Indeed, how many scientists are on this forum?

yes he has. Look up in the sky tomorrow.
There;s a thing called the sun. it heats us up.
it's getting bigger and closer to us, so we are getting warmer.

tallowood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2009 at 2:20pm:


So you fit into the first category then?how about the second and third?
Are you a lefty?
Do you pump petrol for Caltex? or work in a mining industry?

Shouldn't you be back hiding in the fridge?  Or do you have a laptop in there with you?

The funniest thing about the whole debate is that even if the world's scientists are all wrong, denialists will still be arseholes.

Quote:


Of course.

Quote:


Yes. Cutting methane and other GHG emissions would also help.

Soren wrote on Jul 19^th, 2009 at 8:22pm:


No it's falsifiable. Did you miss that post?

.. when is this government really going to go green? All these global discussions are doing is ensuring the oil and fossil fuel industries maintain their profits. Renewables in this country won't get a look in.

Of course, we also have unions behind the push to protect workers in those industries, so it's not all about Right Wing versus Left Wing.

I don't trust the ALP in this, and they have yet to show their true colours. I don't trust their management abilities.

The global discussions (eg Copenhagen) are intended to address the threat.

The reaction to the threat has nothing to do with saving the environment, or polar bears, trees etc. The entire motivation is about preventing a human tragedy, although it's all linked.

If you think it's a con job, then I tend to take it personally.  I feel a bit like Buzz Aldrin when confronted by someone who told him the moon landings were a hoax. Like Buzz, I'm affronted by people who say things that I know to be lies, and the problem is that others believe them.

(It's ok - I'm non violent   )

MINING giant Rio Tinto has urged Kevin Rudd to immediately begin work on a regulatory regime allowing use of nuclear energy in Australia, arguing the viability of energy alternatives has been dramatically overstated.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25817955-5005200,00....

NASA loses Apollo moon footage.....

I think we probably need to take a step back from even trying to get denialists to face the facts, because they refuse to even examine them honestly.

talk about closed minds and blinkered vision  ROTFLMAO...

totally locked into one side and denying all else

Undeniable.
Indisputable.

I never denied that man increases CO2 levels.
I've never denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

What are you trying to say Bozo....


You'll get yourself confused trying to catch me out...  

Oh you already have.

Temperatures have been trending down and yes we have been in a warming period...  not contradictions there Bozo.  Now we are starting into a cooling period.

Careful with that rope your only tripping yourself up.

nOT ACCORDING TO HADCRUT AND NOT ACCORDING TO MY OBSERVATIONS...  NOR THOSE OF A GREAT MANY PEOPLE SOME EVEN BETTER QUALIFIED THAN YOU.  

Climate change goes on. Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago and since the mid-1970s average global temperatures have increased at a rate of more than 0.15 °C per decade. Yet over the last 10 years temperatures have

risen more slowly

, causing some to claim that global warming has stopped. Here we explain why this is not the case and explains that observed changes are entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continuing long-term warming. The evidence is very clear that global temperatures are rising and that humans are largely responsible.

I'm not going to re post everything I already have about that Bozo I have articles and graphs that refute your interpretation of that.

not flustered bozo

dont lie.

look up the stuff I posted b4 on it.

Oh right...  it doesn't support your pov.  

In regard to the moon landing - there will always be a question mark beside this "amazing" achievement. They've never managed to get back there and strangely - NASA has lost the original photos.

OK Bozo my reference to you lying this time was about saying I was flustered.

So you think everyone who is just plain wrong have ulterior motives?

Oh that's right...  of course you do.

Go to any reputable scientific site and see all those furfies you trotted out addressed Soren.
It is, quite frankly, surprising to even see anyone use them anymore, as they have all been thoroughly put to bed as denialist drivel, long ago.

Also - from the graph you wouldn't know that there was a massive, coal-based industrialisation in the 19th century in Europe and North America and coal fired engines and railways spread all across the globe. What was the impact of that on the data?  From the graphs you'd be forgiven for thinking that the 19th century was as cold as a grave digger's arse. And what was  the temperature data for the pre-industrial period?

Also - what is taken to be the 'normal' climate is merely an average of a recorded period. Is it not possible to say, on the basis of these graphs, that the climate is warming only in the sense that it is coming out of an unusually cold period (19th century), which was cold despite the massive increase in atmospheric CO2? That is, undisturbed by human CO2 emissions.

Soren wrote:

Quote:


Massive increase in atmospheric CO2? - What massive increase in atmospheric CO2? It rose from around 280ppm to around 290 ppm between 1800 and 1900. (3.5%) Compare that to the period between 1950 and the present day. It rose from 300 to 385ppm (28%)

It's chalk and cheese.

Soren wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 7:24pm:


Why? - because the effect (the signal if you like) of the low level of CO2 was well below the noise in the 19th century. If you look at the graph on Post 4 in the sticky thread, you'll see the relative contributions of different forcings, and you'll see that the greenhouse gas 'signal' didn't emerge until around the late 50's.

The Earth acts as a perfectly good buffer - within limits. In the 19th century, that was the age of David Livingstone and Mungo Park. Tropical rainforests were still largely intact. When do you think the industrial age really started to kick in anyway? around 1850?

The ocean even now, still absorbs around 1/3 to 1/2 of the excess CO2 that we produce. Back in the relatively pristine 19th Century, it absorbed considerably more.

We also produce methane of course, from gas production etc, but methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere.

Soren wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 7:24pm:


Why? - because the effect (the signal if you like) of the low level of CO2 was well below the noise in the 19th century. If you look at the graph on Post 4 in the sticky thread, you'll see the relative contributions of different forcings, and you'll see that the greenhouse gas 'signal' didn't emerge until around the late 50's.

The Earth acts as a perfectly good buffer - within limits. In the 19th century, that was the age of David Livingstone and Mungo Park. Tropical rainforests were still largely intact. When do you think the industrial age really started to kick in anyway? around 1850?

The ocean even now, still absorbs around 1/3 to 1/2 of the excess CO2 that we produce. Back in the relatively pristine 19th Century, it absorbed considerably more.

We also produce methane of course, from gas production etc, but methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere.

tallowood wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 8:16pm:


Well - that's correct up until the last 50 years or so, Tallowood.

What you ask (in bold) is a very good question. Maybe we should start a new thread on it.  I don't have an instant answer, but there has been a lot of research done on that very question.

I'll attempt to answer it in detail at a later date.

Examine everything carefully and cross examine, but in the end, be prepared to change your views if you do come to the inevitable conclusion that maybe you were wrong.

A chemical reaction
Thursday, 30th July 2009

When the worm finally turns, it really gets itself into a flat-out spin. More and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the rubbish being put out as the ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming. Marc Morano reports how members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have risen in revolt against the group’s editor-in-chief -- with demands for his removal -- after an editorial appeared claiming ‘the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.’

The editorial claimed the ‘consensus’ view was growing ‘increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.’ The editor now admits he is ‘startled’ by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

Poor bewildered soul. He really thought he had written what was undeniably the case. Here are some examples of that ‘negative reaction’ he produced:

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: ‘Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’

William E. Keller wrote: ‘However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.’

Morano points out that this revolt is but the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming:

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly ‘published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.’ An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – sp@m – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.’ 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009

And so on, and on.