You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
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?
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?
Location: South of Praze-an-Beeble ... but not for long ..
Posts: 6,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by TelBoy
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?
If you read some of the links in previous threads you'll find the answers to that which you search ... ! Grasshopper .....
"... 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 ......
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?
When you go home, listen to the clip. It's all there, and put far more succinctly than I can manage.
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?
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.
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!)
Location: South of Praze-an-Beeble ... but not for long ..
Posts: 6,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJW
...
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.
Absolutely. The only reason governments haven't decided purely to tax *carbon* emissions [it's actually carbon dioxide emissions - ever tried to *emit* carbon ... ?? ] is that bankers wouldn't make any money out of it ...... 'Taxing' would be a far simpler way to do it.
"... 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 ....
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?
And ~50% of that ~3% goes....somewhere, no-one knows. No scientist, no monitoring station, no core sample, no currently orbiting satellite. That is why a new satellite was launched to find out, but it crashed.
Most atmospheric "heat" radiation from Earth occurs spaceward (It's the easiest path).
"... 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 ... ?
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.
"... 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!
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.
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.
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.
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 22:49.
"... 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 ....
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.
Please listen to this, Ian Plimer Climate Change sceptic.
] is that bankers wouldn't make any money out of it ...... 'Taxing' would be a far simpler way to do it.
