cant let this thread end
without mentioning the sbs last night

some blurb re can we trust science
about global warming in the main,
but this time by some plant biologist[member of some royal acadamy]..no les

well he begins at nasa[of course]
with expensive models floating in front of them
[then its more the questions he didnt ask..than those SETUP"S..he did]

he could have asked re the elyptical orbit arround the sun
that makes times hotter and colder...and ask the temp of outerspace
[from memory near freezing or boiling..dependant of solar flares]

anyhow the next dude WAS actually a climate scintist
who was allowed to make one point..[re staligmites]..proving cycles of cli-MATE change[that he refuted by pointing at an overgrown garden
with a tree in the background]..then saying you gotta look at the big picture[sorry WHOLE picture]..cause he couldnt refute the stalignite proof..!

next he went tre rings...[and the lying emails
that said they tweaked the model-bling..from 60's to today
cause the,THE TREE ring DATA..refuted the theory]..ie collective fraud

if the tree data says what the stalignite data reveales
the point wasnt mentioned

but lets egsamin that point
the modeling oNLY mentions c02..[ie plant food]
in the late 60's there was a reduction of coal c02
[and methane and nitrouse oxides..went up..causing the actual 'warming']

but then mehane and nitrous oxide are getting a free ride
only c02 POLUTERS must pay

the botanist then went into conspiricy theory
with some dude what believes aids/hiv something something
and i went to sleep[which is what the propaganda wanted to happen]

its a shame lexie left

maybe she could have explained why the need for so many lies
and so much spin..and so much ommision..to get up a new tax?

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/who-is-funding-climate-change-sceptics-20110810-1im25.html
OUG as you know one side of this debate is inhabited by lying scientists, news papers, self interested groups fools, and the very worst of the worst.
In this case that is me, because I clearly stand on the opposite side than you.
Strangely my Friend, true, I feel not a bit of that about you.
In the end one side will be more right than wrong.
We will know then,as I think I do now climate change has always taken place.
But in less than 300 years of the industrial revolution, the immense growth in human numbers we are speeding the process up, needlessly.

mr bell quote..""OUG as you know
*one side of this debate is inhabited by lying scientists,""

yes i noticed that
you say its my side
i say its your side

but one thing we agree on
some scientists can be clearly bought

your link says its my side
i say its those on yours

so we both KNOW scientists are for sale
[so follow the money...now who is govt giving huge cash grants to?]

big oil and big petrol..are loosing cash cows
and gas[frukking fracted gas]..solar and wind
owned by ge...mate they got the cash

lets just agree all science is flawed
depending on what side has bought the scientist

""news papers, self interested groups fools,
and the very worst of the worst.""

mate we agree again

""true, I feel not a bit of that about you.""

me either mate
were both following our gut..[our core beliefs]

""In the end one side will be more right than wrong.""

yet both sides have ab-USED science spin

but mate i like direct action
ie waiting till we got a real problem
not just a solution..that dont fix any real problem

""less than 300 years of the industrial revolution,""

thats the key right there belly
it was cheaper power/energy that helped make the revolution

just as its expensive energy cost..
that will end-up..killing the workers/jobs

""the immense growth ..n human numbers""
meant customers consumed product

no consumers..no jobs

""we are speeding the process up,needlessly.""

again..i agree[for different reasons]

making all these billions of solar cells..
and building millions of wind generators..to me
is speeding up energy consumption..speeding up the process..

that will not even make 'peak load'..
or power when the wind dont blow..
or the sun dont shine

its the wrong solutions all round
govt shouldnt be chosing winners..giving ANY subsidies..
to any big business..
be it for fuel
or solar cells on our roofs

ps the modeling in that doco..was fraud too
how can models show the real time cloud...[at night]
and neither model had dark periods..thus the one the biologist claimed to be in 'real time'..was as fake as their other model..[ie bling]

the different models overlap in places..
but got their by different paths...[thats just clever minic spin]

what they should do is SAY..tomorrows cloud will look like this
the day after will look like this
next wek like this

THEN COMPARE THEIR PREDICTIONS*
and they will be more wrong than right
but then the solution [cure is worse than the disease]

flora/fauna has survived much worse
than two thirds of a degree change in 50 years
[thats what nasa said..also that will double in the next 50

so we are talking about
a 2/3 rd OF ONE DEGREE..!..increase
in the next 50 years..!

[maybe..
if their faux models is right]..

and its not
the solar cells/wind power
wont even..last that long

That OUG is not what I was saying.
I was using SATIRE to highlight the WHOLE WORLD WIDE DEBATE.
can you, ever remember one like it?
Every post you ever make on the subject talks of laughing out loud and tells us, believers, we are being fooled.
I am going back in to my cave having put the hand of friendship out you bit every finger off.
enjoy.

@ Under One God
I was intrigued, and so watched your show at the SBS website.
http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/scienceunderattack

This was a good show, and brought the audience up to speed on who some of the authorities are in this discussion.

If you want to learn about the tree rings and other proxies, here's a good start.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

//Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.//
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Climategate
//A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.//
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Other evidence for a warming world
//There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.//
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Cheers.