Arjay

When you bludgeon us with your unsubstantiated, un-referenced information, are you lurching from the Readers Digest to the Daily Telegraph or have you derived your information from the Woman’s Day? Surely you haven’t been “googling" Arjay? Tut tut.

And why have you been selective in quoting Severinghaus when you failed to include his following advice:

“Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

“The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.”

In addition you have also selectively ignored Severinghaus’ letter to Crikey where he refuted Bolt’s claims:

“Many, many other studies have found that carbon dioxide causes the earth to warm. This is not controversial, and to continue to deny it is akin to denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer,” Severinghaus told Crikey. “The evidence for a human-caused warming of the globe is overwhelming. The scientific debate is over, and what we are seeing now is an attempt to mislead the public.”

“Severinghaus explained how Bolt had been slippery with the facts, "...Bolt omitted the key piece of information that the warmings took 5,000 years, thus misleading the reader into thinking that carbon dioxide was not warming at the same time as temperature and thus cannot have caused the warming...”

‘“At the very least I would like it to go on record that Bolt's abuse of my science is not done with my approval,” says Severinghaus.

“Crikey contacted Andrew Bolt this morning for a response, but he did not respond.”

So bereft of constructive argument Arjay, you have resorted to condescendingly offering up this admonishing swill:

“Just because someone has a title like Professor,does not mean that they don't have a bias motivated by money or fear a loss of prestige because of a failed hypothesis.”

That’s a very unkind and unprovoked attack you’ve made on Professor Flint. I suggest you offer him your apology forthwith, Arjay.

Dickie “Unfortunately, Professor Flint fails to offer any alternative to the ETS.”

In the matter of ETS and the TAX which will enable its collection, I think it is perfectly acceptable not to offer a suggestion.

The people of Australia do not need to be taxed more than at present.

In fact, whilst government is in receipt of monees far in excess of those needed for government to finance the legitimate work of government, many would reasonably argue in favour of less tax than at present.

It is the role of government to respond to the exdpectations of the electorate. It is not the role of government to direct the electorate on how they should spend their discretionary income.

ETS is purely an excuse to impose taxes upon the wealth generators of Australia and will, should it be implemented reduce the wealth incentive upon which government relies on to draw taxes.

It is a negative influence on the well being of the nation. I only trust the electorate will remember which political party resisted its implementation and which party ran headlong into its implementation at the next election.

My personal opinion on this matter is the AGW/ETS debate and strategy is a smoke screen presented by the failed entryist forces who infiltrated the green movement and now seek to override the natural superiority of the libertarian capitalism system by imposing this "Socialism by Stealth".

You may disagree with my view but you will not stop me believing it or espousing it and

the more I say it, the more other people see it for themselves.

Dickie, you are acting like a sterotype that Bob Carter predicts.Firstly you attack the dissenter,ie I have no credibility,ignore the facts,ie;you refuse to enter into direct debate without references to some higher authority,and repeat the mantra,ie;AGW is fact and we all must adjust.

Well sorry Dickie it is not fate accompli.Severinghaus said that CO2 acts like an amplifier and does not initiate AGW.He admits that CO2 gets released form the oceans when temps increase.CO2 is only 387 ppm of our atmosphere.This is miniscule.Water vapour and N2 have a far greater affect,not to mention the influence of the Sun,volcanoes and the nuclear reactions deep within our own planet.If C02 is and amplifier or a catalyst as he suggests,how does an inert gas affect the other gases in such a way as to make them absorb more energy from the sun?It is just all pure conjecture!

You see Dickie,I did physics,chemistry,biology and maths for my HSC and that gave me a good grounding for logic.I smell a big rat and you still refuse to enter into direct logical,factual dialogue because you do not understand the basic science yourself!

Arjay

I do confess, your boasting, misinformation and manipulation of facts has grown quite tedious. Can’t you find someone else to play with? Must we now endure your "wise" counsel on the sun, volcanoes – what else was it? Oh that’s right, nuclear reactions. Good God man - settle.

And no mention of the "tax swindle?"

Ok the sun. Well sure, the Earth’s biosphere is maintained and molded by the flow of energy from the solar energy source to earth, and on to the space energy sink. This S–E–S energy flow maintains earth’s biosphere, and its living components, as open, intermediate, dissipative, non-equilibrium systems.

However, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere influence the S–E–S energy flow rate.

And a major carbon cycle perturbation always involves re-adjustment of the outer physiochemical spheres of the earth. A greenhouse, one manifestation of a major carbon cycle perturbation, is the most dangerous natural phenomenon that life on earth can experience.

Enter your volcanoes Arjay. Well several paleontologists attribute the greenhouse conditions which existed during the Cretaceous–Tertiary mass extinctions of 65 million years ago to the carbon cycle perturbation of the Deccan Traps mantle plume volcanism in India, one of the greatest episodes of volcanism in earth’s history.

And out of the five mass extinction events, four, including the one that eliminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, are associated with greenhouse phases.

Now Arjay (Master of physics, maths and chemistry), scientists estimate that your volcanoes emit some 230 million tonnes of CO2 per year. On the other hand, human activities are responsible for emitting over 27 billion tonnes of CO2 per year but sadly you remain too obtuse to grasp the ramifications of that or of the rapid time-frame in the elevation of A/CO2..... too dense to realise that all things are bound together - all things connect.

Now I (“acting like a sterotype err...sterotype?? that Bob Carter predicts..errr....predicts??”) with great relief, having achieved a “fate accompli”……errr “fate?”..errr...??....... Oh well cheerio and may the force be with you.

Dickie

Your personal attacks on Arjay are a disgrace.

Touche Keith

And who cast the first blow? Right, so stop ya sookin!