(Continued)

You again ask me a scientific question after my clear statement that I’m not qualified to answer. You ask if I’m aware << that the basic climate science is based on the physics of spectrometry and the Radiative Forcing Equation?>> No idea what you’re talking about. My questions to you would be, should I? and isn’t that why we have scientists?

Those of us who are not convinced on GW seem willing to consider opinion from both sides and seek “harder science”. Those already decided, seem to accept “softer science” and have to defend that position, often done on OLO by denigrating the undecided. This has left little room for open debate, just a forum for name calling and abuse. Each side trots out endless books, articles and web sites with various contradictory opinions, each quoting only those that support their own views. This is not a debate, it’s jousting with opinions.

I was involved in the “Millennium Bug” phenomenon in the 1990’s. We investigated this from the point of public reaction. Distressing as this may be for many, the creation of “belief” about the Millennium Bug in the public domain is indistinguishable from that of the GW scenario. It is also indistinguishable from the many doomsday phenomena that have repeatedly been foisted upon the public in the past 100 years, none of which eventuated.

The public also didn’t have a clue what Millennium Bugs were, but there were other alarming commonalities. Trust was a key feature, there were those who trusted the scientists to work it out, didn’t believe there was a significant problem. Others did not trust anyone except those who supported their doom perspective. Interestingly, it has been said often on OLO that it boils down to which scientists you believe. For the undecided we seem to “trust” that all scientists will eventually agree and “harden up” the science. GW supporters on the other hand are only willing to trust the science of those with whom they already agree, mostly driven by the inflated and unsubstantiated sense of urgency or impending doom.

Anyone for jousting?

“You warmies are such evil propagandists that you equate Carbon and CO2 as pollution itself. This sick belief system you warmies have is one that we deniers equipped with real insight can shoot holes through with its Greenzi-like irrationality.”

Meme is clearly destitute of knowledge - uninstructed, untaught and unenlightened:

Pollutants:

1. Benzene burns to carbon dioxide. Benzene is a Category 1 human carcinogen. Benzene has a high acute toxic effect on aquatic life. Long- term effects on marine life have seen shortened lifespan, reproductive problems, lower fertility and changes in appearance or behaviour. Benzene can cause death in plants and roots and damage to the leaves of many agricultural crops.

2. Carbon monoxide elevates methane and ozone in the atmosphere then oxidises to carbon dioxide.

3. Researchers discovered that the industrial pollution at Wilson Park in Sydney consisted of contamination of groundwater, estuarine sediments, sands and clays:

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ranging in concentrations up to 16,000 mg/kg in soils and up to 3 mg/L in groundwater.

Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene and Xylene, ranging in concentrations up to 1000 mg/kg in soils and sediments and up to 50 mg/L in groundwater.

The Polluter Pays principle is a myth and remediation (if any) costs are extracted from the public purse while industry pollutes with impunity.

4. This year the Swan River Trust advised that the Swan and Canning rivers in WA are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons.

The unburnt hydrocarbons, from poor combustion and rampant industrial pollution are being stored in our underground drinking water tables.

5. Acid rain is a mix of atmospheric sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel combustion. Researchers discovered Atlantic salmon populations have been extirpated from a number of rivers in Nova Scotia, Canada, as a result of acid rain and that base cations will not recover to pre-industrial levels within the next 100 years.

The swarm of evil propagandists mememine speaks of resides in the ethics-free deniers' domain.

Industrial carbon dioxide is a pollutant - officially deemed hazardous by the USEPA!

Wow, nice last post!

Hi Spindoc,

So you've got an opinion that global warming is "soft" science but sceptics have "hard" science on their side. Where did this opinion come from exactly?

You've ignored the basic science of spectrometry which finds out exactly WHAT Co2 and methane do, and the RFE which counts HOW MUCH they do it. If you don't have papers attacking these, then you don't have an argument because everything else you argue with is peripheral. Far more than "jousting with opinions" the HARD science is always won by the climatologists, hands down, because the sceptics are jousting with onions!

(When the real climatologists peel their arguments back layer by layer they've got nothing of substance in the middle and the sceptics are in tears).

These are the 26 top myths pushed by big oil. See if you can find Meme's "it's been cooling since 1998" on there.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

(It's "onion" number 21.)

You might recognise some of these myths as being pushed as so called "arguments" by sceptics on OLO previously. They are NOT informed arguments, but silly sideshows devised for the DENIALISTS, not sceptics.

I'm sceptical. I HOPE that climatologists find a new naturally occuring feedback mechanism that's going to save us from the worst case scenarios. But to go against basic physics and chemistry is to go against the HARD FACTS OF HARD SCIENCE and not be sceptical, but a DENIALIST.

Meme, if you love your kids please read the New Scientist round up of myths above. It's BECAUSE I love my kids I'm going to support the precautionary principle and vote Green, debate the likes of you, and support reason and science where-ever I can. And maybe your kids wouldn't have to "be scared" if us adults GOT the science and built a new world, free of oil wars, with home grown energy security, cleaner cities and solar engineers enjoying the fresh air not coal miners dying underground!

Hiya Prottog,

Running away, ey? Dropping another big poop screen behind you. I believe you had the nerve to write:

"We’re waiting Spindoc but what about first offering an apology to the poster, Q&A?"

I haven't read yours yet.

Oh but I see you've popped up out of your weasel hole elsewhere. I'll see you there.

----

Can someone else tell me the chemical formula for industrial CO2, as distinct from other forms?

A Simple, Simple Global Warmer’s Prayer:
Some day if we sacrifice enough, our climate will be like it used to be. Like the inside of an indoor shopping mall, safe, predictable and CONTROLLED!
I believe as foreigners on this fragile and sick planet, we should leave as little a footprint as possible. I for one am going to lessen my impact on our mother planet earth by putting myself in a drip fed intravenous coma. Who is with me?
Attention All Children, please be warned: Let be known that your future is doomed. You will not have children and if you do, they will most certainly die an unimaginable death on a toxic wasteland of a planet that has been ravaged by evil human SUV gas and plant food.
But wait, there is more to worry about and feel concerned about and feel so self righteous about and get together with other freaks and make myself feel useful and accepted. Now the scientists are saying, (I don’t know them personally but we must do as they say) that wind turbines are disrupting the natural air flow patterns of this fragile and delicate 5 billion year old planet.
We have waited 23 years with this global warming theory and we will wait another 23 years or as long as it takes for us humans to be punished for our evil doings.
The solution?: SUSTAINABILITY (otherwise known as poverty.)
God help us.
Suffering Shall Set Us Free: We are the Greenzis.

Ok enough of making fun of you warmies because we should just let do history its job. As a former believer myself and one who has read all 19 IPCC reports and have bothered to research both sides of this “science”, I demand one you hysterical bed-wetters of global warming to answer this one question and it better be a scientific answer:

“Does over all unpredicted cooling, disprove a predicted warming?”

Fungochumley,

The key chemical difference between Industrial CO2 and the CO2 exhaled by animals is that that Industrial CO2 is industrial. As you may be aware, Industrial CO2, along with that other demonstrably greenhouse contributing substance Industrial H20, makes up the main waste products of humanities endless consumption of fossil fuels. The industrial versions of both CO2 and H2O, being man made, are patently unnatural with the predictable consequence that they are harmful to nature because they upset the natural order of things.

Both CO2 and H2O contribute to the greenhouse effect, one as a gas and the other in the form of vapour (Although little appreciated, H2O is a much greater contributor to the Greenhoue Effect that CO2). The Industrial forms of both these chemicals represent additional amounts of these chemicals being added to the 'natural system' and logically, must therefore increase the effects of Mother Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

As everyone knows, and no credible person with a proper regard for Mother earth would deny, the constant deposition of unnatural chemicals in our environment is the underlying cause of virtually all the environmental calamaties with which we are faced today. Mother Nature will punish those who do not heed her warnings.

However, rather than an ETS, which will only invoke corruption and the shifting of fossil fuel consuption into the third world, I propose the following solution: everyone hold their breath (which is CO2 and H2O rich).

If all 6 billion or so of us humans did this little thing, how wonderfully natural our environment would be.