The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Carbon tax’ rests on scientific theory corrupted by public money > Comments

‘Carbon tax’ rests on scientific theory corrupted by public money : Comments

By Alex Stuart, published 11/3/2011

With all the environmental issues in the world, is CO2 really number one?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Rebating everyone, i do not think so.
Those that use excessive power, those that over indulge in life style products, Fuel hungry cars, They are polluters. You always see the extreme side of things with out any model to comment on.
Posted by a597, Friday, 11 March 2011 3:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy, it is hard to believe you are serious, but here is a site with 850 peer reviewed papers :

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

It is not a matter of the Realists proving anything. The assertions are being made by the AGW backers without any science to back them. The IPCC, shown to be less than truthful, as well as lacking any scientific integrity, makes a claim that it is “very likely”, a most unscientific term.

This may explain why 31,000 scientists have petitioned the US Senate to take no action on AGW until some scientific basis is established.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

You should understand that your approach makes you quite suspect. Why are you not enquiring the basis of the assertion of AGW? You would soon find that there is none. I have requested it many times on On Line Opinion,from AGW supporters. They never answer, because there is no answer. They just go away, and post on some site like Delta where there nonsense is unchallenged.

The alleged ill effects of global warming are non existent. There has been no warming of the globe since 1998, despite the increase in the beneficial gas carbon dioxide during that time. This puts the greenhouse gas assertions in substantial doubt.

Still flogging the spurious Skeptical Science site, bonmot?

Can you not find a fresh AGW fraud backing site. You still have provided no science to back the assertion of AGW. If there was any such science, the mendacious IPCC would tell us all about it, instead of pushing their spurious "very likely".

They promised discovery of a "hot spot" in the troposphere, to back their claim when they made it, years ago. The discovery made is that the "hot spot" does not exist. Their estimates on which they posited the hot spot, were greatly exaggerated (or lies).
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 11 March 2011 3:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Curmudgeon, but what I meant was an article supporting denial that CO2 causes (has caused, will cause) global warming.

The article you cite seems merely to show that there are other factors causing climate variability.

Thank you also for a link to 850 papers, but for me to go through a list, compiled by a person who thinks that more snow is inconsistent with global warming, is something I don't have time for. I'm still interested to be pointed to one of those papers which does support denial of the theory that CO2 causes global warming.
Posted by jeremy, Friday, 11 March 2011 4:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, you may not wish to read this

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up5-the-science-of-climate-change.pdf

but others may.

Btw, the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling - it seems you have been shown this a number of times.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 11 March 2011 4:10:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot - good to see that you understand there is natural variability. We're getting somewhere. Now you can grapple with the concept of trying to tell the difference between natural and forced variability. The only method of proof is through computer models which depend on assumptions, hence all the scepticism. Will read the book, however.

Jeremy - I didn't undestand your comment about snow. Am I suppose to have made a comment about snow? Those papers, which you asked for but don't want to read, add up to a contradiction of global warming theory.

A point I forgot in my earlier post, however, is that the amount of warming directly caused by CO2 is well known and beyond dispute. but its only about one degree for a doubling of CO2 (long story). The real question is over how much indirect warming it causes through change in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. That's an assumption. There's no direct proof of this, of which I'm aware, and hence no contradiction.

What you may be thinking of is that every now and then someone produces a paper pointing out that if they feed CO2 increases into computer models of historical temperature records or rainfall of certain regions, they can make the models give a result somewhere near the historic record. I'm not aware of anyone trying to contradict those papers, and I'm not sure why anyone would bother. But if you want to take comfort from that "proving" CO2 influences climate go ahead.

There have also been arguments over related issues such as whether CO2 cause historic shifts in temperatures such as the end of ice age. There the answer is an unequivocal no. I can cite papers on that too, if you want.

However, the real problem has been the lack of actual results with temperatures on a plateau for whatever reason for a decade and more.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 11 March 2011 5:09:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear jeremy, thanks for your challenge. I’ll take it up as “a true denier” please, not that I know what one of those is, but more on that later.

What you requested was “just give me one scientific paper, which is either published in a reputable journal,” Then you say “aren't the "true deniers" also mostly people with very limited knowledge of the science? (ie like 99% of the population).”

Since I have, as you rightly say, “limited knowledge of the science”, how might I ask, am I supposed to provide you with what you ask if I don’t understand it? After all, I only have “questions”.

It would be much better to ask someone who really understands it, like Garnaut, Flannery, Karoly, Gillard and Combet. However, since I don’t understand the science I need to get someone who does understand to ask the questions for me. I nominate Professor Bob Carter who has recently written to Professor David Karoly Copied to:

University of Melbourne Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor.
Professor Andy Pitman, computer modeller and UN IPCC Lead Author
Professors Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Tim Flannery
Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO Chief Executive
Dr Andrew Johnson, CSIRO Group Executive—Environment
All members of federal parliament
Various scientists
Chairman of the ABC Board
ABC's Managing Director
ABC's Chris Uhlmann.

Since Bob Carter has asked all the questions I would like answered, I am very much looking forward to answers. If on the other hand, you understand the science, perhaps you could answer these questions for OLO’ers, and then we don’t have to wait for Professor Karoly to provide them?

A denier is someone who refuses to accept an “empirical truth” and instead adopts an “irrational ideology”. When you can answer the questions about what “empirical truth” we are denying (as per Bob Carters Questions) and also explain what the irrational ideology being adopted is by asking such questions, then I would accept the “tag” of denier. Not sure what a “true denier” is though?

The empirical truth please? Answers to Bob Carters questions of David Karoly will do fine, thank you.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 11 March 2011 6:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy