Dear Eclipse,

I've noticed that you haven't posted for a while.
So I assume that this thread has run its course
for you. Anyway, Thanks for an interesting
discussion on a subject that I think many people
know so little about. See you on another thread.

Yes! I see the light:) Humans eating this planet alive.....and I love the thoughts of mankind NOT BEING REASONABLE for the planets demise.

1929 stock.....fall....this is happening because we, "the planet holdings", cant manage/support the number people and the right wing know it. There are only three ways out of this, and you all must choose ONE. 7 billion then 8 billion then 9 billion....lol when with 7 billion, the wheels are falling off. ( the collapses of the north )

The greens support the idea of "THE WORLD AS ONE"...and ( the numbers suggest....the UN generally considers this as the way to go.

We only have one planet, I suggest all to take a very LONG look at our currant position.

LEAP

Lexi, as you might have suspected he hasn't posted for a while as I have suspended him for the comment that I deleted as well as his general behaviour on this thread.

Lexi,

Eclipse Now has overstepped the line and gone so I'll ask you questions as you are apparently so confident about this issue.

How do you feel about the use of the term "denialist" for people who are more scientifically minded (according to the pro-climate change scientists' own research)? Do you think that it is an insult to Jewish people that it gets used rhetorically in that way? How about claiming that people are unresponsive (not an unusual accusation in a debate) and labelling that PIGS (apparently unusual)? Does that look to you as if there is an attempt to lean on rhetoric as if the facts are inadequate? I ask questions rather then accepting climate change on blind faith and it is implied that I am anti-science.

In spite of the appeal to authority it is supposed to be straight forward and easily demonstrated. But when it is demonstrated there is a party trick with cold gas, a flame and a heat camera. When they want to show good predictions of volcanic effect that vindicates Hansen they don't superimpose thus enabling easy comparison. The predictions only seem to work backwards - particularly weather events in Australia.

Temperature measurements are taken in clearly confounding circumstances (but it is said that climate scientists aren't the ones taking measurements but rather National Weather Services). But why are the measurements sites so apparently deliberately and ubiquitously wrong?
http://web.archive.org/web/20090319232403/http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html
Supposedly this is corrected for by recourse to rural weather stations and corrected by the NWS but if such a high proportion don't even meet their guidelines and they look so deliberately sited can we take the word of the measurers that they are making appropriate corrections? And what is the break up between urban and rural? What proportion of the rural ones are incorrectly sited? Even if the CRU and GISS have nothing to do with the collection they use the suspect data.

CONT

Doesn't Wikipedia claim that all peer reviewed articles are in the same direction (or am I misrecollecting) but Energy and Environment holds itself out as peer reviewed.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/Journals/EE.asp
"All Reviews undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure, in the same way as regular research papers."
It has published something that is inconsistent with the dramatic global warming claims:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/M&M.EE2005.pdf

Then there is this claim that someone who reviewed IPCC reports said rather damaging things:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/claims-were-made-for-which-there-was-no-evidence-in-some-cases-the-evidence-was-clearly-manufactured/

What do you make of this? Dissent even within IPCC?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12823

I appreciate that scientific issues can be presented in a way in which an evidence based approach appears to be a defunct argument (in fact the peer review article thing sounded good to me until I discovered that it was fiction) but this looks rather strange. Can climate change be defended without trickery and strong rhetoric?

there are those who comprehend 'the science'
as experts in the 'science'..its they alone..who know the science
to wit a [problem]

then comes the solution [after a real problem is found]
and guess what throwing money at carbon resources trading
dont fix the problem..[only doubles the price of energy]
we cant fix an industrial polution..by gearing up the poluters

try to think how much 'energy'..[and govt cash]
has gone into..solar cells or windmill CREATION
and even by spending the earth on getting 80 %..of the earth onto these energies..means the lights still go OUT..if the sun dont shine..or the wind dont blow

so the proof is in
so we are warming..thus evidence of cooling refutes the theory
[so the spin became climate change]

we got grenhouse GASSES..
from least to worse...c02...nitrous oxide/methane
yet only tax coal based c02...[and in a few years diesal..[but not petrol]

but mate still ONLY 500..
WILL BE LEGISLATED to by carbon 'credit'
[or will it THEN ..be 1000 AGAIN]

mate every level has been having its spin and lies
vote for me and no carbon tax...[yeah right mizz juliar]

add in the name calling
even in this debate..NOW about wether a big new tax will fix 'it'

it stinks
but hey im working lol for big coal
[im not im resiting a lie and a bad new tax]
but look at the spin..if they had proof..that the problem is real

that the big new tax would fix the problem
that we against the lies do get the science ,
and know deciete/spin...distortion..selectivity
when we hear it

know the solution just might have a monetory causation
as at every stage the cry has been fund the science
fund the solar/wind..generators
now pay tax

its about money
its about a big new tax

if your paying for abatement...
yet not reducing that..'energy your using'
its just feel good blather...or taking the bribe

if you THINK
ITS the 'right thing to be doing'
THEN YOU FIND YOUR OWN MONEY..dont try to steal mine with lies/spin