All your red herrings can't cover faulty data.

Truths we know from observation,

1. The seas are going down folks, not rising.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf

2. The sun got warmer/radiated more, but is now quite/cold and so are we.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

3. The atmosphere is not heating, but their computers are.

The weather/climate science world has abandoned the second rule of thermodynamics and hands on science for computer modeling . Programmers or so called pseudo modern climatologist/ meteorologist/scientists, computer dependent, lacking in questioning or needing a firm and proven result or even keeping up new AND known science knowledge from over 30 years ago? What the hell? I was there and witnessed it all, warned about a up coming ice age because of trapped greenhouse gas blamed on cars. So we changed the system and bought smaller cars, reduced waste. Then it was the depletion of the ozone layer and we had to cut HFC/CFC and Freon because that was causing the hole in the ozone and cooling the earth. All lies and WE DID IT.
We replaced every refrigeration or home convenience unit to a more energy saving devise. At the same time we put new stringent laws on emissions, waste and water. Also begin recycling programs and clean up our environment.
Saving forests, planting new trees, laws for clean water and air and responsibility towards our mother earth.

We did this all……but that’s just not enough is it? It never will be. Why should our ancestors who left their homelands and countries because of fear of death, famine, tyranny, wars and no future to make a better life for themselves here. Away from the robber barons of the world, a free country. But here we are again with the flimflam and deceit. . You robbed me of my future back in the 70’s because of this BS, and now you’ll ask for more by guilt, taxing and robbing us into paying for the air we breath, the air we and our kids breath, for your greedy gain

AGW(manmade greenhouse gas) can only be observed

in a “isolated system (closed)” and earth “IS” an “OPEN SYSTEM”.
CO2 holds heat in a Closed system, once you “OPEN” the lid, the law doesn’t work. When you open up the lid, heat and gas escape, and it’s gone into the atmosphere. Hot goes to cold case closed, the second law.
The AGW CO2 was calibrated/concluded using a “CLOSED” modeling system, so what came first, the Chicken Little or the co2 egg?


I’m hearing and reading from some in the so called weather sciences saying the sun heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats the earth. And this is how their theory on how greenhouse gas was formed, by keeping the heat trapped in.

WRONG!



If this were true, there would be a heating of major per potions in the atmosphere and there isn’t much, only about .01c. Only heating seen in the atmosphere is on their computer model and they can't explain this phenomena, thus came the idea of using CO2. The real world doesn’t work like their model, they have to thrown out the laws of physic and become rapped up(or lazy) with using computer modeling.

Have they forgotten or become void of why these models don’t really work? I honestly think they thought they were right and have had one of the biggest scientific brain farts EVER. . Also using erroneous and left out data like Medieval Warm Period (about 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1400–1850) , CO2 levels being several times higher through ice core samples and a mountain of growing evidence of bad science is troublesome and suspect to say the least

Fluff

You raise some interesting issues … and for many people the science is difficult to understand.

It is important to check the sources of the claims being made because the web is rife with unsubstantiated guff. Just because someone likes what they read or the author is a ‘nice’ person does not make what they espouse right – science doesn’t work like that. Indeed, virtually all of what Peden says has been shown to be distortions or misinterpretations of the science.

So, it is vital that people be critical … even if you agree with the source.

Tell me, why do you think this thread is attracting 5:1 more posts than Suzuki’s? Have you read his article, why didn’t you post? Did you follow the link to Schneider’s talk? What did you think of the presentation? Is it out of your comfort zone?

You talk of the ‘money trail’. This is an illogical argument.

Do you want to stop scientific research because you don’t like what the research is telling you? Again, it doesn’t work like that.

Science is not absolute (we’d be out of a job if it were) ... we can be more certain about some things than others. True, scientists have big egos, but guess what … scientists stand to gain more (grant funds, kudos, tenure, etc) from showing a theory to be false than from validating it.

But, this is done through the scientific process and not through media columns. It is very important for people like Carter to publish his latest findings in the respected journals, he doesn’t … why not?

We may not like it, but the vast body of scientific research ‘backs-up’ the theory of AGW. This is NOT to say it’s 100% certain. This is why money needs to be invested in research ... to rigorously test and critique the theory.

In essence you are right, “people don’t want to leave their comfort zone”. Why … could it be more about political ideology and not science?

Country boy “Yes Col, out of the hundreds of thousands scientists in the world, there are some out there are corrupt, dishonest and deceitful. Just like in the military, in the education department, in the hospitals, in the banks etc etc.”

And I was merely answering your question

“Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.”

You asked and I revealed for you. Nothing more.

“However, you're implying this vast conspiracy between enormous numbers of people who may have never met, who may operate in different fields and who work for different organisations.”

No, I am saying I am doubtful to the veracity of the processes being used to assert the “human causes as the primary driver of “climate change”, relative to other “non-human” influences which are continuously causing changes to climate..

All of that makes me skeptical and as you say

“You can choose what to believe I guess.”

Yes, and to express those views and skepticism and trust that others too are not so gullible to believe all that is said to be true is true, simply because some, possibly vain and ambitious, individual has a “science” qualification.

I would suggest the root cause of these and many other problems, as far as they are the product of human activity, lay in population numbers.

Want to chat about that, you will find the result will be far more productive than pretending anyone will benefit from the “Socialism by Stealth” of “carbon tax” as a response to “a theory on climate change based on dodgy science”

Passy “In terms of objectivity I keep on thinking of those (including scientists, from memory) who denied any link between smoking and cancer.”

Yes and the Church of Rome threatened Galileo with the authority of the inquisition, to renounce his claim that the world was not the centre of the universe.

It seems to me many who support the notion of human caused global warming are acting similar to the Church of Rome against anyone who dares utter the heretical skepticism which challenges "dogma".

BBoy said

" The fact is, his {Carter's} expertise is in stratigraphy not climate change, which is more of a passion project for him, motivated most likely by his position as a research committee member for the Institute for Public Affairs. In that sense his description is misleading as it should reflect that he has an association with IPA, is retired from James Cook, and has expertise marine geology, not climate science. "

Ahh, now the crystal ball becomes clear. The emotional ranting and "green"-hating makes sense. IPA is a conservative think-tank funded by such class as Murray Irrigation Limited [2], Visyboard, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton and the tobacco industry[3] (and also Gunns Limited and Monsanto).

All good people of course. No scientific bias here at all.

Piss off, idiot.

The P.O. comment was intended for the author of the article, if you hadn't twigged. no offense intended for others.