darwall director on public policy and finance, not a scientist
Ross McKitrick- economist, not a statistician

Donna Laframboise- libertarian journalist, not a scientist
Mark Steyn- political commentator, not a scientist
Christopher Essex- mathematician, maybe
Bernie Lewin- couldnt find anything
Stewart Franks- engineer
Anthony Watts- broadcast meteorologist with no actual degree in meteorology or climatology. Therefor glorified cue card reader. Opinion irrelevant 
Andrew Bolt- not a climatologist or even a scientist. Opinion noted but irrelevant to this scientific debate



So thus we only have a few scientists, some of whom are not AGW skeptics, but merely debate the impact, some of whom seem to have connections to mining, or payments from mining and a whole batch of economists, politicians and commentators with no education or training in these fields.

Its particularly ironic in the case of Alan Moran whose whole article is devoted to looking at the "lack" of credentials of those in the climate change debate, when he has precisely zero himself.

Stratos wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: which is NOT a poison Who said it is a poison?  I don't think I have ever heard that before. i mean too much will cause problems, but that is true of literally everything.

issuevoter, Julia Gillard, the EPA, and assorted others. Haven't you been paying attention??

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53am:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:42am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:38am: innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:36am: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. Facts are facts though no matter who puts them forward, just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean they aren't still facts.  ;) No facts were evident in the nonsense innocentbystander posted. Just blather and unsupported opinion. I know it is subtle, I think the tip is read the book. However you may just roll out your inner Alinsky attack dog...your choice  :D he doesnt read scientific articles.  He doesnt understand them.  IN fact, the more people study the FACTS of climate change the less impressed they are with it.  I work regularly with some of australias senior environmental people and it is amazing how many think ACC is crap.  Even the beleivers in human caused climate change dont swallow the catastrophic line.

*sneezes bullshit*

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:13am:

bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:30am:

Ian Plimer- geologist with a background in mining, rather the Patrick Michaels climatologist, doesn't deny climate change, only denies impact Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist Willie Soon solar physicist, published a severely flawed paper with Monckton, currently under investigation for funding disclosure violations Robert Carter- palentologist John Abbot research chemist Jennifer Marohasy actually agreed with the need to reduce CO2 Nigel Lawson conservative politician, not a scientist Alan Moran- economist James Delingpole- commentator, not a scientist Garth Paltridge . atmospheric physicist, not a true AGW skeptic Jo Nova ran Questacon, actually is not an AGW skeptic Kesten Green- commerce, not a scientist Scott Armstrong-marketing, not a scientist Rupert Darwall director on public policy and finance, not a scientist Ross McKitrick- economist, not a statistician Donna Laframboise- libertarian journalist, not a scientist Mark Steyn- political commentator, not a scientist Christopher Essex- mathematician, maybe Bernie Lewin- couldnt find anything Stewart Franks- engineer Anthony Watts- broadcast meteorologist with no actual degree in meteorology or climatology. Therefor glorified cue card reader. Opinion irrelevant  Andrew Bolt- not a climatologist or even a scientist. Opinion noted but irrelevant to this scientific debate So thus we only have a few scientists, some of whom are not AGW skeptics, but merely debate the impact, some of whom seem to have connections to mining, or payments from mining and a whole batch of economists, politicians and commentators with no education or training in these fields. Its particularly ironic in the case of Alan Moran whose whole article is devoted to looking at the "lack" of credentials of those in the climate change debate, when he has precisely zero himself.

As to Bob Carter, you left out geologist.
And remember Tim Flannery is also a palaeontologist.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:31am:

Stratos wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:20am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: which is NOT a poison Who said it is a poison?  I don't think I have ever heard that before. i mean too much will cause problems, but that is true of literally everything. issuevoter, Julia Gillard, the EPA, and assorted others. Haven't you been paying attention??

adjective
9.
causing poisoning; poisonous :
a poison shrub.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poison?s=t

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:36am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:13am: bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible. https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

And that site's explanation doesn't mean that the Greenland ice sheet wasn't significantly smaller in Medieval times.

And remember DRAH, Skeptical science is run by a guy who lost a climate debate to Christopher Monckton, and then falsely claimed victory.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:44am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:36am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:13am: bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible. https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm And that site's explanation doesn't mean that the Greenland ice sheet wasn't significantly smaller in Medieval times. And remember DRAH, Skeptical science is run by a guy who lost a climate debate to Christopher Monckton, and then falsely claimed victory.

A Gizmo strategy? Claiming victory from a horizontal position after the true winner has left.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:44am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:36am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:13am: bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible. https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm And that site's explanation doesn't mean that the Greenland ice sheet wasn't significantly smaller in Medieval times. And remember DRAH, Skeptical science is run by a guy who lost a climate debate to Christopher Monckton, and then falsely claimed victory.

link, thanx!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:15am:

issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison)

You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:36am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:13am: bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible. https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

Quote:

Natural factors behind regional warming in medieval Greenland are probably not responsible for today's global warming

;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

What raises my sceptical antenna is any post where the writer feels compelled to end with a row of smilies of various types. It is not infrequent on these boards.

A tinge of self-confidence deficit?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:38am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:30am: Ian Plimer- geologist with a background in mining, rather the Patrick Michaels climatologist, doesn't deny climate change, only denies impact Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist Willie Soon solar physicist, published a severely flawed paper with Monckton, currently under investigation for funding disclosure violations Robert Carter- palentologist John Abbot research chemist Jennifer Marohasy actually agreed with the need to reduce CO2 Nigel Lawson conservative politician, not a scientist Alan Moran- economist James Delingpole- commentator, not a scientist Garth Paltridge . atmospheric physicist, not a true AGW skeptic Jo Nova ran Questacon, actually is not an AGW skeptic Kesten Green- commerce, not a scientist Scott Armstrong-marketing, not a scientist Rupert Darwall director on public policy and finance, not a scientist Ross McKitrick- economist, not a statistician Donna Laframboise- libertarian journalist, not a scientist Mark Steyn- political commentator, not a scientist Christopher Essex- mathematician, maybe Bernie Lewin- couldnt find anything Stewart Franks- engineer Anthony Watts- broadcast meteorologist with no actual degree in meteorology or climatology. Therefor glorified cue card reader. Opinion irrelevant  Andrew Bolt- not a climatologist or even a scientist. Opinion noted but irrelevant to this scientific debate So thus we only have a few scientists, some of whom are not AGW skeptics, but merely debate the impact, some of whom seem to have connections to mining, or payments from mining and a whole batch of economists, politicians and commentators with no education or training in these fields. Its particularly ironic in the case of Alan Moran whose whole article is devoted to looking at the "lack" of credentials of those in the climate change debate, when he has precisely zero himself. As to Bob Carter, you left out geologist. And remember Tim Flannery is also a palaeontologist.

I did say some scientists. If you just leave in the scientists you then leave out the majority of the actual book and this then allows you to discuss the data rather than rubbish political points of view.

|dev|null wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 1:06pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

I have gone into 4% CO2 caving. You come out with a massive hangover like headache.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:47pm:

|dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 1:06pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D I have gone into 4% CO2 caving. You come out with a massive hangover like headache.

I think you might have copped some brain damage.  :D

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:47pm: |dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 1:06pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D I have gone into 4% CO2 caving. You come out with a massive hangover like headache. I think you might have copped some brain damage.  :D

Evidence?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:47pm:

|dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 1:06pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D I have gone into 4% CO2 caving. You come out with a massive hangover like headache.

Bit of wriggle room as it is currently 0.04%  now.  Hardly alarming is it..

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Evidence?

A distinct lack of ability to comprehend.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:35pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:31pm: Evidence? A distinct lack of ability to comprehend.

You mean Andrew Bolt is a scientist? Since when?

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:32pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:47pm: |dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 1:06pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D I have gone into 4% CO2 caving. You come out with a massive hangover like headache. Bit of wriggle room as it is currently 0.04%  now.  Hardly alarming is it..

Well admottedly not sure the whole point is that the carbon dioxiode will just give us headaches

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:32pm:

Bit of wriggle room as it is currently 0.04%  now.  Hardly alarming is it..

400 ppm versus 40 000 ppm, he survived 40 000 ppm but believes that 400 ppm is going to kill us all  ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:39pm:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:32pm: Bit of wriggle room as it is currently 0.04%  now.  Hardly alarming is it.. 400 ppm versus 40 000 ppm, he survived 40 000 ppm but believes that 400 ppm is going to kill us all  ;D

Who has the comprehension problem. I never said 400 ppm will kill us all.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:36pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:35pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:31pm: Evidence? A distinct lack of ability to comprehend. You mean Andrew Bolt is a scientist? Since when?

Bolt is a journalist nothing more, when you watch the nightly news do you just poo poo all the stories because the news reader is not a scientist?  ;D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:41pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:39pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:32pm: Bit of wriggle room as it is currently 0.04%  now.  Hardly alarming is it.. 400 ppm versus 40 000 ppm, he survived 40 000 ppm but believes that 400 ppm is going to kill us all  ;D Who has the comprehension problem. I never said 400 ppm will kill us all.

What the hell are you worried about then  ::)

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:36pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:35pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:31pm: Evidence? A distinct lack of ability to comprehend. You mean Andrew Bolt is a scientist? Since when? Bolt is a journalist nothing more, when you watch the nightly news do you just poo poo all the stories because the news reader is not a scientist?  ;D

I tend to take the science stories on news with a massive grain of salt, since they can't even work out whats a virus and whats a bacteria.

E.g the salmonella virus

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:43pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:41pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:39pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:32pm: Bit of wriggle room as it is currently 0.04%  now.  Hardly alarming is it.. 400 ppm versus 40 000 ppm, he survived 40 000 ppm but believes that 400 ppm is going to kill us all  ;D Who has the comprehension problem. I never said 400 ppm will kill us all. What the hell are you worried about then  ::)

Well it will provide significant challenges to society in the future, thats what I'm worried about.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:43pm:

I tend to take the science stories on news with a massive grain of salt, since they can't even work out whats a virus and whats a bacteria. E.g the salmonella virus

Yes I can see what you mean, the other day a news reader said there was an earthquake in Nepal but I didn't believe them because they were not a plate tectonic scientist  ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:50pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:43pm: I tend to take the science stories on news with a massive grain of salt, since they can't even work out whats a virus and whats a bacteria. E.g the salmonella virus Yes I can see what you mean, the other day a news reader said there was an earthquake in Nepal but I didn't believe them because they were not a plate tectonic scientist  ;D

No i usually wait for the corroborating evidence.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53am:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:42am: However you may just roll out your inner Alinsky attack dog...your choice  :D Inner Alisnky attack dog LOL ... Chihuahua cross Poodle cross Pomeranian with a large over bite  ;D http://www.bullytree.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Underbite-Dog.jpeg

struth.. for a minute there I thought it was a picture of that ugly rotten tooth witch Christine Milne...

|dev|null wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 1:06pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:15am: issuevoter wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:11am: The facts (are) it is Global Warming, not climate change, a term used by the Bush Administration re-election advisors because it sounded less threatening. Another Republican think tank slogan at the time was: "Don't tell them what you want them to believe, tell them what they want to believe." They in this case are people like our so innocent bystander. Another fact is that we have been pumping poison in ever increasing volumes into the sky since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those who believe we can do that indefinitely are illogical or ignorant. Unfortunately, with Global Warming there are no innocent bystanders. We are all contributing whether we want to or not. Providing' of course' that Co2 (which is NOT a poison) You eve tried breathing CO^2?  Pure, CO^2, of course...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

You ever tried breathing O^2? Pure, O^2, of course...  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:44am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:36am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:13am: bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible. https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm And that site's explanation doesn't mean that the Greenland ice sheet wasn't significantly smaller in Medieval times. And remember DRAH, Skeptical science is run by a guy who lost a climate debate to Christopher Monckton, and then falsely claimed victory. link, thanx!!

Apologies....Cook is the guy who got upset because someone else lost a climate debate to Chris Monckton, and claimed the other guy won.

I stuffed that up.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:30am:

Ian Plimer- geologist with a background in mining, rather the Patrick Michaels climatologist, doesn't deny climate change, only denies impact Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist Willie Soon solar physicist, published a severely flawed paper with Monckton, currently under investigation for funding disclosure violations Robert Carter- palentologist John Abbot research chemist Jennifer Marohasy actually agreed with the need to reduce CO2 Nigel Lawson conservative politician, not a scientist Alan Moran- economist James Delingpole- commentator, not a scientist Garth Paltridge . atmospheric physicist, not a true AGW skeptic Jo Nova ran Questacon, actually is not an AGW skeptic Kesten Green- commerce, not a scientist Scott Armstrong-marketing, not a scientist Rupert Darwall director on public policy and finance, not a scientist Ross McKitrick- economist, not a statistician Donna Laframboise- libertarian journalist, not a scientist Mark Steyn- political commentator, not a scientist Christopher Essex- mathematician, maybe Bernie Lewin- couldnt find anything Stewart Franks- engineer Anthony Watts- broadcast meteorologist with no actual degree in meteorology or climatology. Therefor glorified cue card reader. Opinion irrelevant  Andrew Bolt- not a climatologist or even a scientist. Opinion noted but irrelevant to this scientific debate

Shouldn't Mr Longweekend be in there ?
He has studied or worked in every field of science known to man
Just ASK him

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:43pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:42pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:36pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:35pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:31pm: Evidence? A distinct lack of ability to comprehend. You mean Andrew Bolt is a scientist? Since when? Bolt is a journalist nothing more, when you watch the nightly news do you just poo poo all the stories because the news reader is not a scientist?  ;D I tend to take the science stories on news with a massive grain of salt, since they can't even work out whats a virus and whats a bacteria. E.g the salmonella virus

It's called anti-intellectualism and it's designed to keep sheeple at a low state of arousal.

bogarde73 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 1:49pm:

What raises my sceptical antenna is any post where the writer feels compelled to end with a row of smilies of various types. It is not infrequent on these boards. A tinge of self-confidence deficit?

we're not all planet accountants with messed up dads who never smile ya know  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 1:15pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:36am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:13am: bogarde73 wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:05am: Is it true the Greenland ice cap collapsed about 9000 years ago causing massive climate change? Could be wrong but I don't think there were too many of those anthropogenic vandals around at the time. Well it IS true that Greenland was ice-free enough to produce crops and raise livestock about 800 AD. Not sure about 9000 years ago, although it's entirely possible. https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm Quote: Natural factors behind regional warming in medieval Greenland are probably not responsible for today's global warming ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

All science is probability  ;) ;)

Poison vs not poison....

A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest.

Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough.

Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison?

Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important.

Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2?

There is only one correct answer to that question by the way.

As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath.

Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons.

If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children?

Go to the 54 minute mark and listen from there on about the Earth's energy budget and the role CO2 plays in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

Another excellent video to listen to if you're unsure of how it all works..!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w

Phemanderac wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 8:40am:

Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children?

so the deniars are wasting the kiddies time with semantics  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

I wish I voted Liberal and hated life itself  :-[

Phemanderac wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 8:40am:

Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children?

Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.   

Fact is: The climate has always changed ever since the big bang. And not because humans used up some fuel which is stored inside this planet anyway. And not because the dinosaurs farted too much. It just always changes. Be happy anyway. Life on Earth was never meant to be paradise.

There WILL be earthquakes and natural disasters in the future no matter how you life. And eventually - in millions or billions of years - this planet will have cooled down and the inner layer - which is still hot gas now - will have hardened. And by that time all life on this planet will have stopped. Be happy anyway. Don't give a cent to anyone who claims to "save the planet". There is nothing to save.

Phemanderac wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 8:40am:

Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way.

Paracelsus (15th century Alchemist & Philosopher), sometimes called the father of toxicology, wrote:

Dosis facit venenum.

or

The dose makes the poison.

That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small enough doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed.

Very_Vinnie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:16pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:30am: Ian Plimer- geologist with a background in mining, rather the Patrick Michaels climatologist, doesn't deny climate change, only denies impact Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist Willie Soon solar physicist, published a severely flawed paper with Monckton, currently under investigation for funding disclosure violations Robert Carter- palentologist John Abbot research chemist Jennifer Marohasy actually agreed with the need to reduce CO2 Nigel Lawson conservative politician, not a scientist Alan Moran- economist James Delingpole- commentator, not a scientist Garth Paltridge . atmospheric physicist, not a true AGW skeptic Jo Nova ran Questacon, actually is not an AGW skeptic Kesten Green- commerce, not a scientist Scott Armstrong-marketing, not a scientist Rupert Darwall director on public policy and finance, not a scientist Ross McKitrick- economist, not a statistician Donna Laframboise- libertarian journalist, not a scientist Mark Steyn- political commentator, not a scientist Christopher Essex- mathematician, maybe Bernie Lewin- couldnt find anything Stewart Franks- engineer Anthony Watts- broadcast meteorologist with no actual degree in meteorology or climatology. Therefor glorified cue card reader. Opinion irrelevant  Andrew Bolt- not a climatologist or even a scientist. Opinion noted but irrelevant to this scientific debate Shouldn't Mr Longweekend be in there ? He has studied or worked in every field of science known to man Just ASK him

nope. probably just seems like that to you. Probably anyone that is university educated and with professional interest in psychology and particle physics and a good education in maths an statistics would appear like a genius to you.  the average education on here would probably be year 10 (with some exceptions)

Phemanderac wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 8:40am:

Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children?

why do you think the balance is precarious?  that is the implication in what you are saying.  the extremely long history of earth would suggest that that balance is anything BUT precarious.  the range of natural variance is substantial thus implying that the balance is very strong and very hard to upset.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 2:00pm:

Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.

EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise.

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise.

More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded.

The effect on oceans could be savage in terms of decline of marine life.

New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth


Quote:

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.

400 of the original thousand odd contributors were university students-not scientists. Opinion irrelevant.

Svengali wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 6:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 5:56pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise. More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded. The effect on oceans could be savage in terms of decline of marine life. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.

Considering that the current Co2 levels have already led to an increase in plant growth, I think the New Scientist magazine is over reaching a bit.

Svengali wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 6:23pm:

More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded.

[/quote]


Meanwhile the planet greens and food crop production go's up every year, this is why any rational person is a skeptic, because no matter what bad news the climate cults crystal ball tells them the opposite always seems to happen  ;D

Svengali wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 6:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 5:56pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise. More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded. The effect on oceans could be savage in terms of decline of marine life. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.

they call it a myth and then use guesswork and opinion to support that claim.


not really a nobel prize winning argument, is it?

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 7:20pm:

Svengali wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 6:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 5:56pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise. More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded. The effect on oceans could be savage in terms of decline of marine life. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. they call it a myth and then use guesswork and opinion to support that claim. not really a nobel prize winning argument, is it?

Science is all probability due to the uncertainty principle that regards the measurement of data.

Pick a hole in my logic or eat my S h i t  :D :D

innocentbystander. wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Svengali wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 6:23pm: More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded.

Meanwhile the planet greens and food crop production go's up every year, this is why any rational person is a skeptic, because no matter what bad news the climate cults crystal ball tells them the opposite always seems to happen  ;D[/quote]
link, thanx  :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 6:42pm:

Svengali wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 6:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 5:56pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise. More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded. The effect on oceans could be savage in terms of decline of marine life. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Considering that the current Co2 levels have already led to an increase in plant growth, I think the New Scientist magazine is over reaching a bit.

link, thanx: gizmo(the shyster) loves providing links that back him up word for 'n word  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)

double plus good wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 6:37pm:

400 of the original thousand odd contributors were university students-not scientists. Opinion irrelevant.

double yadda smokes crack and therefore forgot to provide a link  ;)

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise.

lol, that's how you simplify a complex system folks: how much does this guy charge for university tutoring I wonder--> negative 50 cents per hour is the going rate unless I hear other  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 10:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 6:42pm: Svengali wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 6:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 5:56pm: innocentbystander. wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 2:00pm: Phemanderac wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 8:40am: Poison vs not poison.... A bit of a naive and stupid position to debate to be honest. Let's face it, CO2 isn't poisonous, yet we have this thing called CO2 poisoning.... Curious eh? So, CO2 isn't poisonous, sure, but it will kill you if you have enough. Just like pure O2, it will kill you if you have enough. Lead is a poison, yet, we take in (ingest, breath or absorb) varying levels of this on a daily basis. Maybe they got it wrong eh, calling it a poison? Consequently the "label" of poisonous is not and should not be at issue. After all, if we can take in some "poisons" and suffer little to no negative effects, is the label really all that important. Will you die (or at best become ill) with too much CO2? There is only one correct answer to that question by the way. As such, is it really being "smart" to continue to pollute the pre - balanced mix of gases that we breath. Seems pretty clear that our atmosphere is basically a balanced mix of gases that sustain life, our life. Almost all of these gases, individually, could kill or harm us through various methods, some are even classified as poisons. If through our industry we upset that balance, is that honestly us being smart and protecting ourselves (and more importantly) or our unborn children/grand children? Even if we accept the fact that co2 ( like anything ) is poison in large amounts it would likely take thousands of years to reach those dangerous levels at the current rate so getting all hysterical about it now is just being ridiculous.    EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in too large a quantity.  INcreased CO2 would increase plant growth.  Increased plant growth would take Co2 from the air.  runaway CO2 levels are highly unlikely as the natural feedback mechanisms of the earth would ensure otherwise. More disinformation and obfuscation by lostweakend58. At best the positive outcomes of higher CO2 are unlikely. At worst food production may decline and biodiversity be degraded. The effect on oceans could be savage in terms of decline of marine life. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Considering that the current Co2 levels have already led to an increase in plant growth, I think the New Scientist magazine is over reaching a bit. link, thanx: gizmo(the shyster) loves providing links that back him up word for 'n word  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

Calculating greenness

The team averaged the greenness of each location over three year periods, and then grouped the greenness data from different locations according to known records of rainfall. They also looked at variations in foliage over a 20 year period. In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982.

The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks?

Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light.

Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them.

New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth
Quote:
Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.

Svengali wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:34am:

The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.

Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:38am:

Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world.

So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:38am:

Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world.

Mr copper internet fan might have to back his stinky poos up one rections  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Svengali wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:41am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather?

What scientists are you talking about??

The article is by a journalist named David Chandler, and an editor named Michael Le Page.

I could post an article saying the opposite from the Telegraph, and it would have no more veracity than yours.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:01am:

Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather? What scientists are you talking about?? The article is by a journalist named David Chandler, and an editor named Michael Le Page. I could post an article saying the opposite from the Telegraph, and it would have no more veracity than yours.

don't rev everyone up with a word with a 'v' in it  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:01am:

Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather? What scientists are you talking about?? The article is by a journalist named David Chandler, and an editor named Michael Le Page. I could post an article saying the opposite from the Telegraph, and it would have no more veracity than yours.

Gizmo's authorship of your article would be evident by extensive use of four letter words and total absence of evidence and facts.

Svengali wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:04am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:01am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather? What scientists are you talking about?? The article is by a journalist named David Chandler, and an editor named Michael Le Page. I could post an article saying the opposite from the Telegraph, and it would have no more veracity than yours. Gizmo's Svengali's authorship of your article would be evident by extensive use of four letter words and total absence of evidence and facts.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:08am:

Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:04am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:01am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather? What scientists are you talking about?? The article is by a journalist named David Chandler, and an editor named Michael Le Page. I could post an article saying the opposite from the Telegraph, and it would have no more veracity than yours. Gizmo's Svengali's authorship of your article would be evident by extensive use of four letter words and total absence of evidence and facts.

I rest my case.

Svengali wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:09am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:08am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:04am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:01am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. So, Gizmo! Scientists are not allowed to question Gizmo's script and blather? What scientists are you talking about?? The article is by a journalist named David Chandler, and an editor named Michael Le Page. I could post an article saying the opposite from the Telegraph, and it would have no more veracity than yours. Gizmo's Svengali's authorship of your article would be evident by extensive use of four letter words and total absence of evidence and facts. I rest my case.

No, you actually admit defeat you mean?

Al Gore- politician.  (Copper Toned C$nt has never heard of Google.)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:38am:

Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world.

I just love the silliness of climate hysterics.  Here they are saying something is impossible even though is is actually happening!!!

delusional just doesnt quite cut it when looking for a word to describe them

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. I just love the silliness of climate hysterics.  Here they are saying something is impossible even though is is actually happening!!! delusional just doesnt quite cut it when looking for a word to describe them

speaking of delusional how was the church sermon today ?  Are they still banging on about how Jesus will return one day but don't know when. He is coming though :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:32pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. I just love the silliness of climate hysterics.  Here they are saying something is impossible even though is is actually happening!!! delusional just doesnt quite cut it when looking for a word to describe them speaking of delusional how was the church sermon today ?  Are they still banging on about how Jesus will return one day but don't know when. He is coming though :D LOL

it was pretty good. among other things we talked about the water wells we are drilling in Zimbabwe, the 500 kids we support there and the help we provide to a cambodian childrens program that supports 1600 children keeping them from prostitution.

what did you do?

Svengali wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:34am:

Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters.

As soon as he mentioned Ian Plimer his argument was lost !!

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:32pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. I just love the silliness of climate hysterics.  Here they are saying something is impossible even though is is actually happening!!! delusional just doesnt quite cut it when looking for a word to describe them speaking of delusional how was the church sermon today ?  Are they still banging on about how Jesus will return one day but don't know when. He is coming though :D LOL it was pretty good. among other things we talked about the water wells we are drilling in Zimbabwe, the 500 kids we support there and the help we provide to a cambodian childrens program that supports 1600 children keeping them from prostitution. what did you do?

are they the same water wells you have been digging for the last 20 years in exactly the same place. The old water well in a poor country trick seems to get the money out of them :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 2:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:54pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 1:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:32pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:38am: Svengali wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:34am: The greenness Gizmo is seeing is from his gills. What a load of bollocks? Colours are extremely dependent on the quality of light. Get real Gizmo and read your scripts before you publish them. New Scientist calls it a myth that higher CO2 will boost plant growth Quote: Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Nice try Sven, but the New Scientist is still wrong. The Co2 levels are already increasing growth rates and crop yields around the world. I just love the silliness of climate hysterics.  Here they are saying something is impossible even though is is actually happening!!! delusional just doesnt quite cut it when looking for a word to describe them speaking of delusional how was the church sermon today ?  Are they still banging on about how Jesus will return one day but don't know when. He is coming though :D LOL it was pretty good. among other things we talked about the water wells we are drilling in Zimbabwe, the 500 kids we support there and the help we provide to a cambodian childrens program that supports 1600 children keeping them from prostitution. what did you do? are they the same water wells you have been digging for the last 20 years in exactly the same place. The old water well in a poor country trick seems to get the money out of them :D LOL

you do realise that providing water for poor people is an ongoing task?  you dont water and feed an entire country in a week and then move on.

and still... you do nothing to help anyone other than yourself - which you also suck at by the sounds of it.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 2:08pm:

Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. As soon as he mentioned Ian Plimer his argument was lost !!

So that must mean Ian Pilmer is right on the money.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 2:08pm: Svengali wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:34am: Institute of public affairs is a right wing propaganda group financed by resource companies and companies which are gross unforgiving polluters. As soon as he mentioned Ian Plimer his argument was lost !! So that must mean Ian Pilmer is right on the money.

toenail rejecting something usually means it is right.  all we need now is for always-wrong george to reject it and we are all done and case proven!

what happened to hapless-george, still living with his mother?

longweekend58 wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 5:52pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:30am: Ian Plimer- geologist with a background in mining, rather the Patrick Michaels climatologist, doesn't deny climate change, only denies impact Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist Willie Soon solar physicist, published a severely flawed paper with Monckton, currently under investigation for funding disclosure violations Robert Carter- palentologist John Abbot research chemist Jennifer Marohasy actually agreed with the need to reduce CO2 Nigel Lawson conservative politician, not a scientist Alan Moran- economist James Delingpole- commentator, not a scientist Garth Paltridge . atmospheric physicist, not a true AGW skeptic Jo Nova ran Questacon, actually is not an AGW skeptic Kesten Green- commerce, not a scientist Scott Armstrong-marketing, not a scientist Rupert Darwall director on public policy and finance, not a scientist Ross McKitrick- economist, not a statistician Donna Laframboise- libertarian journalist, not a scientist Mark Steyn- political commentator, not a scientist Christopher Essex- mathematician, maybe Bernie Lewin- couldnt find anything Stewart Franks- engineer Anthony Watts- broadcast meteorologist with no actual degree in meteorology or climatology. Therefor glorified cue card reader. Opinion irrelevant  Andrew Bolt- not a climatologist or even a scientist. Opinion noted but irrelevant to this scientific debate Shouldn't Mr Longweekend be in there ? He has studied or worked in every field of science known to man Just ASK him nope. probably just seems like that to you. Probably anyone that is university educated and with professional interest in psychology and particle physics and a good education in maths an statistics would appear like a genius to you.  the average education on here would probably be year 10 (with some exceptions)

Quite likely

Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong).

double plus good wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong).

You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong?


Common sense has left the building.

Paleontolgy, nothing to do with climate science. Famously said the east coast of Australia would never have significant rainfall ever again.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

double plus good wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

Paleontolgy, nothing to do with climate science. Famously said the east coast of Australia would never have significant rainfall ever again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh good, then that counts out most of the scientists in the IPA study then, since they have nothing to do with climate science.

Ross Garnaut- board of Panasonic (big 'carbon polluter')

double plus good wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 11:29am:

Ross Garnaut- board of Panasonic (big 'carbon polluter')

Cheers, not sure what that has to go with anything, but hey go for your life. Having said that I couldnt find anything about him being on the board.

Got to feel sorry for Willie Soon, what an appalling hatchet job the climate fascists are perpetrating on him.  :'(

double plus good wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

Paleontolgy, nothing to do with climate science. Famously said the east coast of Australia would never have significant rainfall ever again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

link, thanx: how's lomborg going btw ?  :D :D :D :D

Oh, now double plus gumdrop head is going to get sad and not back up his shite with a link ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh go smoke another boring crack pipe and pretend it's happiness then  ;D ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Got to feel sorry for Willie Soon, what an appalling hatchet job the climate fascists are perpetrating on him.  :'(

Got to feel sorry for Lomborg being outed as a political activist trying to argue with the support of UWAs good name that the world should let fossil fuels warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2....

I mean, gotta feel sorry for tony abbot and his fascist kid hating liberal voters  ::) ::)

delete.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building.

Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activism.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim.

Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence"

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 2:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence"

Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence" Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past.

If its towards levels of CO2 etc in the ground, then a geologist yes. But looking at say Plimers background, he's been more in the geoeconomics domain.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence" Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past.

gizmo supports lomborgs quest to allow fossil fuels to warm the kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2  ;D ;D

What a shame the proud toffs of UWA told the nation that Tony Abbott has no gravitas in the state the floats the nation and the world watched and laughed at the fake conservatives of the clever country that spent billions on copper internet in the asian century it built  ::) ::) ::)

(Imagine voting liberal and telling your kids that it was good and they should tell all their mates that is was infact good and they should vote that way too because because because of like john howard and stuff  :D :D :D :D)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:37pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence" Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past. If its towards levels of CO2 etc in the ground, then a geologist yes. But looking at say Plimers background, he's been more in the geoeconomics domain.

gizmo doesn't rate plimer: he rates lomborg and the vested foreign interests seeking fossil fuels right to warm the kids earth by three degrees supported by the globally recognised good name of UWA... he cries at the realisation that all lib voters have been called out very publicly as immoral and corrupt by the toffs themselves!

... and the world laughed at the clever countrys fake conservate con artist brigade yet again   :D :D

(** copper internet they all said in unison under their breath with rolling eyes and a sigh of horrored shock  :-[ :-[)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:37pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence" Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past. If its towards levels of CO2 etc in the ground, then a geologist yes. But looking at say Plimers background, he's been more in the geoeconomics domain.

Well no, not really. All oil/mining companies have geologists on staff...after all, the area of interest IS the ground (not much point in having a psychologist in the lab, is there?). It's sort of like refusing to accept the opinion of a heavy vehicle driver on transport, because he drives a bus instead of a truck (same job, different employer)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:37pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence" Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past. If its towards levels of CO2 etc in the ground, then a geologist yes. But looking at say Plimers background, he's been more in the geoeconomics domain. Well no, not really. All oil/mining companies have geologists on staff...after all, the area of interest IS the ground (not much point in having a psychologist in the lab, is there?). It's sort of like refusing to accept the opinion of a heavy vehicle driver on transport, because he drives a bus instead of a truck (same job, different employer)

No but given his experience is going to be about potentially commercially viable minerals, I doubt his research is going to be into CO2 levels in rock. Its going to be in how much gold or iron there is.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:05pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:38pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:37pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:19pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:23am: double plus good wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 11:21am: Tim Flannery-mammologist. Not a climate scientist. Opinion irrelevant (and always wrong). You left out the paleontology part plus the evidence showing always wrong? Common sense has left the building. Yes, common sense HAS left the building, for pro-warming people. Paleontology is a fairly diverse field, so it doesn't always involve skills that 'might' be useful in climate science. Tim Flannery's only 'claim to fame' on AGW is activisim. Myself, I don't actually listen to Flannery on AGW. But that just means I can then draw the same criticism of the right when they use paleontologists, mining geologists etc as their "evidence" Geologists are probably more accurate to listen to than Flannery. And it depends on the particular discipline within Paleontology. If it's Paleoclimatology, then they might have a good idea of what happened with the climate in the past. If its towards levels of CO2 etc in the ground, then a geologist yes. But looking at say Plimers background, he's been more in the geoeconomics domain. Well no, not really. All oil/mining companies have geologists on staff...after all, the area of interest IS the ground (not much point in having a psychologist in the lab, is there?). It's sort of like refusing to accept the opinion of a heavy vehicle driver on transport, because he drives a bus instead of a truck (same job, different employer) No but given his experience is going to be about potentially commercially viable minerals, I doubt his research is going to be into CO2 levels in rock. Its going to be in how much gold or iron there is.

Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:31pm:

[quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are?

Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery?

Thats all I'm saying gizmo, either we include everyones viewpoint regardless of experience or qualifications or we exclude everyone who isn't a climatologist.


For mine, both sides participate in it. (see post below mine for someone who believes in AGW yet is still batshit stupid)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:31pm:

Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are?

Seriously: crack is whack  :o :o

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery?

Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist.
He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do.

So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Seriously: crack is whack  :o :o

DRAH, going from your posts..YOU would be the expert. You seem to be the most drug f**ked person on this forum, so please stop commenting on my posts until you sober up (a LOT), because you seem to be so stuffed up by whatever drug you are using that I doubt you can tie your own shoes... ;D ;D ;D ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do.

What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander except in gizmo world where 3 degrees temperature rise for the kiddies(lucky gizmo won't be here to deal with it  ::) ::)) is perfectly acceptable as gizmo has admitted!

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Seriously: crack is whack  :o :o DRAH, going from your posts..YOU would be the expert. You seem to be the most drug f**ked person on this forum, so please stop commenting on my posts until you sober up (a LOT), because you seem to be so stuffed up by whatever drug you are using that I doubt you can tie your own shoes... ;D ;D ;D ;D

You support Lomborgs mission to argue that fossil fuels should be allowed to raise the temperature of our kids world by 3 degrees without any reference to the science of the matter and I won't be going away until you provide the science that says that is safe!  ;) ;)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate

Really???

Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career...

There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which
studies the geological history of the Earth.
Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much.

Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have

Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock??
Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have?

Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:02pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock?? Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have? Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?)

Depends on what his instruments are calibrated to find. From my experience of analytical chemistry, which would be similar to what a geologist would do, you only tend to look for the material you're looking for and count everything else as a separate entity (e.g. non-gold content)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock?? Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have? Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?) Depends on what his instruments are calibrated to find. From my experience of analytical chemistry, which would be similar to what a geologist would do, you only tend to look for the material you're looking for and count everything else as a separate entity (e.g. non-gold content)

And what does he do as a private, or university, research project?

Because he gets paid '9 to 5' to look at the mineral content of his employers samples does NOT mean that he doesn't look the chemical content of other samples, from 6 to 12..

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:20pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:04pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock?? Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have? Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?) Depends on what his instruments are calibrated to find. From my experience of analytical chemistry, which would be similar to what a geologist would do, you only tend to look for the material you're looking for and count everything else as a separate entity (e.g. non-gold content) And what does he do as a private, or university, research project? Because he gets paid '9 to 5' to look at the mineral content of his employers samples does NOT mean that he doesn't look the chemical content of other samples, from 6 to 12..

Lol, with what his own private ICP-MS?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:20pm:

And what does he do as a private, or university, research project? Because he gets paid '9 to 5' to look at the mineral content of his employers samples does NOT mean that he doesn't look the chemical content of other samples, from 6 to 12..

lol, maybe michael jordan has already been to mars aswell just because he didn't tell anyone doesn't mean it didn't happen  ::) ::)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:04pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock?? Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have? Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?) Depends on what his instruments are calibrated to find. From my experience of analytical chemistry, which would be similar to what a geologist would do, you only tend to look for the material you're looking for and count everything else as a separate entity (e.g. non-gold content) And what does he do as a private, or university, research project? Because he gets paid '9 to 5' to look at the mineral content of his employers samples does NOT mean that he doesn't look the chemical content of other samples, from 6 to 12.. Lol, with what his own private ICP-MS?

Or the one at the university where he works. Or do you actually think that Plimer does his assessments at the 'company lab'???

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:35pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:04pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock?? Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have? Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?) Depends on what his instruments are calibrated to find. From my experience of analytical chemistry, which would be similar to what a geologist would do, you only tend to look for the material you're looking for and count everything else as a separate entity (e.g. non-gold content) And what does he do as a private, or university, research project? Because he gets paid '9 to 5' to look at the mineral content of his employers samples does NOT mean that he doesn't look the chemical content of other samples, from 6 to 12.. Lol, with what his own private ICP-MS? Or the one at the university where he works. Or do you actually think that Plimer does his assessments at the 'company lab'???

No I assumed he'd be doing it at the university using university equpiment and materials and time, and hence having to justify it to them.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:35pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:20pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:04pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 3:31pm: [quote author=Pastafarian link=1432254732/110#110 date=1432530501][quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1432254732/109#109 date=1432530301] Are you sure?? Wouldn't the Co2 content show up in the testing?? And  how do you know what he studies in his spare time, or even what his personal interests are? Whilst those last two questions might be true Gizmo, couldn't they be equally applied to Flannery? Nope, Flannery is NOT geologist. Tim Flannery's 'interest' in climate is as an activist, not as a scientist. He has no more training/skill in assessing/studying climate than Ross Garnaut or Al Gore do. So where does PLimers come from? He studies rocks, not climate Really??? Geologists can't help but register the Co2 and temperature levels that are recorded in the rocks etc that they study as a career... There is an entire section of climate study called paleogeology, which studies the geological history of the Earth. Sediment traps atmosphere and environmental data when it becomes rock, much like ice cores do...however, the bones of small Australian mammals, not so much. Do they even bother recording that? I would have thought a mining geologist would have just been interested in anything valuable. I.e look at a rock, how much gold does it have Wouldn't they do a general survey of the content of the rock?? Not just how much gold, but how much iron, how much (other expensive to remove) 'contaminants'?? And, for that matter...is your own job also the only area of interest you have? Can you not conceive that a geologist might be interested in what else is in the rock sample (other than what he is paid to find?) Depends on what his instruments are calibrated to find. From my experience of analytical chemistry, which would be similar to what a geologist would do, you only tend to look for the material you're looking for and count everything else as a separate entity (e.g. non-gold content) And what does he do as a private, or university, research project? Because he gets paid '9 to 5' to look at the mineral content of his employers samples does NOT mean that he doesn't look the chemical content of other samples, from 6 to 12.. Lol, with what his own private ICP-MS? Or the one at the university where he works. Or do you actually think that Plimer does his assessments at the 'company lab'??? No I assumed he'd be doing it at the university using university equpiment and materials and time, and hence having to justify it to them.

Well then??? Wouldn't he be able to re-calibrate the equipment, or use different equipment for different purposes?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:41pm:

Well then??? Wouldn't he be able to re-calibrate the equipment, or use different equipment for different purposes?

gizmo world: just change mode and bobs your uncle  ::) ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:41pm:

No I assumed he'd be doing it at the university using university equpiment and materials and time, and hence having to justify it to them.

Well then??? Wouldn't he be able to re-calibrate the equipment, or use different equipment for different purposes?[/quote]

I dont think you got my point. My point was that it would be difficult if not impossible for him to do that.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 4:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 4:41pm: No I assumed he'd be doing it at the university using university equpiment and materials and time, and hence having to justify it to them. Well then??? Wouldn't he be able to re-calibrate the equipment, or use different equipment for different purposes?

I dont think you got my point. My point was that it would be difficult if not impossible for him to do that.
[/quote]

Why??

Additionally, like any academic, if he has the data, he's going to publish it.

In this blog post


http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/

I dont see any of his own work here