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 > Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions? > Comments

Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions? : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 22/6/2009

Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Graham Young

I appreciate OLO's connection with Jennifer Marohasy's and her concomitant parading of the 'denialist's' platform 'Watt's Up With That'.

What I fail to appreciate is your (and their) failure to go directly to the source. Preferring to mislead, misrepresent or distort (either intentionally or unintentionally) what climate scientists are actually saying.

Have you actually understood what Josh Willis' has published? These might put it all in context:

http://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/~jwillis/willis_sl_budget_final.pdf

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/goos/meetings/2008/XBT/bias_AMS.pdf

Or have you been seduced by errors or corrections in the Argo float data (something of which I am waiting for Spencer to acknowledge)?

You (as chief editor and moderator of OLO) are just creating noise and confusion for the onlookers (good for business no doubt), imho.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 22 June 2009 8:59:20 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
Do you agree that:

- CO2 makes up a total of 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere?

- The sun’s output varies constantly as it goes through long (thousands of years) and short (11 year) cycles?

- The sun provides (on average) 1,367 watts per square metre of energy to the Earth’s atmosphere and is the source of all our energy and light?

- The average human exhales 329kg of CO2 annually while breathing?

- The Earth’s climate has been considerably hotter and considerably colder throughout the Earth’s (and mankind’s) history, and that likewise CO2 levels have been historically considerably higher and lower in the past?

- The worldwide carbon trading market is predicted to worth in excess of a trillion US dollars annually to certain banks and corporations, and worth billions in tax revenues for Governments worldwide?

- A corporations primary legal duty is to return profit to its shareholders, and not for the betterment of mankind?

- The world’s media is funded, directly or indirectly (advertising), by corporations or Governments?

- The majority of scientific research in all fields is funded by Government grants or Corporate grants?

- Excluding computer modelling of CO2 impact, mankind is definitely adversely affecting the earths closed eco-system through, amongst others, oceanic plastic pollution, deforestation, over-fishing, chemicals in the water table, smoke haze, and habitat destruction?

If you have answered Yes to all or the majority of these, then you must rationally also question the received wisdom and motives of 99% of the “environmental” stories that the media & opinion formers put out on a daily basis.

There can never be definitive right or wrong. But on the balance of probabilities what does the rational You think is the most likely?

http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/?tag=climate-chang
Posted by James Fairbairn, Monday, 22 June 2009 9:08:37 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
Jimmy ..

1. Your URL needs an "e" at the end of the line.

2. What's your point?

3. The original piece had 3 questions, then there is a conspiracy theory in the posts of 5 hidden questions, now you pop up with 10 .. spooky!
Posted by rpg, Monday, 22 June 2009 9:46:30 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
I was going to challenge the IPCC to tell us about the last Ice Age which was only 15,000 years ago and resulted in real global warming. Thank goodness it gave Homo Sapiens it's first break and I bet that really ticks off the Greens lol.
Then I thought that the Victorian Weather Bureau cannot even get tommorows weather right and then I thought gee trillions of dollars from us taxpayers going to this mob trying to frighten me!
Then I thought Nah just nick off!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 22 June 2009 9:56:02 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
Vintage Q&A. Accuse others of doing what you are doing yourself and prosecute a vendetta against one or more people while you are at it. On Line Opinion has no connection with Jennifer Marohasy, so I am not sure why her name is invoked.

Q&A generally pretends to some erudition, which is generally demonstrated by throwing a couple of references to papers around, without explaining exactly what it is the papers say. If he's so smart perhaps he could explain it to the rest of us. But he won't because the paper doesn't demonstrate what he implies it does.

The paper of which Josh Willis is an author, agrees with the other paper by Craig Loehle cited in the post I linked to that ocean temperature has in fact decreased in the last 6 years. (Temperature is measured by the Argo system of floats). It also agrees that most of the heat in the ocean is in the top 1000 or so metres.

This is a problem for global warming enthusiasts because it means that the rate at which heat is escaping into space is increasing, which is at odds with GCM model predictions. It also suggests there is no locked-in warming in the system which will manifest later, as suggested by people like James Hansen.

BTW, there was a measuring problem with Argo, but both these papers account for it. I'm not the one with a tendency to "mislead, misrepresent or distort".
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 22 June 2009 11:16:26 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
Thanks for the heads up RPG, the link should have read
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/?tag=climate-change

My point is that the 'debate' should be seen as far from over if you have clarity of perception after looking at the big picture and not just what the media pumps out each day.

Sorry, no conspiracy theory here just human and corporate psychology.
Posted by James Fairbairn, Monday, 22 June 2009 11:28:53 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. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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