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 > My mother told me > Comments

My mother told me : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 16/7/2015

Tony Abbott doesn't measure up to any of his predecessors.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Aiden, you cannot be as ignorant as you pretend, but I suppose that to assert the nonsense that you do, you have little option, or you would be regarded as dishonest, rather than ignorant. Even the fraud-backers do not contest that human emissions comprise only only 3% of the carbon dioxide cycle.
The following is a useful summary:
“Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world”
http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
Your assertion that the facts I have disclosed are "extreme" is wierd. Unlike you, I post references to supporting material, while you, having no justification for your assertions, refer us to blatant fraud backers like Skeptical Science, if you give any reference at all.
.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 10:38:00 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 Lane,

Oh, you mean gross emissions. OK, I concede that nature emits and absorbs a huge amount of CO2. But that doesn't alter the fact that THE INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS IS ENTIRELY DOWN TO HUMAN ACTIVITY. Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

So when humans are responsible for atmospheric CO2 levels increasing by a quarter since 1960, is the fact that "human emissions comprise only only 3% of the carbon dioxide cycle" of any relevance? If so, how?

I never asserted the facts you've disclosed are extreme, I said the position you've taken is extreme. And I gave a reason: according to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ (the link you supplied) "The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action."

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking: you try to support your argument by linking to the silly website iloveco2.com, but whinge about my reference to Skeptical Science when I give a link to its rebuttal of the paper which you claimed "showed that the warming alleged to be human caused, was natural, leaving no room for the asserted human caused warming."

But of course you prefer to shoot the messenger because the climate fraud you participate in requires people to remain ignorant. Hence you avoid explaining your position.

You seem to regard references as a logic substitute. Providing, of course, that they don't challenge your prejudice. I get the impression that if I posted links to high quality sources such as the IPCC, you'd dismiss them as biased. Do you deny it?
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 11:49:26 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
Aiden,the argument that it is human emissions that are the cause of increase of co2 in the atmosphere is nonsense. Nature does not change its cycle because 3% of the gas is produced by humans.The cycle does not have a “capacity”, which is exceeded by an increase of a trivial 3%. What is your scientific basis for this assertion? No doubt another nonsense concocted by a fraud-backer without the assistance of science.

As to science, referenced from the IPCC, I would not dismiss science as biased, but statements about science from the IPCC are a different matter, such as when Pachauri dismissed those who validly pointed out the wrong statement in the IPCC report about melting glaciers in the Himalayas, as “voodoo scientists”, I would dismiss as biased.
As to the supposed rebuttal of the McLean et al paper, by Foster et al, that was easily dismissed, but the JGR refused to publish the dismissal of it
The scientist, Jennier Morahasy gives an account of this(MDC is McLean et al):
“ Extraordinarily, the MDC reply, which entirely rebutted the mistaken criticisms of Foster et al., was never published by JGR!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/07/peer-review-falters-at-the-altar-of-conviction/
How anyone who has read the climategate emails can support the climate fraud is beyond comprehension Have you not read them, Aiden?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 4:12:38 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, calling a fact "nonsense" doesn't stop it from being true, and if it makes no sense to you then the failure is entirely on your part. You should at least make an effort to understand rather than trying to fool people into believing the conclusions you form from a combination of wishful thinking and tinfoil hat websites!

Nature is in equilibrium: the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is roughly equal to the amount being taken out, and with good reason: animals, fungi and bacteria can only put into the atmosphere the carbon the plants have removed, and plants can only remove what the animals etc and fire put in (and are also limited by available land, sunlight, water and nutrients). In your termite example, the amount emitted due to termite activity is limited by the amount of dead wood available. (It's not quite that simple as there are geological processes as well, but their contribution is small on this timescale).

Humans, by burning fossil fuels, are returning to the atmosphere a lot of the carbon that nature removed millions of years ago. Nature hasn't changed its cycle, but we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere much faster than nature can absorb. As a result the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen 25% since 1960.

You link to a blog post as evidence that the paper by Foster et al was easily dismissed by the MDC response that JGR didn't publish. I think a much more likely explanation for not publishing was that the MDC response failed to address the issues raised. If you've got real evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it.

As for Climategate, that initially looked fraudulent but a detailed investigation found it wasn't. A few scientists, concerned about press misreporting of their results (something some British newspapers had a track record of) tried to restrict access to their findings. Obviously they shouldn't've done so, but it wasn't actually fraudulent.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 7:04:12 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
So you have no science, Aiden, just conclusions you form from a combination of wishful thinking and tinfoil hat websites!.
Jennifer Morahasy is a scientist, active in the climate field, and competent to make the comments she made on the rebuttal of Foster et al by Mclean and co-authors.
Robert Carter summed up the situation, in his explanation in 2009 to the Labor government as to the futility of a carbon tax: a non-solution to a problem which did not exist:. He said:
“Get this. First, there has been no recent global warming in the common meaning of the term, for world average temperature has cooled for the last ten years. Furthermore, since 1940 the earth has warmed for nineteen years and cooled for forty-nine, the overall result being that global average temperature is now about the same as it was in 1940.
Second, this lack of overall warming over the last sixty-eight years happened despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of more than 20 per cent; which is actually no surprise, because, notwithstanding that it is a greenhouse gas, the increase in the warming effect of carbon dioxide beyond 1940 levels is diminishingly small.( What Carter means is that the effectiveness of carbon dioxide lessens as its volume increases. A doubling of volume does not double its effect)
Third, by planetary accident, in comparison with most of the Earth’s geological history we live today in a world that is in a state of carbon dioxide starvation, especially for optimal plant growth; just ask the commercial tomato growers who use enhanced levels of carbon dioxide in their greenhouses to expedite crop growth.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

Try to learn something about the science of climate, Aiden, and be careful not to trust the IPCC. Pachauri has resigned as head, so I suppose they are looking for another crooked railway engineer, but one who will not sexually molest the staff.
Of course the climate-gate miscreants are fraudulent. The "hearings" arranged by the UN were simply attempts at whitewash, which gave no proper consideration to the animus evidenced by the emails.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 10:01:36 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
Struth, Leo, I spent half my last post explaining facts that you'd dismissed as nonsense because you were too lazy to even try to understand the science, and now you accuse me of having no science?

It's certainly not wishful thinking that makes me believe anthropogenic global warming is real. I, and indeed everyone else, would probably be much better off if it wasn't. But there's overwhelming evidence that it is, and those who claim otherwise tend to avoid scrutiny (even after their claims are published) or just ignore the facts completely and just post spurious claims on their websites in the hope that people like you will assume them to be true because they want them to be true.

I never claimed Jennifer Morahasy wasn't a scientist. But the page you linked to made it clear it was a blog. It contained her opinion rather than actual science.

As for Robert Carter's claims, they're demonstrably false. Temperatures have been rising significantly and still are: see http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Can I take it from what you've quoted that you now accept the facts about atmospheric CO2 that you dismissed as "nonsense" a few hours ago?
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 23 July 2015 2:39:41 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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