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 > The Carbon-Civilization Combustion Complex > Comments

The Carbon-Civilization Combustion Complex : Comments

By Evaggelos Vallianatos, published 16/4/2015

A recent book, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway shines light on this perplexing question.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
So while working for the EPA this author wrote an article denouncing oil companies - using terms like "evil" and "greed" - and was surprised at the reaction? Public servants aren't meant to do such things. If you want to go rabid-extreme that's up to you, but public bodies like the US EPA are meant to be neutral, build trust with oil companies so that they respect its rulings and so on. It can't afford to have employees making overtly public, extreme stands. Quit first and then say what you like.

But if this guy is quoting known like "its all a conspiracy" Oreskes and Conway, then he is already too far gone to be of any real interest.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 April 2015 10:32:41 AM
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
Only the Loony Left keep propagating these extremist visions of death and destruction due to evil humanity. They have zero credibility except with the Left wing media and academia. Is it any wonder these groups have lost so much credibility?
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 16 April 2015 1:38:03 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
Did you get a chance to meet Ron Hubbard, Evaggelos?

You and him could be great friends - and/or business partners.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 16 April 2015 1:44:11 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
Come on Evaggelos, cheer up. Things could be worse, a lot worse. You could have lived back in, say, 1750, starving, surrounded by disease, sewage, rich nobles and poor serfs (though you would hardly ever get to see one of the former). On the bright side, you would be looking forward to a brutal but mercifully short life. But I'm sure your history is better than mine. Where I can outdo you is technology. Solar power simply won't cut the mustard for the kind lifestyle I am guessing you envisage for yourself, friends and family - like lots of books and publishers, a fast internet service and cell phone for your research, a bit of foreign travel to broaden your horizons or attend your forum of Greek professors, and maybe an occasional vacation to Hawaii; not to mention adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, health ….there’s no end to the fossil-fuelled luxuries you presently enjoy. Sorry there'll be none of that if you depend on sunshine. Perhaps you could take on a simple project: build a solar power station using nothing but solar energy. You can send progress reports to Online Opinion. By the way, I fully acknowledge the current state of climate science and its projections of a two degree or so rise in global temperature by 2100. I just don't accept your remedy.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 16 April 2015 2:12:36 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
What we have here is a fruitcake, one step away from becoming the next unibomber.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 16 April 2015 8:21:21 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
“Science tells us that burning petroleum, methane and coal is dangerous because the resulting gases heat the Earth. “

The author shows his science illiteracy. The above is an hypothesis. There is no empirical scientific evidence that substantiates the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 17 April 2015 12:14:30 AM
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
Depends how one defines 'empirical evidence'!!
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Friday, 17 April 2015 12:49:55 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
We should thank Evaggelos for his reminder that support for the climate fraud remains active. He also illustrates clearly the basis of this support.

Support for the fraud can only arise from ignorance or dishonesty.

When he issued his baseless tirade against fossil fuel companies, he may have been based in ignorance. He says he was reprimanded by the EPA, but remained in their employment. When a government body, like the EPA, a supporter of climate fraud, pulled him up, he should have reconsidered.

There is no science to show any measurable effect on climate by human activity. This is because the effect is trivial, and is not scientifically noticed because it is not measurable.
He found support for the climate fraud in Oreskes. From her first entry into the climate debate, she has been characterised by dishonesty, initially in her false assertion of a consensus on climate change.

Benny Peiser, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation wrote to Science Magazine, which had published Oreskes flawed research, pointing out the flaws, and concluding:
“Science Magazine should withdraw Oreskes’ study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2005/05/04/dr-benny-peisers-letter-to-science-magazine-and-the-story-of-its-rejection/#sthash.lCDRGhfg.dpuf
Scientist Fred Singer, with whom Oreskes declined to debate the science commented:
“Her understanding of the Greenhouse Effect is plain comical; she posits that CO2 is “trapped” in the troposphere — and that’s why the stratosphere is cooling. Equally wrong is her understanding of what climate models are capable of; she actually believes that they can predict forest fires in Russia, floods in Pakistan and China — nothing but calamities everywhere — and tells climate scientists in a recent lecture: If the predictions of climate models have come true, then why don’t people believe them [see this]?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/oreskes-clumsy-venomous-smear-campaign-busted/
Oreskes or her accomplices published a false assertion on Wikipedia that Peiser had acknowledged that he was mistaken
So Vaggelos has the support of a liar, who has written an unscientific work of science fiction, to back his position.
Thanks for clarifying the basis of your support for the fraud, Evaggelos.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 19 April 2015 3:29:05 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
collapse of Western civilisation has everything to do with the hatred of Christian values and the natural family. Those blind enough not to see it need to adopt pseudo science (gw religion) to manifest their 'moral outrage'. The last thing we need to be concerned about is pseudo science that is often fiddled with to fit a warped and foolish narrative. Certainly stops any real moral self inspection.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 19 April 2015 4:23:24 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
Wow!

You have to be pretty far out there in the ratbag orbit, to be too radical for the radical ratbag US EPA.

Even the most stupid ratbags in Oz don't get up to EPA standards.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 19 April 2015 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
In regard to the baseless assertion that global warming is human caused, scientist Tim Ball has already contributed an article to OLO, dealing with the dishonesty of James Hansen, an avid promoter of climate fraud. He said:
“Hansen told the hearing that he was "99 percent sure . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." No scientist would make such a claim. It even contradicts what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 1995. They asserted,"…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes." Hansen's 1988 predictions have turned out to be150percent wrong.
Undeterred, Hansen now writes that he underestimated how bad things would actually get and makes even more of the sort of mistakes that have been typical throughout his career. In his July 2012 article, The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change, he and his co-authors cite the 2007 IPCC Report which said "...observed global warming is now attributed with high confidence to increasing greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007a)."
Yet, real observations show the opposite-temperature has declined as carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas of most concern to the IPCC, increased.”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13963&page=0
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 19 April 2015 11:19:08 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
Wow, the Tea-Party echo chamber is strong in here today! So you are all more enlightened than professional climatologists, and believe stuff written by exactly the same stubborn, free-market worshipping, science-hating mentality discussed in the article. But the reality is that:-
1. We’ve known for centuries that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. This is not contestable. It’s something you look up in a science textbook. It’s something you can see here with your own eyes (90 seconds in).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
2. We know how much it warms: it’s testable in a lab with a Fourier Device, and the rest is mathematics

Denying these basic facts is like denying the boiling point of water at sea-level.
So what is it you all disagree with?
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 1:02:00 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
Thanks for another input, Max Green, on the side of the climate fraud.
Are you able to refer us to any science which shows any measurable human caused effect on climate? Of course not!
So you are either ignorant of the science, in which case your support for the fraud is based on ignorance, or you are aware of the absence of science to support the fraud, in which case your support is dishonest.
Please clarify your position for us.

Explain why the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been followed by a cessation of global warming, accompanied by a slight cooling, which, like the human effect on climate, is trivial, and not measurable.Try to give us some facts, rather than more of your baseless ad hom.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 2:11:21 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. Explain why you think the raw physics of CO2 can just disappear
2. Explain where you think Fourier Devices are wrong in their explanation of the long wavelength heat refraction properties of CO2.
3. Read the IPCC and NASA and HADCRUT data about global temperatures. You've been misinformed. The last few decades have been the hottest on record, and last year was the hottest on record, beating all previous years.
4. Also realise that the oceans soak up an enormous amount of heat that they can then release in devastating El Nino's.
5. You've been lied to. But it sounds like you *wanted* to be lied to. There's a big shock! ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 4:12:10 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
Yes, Max, you dodged the question, but I take that to indicate that you have no science to support your backing of the climate fraud.There is no science to demonstrate any measurable human effect on climate.
. Asking stupid questions, instead of answering relevant ones takes you nowhere.
The “hottest year” ploy does not work. Hansen has come out with it again this year, and no doubt we will see more lying about temperature, such as the misinformation for which the BOM was nailed, this year.
The fraud-backers are desperate for an upward trend in temperature, which is just not there. Remember the Climategate emails, with the fraud-backers lamenting their inability to show warming?
Plus more baseless ad hom from you, Max, but, of course, like all fraud-backers, you have nothing else
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 5:11:56 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
"backing of the climate fraud."
climate fraud
climate fraud

There: when you say it 3 times and click your ruby slippers together, does it make it true? In the meantime, I answered your question (involving Fourier Devices and a previous link to actual VISUAL demonstration of the science of CO2), and if you want to be especially obtuse you can deny the change in seasons, withdrawing glaciers and shrinking ice cap depths and ecosystems moving towards the poles and up mountains and many other things. But since you've shown in your last post that you have absolutely no respect for these things we call satellites and thermometer stations and, heaven forbid, DATA, and just call these things LIES when it suits your worldview, then really, I'm done even pretending to keep up this 'conversation' with you. It will be about as productive as when JW's come and do their thing on my front doorstep. If you're interested in the science, I can link to it. But as you haven't looked up Fourier Devices or CO2 on wikipedia just for starters, and as you seem to quote the Denialist mantra hook,line,and sinker: again, there's no point. Confirming the OP, much?
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 5:58:33 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
Max,having failed to reference any science to show any measurable human caused effect on climate, you now want to assert that you have answered the question. You are an experienced fraud-backer, asserting that you rely on satellite data, when it is satellite data which shows that global warming has ceased. Perhaps you are you confused, or simply attempting to confuse us?
Max, a reminder of what IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth emailed to his fellow Climategate miscreants:
"… where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. ... The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_warming_conspiracys_most_damning_emails/

It must be terrible for them. All that CO2 in the atmosphere, and no global warming. You must know exactly how they felt, now that it has happened to you. Almost makes you want to relinquish fraud-backing.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 6:53:22 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
Gezzzz Leo...these storms seem to be getting worse...but of course you have the magic bullet to all planetary systems....to why this is happening.

Its a lot more than Co2 which can turn a stable planet into something we don't understand.

Tally
Posted by Tally, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 7:27:09 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
We've known it for nearly 2 centuries that CO2 traps heat. Al Gore really didn't invent this! Fourier discovered it in the 1820's. The devices we use to measure the wavelength refracting properties of different gases are even named after Fourier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

To actually *see* it trapping heat try this video about 90 seconds in. It's a great visual aid. Dummies like me love a good visual aid. This is a modern version of the test Fourier ran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

So how much heat is being trapped? This is where the Radiative Forcing Equation comes in. Measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution, measure it now, and you've got the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The difference is about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second, or over 2.2 billion Hiroshima's since 1998. Remember, it's not *concentrated* or I wouldn't want to be standing within 100km's of ground zero! It's extra energy spread across the planet.

Now to the difference between pesky weather like today and climate. Imagine children splashing around at bath time, with lots of noise and waves. In this metaphor, the waves are the weather and short term climate cycles like El Nino and La Nina. These 'waves' are natural, things that have always happened even before we started burning exponentially more coal every decade after the industrial revolution. The ocean cycles of El Nino and La Nina still run. The 'waves' in the 'bathtub' are still there. But climate change is the tap being left on! Gradually those 'waves' get higher. El Nino's turn into super-El Nino's like 1998.

There are over 100 very popular, very well produced myths about climate change that are funded by King Coal and Big Oil. Just make sure you're not being taken for a ride by some of the very same scientists that used to tell us smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 8:06:36 AM
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
Well written Max, but don't get depressed...they're just being human.
As Dresden James wrote: "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
And to quote Mark Twain: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Posted by ybgirp, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 3:49:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, we seem to be at cross-purposes. I am not questioning that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but simply that in practice, it does not have the effect predicted by the IPCC, and that it cannot be shown that global warming is caused by human activity.

Representing that global warming is human caused, with no scientific study to verify it, is fraudulent.There is no scientific study to show any measurable human effect on climate.

Robert Carter gives an excellent summary:
“the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 4:36:55 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
Watch out folks!

Run for the hills.

It's the attack of the bottom of the garden fairies you have to worry about, not global warming, or the coming ice age. They want the contents of your wallet & bank account, & will lie cheat & connive in any way to get it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 5:18:43 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
"Max, we seem to be at cross-purposes. I am not questioning that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but simply that in practice, it does not have the effect predicted by the IPCC, and that it cannot be shown that global warming is caused by human activity."

Leo, you do realise that you just contradicted yourself.

Either it *is* a greenhouse gas that we can accurately measure with a Fourier device and get solid, reliable measurements on, or it isn't.

Either it *does* refract x amount of heat energy back for y amount of CO2, as counted by the Radiative Forcing Equation, or it does not.

You cannot say "Yes I believe in physics and mathematics, except when it comes to CO2". It's this simple: either the stuff written down about CO2's radiative forcing equation is *true* or it is *false*. If it is *true* then the atmosphere really is taking on an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. We're recording where all that extra heat is going and how it shows up. (Super El Nino's, earlier springs and later autumns, hotter summers, hotter nights, glaciers retreating, poles retreating, etc).

If it is *false* then this is the greatest conspiracy ever launched on the world: as great as if there really were aliens at Area 51, or the Moon Landing being faked! Make no mistake! We are talking about the most comprehensive and perfectly executed conspiracy in the entire history of the human race! Because any hotshot in a decent physics lab could disprove it. I don't believe in conspiracies that worldwide and that perfect. Something would leak, especially when we are talking about peer-reviewed science. Climategate, you say? Climategate schlimategate: only tinfoil hat wearing retards would ignore what any fool can search in the wikipedia footnotes!

It comes down to this.
The physics + mathematics = 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Agree or disagree?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 7:41:05 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
Max, I have no reason to disagree, even though I have not checked the calculation, but your simplistic proposition demonstrably has no practical, real world application.
How accurate is it? Joanne Nova considers the question:” Ponder that CO2 levels were rising relentlessly from 2003-2011**, yet there is no sign of warming in the oceans or the atmosphere during this 8 year period. Some will scoff that 8 years is too short to be meaningful. These are the same people that make Apps measured in seconds. There are a lot of seconds in 8 years, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so where did all those extra bombs go? If the energy was hidden in the noise, that tells you all you need to know about how accurate the measurements are. Perhaps it’s 4±4 bombs? Perhaps it’s 4±10? If the measurements are accurate, and some other factor was causing the energy to head out to space, why did none of the climate models predict this flatness? Could it be they don’t understand the climate and the forces more powerful than CO2 remain a mystery to them? It could”

You have strayed a long way from the fraudulent assertion that global warming is human caused, which you seem to forget is the topic of discussion.
There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. Do you agree or disagree? If the latter, then refer us to the science upon which you rely.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 10:35:58 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, I said:

“It comes down to this.
The physics + mathematics = 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Agree or disagree?”j

That is the heart of climate science: the basic physics and mathematics of CO2 which is repeatable and demonstrable in a lab. The 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is anthropogenic: it’s the *extra* CO2 we are releasing into an otherwise balanced carbon cycle. Yet you write:

“You have strayed a long way from the fraudulent assertion that global warming is human caused, which you seem to forget is the topic of discussion.”

Perhaps you just like saying “fraudulent” a lot, and just cannot comprehend what we are discussing? I have not strayed from discussing the topic at hand: CO2’s basic radiative forcing IS the topic at hand. It is this simple. If we can trust what we are seeing in the lab, then the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is the result. If that’s the result, then where is the extra heat going? This seems to be the question you’re stuck on, and who is Joanne Nova that makes you doubt the work of countless physicists in the lab?

Read this by NASA. Global warming should really be called "Ocean warming", because that's where the majority of the heat ends up.

//Expansion seems simple, but measuring it is a challenge. “Over 90 percent of the heat trapped inside Earth’s atmosphere by global warming is going into the oceans,” Willis said. Temperature data from 19th-century ship, compared to a set of 3,600 buoys measuring ocean temperature today, confirms that the ocean – especially its upper half – has warmed since 1870.//

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Got a conspiracy theory about NASA's 3,600 buoys? Quick, time to rush off to WAWT or some other denialist echo-chamber! ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:45:48 AM
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
Understood, Max, you refuse to acknowledge that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that global warming is human caused, and have no justification for your refusal.
You are just another dishonest fraud-backer.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:59:08 AM
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's modis operandi is always to invite posters to present "the science" - and when they do, he ignores it and says: "...there is no scientific basis for the assertion that global warming is human caused..."

Followed promptly by a response - such as "You are just another dishonest fraud-backer."

It's the same thing time and time again...as the years roll by...Leo has no argument, just lame hackneyed lines followed by a generous dollop of ad hominem.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:08:18 AM
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
You say someone supplied the science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
Please direct me to the post which conveyed the information, Poirot. How I missed it, I do not know.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 23 April 2015 12:52:47 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
///You say someone supplied the science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
Please direct me to the post which conveyed the information, Poirot. How I missed it, I do not know.///
Your poor comprehension, maybe? Did you even watch the youtube that *shows* CO2 trapping heat?

On the other hand, since you have such "high" respect for "science" (high respect for tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy websites more like), how about you propose an alternative scientific theory that explains these photos? Or are the photo's the result of a conspiracy as well? ;-)

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Dude, these are photo's.
Dude, the radiative properties of CO2 are demonstrated in science labs all over the world.
Dude, peer-reviewed climatologists happily and readily admit that nature emits WAY more CO2 than we do every year. Then it gobbles it all up again! It's called Autumn and Spring. Or did you miss "An Inconvenient Truth"?
Dude, we're adding MORE to that system by burning fossil fuels. As a visual aid, I'm quite happy to admit that nature emits an elephant of carbon each year, and we only emit a bag of feathers. But nature can also only an elephant a year, and those bags of feathers soon become so heavy they can smother us all!

No heating since 1997? Sorry dude, but if you're going to quote denialist meme's at least quote them correctly or you sound like a goose. It's "there's been no warming since 1998", because 98 was the year of the hottest El Nino event the world has ever seen. And that's retarded, because 2005 and 2010 and 2014 DID beat 1998, so try again!

But right now you've got some pretty pictures to look at on the link above. I wonder if you're honest enough to do so?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 April 2015 5:28:31 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
D'oh! Elephant metaphor messed up by typo. I meant to say nature can only absorb an 'elephant' of carbon every year, but somehow 'absorb' got left out when editing.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 April 2015 5:30:42 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
Max, you will do anything to avoid the topic.You question “no heating(sic) since 1997”
In 2010, Phil Jones, the Climategate miscreant said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz3YCKEgrYx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That takes us back to 1995. Later,Jones did a Hansen, and said it was statistically significant from 1995 to 1997.

So no global warming since 1997. Is that a “denialist meme” that I am quoting?. Since you have been ignorant enough to use the term “denialist”, please tell me what is being denied.No one denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but merely pointed out that the IPCC, in making predictions about global warming based on the effect of CO2 has been disastrously wrong. The increase of atmospheric content of CO2 has not resulted in global warming. Warming results in an increase in CO2 content, not the other way around. There are many more factors to climate than one minor greenhouse gas, a fact which the IPCC, and you, have disingenuously ignored.
You have relied on CO2 being a greenhouse gas, a baseless assertion that humans are responsible for increased CO2 content in the atmosphere(apart from your ludicrous assertion that it is somehow the human”bag ofeathers” that accumulates in the atmosphere) , and warming which stopped in 1997.
Is this the “science” which I have “ignored”? How does it show that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate?
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 24 April 2015 3:29:42 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 Lane. Are you suggesting that the increasingly polluted planet that is making many people ill, doesn't matter? Surely, whether the warming and climate change that seems to be occurring has its origins in nature or human activity is beside the point! We're poisoning our environment and ourselves...We have to clean up our act if we want to survive. It's that simple. Forget who or what is to blame for global warming, and concentrate on the simple fact that we have all but destroyed the natural world in which we evolved and which is essential for our form of life to exist. If we don't stop fouling our nest, we're stuffed.
Posted by ybgirp, Friday, 24 April 2015 9:08:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leo lane.

Ive been around the internet since it started....Its a great tool!..Computers are the windows to our soles....and best of all, hot topics like this one:)..

Leo, the people can see with their own eyes:)...I've never seen a blind god needed for climate change, but your the best yet:)

All would agree that all storm systems are getting a tone or to higher with each decade passing.... ybgirp..hes as tough as nails...:)

Good luck

Tally
Posted by Tally, Friday, 24 April 2015 9:33:59 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
Ybgirp, I do not understand the basis upon which you consider that I do not mind pollution. If you believe that carbon dioxide is pollution, then think again.
It is a colourless, odourless gas, without which most life on earth would not continue to exist.
If the fraud-backers could reduce carbon dioxide to 270 parts per million we would see crop failures and famine. Reduction of carbon emissions is dangerous nonsense. We need more CO2, not less.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16886

Tally, I would like to reply to you, but found neither of your posts intelligible. What are you saying? I hope you understand that global warming does not cause more frequent or more intense storms
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 25 April 2015 2:08:20 AM
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
Lol!

And this, folks.....

"...Reduction of carbon emissions is dangerous nonsense. We need more CO2, not less."

...is why Leo shambles around here spouting his simplistic balderdash, instead of debating on "real" science sites - places where he couldn't hold his own for 3 seconds against people who actually know what they're talking about.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 25 April 2015 9:02:54 AM
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,
coal may just be the most expensive form of electricity we have ever produced: but only if we measure all the real costs!

The CO2 I exhale might not be a 'pollutant' because it is in sink with the carbon cycle. The carbon I exhale is in proportion to the above-ground ecosystems and life cycles I am a part of. Leaves drop in Autumn releasing vast CO2, and Spring soaks it up again in vast quantities. Natural. But adding 28 billion tons from *underground* is not natural. That CO2 was not in the natural carbon cycle, and we can identify it by the isotopes. It's small, but over time builds up, now adding 4 Hiroshima bombs per second of heat to this planet!

Sure CO2 is natural. Water is natural, even essential for life! But drinking too much of it can kill you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

You're avoiding the demonstrable physics and demonstrable effects!
Watch the CANDLE for just one minute! Starts 90 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
//Expansion seems simple, but measuring it is a challenge. “Over 90 percent of the heat trapped inside Earth’s atmosphere by global warming is going into the oceans,” Willis said. Temperature data from 19th-century ship, compared to a set of 3,600 buoys measuring ocean temperature today, confirms that the ocean – especially its upper half – has warmed since 1870.//
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Lastly, here's a newsflash for you. Daily mail is not a science journal! Wow, what an old and biased, anti-science piece of tabloid you discovered there! Instead, if one just bothers going to wikipedia you'll find that 'climategate' was an exaggerated scare tactic by denialists involving *deliberate* misreading of the emails and science, and that many enquiries exonerated the entire team and entire science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

But you'd rather quote Daily Mail? Hey, do they discount your tinfoil hats if you quote them enough?
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 25 April 2015 12:38:37 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
"Sure CO2 is natural. Water is natural, even essential for life! But drinking too much of it can kill you!

Now Leo, Forget the effecting weather for now and just focus on the gas its self...over the history of the planet, Co2 has played many deadly roll in some major extinctions as you know and since all life needs an equal amount of the gases we breath....now I want you think about the insect life around you.....

They don't have lungs do they Leo, and remember when insects ruled the planet at one stage?, but then C02 increased and the O2 went down and so did the size of the insects...didn't it Leo....so the point"if you cant see it"...Insect will get smaller or it will just kill them off all together?

Wont the planet be fun then:)

Tally
Posted by Tally, Saturday, 25 April 2015 6:08:04 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
Determined not to learn, aren’t you, Max?
Nature has a huge carbon cycle, involving 3% human emissions and 97% natural CO2. It does not distinguish between natural and human produced CO2, and does not put aside the 3% human emitted for accumulation. In any event, we are yet to see CO2 have the effect in nature that it has in the labotatory. The IPCC worked on this basis in setting up its computer models, which fail in their projections.
Relevant comment by Anthony Watts:
“According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of mean temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather that diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some sort of correlation over a decade. But it appears that………there isn’t any match over the past ten ears"
.”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

The Daily Mail factually reported what Jones said, so your complaint is ridiculous. You have to accept what a fraud-backing climategate miscreant said.You do not like what he said, so you complain about the source of the information, which had faithfully reported his words.

If you want peer reviewed, try McLean, J., de Freitas, C.R. & Carter, R.M., (2009) Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D14104,doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.1
It can be accessed at: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.
This shows that global warming is caused by natural cycles, leaving little room for the fraud-backers assertion that it is human caused.Read the Climategate emails to see the consternation of the fraud-backers about this paper.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 26 April 2015 12:47:39 AM
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
Max,

Poor old Leo who only speaks denier is at it again.

Ho hum...

"In 2010, Phil Jones, the Climategate miscreant said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

"Phil Jones was asked some loaded questions in an interview with the BBC. Several of the questions were gathered from "climate sceptics", and Jones' answer to the second one has been widely re-published and distorted:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

Why choose 1995 as the starting point in this question? Well, that is the closest year for which the answer to this loaded question is "yes". From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (CL). It's also worth noting that there's nothing magical about the 95% CL - it's simply the most commonly-used interval in scientific research, but it's also true that the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.

In other words, using Jones' data, we could say with 93% confidence that the planet had warmed since 1995. Nevertheless, this did not stop numerous mainstream media outlets like Fox News claiming that Phil Jones had said global warming since 1995 was "insignificant" - a grossly incorrect misrepresentation of his actual statements."

"The Daily Mail warped the truth even further, claiming Jones had said there was no global warming since 1995. These media outlets turned 93% confidence of warming into "no warming"."

Leo says:

"The Daily Mail factually reported what Jones said....which had faithfully reported his words."

Lol!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 26 April 2015 8:00:59 AM
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,
I’ll grant nature has a much larger CO2 cycle that in it’s *release* phase is 200gigatons compared to our 28gigatons per year. But where you’re being particularly stubborn and obtuse is that you’re *purposely* ignoring the fact that NATURE ONLY SOAKS UP THAT 200 GIGATONS AGAIN EVERY SPRING!

1. WHY IS THE CO2 CONTINUING TO RISE IN OUR ATMOSPHERE?

2. WHY DOES THE ISOTOPE OF THE EXTRA CO2 IN OUR ATMOSPHERE MATCH FOSSIL FUELS, AND NOT NATURAL CO2?

3. WHY DO YOU QUOTE ANTI-SCIENCE, NON-PEER REVIEWED WATTS? He is not a climatologist but instead:

“Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but he did not graduate. [1], [2]

He is a former television meteorologist.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

“The Daily Mail factually reported what Jones said, so your complaint is ridiculous”
The Daily Mail is tabloid journalism, so you’re putting it forth as a credible scientific source is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. You should be ashamed of the low quality of your sources! Here are some BIG players in science that you ignore, preferring ‘tabloid’ and ‘tinfoil hat’ over science.

“The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change."

“The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. “

“UK Met Office[edit]
On 23 November 2009, a spokesman for the Met Office, the UK's national weather service, which works with the CRU in providing global temperature information, said there was no need for an inquiry. "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."[39]”
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 April 2015 10:10:10 AM
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,
the investigations into 'climategate' proved nothing.

The Hadley crew were exonerated by:

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Science Assessment Panel
Pennsylvania State University

and many more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Responses

Indeed, the United States Environmental Protection Agency report said:
“The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."[113] “

Anyone who has actually looked at the context of “Hide the decline” would say, “Well D’UH!” Of COURSE the Denialist’s cherrypicked the phrases they needed to pull the tinfoil hats over so many gullible heads!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Responses

Last, you STILL haven’t dealt with the EVIDENCE!

Known physics: watch the CANDLE for just one minute! Starts 90 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

Discovered 200 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Mathematics around more CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 April 2015 10:12:04 AM
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
Max,

"Last, you STILL haven’t dealt with the EVIDENCE!"

With all due respect, we've been firing all this stuff at Leo for years.

Leo doesn't care about evidence.

Deniers are termed deniers because they deny evidence and expertise.

It's all a conspiracy/fraud/sham, don't ya know!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 26 April 2015 10:33:16 AM
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
Poirot
So he's a genuine tinfoil hat wearing loonie on par with "The Moon Landing was faked!" and "Elvis is alive and well and living in Area 51!" crowd? OK, I'll calm down. There's no point expecting any progress here. I guess I was just concerned about these lunatic assertions confusing other people browsing these forums.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 April 2015 12:38:08 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
Yeah, just drop a penny into his hat. Tink
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 26 April 2015 12:57:59 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
Well, if it's universally known that you are just a troll, Leo old pal old chum, I'm sorry to have led you on! You might have thought I was the ideal excuse to keep promoting your mad conspiracy theories, but the physics and effects of climate change are self evident to anyone willing to do a little unbaised reading. I'm done. Read the links I've supplied or not. It's up to you how foaming-at-the mouth you let yourself become. I can't help you. I don't have the time to waste on yet another dime-a-dozen internet troll. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. Goodbye.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 April 2015 2:20:46 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
The assertion by Watts is factual, Max. You attack Watts because he has told the truth, which you do not like, because it refutes the fraud which you support.
As to:“. WHY DOES THE ISOTOPE OF THE EXTRA CO2 IN OUR ATMOSPHERE MATCH FOSSIL FUELS, AND NOT NATURAL CO2?” It does not. That is just another of your unsupported statements
Roy Spencer looks at the question and illustrates the invalidity ofyour assertion:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
You have produced no science to justify your backing of the AGW fraud, and are reduced to ad hom, because you have nothing else.
There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.You have the temerity to refer to me as a troll, after your disgraceful performance.
You are like Poirot, another Naomi Oreskes of OLO. No science to support your assertions, and no honesty.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 26 April 2015 10:29:45 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 Leo.
Whether you are right or wrong, the Climate is changing. Quibbling over the cause has the effect of preventing governments from taking steps to cope with the impending crisis, so the effects of severe weather events on civilisation of high tides, flooding and so on will be that much worse. [No bad thing, some might say].
Politicians are not elected for their intelligence and foresight, which is why they are using arguments such as yours to oppose efforts to mitigate future catastrophe. How about using your considerable energy and intelligence on something that matters, such as why we have allied ourselves inextricably with the USA, thus adding to planetary instability by invading every country that doesn't welcome USA hegemony.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 27 April 2015 8:18:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You guys need to live in Brisbane before talking about global warming. I mean, don't we have the biggest hole in the ozone layer here or something? The government and the people are really trying to do something about it, but there's only so many products that you can keep in storage that are going to causethe release of greenhouse gases. What we really need is much better alternatives to the nonsense that we have!
Posted by PaulChau, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 1:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green adopted the Oreskes approach, namely, dud science and accusing the opponent of the very transgression of which she is guilty.
When he had conclusively demonstrated his dishonesty, he posted a final ad hom in which he asserted that I was a troll, and departed.
The first sentence of his first post was, “Wow, the Tea-Party echo chamber is strong in here today!” He posted no science or facts to back his dishonest assertions, answered questions with questions, or ignored them. He is a troll.
A spin off from his nonsense is that Poirot, who when she put herself in a position where she had proven her dishonesty, posted a final baseless ad hom, and departed. She has now returned, inspired by Max’s dishonesty, which she thought was working.
I wonder what she will do now that Max has made a fool of himself, and departed.
Poirot has no grasp of science or fact, as evidenced by he comment on carbon dioxide. Her sole basis for support of the AGW fraud is her dishonesty.
ybgirp, there is no crisis, and there will not be one,unless action is taken based on the climate fraud, which, of course, would have serious consequences..
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 11:23:51 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
You're a joke, Leo.

It's always fascinating that those who squeal so loud about "ad hom" seem to enjoy tossing it about like confetti.

Your last post was entirely ad hom.

Posting garbage from WUWT (guffaw!) and running up and down threads calling your opponents "dishonest" proves....what? ...something?...anything?

Boring....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 11:55:58 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
This is whatWilliam Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University says about carbon dioxide:
” We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people.”
http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/happer%20the%20truth%20about%20greenhouse%20gases.pdf

Poirot will avoid informing herself abut CO2, as it might interfere with her support of the climate change fraud. The current increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which IPCC computer modelling showed would result in global warming, has been accompanied by a cessation of global warming.
The science upon which the IPCC relied to obtain the dud result is the science relied upon by Max Green to show an effect by humans on climate. In fact, a measurable effect on climate by human emissions has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:16:37 AM
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. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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