Tips for Sunday, June 26

Brian - A bit of advice. 99.9% of people have absolutely no idea, nor care about the technicalities of climate change science. While it may give you some orgasmic delight to parade your knowledge or possibly googling skills, most people think it self indulgent and pointless.
The real issue doesn’t lie in the science but the political response. Concern yourself with that and you may become relevant.

I have a young relative who is very concerned that boats cause tides to be higher than is “natural’.

By this, she means that the billions of tonnes of ships etc must displace the same amount of water....which in turn must cause some change in the tides. Example; instead of today’s high tide being 1.25 metres at 11AM, it would be 1.24999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999mtrs.
if the multi-billion tonnes of ships etc were removed.

Is she panicking un-necessarily, or is this a justified concern?

What are we going to do about this? Would a tax save us from all that steel/wood/fibreglass pollution (ie boats)? What about our children’s futures?

Brian, just to be clear, are you saying that photosynthesis occurs at different rates for CO2 containing different isotopes of C?

How about for CO2 with different isotopes of O?

Is this related to the using the different proportions of the isotopes of C to date objects?

Are you prepared to issue an apology if you are wrong?

PHYSICS FACT #3: The radiative properties of carbon dioxide have been measured by physicists in the laboratory: It absorbs thermal infrared (heat) radiation.

FACT: Carbon dioxide absorbs and immediately emits radiant energy, in fact emits this energy at a longer wavelength than it is able to respond to again. A physicist who claims to understand the earth’s main climate parameters should understand this.

Besides which, CO2 only absorbs-emits a very small fraction of the IR spectrum, and therefore can never warm up to the same temperature as the radiation source. In other words, if warmed by radiation alone, CO2 will ALWAYS be far cooler than a heat source that’s radiating a continuous spectrum. In Earth’s atmosphere, CO2 warms just like every other gas does – by contact with the ground and by colliding with other air molecules. The scattering of IR by CO2 cannot increase the temperature beyond this.

@Rossco - I offered Brian S the same advice a while back, suggesting he keep his own perceived intellectual superiority out of the discussion but like all advice, however well intentioned, one is free to take it or leave it. This entire alarmists/denialist argument will not resolve until personal slurs are removed.

rossco. The question is relevant to the origin of atmospheric CO2. This began with one individual sneering at Gabs:

Is this an example of the utter blithering scientific ignorance of the AGW set? Please tell me that your post was a joke.

I posted a link showing that Gabs was correct. Now Peter has bought in with a sneering comment, requiring more links to set the record straight.

I have no problem whatsoever with people challenging the science in a polite manner. I have no problem whatsoever with genuine skeptics (in the AGW sense of the word). I was one myself until relatively recently. I an happy to help non specialists with technical matters where I can so that the debate can be conducted on a knowledgable basis where I can.

But people who sneer and abuse from a position of ignorance can expect to be stomped on.

Sometimes I will just ignore stupidity.

Hermit. Good question. Not sure but I would assume that the difficulty of plants processing heavier isotopes would be reflected in the rate of photosynthesis. C-13 is only 1% at natural abundance. Your hypothesis could be tested by growing plants under controlled conditions, with isotopic enrichment of C(13)O2.

Again not sure about isotopes of oxygen. I have had less to do with those personally. But it would seem a reasonable assumption.

C-14 is the isotope used in radiocarbon dating and has a natural abundance of 1 part per trillion.Again, being heavier it has a lower rate of biological uptake. When the plant or animal dies the C14 begins to decay which starts the clock running.

BS, you are citing 2006 research that has been clearly tainted by the sources contained and refers to tree ring base insights that have been clearly shown to not represent the actual environment. Your other link is also typical of your method. You use a reference to a loose association to NMR that actually does not satisfy the demands of your discussion on the hope that those who read it will not comprehend your discussion point. In this you fail to understand that reading of the supplied information does not clearly specify the actual absorption of radiated IR from the sun that would qualify or quantify any “significant” increase in temperatures.

Either you know this and expect people to look at the supplied information and believe that it translates into what you are stating, or you do not understand the information and yet believe it somehow translates into supporting your position. Either way, this information does not actually support your claims nor should it be used to “prove” something that it obviously does not.

After reading both pieces of supplied information and checking the references to the Beetson paper, I am not satisfied with the current validity of her thesis due to the advancements in the applied theories that have occurred subsequently. That you choose to cite papers with references clearly compromised by the release of the climategate emails shows that you are not actually interested in the factual data involved in this discussion.

You should look to be not only better equipped but at least current.

The real issue doesn’t lie in the science but the political response.

rossco

You are the second person on this blog to say this in two days.

doug z replied to ThoughtPolice
Sat 25 Jun 11 (10:26pm)

The judge found errors in the consequences of AGW. He found NO errors in the overall theory of AGW.

It’s the consequences that are the issue, Maggie.  Who gives a toss about the overall theory?

I have always believed that the anti-AGW crowd are terrified by the by what is need to combat AGW rather than whether the science of AGW is real or not.

Concern yourself with that and you may become relevant.

Sticking one’s head in the sand is not a response. There is a word for that...’denialism’.

Dean: Which brings us to infra red spectroscopy. But apparently people are not interested in links or details.

Yes only part of the spectrum is absorbed by CO2 and of course the source is hotter.

CO2 is not a source of thermal energy at all. It absorbs infrared radiation and converts it to mechanical or kinetic energy of the vibrating bonds and the molecule as a whole.  Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. So CO2 traps radiative energy that was on its way back out to space as thermal energy.

Angry God. Nope. I have not read the 2006 paper at all. It may be absolutely correct. That is not the point I am making.

Rule303 - You’re quite right, it’s a waste of time with people like Brian. We have moved way past the science stage, the only relevance now is the response. No one is yet to convince me that placing your economy at a severe disadvantage in 2011 is going to be of help 50 or 100 years down the track. If climate change is as bad as the alarmists would have us believe then the only way it will be fought is with the full weight of economic resources.

Rossco - I wasn’t dumping on Brian S as an individual but more criticising his delivery style. I am yet to be convinced either way on this whole GW question - I require cold impersonal FACTS, but that is just me. Brian S makes some good points but I think he undermines his argument (as do others IMO) to an extent by including little backhanders to the so-called sceptics about not being intellectually adavnced enough to follow the ‘science’.
In a nutshell, unless we can debate this in an adult manner, without the insults and putdowns, then the issue will remain partisan.

Brian S replied to Brian S

Dean: Which brings us to infra red spectroscopy. But apparently people are not interested in links or details. Yes only part of the spectrum is absorbed by CO2 and of course the source is hotter......

Exposed again.......

Basic CO2 Physics

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively.

If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

In other words, if warmed by radiation alone, CO2 will ALWAYS be far cooler than a heat source that’s radiating a continuous spectrum.

This is one of the major points the warming science Brian espouses cannot get around. You cannot have a smaller cooler body - CO2 - warm up a (larger warmer body; our atmosphere. And that’s not taking into consideration the heating/cooling dominance of water vapor.

So you admit to posting information that you have not read, yet demand that we do. You have just exposed that you are just a shill for the fraudstes and not interested in INFORMED debate.

Nice own goal there BS. You have now got zero credibility.

It’s called socialism.  Australians are now on a learning curve to understand socialism and what it means for their daily lives.  When Hawke & Keating were Prime Minister, they hid socialism in the bottom drawer, but now that drawer has been opened to reveal a dangerous Gillard.

Dave, Juliar is a Fabian. See if their ideals are come to a country near you. Be afraid.

AlsoThe Fabian society is a division of the Frankfurt School which believes in taking power gradually to create a pure marxist state through the subversion of Western democratic governments. It works by the use of ‘marxist critical theory’ i.e. the gradual undermining of the culture, values, ethnicity, patriotism, religious values and sovereignity of a country through criticism of all it holds dear and political correctness, brainwashing schoolchildren with ‘politically correct thought,’ mass immigration, multiculturalism, diversity conditioning and control (as now) of the press and media through sympathetic liberal forces. Preparing it become so disembodied as a nation that it can merge seamlessly into a one world order.
Obviously the Frankfurt School’s ploy to free ethnics, women and gays from an established view was commendable. But they only did so in order to re-arrest them in the handcuffs of ‘victimhood status.’ Fabians like Tony Blair increased surrevellance and thought and data control, which the Tories will pretend to address as they will pretend to address immigration.
The New developing American and British Right feels that it is now important for the citizen to dissect and anaylise power in the United States and the United Kingdom. Be critical of the results of cultural marxist ideology in brainwashing the people. Power and control are what the British state now wishes in which to secure itself. Personal freedom is at stake in such a controlled society. and the skeptic should investigate and not just accept, everything that is said.

“When we get in we’ll change everything” Peter Garrrett.

The trashing, squandering, offending of regional countries,
trashing freedom of speech by invoking PC, playing puerile
games inviting illegals to breech border security and giving the middle finger to all who oppose will continue.
Increasing beyond our wildest nightmares once the Greens
take the balance of power in the Senate in a very few days.

Pity Tony Abbot the coaltion and the Australian people who will
be left to clean up the costly muck heap Labor and their
accomplices will leave in their wake as they congaline out the exit door very very pleased with themselves and their appalling legacy to the nation. We’ve been well and trul;y ratf....d by
the f.....s as Kev 07 would say.

Thats PC socialism (Marxism) for you - one look at the flattened
fleeced UK after a decade of Blair New Labour tells us where Gillard ALP want to take us.
Riding with the four horsemen of the apocalypse was never
a good idea as we tried to point out prior to the 2007 and 2010 elections to no avail.

You mean this mob are planning on holding an election?

Teddles! Good to see you up and arpound, old son! Long time no post! Thought you’d shuffled off this mortal coil. Look forward to more of your innane ramblings.

Curry you say Teddie, Hot or Mild will it be.

At least he fronts up.
Do you see Gore face up to the media here? No.
He can’t can he - and that is proof that he is full of BS.
Gillard selfishly uses the same Gore BS to suit her own political agenda and the losers ironically, are the people she claims to care about.
All she needs are the suckers who are blind to her deceit.
All that is left now is stubbornness and stupidity.

Does Plimer still think that the sky not being black means no problem? That climatologists are unaware of climate change over geological time scales?  That climate science is all about theory without data and geology all about rock collecting without theory?

Monckton of course did not get curry but tea and scones. It would take a series of hour long programs to go through all of the Monckton Myths on climate science but Andrew did not even pick him up on the claim that temperatures had not matched IPCC projections.

This is the Anthony Watts school of analysis, where he recently trumpeted a paper by Clive Best which he presented as supporting that view, presenting a graph uncorrected for differing axes from different data sets in preference to the corrected graph from Best’s paper and ommitting Best’s conclusion that temeperatures were consistent with IPCC projections.

That was a pretty weak effort on Monckton… turning his Nazis slur into an attack on those that call you deniers… even though it’s almost exclusively only deniers who makes the linkage to Holocaust denial - those you call warmists can read and understand English. Nice bit of complicity in his attempt at deflection.

Big Ted, the reason to have Monkton on was to tell him he was “not the messiah but a very naughty boy” for using the Godwinism, now move on and come back into the fold duly admonished in public so those on the denial side can continue to call the earth flat with the support of this google eyed fraud.

Ha de ha. I’d forgotten about Dad and Dave Rudd.

kevin makes the pair of them look like far sharper axes in the Rudd shed

Leave Kevin alone you peasants

Warmer temperatures? By how much? In comparison to earlier times? Agree with much of what you say, but…

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been historically up to 11 times higher than today’s values. The oceans have never “acidified”.

The temperatures are not warmer.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have no impacts, other than increasing plant growth.

Eco-systems have never been “stable”. There has never been a “balance”. What makes you assert the opposite to be the case?

Any suggestion as to what caused the wild fluctuations in temperatures over the past few thousand years despite this “stability’ and “balance”?

All that pre-Industrial pollution, maybe?

And how many other compounds we live in daily harmony with would also be ‘dangerous’ in concentrations of 10,000 fold more than they are now (which is what CO2 needs to get to to be ‘dangerous’ to us).

How many other possibilities of our demise should we also panic about?

How many super-volcano watchers should we have on guard?

And on and on it goes . . . .

The Australian government still hasn’t even listed carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

bennoba

It has been explained to you in the past why CO2 is not on the National Pollutant Inventory. It’s because the list only contains pollutants that are detrimental to human health.

oil shrill, past warming was natural and it took thousands of years for a warming cycle to be completed. this is not the case with present warming. your view of c02 is simplistic. c02 is much more than plant food. your views are not backed by empirical observations that show c02 and temp correlate. Amazing Scenes. present warming in regard to the speed of that warming is unprecedented. a 1 degree rise in a 100 years is unprecedented

Italics be gone!

Kill the italics

That’s why it’s NOT on the National Pollution Inventory!!

See here!!

Cheers,

Three factors determine the severity of a pollutant: its chemical nature, its concentration and its persistence.
1. Chemical Nature - 2 parts oxygen 1 part Carbon (we breath it out & plant food.
2. Concentration = 0.039% (it has been as high as 7,000ppm)
3. Persistance; It is critical in our atmosphere.  If CO2 levels drop below 140ppm we all die, and levels have been dropping alarmingly for the last 160 million years (except for a recent burp). 

CO2 levels and temperature must increase if we are to survive!

Judge
Oh really?

Just where do you think the stored CO2 came from in the first place ?

Arguing by analogy has limits. You have gone quite nicely until you try to move from the qualitative to the quantitative.

Ask youself how the previous warming and cooling took place without man to disrupt the carbon cycle.

A better question about CO2 and pollution is why the warm alarmists keep showing steam and particulates when they want to scare the world into agreeing with them.

Better tell Julia that Carbon Dioxide is not on the national pollutant register. This is a Australian Government Register, so julia in effect disagrees with you!

Or is Julia having a little fib on the side, getting hard to tell these days.....

Actually “anthropogenic” carbon dioxide only accumulates in the atmosphere to the extent that the emission rate exceeds the sequestration rate. In the absence of further emissions caused by man, the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide would diminish by half over a period of 24 years (other factors being equal). And at present, more than half the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was emitted over the past decade.
The concise definition of pollution used in climate science differs significantly from that used in other sciences:-

the addition of any substance or form of energy to the environment at a faster rate than the environment can disperse it, break it down, recycle it, or store it in some harmless form.

Le Trev
I know it’s late and you’ve probably been enjoying a few glasses of nice Vino, the year was 2011! 
Some replies go to that Great big Blog in the Sky
Keep your music coming.

Thank you Le Trev, I hadn’t heard that version before and it did remind me very much of Elvis’ version.

I enjoyed this one also...while my toes are still trying to untangle after yesterday thinking I could dance as I did in the days when I went dancing several nights a week....ah..age is creeping up

I haven’t heard him before.
Great pics, tks

Seems like they don’t even like their own criticising them.

Many who have known the Chief Exec will find it strange to see her name linked with “integrity and judgement”

An angry activist she is a former ABC announcer, East Timor independance activist and founder of the NT Greens

“Don’t give me the drug addicts, the mentally unstable, the slack arses, the troublemakers, all of the Larrakia whom you can manipulate.”

If that is what they have been sending her, she may well have a point. The things she is complaining about in the email she probably imagined would go no further would annoy someone trying to do a decent job.

Sensible and pertinent comments handjive , further endorsing this unthoughtout lunatic tax . The pattern of all decisions by this Labor rabble. For pity’s sake , WHATEVER that means , let’s have an early election.

Totally agree with you handjive, GOUHLIA and her lot of misfits have to go.  She is too scared to call an election and the good old GG is in their pockets, due to the fact that Tony Sheldon is her son-in-law.  GOUHLIA resign for the sake of Australia.

It’s GHOULIA mate, GHOULIA!

ll three laws of thermodynamics can be disputed by quantum mechanics.

Really? Then you’ll forgive me if I probe your understanding further by asking why these laws, and all the others I’ve mentioned, are in every relevant textbook, and taught in every University that teaches science.

BTW mea culpa on the C12/13 thing. I published my mea culpa on the day but it never got posted. You know how this blog works. Very embarrassing.

so bs-hi-please remove self imposed ban on me if you wish

“All three laws of thermodynamics can be disputed by quantum mechanics. “disputed in what sense?

they are called and known as “LAWS”..etched in stone as defining guide posts to our understanding of the macro world around us-water runs down hill..a cold atmosphere cannot warm a warmer one...an air parcel will move from high to low pressure..

is there something that you have discovered that is wrong about these “LAWS”?? PLEASEexplain-

mm are you trying to explain how the ghe hypothesis actually works despite contradicting 2 nd law of thermodynamics?????

Brian S replied to Brian S
Sat 25 Jun 11 (04:37pm)

No, belonging to the organiations you mention does not make anyone a climate scientist, unless they also meet the criteria I give above.
.
.
.
I understand science rather better than you do.

This is why your main MO is to shove as much of the warming science as you can down this blog while ignoring the basics that debunk GW as a whole.

The thing is Brian the above laws are actually useful.We actually get to do nice things with them.
What use is the hypothesis of global warming,or is it climate change.
The wikipedia definition of a hypothesis.
is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
What is the hypothesis. That temperature increases with rising CO2.Well I don’t think that has been set in stone just yet maybe we are just coming out of a LIA or do you deny we are coming out of a LIA.
So what does your hypothesis tell us.That it might be a bit warmer in 100 years time.
What good would Newtons laws be if it just said if you get hit by a car it might hurt.We know it will hurt and the faster you or the car are going the more it is going to hurt.

All three laws of thermodynamics can be disputed by quantum mechanics.

Can they? How odd. Because when I studied quantum mechanics that was never mentioned. Do you want to explain how it works? In your own words of course.

Faraday’s law, far from being “settled” was reinterpreted by Maxwell and Einstein. The electromagnetic “force’ has recently been shown not to be separate from the weak nuclear force, and possibly if these forces can be unified with the strong nuclear force we will have GUT(Grand Unified Theory) Combining GUT with gravity will give us TOE (Theory Of Everything).

Once again you’ll have to educate me Brian. When Faraday stated his law (in a single sentence) there was no mention of EMF - it was simply the relationship between charge and mass. And funnily enough, that is how it is still taught today.

When did it change? Did they ask the permission of Faraday’s relatives before they changed it? And why hasn’t this change flowed through into all the textbooks.

Here’s a tip Brian - don’t do your science by Google.

And here’s another question for you. This is to probe your powers of deduction. If you looked at the CO2 and temp record, and for all recorded meteorological history (the last 200 years or so) they were going in different directions, what would you conclude?

Attn: the Dean re: your post to Brian S.

”This is why your main MO is to shove as much of the warming science as you can down this blog while ignoring the basics that debunk GW as a whole.”

He he mate, Spot ON

“Scientist” I notice the sneering is back. So are the “ “.

Here’s a tip Brian - don’t do your science by Google.

Why not? Its how I got my PhD.

Hope my longer post got through. may have been a glitch hitting the submit button.

All three laws of thermodynamics can be disputed by quantum mechanics.

Over your head and out of the loop and on so many levels. Wow.

Under your reasoning, quantum mechanics pretty much disputes the world we all live in.

the Dean

You do know that many of the laws of physic break down at the quantum level?

cience is never finally “settled”. There will always be dissenting opinion.Really? Can you point me to the dissenters for Boyle’s Law, Charles’ Lay, Faraday’s Law, Hookes’ Law, Henry’s Law or any of the three laws of thermodynamics.

Don’t forget Coles law.

Brian S replied to Brian S

Why not? Its how I got my PhD.

That’s better than a Cracker Jack box.

Cogito ergo sum replied to Brian S

the Dean

You do know that many of the laws of physic break down at the quantum level?

Another Dink   Crack Knight, drop the hacking shtick for a while, K?

the Dean

Singularity is one example were the laws of physics breaks down.

SIW,
Are you on your dialectical cycle while pushing your false dichotomy, a suggestion from the sideline to the umpire at Adelaide football games when he takes the wrong option from two flawed options.

Even this short comment of “yours” is a direct cut and paste from “Skeptical Science” website.  Do you write NONE of “your” own comments here?

Whether that comment is verbatim or not,it’s correct. Breathing is carbon neutral. The ‘new’ carbon being spread between ocean atmosphere and land is from burning carbonaceous rocks.That is why the mobile amounts in all territories is increasing...there is a lot more carbon in the ground than presently circulating in the active carbon cycle.

We produced 30 billion tonnes of CO2 last year,of which 45% stayed in the atmosphere. We will burn more next year,and so on.

Another direct theft of someone else’s work and words.  Try writing your OWN comments for a change, mate.

The paychecks from ‘Big Green’ have stopped have they?

The ‘experts’ moved to Enfield after the call went out to counter Lord Monckton’s visit. Such is their faith in their own argument being able to stand on its merits.

672 scientists from the Kurchatov Institute who have worked periodically inside the Chernobyl sarcophagus itself have received up to 135 mSv per year over 20 years.  This is 18.5 times higher than the Liquidators and yet the Chernobyl Forum UN report says that there have been no radiation ill effects with the 672 scientists concerned. 

Even the Greeks and the Romans knew there were areas where you went to sit in hot springs if you were sick. One of them is Ramsar in Iran where peak yearly doses of 260 mSv have been reported. The residents who live there all year around are known for their extended lifetimes.

Normal background radiation 2,4 to 5 mSv.  Many peer-reviewed studies show that up to 100 mSv higher background radiation results in better health.

The Linear No Threshold Hypothesis has as much validly as AGW but scientists still push it because fear -> grant money + ego trip.

That’s great mate, but it doesn’t excuse Gillard’s failure to develop a consensus on action.

Society of Lesbian Puppetry

So how much will the climate cool when Julia taxes Carbon Dioxide and exports jobs to countries who do not tax CO2?

And, do you think that given that the Federal Treasury is forecasting huge increases in coal exports that the ALP seems to be a bit hipocritical? Does CO2 only matter when it is emitted inside our own Country? Please explain?

Also, the US car companies expect to produce 3 times more cars in Asia (China) than they currently do! How is CO2 emissions going down with more coal and more cars and more planes (source airbus & boeing)??

Does it really need to be said?

“Consensus is NOT science”.

The debate has moved on, it’s not longer about ‘global warming’ but ‘global climate disruption’ or didn’t you get the memo from Big Al? The world has been cooling for the past decade which kinda makes mockery of the (now seen as) purely political views of these institutions.

Don’t you know that ALL those scientific organizations and ALL those countries are part of a grand Left wing conspiracy?

So!!

Looks an impressive list but I am not going to jump off the cliff with them when other eminent scientists and organisations say otherwise.

I don’t care if you believe I am in denial, tattooed or gassed I am not going to visit the lie and misinformation on my descendants.

The bigger the $caremongering, the bigger the grants.

Maybe Warmist YAID, can provide details of “MOST” as quoted.

“The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “MOST of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

MOST infers more than 50%. 

Also, as you are probably aware consensus is not scientific fact.

So what if I am?
You want to know why Mr High-and-mighty?
Because I DON’T CARE!!! I am concerned for the quality of my life NOW, not in 20/50/100 years time because I won’t be here. So get out of my face with this warmist BS and stop trying to tax me, creep.

Please mark those that are primarily government funded.

How many of these august academies and/or societies rely on government funding to survive.

Such government funding being provided by taxpayers.

More alarmist predictions , more taxes, more funding available.

I say the warmist chant of “big oil funding” of sceptics is far outweighed by “government funding” for warmists.

Can the majority get it all wrong? Yes they can. They certainly have in the past and they are getting it wrong right now. Consensus is NOT science.

So have is a “carbon” tax going to fix the problem?

A “carbon” tax is no more that wishful thinking, but a great revenue raiser for the Government.

You warmists cannot separate the problem from the solution.

and have any of these ‘Societies’ made a financial gain from (from government money) for their support of Government policy?

and have any of these ‘Societies’ made a financial gain from (from government money) for their support of Government policy?

If it depends on consensus then it isn’t science.

To be called science, the work that is done must adopt the scientific method. To be a scientific organisation, public statements should promote the scientific method.

If what you say is true, then these organisations are doing science a grave disservice.

davo

That’s right “Consensus is NOT science”.

But please tell. how do you explain all these scientific organisations getting it wrong?

Many of us do not want to join you in the collectivist hive.

I would prefer evidence and real science over mindless groupthink.

..... that “most of the global warming in recent decades....FAIL SNIP

Man made CO2 comes no where near to the natural percentage.

More and more scientists are now coming out from the other end. It is over, it’s just that most cannot recognize history happening when it is taking place.

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus..

And the only real argument they still think they have is the non-argument of consensus because…

Think about it tony..

most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

How much warming would that be?

Love your work of enfield, absolutely bloody love your work !!

YAID Says

most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities

Except for the last decade were there has been no warming.Do all the above attribute that to global warming.

Are those positions endorsed by those societies because of scientific evidence or because of intense political lobbying accompanied by the promise of grant $ and publications?

Are there so few of you True Believers left that you feel you must blog-bomb the same blogs using 5 or 6 different screen names to make it look like there are more of you than there really are?

If you listened carefully you would know that we are NOT in denial. What most of us question is the sense in destroying the world’s economy instead of learning to live with climate change - as it occurs - where it occurs - and when it has a negative impact on society.

Much of the world would be better off a couple of degrees warmer. More crops could be grown and for a longer growing period than is currently available. With the world’s human population increasing at the rate it is it will be essential that we grow more food crops not less - or even the same amount as we grow today. The “Green House” effect means more lush vegetation - not less. Most of the greenhouse gas is water vapour that will result in more rain not less.