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 > See O'Too and Cosmic Ray in the Climate Stakes Cup > Comments

See O'Too and Cosmic Ray in the Climate Stakes Cup : Comments

By John Ridd, published 19/8/2009

With such a feeble track record it is astonishing that See O’Too remains the firm favourite in the Climate Stakes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All
Protogoras can waffle on and on and on but Global Warming is total nonsense. Ken Fabos can also fulminate till he is black in the face. Boys it was called Global warming and now it's climate change, like the climate has not been changing for ever. You blokes can worship the white coats and clip boards brigade but not me. I have seen so many instances of the "truth" being overturned too may times. Add to this dodgy as all get out politicians (Al Gore) and the idea that this will all take millions of taxpayer dollars to prove. The kicker of course is we need to increase taxes to pay for it. Come on! 99% will go in administration and downright corruption.
The ex head of Greenpeace runs an outfit getting million to replace light-bulbs in NSW, need I go on?
The high school teacher has it just right thanks!
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:33:30 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
initial ipcc report some years ago suggested that human impact on climate was detectable, this has now changed to human impacts the major factor.
can someone then indicate how many tonnes of greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere from non-human (natural) activities and how many tonnes derive from human activities.
secondly if we were to consider the earth's atmosphere as being fixed in volume by earth's gravity, then the pv=nrt (established relationship between pressure of gases, volume and temperature) would apply
n is the number of molecules of gas, r is a constant and t is temperature, p is pressure and v is volume
therefore if n and t are increasing and v is fixed then p must increase. we can confirm independantly of temperature measuring if atmospheric temperature is increasing because atmospheric pressure would be increasing. so can someone point to either the quantities of greenhouse gasses from human and non-human activities and also provide data on atmospheric pressure changes?
Posted by slasher, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:57:07 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 does not seem to be relevant.

1. Anthropogenic Co2 is dwarfed by natural Co2 emissions in the natural carbon cycle. But this is irrelevant. The cycle was finely balanced. "In and Out" each season... google the carbon cycle for more or try the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Think of 2 very big, equally weighted semi-trailer trucks on each side of gigantic scales. Now think of humanity throwing a bag of feathers into the trailer of one of the trucks. At first it is laughable because the trucks are so heavy, what could feathers possibly do? But then gradually, as the size of the bags of feathers increases every year, the scales begin to tip.

2. Atmospheric pressure is not affected by the rise and fall of the natural Co2 rhythm because Co2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. But lets not make the mistake of equating small percentage of atmospheric volume with small percentage of radiative forcing please!

EG: A tiny injection of ebola virus is an insignificant percentage of my body weight, yet can still kill me.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 9:59:21 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
Matt Andrews .. .some of us believe the “fruit cakes” are those who have the hubris to insist AGW (if it exists) is actually the product of CO2 emissions and that you can stop human development in the name of humanity.

The Luddite movement is nothing new, they smashed the “spinning jennys” in the 18th century and are now hell bent on stopping the free development of other people in the name of the myth of AGW/CO2.

And I see some other Inquisitors of AGW demanding OLO curtail publishing because they perceive the publication of a heretical viewpoint.

I see most of those inquisitors suggest the article contains many errors but would support the notion of AGW with no tangible evidence other than their own blind faith.

Now children, this is the following is the train of gullibility which we are being pulled along by small minded politicians who are bereft of real understanding of how the world works:

Find a possible crisis

Beat it up into a major event of global proportion

Justify your existence of defeating the crisis by the most extreme means, which converts into the curtailment of personal liberty, in one form or another, all in the name of government profligacy.

When the crisis does not materialize, simply claim it as a success of your policies, the defeat of the mythical foe, quietly ignoring the increase in government cashflows.

Now, were we talking about AGW or GFC.. I cannot remember but I do know:

Either way

You, me and our children are going to be paying for all this “Socialism by Stealth” for a long, long time to come.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 12:11:01 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
(Yawns)
Just another patronising anti-climate, anti-science, political rant.

(Yawns again)

How many of you idiots will the climate scientists have to deal with before governments can actually act to prevent the worst of this crisis?

(Yawns from total and utter boredom at pointing out this next, self evident fact)

Whether you are Luddite or not, left or right wing, misanthropic 'progress' hating greenie or pro-globalisation Corporation loving CEO suit, it just doesn't matter.

**The physics and chemistry of climate are not political**.

So have your petty little rant if it makes you feel better. Patronise the cutting edge science of thousands of climatologists like the idiot you are. The physics and chemistry of climate will just chug along at their own pace, whatever you say.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 12:40:23 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
Eclipse Now you go and have a nice lie down dear. I understood what Slasher was saying but could not make head nor tail of your repudiation. Try harder after a little nap.
The physics and chemistry of climate are not political? Who said they were? We are trying to get through to you that the "Scientists" are trying for lots of research money from the politicians who can only get it from us, that's the politics mate! The politicians are trying to tax the air we breathe with this nonsense and also the water too.
The world temperature on their previous measurement has not increased for ten years so now we change the method, do me a favour. They have refined the science? No they are changing the story again. Not global warming, it's now climate change. Once the pollies have the tax watch what happens although I for one will spend my life hammering this stupid tax and the politicians who force it on us.
Have you woken up yet Eclipse?
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 12:59:07 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. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All

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