Please listen to this, Ian Plimer Climate Change sceptic.
03 December 2009, 08:59 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please listen to this, Ian Plimer Climate Change sceptic.
Quote " Man made Co2 accounts for only 3% of the Co2 put into the atmosphere every year "
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/p...thpatkenny.mp3
This is great stuff. Even the presenter turns on the pro CC journo.
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/p...thpatkenny.mp3
This is great stuff. Even the presenter turns on the pro CC journo.
04 December 2009, 08:11 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Flight Man sir, i haven't got the ability to watch that here. But, and i'm promising to myself only to post once on this thread, please could you tell treehuggers like me why 3% of a total, which was so small as to be a negligible % up till very recently (in Earth terms), is still statistically unimportant. Why can you be so sure that the ecosystem, built up over millions of years, is oblivious to a 3% change in anything, let alone Co2. Is it because 3% in human terms seems such a small number?
04 December 2009, 08:29 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
What about the massive(in terms of where we are now) changes of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere having no definite direct link to temperatures? Why would another 3% at the relatively low level we have now, change anything?
04 December 2009, 09:38 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Flight Man sir, i haven't got the ability to watch that here. But, and i'm promising to myself only to post once on this thread, please could you tell treehuggers like me why 3% of a total, which was so small as to be a negligible % up till very recently (in Earth terms), is still statistically unimportant. Why can you be so sure that the ecosystem, built up over millions of years, is oblivious to a 3% change in anything, let alone Co2. Is it because 3% in human terms seems such a small number?
But take a look at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v4.pdf
The Abstract states:
"... The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scienti c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clari ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green-house e ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di erence of 33 [deg] C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi fied ..."
So you'll see that CO2 in the atmosphere is a completely bogus *culprit* for climate change. It's an essential trace gas, without it we wouldn't be able to survive.
Also, the bit I've highlighted in bold, I've asked before on SN and got no answer, HOW do you calculate an *average* temperature for the whole planet? Even if you could, how do you then work out what the *ideal* value is?
Basic primary school mathematics and science tells you that the whole AGW scam is just that, a scam!
Dave
PS: at least when I was at primary school we did 'averages' in maths. It's probably not taught until A Level these days ......
Trending Topics
04 December 2009, 10:05 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Flight Man sir, i haven't got the ability to watch that here. But, and i'm promising to myself only to post once on this thread, please could you tell treehuggers like me why 3% of a total, which was so small as to be a negligible % up till very recently (in Earth terms), is still statistically unimportant. Why can you be so sure that the ecosystem, built up over millions of years, is oblivious to a 3% change in anything, let alone Co2. Is it because 3% in human terms seems such a small number?
Plimer gives statistics and analysis to back up his conclusions. His opponent resorts to name calling. At one point he calls Plimers book
"school boy science " then admits to not having read it!
I was always under the impression that science was about debate. The IPCC aren't allowing any. To them, and therefore our political masters, it is happening and any debate must be stamped on. That is dangerous.
If Plimers science, (and those that think like him) is wrong, then it should be easy to disprove. Why resort to name calling?
04 December 2009, 10:29 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMAO
04 December 2009, 10:30 AM
#11
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following Plimer's work for a while now & he talks a lot of sense. It's just a shame that he's marginalised, like a lot of MMGW critics. In fact the whole debate has descended into some sort of quasi-religious crusade where if someone doesn't accept the dogma that climate change is man made, they're branded a heretic.
The Copenhagen summit is basically going to be used to promote the ridiculous carbon cap and trade system in an attempt to reduce emissions (short video on how it works here ). However, the system is open to widespread abuse like VAT fiddling to name just one.
The Copenhagen summit is basically going to be used to promote the ridiculous carbon cap and trade system in an attempt to reduce emissions (short video on how it works here ). However, the system is open to widespread abuse like VAT fiddling to name just one.
04 December 2009, 10:53 AM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting listen. The journo didn't really do very well. He admitted that he hadn't read the bookand simply refused to take on board even the possibility that AGW may not be true.
It's like the old religion argument, atheists would believe in God if proven, but theists will never accept another view.
As Plimer says, the best evidence is through observation and collection of data, not through computer modelling, as th models have been proven wrong several times now (they certainly didn't see 10 years of static temperatures or cooling!)
Geezer
It's like the old religion argument, atheists would believe in God if proven, but theists will never accept another view.
As Plimer says, the best evidence is through observation and collection of data, not through computer modelling, as th models have been proven wrong several times now (they certainly didn't see 10 years of static temperatures or cooling!)
Geezer
04 December 2009, 10:57 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
...
The Copenhagen summit is basically going to be used to promote the ridiculous carbon cap and trade system in an attempt to reduce emissions (short video on how it works here ). However, the system is open to widespread abuse like VAT fiddling to name just one.
The Copenhagen summit is basically going to be used to promote the ridiculous carbon cap and trade system in an attempt to reduce emissions (short video on how it works here ). However, the system is open to widespread abuse like VAT fiddling to name just one.
] is that bankers wouldn't make any money out of it ...... 'Taxing' would be a far simpler way to do it.If CO2 was such a problem why are the BBC sending 35 people to cover the summit? BBC dispatches 35 staff to climate talks – creating as much carbon as an African village does in a year | Carbon Offsets Daily
"... The BBC is sending 35 people to next month’s climate change talks in Copenhagen – creating as much carbon dioxide as an African village does in a whole year ..."
Now I don't give a t*ss about the amount of CO2 being produced but it's fairly hypocritical of the AGW-hyping Beeb to do this ....
Dave
04 December 2009, 11:08 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Flight Man sir, i haven't got the ability to watch that here. But, and i'm promising to myself only to post once on this thread, please could you tell treehuggers like me why 3% of a total, which was so small as to be a negligible % up till very recently (in Earth terms), is still statistically unimportant. Why can you be so sure that the ecosystem, built up over millions of years, is oblivious to a 3% change in anything, let alone Co2. Is it because 3% in human terms seems such a small number?
Most atmospheric "heat" radiation from Earth occurs spaceward (It's the easiest path).
Last edited by Klaatu; 04 December 2009 at 11:37 AM.
04 December 2009, 11:28 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 December 2009, 04:50 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Noticed this link on the same page ... Gropenhagen: Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex Watts Up With That?
"... Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings ..."
Wonder how the *scientists* will offset their extra carbon emissions from all that activity ... ?
Dave
04 December 2009, 06:15 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all rubbish, even the climate change experts have recently been discredited.
The Romans had vineyards at Hadrians wall, and Greenland was in fact a very fertile breadbasket.
The Romans had vineyards at Hadrians wall, and Greenland was in fact a very fertile breadbasket.
04 December 2009, 06:18 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
And go see Copenhagen – Counting Cats in Zanzibar
"... 0.7% of GDP, every year, turned over to the UN. Bigoted, racist and corrupt.
That’s a whole lot of moolah to be spent on buying patronage and clientele, isn’t it. How much exactly? Well, Australia has a GDP of 1 trillion dollars US. That’s seven billion dollars from po’ lil ole Oz alone. The UK? $2.6 trillion or 17 billion dollars in payments. The US? $14 trillion or 98 billion dollars.
Just from those three countries the UN gets $122 billion dollars to spend on all its favourite people. ..."
Money and politica. Power over us proles. The real story behind Copenhagen!
Dave
"... 0.7% of GDP, every year, turned over to the UN. Bigoted, racist and corrupt.
That’s a whole lot of moolah to be spent on buying patronage and clientele, isn’t it. How much exactly? Well, Australia has a GDP of 1 trillion dollars US. That’s seven billion dollars from po’ lil ole Oz alone. The UK? $2.6 trillion or 17 billion dollars in payments. The US? $14 trillion or 98 billion dollars.
Just from those three countries the UN gets $122 billion dollars to spend on all its favourite people. ..."
Money and politica. Power over us proles. The real story behind Copenhagen!
Dave
04 December 2009, 08:17 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
04 December 2009, 08:36 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just popping my head into the thread to say - as I always do..
I've consistently said all this since joining Scoobynet in 2002. Every climate change thread, I've been there saying it's all sh*t. For many years I was laughed at but nearly every thread I see now is people trying to prove it's all sh*t.
Dibs....I called this first.
I've consistently said all this since joining Scoobynet in 2002. Every climate change thread, I've been there saying it's all sh*t. For many years I was laughed at but nearly every thread I see now is people trying to prove it's all sh*t.
Dibs....I called this first.
04 December 2009, 08:40 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordon Brown has just decided to wade into Climategate.
He’s just released this statement via the Downing Street press office:
“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act.”
Calling the electorate names now are we Gordon? Well as you started it can I just say I think you are a one eyed, slack jawed, scum sucking ret@rd.
He’s just released this statement via the Downing Street press office:
“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act.”
Calling the electorate names now are we Gordon? Well as you started it can I just say I think you are a one eyed, slack jawed, scum sucking ret@rd.
04 December 2009, 10:38 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordon Brown has just decided to wade into Climategate.
He’s just released this statement via the Downing Street press office:
“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act.”
Calling the electorate names now are we Gordon? Well as you started it can I just say I think you are a one eyed, slack jawed, scum sucking ret@rd.
He’s just released this statement via the Downing Street press office:
“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act.”
Calling the electorate names now are we Gordon? Well as you started it can I just say I think you are a one eyed, slack jawed, scum sucking ret@rd.
I really cant quite believe just how "fvck you" this Gvmt is being in the face of all evidence that the data is false, the code is bugged AND DELIBERATELY HARD CODES ANY CHANGE. This is a TOTAL outrage
Last edited by warrenm2; 04 December 2009 at 10:49 PM.
04 December 2009, 11:46 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
But there's no conspiracy going on ... Googlegate? Talking About The Weather
"... As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list. Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange ..."
Hmmmm. And if you read the comments apparently 'bing' did the same ....
Dave
"... As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list. Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange ..."
Hmmmm. And if you read the comments apparently 'bing' did the same ....
Dave
05 December 2009, 03:55 AM
#28
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dunx
A couple of decent sized volcanic eruptions and we'll all be shivering....
dunx
dunx
If just one does it we're all screwed, this one : Yellowstone Park. And it's overdue an eruption !
Armageddon Online - Yellowstone Park is a Super Volcano - an eruption would destroy America
05 December 2009, 09:47 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Go and watch this video as well. From the Speccie but the guy in the 'No coverup' camp gets a little 'hysterical' ..... What happens when you try to debate climate change... | The Spectator
Enjoy!
Dave
Enjoy!
Dave
05 December 2009, 10:16 AM
#30
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and the government don't want the Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data!!
Unbelievable 
mb
Originally Posted by The Times
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
mb