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 > Earth jurisprudence: standing up for the planet > Comments

Earth jurisprudence: standing up for the planet : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 24/9/2009

It's about time the Rudd Government and the Turnbull Coalition put aside their adversarial posturing on climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Fractelle:

Thank you.

I quickly read the NASA site you cited.

I requested evidence - hard data. Your cited site provides none linking human CO2 to Earth's modest global warming that ended in 1998. If you too are a lawyer the legal profession is in real trouble. The key is to understand cause-and-effect.

Human production of CO2 continues to increase, yet Earth's temperature has decreased since 1998.

Your cited site discusses some possible correlations. Correlation does not prove causation. And in my previous paragraph I showed negative correlation so if you believe NASA then CO2 does not drive temperature. Which is true.

NASA's pop science site contradicts the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics. If you believe this site, you don’t understand the laws of physics.

In 16 inferred concrete statements, 14 are false.

Nature produces 97% of Earth's annual CO2 production - human activity 3%. Of the claimed greenhouse gas effect theory, CO2 is attributed by Al Gore and the IPCC to cause 3% of the greenhouse gas effect, water vapour 95%. That’s 3% of 3% of a gas that comprises 1 in 2600 air molecules.

Your cited site says, quote: "the consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:". This, Fractelle, is not hard data.

There’s no evidence human activity caused global warming. None.

The site's reference to IPCC scientists: Please check McLean's outstanding papers. The IPCC’s own data provided by the IPCC reveal only 5 reviewers endorsed the IPCC’s core claim that human CO2 warms Earth. And IPCC’s core claim relies on computer models proven hopelessly wrong in just 10 years. Not data.

USA’s temperature in the 1990's and 2000's was cooler than the 1930's. Earth's temperature in the 1990's, 2000's and 1930's is cooler than Earth's average temperature for the last 3000 years.

Joe D'Aleo proves low and negative correlation between USA temperatures and atmospheric CO2. And strong correlation with decadal effects. Carter, McLean and de Freitas prove strong correlation between southern hemisphere temperatures and the Southern Oscillation. CO2 is innocent.

Malcolm
Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Thursday, 24 September 2009 9:45:17 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
John Mc,
Just because Co2 IS a small percentage of the atmosphere doesn't mean the physicists can't measure the impact of it. Ever heard of the Radiative Forcing Equation? Ever studied how the physicists measure the spectrometry of Co2, methane, and other gases, or how they've calculated that methane is 21 times more powerful than Co2? Hmmm, sounds like you've swallowed the Plimer and Carter story hook, line and sinker.

How about reading the COUNTLESS works by REAL, peer reviewed scientists and get off the conspiracy theory bandwagon of self-aggrandising idiots like Plimer.

How many other myths will be recycled on this list?

To save time, I'll preempt a lot of the stupidity by linking to the top 26 climate myths that the morons recycle again, and again, and again.....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Guys, how about seeing if climate scepticism has anything NEW in it? Surely you can see that the REAL climate science is an intellectually honest profession where the (smallish areas) of uncertainty adapt and change as new data comes in, while the sceptics just keep trotting out the same tired old myths again, and again, and again.....
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 24 September 2009 10:34:47 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
Squeers, I may have been joking, but I'm not really laughing.

Despite a lifelong concern for the environment (hey, how many kids in the 70s do you know of who spent their school holidays pulling up boneseed in National Parks?), I am increasingly concerned and disgusted by the actions and rhetoric of even many mainstream environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and the WWF.

When I read statements, as I frequently do in this forum, such as "I don't trust democracy to get the job done", and "at least China have got the right idea", I become seriously alarmed. Greens seem to increasingly be swapping the socks and sandals for the boots and braces.

I am disturbed by the bright-eyed enthusiasm of some environmental campaigners for an ideology that can only seriously be described as a new brand of "eco"-fascism. This is not a knee-jerk perjorative; substitute the environment for the nation-state in the ideology of radical green groups, and I'm hard-pressed to think of a better term to describe it.

Oh, I'm sure you'll indignantly reply that what I sometimes think of as "the Green Storm" (look up Phillip Reeves' excellent "Hungry Cities Chronicles" if you want to understand the provenance of the term) only mean well, and I'm sure you're right.

The problem is, what tyrant doesn't mean well, at least in the beginning? Tolkien recognised this when he wrote that his avatar of evil, Sauron, "was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up". The most dreadful tyrants are so, precisely because they mean well: the most appalling acts are justifiable when one knows that one has right on one's side. Kill 'em all, and let Gaia be the judge.

Maybe I'm overreacting - but when I consider the history of the "Dark Valley" of the 1920s and 1930s, and compare it with the rhetoric of some of today's Greens, I confess that I am deeply worried.
Posted by Clownfish, Thursday, 24 September 2009 11:16:57 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
What is most amusing about the righteous dudgeon of denialists such as clownfish and Hume is that when nothing is done, when systems begin to collapse, when shortages, dislocation, hunger, mass migrations and other consequences of climate change begin to occur, they will be the first to demand the fascist responses of guns and border control. Protect my right to destroy. What a crock!
Posted by next, Friday, 25 September 2009 6:21:13 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
Malcolm Roberts

Your guff can be lifted from any blogsite in the denialosphere.

However;

When you chimed "NASA's pop science site contradicts the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics" ... I spilled my coffee.

When you started to conflate a "forcing" with a "feedback" ... I thought this feller is all white noise.

When you cited the Heartland Institute's cohorts (Carter, McLean and de Freitas) ... bingo.

Thankyou

My guess - you have an agenda with, or are embedded in, the mining industry. Care to enlighten?
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 25 September 2009 8:27:24 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
Hi Jon J, you are right when you say:
"Let's have a look...

Evidence? No...

Qualifications? No...

New ideas? No...

Move along, folks, Nothing to see here."

Absolutely correct: the sceptics have got nothing! "Us believers" in global warming have the weight of modern science on our side.

This candle flame disappearing shows what Co2 actually does, before your very eyes. Demonstration starts at 1 minute 30 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=related

This youtube answers the myth "Man doesn't produce enough Co2 to matter" and quotes the latest science from the authorities in answering the myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=related
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 25 September 2009 9:32:42 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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