PDA

View Full Version : Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction



Pages : [1] 2

Marc1
11th March 2008, 06:34 PM
There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.

Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, congressmen, senators, vice presidents or presidents -- is wrong.

In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- 0.037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."

The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.

The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle.

Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing "scientists" to the ACIA "researchers" is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers that create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a global warming hysteria.

Two kinds of scientists

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.

There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called "peer review." It's the only true science.

And then, there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually, you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists was monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times, they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so the green zealot.

Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Sen. Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later, NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.

Flawed computer models

Then there are those computer models. Night after night, Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is that computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than what we have now.

To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large, only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

Scientists are not on the global warming bandwagon

And so, too, is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.

What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren't consistent with the political agenda the U.N. is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.

continued next post...

Marc1
11th March 2008, 06:34 PM
Continuation:
The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol

Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide.

Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on, and the U.N. has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called the White House stance on global warming "terribly disappointing." McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the "human effect on climate and what to do about it." McCain intends to help build pressure on the president to accept the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically reduced energy standards would -- in the short run -- cost the United States more than one million jobs. Some estimate it would cost more than seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it would cost even more jobs.

It would cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food would skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product would be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government would have to enforce a massive energy tax that would drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood, there would be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon.

There would be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy would increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses and toothpaste.

A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries, including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.

Global raid on American wealth

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?

The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

And international corporations that owe allegiance to no nation would bolt America and move their factories lock, stock and computer chip to those Third World countries, where they would be free to carry on production.

But that means the same emissions would be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

And still more looting of the U.S. treasury is planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries' adaption to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies would be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy had been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.

Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?

(Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center (http://www.americanpolicy.org/), an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Va.)

RODEONICK
11th March 2008, 09:36 PM
The fanatical dedication and the little or no resistance presented by all the government in the world have embolden this new popes of climate change to a point that they now take on anything in their path. Rain patterns, ocean levels, seismic activity, recessions, pestilence, riots and revolts, all is your fault, yes, you.

not everyone has swallowed the hook of man made climate change, peak oil is over half a century away and by then it will no longer be the only source of energy.
By all means, drive your car on vegetable oil because it is fun to do so, because you save some money but please don't think you save the planet by doing so. There are churches to go to if salvation is your thing, all sorts and all flavors.


It is still our choice.

man you need a holiday.
1stly i respect your opinion.
if this climate change is all hogwash then why have the crops failed for 8 years in a row? why is it that my family farm that once supported 5 families can't even support one anymore?
i personally believe that we are past peak oil but don't see the problem with this. Bring about the survival of the fittest i reacon. why is it that the human race is the only species that carry the weak???
and peak oil is the only thing that will make our own lazy arse people come up with alternate energies.
i might not be able to save the planet running veg but i'm not hurting it either buy using a waste product instead of poisoning the inuit people of alaska for the sake of a dirty evil product that the world has become so dependant on, to hell with the placid land loving people up in alaska fill up on petroleum fuels that sound better to you does it??
salvation is not my thing however i don't see the harm in doin to others as you would like done to yourself. And what were pumping into the atmosphere surely cant be good for us or the environment regardlesss of if global warming is fact or fiction.
anyhow at least you thinking and not just whinging about the cost of petrol like my NRMA allan evans.
thanks for the good read all differant views asside.:)

Captain Echidna
11th March 2008, 10:45 PM
Marc1 your perspective is from a "business is more important that the environment perspective". Sounds like an oil company perspective to me. Your posts also seem to lack any scientific basis whatsoever, and comparing a small part of America (the midwest) and deciding the worlds climate trends from that is illogical.
How much of this is a realisation we cant continue having a minority of the worlds population (the US) using the majority of the resources, and feeling uneasy that the rest of the world wont put up with it? And why mention China and Kyoto? not only have they signed it, but they look to meet the targets by a wide margin?


Climate has always changed, in fact one real feature of climate is that it changes. it MUST change.

Why must the climate change?





Yet it is good business and as such one should welcome it.

So if someone killed you and sold your internal organs on the internet because it was "good business" does that make it OK? (I am guessing most profit may come from your brain, it appears unused. If anyone from the "ebrain" website gets in contact, be wary.....;))




Not everyone has swallowed the hook of man made climate change, peak oil is over half a century away and by then it will no longer be the only source of energy.
By all means, drive your car on vegetable oil because it is fun to do so, because you save some money but please don't think you save the planet by doing so.

Umm so recaping, there will be alternate sources of energy in the future, (and these will be required to save the planet from peak oil), but dont use any alternate sources of energy now because you wont be saving the planet?

This part removed at Mark1 request.

pangit
12th March 2008, 12:43 PM
Marc, I'm not quite sure what's brought on this bout of spamming on, but you realise of course you are in the minority and you are bound to draw a lot of criticism from the rest of us.

Without going through all the articles in detail and refuting them point by point (which I'm sure can be done or probably has for the older articles) a few points from what you posted stuck out for me:

The first article is from the Wall St Journal, which has been attacked recently in the UK Guardian for it's increasingly isolationist anti climate change stance. (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_sassoon/2008/02/rupert_murdochs_black_sheep.html)


Modern science and unfolding technologies will, in all likelihood, double recovery efficiencies. Even a 10% gain in extraction efficiency on a global scale will unlock 1.2 to 1.6 trillion barrels of extra resources -- an additional 50-year supply at current consumption rates.Well why hasn't it already? Why are so many advanced oil producing nations continuing to decline in production in spite of a massive increase in the price of oil? (e.g. Australia, UK, US, Mexico). And that often used term "current consumption rates" is misleading, as demand for oil (and all fossil fuels) is increasing, not remaining the same.


Where do reasonable assumptions surrounding peak oil lead us? My view, subjective and imprecise, points to a period between 2045 and 2067 as the most likely outcome.........
........The world is not running out of oil anytime soon. A gradual transitioning on the global scale away from a fossil-based energy system may in fact happen during the 21st century. The root causes, however, will most likely have less to do with lack of supplies and far more with superior alternatives.These two statements appear to contradict each other. First of all the author is admitting that peak oil will in fact happen this century (my children will only be middle aged, so I'm sure they would consider that to be "soon"!) So surely if we have moved away from oil by then (and we'd better hurry up about it even if we have 37 years to go!) it will be directly because of a lack of the stuff, and not because of these "superior alternatives" that don't even exist yet.

The sky is not falling nor will it ever fall.
Yet we can think it does and it will seem very real.

We can choose to be happy or we can choose to feel guilty and sad.
Our happiness will produce full employment and buoyant economy.
Our guilt and sadness will talk us all into recession.None of what you said has anything to do with the science of climate change and you're not even producing any kind of evidence to back your massive sweeping statements up. Your comments about happiness/sadness are irrelevant. Our state of mind has no bearing on whether the world will warm or not!


The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.This is in fact true, but since 1971 the figures have been revised down considerably. It's called "global dimming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) and in fact is mitigating the effects of global warming. If there was no warming then the earth would indeed be cooling a bit.


There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004 Erm... why are you quoting an article that's nearly 4 years old? Is that the best you can do? There has been a lot of climate science done since then, not least the IPCC report stating that there is a 90% chance that human activities are having an impact on global warming. And that is considered very conservative by most individual scientists.


How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."

The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.First of all the author is not even trying to find any science that disputes this view, rather he is simply trying to discredit the original reports. And secondly this argument has been superseded by more recent events, i.e. the record low levels of polar ice last summer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs#2007_record_low_Arctic_sea_ice) (27% below the previous record).


We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry. Umm, how about Katrina? Record droughts both in US and Australia (and many other parts of the world)?


In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.Again, the state of the economy has no bearing on whether the world will warm or not! And even if his figures are absolutely spot on, they will pale in comparison with the losses to our economies if we don't do anything to mitigate climate change (see The Stern Report (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm))


The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Wow, if that's really true then we're all f****ed! :D

pangit
12th March 2008, 01:35 PM
When trees (wood) was the major energy source I wonder if similar discussions were taking place as forests were devestated, changing the climate and forcing people to travel further and further to find new tree reserves. Did they talk about Peak Trees? Humans found alternate energy sources and civilization moved on. I'm sure they did on Easter Island, when famously chopped down all the trees on the island then the population was devastated.


(on an a-side, a Russian scientist released a paper showing that hydrocarbons are constantly being produced in the Earths core and permeate through the crust to be captured in pockets and eventually form oil and gas, basically saying that if left long enough oil and gas will regenerate. Sorry no reference at the moment.) I think you're referring to the Abiotic Theory (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html), which as the article says is "rejected by most geologists"


Why do most rapid technological developments occur during war? How can we bring the disparate cultures and people of the world together...?
By starting a war! The environment is under attack! Every human is affected, we must all stand together! Technology will advance rapidly to find a solution. Stop fighting over land, religion, resources because we must all stand together or the planet will die!I agree. When life is comfortable (as it is for the majority of us in the west now) we are too lazy to do anything. When life becomes tough (as in war) we all come together to face the common enemy/threat. In fact I was listening to an interview with Philip Sutton (http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=79&sid=d7a1fb36d22e580e1eb862531fa3f1bc) this morning which goes into this in more detail.

RODEONICK
12th March 2008, 01:46 PM
Yes, the climate changes, the El Nino (sp?) has, in the past, wiped civilizations out completely (what was called a Mega El Nino), and other weather/climate patterns certainly cycle with the eons.
El Nino is NOT climate change. It is a weather pattern that forces the rain to fall in the ocean and miss the maninland (in layman's terms)


Energy consumption/peak energy has been with humans for a long time. When trees (wood) was the major energy source I wonder if similar discussions were taking place as forests were devestated, changing the climate and forcing people to travel further and further to find new tree reserves. Did they talk about Peak Trees?
At the time we had no where near the population to support.(or the greedy). Good point though.


Humans found alternate energy sources and civilization moved on.
Lets hope so this repeats itself asap.



a Russian scientist released a paper showing that hydrocarbons are constantly being produced in the Earths core and permeate through the crust to be captured in pockets and eventually form oil and gas, basically saying that if left long enough oil and gas will regenerate. Sorry no reference at the moment.)

I beleive this to be very probable but i don't think it will top itself up enough to sustain current and future oil demand. Go bury a log in your backyard and pack it down nice and tight. in i dunno 15000 years you may have made some coal. its possible but i'ld bank on the fact that were screwed first.


The question for me and maybe for a lot of people is not wether oil is the cause of global warming but is it the best thing to use?
Its cheap thats why its used. it cant be the best thing to use look at the wars that have been fought for oil??

Oil does produce polution. Oil is not sustainable with our current usage. Oil production is controlled by a cartel (OPEC). Maybe the best thing for the human race is to start weaning ourselves off of oil, but how? Agree Agree Agree Agree
Decentralisation and self suffiency incentives. Public transport availability, heavy railway upgrades. farming incentives oh and almost forgot excise canceled for b100 but none of this will happen because the big boys wont get record profits every year and fat bonuses.


Humans tend to not like change, unless we have to. Why do most rapid technological developments occur during war?
what have we got out of the iraq war than????


How can we bring the disparate cultures and people of the world together...?Farming



Who knows what the truth is, all I know is that we need to move away for oil (maybe not comlpetely but we certainly need a more balanced and sustainable energy system). Business is not everything, we humans are a resourceful lot and we will find other ways to do things and still make a buck. But we humans can also be stubborn and will not let go of things easily. The only way to wean a lamb is to remove it from its mother, maybe it's time to start weaning ourselves off of oil?

Couldn't agree more.

Dexta
12th March 2008, 03:11 PM
El Nino is NOT climate change. It is a weather pattern that forces the rain to fall in the ocean and miss the maninland (in layman's terms)

Climate change or climate patterns? I guess what I was trying to say is that our climate changes due to cyclic patterns :D The El Nino apparantly has cycles within cycles, 10 years, 30 years, 1000 years etc.


what have we got out of the iraq war than????

There are hundreds of angles you could take out of the Iraq "war". Can you call it a war? Insurgency? Resource Protection? Political stunt? Will anything positive come out of it? Who knows? Better medical practices/ procedures? Hot weather climate clothing? Maybe just an answer to the question "How could you spend 3.27 trillion dollars?

Nuddy
12th March 2008, 04:43 PM
There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.
[/B]

How on earth did this post get/stay on this thread?
We were discussing Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06
What does the man-made global warming issue have to do with peak oil?
If we want to discuss man-made global warming let's start another thread and let's have it in the off topic area as it has nothing to do with biofuels.

Marc1
12th March 2008, 07:24 PM
.......if this climate change is all hogwash then why have the crops failed for 8 years in a row? why is it that my family farm that once supported 5 families can't even support one anymore?
..........
thanks for the good read all differant views asside.:)

You are welcome.

Your perception is right and it is this your perception that is taken advantage of by the climate change extremist.

As I said before CLIMATE DOES CHANGE. It is at the very essence of climate to change.
What is bull dust is to allege that it changes because of human activity this is a bold face lie.
Climate has changed for millennium and will change again for as long as there is an atmosphere.
And there is nothing we can do about it. Not a iota.

Your farm has gone through a climate cycle once more. One of the many it will go through.
There is no "normality" and farms do not have to support humans neither do the opposite. This are no indication of "good" or "bad". Only that certain conditions are favorable to us and others are not.

The climate change extremist wants us to believe not only that it is our puny little insignificant self who make the climate change, not only that... but that we can actually make the climate do what we would like it to do?

How can anyone believe such fat lies when we can not even predict what the weather is going to do in a week time?

Marc1
12th March 2008, 07:33 PM
.........if we want to discuss man-made global warming let's start another thread and let's have it in the off topic area as it has nothing to do with biofuels.

I must say that I disagree. If not for the man-made-global-warming scare mongering campaigns, there would not be any biodiesel industry or forum for that matter.
The peak oil scare mongering campaign I addressed before, was just a warming up to how things are now. Both lies are very well related, I hope others can see it. It is not rocket science.

Marc1
12th March 2008, 08:03 PM
Here are a few points to the above stories that may add some balance to the issue:
Yes, the climate changes, the El Nino (sp?) has, in the past, wiped civilizations out completely (what was called a Mega El Nino), and other weather/climate patterns certainly cycle with the eons. This certainly makes it hard to determine just what is natural and what is man made.
Energy consumption/peak energy has been with humans for a long time. When trees (wood) was the major energy source I wonder if similar discussions were taking place as forests were devestated, changing the climate and forcing people to travel further and further to find new tree reserves. Did they talk about Peak Trees? Humans found alternate energy sources and civilization moved on. (on an a-side, a Russian scientist released a paper showing that hydrocarbons are constantly being produced in the Earths core and permeate through the crust to be captured in pockets and eventually form oil and gas, basically saying that if left long enough oil and gas will regenerate. Sorry no reference at the moment.)
The question for me and maybe for a lot of people is not wether oil is the cause of global warming but is it the best thing to use? Oil does produce polution. Oil is not sustainable with our current usage. Oil production is controlled by a cartel (OPEC). Maybe the best thing for the human race is to start weaning ourselves off of oil, but how? Humans tend to not like change, unless we have to. Why do most rapid technological developments occur during war? How can we bring the disparate cultures and people of the world together...?
By starting a war! The environment is under attack! Every human is affected, we must all stand together! Technology will advance rapidly to find a solution. Stop fighting over land, religion, resources because we must all stand together or the planet will die!
Who knows what the truth is, all I know is that we need to move away for oil (maybe not comlpetely but we certainly need a more balanced and sustainable energy system). Business is not everything, we humans are a resourceful lot and we will find other ways to do things and still make a buck. But we humans can also be stubborn and will not let go of things easily. The only way to wean a lamb is to remove it from its mother, maybe it's time to start weaning ourselves off of oil?

Thank you, nice post.

What seems to be missing from your conceded nice post and the others who, more religious than you want to point out at my heretical status, is the real reason behind any of the major pseudo-scientific debates be it about man made global cooling now not cool anymore, peak oil, or man made global warming for that matter.

What follows is a speech given by Klaus Vaclav, President of the Czech Republic. What has this to do with Biodiesel?
A lot.
If there is a person that knows about power struggle, conspiracies and loss of freedom is someone who lived behind the iron curtain. If that one is now a president of a former communist state, he has something to say.

Why do we want to make Bio fuels? Because we perceive it to be an expression of freedom. In stead of joining the guerrilla or marching with a red flag we have decided to brake a few minor rules and express our freedom struggle that way. A biodiesel maker is a dissident, a contrarian someone who want to see and act beyond the obvious.

That is why I think Mr Vaclav speech extract in relation to the Climate change advocates is very pertinent.
However that is as always only my opinion.

Vaclav Klaus | March 12, 2008
A WEEK ago, I gave a speech at an official gathering at Prague Castle commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1948 communist putsch in the former Czechoslovakia. One of the arguments of my speech, quoted in all the leading newspapers in the country the next morning, went as follows:
Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will nevertheless be identical: the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its present strongest version, climate alarmism.

As an economist, I have to start by stressing the obvious. Carbon dioxide emissions do not fall from heaven. Their volume (ECO2) is a function of gross domestic product per capita (which means of the size of economic activity, SEA), of the number of people (POP) and of the emissions intensity (EI), which is the amount of CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP. This is usually expressed in a simple relationship: ECO2 = EI x SEA x POP.
What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.

I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries.
This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science. Human wants are unlimited and should stay so. Asceticism is a respectable individual attitude but should not be forcefully imposed upon the rest of us.

I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniacal ambitions, want to regulate and constrain demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery road to serfdom. The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights.

There are people among the global-warming alarmists who would protest against being included in any of these categories, but who do call for a radical decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. It can be achieved only by means of a radical decline in the emissions intensity.

This is surprising because we probably believe in technical progress more than our opponents. We know, however, that such revolutions in economic efficiency (and emissions intensity is part of it) have never been realised in the past and will not happen in the future either. To expect anything like that is a non-serious speculation.

I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, the Kyoto protocol era. You don't need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe.

In the less developed countries, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which during this period were trying to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries, rapid economic growth led to a 53 per cent increase in CO2 emissions. In the post-communist countries, which went through a radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing, GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32 per cent. In the EU's slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where its difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the east German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) CO2 emissions increased by 4 per cent.

The huge differences in these three figures are fascinating. And yet there is a dream among European politicians to reduce CO2 emissions for the entire EU by 30 per cent in the next 13 years compared to the 1990 level.

What does it mean? Do they assume that all countries would undergo a similar economic shock as was experienced by the central and eastern European countries after the fall of communism? Do they assume that economically weaker countries will stop their catching-up process? Do they intend to organise a decrease in the number of people living in Europe? Or do they expect a technological revolution of unheard-of proportions?

What I see in Europe, the US and other countries is a powerful combination of irresponsibility and wishful thinking together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.

This brings me to politics. As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we had been using for decades until the moment of the fall of communism. The innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow-travellers in politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same fatal conceit. To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged, neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology.

The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency, in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong. They believe in their own ability to assemble all relevant data into their Central Climate Change Regulatory Office equipped with huge supercomputers, in the possibility of giving adequate instructions to hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions.

We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. We need to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.

Vaclav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic. This is an edited extract from a speech he gave on March 4 to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Dexta
13th March 2008, 11:32 AM
So according to the tenents of Vaclav Klaus we should let the Brazilians cut down the Amazon Forest as stopping this will slow their economic growth. Let the developing countries burn as much oil and coal as they can otherwise it will take away their freedom. Drain the lakes and river systems while they can to turn a profit. What about the freedom of people to breath clean air? What about quality of life and environment? I'm sure the people of Europe didn't mind when Chernobyl blew up and poluted their countries, they wouldn't want to stifle the Russian economy. That is the problem with our current energy systems (oil, coal and fission reators) they just don't pollute the local environment they have the potential to pollute the whole globe.
Should the "third world" countries simply perpetuate the mistakes of the first world countries in the name of economic development? Should they ignore the lessons learnt in the name of fairness? The third world cries "it's not fair that you get to build your economies in a wasteful, polluting manner and then you tell us we cannot do the same thing!" It may not be fair but it is certainly illogical to do so.
Wether we have reached peak oil or not and wether we believe humans are the cause of the current and future climate conditions or not, the one thing I think is obvious is that it can no longer be "business as usual". Economics is not the be all and end all of the human race.
I do like the line from the movie the Matrix, where Agent Smith is talking to Morpheus, here is the quote:
"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."
A bit strong maybe but I use this as a point to the question "Should we continue as we are or try to improve, not just our life but the life of all on this planet?"
I do appologise for the diversion away from peak oil, though I guess the "peak oil" situation can be seen as a catalyst for the next stage of human civilisation.

pangit
13th March 2008, 02:18 PM
It is not rocket science. No, it's CLIMATE science. Your arguments (and quotes) are economic arguments, with no basis on science at all.


Human wants are unlimited Unfortunately that's the main crux of the problem. Neither the earth's carrying capacity or the resources contained therein (e.g. oil) are. That's something economists almost univerally ignore. Whereas scientists do not.

Captain Echidna
13th March 2008, 03:17 PM
(Quote removed)

What he is saying reeks of the language and "I will talk from a perspective of money and ecconomics is more important than anything else"

The last time I heard this language it was from a spokesperson paid by Australia's "copper mine". "we mine copper here" (her language, not mine) and of course, "as the uranium comes up with the copper, we can make money by selling it, so we do".

Would companies pay people to write their perspectives into forums to argue their perspective, to in effect say money is more important than the environment, and anyone running cars on biofuels are wasting their time? (reworded)
(part removed)

Marc1
14th March 2008, 08:53 AM
We humans are very curious indeed.
Animals adapt to changes and evolve by natural selection with apparent ease.
Humans have a problem. Our own bias and misconceptions adopted long ago before age 10 to please and fit in the environment of choice.
So we go along our lives never changing this obsolete anti-values trying to bend what we see to meet what we think is good completely disregarding history of past experiences be it personal or collective.

For centuries, ruling elites have used rhetoric to gain the trust of the masses using their detailed knowledge of the masses bias and misconceptions....yes, for example our quick dismissal of what we do not understand as wacko in the fashion of primary school yard mass behavior

Race, religion and patriotism has been used extensively to allow the few to do away with any action necessary to gain, keep or conquer power, every time surrounded by the masses acclaim.

The new found environmental religion is no different.
It has a god, high priests, masses of followers, and whoever doubt their credo is anathema, a heretic and will be stoned to death.

Like the Crusaders, the Nazis, the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bomb supporters, the Vietnam war or the Sadam Hussain de-troning supporters, the man made climate change agitators have their agenda and are using you, who have good feelings and intentions and your support an acclamation to achieve it.

If only humans could learn from history...yet we do not.

Terry Syd
14th March 2008, 09:33 AM
Marc, what you say about the Global Warming 'debate' is likely correct in my opinion. However, this is not a thread about Global Warming.

Would it be possible that you could start your own thread on Global Warming, perhaps move your Global Warming rants from this thread to the new thread, and continue your crusade over on the new thread?

If you do that, I might even post on that thread some of my observations about the use of the Global Warming meme.

Marc1
15th March 2008, 08:03 PM
Marc, what you say about the Global Warming 'debate' is likely correct in my opinion. However, this is not a thread about Global Warming.:rolleyes:

As I said before both are very well connected. And both are purely about economics and power grab.

Marc1
15th March 2008, 08:44 PM
No, it's CLIMATE science. Your arguments (and quotes) are economic arguments, with no basis on science at all.

I am sorry to disappoint you but the peak oil argument just like the man-made-global warming are both economic arguments and are reaping its benefit as we speak by causing a run on a limited resource and pushing the price of crude that should probably be $40 to over $100.

The fallacy of CO2 "creating" global warming when in fact it is a consequence of natural global warming is another economic and political tool.
Invented in the times of the carbon miners strike in England, Margaret Thatcher needed to discredit carbon in favor of nuclear energy and paid researchers to produce this results.
The CO2 demonising has snowballed from there in the face of clear evidence in arctic ice cores that show that CO2 increase does not precede global warming but is a consequence of it. Oceans give away CO2 when they heat up and absorb it when they cool down. The tree line on the sides of high mountain and the presence of ancient stumps further up clearly show that the world was warmer at some stage and has cooled down, only to heat up again.

Both the oil is drying up...and the world is heating up because of what we do, are both political tools that are used to define a "common goal for the greater good", ie. "We must find alternative energy sources rhetoric" or... "We must stop emitting that nasty CO2 rhetoric", just like "we must drive the infidels from the Christian land" argument or the "we must stop the nazi by burning women and children with an atomic explosion.
Anyone that opposes this arguments is an enemy of the state, and can be legislated against.
You drive a 4wd? You are the enemy and we will punish you.
The argument that well over half the 4wd on the road have engines that are smaller than the family sedan and that if diesel pollute half what an ordinary car does has no weight since logic is no argument because they have turned into a religion and as we all know there is no logic in what is believed blindly.

Environmentalism is a religion and unfortunately those promoting it, the popes of environmental crusades couldn't give a toss about the environment and are using this new found religion to their own advantage.

I studied climatology and the protection of the environment well before many of you were born or out of primary school (if you ae under 40), and well before it was turned into the circus it is today.
If you are able to see the difference between the political rhetoric to take away your and my freedom "for the common good" and reality, you have given an important step towards your independence.

RODEONICK
15th March 2008, 09:17 PM
mods can these last few posts please be moved to a new thread they are really important posts but should not be taking away from the current thread.
Thanks.
ps mark1 would be glad to hear some of your's and others thought in this new thread.:)

Terry Syd
15th March 2008, 11:34 PM
I second that, or is it second the second...

A separate Global Warming thread (which Marc apparently does not wish to start), could include all the previous posts on GW to give it a fine start for discussion. The thread would likely allow some discussion about how the PTB seem to be trying to contain the awareness about Peak Oil within the confines of the GW debate. The recent monologues in this thread IMO being illustrative of the effect of that manipulation.

Cameron
16th March 2008, 01:47 PM
For anyone that is confused this IS the new thread.

I have called it "Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction"

I am going to keep a close eye on this thread because I am not going to allow it to reduce the overall quality of the Biofuels Forum.

Cameron

morris
16th March 2008, 02:41 PM
I have enjoyed this thread even though, at times, it tends to reduce complex issues to a point of convenient simplicity. I believe this is what was meant by "rants" and hardly directed at any one person, as there are plenty to go around.

Cameron, thank you.

Gentlemen, this is a discussion, and through discussion there is an opportunity to learn, but taking ones own comments too seriously can transform the learning potential into soapbox rhetoric.

I personally see a degree of truth in most of the posts, but equally, flaws in many.

In the past I have found fruit trees that appeared to bear no fruit, possibly because of a late frost, or birds had previously harvested the fruit. However, in many instances, if I look hard enough, I will find fruit hidden in the leaves that escaped the frost or birds. This discussion is very similar.

The absence of the obvious truths has not minimized my effort to look for the hidden fruit. Perhaps we can all take a closer look, or then again, we can all stand on soapboxes.
ML

TroyH
16th March 2008, 06:42 PM
There has been a few recent threads on a Chemical Engineering forum that I visit, which seems to have a relevant subject matter. I hope you can access them:

More Scientific Concern About Global Warming - ChE Forums (http://www.cheresources.com/invision/index.php?showtopic=5222)
Another Expert On Global Warming Speaks Out - ChE Forums (http://www.cheresources.com/invision/index.php?showtopic=5300)

I find it very interesting, but as with everything on the internet, it's worth taking with a grain of salt.

Note that Art Montemayor, who started the threads, is a 71yo Process Engineer who appears to be very experienced and highly respected on the forum (which is made up of professionals and students) and in the industry and so is not just another crackpot posting spam. I'd be inclined to believe that he would have checked his sources before posting the articles.


What is the real story? I guess only time will tell.

Marc1
16th March 2008, 08:16 PM
Man made global warming does not exist, it's a fraud and every governemt is running with it, (if genuinly convinced is another matter) in order to
a) Collect more money by inventing a whole array of new taxes.
b) Make more money with the biggest scam on earth after the selling of tap water in plastic bottles... "carbon trading"
c) take away your personal freedom with the excuse of "the greater good"



The following is a News story out today:

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

“Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question”, Coleman said.

“Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue”, Coleman said. “I'm confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”

Coleman says his side of the global warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

“As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased”, he said.

“I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global warming thing.”

Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

“You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?” Coleman said. “Come on.”

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather.

“It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact”, he said.

“The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product”, he said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument. “Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that”, he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

“That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up but it's still a tiny compound”, Coleman said. “So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?”

“My position is it can't”, he continued. “It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy.”

John Coleman's paper can be found at:

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documen...al+Warming1.pdf (http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf)

Marc1
16th March 2008, 08:21 PM
The Man made global warming documentary

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s)

xzSzItt6h-s

TroyH
16th March 2008, 09:12 PM
Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument. “Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that”, he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

“That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up but it's still a tiny compound”, Coleman said. “So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?”

“My position is it can't”, he continued. “It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy.”




Thats a bit like saying: "How can just 9 parts per million of chlorine gas in air, be so dangerous. It's such a tiny amount"

Hardly seems like an argument that has a scientific understanding behind it. Why present an argument denouncing global warming as being an unscientific scare tactic, and then use unscientific points to try and support your position?

Seems counter productive to me.

The statosphere contains 90% of atmospheric ozone,and it only has an ozone concentration of about 5ppm (if my sources are correct), and yet I would hardly say it's impact on our climate is insignificant.

Marc1
16th March 2008, 10:08 PM
The fallacy of CO2 causing global warming is evident in the ice cores that show that the fluctuations in world temperatures are not preceded by CO2 but the high concentrations of CO2 actually FOLLOW increases in temperature and are a consequence of oceans heating up and giving up CO2.
It is like saying that you can produce acceleration in your car by producing more exhaust gases.

The world is heating up even if very slightly, because of increased solar activity
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml)

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

pangit
17th March 2008, 01:16 PM
Marc your posts are becoming rather tiresome. You consistently ignore all responses to your posts and do not even attempt to back up your claims with any facts or evidence. The articles you link to are all out of date (e.g. the Tom de Weese one and Daily Telegraph one, both from 2004!) or have been comprehensively debunked (e.g. The Global Warming Swindle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception.2C_crit icism_and_changes_made_due_to_criticisms) documentary). In fact the main premise behind both of those (global warming is caused by increased solar radiation) has since been disproved:

On 5 July 2007, The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Appleton_Laboratory) had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks — namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 yearsThe Guardian article referred to is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange).

Your arguments have lost all credibility with me (and I suspect with many others here) because your ideas have no basis on fact, merely outdated or inaccurate sources that just happen to fit your view of the world.

I would welcome genuine debate on this subject as I think it is important to see any major topic from both sides. But unfortunately nothing you have said has conviced me that you even have the remotest grasp of this subject, let alone that you may have any chance of being correct.

Captain Echidna
17th March 2008, 05:20 PM
Man made global warming does not exist, it's a fraud and every governemt is running with it, (if genuinly convinced is another matter) in order to
a) Collect more money by inventing a whole array of new taxes.
b) Make more money with the biggest scam on earth after the selling of tap water in plastic bottles... "carbon trading"
c) take away your personal freedom with the excuse of "the greater good"

Could you please explain

1 what "personal freedoms" will be taken away? (ones that wont be taken away when fossil fuel runs out in the future. It will run out, and I dont think its accurae to say the government stopping its use is any dfferent from the lack of it stopping its use)
2 An example of a "new tax" the government has introduced as a result of global warming?
3 How the government will profit from "carbon trading"

Thanks
Chris

Marc1
17th March 2008, 05:50 PM
You accused me to be posting on behalf of an oil company who is supposed to be paying me and expect me to answer your list ?

Start deleting your libelous accusations and I may consider reading your post.

Marc1
17th March 2008, 06:05 PM
.....the main premise behind both of those (global warming is caused by increased solar radiation) has since been disproved:
The Guardian article referred to is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange).


Many findings, opinions, trends, when first initiated were received with ridicule sarcasm or worst.
In the times when religion was government, people went to prison for supporting the heretical idea that the earth was spheric and that it was NOT the center of the universe, rotating around the sun....Eppur si muove.

Read all about it here...no it is not about my friend Galileo (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/index.htm)



Important decisions of what will happen with the climate in the coming decade is made right now..!!
Not by any climatologist, not by politicians, not even by the IPCC, not by you and me..., but by the SUN!!!
Yes, by the Sun!!
Currently the Sun is at solar minima. It is now at its lowest activity level in the sunspot cycle, displaying only a few sun spots or showing no sunspot at all.
There exist a close relationship between the length of a sunspot cycle and the earth's temperature as displayed in figure 5.
All solar physicists are now looking with intense interest for the sun's next move.
On the 4th of January 2008, with the arrival of a new sunspot at a high latitude, a new solar cycle was born! Solar Cycle 24!
We have now entered a transition time between Solar cycle 23 and Solar Cycle24. This does not mean that we are now in Solar Cycle 24. That's something which happens first when the intensity of the new cycle is greater than the previous cycle.
So, when will we enter the new solar cycle 24?
Nobody really knows!...Already the start of the new solar cycle, solar cycle 24 have been severely delayed. It should have started in January 2007, but it didn't.
From the relationship between the Sun Spot Cycle length and the temperature, one can calculate that by each day the start of the next Solar Cycle is delayed, that that extra day's delay corresponds to about 1.4 thousand of a degree centigrade cooling of the Earth's climate.
With the appearance of the first sunspot of the next cycle in early 2008, this would cool the Earth by about 0.5 degree centigrade during the next Solar Cycle. This would be the case if this solar cycle would start at the same time as the first new sunspot of the new solar cycle appeared.
The problem is that this isn't the case. We have to wait until we finally enter the new solar cycle when the activity from the new cycle is stronger than the previous one, which should take at least one additional year. This should cool the Earth by about 1 degree centigrade.
With the current weak solar activity this could mean that it might take one year further. This would bring the extent of the delay of the new cycle to there year longer than normal. In either case we should expect the earth's mean temperatures to drop to levels not seen since the Little Ice Age within the next solar cycle.
What is happening right now signal a drastic shifts in the Earth's climate and we will likely see dramatic drops in temperature the coming decades, starting in the next coming years.
The well known 11 year Solar Cycle is not the only Solar Cycle. In fact there are several cyclical Solar Cycles working on longer time scales. It has been well known among solar physicists for a long time that the combining effect of these cycles will likely cause the climate to enter a cool phase in the early 21st century.
How deep will this change in climate be?
Nobody knows for certain, but it is now very likely that it will soon fall to levels we haven't been seen since "The Little Ice Age". View The Sun Today! (http://www.spaceweather.com/)
What is the process for this cooling?
The cause for this cooling, I believe after looking at the science, is that it is caused by variation in cosmic radiation. Because the Solar Cycle right now is longer than normal, the Sun is spending more time in a low solar activity state, this means that more high energy cosmic radiation from deep space penetrates deep into the Earth's atmosphere creating more clouds which reflects away more of the Sun's warming sunlight. The result is that the Earth cools. And because this cooling phase occur over a longer time than normal the climate will change. There will be a time lag of this cooling caused by the oceans, therefore the effects will come gradually over time in the next decade.
Although most climatologists are unaware that the climate might turn to a much cooler phase, the two theories for climate change, human caused global warming and climate change caused by variation on cloud cover that is caused by modulation from cosmic radiation will meet each other head to head in a few years time.
At that time, based on more reliable data, we will have a much better knowledge and understanding of the real causes for the recent as well as future climate changes.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature.gif

Another interesting method to monitor the earth's energy balance has been made by a group at CALTECH with a simple and effective method. They have monitored The Earth's Albedo (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story) (The Earth's sunlight reflectivity), by monitoring the light intensity from the dark side of the Moon. By doing this they can measure the light variations that the Earth is emitting out into space, and thus calculate variations of the amount of light energy the Earth is absorbing from the Sun.


They have come up with some rather surprising results.
First, the variation in the Albedo which changes as a function of variation of the cloud cover on the Earth seems to be much greater than expected.
Secondly, this variation is much greater than can be expected from the calculated impact that only greenhouse gases would bring.
Thirdly, The variations of the Albedo follow variations of the Earth temperature that have been registered by satellites. This strongly indicated that it is variations in the Earth's cloud cover which is the main cause for climate change and not variation in levels of greenhouse gases.
This study seem to strengthening the hypothesis but forward by Svensmark that variation in cosmic radiation is the main cause for climate changes and weaken the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gases play a major part in present climate change put forward by climatologists.
To learn more see this video on Henrik Svensmark's work on this page about cloud and climate. (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/clouds-and-climate.htm)
I would prefer to call the global warming promoting climatologists as "thermodynamic fundamentalists", those who believe that the main driver in climate change are variations in the levels of heat and cool trapping trace gases.
To better understand the controversy over global warming it is necessary to also understand why most climatologists believe it is the increased levels of greenhouse gases (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/greenhouse-warming-argument.htm) in the atmosphere which are causing the current temperature increase.


Is this list of cold extreme weather proof of a climate change (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-climate-change.htm) during time of global warming?

TroyH
17th March 2008, 07:32 PM
Is this list of cold extreme weather proof of climate change during a time of global warming?The frequency of both record high and record low temps has been on the increase. We have had record high summer temps here in Perth this summer, and last year when I was in Europe over winter, there was almost no snow to be seen in the parts I travelled. Even in the alps. Yet in London they have massive snowfalls and Norway had one of their best snow seasons in recent years.

You can't use such events to claim global warming or cooling, but they are obviously indicative of certain other factors (like the slowing of the gulf stream). Most of the comments I have heard about global warming, supports extremes changes in weather conditions.

Most of the information you have posted Marc1, has just been copied from somewhere else, and shows no real understanding on your part. Some of the data (in particular, the sunspot vs "temperature anomaly" data) certainly draws some erroneous conclusions.

WTF do they mean by a "temperature anomaly" anyway? Fluctuation maybe, but the word "anomaly" would suggest the temperature is somehow different from what it is supposed to be (but of course, there is no correct temperature, so this position makes no sense).

One of those websites is written by a "television meteorologist". LOL!

Marc1
17th March 2008, 08:38 PM
“Those to whom intellectual freedom is personally important may be a minority in the community, but among them are the men of most importance to the future. We have seen the importance of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin in the history of mankind, and it is not to be supposed that the future will produce no more such men. If they are prevented from doing their work and having their due effect, the human race will stagnate, and a new Dark Age will succeed, as the earlier Dark Age succeeded the brilliant period of antiquity. New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.”
Bertrand Russell from his book Religion and Science.

TroyH
17th March 2008, 09:05 PM
Are you comparing yourself to Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin?

lol

How do you know that those who's ideas you are supporting, are not the ones trying to hide the truth?

Captain Echidna
17th March 2008, 10:27 PM
Marc1, as requested I have removed parts where I have questioned your motives, and also removed a quote from another member (where the original post has been removed).

As previously requested, could you please offer some examples or backup on how the government will...



a) Collect more money by inventing a whole array of new taxes.
b) Make more money with the biggest scam on earth after the selling of tap water in plastic bottles... "carbon trading"
c) take away your personal freedom with the excuse of "the greater good"

Marc1
20th March 2008, 07:11 PM
The Monash University modelling, commissioned by the Climate Institute, found the Commonwealth will generate between $7 and $20 billion in new revenue through the sale of emissions permits.Emissions trading 'could produce $20b windfall' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm?section=justin)

Comment is free: Tanks for the memory (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ken_livingstone/2007/08/tanks_for_the_memory.html)

Global Warming & Civil Liberties » Celsias (http://www.celsias.com/2007/02/08/global-warming-civil-liberties/)

Marc1
20th March 2008, 09:11 PM
Most of the information you have posted Marc1, has just been copied from somewhere else, and shows no real understanding on your part.

It is rather arrogant to assume you can actually know what I happen to understand from quotes written by someone else and pasted here in a hurry in the little time I concede to this forum.

As I repeatedly said before, man made global warming is a fabrication, a made believe that lots of people including scientist have taken up because it fits their own way of thinking and not because it is actually correct interpretation of data.
The common citizen also wants to believe what "a current affair" feeds him and joins the cult.
We had the cult of flat earth and earth centered universe. The crusades cult. The patriotism/race cult. The 6 millions Jews gassed cult. The weapons of mass destruction cult. Yet the most lucrative and most widespread of them all, one that does not know political nor cultural barriers, the best fabrication ever, the man made global warming cult. Voice your skepticism and you are going to be strung up by the good citizen with the rope...virtually:rolleyes:

Captain Echidna
20th March 2008, 10:55 PM
The 6 millions Jews gassed cult. The weapons of mass destruction cult.

Hey Terry agrees with you on the first one and I agree on the second. We do have something in common!

Seriously I do think some "freedoms" need to be challenged that you have quoted. I am not sure I consider it a great loss of freedom if I cant by an incandescent globe, nor drive a landcruiser through a city area without paying extra. (and I own a landcruiser, so have a vested interest in it not happening) I cant buy leaded petrol anymore but its not a real loss. I cant buy a car without emmision controls, cant buy DDT... Are these really losses of freedoms, or just part of being responsible?

I guess though if I consider the "global warming is a hoax" is true, and then consider what next, I am left with a feeling of then we still need to curb the world’s usage of fossil fuel, and find alternatives, as fossil fuels are finite, and fossil fuel companies are geared for profit, not the long term survival of civilisation. As the government currently receives a lot of income from taxing fossil fuels, its obvious that its not a stable situation, so transferring to a "carbon" tax scheme (therefore in effect, an energy tax) makes sense. I guess the new taxes and carbon trading not such a bad thing.

However if global warming is happening due to CO2 emissions, it is something that wont be able to be undone, And the earlier the start in reduction the better. Of course the only real loosers will be those with an interest in fossil fuel.

Thanks for the information.

Marc1
21st March 2008, 09:50 PM
Some freedoms need to be challenged....yes, a common sentiment. I sometimes wish I could "challenge" the freedom people have to cut me off on the freeway by stopping their engine with Marconi's secret weapon.

I am sure you realize that a side effect of freedom is abuse. How much people abuse lack of compliance mechanism depends on how much freedom they are used to. A person migrating from a country governed by a tyranny will brake every rule under the sun when in Australia and consider Australians stupid.
Someone coming from a tradition of freedom and mutual respect will need little compliance systems to keep him within the law....generally speaking of course.

The problem arises when corrupt government, realize that the population actually craves more laws and use this craving for their own purposes. How many times have you heard people suggesting that something that is bothering them "should be illegal"?
It is this senseless disregard for their own freedom that allows incompetent or corrupt authorities to over legislate and impinge on personal freedoms starting with those that apparently "make sense".
The reality is that they never make sense, freedom is there for a reason, so that we can exercise our choices and self regulation. It is only in extreme cases the the government should intervene and then only so that personal freedom is not curtailed. After all the government is not there by blood line or because they own the land. They are our employees we appoint to administer what is ours.

TroyH
25th March 2008, 12:09 PM
Climate Change: A guide for a perplexed Earth.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462)

What it's about:

Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.
Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.
With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

Marc1
26th March 2008, 04:10 PM
the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity


Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways.

:p:confused::D:rolleyes::eek::p

Lets just publish something that appears to be balanced and taking all factors into account yet place the most radical and unproven statement in it firmly in place as it belongs among the balanced opinions matter of fact.
Yea right.

The above is one way of soften the skeptics up and place them in the uncool, radical, extremist, enemy of God and country position.

Another is humour. Make up a funny story were the bull dust to be believed is exagerated to a funny situation.

There are lots of ways to make believe. Yet we always have the choice of actually thinking for ourselves.

TroyH
26th March 2008, 09:34 PM
Did you read the link Marc1?

It explains and debunks some of the myths associated with global warming. Including a couple that you linked to earlier.

What makes you believe your "sources" over others? Is it not all simply someone elses words, ideas and predictions?

TroyH
26th March 2008, 10:04 PM
The fallacy of CO2 causing global warming is evident in the ice cores that show that the fluctuations in world temperatures are not preceded by CO2 but the high concentrations of CO2 actually FOLLOW increases in temperature and are a consequence of oceans heating up and giving up CO2.
It is like saying that you can produce acceleration in your car by producing more exhaust gases.

The world is heating up even if very slightly, because of increased solar activity
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml)

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."


^Debunked. In the link I posted earlier. As shown below.

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1078758). There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.


So why has Earth regularly switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods in the past million years? It has long been thought that this is due to variations in Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles). These change the amount and location of solar energy reaching Earth. However, the correlation is not perfect and the heating or cooling effect of these orbital variations is small. It has also long been recognised that they cannot fully explain the dramatic temperature switches (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17423470.400) between ice ages and interglacials.
So if orbital changes did cause the recent ice ages to come and go, there must also have been some kind of feedback effect that amplified the changes in temperatures they produced. Ice is one contender: as the great ice sheets that covered large areas of the planet during the ice ages melted, less of the Sun's energy would have been reflected back into space, accelerating the warming. But the melting of ice lags behind the beginning of interglacial periods by far more than the rises in CO2 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5486.1897).
World warmer

Another feedback contender, suggested over a century ago, is CO2. In the past decade, detailed studies of ice cores (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/20859) have shown there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half million years (see Vostok ice cores show constant CO2 as temperatures fell (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659)).
It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.
What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor – most probably orbital changes – caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.
Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explains about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended. The figure is uncertain because it depends on how the extent of ice coverage changed over time, and there is no way to pin this down precisely.

Marc1
26th March 2008, 10:11 PM
Ha ha, Troy, yes in deed I did, and it's all good, nothing against you believe me.

It's just that it is so predictable the method used to push the same line again and again, "..human activity causes global warming .." The myth buster's websites and articles listing all the reasons why I am right and you are wrong are all similar...(actually I should say - I am wrong and you are right) Just think of any conspiracy you like to think of and run a search and you will find a website will this type of "information" to lead the sheep to the relative sheep pen.

Perhaps you should think on a completely different line for a minute.
Forget digging for "scientific" information to prove one way or another.
Start digging for why on earth most if not all government on earth are all of the sudden united on a quest to "save the planet"?
When ever have government agreed on something? when have political parties agreed on anything at all?
Why would government all over the world poison the atmosphere with atomic explosions and hide the real damage?, allow thousands of the most hideous health risk to exist, think food additives, preservatives, pesticide, GM seeds, industrial pollutant, dioxin residues in cloths..., Agricultural plague and pests to be introduced in order to create a market for antidotes, hide the reasons or origin of human plagues and disease, intentionally create war, kill their own citizen in order to justify war...and I can go on and on...and you want to believe that really, all of the sudden, all this murderous degenerates have gone into a confessional, came out all clean and good and have the health of the planet and ourselves at heart?
They have gone all nice and green?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

BjBlaster
28th March 2008, 11:17 PM
Don't Forget Earth Hour it's this Sat at 8pm

YouTube - Earth Hour 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qczUcQ-VjM)
-qczUcQ-VjM

Marc1
29th March 2008, 06:10 PM
What a waste of time and resources, and how heartwarming for those who profit from your naiveness.

Yet it is clear that there is no point in reasoning about religious belief.

If a tenth of those efforts in convincing people that the world is going to end unless we switch the light off...presumably by doing so the earth is not going to end....would go towards promoting the domino effect of kindness among humans, a "pay it forward" movement for example, how much more could be achieved in happiness and tolerance!

Yet anyone with half a brain to remember history knows that only power and power grabbing movements are at the heart of any religion, political movement or sect. By all means, go to a march with candles or switch your light off or sell your car and use a bike if it makes you happy, but don't tell others what they are supposed to do and how heretical they are if they do not believe what you have been indoctrinated in believing.

I'll be soaking in my 6 pump 3mx3m spa set at 36 C in good company

CHEVY
29th March 2008, 07:08 PM
If you believe the Sky News polls, here is the current question -

Will you be taking part in Earth Hour? currently, 75% NO

BjBlaster
30th March 2008, 01:41 AM
I hope you enjoyed your spa. I was merely pointing out that people are starting to take heed to the fact that global warming exists - and if they drop the load on the Collie coal fired power station in WA for an hour so be it, it might make a difference it might not, I don't really know. I think it is more likely to help than the religious callers I had today trying to sell me an "after life" because this one is basically stuffed according to them.

Take it or leave it - I think doing something (making bio or SVO) is better than doing nothing at all for the environment. Remember that our children have to live in what we leave them - I'd like to know I did something to help the global situation instead of sitting in my spa in good company.

reverend
31st March 2008, 12:06 AM
Marc1

If you make bio or use svo,you are doing your bit to help whether you like it or not. But to put it in the same basket as religion......you got to be kidding.


Cheers Rev.

Marc1
31st March 2008, 05:04 PM
Oh no, I am no 'kidding' at all, in fact that is my main point.

Human induced global warming is a fabrication. Global warming per se may or may not be, I don't care since there is not a iota humans can do about it.

There is a lot we can do to stop pollution, yet it is funny to see how politicians and business interest run around assuring us they have the 'greenliness' of the planet at heart...all of a sudden...yet do nothing to stop the wild pollution of water air and soil done by industry, governments and business interest.

So because of the unproven claims and the world wide pontification of this claims it is my view that the claim that human activity produces global warming is simply a new religion. Just like any other religion it can not be proven yet there are tons of book about it. You need to have faith in the source/books to think it is true, the religious hierarchy dictates what is good and what is bad, and any non-believer will burn in the furnace for eternity.

"Eppur si muove!"
Or perhaps modern day version would be
"Rammolliti!"

Terry Syd
31st March 2008, 05:53 PM
Marc has mentioned a 'red flag' that should be given some thought. When the lying politicians and media of the establishment start pushing an agenda - it is time to look into the other side of the argument.

There is a lot of dissent from the other side - here is a webpage I stumbled upon today -

Home - Global Warming Petition Project (http://oism.org/pproject/)

The analogy to religion is not unreasonable, this is an issue that can be dealt with by science, not faith. Of course, one has to look at the science dispassionately, without a preconceived agenda.

Here is another webpage I came across yesterday, it has some interesting comments like -

"Q How cynical do you think Gore is?

A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.

Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.

A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.

Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?

A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.

Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?

A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy."

LindaFrum.com : Relax, the planet is fine (http://www.lindafrum.com/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=74)

That is not to say that we should continue as business as usual, but that maybe we should pay less attention to what the PTB are trying to program into us and more time using our own powers of discernment. And no, I did not participate in Earth Hour, I don't care much for mass rituals to create collective group-think.

TroyH
31st March 2008, 10:57 PM
Oh no, I am no 'kidding' at all, in fact that is my main point.

Human induced global warming is a fabrication. Global warming per se may or may not be, I don't care since there is not a iota humans can do about it.

There is a lot we can do to stop pollution, yet it is funny to see how politicians and business interest run around assuring us they have the 'greenliness' of the planet at heart...all of a sudden...yet do nothing to stop the wild pollution of water air and soil done by industry, governments and business interest.


Spoken by someone who appears to have no real clue of the process industry...

In actual fact, there has been a lot done to curb pollution in general, and although it is still a serious problem, it is much, much better than it used to be.

The focus on "greenness" has not just affected greenhouse emissions, but views on complete lifecycle sustainability. It's going to take a long time until our industry is completely sustainable (if it ever gets there) but to suggest that there is no controls or accountability is just uninformed.

Most people are entirely ignorant about pollution. Basically because if it doesn't affect their little world, they don't want to know. It's called NIMBY syndrome...

The best thing about the growing public awareness about global warming?

It makes people start to think about what industry is doing.

Guess what is the main motivation for industry to clean up it's act?




You are stating that you are unsure whether global warming is happening, but are certain we have nothing to do with it:

Carbon from fossil fuels has been out of the atmosphere for millions of years, so it has not been contributing to the greenhouse effect (what sustains life on earth, to a degree). When this carbon was present in the atmosphere, the earth was a lot hotter (because more carbon dioxide traps more heat.)

So we burn all these fossil fuels, and put the carbon back into the living carbon cycle, increasing atmospheric CO2. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped heat. Whether this is enough to cause a sudden massive change in our climate is speculative, however long term, it will change. Even if it doesn't affect our generations, we have a responsibility to our descendants, to leave them with a world that is the same or better than it was when we inherited it.

Thats my opinion anyway.

Marc1
31st March 2008, 11:29 PM
Terry, good post as usual,

Troy, thank you for making my point.
I understand your religious zeal and contempt towards the unbeliever, (that is me.)
Your continuous tirades about what I know or do not know are tiresome yet absolutely expected and predictable.

The one preaching fire and brimstone from the pulpit would have used a similar thought process....mutatis mutandis of course.

Pollution is getting better you say?
We are simply replacing pollutants from the known one to others that are not illegal because the findings about the harm they cause are buried to be disinterred in some 30 years with luck.
We are polluting more than ever yet we join "earth hour":rolleyes: and drink Coca Cola zero. Oh what a feeling!

TroyH
1st April 2008, 12:13 PM
Troy, thank you for making my point.
I understand your religious zeal and contempt towards the unbeliever, (that is me.)
Your continuous tirades about what I know or do not know are tiresome yet absolutely expected and predictable.


Marc,
I understand your religious zeal, contempt towards the believer (or those simply skeptical about your information - that is me.) and your equally circular arguments.
Your continuous assumptions about what we know or do not know are tiresome yet absolutely expected and predictable. It is exactly the same type of arguments we have seen from people promoting "miracle products".



Perhaps that paragraph might give you the hint that what you are using as evidence to justify your position, is no more credible or well investigated than what I am using to justify mine, and yet you somehow seem to assume that you must be right because you are in opposition to the mainstream.

What makes you so sure that you are right? What makes you so sure that your sources are accurate and credible?


What makes me think pollution is getting better? Because companies are spending more and more effort and energy to incorporate new technologies to clean up their emissions streams. Universities are now actually teaching engineering students about sustainability, and environmental management. If you think that industry concern about pollution today is no better than it was 50 years ago, then you really have no clue.

Perhaps you should go and read a bit about what legislation is in place regarding pollution, and how it has changed in the last 50 years.

Nuddy
1st April 2008, 03:11 PM
We are polluting more than ever yet we join "earth hour":rolleyes: and drink Coca Cola zero. Oh what a feeling!
Now there's another conspiricy!
Coke Zero - Zero sugar (essential for life although harmful if overconsumed)
but heaps of artificial sweeteners which are deadly if overconsumed.
We do have a true coke zero - it is called tap water, and the CC company will sell that to us in bottles at several times the price of diesel.

BjBlaster
1st April 2008, 03:39 PM
I agree with Troy, in that people / businesses are starting to clean up their acts (emissions and waste) - whether it makes a difference to the global warming issue or not it's still better for peoples health and sustainability of our future and you can't deny that as a good thing.

Marc1
1st April 2008, 11:52 PM
It is interesting that true "believers" in man made global warming and how we can "turn it around" (by switching off a light bulb), also believe firmly that we are actually polluting less...what a finding!

I think I have stumbled upon something here....
I have to think about it a bit...:confused:

I remember vaguely a preacher going on this line once. Something like...(his view OK?) people had this popular belief that things were getting better, that humans are becoming nicer and less bad to each other, that things were coming under control, we had actually legislated ourselves into a nice community....and that in the end all was going to be good, therefore no need for rapture, Armageddon and eternal damnation of the unbelievers....

I think that there is a generation of people who have had it with the fire and brimstone preaching, at all levels and find in this new "lets change the climate by changing the light bulb " a vehicle to take control. We can actually do something, we don't have to take it anymore...Add to that the chance of blaming others (the dirty 4wd drivers for example) it is a neat package. Pity it is a boldface lie.

Pollution however does not fit in this neat equation, in fact the very business that profit from this naive approach are the biggest polluters. The so called "green" light bulb is loaded with mercury and is an environmental catastrophe, not only they don't last a tenth of what they promise to last, they go to landfills and pollute with heavy metals waters that seep into the ocean.
You think that by eating fish you are eating omega 3 fatty acid right? Oh what a feeling! think again because you are poisoning yourself with the very mercury that comes out of your bloody "green" light bulb made in China by slave labor who die themselvs from industrial poisoning.

We are polluting less? How? we are producing less smoke? We are recycling the sump oil in stead of poring it in the storm water drain? For each apparent improvement taken up in order to gain "green" votes, there are 10 if not 100 new forms of pollution the government turns a blind eye or hasn't got a clue about.
The generation of diet coke drinkers or "free" coke have something else coming. They think they are doing something good by avoiding sugar yet they are swallowing Aspartame and Acesulfame K in stead.

I say wake up, there are no free trips, and we all pay in the end. You are being led down the garden path once more. A new bullshit artist has come up with a very credible yet for that not less false premise: that you and I can actually change the climate.
It is bullshit. Plus the climate does not need changing not by us anyway.

Yet we can do something about the ever increasing, yes read my lips, ever increasing and more and more difficult to detect, level of industrial pollution particularly in our food.
The amount of mercury in our fish for example is not a matter of opinion.
GM crops are not an illusion
There are wordy causes, and there are causes better left to the blue ladies and the RSPCA

morris
3rd April 2008, 12:06 AM
As much as I appreciate Marc's alerting us to the potential of being led by the nose (or is it knows?). I keep comiong back to the same question: What difference does it make whether humans or nature is precipitating the changes in the planet's environment?

Are we (as Marc seems to imply) to simply sit back and watch the snowy Kilimanjaro turn into a replica of Ularu, and succumb to vacantly sitting in spas while the inevitable ticking of nature's clock brings the human race closer to Chaos, Starvation, Disease and Potential Extinction,

Or do we take the initiative to try to slow the process so perhaps our children or their children might have a life without massive and global C.S.D. & P.E.

I don't understand what the difference is between human induced and natural Global Waming and Climate Change. They both spell the same thing, "Hell-On-Earth".

Then again, even though there is no record of it ever having occured before, and Kilimanjaro is just going through a phase were ALL of the snow melts from its surface, then perhaps there is no such thing as Climate Change, and it is just Al Gore lining his pockets. I do not believe even Marc would hint that something that ridculous is plausible.

We all seem to accept Climate Change is real, but it seems that some just don't think there is anything that can (or should) be done to combat it.

Perhaps they are right to recognise the futility of everyones efforts, and call it to our attention. Consider me informed!

I accept there will be strategic mistakes made in developing a productive strategy for this war, but denigrating the soldiers that believe there is a cause & purpose worth fighting for, well that seems very childish.

So as there is no common ground, it would seem fair to request that the intellectually elite should consider leaving the rest of us schmucks to do what we please, as it won't make any difference in the eventual outcome.

I for one will be happy for them to take their toys and go home, just leave us kids to play the way we choose while their skin wrinkles while basking in their spa. I sincerely hope they are able to enjoy it for several centuries to come.

smokey2
3rd April 2008, 12:21 PM
Global warming fact or fiction comes down to what can we do and managing its effect on us. Reducing green house gases is probably the most difficult to achieve but we must try. Mitigating the problems of global warming and climate change must be done and I believe can be successful.

1. Water - yes it is drying up ie glaciers etc. Water must be treated with more respect. Countries that do not respect the value of water will reap a grim harvest and will literally starve.

2.Fuel - use alternatives and further development of solar energy

3. The effects of fires and storms - better use and integration of emergency agency resources within Australia

Marc1
3rd April 2008, 09:38 PM
......... What difference does it make whether humans or nature is precipitating the changes in the planet's environment?

The difference is rather obvious. If as it is alleged humans are the culprits, all we need to do is drop off dead and climate will reverse back to permanent spring all year around.
Since the above is a fallacy, standing on our heads or sitting on our hands will make no difference whatsoever.

In your question you mentioned another allegation, the "precipitating changes".
The climate alarmist have been busy indoctrinating everyone that we are seeing something extraordinary never seen before.
I beg to differ, walk up any decent size mountain and find the tree line. Keep on walking and find ancient stumps. Ergo...the planet has been hotter before and not so long ago. Al Gore and his cronies want you to believe this is the Apocalypse... repent or be damned forever....Oops sorry wrong religion, I meant to say switch off your light or the sky will fall on our heads. (He does mean YOUR light, his home consumes what 20 average home consume but hey, he did say YOURS !)


Are we (as Marc seems to imply) to simply sit back and watch the snowy Kilimanjaro turn into a replica of Uluru, and succumb to vacantly sitting in spas while the inevitable ticking of nature's clock brings the human race closer to Chaos, Starvation, Disease and Potential Extinction,
The above implies again that we can change climate. The reality is that we can not change it, not in a bad way nor in a good way. And this brings in another variable.
Who decides that temperature rises are "BAD" and that we must aim to stop it? Not only are we been told this incredible fantasy that we are at fault, we are also told that we have the power to change it. What arrogance! We can not even predict what will the weather do next week, let alone change anything at all. It is as credible as trying to extend the length of the day by jumping all up and down in unison.


Or do we take the initiative to try to slow the process so perhaps our children or their children might have a life without massive and global C.S.D. & P.E.I can just imagine the Incas talking in a similar fashion. We must appease the gods of the Andes to stop this deluge.
Weather pattern changes are as ancient as the planet itself. We had hot times and cold times, glaciers floods and droughts. Man has always tried to understand it, ask their gods to change it, and today "take action" to do the same.
However the planet's climate does not need us doing anything at all, it has sorted itself out for millenia and will do so for more even more millenia. We may not like it if it is too cold or too hot, too wet or too dry, yet that is the way it is, and if you don't like it, I don't like your alternatives.


I don't understand what the difference is between human induced and natural Global Waming and Climate Change. They both spell the same thing, "Hell-On-Earth". Se above, I disagree. Enjoy creation for as long as you have your senses in good shape.


Then again, even though there is no record of it ever having occured before, and Kilimanjaro is just going through a phase were ALL of the snow melts from its surface, then perhaps there is no such thing as Climate Change, and it is just Al Gore lining his pockets. I do not believe even Marc would hint that something that ridiculous is plausible.You got it all in one. I don't hint at this, I shout it from the rooftops.


I accept there will be strategic mistakes made in developing a productive strategy for this war, but denigrating the soldiers that believe there is a cause & purpose worth fighting for, well that seems very childish.Most wars...are not what they seem, and as time goes by we recognize they were not worth fighting at all since they were the product of corrupt leaders for corrupt reasons, and the poor soldiers were misinformed and died for no reason.


So as there is no common ground, it would seem fair to request that the intellectually elite should consider leaving the rest of us schmucks to do what we please, as it won't make any difference in the eventual outcome. When I agree that all efforts to "change" climate won't make any difference whatsoever, the new religion of man made climate change is preached in a way that marginalizes the unbeliever and will eventually take away personal freedoms with the excuse of the common good just like any other little king has done since kings were invented....perhaps the concepts of a totalitarian regime, or war are alien to people in Australia and I can understand that. There are not alien to me. After two wars and a decade under a totalitarian government I can see things that others can not.


I for one will be happy for them to take their toys and go home, just leave us kids to play the way we choose while their skin wrinkles while basking in their spa. I sincerely hope they are able to enjoy it for several centuries to come.I can see your point of view and I am sure you are sincere, so I will ignore the sarcasm in your post, however you are part of a much larger organization that has taking shape world wide, under false pretenses and with an agenda that you can not even imagine. I merely say that you think more before you join a religion that makes you blind and deaf to the truth.

Perhaps as a way to conclude this long post, it is worth mentioning that there are a lot of human activities that have polluted our environment and that should be changed. Biodiesel is a fun way to make a small change to our environment, however to strain the gnat by getting involved in earth hour and biodiesel whilst swallowing the camel of nuclear chemical and biological pollution by governments, turn the other way when wars are fought, whilst drinking Coca Cola zero, and telling your fellow human that he is wrong if he does not join earth hour or use artificial suiteners is rather peculiar to say the least.

Cameron
3rd April 2008, 10:46 PM
When is this thread going to die?

I won't moderate it or lock it out while everyone is playing nicely but can people PLEASE do everyone a favour and just stop replying to this stuff?? Please, I beg you .....

Just because it is the Off Topic Area doesn't mean it is supposed to be the Completely Unhinged Area...

I have never seen so many fictions dressed up as facts in my entire life!

Would one of the other moderators please agree to monitor this thread as it is doing my head in reading this guff? It ceased being even moderately amusing to me pages and pages ago.

I give up ... you win ... please someone kill me now ....

Marc1
6th April 2008, 07:17 PM
While I know that “balanced” is something that Fox News has perverted to mean “balanced from our point of view”, I really do intend to discuss all aspects of global warming on these pages.
The controversy over global warming is very intriguing to me. My basic tenet on this subject is that we do not know enough about weather and its history to make an accurate conclusion. In my opinion, global warming is an opinion (or more accurately: a hypothesis). Several scientists have formed the hypothesis that the globe is getting warmer and it is now up to the rest of the scientific community to validate or invalidate that hypothesis.
Interestingly, a second hypothesis has been formed based on the first hypothesis. This is almost always a bad thing but I don’t want to argue that point here. This second hypothesis assumes that the globe is warming and then assumes that the cause of this warming is human activity. I don’t know if this hypothesis is true either - I am still working on the first one!
To really compound the complexity of this issue, a third hypothesis has been formed. This third hypothesis is that the cause of global warming (first hypothesis) is caused by humans (second hypothesis) putting too much carbon dioxide into the air (third hypothesis). Having 3 stacked up hypotheses makes this a very complicated discussion. Most people have leaped to this third hypothesis because there is more CO2 in the air than we think was in the air a few decades ago. If this is true, it may be a leap of cause and effect analysis to say that man-made CO2 causes global warming (essentially wrapping up all three hypotheses into one small bundle).
The global warming conversation gets even more complicated when you include politics, economics, greed, and the self interests of the various governments, NGOs and companies. I am a fairly skeptical person so I question everyone’s self interest on this subject. I think that there is too much not understood on this subject so if someone has a strong feeling one way or another then they are either a lot smarter than me, a lot dumber than me, a lot more conniving than me, or some combination of the above. I believe that many people are under educated on this topic and should spend time researching it. I also believe that there are some people in this world that see global warming as a way to create more wealth and power for themselves. I also contend that there are people that don’t care about global warming as an issue but have found that it sells well and therefore espouse it in books, periodicals, talk shows, TV shows, and movies.
This blog will try to balance all of the information on the subject. You will see that the categories are basically warmer, not warmer, or science (with the occasional ridiculous thrown in). I will also have a few items that don’t fit into categories and these tend to be political. The format for the blog is a little bit of comment from me and then some excerpts from a somewhat credible source (you be the judge on its credibility). You can assume that the excerpts are not contiguous paragraphs and that I may have taken some things out of context but I try not to deceive. My goal is to help educate people that still want to be educated and to drive discussion on the 3 hypotheses above. I encourage you to follow these links to the original content and read the full reference.
Sean O'Shaughnessey

Is It Getting Warmer? (http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com)

Fitian
6th April 2008, 10:57 PM
Just because it is the Off Topic Area doesn't mean it is supposed to be the Completely Unhinged Area.....

People pay money to talk on the phone ... I wonder what would happen if members pay $5 for every post that goes above 10 lines?

All respect

CHEVY
7th April 2008, 01:16 AM
I have never seen so many fictions dressed up as facts in my entire life!


I am a little confused about your post Cameron :confused:

I would of thought the debate over the global warming claims was of major importance to our biofuel interests.

Cameron
7th April 2008, 12:24 PM
Chevy, I am seriously going to go away from this thread. I can't believe that I even peeked back in here ....

The problem is not that there is a discussion or debate going on the problem (for me) is that people are putting stuff in here that is a complete load of crap. Somebody else might read it and think that because the standard of discussion and information in this forum is generally high that postings of this nature might have something to them.

For example, to extract a small part from the quote that Marc1 has included in his post:
+++++++
"To really compound the complexity of this issue, a third hypothesis has been formed. This third hypothesis is that the cause of global warming (first hypothesis) is caused by humans (second hypothesis) putting too much carbon dioxide into the air (third hypothesis). Having 3 stacked up hypotheses makes this a very complicated discussion."
+++++++


How on earth is this supposed to be 3 different hypotheses?

How can someone quote this and be even remotely serious and/or hope to be taken seriously in a discussion that they maintain is of an important nature? I am not going to lecture - just suggest that people might like to go and check out a dictionary or something about what makes up a hypothesis.

If you don't know what something means then don't quote it until you have found out. Keep the quality of discussion & debate high. Don't reference the Sunday Telegraph or Nexus as credible scientific journals. I checked out the link (a little) too and it looks to me to be even less credible than a tabloid newspaper. Seriously - it is making me cringe so much that my body is starting to contort!

Have fun with your time & bandwidth wasting.

TroyH
7th April 2008, 01:57 PM
Nice to finally see a post that contains some sense in this thread.

Marc1
8th April 2008, 09:46 AM
+++++++
"To really compound the complexity of this issue, a third hypothesis has been formed. This third hypothesis is that the cause of global warming (first hypothesis) is caused by humans (second hypothesis) putting too much carbon dioxide into the air (third hypothesis). Having 3 stacked up hypotheses makes this a very complicated discussion."
+++++++


How on earth is this supposed to be 3 different hypotheses?



I thought it was rather simple:
Hypothesis:

a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations .. or
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ... or
a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidenceThe first hypothesis..."The planet is warming up" has yet to be proven. Yes we see the emotional calls and the shows with the ice melting and all of that that makes a lot of good material to sell advertising space on TV, yet this remains a HYPOTHESIS since those who could prove it beyond reasonable doubt are well divided. Let's clarify that "warming up" should be also defined. How much is unusual? Or even WHY is it unusual? (Because we don't like it is not an answer)
The second hypothesis...
"The planet is warming up because of human activity".
You can see that if the planet is NOT warming up then the second hypothesis makes no sense, therefore the second hypothesis is depending from the first being true, yet since it is just an opinion based on no proven facts, it can not be supporting a second opinion. The day it is accepted as proven, we can say that there must be a cause and look for it not before.
The third hypothesis...
"CO2 from human activity is warming the planet"...
This is my favorite bull dust Hypothesis. It depends from the first and the second hypothesis. If there is no global warming then what are we talking about? If human activity is not inducing global warming then what are we talking about? And finally CO2 effect on global warming is in itself a nice unproven hypothesis, a guess, an opinion, a theory yet to be proven, or how I prefer to put it, a concocted story to keep tree huggers talking and make the rest pay as much as possible. (this last is of course my hypothesis...well mine and many others too)

Well we addressed the hypothesis thingy problem or something, yet I can not address Mr Cameron's dislike of my opinions.
You are not alone Mr Cameron, yet I am not alone either. It is called debate, yet your side has the benefit (dubious if you ask me) of an unprecedentedly large propaganda machine aimed at making disciples that will cringe at the site of what does not fit the dogma we must adhere to.

So, after all, this is not a debate about global warming nor a technical discussion about it's existence or probable causes. It has finally surfaced for what it is, a discussion about beliefs.
That is... what is it that we would LIKE to be true, what is it that our mind is at peace with , and clearly not what is true and what is not true

There are great many things in life that are unproven yet that we accept as fact only because we like them to be so. It is the way we remain sane and build our own reality. Must of this constructions are harmless and are useful to ourselves. Others are dangerous because they impinge on the rest of society.
It is part of the process of growing up to discover and live with the reality that many of the things we would like to be one way are in fact completely different.
The process of discovering this things is however fun and creative and I recommend it to anyone with the balls to try it.
Kind Regards
Marc

Captain Echidna
8th April 2008, 08:42 PM
My thoughts are is that Marc has put up a lot of "stuff" here, so much so that no one can thoughtfully sit back and question it. Early on if someone asked for clarification, he would add a few more pages af stuff to confuse things further.

Sitting back and thinking about some stuff he has said its just not logical, and its mostly rubbish. (one argument said there is little CO2 in the atmosphere, therfore whats a bit more? Its like if you have .08 percent alcohol in you body, what difference will that make!) Another he said we could have our freedoms cut. When asked to give an example, he posted an article to a webpage saying that "incandecent globes could be banned". Meet the repressed people of Australia, using compact fluro globes.....:rolleyes:

I had earlier questioned if Marc was on the payroll of an oil company. I guess if he was he would say we are not doing anything with an environmental benifit by using biofuels (which he has), he would say that the environment is changing, but its not human caused (which he has) he would say there will be alternate fuels in the future (which he has) and there is enough fossil fuel to last till then (which he has) He would post loads of information to make disceting it more difficult (which he has)....

My thoughts are if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, if its not a duck it will do till you get one....

Cameron
9th April 2008, 08:13 PM
Here is something well thought out that could provide a different perspective for many.

YouTube - How It All Ends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related)
mF_anaVcCXg

regards,
Cameron

Marc1
11th April 2008, 09:33 PM
I remember in the seventies, a preacher who thought had found an infallible way to gain believers was preaching on the following line:

You have two options:
Believe and accept the path to salvation..
Or.. reject and refuse it.

If you believe and God does not exist...no harm done, yet you will die.
If you do not believe and God does not exist...no harm done yet you still die.
If you believe and God does exist...you are saved and in good company
If you do not believe and God does exist, you are doomed.

So really, the only way to win every time is by believing. If you believe and God does not exist, you get to feel better than the others who do not believe and are such heretics in life, and then you die.
If however you believe and God happens to exist, you not only get to feel good in life but also after dead.

Yet somehow his preaching strategy did not take as much as he would have hoped...Not sure why....:D

PS
The author of the above and the basis of the funny video posted by Cameron is of course Pascal, in his famous Wager
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

There are of course numerous rebuttals of Pascal Wager, I let it to you to find one you like. It is certainly a lot of fun.
Your video is clearly a plagiarism conceded used to support a religion of sort.
Hooroo
Marc

TroyH
11th April 2008, 11:39 PM
I remember in the seventies, a preacher who thought had found an infallible way to gain believers was preaching on the following line:

You have two options:
Believe and accept the path to salvation..
Or.. reject and refuse it.

If you believe and God does not exist...no harm done, yet you will die.
If you do not believe and God does not exist...no harm done yet you still die.
If you believe and God does exist...you are saved and in good company
If you do not believe and God does exist, you are doomed.

So really, the only way to win every time is by believing. If you believe and God does not exist, you get to feel better than the others who do not believe and are such heretics in life, and then you die.
If however you believe and God happens to exist, you not only get to feel good in life but also after dead.

Yet somehow his preaching strategy did not take as much as he would have hoped...Not sure why....:D

I remember a con artist trying to sell his dodgy HOHcells on here some time ago. He said his product worked, and that they knew what they did, but hadn't done any scientific testing to prove it, and said they didn't need it.

They also tried to use the words or work of other con artists as supporting evidence, and also claimed that all of the mainstream scientists just didn't want to believe it, or that there was a big conspiracy of science and industry trying to discredit them so that they could protect "big oils" profits. Oddly he could provide no proof, and ignored requests for tests to validate his claims, and could not explain how or why they worked. He simply assured us that they did, and tried to use propaganda about the conspiracy theories to prove his point.


Funnily enough, no-one believed his ranting and raving once people who actually knew what they were talking about, questioned his "science"....

BJ42
12th April 2008, 02:36 AM
oh gawd...
theres at least one on every forum.
I'm new here, but rather old in terms of arguing (wasting time) on various internet forums about this sort of stuff.
I've skimmed through this thread, spotted a few of the usual suspects, and will not return again.

Marc1- take your tired old arguments to places set up to discuss these issues properly (where they will be rightfully dismissed quickly or out of hand because it has all been well debunked and disproven)- no offence, but arguing like you are doing, with the quality (crap) of material/references that you are using is actually quite laughable (ANYONE that is careless/ignorant/undisciplined enough to reference something like the infamous Swindle 'doco' sets all sorts of loony bells ringing).
You think it is so clear?- you think you are so right?- you think everyone else is part of the new cult?... (why don't you try taking a look in the mirror at you and your gang... you guys are the new conspiracy nutters)
dude- no offence but from my perspective arguing with your type, within your terms and quality of evidence, would be the definition of stupid (no offence intended to the the members who have put time and effort into such). Been there, done that. Yep, me been very stupid.:D
Get out there, critique and test your own claims before you bring your garbage here or anywhere else to present. You do yourself and your position much dis-service by avoiding this crucial step.
try realclimate.org for one,
search out your points, read the lengthy discussions, follow up on the peer-reviewed scientific papers that commonly reference them- and this is just a start.

I may be taken as being rude- I don't mean to be.
I do however have a profound lack of respect for armchair internet experts who like to $h!te all over the commitment, dedication, long and hard earned expertise, and sincere objective commitment of countless individuals within the many fields of science that together comprise our current understanding of anthropocentric induced climate change.
Goodbye.
I come here for Biodiesel information- not to beat my head against the stupid wall.

(yep, feeling that rising stupid feeling again:o:D)

Marc1
12th April 2008, 02:13 PM
It is always reassuring to realize how many people feel the urge to read my post.
I did not know I was so popular!
Considering this thread was relegated to this obscure corner of irrelevance in an otherwise interesting site dedicated to Biodiesel, your efforts to find me in the off the beaten track region is commendable and your participation with such constructive and polite expressions of interest is heartwarming.

Prosit!

Captain Echidna
12th April 2008, 04:25 PM
Thank’s cameron for what should have been the last post.
Marc there is a big difference between an individual deciding whether to be religious or not, and deciding what to do with the planet. Effectively if you want to be a Buddhist, atheist or Christian I don’t really care, it makes no difference to me (apart from running into you after we both die, if we wind up in the same spot). The grid assumes a possibility of 2 options. If you don’t believe in one option then that’s ok, decide the possibility of it occurring is insignificant and not worth further worry. Your choice will only affect you.

However when deciding the fate of the world, it is different. The actions of everyone affects everyone else. If I global warming exists, those running around using inefficient light globes and driving a V8 on petrol will affect the biofuel and solar panel users. Unless you are so arrogant to say you cannot be wrong, there is a possibility that you are wrong. There is a possibility I am wrong, but I believe strongly I am right. As we cant agree, we need a different mechanism to decide what to do as people of the world.

Therefore the grid comes in to remove the who is right and wrong from the discussion. The only thing that is left is the options and possible outcomes, enabling us to decide the best option.

At the moment you are arguing for “keep things the same”, which will only eventuate as a reasonably option if global warming is false. If its true, we are up the creek. In the meantime we are heading for the conclusion of the experiment. If we act and we didn’t need to who cares? Of course if we act and we needed to we have averted the end of humanity.

Its funny though replacing “humanity’s” perspective, for the environment, and fossil fuel companies in the grid. The only group who will loose by changing is the fossil fuel companies. People wont, their reliance on fossil fuel companies will be replaced by green energy companies. More jobs planting trees and servicing wind farms will replace mining coal and burning it.

There is only one logical answer. Arguing to stay the same is not logical. If you enjoy disagreeing with the majority of the human race, I belive there is still a “flat earth society” you could join…

Marc1
13th April 2008, 06:55 PM
Marc there is a big difference between an individual deciding whether to be religious or not, and deciding what to do with the planet. Effectively if you want to be a Buddhist, atheist or Christian I don’t really care, it makes no difference to me (apart from running into you after we both die, if we wind up in the same spot). The grid assumes a possibility of 2 options. If you don’t believe in one option then that’s ok, decide the possibility of it occurring is insignificant and not worth further worry. Your choice will only affect you.

However when deciding the fate of the world, it is different. The actions of everyone affects everyone else. If I global warming exists, those running around using inefficient light globes and driving a V8 on petrol will affect the biofuel and solar panel users. Unless you are so arrogant to say you cannot be wrong, there is a possibility that you are wrong. There is a possibility I am wrong, but I believe strongly I am right. As we cant agree, we need a different mechanism to decide what to do as people of the world.

Your paradigm, is only sound if the choice of belief (religious belief that is) would be truly only a personal one.

However as history teaches, a person chooses a religion as a personal choice only if experiencing a "conversion" as an adult. Most grow into it via their own culture yet both the converted and the the one born into it, both feel to have the duty to impose it onto others. Most religions (with some honorable exceptions) are a conglomerate of principles and values that proven or otherwise are accepted by a certain community as true, and must be imposed onto the rest of humankind in order to save them from themselves.

Someone who is or has been involved in a religious movement would be able to see the striking similarities to the Global Warming movement of today with ease.

You rightly say " However when deciding the fate of the world, it is different. The actions of everyone affects everyone else."........The believer sees the non compliance of his neighbors as a challenge and a danger to the destiny of humanity, just like you say, and as his duty to change the course of history and the damnation of human kind. Nota bene, both your side and the religious people, think that they are "deciding the fate of the world". It is this conviction that drives you both.

Furthermore the religious person thinks (with some variations according to beliefs) that he will have to give account of his work or lack of it, towards the salvation of humanity. Some religions go as far as declaring that any efforts towards preservation of nature are part of worldly business not worth their time since all will be destroyed and made new anyway so why bother!

I do not defend Pascal and his reasoning in his famous "wager" plagiarized in the video above, (conceded in a much more entertaining version than the original) nor do I defend the tunnel vision of the religious.
I am simply saying that the three hypothesis that, stacked one on top of the other are presented as fact to the world to believe, have all the making of a religion and propose the same tunnel vision, the same fanaticism ,the same impositions and the same "altruistic" motivations, "to save humankind"

There are a multitude of salvation merchants out there.
They have a lot in common.
They are all right, they all have the truth by the tail, they all have your's and my welfare at heart.

Just like the religious people that put Galileo on house arrest for supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theories had his soul's welfare at heart and would have killed him "for his own good" had he been less famous, today's eco-crusaders would gladly string up the non complainant for the good of the many.

I think this fad will fade slowly as the many weakness of the arguments and the many layers of conflicting interest are exposed.

Until then I intend to listen with a critical mind. I can do so because we live, for now, in what appears to be a free country.

TroyH
14th April 2008, 01:13 PM
Should I be surprised that you have the gall to claim to know what the "religious person" thinks, or indeed to generalise in such an obviously prejudiced way?

For someone claiming to be open minded and forward thinking, you're not doing a very good job of showing it.

Captain Echidna
14th April 2008, 05:26 PM
I think this fad will fade slowly as the many weakness of the arguments and the many layers of conflicting interest are exposed.

Until then I intend to listen with a critical mind. I can do so because we live, for now, in what appears to be a free country.

So on the "pascals wager" you are choosing to do nothing.
This will lead to one of the following.
1) Nothing environmentally if you are right about global warming (mind you when fossil fuel runs out it will then probably mean famine, ecconomic collapse, government collapse as their income base of fossil fuel use dries up) or if you are wrong.
2) No environment thats habitable, unless you are in an air conditioned environment, which running on fossil fuels will accelerate the demise of the environment, meaning more fossil fuel use to run air conditioners.....

Excuse me if I fail to see how this is a more logical choice over presuming man made global warming is real (even if its not) and acting accordingly to protect the environment and change our reliance on fossil fuel for transport electricity and food production, which undeniably will run out.

TroyH
14th April 2008, 08:40 PM
Excuse me if I fail to see how this is a more logical choice over presuming man made global warming is real (even if its not) and acting accordingly to protect the environment and change our reliance on fossil fuel for transport electricity and food production, which undeniably will run out.

Why am I reminded of that old saying "You'd cut of your nose to spite your face."
;)

Captain Echidna
14th April 2008, 10:01 PM
Why am I reminded of that old saying "You'd cut of your nose to spite your face."
;)

Umm I am not sure how you have interpreted my post, but I will clarify?

There is one of the four options with the grid/ pascals wager

1 man made global warming is false and we do nothing. (no dramas, except when fossil fuels run out, and food becomes expensive, governments collapse etc)
2 Man made global warming is true and we do nothing ( good surf at Allice springs, and the costal cities are underwater, but it makes the heat more bearable, and we still have problems when fossil fuel runs out and food becomes expensive, governments collapse etc)
3 Man made global warming is true, and we act to come up with alternatives/ fossil fuel is priced to be uncompetitive (no major dramas, except for some pain now as fossil fuel becomes expensive and people set up alternatives)
4 Man made global warming is false, but we have acted to avoid it (and have come up with some realistic alternatives for fosil fuel, meaning when we run out we have options already.)

Now avoiding the argument of is man made global warming true or not, we can either chose on of the first two (we dont act and get either 1 or 2) or the second two (we do act and we get either 3 or 4)

I cant see logic picking either of the first two, the second two are more sensible. Of course everyone has to choose either one or the other. If you sit on the fence, you are in effect picking one of the first 2.

I dont see anything but benifits for human kind, so dont see how I will be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Feel free to point out how I have "not seen" something I have said, I am used to it (I teach teenagers;))

TroyH
15th April 2008, 01:40 AM
Sorry mate, what I was referring to, was Marc1 adamantly claiming defiance against all evidence of global warming, because he believes it is just a conspiracy/ploy to make money.

I agree with what you've been saying, it's just that I thought of that old saying, and how it applied to Marc1's comments, whilst reading your post :D

CHEVY
15th April 2008, 01:12 PM
I wonder if a very basic experiment may not shed some light on this issue.

If we were to build two sealed glass sided green houses (like the ones people grow plants in) Fill one full of CO2 with the second as the control and measure the temperature differences during a sunny day - would this be sufficient to show if CO2 air warming is true ?


...or has this been done ?

pro forest
15th April 2008, 03:35 PM
Marc, to be perfectly honest, I didn't read your entire post.

Global warming is not rocket science! It does not require a team of scientists to confirm that wiping out huge tracts of carbon-absorbing rainforest is going to have a negative impact on the planet!

I think we have got this whole bio-fuel thing arse-about! I applaud anyone who is doing their bit for the environment, but we need to be focusing on where we are going to get the most bang for our buck in terms of reversing the trend.

A handful of people reducing their carbon output is not going to have a massive impact on slowing global warming. And in fact, the use of bio-fuels in Europe is promoting the destruction of more rain-forest to put in more palm oil plantations. We need to be putting pressure on the governments, particularly in Indonesia and Brazil, to stop the massive destruction of rain-forest.

Every minute of every day, an area rain-forest the size of six football fields is being cleared in Indonesia - either for logging or to plant palm oil, or both.

This is where we need to focus our efforts!!

CHEVY
15th April 2008, 03:55 PM
We need to be putting pressure on the governments, particularly in Indonesia and Brazil

pro forest - good luck with that idea.

Perhaps we would be better off putting a major effort into developing the alga biofuel system to an efficient and cheap process.
If we can develop a system that makes forest removal for biofuel uneconomic - tree felling stops overnight.

Terry Syd
15th April 2008, 05:14 PM
And then there is war to contend with -

"The data, provided by the U.S. Central Command, LMI study says, “show that DoD is using approximately 57,000 barrels a day, at a cost of about $3 million per day. This equates to about 16 gallons per soldier per day. This is significantly more than the 2005 consumption rate of 9 gallons per soldier. These numbers make it clear that energy consumption for military operations has increased dramatically in the last 15 years. In Desert Storm, consumption was 4 gallons per soldier per soldier, and in World War II, consumption was only 1 gallon per day per soldier.”

Sohbet Karbuz (http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2007/05/much-ado-for-nothing-transforming-way.html)

That is only 'in theater' consumption, the amount used for all the bases, ships, aircraft, etc. that are not within the battle zone would be many multiples of that figure.

Perhaps some 'greenie' effort could be extended to rolling back the military rather than have Earth Days, no plastic bags and low wattage light bulbs. It could even make the Earth a more pleasant and safe place to live.

Captain Echidna
15th April 2008, 09:01 PM
Perhaps some 'greenie' effort could be extended to rolling back the military rather than have Earth Days, no plastic bags and low wattage light bulbs. It could even make the Earth a more pleasant and safe place to live.
Your not questioning the massive environmental benifit turning off the lights for 0.0114% of the year can bring? I mean that must reduce emmisions by nearly 0.0114%? (less the fridge, heater, hot water and stereo of course) At least if it was a day it may be as high as 0.27%:rolleyes:

And if plastic bags are so bad, why is it I can still buy them? Actually I do have to buy them for garbage, and also have to buy a green bag to take them home in, now they dont give out a bag that will do both jobs for free anymore. Hmm two lots of buying bags instead of getting one for free that does both jobs I wonder who's idea that was....

Good idea rolling back the millatry. I wonder if the average has gone up because people arent joining the millitary, meaning less people on the frontline? I could hope I guess....

TroyH
15th April 2008, 10:05 PM
Every minute of every day, an area rain-forest the size of six football fields is being cleared in Indonesia - either for logging or to plant palm oil, or both.

This is where we need to focus our efforts!!

Really there is an underlying problem behind all of this, and unless you address the underlying problem, all you are doing is trying to fix the symptoms.

Society as a whole, is addicted to consuming for the sake of consuming. Take mobile phones for example. We are talking about a device that is quite energy intensive to produce, and can last for quite some time, yet some people change them every 3 months just to keep up with current fashions. It's gone beyond having the latest and greatest in technology, and moved on to simply getting it because it's slightly different to your last one.

This extends really to most aspects of our lives. It is there, so we want it. Someone has released a newer/better one, so we replace our perfectly good one.

Now I'm not saying that we should hold on to everything until it's on it's last legs, because trying to encourage that, is just a pipe dream. However at some point we are going to realise (and many already have) that our way of living is not sustainable.

The marketing industry have a lot to answer for, although really they are just a means to an end. The real culprit is companies who sacrifice sustainable responsibility in the never ending drive to increase profits. It's far more profitable to release endless variations of products to help drive the addiction to spending. In addition to designing products with limited lifespans so that consumers are forced to replace them. The marketing people talk about the emotional investment in an item. The cheaper something is, the less likely we are to seriously consider the implications of the purchase.

To think we will be able to change this in the short term is laughable, but there is no time like the present to try to educate people about how their habits affect us all, and to help us all change our ways.

Perhaps at some point we can also look at introducing measures to encourage a more sustainable manufacturing industry.

RODEONICK
15th April 2008, 10:15 PM
Our first step towards a greener future IMO is to ban all trading with china. I believe this would slow their economy thus slow their development and teach us in australia that technology and wizzbangs COST. China is a major player in all this both carbon and slave labour wise. if we dont support them with trade sure it will cost us more for many items but think about the longterm future of our country we'll be better off and so will the environment. maybe people wont want plasma big screens for $20,000. just some ramblings.

Marc1
16th April 2008, 01:23 AM
There is one of the four options with the grid/ pascals wager

1 man made global warming is false and we do nothing. (no dramas, except when fossil fuels run out, and food becomes expensive, governments collapse etc)
2 Man made global warming is true and we do nothing ( good surf at Allice springs, and the costal cities are underwater, but it makes the heat more bearable, and we still have problems when fossil fuel runs out and food becomes expensive, governments collapse etc)
3 Man made global warming is true, and we act to come up with alternatives/ fossil fuel is priced to be uncompetitive (no major dramas, except for some pain now as fossil fuel becomes expensive and people set up alternatives)
4 Man made global warming is false, but we have acted to avoid it (and have come up with some realistic alternatives for fosil fuel, meaning when we run out we have options already.)

Now avoiding the argument of is man made global warming true or not, we can either chose on of the first two (we dont act and get either 1 or 2) or the second two (we do act and we get either 3 or 4)

I cant see logic picking either of the first two, the second two are more sensible. Of course everyone has to choose either one or the other. If you sit on the fence, you are in effect picking one of the first 2.


You logic makes sense if in fact it was that simple. You, (not you personally) make it up as if everyone in the school yard is playing cricket and I am the one refusing to join and without me you loose the game.

Unfortunately the world is more complicated than that, more complicated than a game to be played in unison clapping at someone's tune because as you clap to save the world, entire nations are plotting to murder you, others are poisoning your food, your air , undermine our institutions and in a not so distant future we may even see attempts at secession Kosovo style.

I have real good belly laugh at the armchair writers who are busy telling me that the worst polluter is my 2 stroke lawnmower that has 90cc and is used once a month for half an hour whilst a small navy ship running on dual 16V Detroit burns 1000+ litres of fuel per hour.
To even consider any "action" at individual level towards the reduction of CO2 emissions when the fuel for my car is dearer because all resources are sold to china an India who build 3-4 coal fired generators a month just to keep up with demand and they have only just started, is as laughable as believing the rhetoric of the government about heroin abuse whilst they preserve the opium plantations in Afghanistan who supply 90% of the world heroin.

If anyone is altruistically inclined in the welfare of the planet and by elevation of the human race, the point to start is not you incandescent globe. It is to debunk the myth and uncover the bullshit, It is by stop believing the current affairs and the tokenism of the governments who feed you lies and govern your actions. Yes we had Milosovich on trial, we bombed the bad serbs, whilst the governemt in Albania stripped the serbs of their organs and sold them to the clinics around the world.

Every one of the many tyrannical government in the world throughout history have grown to totalitarian power by compelling their subdits to act united against what was made to believe a common enemy for the common good.

I take action. I don't sit on the fence, I have in the past risked my life more times than I care to remember. I was on a hit list and the dead squad missed me many times for a small margin. My sin was to speak out, to confront the lies and the abuse, to unmask and to expose governments for what they are.
That, in my view is the action that may bring some cooling to the planet.

If you think that switching the light off will save the planet, you are welcome to your particular belief but allow me to show you that perhaps, just perhaps, you are been taken for a ride, a profitable at that and one that leads only to distraction whilst the powers that be do as they please with the extra totalitarian power you have given them without a fight.

CHEVY
16th April 2008, 01:32 AM
Hmmm... No answer..... dont tell me that nobody has done the most basic test to see if sunlight heats up CO2 ?

TroyH
16th April 2008, 01:50 AM
CO2 is well known as a greenhouse gas. It has to do with the molecules tendency to absorb radiation in the infra-red range I believe.

CHEVY
16th April 2008, 10:28 AM
It has to do with the molecules tendency to absorb radiation in the infra-red range I believe.

Which is why I carnt see the moon when I look at it through an IR camera - that is reflected sunlight.
Some IR cameras are approved for direct sunlight, many can be damaged if acciedently faced at the sun.

TroyH or somebody with the knoweledge, would the greenhouse biulding experiment work or would the glass be enough to stop all the IR radiation? perhaps a more IR friendly covering would be needed - will still need to get the full spectrum of sunlight for a valid basic test.

Personaly, I am looking for a more tangible demonstration of the CO2 heating rather then the science claims that I dont understand.
Looks like we dont need water vapor added to a basic test as it appears it has been left out of many climate warming theorys, or at best, not given proper consideration.

TroyH
16th April 2008, 12:34 PM
I'm not sure you would get a measurable reading from the test your describe, as the energy absorbed by such a small amount of CO2 would be small compared to that absorbed by the ground at the bottom of the greenhouse. It would be finite, but possibly very difficult to measure accurately.

A better test is probably to use an IR spectrophotometer. It is a device that chemists use to measure IR (or near IR) transmission, in order to determine the identity of a sample.

The bonds between atoms in a molecule, are of a particular energy. These bonds can be "excited" by radiation at a frequency that corresponds to the energy level in the bond, which results in a vibration of that bond, and energy absorption (thus radiation absorption of a certain frequency). It's a bit like how a tuning fork will begin to vibrate, when exposed to sound at it's harmonic frequency.

The bonds in CO2 (and many other organic compounds...and water too) are excited by radiation in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. This absorption of radiation results in an increase in temperature.

If you are talking in terms of heat transfer, all we really want to know is that the temperature of the earth is affected by three things. One, is the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth. The second, is the amount of radiation reflected by the earth, and the third is the amount of radiation emitted by the earth. If you increase the earths ability to absorb energy, and retain it (i.e. not increase emittance equally with absorption) then if the amount of reflected energy stays the same, then the earth MUST increase in energy.


Something that complicates matters in terms of temperature, is that melting ice will absorb a great deal of energy, whilst remaining at ~0 degrees. What this means is that "global warming" may not be evident in terms of temperature whilst the ice is melting, but will accellerate considerably once all the ice is gone (because there is no melting ice to mitigate the temperature change.). Think about how quickly your drink heats up once all the ice is gone (or alternatively, how it stops cooling down).

Terry Syd
16th April 2008, 12:35 PM
Here's a research paper from a 15 year old girl that tries to explain the science in everyday terms. - Global Warming Hoax: Content / Ponder the Maunder / Ponder the Maunder (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6)

I liked this quote: "While I will use much of the available and updated scientific data, I will also interject common sense, something that is seriously lacking in the debate on this issue. For instance, you might notice my use of the one ten-thousandth figure. Were you aware that the total man made CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the last 150 years is just that, one ten-thousandth of total atmosphere?"

TroyH
16th April 2008, 02:31 PM
The one in ten thousanth figure is just 'clever' manipulation of statistics. It might interest you to know, that natural CO2 makes up one 2800th of the atmosphere. Which incidentally means that if the girls figures are correct, that man-made CO2 accounts for a bit less than ONE THIRD of all atmospheric CO2. Seem more significant now?

In reality it means nothing on its own, and it is simply ignorant to believe that just because something is apparently insignificant by mass, it is insignificant by effect.

How much CFC pollution do you think there was, as a total of the atmosphere? Bugger all. Yet they have a massive impact on ozone levels.

Go and breathe air that contains 9 parts per million (thats about 1 in 111,111) of chlorine gas. It's not going to feel good, I assure you.

I find it amazing that you could consider the work of a 15 year old girl to be reliable enough to use as proof that global warming isn't happening. I'm sorry, but I'd rather trust people who don't actually still believe that atoms are hard little spheres that "like" each other...(which is about the level of understanding of a 15yo who has studies high schoo science to yr 10).

A simplistic analysis of a problem is only useful while the assumptions made (in order to simplify the problem) remain valid. It also has to look at the fundamentals of the problem, rather than incidental evidence, else it risks ignoring important factors.

Unfortunately I was only able to read the very beginning of her paper, as the website gave me a bluescreen and my pc shut down. So I'd be wary of accessing it again.

If you'd care to quote it, I'd be willing to discuss the contents.

Captain Echidna
16th April 2008, 04:56 PM
Here's a research paper from a 15 year old girl...... "While I will use much of the available and updated scientific data, I will also interject common sense...."

When I meet a 15 year old who understands what common sense is, let alone demonstrates it I will be surprised....

I think the funniest example was the student who asked if I was going paintballing. I said I would if I could. Great the student exclaimed, visibly excited. I said I understood I would be a target, but so long as I got some shots in I would be happy. Then I watched the smile drain from his face as the realisation hit that I would also have a gun.....

My thoughts are Terry was hilighting if you get a simpler understanding, you also can get a distorted one. Or one that sounds like a "public speaking" script that has been put on the net....

Terry Syd
16th April 2008, 05:29 PM
Naw, I just threw it in there to stir the pot. It flips Cameron out to see this thread still going.

I have a lower ecological footprint than the vast majority of Westerners, and later this year it will get even lower. The world is going to Hell in a handbasket and I am going to do my part to withdraw from the human/rat race. I'll leave it to politicians, scientists in white smocks, protestors, computer geeks, journalists, musicians, and other assorted informed people to save the world.

I'll just be planting fruit trees, using no-till gardening, raising chooks, fishing and other activities while the great debate continues. Looking back, the most trees I ever planted in one day was 300. I'm getting too old for that kind of effort, but I'm sure I could do at least one a week. Its personal, but to me that sounds like a more productive input than wanking on Earth Day.

I was in Woolies yesterday and there was this blonde dingbat talking on her mobile. I kept trying to get away from her, but I kept running into her on different isles. When I went to the check-out, I went the check-out stand that was furthest away from her (she was still chattering on the mobile).

In the parking lot I watched her load her 'Green Bags' into the back of her large SUV. She kind of eptiomised my vision of the new environmentally aware Westerner.

Marc1
16th April 2008, 05:52 PM
The results were quite surprising, and rather clear. There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left. For some reason, probably not known to greenhouse theorists and their scientists, greenhouse gases did not play a role in late 20th century warming. It was simply a matter of solar variation being clouded by El Ninos and La Nina




© Kristen Byrnes (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?2) and Ponder the Maunder -

Why am I not surprised? :)

CHEVY
16th April 2008, 06:02 PM
In the parking lot I watched her load her 'Green Bags' into the back of her large SUV. She kind of eptiomised my vision of the new environmentally aware Westerner.

So true Terry.


On the climate issue, I wonder if there arnt a lot of climate Boffins that are a little fixed in their ways - after all it has been accepted by many for over 40 years now that humans will cause climate change. At first it was going to be climate cooling, then climate heating, now its a bit vague - climate change.
Leaves me jumping from one side of the ideology fence to the other. Maybe I'll just sit on the fence for a while.


This is not climate specific, though interesting all the same

Haim Harari writes -

Clear and simple is not the same as provable and well defined

I used to think that if something is clear and simple, it must also be provable or at least well defined, and if something is well defined, it might be relatively simple. It isn't so...

...Common sense has as much place as logic, in scientific research. Intuition often leads to more insight than algorithmic thinking. Familiarity with previous failed attempts to solve a problem may be detrimental, rather than helpful. This may explain why almost all important physics breakthroughs are made by people under forty. This also explains why, in science, asking the right question is at least as important as being able to solve a well posed problem....

(Extract via, www.edge.org (http://www.edge.org))

Haim Harari
Physicist, former President, Weizmann Institute of Science

TroyH
16th April 2008, 07:47 PM
Why am I not surprised? :)Because you believe people who have no clue?


Oh yes, I'm sure a 15 year old girl with no scientific training, found something out about the climate that thousands of scientists have missed. Using data that, funnily enough, those scientists compiled.

She must be profoundly genius (or wrong). I wonder which is more likely?
:rolleyes:

Terry Syd
16th April 2008, 08:15 PM
Chevy, humans have caused a great deal of climate change, not just recently but many times in the past. All you need to do is look at Easter Island, or the American Anasasi Indians, or the Mayans, or the .... Time and again humans have exceeded their resource base.

Humans aren't like yeast, however psychopaths are, and they are running the show.

If you want to read a really good book, read Jared Diamond's 'Collapse'. It will give you an idea about what we are about to slide into - collapse. A mate I loaned it to is an avid reader, he said it was the best book he had ever read. It also put a fire under his butt to start making some changes in his life.

The collapse cannot be stopped at this point. If you want to sit around and debate, fine, I'm outta here, gonna watch the collapse from the sidelines as much as I can.

I note that biofuels are getting 'bad press' for creating famine. Like, hello, what biofuels are made from RICE? It has started, the die-off begins.

CHEVY
5th May 2008, 01:07 AM
100 years of media reporting on the coming ice/warming age -

BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice (http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp)

Looks to be a fairly well researched article with an extensive list of sources. The sidebars are worth reading as well.

Marc1
5th May 2008, 08:38 PM
Good article.

Only problem is that in my view the current climate change agitators are not the result of bad journalism. There are much larger and more powerful reasons behind it and the media is only doing what the bosses tell them to do.

Conceded once the religion is established, some of the journos lower on the food chain take to it with zeal and make it their own. The public is right behind them offering smokless sacrifices to the god environment.

Doom is the name of the game this days, so much so that it does not matter if from heat or frozen stiff. This trivialities are of no concern. Global warming leads to ice age, or ice age leads to global warming. Global warming brings drought, global warming brings excess rain and floods, or .... fill in with catastrophe of choice. Who cares about scence? Scientists funding ride on man made global warming, who dares to dissent will loose his funds, so there!

This of course presents a problem. Does one sell his north Queensland farm and buy one in Tassie? or sell Tassie and buy in the Kimberleys?
Should I ask Alan Jones?

Tony From West Oz
6th May 2008, 12:21 AM
Marc1,
Hedge your bets and buy in many climatic zones. Move to the one performing best at that point in time.
Unfoirtunately, this mauy not work for those with budgets as small as mine, but nice to consider being a multi property tycoon :)

Have Fun,
Tony

lez
6th May 2008, 04:03 AM
I'm not sure if the person posting this' global warming fact or fiction is quoting someone- elses' ill-informed 'selective experts' style of bogus science reasoning as a joke , or not. If its the former, excuse me for not getting it ,if you really DON'T believe in man induced global warming ...your type are becoming really tiresome.

Marc1
6th May 2008, 09:33 AM
I see.... this is the same logic applied by other religions to their own beliefs.
Fair enough, as long as you don't denigrate those who do not share your faith.

lez
6th May 2008, 11:36 AM
Jesus man do the science ,don't just cherry pick the few 'sources' that happen to agree with your view. I am not religious I am a scientist and I go by collective evidence ,over 95 % of climate scientists cant be wrong.Wake up and smell the smog.

Qwarla
6th May 2008, 04:18 PM
Once upon a time the wold stood still and all the stars, sun and moon moved around the earth. ALL the scientists swore it was so and had all the proof as well.
Also I remember a time they also swore the world was flat. Don't you dare sail too far out to sea or ya gunna fall over the edge. Someone actually did sail out to far and was never seen again so it must be true.

Well how wrong the scientists where then. But that couldn't happen again could it? Well yes it has.

Just in recent times when steam power was starting to make headways. Someone wanted to bolt a steam engine onto a railway cart to power the train, and replace the horses that used to pull the train.
The scientists at the time said, "You can't do that. Once you reach a speed of 27 miles per hour all the air will be sucked out the back of the carrige and everyone will sufforcate".
Well we now know they were once again WRONG.
Fact. Scientists are often wrong and have to change/modify their theories.

Tehn in more recent times they tried to make aircraft fly faster then the speed of sound. The early attempts saw many disasterous crashes and the powers to be at that time concluded is was now impossible to go faster than the speed of sound.
But then one day someone discovered a way to do it, and proved them all wrong.

Maelinar
6th May 2008, 04:26 PM
You missed the bit about the earth being on the back of a giant turtle, itself propped up by four large elephants.

CHEVY
6th May 2008, 05:30 PM
lez, where does this 95% of scientists figure come from?

Qwarla
6th May 2008, 06:43 PM
I'm more interested in the 5%.

Are they the semi-retired, financually sufficient that don't have to squabble for funding like a mob of chooks after a handful of bread crumbs :D

Marc1
6th May 2008, 06:49 PM
Jesus man do the science ,don't just cherry pick the few 'sources' that happen to agree with your view. I am not religious I am a scientist and I go by collective evidence ,over 95 % of climate scientists cant be wrong.Wake up and smell the smog.

I remember a political party that use to say ..."Vote XXX, millions of people can not be wrong!". I use to think "Eat s##t, millions of flies can not be wrong".

Anyway no offense intended, just that numbers are just that, and mean little.

The case of the smoke an mirrors illusion of man made climate change has many faces.
There are those who high up, generated and set in motion this big illusion for self gain, M.Thatcher and company.
Those who picked up on its true global power potential and developed it into what it is today, A.Gore and company.
This could not have done it without assistance from their lackeys scientist who lick the dirt they thread for some of the spoils, the same who swore nuclear test are harmless, hid the origin of aids and many other nice achievements.
However there are more faces to this merry go around, the honest and truly concerned scientist who's reason has been obscured by all the bull dust, the greenies and environmentalist who see their big opportunity for surging from irrelevance to top priority as defenders of the truth, a word that was obliterated from their dictionaries many decades ago.
And then...there is the general population who's brain, dutifully pickled in the vinegar of media doom and gloom, go where the wind of deceit takes them. Not much to add to that.

So here we are now, facing years of mismanagement for the sake of an illusion, paying premium price for energy to feed a lie, that we can change climate by producing less CO2. Of course this lie is the rock on which many will be rich beyond their wildest dreams and government will be able to acquire power that was unthinkable only a decade ago. Meantime trillions of dollars to pay for overinflated prices for oil, flow to a region populated by people who's main religion is based on "kill the infidel at any cost and go to heaven".
Reassuring scenario in deed.

So, who will pay triple price for an electric car, please rise his hand :cool:

Captain Echidna
6th May 2008, 10:40 PM
A witch is a female who burns. Witches burn - because they're made of wood. Wood floats. What else floats on water? A duck; if something has the same weight as a duck it must float. A duck and scales are fetched. The girl and the duck balance perfectly. "It's a fair cop."

You may say I have just made a post which has little relevance to the topic at hand, has little relevance to biofuel use or manufacture, and little relevance to this forum. Also a post referencing a "scientist" although his conclusions could easily be questioned.

Therefore this post matches perfectly with many of the posts here.

Any post made after the youtube one is irrelevant. It should have been the final word.

This thread should have died some time ago.

TroyH
7th May 2008, 12:14 AM
I like your work Cap'n!

lez
7th May 2008, 02:26 AM
qwarla it wasnt scientists that insisted the world was flat it was the church and they persecuted scientists brutally. Look up the Gallileo story,why are so many people stubbornly resistant to the fact that global warming is man induced? I guess people have always shot the messenger ,but please , this is not some rat bag left wing conspiracy .Get ALL the facts and stop listening to right wing American think tank ratbags

Maelinar
7th May 2008, 10:32 AM
I find the hardest thing for people to debunk is the Australian Government Department of Climate Change. Do those people who do not believe in CC think they just sit on their asses all day (while the perception of their activities might be not far from the image portrayed) ?

As it stands, I don't think anybody is actually talking about reducing the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, they are talking about taking preventative measures to ensure that we don't untowardly add yet even more emissions.

The flatline, in CO2 terms, is to learn to live in an environment that has a high amount of CO2 emissions, but attempting to live with the consequences, whatever they may be.

In no certain terms, I am detailing that we have already passed the point of no return. I hope you CC pessimists are happy.

Notwithstanding, on a biofuels forum I should be talking to the converted, I find it quite entertaining to consider that somebody who thinks man-induced CC is not real is posting on a biofuel forum.

CHEVY
7th May 2008, 11:12 PM
Notwithstanding, on a biofuels forum I should be talking to the converted, I find it quite entertaining to consider that somebody who thinks man-induced CC is not real is posting on a biofuel forum.

Maelinar, methinks you have not really researched anything at all.





.........................hint - peak oil.

Qwarla
8th May 2008, 12:09 AM
Around 20,000 years ago the sea level was around 100 metres higher than it is now.

Maelinar
8th May 2008, 01:35 PM
I'm talking about Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction, not Peak Oil.

CHEVY
8th May 2008, 07:11 PM
I'm talking about Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction, not Peak Oil.

Err............Maelinar, Im not sure what youre about there.

Me, Im a fence sitter leaning to sceptic on CO2 - not 100% certain.

I do have concerns for peak oil - my reason for being here.

Marc1
8th May 2008, 07:40 PM
I find the hardest thing for people to debunk is the Australian Government Department of Climate Change. Do those people who do not believe in CC think they just sit on their asses all day

No, they probably do a lot of running around telling others the sky is falling. After all that will keep them employed.


As it stands, I don't think anybody is actually talking about reducing the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, they are talking about taking preventative measures to ensure that we don't untowardly add yet even more emissions.

Untowardly....
I heard a vegetarian chef once saying that if everyone turned vegetarian the amount of methane from cow's fart would be eliminated and therefore we would stop climate change on its tracks. In the UK they are experimenting on a anti flatulent bovine diet.
The problem with the invention of anthropogenic climate change is that the lies have gone so far, the bias is so incredibly vast that it has turned like the king's cloths and no one dares to tell the king he is naked.


The flatline, in CO2 terms, is to learn to live in an environment that has a high amount of CO2 emissions, but attempting to live with the consequences, whatever they may be.

Allow me a simple question: How do you know that CO2 emissions by human activity have any impact or "induce" any negative change?
Answer: You do not.

You 'believe' what some are telling you.

I happen to believe others who are telling me the opposite.
I find them credible because the one that are in opposition have everything to LOOSE by dissenting and nothing to gain. There is no MONEY to support research to discredit anthropogenic global warming. Yet there is large risk by opposing openly, and people lose jobs, funding and worst by doing so.

Yet there are billions at the fingertips of those who sell doom and gloom. Every imaginable "research" can be funded if the term "global warming" is inserted somewhere in the title.


In no certain terms, I am detailing that we have already passed the point of no return. I hope you CC pessimists are happy.

This is a ridiculous assertion directed not to logic but to feelings, like most global warming catastrophist they all appeal to the common good.


Notwithstanding, on a biofuels forum I should be talking to the converted, I find it quite entertaining to consider that somebody who thinks man-induced CC is not real is posting on a biofuel forum.

Yes, I can understand that. It would be like a Buddhist posting on a Christian forum.
Well may be you have to review the reasons why people make their own fuel. I can not help you since I don't make my own bio fuel, but I suspect that the reasons are much more practical and much less religious than you assume.

smokey2
8th May 2008, 08:09 PM
Managing global warming requires more than trying to reduce CO2 and attempting to reverse it. Nice if we could though but there is not much chance of getting the rest of the world to actually do something. Identifying risks and exposures and placing managing strategies to manage and mitigate the risk is what needs to be done. ie again fuel is only one part of the problem. Water, fuel and food are all interelated and the continuing world drought is affecting all of these components. The fact, fiction, or science is great to debate Mealinar but does not affect the requirement to implement management strategies to contain the damage.

A bit like fighting a bushfire in extreme fire weather conditions which seem to happen to frequently these days. You cannot put it out in a direct attack as that will not be successful. All you can do is protect the exposures, cross your fingers and wait for the weather to change.

TroyH
9th May 2008, 12:59 AM
Allow me a simple question: How do you know that CO2 emissions by human activity have any impact or "induce" any negative change?
Answer: You do not.

You 'believe' what some are telling you.

I happen to believe others who are telling me the opposite.
I find them credible because the one that are in opposition have everything to LOOSE by dissenting and nothing to gain. There is no MONEY to support research to discredit anthropogenic global warming.
Bullshit!
That's a bit like saying there was no money to support research to discredit the "smoking causes cancer" research. There is potentially a lot that can be lost, as well as a lot that can be gained by the prospect of human influenced global warming. How does global warming benefit the big oil corporations? It's certainly not helping drive the demand for oil (which is what is driving up prices). The only thing it stands to do is raise the prospect of tighter emissions controls, and encourage competing industries to develop. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if anything, you would think the money would go to supporting those who are AGAINST the theory of human influenced global warming, not supporting it.

You have no evidence or information that is any more reliable or believable than what the rest of us are relying on. You just don't seem to be able (or want to) realise that.



Managing global warming requires more than trying to reduce CO2 and attempting to reverse it. Nice if we could though but there is not much chance of getting the rest of the world to actually do something. Identifying risks and exposures and placing managing strategies to manage and mitigate the risk is what needs to be done. ie again fuel is only one part of the problem. Water, fuel and food are all interelated and the continuing world drought is affecting all of these components. The fact, fiction, or science is great to debate but does not affect the requirement to implement management strategies to contain the damage.

You're close to the real issue as I see it. Global warming aside we cannot continue, to live the way that we are, forever. At some point, things must change. The Earth has only finite resources, and I feel we have a responsibility to future generations, to ensure that they have the same opportunities (or more) than what we have had.

Maelinar
9th May 2008, 10:35 AM
You are welcome.

Your perception is right and it is this your perception that is taken advantage of by the climate change extremist.

As I said before CLIMATE DOES CHANGE. It is at the very essence of climate to change.
What is bull dust is to allege that it changes because of human activity this is a bold face lie.
Climate has changed for millennium and will change again for as long as there is an atmosphere.
And there is nothing we can do about it. Not a iota.



This is where our opinions diverge. I agree with the SCIENCE that says the CO, CO2, NOx etc that are being emitted are responsible for refracting sunlight into the atmosphere rather than reflecting it out.

What we CAN do about that, is reduce the amount of emissions that are causing refraction, which will enable the ozone layer that is there to do its job and reflect sunlight out.

I do not hold this as an extreme view, I hold this as a scientific view, much the same way as I do not believe in a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

CHEVY
9th May 2008, 02:53 PM
Maelinar, your last post started out reasonable enuf, until.........


I do not hold this as an extreme view, I hold this as a scientific view, much the same way as I do not believe in a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

......are you now attempting to imply that any body who objects to your views is a religious nutter ?

Marc1
9th May 2008, 06:45 PM
Fundings for man made global warming agitators
versus
fundings for man made global warming deniers

Is anyone actually seriously suggesting that this fundings can be even remotely be compared?

Even if, for the sake of the argument, we venture that there might be some obscure avenue to obtain secret funds to promote opposing views to what the masses have been indoctrinated to believe, can you seriously think that the money would be enough to risk careers, and be ostracized as scientist this days are, for holding opposing views?
You only need to go back this thread were I, a completely unknown person, point at the possibility that the mainstream view is not only wrong but intentionally so, and see the treatment I receive. Can you imagine what the life of a known personality would be if he /she embarks in a similar adventure?
Funds cut, position at university lost, books unpublished, political influence lost, access to lab or equipment lost. What next? Apply to work for Shell?
You must be kidding.

Those who point at the absolute certainty of a conspiracy to accrue more power for a global government via the biggest con in history of mankind, do so for sport and not for money, purely out of conviction and at great risk to their own and loved ones.

On the other hand those who support the idea of man made global warming do so from the safety of large organizations generously funded, with abundance of backslapping and self promoting, and the certainty of being treated as the prophets of the new religion and saviors of humankind for a fee.
Think the powerful politically organized religion of the 1600, and the small voice of those who had an interest in astronomy

"Eppur si muove"
And Galileo's idea wasn't even his, it was Copernico's

PS
To the one that posted that atrocious attack to Christianity, I wonder if you would be so bold as to post an equivalent attack to Islam?

morris
11th May 2008, 11:14 PM
Regardless of whether humans are responsible for climate change is not really an issue. The issue is; are we going to sit on our butts while the opportunity to change our destiny melts in front of us?

On 9 May 2008, Neil Hamilton, Director WWF International Arctic Programme gave the keynote address in Canberra at an Academy of Science symposium on 'Dangerous climate change: is it inevitable'.

It was very good and didn't pull any punches and included some forthright criticism of the IPCC 2007 report regarding the Arctic.

His address was entitled:
"The Arctic: is dangerous climate change upon us".
Some of it would have been drawn from the recently-released "Arctic climate impact science: An update since ACIA"
(available at WWF - Climate change hitting Arctic faster, harder (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/index.cfm?uNewsID=131801))

Some key points:

* Arctic is key to global climate system
- Arctic changes have potential to seriously destabilise global climate system.

* Polar bear totally dependent on sea-ice (IPCC WGII, p. 655, but 'should have been on page 1')
* We cannot put off decisions because we don't know enough
* Arctic warming in winter greatest: 4 X global; conservative scenarios give +12C in Arctic winter by 2050
* Temperature increase more than double global average: already >2C
* Arctic climate models breaking down and no longer work: "we are moving to a new Arctic climate system".
* in 2007 temperature +5C (enough to activate methane clathrates).
* in the Bering Sea, fish stocks have already moved 800 kms.
[For more on Bering, Bering Climate and Ecosystem (http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov) ]
* The snow cover will reduce 30% by 2050, with snow melt earlier and faster, having a huge impact on ecosystem. Already starting to see dramatic drop in reindeer stocks.
* Sea level rise will expose permafrost.
* Flow of freshwater from rivers draining into Arctic Basin is +25%. This is/will change ocean circulation, but effect on thermohaline circulation is poorly understood.

* Sea-ice:
- feedbacks already accelerating sea-ice loss
- loss of 80% by volume
- 20-30 years ahead of the models
- "the models are wrong"
- "the models are systematically underestimating what is happening"
- "the models are getting worse, not better"
- average per day sea-ice loss in March 2008 is 6000sq kms greater than 2007
- if 2007 rates are reproduced in 2008, sea-ice minimum will drop to new low of 2.2 million sq. kms, compared to 4.2 million sq. kms in 2007.
- scientists say no summer sea-ice in 2013 but "may be there sooner".
- There is no work with general climate models on effect of total sea-ice loss on regional and global temperatures.

* Greenland:
- Average ice loss 250-300 cubic kilometres/year, but policy based on 50.
- Ice dynamics fundamentally changed but not well understood
- Likely non-linear process as per Hansen

* Carbon sinks in Arctic "changing very, very quickly".
* Not clear what any Arctic ecosystem will look like in 50 years
* '"We (WWF) are no longer trying to protect the Arctic" (because it is too late).
* What is dangerous is a political question, but his view was that the world has only 18 months to secure an agreement that sets the world on the path to "a carbon-free future".

(Most of this was copied from an email from David Spratt of Climate Emergency Network)

CHEVY
11th May 2008, 11:41 PM
morris, the current news peports are suggesting the pro global warming bods are hedging their bets and saying we are in for a period of cooling ???

Cameron
12th May 2008, 02:52 PM
Chevy,
Back this statement up with credible sources please.

Cameron


morris, the current news peports are suggesting the pro global warming bods are hedging their bets and saying we are in for a period of cooling ???

Marc1
12th May 2008, 05:42 PM
Regardless of whether humans are responsible for climate change is not really an issue. The issue is; are we going to sit on our butts while the opportunity to change our destiny melts in front of us?

On 9 May 2008, Neil Hamilton, Director WWF International Arctic Programme gave the keynote address in Canberra at an Academy of Science symposium on 'Dangerous climate change: is it inevitable'.

It was very good and didn't pull any punches and included some forthright criticism of the IPCC 2007 report regarding the Arctic.

His address was entitled:
"The Arctic: is dangerous climate change upon us".
Some of it would have been drawn from the recently-released "Arctic climate impact science: An update since ACIA"
(available at WWF - Climate change hitting Arctic faster, harder (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/index.cfm?uNewsID=131801))



Mrs Morris, thank you for reminding us that climate changes. Climate does change like seasons do change. We may argue how much or how little and which way (hotter or colder) but since none of us has independent information that can be trusted it would be a pointless discussion.

However your initial statement is an important one
Regardless of whether humans are responsible for climate change is not really an issue. The issue is; are we going to sit on our butts while the opportunity to change our destiny melts in front of us?The issue of man changing climate by his actions is the ONLY issue at stake, butts or no buts.
Not because of blame of any sort, but because IF (big if) humans can actually influence climate, then (and only then) it would be possible to assume (assumption OK) that humans can, by backtracking what they do, change or reverse those changes.
According to the sources I trust, (because they have no vested interest) if humans would disappear from the face of the earth today. NO MEASURABLE CHANGE would occur to world temperatures.

The crux of the matter is that the infinitesimal changes that humans do produce (at world scale, please don't bring the Eastern Island as example) are completely negligible when it comes to climate. Not so with pollution as it is blatantly obvious, yet the two are continuously mixed up and so are emotional calls like the arctic is melting and the poor polar bear will go extinct.

Let me say this once more. If changes in the climate are NOT the consequence of human activity. WHY ON EARTH WOULD CLIMATE CHANGES REVERT BY REDUCING CO2 emissions? It will not, the same way it does not by increasing them!

Tomorrow we will know how much of our hard earned money (how many billions) will be squandered to a completely futile cause of "reducing emissions" in order to "save the planet".
If the planet climate changes there are no billions or trillions that will stop that fact...yet many will become rich in this Quixotic plinking at the windmills.

CHEVY
12th May 2008, 05:50 PM
Back this statement up with credible sources please.


Cameron, from a Sky news report sugesting cooling for the next ten years.

TroyH
12th May 2008, 08:48 PM
The crux of the matter is that the infinitesimal changes that humans do produce (at world scale, please don't bring the Eastern Island as example) are completely negligible when it comes to climate.

The climate is a chaotic system. Go and look up something called "The Butterfly Effect" (no, not the movie). Infinitesimally small changes in a chaotic system today, can have very large effects in the future.

Marc1
13th May 2008, 09:31 AM
Oh, yes, the butterfly effect, love that one. I wish people would think about the butterfly effect more.
However, correct me if I am wrong but a butterfly moves air with its tiny wings and may produce a storm as a consequence. Right?
Air flapping and storm are the same thing, air in movement.

Now lets apply the butterfly principles on a different substance.
I am cutting a flat bar with a hacksaw clamped in my vice. A bit of metal particles fall to the ground under the bench. As a consequence of this and due to the butterfly effect principle, Robin Hood...sorry Kevin Rudd will resign in shame after his first economic blunder, (or is it his second or third?) and call Mr Howard back in office.
Not likely.

TroyH
13th May 2008, 02:13 PM
Lol.

The point I was trying to make, was that you cannot assume that the "infinitesimal change that humans introduce" will have an infinitesimal change in the climate. The climate IS a chaotic system, which is why it is so difficult to predict.

The butterfly effect described the phenomenon of a perceptively small change in initial conditions, having a large impact on the end result.

The fact that you changed the subject, posting more of your inane dribble, just emphasises the impression that I (and I'm sure many other people here) have; that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Marc1
13th May 2008, 04:57 PM
Inane...yes, I like that word. What was the one before...untowardly...wow!:D


Lol.

The point I was trying to make, was that you cannot assume that the "infinitesimal change that humans introduce" will have an infinitesimal change in the climate. The climate IS a chaotic system, which is why it is so difficult to predict.


Yes, yes, i got your 'point', even relatively small amounts of CO2 may produce a change in the climate somehow in the future...you must concede that to bring in the butterfly effect at this stage of the catastrophe is a bit strange. I though the sky was already on the way down to crash as all!

Yet if you allow me another 'inane' comment (such a handy word that one), your logic even with the butterfly strategy, still does not work.
For your reasoning to have logic, one must assume that CO2 actually produces global warming, something that is at the core of the global warming catastrophist claim, yet is denied by the global warming denialist....(obviously)

So if you allow me to say that CO2 does NOT produce warming, small variations may produce larger variations in the future thanks to the butterfly yet still no change in the world temperature, just like my steel filings have no effect on the party that is leading the country down the road to who knows what...unfortunately.

PS
Do you like the word denialist?
Now can you see I did not "change the subject"?

CHEVY
13th May 2008, 08:17 PM
Sorry to interrupt chaps....

I take it that Sky news is accepted as a credible source ? :cool:

Cameron
13th May 2008, 10:23 PM
No Chevy, an oblique mention of a piece on sky news is not a credible, referenced, scientifically valid statement. A comment providing no details does not further the discussion one iota, it is a throw away one liner that contributes absolutely nothing of value.

Cameron


Cameron, from a Sky news report sugesting cooling for the next ten years.

CHEVY
13th May 2008, 11:10 PM
an oblique mention of a piece on sky news is not a credible, referenced, scientifically valid statement

Interesting that you say that Cameron, I find that near everyone I talk to gets their 'global warming' info via the media - I wonder if they are being miss-informed ?

TroyH
13th May 2008, 11:40 PM
Marc1 certainly believes that to be the case. It seems even the scientists involved don't have the insight he does.

Captain Echidna
14th May 2008, 12:18 AM
Interesting that you say that Cameron, I find that near everyone I talk to gets their 'global warming' info via the media - I wonder if they are being miss-informed ?

Why are you worried about global warming then. According to the mass media the next round of big brother is more important. Wouldnt be a bad quote if I could watch it and question where the info came from, who said it, their qualifications, and if you misinterepreted it. As I cant its not really a quote, may as well have been "I saw it on telly" or "I met a scientist who said". Either way I cant verify it.

Marc1 please read, research so you understand what it is you are talking about. You obviously do not understand what the butterfly effect is, or you would understand why your steel filings falling under your bench is unrelated. Of course if you tread on a steel filing, your foot gets infected, due to poor hospital management you die, at your inquest into your death it is revealed you are realised as being a great person and the systemic hospital problems that kevin rudd had failed to act upon, leading the call to change governments and people realise Howardlly was better........ Are you understanding now? If your steel filing falls under the bench it is not the buterfly effect. If it triggers a chain of events that lead to bigger things then it is. (try googling the butterfly effect and wikipedia) The problem with predicting the future is you can predict the future in the short term accurately. 5 minutes after you have cut the steel its unlikely to have a change of government that you missed because you failed to take into account the power of the steel filing. Of course a long time in the future its possible. The amount of possibles is what makes long term prediciting difficult.

I am too of the belief Marc has no idea on what he is talking about, but worse makes no attempt to understand what he is talking about. The you tube post contains all the information needed. Its possible that man made global warming is true, as it is possible its untrue.

It may be time for a moderator to say its the future, no one can be as arrogant to say they cant be wrong when predicting it, therefore its time lock the thread and move on.

lez
14th May 2008, 02:18 AM
For any one looking for more info on climate change ,Wikipedia has got some excellent info on the subject ,just key in 'climate change sceptics',cheers

RODEONICK
14th May 2008, 08:39 AM
don't lock the thread. I find it interesting that your all so defennsive about it. if you don't wanna hear marc1's crud don't read it simple. your the ones that bother to take his bait. he's fishing he loves it and always has and always will. if not this thread he'll bomb another with crud so i say leave it open.
Cheers

Maelinar
14th May 2008, 11:24 AM
I agree - now is not the time to close this thread. Another role of the biofuels forum is to get this kind of issue nutted out, so when talking to absolute disbelievers, we are forearmed and forewarned.

Lets look at this another way - certain membership of the biofuels populace do believe in climate change, certain membership don't. Surely this is a nugget of gold in the right hands, when explored fully ?

Food for thought, at least.

Marc1
14th May 2008, 08:40 PM
A CONTRARY VIEW (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/carlson_media_con_job.pdf)

But on the first day of 2008, a very significant contrarian voice emerged in an astonishing place: The New York Times.

Science writer John Tierney's editorial slashed deep:

"Today's interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels."

As a long-time journalist myself, I saw a larger significance in Tierney's op-ed piece, which point out that when it comes to covering climate change, only politically-correct news avoids the spike.

Here's that significance which my journalistic instinct perceives: Tierney's courageous analysis implies that the command center of CO2 orthodoxy, the New York Times itself, will allow any journalist to reveal the rips in the CO2 emperor's clothes.

Here is part of the article:


In the past several months, a new "crisis" has heated up the controversy over man-made global warming.

A few major-media writers and TV personalities are actually reporting statements by credible scientists who are challenging the assumption that carbon dioxide is the primary force causing global warming.

There's a real possibility that big-name journalists will break ranks and pursue their next Pulitzer Prize by exposing the lack of scientific consensus on CO2 as a planet-heating pollutant.

That would create a crisis of confidence among the activists, researchers and global-governance apparatchiks who want a global carbon tax to build their political and financial power base.

As an agricultural journalist, I find this a fascinating new development in the climate controversy. I've studied weather and climate for more than 50 years. In the early 1970s, I wrote a short book, Tomorrow's Wild Weather, which warned what could happen if there was a long-term continuation of the cooling trends in the mid-latitudes since the 1930s.

As climatologist Reid Bryson advised me at the time, a cooler climate in temperate zones would have been serious for world agriculture: Westerly winds would intensify, making U.S. weather more extreme. Africa's Sahel desert would expand much farther southward, spreading famine across northern Africa. The data looked ominous: Average temperature in the 48 U.S. states had fallen by more than six-tenths of a degree Celsius since 1930.

This cooling attracted widespread press coverage and even some political pressure-to reduce "aerosols" or fine particles of pollutants which must be making our atmosphere more opaque. But the "New Ice Age" scare faded as more refined data emerged and the longer-term, slow recovery from the Little Ice Age resumed.

I've continued to follow the climate controversy, especially since the 1997 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since that conference, billions of dollars in government funding have generated floods of research data, a myriad of computer models, political posturing and the Kyoto Protocol.

The New Data

Most of that data is freely available to scientists and others on the Internet. Using it, hundreds of highly qualified climatologists and other scientists outside the fraternal network of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have challenged climate prediction models and other assumptions of the IPCC's reports. While there's consensus that climates change over time, climatologists are sharply divided over the interactions of the many potential causes. As research emerges, CO2 as a primary warming force becomes harder to defend with hard data.

These challenges are starting to fracture the UN's pretext for global governance over carbon emissions-including imposition of carbon taxes and "carbon credit" trading supervised by UN agencies. Giving the UN a legal right to impose a carbon tax- "cap and trade" in UNspeak-would provide an income stream to UN agencies which would greatly increase political power of UN bureaucracies. And their track record with large amounts of money, such as the Iraqi Oil for Food program, is not encouraging.

However, if the scientific case for CO2 as a primary climate pollutant crumbles, so could a global carbon tax.

Individual climatologists have disputed conclusions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even before the first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990. The IPCC has issued a series of reports, each focusing on CO2 as the primary "greenhouse gas" causing the continuing warming recovery since the Little Ice Age.

One of the first organized scientific counterattacks sounded on April 6, 2006. Sixty accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging that billions of Canadian tax dollars appropriated to implement the Kyoto Protocol on climate change "will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science."

They wrote that if today's extensive climate knowledge and measuring capabilities had existed in the mid-1990s, the Kyoto treaty "would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

That scientific challenge received little prime-time media attention. The Canadian government's administration and legislature mostly ignored it.

Film Exposes Gore's Deceptions

Then, in March 2007, the UK's Channel 4 broadcast a biting documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. It debunked most of the major arguments of Al Gore's Oscar-winning video, An Inconvenient Truth. For example, the Antarctic ice core data dramatized in Gore's show actually reveal that increases in CO2 have generally followed increases in temperature. The lag is typically on the order of 800 years.

The Swindle documentary roused furor and scorn among carbon-as-cause believers, who attacked Channel 4 as offering a "great propaganda gift" to "climate-change deniers." But the credibility and rationale of scientific sources on the documentary endured the attacks. No factual challenges were forthcoming against the scientists' arguments.

The controversy over this TV show, the first journalistic challenge against CO2 as primary world thermostat, may have encouraged others in the scientific community to point out that despite roughly $50 billion for climate-change research over several decades, the case against carbon dioxide faces more uncertainty as the evidence grows, not less.

One such challenge comes from Dr. Bob Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University and paleoclimate analyst with more than 30 years' experience, including 95 research papers.

In an Accuracy in Media guest column in April 2007, Carter emphasized: "The evidence for dangerous global warming forced by human carbon dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change-the parallel rise in the late 20th century of both atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperatures-is now negated."

This challenge and others from eminent scientists roused the carbon theorists to their ramparts. On the website RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org), Gavin Scmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf presented a 1980-2006 chart of global temperature showing that the trend of deviation from "normal" in that 26-year period remains up. But they made no attempt to explain why shorter-term deviations vary more widely than the longer-term anomaly, which puts the globe at about 0.4 degrees Celsius above its long-term "normal" using the GISTEMP Land-Ocean Index computed by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Throughout 2007, hundreds of highly qualified climate scientists individually challenged the presumption that global regulators can, and must, manage the world's thermostat by curbing 50% - and possible eventually 100%-of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Continuing Debate

The most lively media arena for the CO2 emissions controversy the past two years has been, by far, among Internet websites and blogs. The Science and Public Policy Institute (Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Home (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org)) offers a wide-ranging forum on the science of climate change.

Websites like the SPPI bypass major-media gatekeepers and the UN organizers, who carefully monitor any non-governmental organization wishing to attend an IPCC climate conference. Example: At the November 2000 Conference of the Parties (COP6) climate parley in the Hague, Netherlands, the only non-governmental organization to oppose the Kyoto Protocol was Sovereignty International (Sovereignty International (http://www.sovereignty.net)).

The websites provide newspaper, radio and TV reporters a rich diversity of data and analysis on the issue. Usually, any posted article contains an opportunity for immediate rebuttal. These websites may embolden scientists to speak out more frequently in a forum unconstrained by peer review.

The volume of new climate data is accelerating, which means that media-amplified claims like the linkage between climate warming and hurricanes can be challenged more quickly. For instance, the SPPI site points out 35 factual errors in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

On Dec. 20 2007, the biggest-yet assembly of scientists challenging the Kyoto pretext of CO2-as-villain was posted by Marc Morano on the minority page of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This extensive digging by Sen. James Inhofe's staff summarized comments from over 400 prominent scientists who disputed some aspect of man-made global warming in 2007. These scientists' observations fill some 120 pages when printed out from the website. But they hardly made a ripple on prime-time TV news.

This Senate site says, in part: "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Sen. Inhofe's staff observes, "Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

A Contrary View

But on the first day of 2008, a very significant contrarian voice emerged in an astonishing place: The New York Times.

Science writer John Tierney's editorial slashed deep:

"Today's interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels."

As a long-time journalist myself, I saw a larger significance in Tierney's op-ed piece, which point out that when it comes to covering climate change, only politically-correct news avoids the spike.

Here's that significance which my journalistic instinct perceives: Tierney's courageous analysis implies that the command center of CO2 orthodoxy, the New York Times itself, will allow any journalist to reveal the rips in the CO2 emperor's clothes.

The Questions

The Pulitzer Prize of 2010 just might go to the contrarian newsperson who challenges climate scientists and carbon-tax advocates with questions like these:

1. Why don't advocates of restricting and burying CO2 ever mention opportunities of longer growing seasons and higher CO2 availability for crops?

Agronomic research shows that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels to about 700 parts per million raises corn and soybean yields 20% to 40%. We see more opportunity in using CO2 for higher crop yields than in burying it under the sea floor. Greenhouses commonly enrich their atmospheres with carbon dioxide.

Historically, advances in civilizations have accompanied warmer, wetter epochs in climate cycles. Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and hundreds of research assistants documented this with a lifetime of analysis beginning in the 1930s. If the climate follows Wheeler's cyclical pattern, we may well be entering a warmer, wetter epoch which will benefit agriculture.

Two decades ago I had many visits with physicist Iben Browning, a climate researcher and author of many works including Climate and the Affairs of Men, written with Nels Winkless III and published in 1975. Browning documented that past climate change has impacted humanity in massive ways, such as the barbarian invasion of China and the Phoenician presence in Stonehenge Britain.

He reminded readers in his 1975 book that the climate since 1925 had been unusually mild and beneficial; that a cooling could occur anytime.

And Browning told me that as he refined his computer models of climate change, "We get our best correlation with measured climate data when we ignore the presence of man and his use of carbon-emitting fuels."

TroyH
14th May 2008, 08:53 PM
Looks like your debunking evidence has itself been debunked.


The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film) that argues against the scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_co nsensus) that human activity is the main cause of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). The film, made by British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) television producer Martin Durkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29), showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic) global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Scam_article-0)
The UK's Channel 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4) premiered the documentary on 8 March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_8) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007). The channel described the film as "a polemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic) that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-1)
Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Wunsch_letter-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Friis-Christensen-3)). The film's critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Houghton-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-OpenLetterDurkin-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-7)

Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Reading) and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Environment_Research_Council), commented on the film in New Scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist). He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."
Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed".[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-21)
A public forum entitled “Debunking “The Great Global Warming Swindle"” was held at the Australian National University in Canberra on 13 July 2007, at which scientists from the Australian National University, Stanford University, USA, and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies exposed what they described "as the scientific flaws and half-truths in the claims of climate change skeptics"



On 5 July 2007, The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Appleton_Laboratory) had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks — namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-22)
In a BBC interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm) about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.



Criticisms by the film's contributors

Two of the scientists featured in the film, Carl Wunsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch) and Eigil Friis-Christensen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_Friis-Christensen), have since stated that they disagree with the way their contributions were used.

Marc1
14th May 2008, 08:56 PM
Continued:
2. Why is the IPCC's projected future global warming almost linear or accelerating, when it's well-known that the greenhouse-gas impact of CO2 fades sharply with each incremental increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Some background: The trendline level of CO2 in the air measured at Mona Loa, Hawaii, was 385 parts per million (ppm) in January 2008. When observations began at Mona Loa in 1958, the level was 315 parts per million.

Since 1990, annual increases of CO2 have ranged from 0.5 to 2.6 ppm. At a trendline rise of about 1.8 ppm per year, it will take 35 years to increase atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm. CO2-control advocates claim this high a level has never occurred in 650,000 years, and would force devastating global warming.

However, the dominant "greenhouse effect" comes from water vapor in the atmosphere. CO2 causes only 3% of infrared heat blocking, and the physics of CO2 are such that the greenhouse effect of each added increment of CO2 shrinks on a logarithmic scale.

An analogy: If one layer of insulation in your ceiling traps half of the roof's energy loss, adding an identical second layer traps only half the loss escaping the first layer. Each added increment of CO2 in the atmosphere has a logarithmically diminishing greenhouse effect.

Although physicists proved this years ago, you won't see it in the dramatic graphs of Al Gore's slide show, An Inconvenient Truth. It projects a nearly parabolic soaring of global temperature from a linear rise in CO2.

Advocates of man-caused global warming defend their case by saying that although CO2 itself has only a 3% role, it amplifies warming by various feedback mechanisms.

"This is a hypothesis, not a proven fact," counters Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Other scientists argue that current climate models underestimate the cooling influence of cloud cover.

3. Over long epochs revealed in ice cores, why have CO2 uptrends often followed new cyclical temperature uptrends, rather than leading them?

Temperature and CO2 cycles deciphered from Antarctic ice cores reveal that new temperature uptrends in CO2 levels have typically followed new temperature uptrends by 600 to 1,200 years. If that has been the case historically, it's hard to claim that CO2 caused those temperature uptrends to begin.

One of the most dramatic screens in Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, shows a chart where temperature and CO2 levels wriggle through thousands of years in apparent synch with each other.

Flashed on a wide screen for moments, the long series of cycles appear tightly coupled. Audiences gasp. Gore declares that to deny this linkage is the "silliest thing I've ever heard."

But the statistical correlations of these measurements derived from ice cores are highest when temperature data is mathematically lagged about 800 years after CO2 data. This indicates that temperatures rise first, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows.

If you look closely at a section of Gore's chart, you can see in the red and white lines that the new temperature uptrends (white line on the bottom) begin many years before a new uptrend in carbon dioxide (red line).

This relationship makes sense. Warming oceans release CO2. It takes decades for the world's oceans to warm after a long cooling cycle. University of Colorado research indicates that as Earth started to warm after the most recent Ice Age, the oceans have released some 600 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2.

Also, why do ancient climate records extracted from ice cores show global cooling cycles in the wake of CO2 increases? Some scientists argue that the world's vegetation increased, locking CO2 into "carbon sinks." That simply helps make my agriculturist case that a world richer in CO2 could be a greener world.

Even in recent years, climate variations have occurred over decades, despite a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Radiosonde data revealed wide annual temperature swings in the troposphere, including drops of 0.8 degree below average after 1930. In the mid-1970s, I was writing newsletters for farmers when this "global cooling" fanned media stories of coming climate disaster. Our farm news and advisory organization, Professional Farmers of America, held "World Food Crisis" conferences to study how global agriculture might cope with a potential worldwide cooling.

Today, global-warming activists shrug off the fact that during the 1930-80 cooling in North America, CO2 was probably rising at 1 to 2 parts per million annually - close to the annual rate it is rising today.

In fact, the long glacial cycles suggest we're coming due for a cooling. Tim Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, says: "It is global cooling, not warming, which is the major climate threat to the world." The dip in lower-latitude temperatures in the past few years might be an early clue to such a cooling. I anticipate that if it does occur, Kyoto Protocol enthusiasts will claim credit for rescuing the planet.

4. Are we farming in a relatively CO2-deprived epoch? The plant kingdom metabolizes carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. The animal kingdom metabolizes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide. Nice design.

Some climatologists claim that the current 385 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is "unprecedented" in 650,000 years of proxy data from Antarctic ice cores. But other scientists say those estimates from isotopes underestimate the amplitude of CO2 variation. Still other research, such as fossil analysis, indicate that the atmosphere has exceeded 2,000 ppm of CO2 repeatedly over the past 300 million years, fueling abundant plant growth resulting in today's strata of carbon stored as coal.

Crops grown in air with enriched CO2 content make more efficient use of water and nutrients. Growing up on a farm, I've seen how young crops surge with fresh vigor after cultivation stirs the soil under a crop canopy. Mixing oxygen into the soil triggers a burst of underground biological activity. That causes a faster release of CO2, which is quickly metabolized by the fast-growing crop.

5. How can CO2 "coupling" explain global temperature drops in 1965-77, and a sharp rise after that? I assembled the accompanying global temperature chart covering 1946-2007 using data from Britain's Met Office Hadley Center, with special help from an astute researcher, Holly Titchner.

The chart includes monthly smoothed data from ground stations back to 1945. It includes weather balloon data, which became reliable enough to include starting in 1958. Beginning in late 1978, it shows data from satellites. This is one of the most comprehensive estimates of long-term global temperature I could find.

A straight linear trend of global surface and troposphere temperature would show a rise of about 0.6 degree Celsius during 1945-2007. However, Britain's Hadley Center researcher Peter Thorne and six colleagues cautioned in a 2005 Journal of Geophysical Research paper "This linear trend agreement is misleading. Almost all of the tropospheric warming is the result of a step-like change in the mid to late 1970s which has been ascribed to a ‘regime shift,' particularly in the tropics."

Marc1
14th May 2008, 08:57 PM
LAST:

I asked the Hadley Center to describe "regime shift."

Manager David Parker replied: "The regime change around 1976 was probably connected with changes of atmospheric and oceanic circulation and heat transports in the Pacific. These changes are somewhat similar to those experienced with El Nino and La Nina but are less focused on the equator and occur on time-scales of several decades. There was a warming regime-change in the 1920s and a cooling regime-change in the 1940s. There may have been a cooling regime-change in the late 1990s, partly obscured by global warming."

This quote from Parker, a participant in the IPCC, emphasizes the complexity facing researchers who write computer models of global climate change. I translate it as: "There's an awful lot we don't know about climate change."

Let's look at some of the promises and pitfalls of climate models, which are the primary basis for carbon taxes and the CO2 theory of climatic forcing.

6. What justifies such extreme confidence in long-term computer models of projected climate?

One poster-child controversy is the "Hockey Stick" computer model of past and future climate, developed primarily by Michael Mann, Associate Professor in Pennsylvania State University's Department of Meteorology.

His team used a statistical technique called "principal component analysis" (PCA) to simplify the large array of variables.

Mann's model result was published by the IPCC as proof of unprecedented, man-made global warming. The model flattens the temperature changes of the well-documented Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. The model generates a dramatic uptrend in recent years, then a parabolic rise in global temperatures over the next few decades.

Several statistical experts have declared Mann's study invalid, and went on to point out the "peer review" involved was primarily among Mann's mutually supportive colleagues.

Mann and fellow researchers still use the same statistical approach, and the hockey-stick formation remains in IPCC-published charts as evidence for man-caused world warming.

A friend of mine who teaches graduate-level statistics uses Mann's climate model as an example of how not to apply principle component analysis. As used in the climate model, "it will generate a hockey-stick projection 99% of the time when applied to purely random data over time," says my friend.

This misuse of statistics was verified by Canadian researchers Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who offer a rich array of other evidence at this web address:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html)

Also, see Steven McIntyre's website at:

Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre (http://www.climateaudit.org/)

Incidentally, my college-professor friend asked to remain anonymous, saying: "If I became branded on this campus as opposing man-made global warming, I'm afraid it would be used against me-to deny tenure."

Another long-time skeptic of the UN's global climate models is Dr. Reid Bryson, who at age 87 still works daily on his own, unpaid, at the Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin.

His sixth book is just off the press. It's written to help researchers build models of regional climate history. Colleagues often cite him as the "father of scientific climatology." Our acquaintance with his work goes back 30 years, when his book Climates of Hunger alerted us to the Northern Hemisphere cooling episodes leading into the 1970s. At the time, Bryson's book expressed a hope that this cooling might reverse, which would rescue agriculture from disasters like those during the Little Ice Age.

Fortunately, Northern Hemisphere temperatures did rise again, during and after the 1970s. But Bryson reasons that the upturn was caused by natural cycles such as varying transparency of the earth's atmosphere, not by CO2 from hydrocarbon fuels.

He sticks with a conclusion of his 1977 book: "We can't expect to control the forces that affect climate."

Bryson points out that most computer simulations of climate are designed like short-term weather models. He says: "Impossible. You cannot do that."

The reason: Interactions of our planetary circulation and solar system are unknown, complex, unpredictable - and interwoven with feedback. Wrong assumptions propagate with each computer-simulated cycle of global circulation. After a few iterations, "you're down to zero accuracy," says Bryson. "Who even believes a 10-day forecast?"

But the weather-model approach to general-circulation climate models persists because many of today's climatologists were trained as meteorologists. These models have generally predicted more warming than has actually occurred, says Bryson.

For more than 60 years, Bryson and a wide array of colleagues searched for causes of climate change. They found signals in Earth's orbital changes and the slight wobble on its rotational axis. They studied a natural influence largely ignored by other climatologists: variations in transparency of Earth's atmosphere, caused primarily by sulfur dioxide and other aerosols emitted by volcanic activity. The transparency data correlate with Earth's temperature variations in the past 100 years.

7. What is the real, long-term cost in lost production and human well-being worldwide from distorting energy markets and creating global mandates against hydrocarbon fuels?

In the summer of 2007, I cited an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chart showing that their lowest-cost projection of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at 450 parts per million would be $350 trillion in 1990 dollars. That chart came from the IPPC's Climate Change 2001 : Synthesis Report, Figure 7-3. When I asked the IPPC for a current verification, their message to me on Jan. 18, 2008 pointed out that the data had been "corrected."

The original chart, which had apparently been on the IPPC website since 2001, was mistakenly high by a factor of 100. The lowest-cost assumption for achieving stability at 450 ppm was now corrected, six years later, to just over $3.5 trillion in 1990 U.S. dollars. The highest estimate now is about $17 trillion, or almost 500% higher than the lowest estimate. Here's the current IPCC chart, also available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/correctionfig73.pdf

Yet there are presumptions that the U.S. can cut its use of CO2-emitting fuels by 80% for only a slight reduction in gross national product over the next several decades. It's doubtful that China and India will do likewise.

One certainty about this "crisis:" It's the scientific debate of the century. It's far from being scientifically resolved, even though world policymakers will persist in making far-reaching energy-rationing rules based on unproven theories.

Threat to Freedom

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, says that using global warming hysteria to justify global governance and energy-taxing schemes is today's biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity. It has, he says, "become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem."

If policymakers plow ahead with capturing carbon, I'd like to see them place much more emphasis on how agriculture and all of humanity can benefit by converting CO2 into food and building humus. This is a beneficial and stable carbon reserve in the soil. It's a waste to simply bury carbon.

Carbon is the cornerstone of biological life, and the "carbon is pollution" presumption leads toward bizarre proposals like pumping CO2 deep underground. In fact, a recent scientific proclamation claims that reducing CO2 emissions to zero would not stabilize climate change. The scientist says it will be necessary to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it.

If the regulators do enforce carbon sequestration, they might review how ancient tribes in South America's tropics applied one of the most simple and beneficial ways to convert carbon stored in tropical forests into greater food production.

Using earthen firepits to create charcoal from jungle trees and undergrowth, they mixed raw charcoal into their tropical soils. This "biochar" provided microscopic niches for microbes and fungi, touching off a bloom of soil biological life which supported food crops for centuries. This "Terra Preta" or "dark soil" has been rediscovered by ecologists in the past couple of decades. Terra Preta soils remain productive despite the heat and moisture of the tropics, which otherwise oxidize organic matter and leach away crop nutrients from tropical clay and sand.

The low-tech building of biochar almost vanished after 1491, when European diseases arrived in South America and killed most of the indigenous population.

Helping people adapt to inevitable, natural climate change, in ecologically sound ways, would be much more productive and beneficial to humanity than building a global-governance bureaucracy financed by taxing hydrocarbon energy and run by top-down regulations.

Jerry Carlson, Pro Farmer Editor Emeritus, holds a Master’s degree in journalism from Iowa State University.
After starting a journalism career as an Air Force officer, he became Managing Editor of Farm Journal magazine in Philadelphia. In 1972 he and a colleague, Merrill Oster, founded Professional Farmers of America, a national news and advisory service for leading farmers and ranchers. Jerry started several newsletters and Internet services within this company. He retired from Pro Farmer in 2001, but remains active in writing about farmland investments and restoring biological health in America’s cropland. Jerry can be reached at jc@profarmer.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Marc1
14th May 2008, 09:03 PM
Troy, if you read the article you will find tha the film in question is quoted only because it spearheaded the dissent about CO2 and it's alleged effect on climate.
We are talking about 2008 voices that more and more point to the emperor being naked. CO2 does not produce global warming!!

The full article is well written and documented by a person who has studied climate for many years

This is the link in PDF format

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/carlson_media_con_job.pdf

Fitian
14th May 2008, 09:04 PM
Global warming only exist when I drink some wine. This happens twice a year.

Marc1
14th May 2008, 09:12 PM
Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/templates/sppi/images/printButton.png (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=81) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/templates/sppi/images/emailButton.png (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=295&itemid=81) Written by J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green, Willie Soon Monday, 17 December 2007
[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]


For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/armstrongpolarbear.pdf)


Abstract

Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the U.S. Edangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were prepared to support the listing decision. We assessed these reports in light of evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles. None referred to works on scientific forecasting methodology. Of the nine, Amstrup, Marcot and Douglas (2007) and Hunter et al. (2007) were the most relevant to the listing decision. Their forecasts were products of complex sets of assumptions. The first in both cases was the erroneous assumption that General Circulation Models provide valid forecasts of summer sea ice in the regions inhabited by polar bears. We nevertheless audited their conditional forecasts of what would happen to the polar bear population assuming, as the authors did, that the extent of summer sea ice would decrease substantially over the coming decades. We found that Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and Hunter et al. only 10%. We believe that their forecasts are unscientific and should therefore be of no consequence to decision makers. We recommend that all relevant principles be properly applied when important public policy decisions depend on accurate forecasts.

Marc1
14th May 2008, 09:15 PM
I suppose that readers of this forum can be excused for believing I am making up this idea that man made CO2 DOES NOT PRODUCE GLOBAL WARMING, however in case you still have some doubts, this is an open letter to the united nations and after reading it's brief content, have a look at the list of signatories and their qualifications.
And no, unfortunately I am not among the signatories yet I fully endorse the content for what it is worth.



Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/templates/sppi/images/printButton.png (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=293&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=81) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/templates/sppi/images/emailButton.png (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=293&itemid=81) Written by 100 Prominent Scientists Friday, 14 December 2007
[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]



For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf)



Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by *government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
·Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
·The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
·Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
[List of signatories] (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004)



Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.



Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference




Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Marc1
14th May 2008, 09:16 PM
Continued list of signatories:

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

CHEVY
14th May 2008, 09:37 PM
Perhaps the problem the global warming fanatics face is this -

"...It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming..."

Borrowed from Phil Chapman

CHEVY
14th May 2008, 09:46 PM
Quick quiz - How many new coal fired power plants have been built in China in the two months this thread has been going ?

Maelinar
15th May 2008, 11:44 AM
While I'm over discussing this with you Marc, the scientists you find convenient to quote all point their sticks to a carbon spike in the early 70's in the tropics as an anomaly.

Lets cast our minds towards what the Americans were doing in the tropics in the early 70's - oh that's right, pumping a whole lot of firepower into a very small region of the world.

While I'm not linking these events directly, I am pointing out the closed science you have used in your examples. It seems a natural conclusion that the sheer amount of direct/indirect emissions, such as massive loss of forestation (agent orange anyone), pollutants (burning), and then man-made emittants (gunpowder etc) had an atmospheric effect.

To deny there was no effect is really quite retarded. I consider pointing a stick at the fact there was a carbon spike in the early 70's, without even mentioning Vietnam, a very retarded stance by the scientists who put together this report.

I also note that 'effective' patterns for the purposes of these reports did not take into account WW2 - also according to the report they only became stable several years afterwards.

While I'm not drawing any conclusions by this data, I'm merely pointing out that the evidence you have presented me (and I haven't read it all), is not telling the whole truth either.

Captain Echidna
15th May 2008, 04:48 PM
I'm merely pointing out that the evidence you have presented me (and I haven't read it all), is not telling the whole truth either.

Maelinar allow me bring Marc1 last post down to all you need to know to make it easier to understand.


It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.....

list of signatories
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist,
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist;
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy,
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics,
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics.
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist,
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics,
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager -
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management,
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg


Why not combing the department of meterology with treasury? Apparently if you are an expert in one, you are an expert in the other!:rolleyes:

And if you were wondering what the "international climate science coalition" is about.
International Climate Science Coalition Bets that a Lie, Repeated Often Enough ... | DeSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com/international-climate-science-coalition-bets-that-a-lie-repeated-often-enough)

And if you are wondering why Timothy Ball does not describe himself as
"the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years" you may like to check
Tim Ball vs. Dan Johnson Update | DeSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update-0)

Or even just read that "(tim ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

Once again one of marc posts that with a little examining does not hold up to any scrutiny. I did once question if Marc1 was being paid by on oil company. Sorry, my mistake, you just quote those paid by oil companies.

Marc1
15th May 2008, 05:23 PM
Mr Captain, did you really take the time to copy and paste line by line from the two pages list of signatories, those who's qualifications are economist?
Well congratulations because take away the one you picked, all the others
are scientist, professors in either Physics, Geology, Climatology etc.

I am also not too fond of economist, considering that they are only artist in projecting the past onto the future and can not agree on anything anyway.

However in the case of this elaborate CON portrayed onto the whole world, since it is mainly an economic/political stunt that has used science as the spearhead, it is only reasonable that economist want to have a say.

After all the point of it all is to extract carbon "credits" and "debits" creating for the first time in history the very first universal tax to be administered by a universal government with total disregard to sovereignty. This would make Genghis Khan, Alexander, Cesar, Napoleon, Hitler, go delirious with joy!
And the main course is of course the array of funds that different government will take away from their citizen to be used by this spurious pseudo authority for an imaginary fight against imaginary foes to achieve nothing at all.

If you want an example close to home, see our Robin Hood budget. Billions towards "fighting climate change" (read poking at imaginary giants by a demented dreamer dressed up in junk) ... Yet the only real action to be taken to fight POLLUTION not climate change, clean sources of energy be it bio fuels or solar are frown upon, and the subsidy taken away from the (evil) rich.

Marc1
15th May 2008, 05:41 PM
Have a look at this video. I hope you can get past the terrible introduction and hear the presenter. I fast forwarded to the start of the presentation.


Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/v/30)

CHEVY
15th May 2008, 09:22 PM
To deny there was no effect is really quite retarded. I consider pointing a stick at the fact there was a carbon spike in the early 70's, without even mentioning Vietnam, a very retarded stance by the scientists who put together this report.


Maelinar, you got me confused here - I wasnt aware that any one had said there was no CO2/carbon increase.
Best explain a bit more rather then making childish coments calling people retarded.

I would of thought a good Ozy bush fire would put out more pollution then a few bombs, or even thousands of bombs a day.

I'm just a simple citizin of planet earth trying to work out just what the reality of this global warming thingy is, yet what I'm finding is the attitudes of many of the 'pro' global warming people to be near childish, while the people saying we need to have a closer look at the claims conduct themselves with a bit of maturity.

Marc1
15th May 2008, 10:19 PM
And another little video, a bit better made. It includes Al Gore presentations and answers to some of his claims.

YouTube - Global Warming: The Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orfX_nbYTSs)
orfX_nbYTSs

Marc1
15th May 2008, 10:27 PM
Climate facts to warm to

http://saturn.tiser.com.au/images/AE3.gif (http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_random=94493921/SITE=TAUS/AREA=NEWS.OPINION/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=46963660)



Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril. Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

Marc1
15th May 2008, 10:31 PM
It appears I am not the only one writing and telling this "inane dribble", perhaps precisely contrary to what others may think, because I an not paid to support a cause, my income does not depend from global warming doom merchants being right. I am not and "environmental journalist" and so my job will not disappear as soon as the BIG CON is uncovered.
Academic cool on warming | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509775-2702,00.html)
Academic cool on warming
http://mercury.tiser.com.au/nserver/SITE=TAUS/AREA=NEWS.NATIONAL/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=1 (http://mercury.tiser.com.au/adclick/SITE=TAUS/AREA=NEWS.NATIONAL/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=1)
Brad Norington | April 09, 2008

RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was "out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming "doesn't seem to stack up".
Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue, Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.
The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.
He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".
Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University.

I noticed with delight that the terms I made up ( or I thought I did anyway) some time ago, in relation to global warming start creeping up in other people's articles. "Demonisation" "religious movement", in relation to the global warming catastrophist, and Robin Hood in relation to the present labor government.
When I have no illusions that what I say personally has much influence on others due to its limited reach, it is obvious that there is a core group of people who from diverse background do think alike and come to the same conclusions and perhaps end up using similar expressions. I have yet to see the term catastrophist applied to the global warming fanatics. I'll wait and see.
I keep on learning. I have added "inane" and "untowardly" to my vocabulary. Thank you!

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES !!!!!!!


To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28 (http://www.enotes.com/macbeth-text/3369#tomorrow)

Captain Echidna
15th May 2008, 11:00 PM
Mr Captain, did you really take the time to copy and paste line by line from the two pages list of signatories, those who's qualifications are economist?
Well congratulations because take away the one you picked, all the others
are scientist, professors in either Physics, Geology, Climatology etc.


Why have you questioned how long it took me to do the task, yet have not questioned that some of the people on the list are biased and not peer accepted scientists? looking at the list I could tell there was people there obviously not qualified to be there. (economists) Looking further into people behind the list I found "tim ball is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." Hardly the type of person you want to look to for an unbiased opinion. Unless you arent looking for an unbiased opinion, because you represent the interests of oil companies. Someone doing this will say "pollution" is a greater threat than CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are pollution. Whether you like it or not, Marc you are representing the oil/ gas/ coal industries.

At the moment governments require tax to operate. A lot of income comes from fossil fuel. Of course this is short lived, as fossil fuels will run out. Governments need to look to a new tax base. Carbon is an obvious choice, as if you are wrong Mark, we are stuffing the planet up at a quick rate, and also it will be around after the fossil fuel has run out. Of course its just another coffin in the fossil fuel coffin, their plans of highly fuel efficient cars and expensive fuel is being challenged by a gradual change to the next batch of fuels, rather than rising costs of fossil fuel (as well as rising fossil fuel company profits) until they run out.

This whole thread is the promotion of the oil/ gas/ coal industry. They cant argue global warming isnt happening, the evidence is overwhelming. The only way to protect their interests is to argue that global warming is happening, just that we are not the cause.

And chevy if you are just a simple bloke trying to work out what to do, there are 2 options we can pick. Do something or do nothing.
If we do something we will have either saved the planet by reducing CO2, or made an easier transition to the time when fossil fuel runs out.
If we do nothing, we will have problems scrambling for an alternative to fossil fuel when it runs out, or will have problems scrambling to an alternative to fossil fuel and trying to work out how to undo the global warming made now.

We dont know if man made global warming is true or not yet. (no amount of oil and gas paid scientists can tell us with 100% certainty despite what they say) But we can choose between one of the first two options and one of the second two options.

Is it really that hard a decision?

Maelinar
16th May 2008, 10:23 AM
Please allow me to change the subject slightly.

Marc - why do you use biofuels ?

What brought you to the biofuel table ?

What drives you to keep using biofuels ?

As mentioned previously, I think this is the kind of issue that explored fully, could be of great benefit to the biofuels debate.

RODEONICK
16th May 2008, 11:16 AM
Please allow me to change the subject slightly.

Marc - why do you use biofuels ?

What brought you to the biofuel table ?

What drives you to keep using biofuels ?

As mentioned previously, I think this is the kind of issue that explored fully, could be of great benefit to the biofuels debate.

I will answer this for marc if i'm wrong he can correct me. ok

he uses biofuels because of $$ and to be differant from the norm. Haven't you noticed he disagrees for the sake of disagreeing all the time. he likes being differant and good on him. you need a feww **** stirrers around the joint. and Marc being Marc i'm sure that he would be one of the only people here willing to admit that he uses bio fuels for monetary reasons. for that i give him credit.

Maelinar
16th May 2008, 03:50 PM
Even though Marc hasn't responded yet, lets move with Rodeo's suggestion:

People coming to biofuels for the sake of trying something different, or doing something different.

Would that make you an apple user ?

Is this an angle that can be examined to further the cause of biofuels - getting young and trendy's to think that biofuels is a 'cooler', 'buzz' product ?

Or is it driven by money.

Is this an alternative angle that could be examined to further the cause of biofuels - placing material out there to display how easy it is to make, and how much money you will save doing it ?

Simply thinking with an open brain at the moment...

Maelinar
16th May 2008, 03:58 PM
Maelinar, you got me confused here - I wasnt aware that any one had said there was no CO2/carbon increase.
Best explain a bit more rather then making childish coments calling people retarded.


apologies Chevy - its a bit hard to find the needle in the haystack in the tomes that have been presented, as it were.

I was responding to this: How can CO2 "coupling" explain global temperature drops in 1965-77, and a sharp rise after that? I assembled the accompanying global temperature chart covering 1946-2007 using data from Britain's Met Office Hadley Center, with special help from an astute researcher, Holly Titchner.

The chart includes monthly smoothed data from ground stations back to 1945. It includes weather balloon data, which became reliable enough to include starting in 1958. Beginning in late 1978, it shows data from satellites. This is one of the most comprehensive estimates of long-term global temperature I could find.

and a few following comments from that one that point towards other world events in timeline, yet dont mention them.

Captain Echidna
16th May 2008, 07:43 PM
Please allow me to change the subject slightly.

Marc - why do you use biofuels ?

What brought you to the biofuel table ?

What drives you to keep using biofuels ?

As mentioned previously, I think this is the kind of issue that explored fully, could be of great benefit to the biofuels debate.

I think the question could easily be Marc- Do you use biofuel?

Have you ever made biofuel?

What is your interest in biofuels?

I think marc seems to post something copied from the internet, and when somone starts to point out the flaws in it (like "scientists regarded as paid promoters of the oil and gas industries) he then posts up another large slab off the internet.

If the oil and gas industries pay people to get their message to people who use biofuels and dont watch the rubbish put on the mass media, they would act the way marc acts, copying and pasting large slabs of the internet onto forums and when the flaws are pointed out pasting a whole lot more of the rubbish up. If he isnt paid for by the oil and gas industires he should be, as he is performing their work flawlessly.

If you think I am being harsh, look through Marc1's posts. They start off with him talking about the damage caused by ethanol in petrol in his falcon, how he would use "mobil or bp diesel" for blending if he could by b100 in drums. (ie he wouldnt use biofuel at the moment) Hardly somone with an interest in biofuels.

Marc1
16th May 2008, 11:48 PM
"pollution" is a greater threat than CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are pollution. If CO2 is pollutant, removing CO2 would be a good thing....yet for organism based on Carbon, and CO2 the source of that carbon I find the above statement rather amusing. No CO2, no life. CO2 increases are the result of variation in temperature due to solar activity and not the leading cause of it.

CO2 is a fertilizer, is a stimulant of photosynthesis. Increases in atmospheric CO2, resulted in faster growing trees and crops.
Increase of CO2 are mainly the consequence of global warming from solar activity. Increase the temperature of the oceans and the solubility of CO2 diminishes and is released by the sea water in the air. Once the temperature comes down, it will go back into the water. Reducing CO2 or demonising it for spurious political purposes will make no difference at all to global warming. Climate will change despite of what we do or stop doing.
Pollution on the other hand particularly by heavy metals like the mercury found in fluoro lights like the one the politicians buy with our money and hand back for free to please the hysterical greens, is irreversible and criminal. Pollution by nuclear reactors and its byproducts is also irreversible or extremely expensive to clean up. GM food, poisonous additive to food "approved " by the same politicians who want to fight global warming with your money is just as criminal. Hiding the truth from the public as to how much mercury there is in fish, how much arsenic in imported Asian rice, how much dioxin in imported Indian clothes and so on ans so forth.

You efforts and strong opinions are worthy of better causes, don't waste your energy on what is clearly a big con.
Focus on what you are eating and drinking and breathing in. Most is polluted, poisoned. And the responsible by omission are the same politicians you are supporting in their big con.
Grow up !

In answer to all those kind people who are so interested in my private life I will gladly tell you that I have never made a drop of Biodiesel since I don't have facilities that would allow me to produce fuel legally, within council rules and with the knowledge of my insurance company.
The day I live on a farm or have access to an industrial site licensed to handle and store flammables and insured for such activity I may give it a go. Meantime I choose to live within the law.

Captain Echidna
17th May 2008, 10:36 AM
You have chosen to take my opinion that CO2 is pollution to an illogical extreme, and argue that point of view. Removing all CO2 is different to stopping more CO2 production. Yes if we removed all CO2 it would be bad for the environment. But if we burn everything and make the atmosphere all CO2 (and no O2) we wont survive either? obviously we need a stance between remove all CO2 and make the atmosphere all CO2. How about keeping things as they are?

Confession time. I have seen biodiesel made, but thats about it. But remember biodiesel is biofuel but biofuel is not biodiesel.

Ok how about you do an elsbett conversion on a landcruiser (get a 1HZ engine) so it can run on SVO (and not need diesel again), put a 180 tank in the back, that way you can filter your fuel and would never need to have more than a tankful of fuel at home at once.

You would store combustable liquids, but not flamable liquids. If you balanced your fuel "income" with "expenditure", you wont wind up storing lots of fuel. You dont need to make biodiesel to run on biofuel.

I think you would find you could easily operate within the requirements of your insurance company, and the law. (mind you remember the Natzis were operating within the law also;))

Unless of course biofuels arent really your thing?

Marc1
17th May 2008, 05:35 PM
Well, disregarding the Nazi comment, yes I could convert to vegetable oil, however my common rail 4wd wouldn't take it and I would have to buy a Landcruiser with a mechanical pump. Not a bad thing but not something I would do just for the trouble of running on vegetable oil.

Biofuels have a future if taken seriously by investors and entrepreneurs, no future in the hobby department.


However allow me to ask you a question. Since you are so convinced that reducing CO2 is your quest for the future of the planet, how does using biodiesel, ethanol or SVO or WVO or pig's manure, or burning your old underpants reduce the CO2 emissions from your vehicle?
It does not.
One litre of nice clean Shell or BP diesel produces the same amount of CO2 then nice clean Canola oil. We may argue about some other nasty pollutants but no fuel will vary in any significant way the amount of CO2 produced as the result of combustion.

As for the core of this debate, namely antropogenic CO2, have you watched the little you tube video about the origins of CO2? Have a look, it is worth every minute.YouTube - Global Warming: The Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orfX_nbYTSs)

I remember a comment once, yet don't remember the author, that made a simile as to the global warming debate.
He said something on this lines.
Lets assume that global warming is a truck. and we want to stop it.
We disregard the engine that is the sun, we disregard the transmission that is HO2 vapor. we concentrate on one nut of one wheel that is CO2, yet from that nut that represents the whole of CO2 we concentrate on one thread, one single solitary thread that is CO2 produced by human activity and pretend that we can stop the truck by eliminating that one turn of the thread. :rolleyes:

TroyH
17th May 2008, 06:48 PM
If CO2 is pollutant, removing CO2 would be a good thing....yet for organism based on Carbon, and CO2 the source of that carbon I find the above statement rather amusing. No CO2, no life. CO2 increases are the result of variation in temperature due to solar activity and not the leading cause of it.
*blah blah blah*

I would define a pollutant as anything that is emitted that adversely affects the balance of the environment around it. There is something called "thermal pollution", which basically means putting heat into an environment where it is detrimental (say, a sensitive aquatic environment). Heat is obviously not a pollutant in all situations, just like CO2 isn't a pollutant if it is part of the natural carbon cycle (or can be allowed for by the natural carbon cycle).

Oddly enough, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines "pollutant" as:
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.



However allow me to ask you a question. Since you are so convinced that reducing CO2 is your quest for the future of the planet, how does using biodiesel, ethanol or SVO or WVO or pig's manure, or burning your old underpants reduce the CO2 emissions from your vehicle?
It does not.
One litre of nice clean Shell or BP diesel produces the same amount of CO2 then nice clean Canola oil. We may argue about some other nasty pollutants but no fuel will vary in any significant way the amount of CO2 produced as the result of combustion.

You really have no idea do you?!
Go and read about the carbon cycle. If you use biodiesel or vegetable oil (assuming no fossil fuel inputs) you are not changing the net amount of carbon in the natural carbon cycle. When you burn carbon based fuels that are in the ground, you release carbon that has not been in the carbon cycle for millions of years. Last time that carbon was in our atmosphere, the climate was much much warmer than it is now.

Guess why the planet is cooler now?

There is a big difference between being part of the carbon cycle, and being a net emitter of carbon.

How can you be so opinionated about something when you don't even understand the basics of the science?

Captain Echidna
17th May 2008, 07:31 PM
Well, disregarding the Nazi comment, yes I could convert to vegetable oil, however my common rail 4wd wouldn't take it and I would have to buy a Landcruiser with a mechanical pump. Not a bad thing but not something I would do just for the trouble of running on vegetable oil.
If you have a 1996 toyota with a 1kz-te engine as per your profile, elsbett sell a single tank conversion for it. Are you keen on biofuel or will you continue to make excuses? Why are you here if you are just making excuses why you cant use biofuel?



Biofuels have a future if taken seriously by investors and entrepreneurs, no future in the hobby department.
As far as I understand the motorcar started as a hobby for people, as did people making flying machines. Nether of those seems to have taken off. (boom boom)



However allow me to ask you a question. Since you are so convinced that reducing CO2 is your quest for the future of the planet, how does using biodiesel, ethanol or SVO or WVO or pig's manure, or burning your old underpants reduce the CO2 emissions from your vehicle?
It does not.
One litre of nice clean Shell or BP diesel produces the same amount of CO2 then nice clean Canola oil. We may argue about some other nasty pollutants but no fuel will vary in any significant way the amount of CO2 produced as the result of combustion.

As troy has said they may emmit the same CO2 into the atmosphere, its where the CO2 came from, either the atmosphere, or the ground. If I keep borrowing $5 from you and returning it neither of us will become rich. If I borrow $5 from someone else and give it to you its different.


As for the core of this debate, namely antropogenic CO2, have you watched the little you tube video about the origins of CO2? Have a look, it is worth every minute.YouTube - Global Warming: The Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orfX_nbYTSs)
I am sorry I am on slow dialup, but if its talking about all CO2 being in the atmosphere in prehistoric times its true, but the part of the world in which I live was under about 40 feet of water then. As much as I like the sea there is too much of a good thing. (and appologies if its not about that)



I remember a comment once, yet don't remember the author, that made a simile as to the global warming debate.
He said something on this lines.
Lets assume that global warming is a truck. and we want to stop it.
We disregard the engine that is the sun, we disregard the transmission that is HO2 vapor. we concentrate on one nut of one wheel that is CO2, yet from that nut that represents the whole of CO2 we concentrate on one thread, one single solitary thread that is CO2 produced by human activity and pretend that we can stop the truck by eliminating that one turn of the thread. :rolleyes:

Or is human produced CO2 the keys to the truck? I have had a car stop due to the points failing. Small enough to fit in a matchbox, but stopped the whole car.

Marc1
17th May 2008, 07:52 PM
Hum...somehow you simile does not sound at all credible...after all CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is only because of politics and smart propaganda that it is in everyone's mouth....pun intended.

Oh, yes...the carbon cycle and all that. Considering that volcanic eruptions by themselves emit much more than all the factories, cars and cows put together, and considering their CO2 emissions are certainly not from SVO, and considering that CO2 is eagerly used up by algae in the sea, and everything else on land, the CO2 hysteria leaves me cold. It is a necessary and useful gas that lives in the air in minute proportions and that after all does not have any effect whatsoever on the variations in temperature like they want you to believe.
You are better off worrying...if you want to worry...about heavy metals contamination.
The rest is bull dust.

PS
Slow dial up...does that mean you can not watch you tube?
Bummer....Oh...but do not despair, Robin Hood is on the trail and will soon deliver free broadband for all...dutifully income and asset tested of course.
We can not have those nasty millionaires getting free broadband can we?

PS PS

Conversion of my good old Surf.
You must be kidding. I worked enough with diesel to know the damage vegetable oil will do to a common rail. At $250 per injector it would be false economy. My Holden Comodore is on LPG...does that count? ;)

Oh..and I heat with a slow combustion wood heater, no electricity see!
Only a bit of smoke just to annoy the neighbors.

Lets see...I have a compost bin!
Hum come to think of it the compost bin emits more CO2 than my lawnmower...OK scrap that one.

Called in the guys for a solar panel system, booked it in and...yes, you guessed correctly, I also canceled it. Thank you Mr Hood, I am not a working family it seems so no subsidy for me. At $16000, I would have to live 250 years to get my money back.
Better luck next time.

Cameron
17th May 2008, 07:53 PM
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to argue with this person.

His arguments are not scientific and are not credible. They do not even make sense and are not consistent even within a posting let alone within the thread as a whole.

He has done his utmost to argue that the fact of human induced global warming is a fiction.

He has failed.

Please don't give him anymore of your valuable time nor support the ongoing wasteage of bandwidth and server space that he is causing.

He may or may not have somewhere else to go. Let's hope he does.

Cameron

TroyH
17th May 2008, 08:07 PM
Hum...somehow you simile does not sound at all credible...after all CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is only because of politics and smart propaganda that it is in everyone's mouth....pun intended.

People in glass houses....



Lets see...I have a compost bin!
Hum come to think of it the compost bin emits more CO2 than my lawnmower...OK scrap that one.Luckily the plants that your food scraps came from, consumed more CO2 making those food scraps, than will be emitted when you compost them. Gotta love that carbon cycle thing...

Can't say the same thing about your lawn mower...




I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to argue with this person.

His arguments are not scientific and are not credible. They do not even make sense and are not consistent even within a posting let alone within the thread as a whole.

He has done his utmost to argue that the fact of human induced global warming is a fiction.

He has failed.

Please don't give him anymore of your valuable time nor support the ongoing wasteage of bandwidth and server space that he is causing.

He may or may not have somewhere else to go. Let's hope he does.

Cameron
Unfortunately I have a problem with letting people spout out nonsense. It tends to get around, and people who simply do not know any better, think it's true. This is especially true on the internet. If I feel that something is being misrepresented, that could potentially impact a broad range of people, I feel a responsibility to ensure that it is exposed for what it is.

What would have happened in the HOHCells thread if noone had questioned his "science"?

Although, this thread has begun to resemble arguing with a talking kids toy...

CHEVY
17th May 2008, 09:41 PM
Getting back to mature discussion, how does Bob Carter rate as a climate scientist ?


Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Bob Carter on New Zealand TV (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/videos/carter_new_zealand_tv.html)

Captain Echidna
17th May 2008, 10:25 PM
You are right cameron. I am out. The guy is an idiot, he has no interest in biofuel, only the promotion of fossil fuel.

Marc1
18th May 2008, 12:50 PM
I like the balance in this thread. We have a group of bullies leaded by the administrator who don't like my views and resort to words and expressions and name calling that would deserve banning in any respectable website .

The thread has been moved to the farthest corner yet everyone takes turns to post on it. No one is holding a gun to your head right?

If all you can do is star calling me names, I must say you must be rather desperate to see your beloved religious point of view trashed by simple facts.

Thank you Chevy for finding that video by Bob Carter.
In a nutshell:
Carter says that there are two extreme points of view.
The alarmist and the denier.
Scientist are in the center.
Humans do have an effect on climate, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The building of cities and the planting of crops were there was bush heats up and cools down local environment.
Is the balance up or down? No one knows.
CO2 has NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on climate change
No scientist from both camps has yet identified the human signature in climate change.
The Kioto protocol is the most dangerous thing ever invented to local economies and NZ should have never signed it. They are the only country in the world to sign reduction of CH4 emissions from agriculture, a gas that has been on the decline for the last 10 years. Electricity cost will double thanks to signing the protocol yet as for changing climate, you may as well stand in the shower and tear up 100 dollar bills. It would be the same.

According to the study of the sun we are in a downward cooling and heading for two decades of cooling. A far more dangerous situation to be in than warming.

Just like we don't try to change eruptions, tornadoes, tsunami, we must adapt and help others to adapt rather than spend billions to feel good about ourselves.

Alga
18th May 2008, 04:23 PM
According to the study of the sun we are in a downward cooling and heading for two decades of cooling. A far more dangerous situation to be in than warming.

Actually the above statement is only one theory put forward by one camp, there is evidence to support many other changes in climate and temperatures, both up and down. Humans are so up themselves they think because they have been to school and got a pierce of paper saying they are qualified academics, they can have a holier than thou attitude. Whilst it is the academics who are the problem. There are figures which say we seem to be entering a cooling period, then there are figures which say the planet is warming, both are right for different and the same reasons. The most notable changes are a leveling of temperature where winters are warming and summers are cooling, we notice it down in Tas, our nights are getting quite warm during the winter and we haven't had high summer temps for a number of years, it still gets really cold but not as often.

I have a friend who works on the “Aurora Australis” and as been to the antarctic many times, says the climate of the antarctic is dramatically changing. They are seeing areas which in the summer are completely clear of ice and snow, where 10 years ago they were under metres of snow and ice. He also says they no longer have to fly equipment many kilometers because of pack ice, now they can get to the actual land mass in summer easily. I don't think we have a clue as to what nature is doing to combat our stupidity, but it will not be what we like or want, we are just like pesky ants to nature and to its survival.

Instead of debating this unanswerable question until nature does it's thing, we should be doing what we can to prepare ourselves for a very disturbing future. But I understand many will just rant in denial of change and it's consequences and others will cower down in fear, the outcome will be the same for all who don't take action and responsibility. I'm just glad I don't live in a city with wall to wall people, not a good recipe for survival and escape.

CO2 does have an effect on climate and warming and it will have a dramatic effect in the years to come, but not as people think. With the rate of worldwide deforestation, seas which are warming and losing their ability to absorb CO2, we could face a dramatic drop in usable oxygen, after all it is only a small percentage of our air supply.

It is not alarmist to see we are stuffing our planet, nor is it alarmist to see the more people we have the more destruction we will cause. What is alarming is those who deny and do all in their power to continue with the failed status quo approach to the future.

Marc1
19th May 2008, 07:07 PM
Humans are so up themselves they think because they have been to school and got a pierce of paper saying they are qualified academics, they can have a holier than thou attitude. Whilst it is the academics who are the problem.You are right of course in saying that some scientist have a very arrogant attitude talking down to those who are not on what they perceive as equal footing. The classical example would be the one who had the monopoly on knowledge for the masses, the religious authorities in the dark ages.
The quote by Galileo that mumbled "Eppur si muove" or in a few more words, ...despite of what you say the earth does move, after being condemned to house arrest for the rest of his life, was a small protest taken against the irrational authority that dictated what was right and what was wrong.
Galileo's science was not recognized because it was not godly, did not derive from the scriptures nor was approved by the religious authorities.

I would trace a parallel with today in the following way. The religious universal authority of the older days is today the Global warming catastrohpists, who run around scaring everyone into submission.
The Galileos and the Copernicus of today are those few scientist who risk their carriers and livelihood by dissenting with the Al Gore con artists and his followers.
Just like you point out, the majority of scientist and their entourage of cheer leaders, supporters and assorted claque, are the one who obscure the issue by elevation. If you are not with them you are against them and are therefore the problem. You say so yourself. In Your view I and all who think like me are the problem.

Perhaps one day not too distant all this artificial fog will lift and the global warming agitators will find another way to keep the masses scared and under control, may be they will predict a marcian invasion dutifully supported by a very credible and authoritative honcho from Nasa.

Until then, We can relax in the knowledge that climate changes are just that, natural variation that we have no control over nor responsibility, just like no one can cop the blame for a volcanic eruption or an earthquake.

The link below is one worth reading, from our very own CSIRO. In the introduction the CSIRO makes their position very clearly stating they are true new born believers, just in case their funding is cut.
If you can however go past the unavoidable "Hail GM !" accompanied by heel knocking and hand raising (to protect from the sun) the study of the effects of CO2 on vegetation is interesting and encouraging.

The biomass has actually adapted to a higher than usual level of CO2 and increased their rate of intake capturing a larger share and growing faster and larger. A side effect appears to be that they do better with less water. So it appears that the cycle of carbon is not set in concrete after all, and all that scary fossil carbon released by my (evil) 4wd to doom as all, will simply be captured at a higher rate by the biomass. Not for long thou if the planet starts to cool and the oceans reverse their release of CO2
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/ras/ozface/OzFACEIRC2003.pdf

Thank you Peter for the link, you should post yourself some of your thoughts.
Regards
Marc

PS

On the political side of Global so called warming....I wonder if there will be a Nuremberg trail for high treason to all the head of state who have effectively condemned their countries economic future by signing the Kioto Protocol for no gain whatsoever on the climate change?

algaeoil
19th May 2008, 09:11 PM
i just dont get some of this stuff, we know that if we take coal and oil and burn it we release co2, if one were to add up all mega tonnes of coal and oil we have burned in the past 100 years we could just about work out how much co2 we have added to the atmosphere that otherwise would not have been added. higher percentages of co2 in the amtosphere means that heat is trapped more so. it may well be true that in the past there is a lag in the release of co2 as the temperatures rise. this does not mean that we humans arent dumping co2 now and trapping more heat. if anything this could only compound further to the co2 we are adding yearly.
check co2 graphs, check the corals not laying down as much as they used to.. even if that is to be conisdered mainly from natural warming.
it all adds up. it doesnt have to be all man made problems but we know that burning coal and oil in the way we are now has not been done before. the earth had a lot more carbon dioxide around before the time that photosynthetic organisms began and we are releasing a lot of that so no doubt we will see it rise. take coal, its stored energy.
burn it in the presence of oxygen. you get energy released and heat and carbon dioxide. if you could take a thermo picture of the world now compared to before the last 100 years you may even notice all the hot little engines and appliances we release nergy from.
once mankind runs out of the resources we are using at the current rate..yes its getting faster and more..
we will just crash and burn and it will all sort itself out once again and we might learn some from it. likely with a reduced population. its the numbers and the so called quality of life and the speed of which us humans want to get things that is not supportable by this world in the longer term.

who knows around that time mankind might just settle on getting energy from the sun on the day it hits us.

algaeoil
19th May 2008, 09:33 PM
marc, i dont think that the biomass has adapted recently to increase its rate of uptake of co2. the ability has been there since it first evolved amongst higher co2 concentrations. most plants will grow faster with increased co2 concentrations. we cant just say well its all ok then.
because it needs nutrient, water and time.
there just aint enough of all the nutrient and water around to take care of it all so quickly.
\bviously if it was adapting at a rate that kept up with co2, we would not see such a spike in co2 but it would be held in relative check. the rate of increase is rather fast and there are other limiting factors here.
hence a shift in co2 rates over the long term of the earths history, governed by temperature or biomass/species/populations. what im trying to get at is that man has changed his environment in so many ways that it will affect these things.
i dont know what the real percentages would be of man made casue vs others in the temperature debate but i do know what we are to blame for doing.

next thing we will be hearing from the co2 warming sceptics is that the species on this planet are dropping off like flies due to non man made reasons. i imagine the reason for them not doing so already is either they dont doubt that or they are just out of their depth overall on knowledge of ecology and biology and the general goings on in nature.
these must be the same people that would go for a run in their car, know that exhaust comes out the back and feel the warmth under the hood and still somehow manage to declare "it wasnt me"

algaeoil
19th May 2008, 11:31 PM
marc, one of your first few posts goes to say that countries that are having great economic growth are putting out a lot of co2 and that we would lose this growth if we were to restrict the amount of co2 we put out.
i just cannot see how a few posts later you go to say that global warming is something being pushed by governments to cash in.
scientists noted what was happening, it got out and people pressure governments to act which they act slowly on because they like growth.

there is no doubt that if we stopped burning coal and oil tommorow we would just about stop dead. as we will if we dont address the need for an alternative energy sources in the future. for these are the reasons why most people are considering this all relevant and not some con job.

lets say i was working on a carbon audit for many of the major carbon emmiting companies in australia. i would be doing that in the knowledge that it would cost a lot of money to those companies and in turn to the people to adhere to any legislation that was to come in in the near future.
in the past there has been no price to pay for spewing out carbon among other things so man has profited greatly at an expense to the environment. i am under no false hopes that man will swing carbon levels back down. its most likely the companies will be forced to comply to rules and regulations that will not affect levels in the nearest future.
i am certainly not under some illusion that we do not or have not altered carbon dioxide levels. nor am i under the illusion that carbon dioxide, among many other pollutants, like some of those you mention is already threatening life as we knew it.
i do have the hope that mankind takes a look at what we do and with needed concern and investment in cleaner technologies so that we will one day be able to form a cleaner society and environment overall so that we operate in a more sustainable way into the future.
if we cant manage to achieve this sort of outcome now then we will be forced to do it later on. carbon dioxide is just one of the things presenting a problem.

also id like to mention that in one of your early posts you mentioned the altering of some scientists papers. in fact, these papers were altered by the US government so to not be so alarmist to the point that the population would demand something extreme be done about it.
some of the people that formed the papers came out with the whistle on that one.
NASA also was warned not to produce such alarming results or their funding would be cut. the guy from NASA bailed out after that, you could find his story too if you cared to look that way.
as for george w bush...and cheney, they love oil, dont mind a war, they saw a need for it but they also cashed right in.

CHEVY
20th May 2008, 12:45 AM
DONT PANIC





Flannery to the rescue -

Change sky's colour, proposes Flannery (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=565502)



Hmmm.................. global dimming eh :rolleyes:

Qwarla
20th May 2008, 01:14 AM
He has called for a radical suite of emergency measures to be put in place.
The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.

But sulphur is not a gas at all.

Sulfur, in its native form, is a yellow crystalline solid.

Sulphur. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur)

Marc1
20th May 2008, 08:33 AM
Marc, one of your first few posts goes to say that countries that are having great economic growth are putting out a lot of co2 and that we would lose this growth if we were to restrict the amount of co2 we put out.
I just cannot see how a few posts later you go to say that global warming is something being pushed by governments to cash in.
Scientists noted what was happening, it got out and people pressure governments to act which they act slowly on because they like growth.I thought it was rather obvious.
There is no denying that economic activity produces CO2. So does breathing in and out. Perhaps professor Flanagan new solution will include a ban on exhaling....blocking the sun rays. The guy should be shot down in flames.

The signatories to the Kyoto protocol have done so under the false pretense to care for the environment, knowingly or by sheer stupidity I don't know, but it is blatantly obvious that the consequences for such country like ours, are restriction of growth in favor of the countries that have not signed. The advantage for such governments is obscure and material for conspiracy theories. M.Thatcher had her reasons clear when she set up the ball rolling on this fallacy of CO2 and Global warming. She could only dream about a world wide carbon trading scheme, and so would Hitler and Napoleon.
What is Robin Hood's take on this or why did the NZ government sign as the only country in the world to reduce CH4 when it is a gas in decline is everyone's guess. Certainly not for the benefit of the country. Future generations will probably forget or forgive the ignorance, or rather like I believe the treason, perpetuated by most western government against their people.

As for your last paragraph, it is hard to think you have missed my point after so many post.
You say... Scientists noted what was happening, it got out and people pressure governments to act which they act slowly on because they like growth.
I say...Scientsit were paid to manufacture a lie for a political purpose in the 70ties The lie was so credible and took off so well that many other scientist saw the funding dollar sign behind the con and jumped on the bandwagon. Al Gore lost the election and was given another task by his masters. The rest is history.
Governments don't care for "growht" nor for the country nor for their people. Governments lose elections when things go too well. The purpose of governemts is to perpetuate themselves in power. Disasters, wars and famine are welcome to governments as an opportunity to gain and exercise more power or popularity or both.
A manufactured disaster like a Marcian invasion, the impending reversal of the rotational direction of the earth, or global warming by CO2 are cons that are twice as useful since they create all the anxiety and doom and gloom predictions without the real thing at the end. A perfect con.

I said this before and I say it again. All you guys who "defend" the theory of Global Warming by man made CO2 do so out of conviction and I do admire a person that defends his values and convictions. Particularly when it is a cause that is essentially an altruistic one.

However let's be clear. You like me, have adopted values and truth by choice. You have chosen one version of events over another, choosing to believe a group of people over another. Your sources are necessarily others. You did not discover this by yourself, so please don't argue the science, it would be like arguing the existence of God. The question, "how do you know", will eventually go unanswered.

Since you have simply chosen to believe one version of events over the other, I just ask you to look at the source.
Who gets to gain from promoting a man made global warming? Who is paid to do so? Who's livelihood depends from the Global Warming catastrophe? Who's job will disappear when the con is uncovered?
Answer, your sources.
Who has nothing to gain and everything to lose from dissenting?
Answer my sources.

Who is more credible?

Maelinar
20th May 2008, 11:52 AM
As I've just finished an argument elsewhere about that idiot and am not in the frame of mind to repeat myself, I'll simply assert atmospheric Sulfur = Acid Rain.

We'll be back in the 80's again. Coincidentally though, it was Acid Rain that pretty much caused all the focus on the environment today, so ironically we can thank high atmospheric sulfur levels for our awareness of emissions today.

TroyH
20th May 2008, 08:22 PM
It is sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, not sulfur.

Who knows what that guy is on about, although he is is a palaeontologist, so not exactly an expert on chemistry. :confused:

algaeoil
20th May 2008, 08:55 PM
well id agree that his idea sucks a bit. i hope that he is just freaking out about the changes going on to our earth and thats his last resort solution. i dont think it would at all be taken serioulsy as a solution. probably that he is just trying to reinforce the problem. the crux of his argument is that we are not able to soak up or deal with the sheer amount of co2 we are adding year by year. that would be the desperation he feels for not being able to come up with a real solution.

marc, i dont think it need to check out my sources to see if they are trying to get money from all this. money may drive a lot of them, ill give you that for sure but most of these guys are scientists from the interest they have in the planet and life around the place.
but its a certainty that we are adding co2, you agree there, ive had my hands on a calibrated co2 meter..instead of talking about how small the percetage is of co2 in the air we could say that it has increased by over 25 percent in the last hundred or so years. now it could be a coincidence that the industrial revolution has coincided with this, it could be that mankinds tripling of his population in this time and the amount of carbon that we have added by burning boatloads of coal and oil..
i suggest it is not seeing as the rate it is increasing.
i can look of my coast and see thirty coal ships at a time. their industy is growing very fast.
only you seem to debate that it actually causes much negative changes. i think its a good thing if we become more aware of the need pollute our environment less than we do at the moment.
if we run our exhaust into the drivers seat we would die, if we run a lot of exhausts or any other polution into our atmosphere or water or ground and the levels increase we have climate change. ive often thought the word warming isnt all that suitable a term to use as the overall problem.

ok, im off to find out how much co2 comes from burning a litre of fuel and producing a kilowatt hour. then i can audit these companies, determine roughly how much co2 they add, charge them for the service and wait for the government to make them put money into offsetting some of it.
ill tell you one thing though, its very hard to try and sequester carbon and do it in an economically viable way. even the earth itself cant keep on top of the incline. its much easier to just burn and add it. for these reasons i dont see carbon dioxide levels going down or slowing much at all. maybe flannery expects it to hit 1200 ppm within the next 30 years, maybe he knows that well before the time it hits that much our ecosystems as we knew them will be having an extremely hard time coping and many of them will be gone altogether. once we wreck the ecosytems that we have relied upon to increase our population then we must take a big dive ourself. is it all due to carbon? no. your right.

algaeoil
20th May 2008, 10:33 PM
from wiki.

emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#cite_note-21)emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#cite_note-21)

im not sure where your info came from that calls volcanoes spew out more than man. lest do i understand how this figure by itself is not significant to us.

now what exactly happens when co2 increases? what is its properties and effects?
the atmoshere will trap more heat (from the earth and from sun.)
the pH of water will lower.
water holds co2 concentrations 50 odd times than that of the atmosphere. in the oceans a lot of carbon dioxide lays down as carbonate. the oceans are not laying down at the rate it is coming in.
it cant keep up with the change. we do not have enough complete fertilisers in the oceans to soak it up as algae blooms.

water holds less co2 if it is warmer. respiration rates are higher also.

if you warm water some of the co2 will enter the atmosphere.
meaing if we have a natural warming and we add co2 to the atmosphere at the above rates then we will see the levels go even higher.
this is in line with your call that in the history of the earth carbon dioxide levels rise with temperature rises.

what kind of evidence or science is there coming from the deniers that man is increasing co2 but it has no effect on climate.

the level of co2 in the atmosphere is part of climate. if it goes up by 35 percent over 150 year period then it is a climate change. if man contributes the weight of carbon dioxide as above to the climate then he has helped change climate. along with all the other things we have screwed around us in the last 100 or so years.

i heard on the radio some guy lay claim that more carbon dioxide means that plants grow faster so there is no need to worry. the problem still remains that temps rise, rainfall changes.. water and nutrient is lacking to take care of the extra carbon dioxide. these arent all due to carbon dioxide alone but the higher levels will not go away. if man fell of the face of the earth there would be a lowering of co2 levels atleast to the amount that we contribute it. this will no doubt happen once our population is drastically reduced. maybe we should all come back here in another ten years and see the new carbonj dioxide graphs.

Alga
21st May 2008, 11:46 AM
However let's be clear. You like me, have adopted values and truth by choice. You have chosen one version of events over another, choosing to believe a group of people over another. Your sources are necessarily others. You did not discover this by yourself, so please don't argue the science, it would be like arguing the existence of God. The question, "how do you know", will eventually go unanswered.

Since you have simply chosen to believe one version of events over the other, I just ask you to look at the source.
Who gets to gain from promoting a man made global warming? Who is paid to do so? Who's livelihood depends from the Global Warming catastrophe? Who's job will disappear when the con is uncovered?
Answer, your sources.
Who has nothing to gain and everything to lose from dissenting?
Answer my sources.

Who is more credible?

Very poor logic indeed. My feelings towards global warming and climate change is mainly derived from my personal life experiences, the loss of biodiversity, species which keep a biological balance, diminished and changing growth patterns in native and introduced plants. The loss of birds and wildlife in our forests, depleted barren rivers, these are viewable facts to those who live on the land and don't live in an office or illusional life of a city.

Your argument about who will benefit and lose out, is the same for your sources. Those putting down global warming, have much to gain by hanging onto their polluting businesses, market and monopoly resource empires, they have everything to lose if they are wrong. At this stage of human evolution, it's irrelevant as to who is right or wrong or why, the fact is our planet is changing and we have contributed to it and a massive scale. In the end the only winner will be nature and the biggest loser will be humanity. To say our climate is not changing and we are facing dramatic changes to weather and our lifestyle, is a sing egocentric psychopathy, which I would equate to failed ideologists of all persuasions. It's idea's and actions people should becoming up with to cope, and not just childishly fight and argue as the ship sinks underneath us.

Marc1
21st May 2008, 05:32 PM
As usual when logic or fact fail, resort to emotions.
Animals go extinct, the beach is dirty, the ice is melting, my grandma tells me that in her days, the morons that live in the city have no idea, my car exhaust will kill me therefore it must be bad ... etc. (Funny you mention that. One of the many reasons the so called witness of the Auschwitz camp lost credibility was becaue they assured the court that people were been killed with the exhaust of the diesel generators. Boo hoo.

The reality is somewhat different and emotions and efforts misdirected and worthy of a better cause.

If it wasn't for the worldwide smokescreen of CO2 and the illusion of a battle against it as the core of all problems, the only real indisputable facts are that human existence and the activity that inevitably derive from our existence, harms other species, be it animal or plant, change the ecosystem and degrades the land and the sea yet none have anything to do with CO2 and most to do with industry, mining agriculture, waste disposal, and top of the list, the unwillingness of corrupt governments to regulate PROPERLY.

It is against those well known facts that any environmentalist that has any sense left should be battling against, not the phantom of global warming.
Every thinking individual that has even passing interest in the environment we live in has been fooled into believing that all his efforts should be directed to a cause that is futile and vane as the giants of Don Quixote.

Let assume for a minute that all human activity ceases. The change in CO2 in the atmosphere will be so minimal that no scientist in the world would be able to measure the difference.

However, having achieved such miraculous result will not take the mercury out of the sea, nor the radiation out of the black forest, nor the pesticides out of pastures, water, milk and vegetables. The food industry will still be pumping their poison into our food, the clothes industry will still die with dioxin and our wash will still take it to the sea together with our own body waste for the fish to swim in it. Brazil and Malaysia will continue to cut down trees, war will not stop, nor will human stupidity change one bit.

Yet we think it is our duty to stop CO2, a harmless gas that is natural, and absolutely indispensable for life itself

PS

Come to think of it, it is a very clever strategy.
What do you do if you want to avoid criticism for what you do?
You accuse others to do worst and pretend we all have a comon cause to battle against. Your own nuclear waste in a barrel will be forgotten.
After all what authority have I to complain about nuclear waste if I am the cause of global warming by driving my (God forbid) 4wd !! (GLOBAL...Imagine !!!!

Cameron
21st May 2008, 06:57 PM
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FORUM - FRIDAY MAY 23RD

CLIMATE CHANGE, MIGRATION & ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES

Professor Andy Pitman, Dr Jane McAdam and Anna Samson

As the science of climate change becomes increasingly well understood, the ramifications of projected increases in temperature, changes to rainfall patterns, rises in sea-level and increase in extreme weather events require attention from policy-makers worldwide. This is particularly apparent in relation to migration, refugees and international security, with climate change acting as a threat multiplier to exacerbate existing tensions and instability.

The Institute of Environmental Studies, in conjunction with the Climate Change Research Centre, the Faculty of Law and the Refugee Council of Australia invite you to attend a public forum at UNSW on these issues featuring Professor Andy Pitman, Dr Jane McAdam and Anna Samson.

Professor Pitman is co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW and a lead author on the UN's Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr McAdam is the Director of International Law Programs in UNSW's Faculty of Law and Project Director for the Climate Change "Refugees! and International Law project at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law.

Anna Samson is the National Policy Director of the Refugee Council of Australia, a non-profit organisation dedicated to the support of refugees in Australia.

The event will involve presentations by the three speakers on the scientific, legal, political and ethical aspects of this issue, followed by a forum discussion and drinks.

WHAT: Public Forum – Climate Change, Migration and Environmental Refugees
WHEN: Friday 23 May 2008, 4:00-6:00pm
WHERE: Law Theatre G02, UNSW Kensington Campus
RSVP: Please RSVP to Sarah Terkes: s.terkes@unsw.edu.au

TroyH
21st May 2008, 09:06 PM
I think the gauntlet has been thrown Marc1...

I can't believe you are ranting about people resorting to emotion, when they run out of fact or logic. Pot, kettle and all that...



Funny you mention that. One of the many reasons the so called witness of the Auschwitz camp lost credibility was becaue they assured the court that people were been killed with the exhaust of the diesel generators. Boo hoo.
Hu?
Are you saying diesel exhaust fumes can't be used to asphyxiate people? Perhaps I am simply lost in your disjointed writing style?


The government can't regulate properly? Self regulation is far more effective than prescriptive legislation, provided the right legislative guidelines are put in place (or perhaps even without them).

Politicians have no clue about science or engineering, they can only act on the advice they are given. Why would you want them setting out strict regulations for everything? It should be the responsibility of those who understand the processes to ensure that they are designed and operated responsibly. The government would operate most effectively in a role that would simply encourage industry to act in a certain way and guide them in a particular direction.

algaeoil
21st May 2008, 09:27 PM
well troy you just said it for me. cept i think he means that biodiesel still pollutes..it just probably doesnt effect anything.

marc, where do you see the carbon dioxide levels hitting in 15 years if we keep buring oil at the current skyrocketing rates?

algaeoil
21st May 2008, 09:32 PM
marc,
i havent seen you put down any facts to show that increasing carbon dioxide levels wouldnt create the effects that these scientists are claiming.


maybe you can point out a timeline of the earth when levels where this high, but that would be at a time that life was different. it has CHANGED since then, not the graph but life and the earth.
maybe point out a timeline when the rate increased exponentially and i think you would find that it coincides with big big changes in species populations. rise and fall.
by the way, ive read flannery's "the weather makers". some of it may be a bit extreme but there is a lot of truth in it too. i am yet to come across the site that you glean your knowledge from..
i would like to know where you got all this information from to back up claims of a major conspiracy.

so you want proof yet, offer little yourself.
wheres your proof that carbon dioxide at higher levels in the air doesnt trap more heat?
you provide evidence on solar flares and believ you have enough evidence now to cancel it out..even though you will now admit we add to it. i wonder if those guys got paid for their story too, if they did they must be also wrong. what did they do again?? measured heat from sunspots, using the dark side of the moon..and somehow worked out that would raise the temps and the co2 to what we see today? have they somehow measured the past flares to see the changes in co2 we see in the ice also?


wheres your proof that plants are growing faster now and taking up the slack? maybe they would if we had cut down less. but weve got what we have got, so yes, its a compound effect. the argument was brought fowrard long ago that cutting the trees would slow co2 uptake. weve done that. then the argument came forward that the oceans deal with most of it. be it that the oceans dont have enough iron to take care of it or whatever reason, it just aint dealing with it at this rate.

i think most will say that it would be better to recycle carbon as opposed to pump out millions of barrels of oil from the past. we cant do it on the grand scale. one day we will have to scale down.

man has made his move and its been fast riding on the back of energy and carbon underground. we will see a MASSIVE quantity of carbon dragged from under the earths surface where it has sat idle for a very long time indeed, and then we will release it all within two hundred years and i am to believ it wont change anything?

that oil is a remnant of the days when carbon was in higher rates in the atmosphere. some was stored as oil and some stored as limestones.
guess what, the limestone aint laying down like it used to. its not for a lack of carbon and i grant you that its likley got a lot to do with our othr polluting ways, temperature and ecosystems play a role, for us we are looking at a tiny timescale of a hundred or so years. we dont have the benifit of old mother time.

earlier you claimed that volcanoes added more, have i not proved that to be wrong?

did you notice the amount of oil being pumped up and burnt right now? you want to admit that it does add carbon dioxide, that it does go into the air, but that it dont alter a dam thing.

ill definately give it to you that these days its the main environmental concern in the media all the while other pollutants are still going around the place.
i agree even that it may be good to some to have the carbon be the scapegoat. that doesnt mean the science is wrong. your right in that its probable that too much weight is being placed upon it compared to many many other things in the balance that we wreck.


by the stance youve been taking we may as well consider it to not even be real, it has no effects.. but seemingly good ones, yet we all know that life processes have evolved around it and so on.

you say it cant harm because it is essential to life.
theres no worry there man, it aint going away while we are here.

i could say that it is harmful because it can also suffocate you and at rates in between the two it effects life and atleast its proliferation.

we are approaching levels that "current life" on this planet hasnt seen, so for you to say it will have no effect is plain ridiculous. it denies everything that is known about carbon dioxides properties.


i guess it always was a big ask for someone first burning fuel from the ground to ever imagine that in the big wide sky it would affect anything.
but on the sheer level that we do this these days, notice the tonnes and the evidence of atmospheric and ocean co2 levels, the well known and understood basic principles of life and we still have people schooled on the other side of the coin from another conspiracy school claiming that it does nothing but look good on a graph to support the bad guys.

seen dubai lately?

Marc1
21st May 2008, 10:41 PM
Algaeoil, with all due respect my friend I have difficulty following your post.

This thread has 12 pages, if you want to see and read stacks of material that support my position please read back through it or watch the videos, no point asking me. I am not a professor so my personal opinion does not count.

However this people are:


Professor Pitman is co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW and a lead author on the UN's Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr McAdam is the Director of International Law Programs in UNSW's Faculty of Law and Project Director for the Climate Change "Refugees! and International Law project at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law.

Anna Samson is the National Policy Director of the Refugee Council of Australia, a non-profit organisation dedicated to the support of refugees in Australia.

Wow, this is priceless! ... and you think that this three people who's livelihood is based on making more and more shrill claims to climate change are credible because?
What do you expect them to say?
They HAVE to say something much more somber than last year and something catastrophic or who is going to listen to them?

I will start a rumor of a Marcian invasion.
Next I go to the media and plant a few witness.
Later I will appoint myself head of the research for extraterrestrial research.
After a few sensational headlines that help selling newspaper and ads, media will see the dollar sign behind my rumor and back me up.
I am now the head of the Marcian invasion research institute and was given the Nobel peace Price since my rumor stopped a few wars on the pretense that we now have a bigger common threat...ALIENS!! Peace man...

I will give a speech next Tuesday at the Bankstown Sports Club.
Entry is $500.
Clapping is compulsory.
Formal business attire.
Believers only.
:rolleyes:

RODEONICK
21st May 2008, 11:07 PM
I will give a speech next Tuesday at the Bankstown Sports Club.
Entry is $500.
Clapping is compulsory.
Formal business attire.
Believers only.
:rolleyes:


he he thats so the truth of it. nice one:D

TroyH
21st May 2008, 11:17 PM
Marc1 - I thought you would have jumped at the opportunity to confront these frauds and expose their hidden agenda in public.

I'd love to be there to watch you present your facts and findings to these so called "expert scientists" who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Climatology...lol pseudo-science at best...

Internet searches, propaganda and conspiracy theory - now that's REAL science.

Marc1
22nd May 2008, 07:33 PM
Yes Troy, I understand your point and you would be right if it wasn't for a detail. When it comes to science, and in particular the number of different areas involved in the subject, you and me are on the same level. We are both complete ignorants ( meaning we ignore or don't know) what is needed to actually have any authority of sort on the subject.

So you and me search for answers in what others have found and relay on our own array of values, instinct, expected results and other assorted things to choose the responses we like from the person or persons of choice.

You have chosen your team of trusted individuals.
I have obviously chosen a different team.

What we are doing here is not debating science but exposing to one another our own sources.

I have done so and you guys have also done the same. No problems there, both camps are rather well defined.
It's like Catholics and Protestants.
There is no credibility in trying to detract from one source because it sounds conspiratorial or because it is on the internet. Al Gore is also on the internet on You Tube. It is not that fact that makes him less or more credible. That is completely irrelevant.

The only thing that is left to show is the why. Meaning why does one person choose one source over another.
Some people are convinced by official sources. If the authorities say something, means it is true.
Others are taken in by high exposure by media. If the media stomps on a subject enough, it is adopted as gospel.
Some have a personal knowledge of the subject,and try to find logic using their limited understanding, in the exposition of the argument.
Others again, research the qualifications of those presenting the case, and think that the more letters attached to the qualifications, more credible the argument.
Some choose to try to understand the motivations and the history of the argument in question, meaning, How did this start? Who benefits from it? Who is getting paid to say what? Who's power is increased? Who's power is affected? Who's career depends from this being true? Who's career is at risk by exposing a counterargument? Etc... the list of questions is long, the list of motivations to choose is also as long as our own array of values.

Is this different from our choice of party when we vote? Our choice of candidate? Our religious beliefs? Probably not much different.
There are equally inflammatory debates on the existence of God, and the inerrance of scriptures, with all participants having not a iota of proof to offer for any of their most deep and treasured beliefs.

So invoking conspiracy or Google as disproof is meaningless, and our own beliefs can only be tested by our reality when exposed to the passing of time.
The rest is just words blown in the wind.

Maelinar
23rd May 2008, 12:26 PM
Marc1, I think there will be a time when you will reflect on what you have said here, and regret your stance.

Just a personal opinion.

Now lets simply bring this down to FACTS.

We know that it has been scientifically proven that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now, due to combustion pollutants such as the operation of vehicles.

That's it.

It has been supposed, that this increase has had an affect on the atmosphere. Some agree, some disagree.

That's another fact.

Without posting any more articles that I'm not going to read, can you put it in your own words what you are trying to say ?

Marc1
23rd May 2008, 05:21 PM
We know that it has been scientifically proven that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now, due to combustion pollutants such as the operation of vehicles.
It has been supposed, that this increase has had an affect on the atmosphere. Some agree, some disagree.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.





file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/USER1%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpghttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.


Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)


Marc1, I think there will be a time when you will reflect on what you have said here, and regret your stance.


Sorry missed that one...what "stance"?

Captain Echidna
23rd May 2008, 10:19 PM
Why this thread will never end.
At the end of the day this thread will never end, for the same reasons that cigarette companies were able for decades to say smoking does not cause cancer. There is never going to be an expirement that proves the argument either way.

Of course anyone with an IQ above 12 will realise the evidence that people who smoke die on average 10 years before non smokers, typically of cancer and/ or lung complaints points to that fact cigarettes cause cancer. But its easy enough for tobacco compaines to argue that there has never been an expirement where 2 groups of randomly selected people have been divided into a non smokers and smokers. They could argue people with a disposition to getting lung cancer enjoy smoking more than people without a disposition to lung cancer which explans the higher cancer rate. Typically people who smoke are in lower socioecconomic groups, so drive older cars, live in worse areas, and they could blame their cancers on that. You name it they will question it.

Of course with the man made global warming there will never be another earth that we can run a parallel test on. The oil companies (or their scientists) will say its false, others will say its true. Both groups will question the others motives, science, data collection, ommited data etc. Even in 100 years time, people will be able to debate what has happened and what caused it. The oil compaines will be able to say they wernt to blame (anyone seen a successful lawsuit against a tobacco company?) and people on this thread will still be arguing over the effects biofuel had on the outcome of the expirement.

CHEVY
23rd May 2008, 11:34 PM
Captain Echidna, are you implying that anybody who questions the global warming claims are supporters of the cigarete industry?

pangit
24th May 2008, 08:40 PM
Wow if this thread is still going in 100 years time that will surely be a record! :eek:

CHEVY
25th May 2008, 12:04 AM
Scratch the surface and you find a coal or oil company executive or employee or union boss and half the time a rabid right wing catholic who sees global warming as an affront to his faith as defined by the late John Paul


The more I read, the more this atheist fence sitter becomes disilusioned with the so called global warming claims.

Probably the most environmentaly radical thing I have done in my life, is a permaculture course.

In this thread it would appear that anyone who questions this new-age religion of 'global warming' gets associated with all the current bad guys, or anti christs, of the modern world.

Next there will be an implyed association with Ossama Bin Laden. :eek:

Captain Echidna
25th May 2008, 12:08 AM
Captain Echidna, are you implying that anybody who questions the global warming claims are supporters of the cigarete industry?

No just that you can use the same logic for either argument. We have not got another "earth" to do a control on (burn fossil fuel on one earth and not on the other, and see what differences there are) so without a valid scientific expirement, we are not able to say for sure. Same as no random selected group to test if smoking causes cancer. Are we sure its not a case of people who will get cancer enjoy smoking more due to the way their lungs are?:rolleyes:

I could argue that wearing jumpers cause the weather to be colder. I have observed that the more people wear jumpers, the colder the day. and the less people wear jumpers the warmer the day. Without a control though and a random selected group of days to try it on, who can know for sure?

Anyway if you want to knw what will be happening in 2050, Marc1 will be making one of the following posts.

1 Chris you should have sold your house while it was a 5 minute car ride to the coast, not a 5 minute boat ride. Anyway we dont have any fossil fuel left, so have you considered commuting by sailing boat? Anyway it was a natural cycle, so even if we didnt burn the fossil fuel it would have happened anyway?

2 Have you considered putting your house on stilts to get it above the waves? If we removed the carbon tax you could commute by motorboat? Thanks for your appology that you were wrong. Made the last 40 years of arguing all worthwhile.

3 We did stop using fossil fuel and the temperature stopped rising. The carbon tax introduction coincided with the natural temperature peak, the two are not linked. Its a bit like saying snow causes cold weather. How do we know cold weather does not cause snow?

4 Well lucky we didnt put on a carbon tax or we would have not been able to use fossil fuel for the last 40 years. Of course we dont have any left, so I guess we now have to look for an alternative now rather than then. Pity we didnt start sooner, it may have been an easier transition.

algaeoil
25th May 2008, 02:10 AM
i reckon without all the concern about human induced gloabal warming people would keep going on with little guilt and on top of that there would not be such a big momentum to find alternative sources of energy. even now it may be enough. i mean ive looked around a bit at whats available currently and it seems to me that really easy energy was found per litre of oil/fuel compared to what else is around. or should i say what we are looking at.

now oceans could rise, as they may, but they may now rise faster than otherwise. thats one possible problem but the problem of running out of oil is there regardless of whether humans are to blame on rising temps.
the stuff we are using now will become so expensive that it will surely change the way we live our lives. if it begins to run comparitively dry of demand, which will only be a matter of time and we havent got something else in place, or we havent had years and years of time at slowly escalating prices to become accustomed to it we are gonna be in for some really big trouble. if theres enough oil to slowly rise prices even to ridiculously high prices we could handle it.
now imagine if it jumped to three bucks a litre in one years time and stayed there..for six months and went to 5 bucks..

would we even be eating fried chips?
has anyone here heard anything about those water powered cars? like stan myers dune buggy..id heard joe beilke peterson had some guy commisioned to develop one in QLD and it worked and all but the big companies bought him out.
also i saw footage once of some guy in NZ that made one to run a motorbike. also there was teslas electric car. one day someone might sort through all his work and put something into work.

algaeoil
25th May 2008, 05:21 PM
ohh out comes all the oil companies payed disinformation messangers. haha.

so you dont believe it possible to break water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules without large sums of power.. whats your take on those that think they can or those that say they do. are they just in it for media attention?

stan myers dune buggy was essentially an electical transformer that ran out high frequncies around 20,000 HZ. it was pulsed but had very low amps. the unit that sat in the water was as simple as. your saying that it never worked and these guys that write the rule books arent wrong?

i do know that vast technologies are ahead of mankind if he can stay alive long enough.

what about the water hammer that runs off an electric motor and turns the water into boiling water at about 100 percent efficiency? not true either?


ummm what else, yes the magnet generator?

ive seen footage of that thing twice now and i know in theory how it works.
its round plates with magnets set so that wehn they spin around a main spline that they push and repel and they are set in such a way/distance that they always are spinning into position to push repel and the main spline spins off that and that runs to a standard generator system. once its moving it runs freely, some power can go back to trigger the magents switching.

essentially the magnet wheels spin and drive a spline that drives a turbine.

ok and how about telsas sending power out without wires. that was done for sure. by atleast two inventors.

i imagine we waster about 10 percent or more of our energy by using wires and carrying fuel weight on board and innefiiencies.

we will see a few of these things come out in the next ten years. under the situation that the population is now more aware these things will not stay under forever. theres just too many people in various fields working on stuff like this.

everyone go check you tube free energy and suspect it out for yourselves. gsmiley, if your into science tell me have you ever tried to replicate the joe cell/stan myer water power? it aint much of a bother to try that. im not so sure if those that say it dont work have ever tried it out to prove it worng or just say its wrong becasue it doesnt fit the knowledge they have been taught. one day im gonna try it myself. it doesn not doubt me one bit that the oil companies pay large amounts of money to keep oil as the premier energy source.

Marc1
25th May 2008, 08:35 PM
Yes, interesting post, all of them.

Even a superficial observer can see how this post appeal to emotions, or make value judgments, yet no one has responded to my core point.

The whole of the "man made" global warming debate is centered around one single solitary factor.
Global warming due to greenhouse effect.

Now since greenhouse effect is a perfectly natural phenomenon part of how climate develops, there would be nothing to ponder unless humans had a responsibility in increasing it beyond what is desirable.

So the allegation goes that by burning fuel we produce CO2 that contributes to the always present and perfectly natural phenomenon of greenhouse, allegedly with catastrophic consequences.

Well if the above is true, we should certainly be concerned.

And if you look at this graph you would be very alarmed in deed.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image267.gif

WOW !! CO2 is clearly the villain. You are correct, I am wrong.

However, the authors of the above graph derived from a table published by the US department of energy, outlining all the greenhouse gases have forgotten the most important one.

Water.

Below is the same graph yet incorporating water, in the all important and natural function of greenhouse. Let's it be clear that without the greenhouse effect we would be in real trouble, with a climate more like the moon.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif


In green, is the proportion that concerns us. The part that is caused by human activity. I confess that my culinary endeavors particularly Irish Stews, must have a lot do do with that 0.001% of anthropogenic HO2

CO2 rates at 0.117%

Now in that 0.117% of anthropogenic CO2, is included the one produced via natural sources associated to humans, so in order to reduce that to zero and so in fact reduce by 0,117% the greenhouse effect we should remove ourselves from the planet altogether.

However I will be generous and disregard such small detail and assume all of the 0.177% comes from my own personal 4wd....and well yours too.

Do you really believe that if the global warming agitators would produce the real data, anyone would listen?
Would a political campaign with photo opportunities showing the electricity plant smoke stacks and Peter Garret's face be of any value if the promise is to spend billions in order to reduce by 30% CO2 emissions, and so reduce greenhouse gases by 0.177 x 30 / 100 = 0.0531 % in 10 years or perhaps 20 ???????

Question: Billions can be counted by accountants. Can any scientist presume to be able to measure this changes and venture the effect this minuscule insignificant change will make to climate and average temperatures?

ANSWER : NO

Wake up guys, you have been conned.
Read all about it here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Even dial up service would be able to download this article.

TroyH
25th May 2008, 09:39 PM
ohh out comes all the oil companies payed disinformation messangers. haha.

so you dont believe it possible to break water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules without large sums of power.. whats your take on those that think they can or those that say they do. are they just in it for media attention?

stan myers dune buggy was essentially an electical transformer that ran out high frequncies around 20,000 HZ. it was pulsed but had very low amps. the unit that sat in the water was as simple as. your saying that it never worked and these guys that write the rule books arent wrong?

i do know that vast technologies are ahead of mankind if he can stay alive long enough.

what about the water hammer that runs off an electric motor and turns the water into boiling water at about 100 percent efficiency? not true either?


ummm what else, yes the magnet generator?

ive seen footage of that thing twice now and i know in theory how it works.
its round plates with magnets set so that wehn they spin around a main spline that they push and repel and they are set in such a way/distance that they always are spinning into position to push repel and the main spline spins off that and that runs to a standard generator system. once its moving it runs freely, some power can go back to trigger the magents switching.

essentially the magnet wheels spin and drive a spline that drives a turbine.

ok and how about telsas sending power out without wires. that was done for sure. by atleast two inventors.

i imagine we waster about 10 percent or more of our energy by using wires and carrying fuel weight on board and innefiiencies.

we will see a few of these things come out in the next ten years. under the situation that the population is now more aware these things will not stay under forever. theres just too many people in various fields working on stuff like this.

everyone go check you tube free energy and suspect it out for yourselves. gsmiley, if your into science tell me have you ever tried to replicate the joe cell/stan myer water power? it aint much of a bother to try that. im not so sure if those that say it dont work have ever tried it out to prove it worng or just say its wrong becasue it doesnt fit the knowledge they have been taught. one day im gonna try it myself. it doesn not doubt me one bit that the oil companies pay large amounts of money to keep oil as the premier energy source.
Please don't open that can of worms. You show me someone talking about "Free energy" or something someone built in their back shed that runs at 100% efficiency and I'll show you a liar and a conman.

What gsmiley said is completely true. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The trick, is to see things we don't currently eat, and make lunch from them. ;)

Anyone trying to peddle a magic cure that claims that it's all a big conspiracy of the scientists and oil companies...well, they get rich off poor saps who buy into the lies and simply don't know any better.

There are plenty of people around who will take you for all you are worth. At least the stuff the oil companies charge an arm and a leg for, actually works...

Please don't take this as me being a spokesman for big oil. I'm not. I just hate people trying to use them, and "the scientists" as a way to peddle their bullshit.

CHEVY
25th May 2008, 10:42 PM
Marc1, I dont think much of some of your other claims, though your last post did cut to the chase.

As you seem to be attempting to do, I think all the other smoke and mirrors stuff needs to be excluded from the discussion.


The questions should be broken down to -

Does human inputed CO2 cause unnatural increases in global warming - yes/no?

Does human caused increased Methane levels cause unnatural increases in global warming - yes/no?

Does land clearing cause loss of water vapor leading to unnatural increases in global warming - yes/no?

Marc1
26th May 2008, 12:07 AM
Marc1, I dont think much of some of your other claims, though your last post did cut to the chase.

As you seem to be attempting to do, I think all the other smoke and mirrors stuff needs to be excluded from the discussion.


The questions should be broken down to -

Does human inputed CO2 cause unnatural increases in global warming - yes/no?

Does human caused increased Methane levels cause unnatural increases in global warming - yes/no?

Does land clearing cause loss of water vapor leading to unnatural increases in global warming - yes/no?

The answer to all your questions is clearly stated on previously posted graph. The area shaded green is from our own making.
The real question is what effect does that minuscule amount has on climate and in the so much tooted climate "change", a stupid expression as if a climate that does not change would be desirable...

The agitators want you to think our contribution is vast, and that reducing it even by 10% would be an achievement.
Anyone can check the figures posted, our contribution to greenhouse gases is so minuscule that eliminating it by 100% would make no difference.
Furthermore no one has yet been able to show the human footprint in climate. The emotional parallel people trace with Easter Island or the central America civilization, are just that, emotional cons, since those actions by humans when catastrophic at local level had no impact whatsoever on global climate.

At a time when all human efforts should be behind finding new non polluting sources of energy, and the drastic reduction of the currently relentless and unchecked pollution of our water air soil and food, enormous amounts of resources will be tied up in a con, and the real culprits, the big polluters and poisoners sit on the sidelines watching us bicker with a big grin. Al-Gore has succeeded, the world is all worked up behind a chimera and the real concerns are not addressed.

Just like the tobacco companies got away for so long, relying on image and TV ads, asbestos, lead, dioxins mercury keep on being pumped in our ecosystem free of charge, no questions asked. Why? Because we are so busy fighting Global Warming....after all if it is on TV it must be true.

Its enough to make you sick.

Captain Echidna
26th May 2008, 12:18 AM
Yeah nice link. I love the unfounded scare tactis ( Can you ..... Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.)

Ok imagine an almost frictionless see saw with steel rollers on it. It is perfectly balanced, and the steel rollers are statonary. Each side has a few hundred rollers on it.

Now remove one roller. There will be a slight shift on some rollers to what is now the heavier side. This will unbalance the see saw, and it all goes everywhere.

Of course a slight increase in temperature (CO2 related) will increase the amount of water vapour. This will increase the temperature, increasing water vapour. This will increase the temperature, increasing water vapour.
Yeah you get the idea.

Oh and is this guy funded from oil company?
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: S. Fred Singer (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1)

For someone to be credible on this they cant be funded from an oil company.

algaeoil
26th May 2008, 01:19 AM
marc, isnt it possible that while everyone is spending so much time on this "warming" that we will have a bigger focus on creating cleaner energy than otherwise.
atleast now we have much effort looking for alternatives. some driven by the mighty dollar and part of it being driven by pasion or the idea of cleaner/greener alternatives. not that im saying we will become very green in the next twenty years though..theres nothing i see to show that we arent still on a crash course overall. yet if one becomes disgruntled enough they can always bail from the rat race.

there is a lot of other real nasty pollution going on around the place..herbicides, pesticides, dioxins, heavy metals etc.. better not test mummas milk these days, let alone open your eyes and see what tricks various industry uses that can be of detriment.

while we are surely spending time and money on the co2 thing, we are freeaking out and having a mind shift toward considering the environment.
overall? your probably very right in that the co2 is overated and overfunded. when you see the illness around the place from poor nutrition and the effect of industrial or should i say mankind disease on the many life forms it actually makes me a bit queezy too.


troy, those guys arent asking me for any money. ive got ALL the parts in the workshop and old amplifiers to try the hydrogen cell already, i can say one thing for sure. it aint electrolysis. you know those little units that you stick in your engine bay and they piss out a tiny amount of hydrogen to try increase mileage? well these units pump it out. im not gonna call them all con creations until i see it not work in front of me when i build it. from the videos that ive seen of the bubbles put out from these capacitor plates i can say with good certainty that the set ups arent something faked. ive now seen the same basic experiment done by over four backyarders but ok, ill not mention it here again. i dont think any of you guys are in on some oil company conspiracy at all, only reacting to the 9/10 people that make bigger claims than what they really have.

Marc1
26th May 2008, 09:09 AM
marc, isnt it possible that while everyone is spending so much time on this "warming" that we will have a bigger focus on creating cleaner energy than otherwise.

Focus?
What focus? Are you kidding? Have you been offered an overnight natural gas charger for you natural gas converted car? No? Why not? We swim in natural gas and export it to China, yet pay 1.6 for petrol. Smart! Real focused!
By the way this gadget is not imaginary it was available in Sydney 20 years ago.
How many wind mill farms have been built? None? Ah yes I forgot it kills parrots...hum...they say it does not...Well parrots are a good excuse anyway.
Solar panels, we are FOCUSED on that one for sure right?
Wrong! we cant have those filthy rich people having free electricity.
Biodiesel, now there is something of interest! Remember the carbon cycle people are so aware of? Just pump that dreaded CO2 in ponds, produce bumper crops of algae and squeeze oil out of them at ten time the rate of canola or even jatroba. No? Why not? Well we can't take away the stigm afrom CO2 now can we. Remember CO2 is POISON, a POLLUTANT ( that is why the exhaust kills you right? well not really but hey, the argument sticks)
And it goes on and on

Thee has never been such a massive misinformation, deceit, and intentional manipulation at such massive scale like today on this topics.

And the so called "green" and environmentally concerned are the involuntary carriers of this disease.
It will be decades until the dust settles, and some of the truth comes out into the open. We will have lost 20 or 30 years stuck to fifties technology and oil dependency and perhaps decided in our so called wisdom to build dozens of polluting nuclear reactors.
Smart.
Focused YEAH!

TroyH
26th May 2008, 02:14 PM
troy, those guys arent asking me for any money. ive got ALL the parts in the workshop and old amplifiers to try the hydrogen cell already, i can say one thing for sure. it aint electrolysis. you know those little units that you stick in your engine bay and they piss out a tiny amount of hydrogen to try increase mileage? well these units pump it out. im not gonna call them all con creations until i see it not work in front of me when i build it. from the videos that ive seen of the bubbles put out from these capacitor plates i can say with good certainty that the set ups arent something faked. ive now seen the same basic experiment done by over four backyarders but ok, ill not mention it here again. i dont think any of you guys are in on some oil company conspiracy at all, only reacting to the 9/10 people that make bigger claims than what they really have.

The current is what changes the rate of gas flow, voltage changes the driving force. I can guarantee that it is electrolysis. There is a certain amount of energy that is released when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen. It is ALWAYS less than the amount of energy used to create the gas. Now, in the case of using it in a diesel engine, there seems to be another effect, where it reduces the amount of unburned fuel, so you may get a decrease in fuel consumption that would seem to be greater than the amount of extra fuel you add in the form of hydrogen. That said, it is still always going to be limited by the amount of fuel you put in, in the first place.

You can't get something for nothing. It is thermodynamically impossible.

I'm not sceptical that a setup like this can increase fuel efficiency of the vehicle, however anyone who claims "over unity" or 100% efficiency, or perpetual motion (ie powering the electrolysis from the alternator, and using no other fuel) is either:
a) lying
b) misreading their results or
c) in posession of the only device ever discovered by man to violate the laws of thermodynamics


I know which ones my money is on...

algaeoil
26th May 2008, 03:41 PM
id heard about three parrots died in an existing windfarm. big deal, my pop shot 3 birds with just one .22 shot.
dont they reckon exisiting power sources are bad?.. you gotta weigh up the pros and cons.. i actually heard the politicians in parliament on that parrot trip on the radio, i listened for an hour on that and it sounded a lot like politicians chatting about drug prohibition to me.
three dead birds/ stop the windfarms...keep the ones we have that kill more. we dont want to add more harms to the ones we already have..

are you gonna net the windmills or try net everything that moves?
your gonna waste everyones money if you try net everything that moves all because three parrots died.


i reckon your right that the nuclear plants are one the way regardless of what happens, which might be good cause if there are any humans left after we keep this up then maybe the last bunch of humans will stumble on to the grounds of an old reactor and it shall wipe them out better than a pyramid curse and leave this place to the non humans again. im only half joking.i am considering there may be benifits of a mass plague again..

why we would be willing to have nuclear weapons or nuclear power is beyond me. its not gonna be our generation paying for the decommisioning of those suckers. in that, whats the real price per kilowatt?

ive read a lot of stuff on the algae, listened to the ceos, watched all the vids.. and i do not believe that they will produce it cheap enough to be used as fuel. but they are trying. i doubt it will be canned for reasons other than they cant produce enough.

id hoped they would originally because it is a nice system but i have great doubts now that ive seen how much they actually get from what they are doing.

didnt we sign some opec papers year ago commiting us to purchase fuel while we have enough of our own...anyways what i meant was individual groups working on new energies and running with it. not so much the government. if the government was a private company they woulda been bankrupt ages ago. spending way exceeds what one gets out of it.


troy, ive checked out electrolysis and im well aware it can increase mileage , yet only slightly. electrolysis is too slow and too weak.
its not that i dont know my electrolysis.

this is electrolysis on steroids with the same amount of power going in for much more hydrogen coming out. there are a few guys out there with models that would **** on any other standard electrolysis set up and ive seen how the electrics go. there is no reactant in the water either.
so its not the same process at all. i give it to you that it could be a scam but my money aint on that. my money is on it that there are numerous people that have the system working now. maybe ill die hard.

it is the pulse and the high frequency low amps that splits the water.
ive read a shitload of teslas work and tesla found the same phenomena himself, the earth and water has certain frequencies and you can set up to match it or react against it. i certainly dont doubt him seeing as we use a large number of his inventions today, even our AC power was his idea. but i will get back to you once ive tested it and ill admit if im wrong then.

if anyone is interested and you want to check the differences out or try debunk this then check stan myers invention, watch the clip where he produces a heap of hydrogen in a clear tube. then check the guy on you tube that copied it. joe cell.
then check some other guy called ravi1 that has built a bigger model.
this arron cell guy has thrown up over 250 videos on his experiments.
surely not someone that is trying to fool anyone.
maybe start another thread so this one can go round longer.

if im wrong on this im wrong.
but ive spent that many hours researching all this that i want desperatley for it to be true!!
but to me these are the guys that arent just pranking about.

basic point is..if you build a tesla coil or another system that lowers the amps and raises the frequency. ie a tranny.
and pulse the power at that high frequency and low amps, a frequency that actually splits water (this is not large amounts of power because your altering freqeuncy and amps to suit) using plates as a capacitor in the water you will violently produce hydrogen which will produce much more power than you put in.
one things for sure, these guys are not using air stones and are not using the amount of power required by electrolysis to produce that much hydrogen producable by electrolysis. electrolysis heats up water a lot for the amount of hydrogen gained, this technique does not. its a rather complicated electrical system compared to electrolysis.

TroyH
26th May 2008, 06:45 PM
Stan Myers...*sigh*

It IS electrolysis. Perhaps just a sightly more efficiently designed cell. You cannot power a car on water alone, without electricity, you cannot make enough electricity from the cars engine alone, to produce the fuel. Why? Because the alternator will draw more power to make the fuel, than the car will output when burning it. See the problem?

Normal electrolysis setups use DC power, because it means you have oxygen produced at one electrode, and hydrogen at the other. If you use AC power, the only difference is that you will get a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at the electrode (hope you don't have any ignition sources close by). The frequency only affects how quickly the polarity of the electrodes changes.

A certain amount of gas will be produced, for a given number of electrons that are passed through the circuit. The number of electrons passed through at any given time, is directly proportional to...you guessed it, the current!
In order for the reaction to occur at all, you need a minimum potential (voltage).

The energy required to split the water to hydrogen, is equal to the amount of chemical energy in the gas, minus the chemical energy of the water PLUS a little bit more (due to entropy). The energy released when burning it, is less than that consumed when making it. Then you take into account that the energy output of the generator, is perhaps only 80% of the mechanical energy INPUT to the generator. Then you have the efficiency of the motor turning the generator, which if it is a car motor, is probably only 30% efficient...

So at each step, you lose some energy, and thus the overall efficiency is far less than 100%. (certainly not OVER 100%, like the over unity crackpots would have you believe)

I have no problems with you testing the device, but I assure you, that the results that you achieve, will be readily explained by current engineering and scientific understanding. However that is something for someone more educated in electrochemistry, thermodynamics and mechanics, than I am.


You say you know your electrolysis. Are any of your sources reliable scientific journals? Textbooks? Or is it all stuff from the net?

See if you can find a good explaination of the Carnot Engine, and the rankine cycle. They help illustrate the differences between an ideal and a real system in thermodynamic terms.

algaeoil
26th May 2008, 08:41 PM
you could be right that it is a better system of electrolysis, if so it seems to me it would be a slightly more efficient method of electronics than the cell itself. why these models dont use a reactant in the water is beyond me too. someone out there must know the differences.

i see the problem with needing more power than consumed allright, i have wondered why they dont use the hyrdrogen in the system to power itself and it may be that there is simply not enough energy produced to allow them to acheive that. like you say.

so if it turns out to be slightly better and the alternator charges your battery and then the spare current goes to waste as heat.. figure your spinning that belt whether your carlights are on or not..
then surely these systems would be better than those standard electrolysis units to give your car a boost.

why then arent they all around the place then im not sure.

i havent been able to see a science journal or textbook debunk this myth.
only people say that its just normal electrolysis.

TroyH
26th May 2008, 10:01 PM
You don't need an added reagent for electrolysis. The water is the reagent. The NaOH or whatever other salt that people put in the water, is really there as a source of ions, so that the water conducts electricity. Pure water does not conduct electricity (although with VERY high voltages you might be able to do it. I'm not 100% sure). The salt has to be chosen carefully, so that you don't get unwanted side reactions.

As for Stan Meyers HHO gas...do a search for HOHCELLS on this forum, and you'll see a rather lengthy discussion of HHO/HOH gas claims...


Build the setup anyway, and see if it improves your fuel economy. Just understand that it's not some magical device, and that the technology has been around for a long time (and it's uses the same electrochemical principles that are at work in a hydrogen fuel cell - just in reverse.).
And don't believe everything you read on the internet, or see on TV. :D

CHEVY
26th May 2008, 11:11 PM
...And back to the tread.


Billions wasted on UN climate programme
Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

more at -

Billions wasted on UN climate programme | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/26/climatechange.greenpolitics)

Captain Echidna
27th May 2008, 01:40 PM
...And back to the tread.


Billions wasted on UN climate programme
Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

more at -

Billions wasted on UN climate programme | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/26/climatechange.greenpolitics)

Umm actually that has nothing to do with the thread. The article is questioning the method and finances around the clean development fund, and has nothing to do with "man made global warming is fact or fiction"

using bold and 6 point font does not change the facts

CHEVY
27th May 2008, 03:36 PM
You are correct Captain Echidna, my previous post is not directly related to the thread. It is just interesting to see the huge volumes of money involved in the climate 'industry'. The bold and font was a direct copy from the reference article, I was just to lazy to change it.

As an example, people like Flannery have profited well from the climate industry hysteria that he helped promote. Now that more and more people are beginning to question the climate industry claims, it may explain Flannerys recent panic re the sulpher article. Its a shame, I have a few of Flannerys earlyier books which seemed fairly educational - I'll question all the info now :(

CHEVY
27th May 2008, 03:50 PM
Besides the retreating glaciers which you can see from the plane

gsmiley, wasnt most of north America covered in glaciers at one time ?

Here in Oz I did a tour boat trip up the Gordon river in Tasmania. I was dreamily admiring the huge old trees and impenatrable bush that seemed as though it had been there forever.... the tour guide comes over the pa and says, 10,000 years ago this was all ice :eek:

Marc1
28th May 2008, 05:56 PM
So considering the many learned colleagues posting here, can anyone tell me how reducing by 30% CO2 in 20 or 30 years when man made CO2 contributes 0.117% to the greenhouse effect will achieve anything at all?

Has anyone registered the CON achieved by not disclosing all the gases responsible for the very useful and very natural and essential for life Greenhouse effect?

1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

TABLE 1. The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb)
Concentration
Percent of Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. Gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.00%


2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:
( concentration )X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:
TABLE 2. Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2.

Contribution
Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369%
Methane (CH4) 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data_T2b.html) see data (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data_T2b.html) 1.432%
Total 100.000%
NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.







Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif



. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible). Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270a.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270c.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270d.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270e.gif
Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gascontributions
add up to about 0.28% of thegreenhouse effect.

Qwarla
28th May 2008, 06:58 PM
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270a.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270c.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270d.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270e.gif



Looking at the above graphs one would have to ask why the hell are they making such a fuss about a bit of CO2 when it is easy to see CFC's and other gasses are the bigger proportion followed by Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.

CHEVY
28th May 2008, 07:30 PM
..."the many learned colleagues posting here"... Marc1, this dumb farm boys feeling a little left out :)


Reading in another forum - another name for Nitrox oxide is laughing gas, the other name for CO2 is Hysteria gas :cool:

Alga
28th May 2008, 08:06 PM
Marc1, I find your graphs and whole post rather hard to understand, I'm not a scientist, bureaucrat nor academic, but do believe from my humble viewpoint it makes no sense at all. You state it's in parts per billion, yet within your entire post there are no figures given in PPB, just percentages. Plus I do believe atmospheric pollutants are in pars per million, not billion which would dramatically change any statistics.

I do believe science wants to restrict the amount of CO2 to less than 450 PPM because they believe that is the point where our climate will begin to undergo dramatic life threatening change, your post only states percentages and in PPB compared to all other information I have read, which is always displayed in PPM. Your post looks like it was put together by a politician, bureaucrat or academic as it makes no sense and is designed to give a false impression, by changing the concentration calculations to cover the reality.

Anyone who can't see our planet is in crisis, irrelevant as to the actual cause is an ideological idiot. The facts are the human race is destroying the life force of this planet and those too stupid to accept it and do decent things to turn it around, which in my mind is impossible until we rid the planet of huge cities and at least 60% of the human population. Then those sort of people deserve to be wiped out by nature as quickly as possible, to give the sane evolved of the planet, a change to save it from total destruction, atmospherically, biologically and environmentally.

Captain Echidna
28th May 2008, 09:57 PM
Why are we devoting thread to the discussion around the findings of a fossil fuel funded scientist? What would we expect to find from the graph made by someone funded from fossil fuel? I dont think they would find that global warming is a problem we should deal with are they?

A scientist who is funded from fossil fuel is hardly gong to say we should use less fossil fuel. Anyone who cant see that its not a reliable source is not smart. Its like asking your bank should you go further into debt, your doctor is regular heath checks a good idea, a real estate agent is it a good time to buy a house. The bias is obvious. A bit like a joke, "I heard the secret of happyness is a large bowl of sourcraut daily, Who told you that? A cabbage farmer!"

The nice pie charts leave obvious holes. So the majority of CO2 is "natural" Where would it go normally? into rainforests, which humans are destroying at a great rate. So even if it got there naturally, its staying there unnaturally.

This "science" does not hold up to simple scrutiny. When I see a post that does, I may change my mind. So far I have only seen evidence to fossil fuel companies are trying to push their own agenda.

Marc1
28th May 2008, 10:17 PM
Looking at the above graphs one would have to ask why the hell are they making such a fuss about a bit of CO2 when it is easy to see CFC's and other gasses are the bigger proportion followed by Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.
Well ... not really. When those gases are our responsibility in a higher proportion, you have to look it all into perspective.
Look at the bar graph in my previous post and you will see it all in relation to each other. CO2 is by far the highest from all greenhouse gases if you don't take water into account.
Once you see the whole picture you realize that CO2 just as the rest of the gases play a minuscule role. The proportion that can be attributed to human ctivity play an even smaller role and it makes no sense to devote any effort to "reduce" them, even is such would be possible at all.

Much better to devote money to alternative energy sources.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image253b.gif

Marc1
28th May 2008, 10:27 PM
Marc1, I find your graphs and whole post rather hard to understand, I'm not a scientist, bureaucrat nor academic, but do believe from my humble viewpoint it makes no sense at all. You state it's in parts per billion, yet within your entire post there are no figures given in PPB, just percentages. Plus I do believe atmospheric pollutants are in pars per million, not billion which would dramatically change any statistics.

Sorry Alga, but they are not "my" graphs. Taken from here
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers (http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

I tried to copy and paste the tables and they came up OK yet when submitted, they change format to a garble so I had to edit them by hand, so some of the info is lost.
See the original and the explanation. No need for any specialized education to understand it.

Marc1
28th May 2008, 10:28 PM
Take the GLobal Warming test !!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Marc1
28th May 2008, 11:21 PM
Lets consider a few very simple facts once more:

CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere.
CO2 contributes in 3.6% to the total of greenhouse effect (95% is due to water)
From that 3.6% only 0.117 is due to human activity

Can someone comment on the absurdity of attempting to reduce 0.117 by any percentage even 100% please?

CHEVY
28th May 2008, 11:52 PM
rainforests, which humans are destroying at a great rate

Captain Echidna, agreed there. We carnt blame the coal miners for that though.

CHEVY
29th May 2008, 07:56 AM
gsmiley, yes I have read about that (in Flannery - can I trust the info :D)
We would probably agree on many issues. My post re the Gordon river was more to mention that climate changes naturaly.

Whilst I am becoming more and more doubtful that human produced CO2 and methane have any impact on the global climate, I still wonder about the jungle/tree clearing impact.

pangit
29th May 2008, 12:57 PM
Marc please stop going on about water vapour. It is a red herring.

From The New Scientist Climate Myths (http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths) article from last year (which BTW debunks just about all your arguements):

So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.More here: Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652).

Marc1
29th May 2008, 05:58 PM
Water vapour and the greenhouse effect
Water vapour - A greenhouse gas (http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html)

Climatic effects of water vapour
The climatic effects of water vapour - physicsworld.com (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402)

Wikipedia
Role of water vapor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.png/350px-BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002 .png) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002 .png)
Increasing water vapor at Boulder, Colorado.


Water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor) is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-19) Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. Humans do not have a significant direct impact on water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
Greenhouse Effect - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504/greenhouse_effect.html)

Water vapor in the climate system
AGU Web Site: Water Vapor in the Climate System. A Special Report. (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html)

The real "inconvenient truth"
JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)

Marc1
29th May 2008, 06:05 PM
Marc please stop going on about water vapour. It is a red herring.
More here: Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652).


Red herring right?

From your own source:

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.

The global warming CON is very strong and has thousands of supporters who are ready to massage the truth in order to keep their cushy jobs, large grants, generous funding and chauffeured limousine (fueled by biodiesel of course) Of course they will do anything in theri power to discredit the ever growing dissenting voices.

However this voices will soon become a roar. Time will tell.

Captain Echidna
29th May 2008, 07:37 PM
"Water vapor amplifies the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse warming through a positive feedback. This amplification is counteracted by the increased reflection off clouds. How these two factors combine in the real atmosphere still remains an open question."

In other words man made global warming through CO2 release makes a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere, (although it will increase cloud cover, and the effect of water vapour creating more clouds, thereby cooling the earth, and this is not understood.)

So as we increase the temperature of the earth through CO2 this will increase water vapour, if its relevant. So if water vapour is not relevant, the CO2 makes a larger part of the global warming. If water vapour is relevant, the its made worse through CO2 emmisions.

There is a con taking place. "There is credible evidence to show that man made global warming is anything but true" seems to be the con

Either way you have further shown the "its fiction" not to have any substantial evidence to prove it.

CHEVY
29th May 2008, 10:24 PM
Hmmm.... How can I understand all this high falutin science talk ?


I was passing thru Birdsville one time and the tempurature was around 42c, didnt feel all that hot to me (I do a lot of out side work, probably used to it) .... I continued my journy on to Darwin..... 32c , Hell it was hot :eek:

Why does 42c in Birdsville feel cooler then 32c in Darwin ??? :confused:

Janiebabes
29th May 2008, 10:59 PM
"Once upon a time the wold stood still and all the stars, sun and moon moved around the earth. ALL the scientists swore it was so and had all the proof as well."

What evidence did they base this on?

Science in those days was not science as it is today. Science then was conflated with religion and philosophy. Along came the enlightenment and the scientific method was adopted enthusiastically.

"Science" in those days was fragmented and knowledge was not shared on the same global basis it is today, with infinitely better understanding of modelling, data, and the aid of computer power.

I just don't know how anyone could talk about "scientific" consensus of Galileo's time and scientific consensus of today as if they are even remotely qualitatively comparable.

CHEVY
29th May 2008, 11:38 PM
Speaking about pseudo religious symbalism....

Giant kangaroo image gives clues on climate

Giant kangaroo image gives clues on climate | World | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKSYD4016820080520)

Marc1
30th May 2008, 02:37 PM
In other words man made global warming through CO2 release makes a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere, (although it will increase cloud cover, and the effect of water vapour creating more clouds, thereby cooling the earth, and this is not understood.)

So as we increase the temperature of the earth through CO2 this will increase water vapour, if its relevant. So if water vapour is not relevant, the CO2 makes a larger part of the global warming. If water vapour is relevant, the its made worse through CO2 emmisions.


Nice logic.
The part I like the most is when you say you don't understand it.

The above is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Your logic would only work if it could be proven that increases in CO2 actually is the CAUSE of global warming.
If, as I and many thousands more believe it is the CONSEQUENCE of global warming due to solar activity, the whole thing makes no sense.

There is a lot of study done on the phenomenon of emotional decision making based on loyalty to preconceived notions, but it is mostly in relation to our economic activities.

I like however what Tomas Huxley has to say on the subject of learning...


“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing”

http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as2.gif Thomas Henry Huxley (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/thomas_henry_huxley/) (English (http://thinkexist.com/nationality/english_authors/) Biologist (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_biologists/), He was an advocate of Darwin's natural selection theory and named the phylum Coelenterata (Jellyfish). 1825 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/may_4/)-1895)

Cameron
30th May 2008, 08:41 PM
Welcome to the forum Janiebabes.

If you are looking for a topical debate based on logic and science and fact then this thread may not be the best place to visit. It is kind of like a pit dunny that you make the mistake of peeking into before you realise (and wish) that someone had capped it off before you stumbled into it.

The quality information is elsewhere.

Hopefully new people visiting this thread don't and won't judge the forum as a whole on the detritus that keeps showing up here.

Anything of value from this thread to this forum came and went within about a dozen posts of it starting.

As far as a debate goes we aren't getting anywhere.

In a debate you have a few turns each and then the strength of your case either stands or it falls over.

The people that have advocated for Human Induced Global Warming being FACT have said everything that needs to be said. The real science has been done and the scientific jury came back long ago. There isn't any point in us reiterating it again and again - you either accept it or you don't.

Marc1 are there any last concluding arguments on the FICTIONAL side that you want to put? Do you have anything fresh that you would like to add or are you done?




"Once upon a time the wold stood still and all the stars, sun and moon moved around the earth. ALL the scientists swore it was so and had all the proof as well."

What evidence did they base this on?

Science in those days was not science as it is today. Science then was conflated with religion and philosophy. Along came the enlightenment and the scientific method was adopted enthusiastically.

"Science" in those days was fragmented and knowledge was not shared on the same global basis it is today, with infinitely better understanding of modelling, data, and the aid of computer power.

I just don't know how anyone could talk about "scientific" consensus of Galileo's time and scientific consensus of today as if they are even remotely qualitatively comparable.

Captain Echidna
30th May 2008, 09:38 PM
Nice logic.
The part I like the most is when you say you don't understand it.


That quote was from the website you posted. Are you actually reading whats posted or even reading what you are puting links to, or just dribbling more crap?

I think if marc1 cant present any credible, new information its time to this thread to close. There is no debate, just crap being spouted which is not even read by the main poster.

CHEVY
31st May 2008, 02:28 AM
I think if marc1 cant present any credible, new information its time to this thread to close

Captain Echidna, and what about me, and the other posters in this thread ?

From the little research Ive done on the climate change issue, I find major questions being asked about the global warming claims. This issue is far from being decided one way or the other.

I would of thought that the still undecided 'climate change' debate was of major importance to the Biofuels forum. Close down the climate debate and this forum will loose one heck of a lot of credibilitie.

Captain Echidna
31st May 2008, 11:08 AM
Captain Echidna, and what about me, and the other posters in this thread ?

From the little research Ive done on the climate change issue, I find major questions being asked about the global warming claims. This issue is far from being decided one way or the other.

I would of thought that the still undecided 'climate change' debate was of major importance to the Biofuels forum. Close down the climate debate and this forum will loose one heck of a lot of credibilitie.

First of all call it global warming. The phrase "climate change" was made by people wanting to make it sound nicer.

Look, there are a pile of oil companies who have realised their profits are at stake, and they need some scientists who will need to say "man made global warming is untrue" They cant argue global warming is not happening (although they try), the facts are overwhelming, so its the best they can do is say its happening, but its not us. They then have funded "scientific" groups using retired scientists, ecconomists, people who sue when somone says they are not really a climate scientist (researching authors have found these) whoever they can get to say its not worth it. They post their information on the net.

Somone who thought they should probably use biofuel finds this information, and uses it as an excuse why he doesnt need to, as there is no evironmental damage caused by fossil fuel (acording to the oil funded scientists) He then proceeds to cut and paste the information into the forum. (mind you if spammers find it profitable spam forums would oil companies do the same to pollute the parts of the net where people say there is an easy alternative to fossil fuel?)

If you can find one quote or scientific study made by Marc that says global warming is NOT man made, and you cant find a webpage that links the author to a fossil fuel company, I am interested.
So far not one of his posts do that. They generally gave a link to big oil, or they dont say man made global warming is untrue, its th funding that isnt working etc.

Chevy, dont fall for Marc's trick of saying anyone who believes MMGW is true is only following it in a "religious" fashion while the "scientific facts" are made by the opponents. The opposite is close to the truth.

The science is done. There are oil funded scientist trying to say its not, but its done. Cameron is right on the money. As I have said before, if Marc can come up with anything that meets the criteria, I am all for it. Unfortunaltly he has not so far, and I am going to go and convert a diesel to NEVER use fossil fuel, as all this "debate" has done is prove in my mind, there is no logical argument that man made global warming is anything but fact.

Perhaps this should be like a debate to prevent it going forever. Marc should be given an oppoutinity to make a post, and two more rebut the holes people show in the agrument, instead of comming up with more crap, which is what he seems to do.

CHEVY
31st May 2008, 11:46 AM
Captain Echidna, we are all 'investers' in the oil/coal industry. Have a look at the computer in front of you, the plastic parts are derived from oil. Look at the plastic parts in your car, look at the bitumen road you drive on, etc, etc.... Remove the oil/coal derived goods and services from your life and you wont have much left.

(and no, I do NOT have any shareholding, job, or research tenure with any coal or oil company - I do have a small interest in Biofuel co.)

I've just run out of time, so will get back to this later...