Only a quarter of climate change effects are natural, the rest is man made

BTW TV where did you get this ridiculous statement from?

Pre industrial levels of CO2 where at about 280ppm.

Today we have 390ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

An increase of about 110ppm.

But you have to ask yourself how much of that 110ppm is manmade and how much is natural?

Lets say its 50:50.

Is the heading of this thread supposed to invoke fear on ist readers?

have a good one dude.

 

Great dumb! Yours is not the only side of the argument and I'm not into hysteria! He said, they said, this one said. Look.....there is a huge array of information about this topic with seemingly credible info for the untrained from both sides. The fact that a majority of climatologists believe in AGW is enough for 99.9% of people. The fact that temperatures have risen, especially with a decrease in the suns energy is significant evidence along with many of the other factors!

Your an alarmists, but to the other extreme, and that extreme is less credible! People who are committed to addressing climate change live in hope and with respect, those that oppose it actually live in fear and you are an example of it!

 

Well said

 

The global warming religion is based on.

The global warming religion's mantel piece of evidence "the so called hot spot" doesnt exist in the real world.

It can only be found in banker funded climatological computer models.

So who's into irrational hysteria????????????????????????????????



.

 

I thought you had made your last post

 

Errrrm, TV, the whole AGW religion is based on alarmism, and hysteria.

THE SKY IS FAWLING!
THE SKY IS FAWLING!
THE SKY IS FAWLING, AND THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT IS WITH A BIG NEW TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You and all the other ostriches just keep your heads in the sand now.

 

Got an explanation for why the temperature is rising even though we have just come through a solar minima?

 

It's because the moon is moving away making cows fart, don't you read their posts BB?

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)!! And here was me thinking it was all down to fairy dust!!!

 

Nup, no money in fairy dust, just ask Bob Brown.

If it looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and has all the attributes of a scam, it`s a scam.

 

and a dolphin is a fish right, quick, your intelligence is showing again

Let's try this one ...

if it looks like a conspiracy theory, smells like a conspiracy theory, has all the attributes of a conspiracy theory, sh1t I better believe it LMAO

 

Nice aussie, we seem to be agreeing a fair bit lately. Exxonmobil wont be pulling the wool over peoples eyes for too much longer.

 

Aussie - please answer this thoughtfully - for AGW to be a "scam" how many scientists have to be "cooking the books"?

 

BB, climatology is such a fledgling science that no one even needs to "cook" any books, there really aren`t many books to cook. Climatology, and scientology, are side by side in the credability pecking order. Like the other religions, I`m prepared to not have a position on ACCC, I`m prepared to say "I just don`t know". However, the hype and hysteria surrounding ACCC, and the accompanying projected, huge cash transfer, makes me more than a little suspicious.

Furthermore, if supporters of ACCC were genuinely concerned with the environment, and not the cash. Why don`t we hear more of the greatest threat to global environmental health, over population? We are in the midst of a global population explosion. If the population could be HUMANELY stabilised, then reduced, and poverty addressed, humanity might have a chance, if not, the human race is in for a rude shock.

 

I don`t need any more steak knives thanks.

 

What are you implying that manmade CO2 is the missing link?

NOW THAT IS FAIRY DUST !

And you should get your facts right about the sun!

 

Makes you wonder dont it??

 

Cimate change, aka global cooling, aka, global warming. What does it take for people to understand that the "climate" has always changed. Nothing new there. The climate has always been cyclical and still is. The Climate has warmed several times over the course of Earths history, as it has cooled, as the glaciers have began to melt and carved out the earth. While also due to the earths rotation and tilt the Continents have shifted, while there has been massive volcanic activity, extreme weather and so on. How much of the changes in the earths climate over its beginning can be atributed to living organizms is an unknown, atbest a hypothesis and yet to be proven by science. So what does that mean to us? It means that while we should try to do the least damage we can to our environment, there is no scientific proof that changes the way we live or our use of carbon based fuels will have any significant impact on the global climate over the next 1000 years.
There has yet to be scientific proof that man can significantly change the weather cycle, climate cycle, glacial cycle that science HAS proven exists through study of the first reported tempertures, geological studies, archeology findings and such. What is a scientific fact is that humans can only make an insignificant impact on the climate over the next 1000+ years. No matter what we do.

 

What you say is true Hudson, the Earth`s climate has always fluctuated. The only difference this time, is that there is a scam in place to make money out of it.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

He's got nothing! Didn't answer zip. Mega is still waiting on his answer by the way! Actually I reckon there are a number of us waiting for responses, I suppose we can add this one to the growing list!

 

Confused again, I see. No surprises there.

 

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent).

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

 

Admittedly the science as a separate discipline is young but the science underpinning it is old. Atmospheric physics is a field that has been around a while as has atmospheric chemistry not to mention meteorology. No one "just made stuff up". Admittedly it is new discipline to add what is known about atmospheric physics to what is known about chaos theory to chemistry to solar cycles to oceanography to .................

Few other fields have had to rely on more and varied science disciplines. When ALL of those scientists in ALL of those allied fields are following the science and all saying the same thing it is time to listen

Hmmmmm - well the answer to that lies over in the abortion forum. While we have two major religions trying to basically out populate each other we are never going to win THAT argument But it does not end there - the right wing of America (you know the bit that is so far right that it flies up it's own fundamental beliefs) have politicised population so that it is almost forbidden for this to be discussed