State of the Climate 2012

Huh? Have you read the papers? Do you understand science? Generally a study that has nothing to do with CO2 won't actually say anything about it because it's uh...you know...IRRELEVANT. Sort of like how you are trying to shift the attention onto CO2 now that you've understood your other list was a total failure. My studies were never meant to say anything about CO2. I know it's hard but pay attention and stay on topic.

 

Here are some research papers that DO discuss the role of CO2 in climate change
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

And there are hundreds more like this

 

<<<mod edit>>>off topicBowergirl

I&#8217;m all for cleaning up our manmade pollution, that&#8217;s not only the CO2 we put in the air but also all the chemicals companies are allowed to discharge into our rivers creeks and oceans etc etc.

I&#8217;m not against cleaning up our pollution, I&#8217;m all for it.

But honestly how can you guys believe a ponzy scheme such as the carbon tax soon to be an ETS joining the Europeans will help clean up our back yard.

How can you believe that farming carbon credits and selling them on the stock exchange turning them into derivatives for traders and speculators alike will clean up our own backyard?

How can you agree to sell every Australian man woman and child into financial slavery to bankers and their corporations will do anything to clean up our own backyard.

Australians have always been innovators and inventors we don&#8217;t need to join any overseas ponzy scheme the international bankers and their corporations have been shoving into our face for the last ten years.

Don&#8217;t you ever ask yourselves why we Australia who contribute only 1.5% all manmade CO2 pollution have been given the most expensive carbon tax in the world at $23/tonne when Europe is only paying $8/tonne, and if it had been left to the greens it would have been $80/tonne.

Why aren&#8217;t the US, India and China coming on board, because if they don&#8217;t come on board our contribution is insignificant we will be paying billions for nothing, I&#8217;ll tell you why because they&#8217;re not that stupid to commit their countries wealth to other nations.

I&#8217;ve told you girls how we can become the cleanest polluters in the world by forcing the big polluters to retrofit with the latest technology in fabric filter bags, electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers etc etc and even gas fired power stations.

This may cost a few billion dollars but it will be a once of payments with the money going into the infrastructure of the companies here on our home soil.

How can you commit every man woman and child to financial slavery for ever over some stupid ponzy scheme that was cooked up by a couple of get rich quick politicians and endorsed by the IPCC who are owned by the United Nations?

Now you know that 10% of the carbon tax revenue will be handed over to the United Nations environmental fund which owns the IPCC, and that under such a scheme where carbon credits exist the big polluters can offset their carbon footprint by buying up carbon credits while maybe throwing up even more pollution into our atmosphere.

Now matter which way you cut it the carbon tax with carbon credits is a ponzy scheme that was designed to rip the wealthy nations of their wealth and give rise to the first tax of the New World Order.

I saw Bob Brown the other day on QandA, he was asked what the new world order government would look like his answer was, just look at the United Nations and the way they are today BUT only elected.

I ask you elected by whom?
Who would they represent; will they take control of all our assets?
Will we lose our sovereignty to them,
who will take charge of us?

Wake up ding bats and smell the air FFS.

 

Nice try at deflecting, but we aren't discussing the carbon tax here.

 

<<<mod edit>>>off topic

Like i said no matter which way you cut it AGW nad the carbon tax are the biggest scams that have been presented to the people of this Earth.

There just aint enough of the stuff (CO2) for it to do what they claim it does!

.

 

lmao you got called out on your nonsense and so you completely changed the subject. A classic case of deflection or tacit admission of defeat. If we were 'shooting blanks' you would've made a short, succinct reply that showed us to be talking nonsense. Instead you changed the subject entirely and didn't address any of those points. Ironically, the only one shooting blanks here is you.

 

Show me a scientific paper that proves 0.0000117 manmade CO2 is responsible for AGW.

I'm still waiting to see one.

 

Question CO2 emmissions account for 60% of global warming?

Which CO2 emmissions the 97% from the ecosystems or the 3% manmade.

I know I know its the 3% manmade right do i get a prize nahhh better a carbon tax hey yeah right

The global CO2 emmissions are mostly from fossil fuels more than 85%, the eco systems only produce less than 10%.

Ok somebody help me out here what the fark is this guy saying!

Is he saying that manmade global warming thats 85% is coming from the 3% manmade CO2.

And is he saying that the natural CO2 from ecosystems which accounts for 97% of CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 10%.

I knew i shouldn't have wagged those maths classes at school.

What the **** is he talking about!

Australia's going to be the first to sink - better pass a carbon tax
Australia's GMAT is the first to rise - better pass a carbon tax
Australia's going to be raining cats and dogs - better pass a carbon tax.
Australia's going to have drought - better pass a carbon tax
Collingwood will win the flag in 2012 - better pass a carbon tax

Seriously this is insulting to us all.

If the CSIRO are getting involved in government propoganda they can shove it where it fits.

 

lmao you got called out on your nonsense and so you completely changed the subject. A classic case of deflection or tacit admission of defeat. If we were 'shooting blanks' you would've made a short, succinct reply that showed us to be talking nonsense. Instead you changed the subject entirely and didn't address any of those points. Ironically, the only one shooting blanks here is you.

 

Would you give the order to shoot all the wounded too!

You have clearly lost your arguement why cant you just except it.

I asked you to provide scientific papers that prove 0.0000117 manmade CO2 is the cause of AGW and all you can muster are scientific papers that show the correlation of sunspots and the temperature on earth which just proves what i have been saying all along.

You talk about the last thirty years, well there are scientific papers that show the sun is also responsible for the heating up of the earth in the last 30 years BUT not only the Earth but our neighbours as well.

You have lost this arguement get over it and act your age FFS.

Stop listening to the United Nation's owned IPCC and their computer models because its garbage in and garbage out.

And as long as you defend garbage in garbage out you will be found wanting.

 

Yes exactly.

Because your conclusion states that the sun is responsible for warming when they clearly state that the sun hasn't been responsible for warming for 30 years or so. It is literally impossible to draw your conclusion from the study. Especially in the context of a discussion about AGW in which 99% of the last 11000 years is rather irrelevant. We all know the sun is usually the main driver of Earth's temp.

Sure. Does this mean that this current warming trend without sufficient solar activity is one of those periods? Not necessarily. Maybe you could put up a study or something that backs this claim? It is an interesting idea and I won't dismiss it out of hand. Would be great news if you are right.

 

No not exactly you were to quick, they dont concede anything i fixed it up, they actually prove that the sun is responsible for the heating and cooling of the Earth for the last 11000 years although they say that the sun cannot be solely responsible for the last 30 years.

You are a laugh, they have proved that the sun is responsiblefor heating and coolig the Earth for the last 11000 years, ist only for thelast 30 years that they say the sun cannot be solely rsponsble.

I dont know myself i can only go off these papers that scientists have written.

But here is a paper that proves the sun is rsponsible for the last 30 years of heating.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

One thing is for sure the science isn't settled as the IPCC would have us believe.

 

Yes, exactly.

Yes, exactly. Clearly this is at odds with your conclusion that the sun is responsible for recent warming.

Okay, so that's a no.

Cool. Although you will need to assemble a few more if you want to present a strong case.

 

Some more here

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL62530.pdf

 

This is a reminder to EVERYONE on this thread - Personal Attacks, Insults and Name-Calling are against the rules of this forum.

Stick to discussing the topic, and not aiming comments personally at each other.

thank you,

Cenydd
Site Moderator

 

The Friends of Science or as they are more commonly known FOS= Full of (*)(*)(*)(*) is not a journal but a BLOG. It is not a research article, in fact it is not even a researched article. It has ONE reference and that is to a paper published in "Energy and Environment" the national inquirer of science journals. (although there are other links to other sites to bolster the cherry picking)

So, how valid is this theory?

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

So this "paper" is only trying to overturn about 150 years of physics http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

The next link is a published paper - but it's author is rather notorious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso

From Idso's own website

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php
Ps your "paper" just had it's 14th birthday - that is really getting on a bit in a field like climate science

And now we come to Dear Roy Spencer

At this point I will simply hand you over to Sceptical Science who have a whole section on "Spencer Slip Ups"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Your final paper is even older than the Idso paper 1996! It has almost hit it's 16th birthday - should we hold it a party?

 

So you accept that you misrepresented some studies in your list to reach your conclusion?