The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Grahameeboy]

Also how do the Global warming scare mongers propose to deal with the economic affects that this scam will be imposing on the public as well as the industry of New Zealand and indeed the world, without science being even settled on the reason behind the scam.

Is it an attitude of "ar fuck em the evil empires of this world deserve to go down" which would be catastrophic for humanity as indeed would the affect of global warming to the level advocated by the loonies, but in this comment however only one of these things is certain one isnt even real (and you know what I mean there)

I have come to realise after a week in that this is a religious issue, the loonies have made this into a religion, the science and facts dont stack up absolutely on any level, yet they are happy to release this crap upon the masses as if it was the second coming of jesus (which would in effect be more likely) coupled with some scientists craving the research dollar and some purchased high power players like the plonker Al gore and throw in a movie and some government officials singing "Im a environmentalist" and we find ourselves here now passing stupid things like the ETS and the Copenhagen agreement

people do you actually have a brain outside your own scientific craving for attention and research monies, this shit is real and your shit aint proven and to date you cant prove it.

sorry just some thoughts all good in debate !

If I was Jesus I would stay at home till the dust settles...

[Badjelly]

Historically then how do you account for 4500 ppm of Co2 and a 12 c temperature (as it is today 12c roughly and current Co2 is 385ppm)

I don't. Like I said, you're talking about the distant past when a lot of things were different. And pealaeoclimatology is not something I know much about. [Edit: I don't even know how to spell it!] But I think the sun was putting out less radiation back then. I think the sun has been getting steadily hotter over the last few billion years and, in some sort of balancing act, the amount of CO2 has been going down, such that the Earth has remained at a habitable temperature. (We're talking very long-term trends here. there have been some pretty big swings in the Earth's climate.)

And yet right now the Co2 is going up yet the temperature is going down.

Wiggles. Global warming refers to a trend that shows up when you look at (roughly) 10 year averages of the global temperature. Trends calculated from periods of 5-10 years are all over the shop. No-one ever suggested they wouldn't be.

If you're sure the global temperature is going down, perhaps you'd care to make a bet?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ing-wanna-bet/

I am still researching the link you gave for that claim. many of the papers refered to are not available on line, and the some of the ones that are have already been withdrawn or surpassed....

If I can help...

PS: there's a mistake in one of the references. In this one...

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.

...the page numbers should be 11,731-11,748. I'll get the Realclimate people to fix it.

[Badjelly]

...b) melting ice = a lot less in water....takes about 4 billy cans of ice just to make a cuppa...

I think that applies when the ice is in the form of snow. The density of solid ice is 0.916883 that of water. The ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps started out as snow but has been compressed a lot since then. And most of it is above sea level.

[Quasievil]

I don't. Like I said, you're talking about the distant past when a lot of things were different. And pealaeoclimatology is not something I know much about. [Edit: I don't even know how to spell it!] But I think the sun was putting out less radiation back then. I think the sun has been getting steadily hotter over the last few billion years and, in some sort of balancing act, the amount of CO2 has been going down, such that the Earth has remained at a habitable temperature. (We're talking very long-term trends here. there have been some pretty big swings in the Earth's climate.)

So Co2 in the last few hundreds of thousands of years has become magical (okay im taking the piss)

I think there are a few debates going on here, mine I think is simple

Basically you scientists dont have enough evidence to justify taking our many, you have theories and that's all, even the weather models you use aren't reliable (science daily article)

the whole debate is on MAN MADE CO2 IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING, and on that headline youre pinning the case to take our money on scams like Kyoto, Copenhagen and the ETS

All you have is a theory and a theory does not give any one the right to take my money and throw our economy back a hundred years.

scienctists and governments needs to prove it and they cant, so they should lower the flag and concentrate on another con like these

There are weapons of mass destruction

year 2000 the worlds computer chips will collapse

SARS EPIDEMIC

And the list could continue

proof it, proof Co2 is man made and is causing global warming

[Quasievil]

I think that applies when the ice is in the form of snow. The density of solid ice is 0.916883 that of water. The ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps started out as snow but has been compressed a lot since then. And most of it is above sea level.

PS I cant give you any more bling for the debate !

[Grahameeboy]

I think that applies when the ice is in the form of snow. The density of solid ice is 0.916883 that of water. The ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps started out as snow but has been compressed a lot since then. And most of it is above sea level.

Okay....but surely the weight of the ice is a factor as well? Does the does a sqm2 of ice weigh more than the water it melts into...if not then to some extent does one outweigh the other?

[Badjelly]

So CO2 in the last few hundreds of thousands of years has become magical (okay im taking the piss)

Maybe you are, but if (and I'd like to stress if) it's really true that CO2 over the last last few hundreds of thousands has been decreasing by just the amount required to compensate for the sun getting hotter, then you have to wonder: How does it know? There are a lot of puzzles about the long-term state of the Earth.

All you have is a theory

And you have...?

You keep asking for proof. You will not get it. Mathematics deals in proofs; science deals in theories & evidence & judgements. I cannot tell you increasing CO2 will certainly cause the Earth to warm, but I can tell you this is very likely.

[Badjelly]

Okay....but surely the weight of the ice is a factor as well? Does the does a sqm2 of ice weigh more than the water it melts into...if not then to some extent does one outweigh the other?

A cubic metre of pure, solid (ie. with no air bubbles) ice will melt into 0.916883 cubic metres of water. There will be no change of mass in this transformation.

[Grahameeboy]

A cubic metre of pure, solid (ie. with no air bubbles) ice will melt into 0.916883 cubic metres of water. There will be no change of mass in this transformation.

Cheers....

[Badjelly]

A cubic metre of pure, solid (ie. with no air bubbles) ice will melt into 0.916883 cubic metres of water. There will be no change of mass in this transformation.

I feel like Doctor Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Dr._Science

[Quasievil]

I feel like Doctor Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Dr._Science

I feel like lunch !

[Winston001]

Also how do the Global warming scare mongers propose to deal with the economic affects that this scam will be imposing on the public as well as the industry of New Zealand and indeed the world, without science being even settled on the reason behind the scam.

Is it an attitude of "ar fuck em the evil empires of this world deserve to go down" which would be catastrophic for humanity as indeed would the affect of global warming to the level advocated by the loonies, but in this comment however only one of these things is certain one isnt even real (and you know what I mean there)

I have come to realise after a week in that this is a religious issue, the loonies have made this into a religion, the science and facts dont stack up absolutely on any level, yet they are happy to release this crap upon the masses as if it was the second coming of jesus (which would in effect be more likely) coupled with some scientists craving the research dollar and some purchased high power players like the plonker Al gore and throw in a movie and some government officials singing "Im a environmentalist" and we find ourselves here now passing stupid things like the ETS and the Copenhagen agreement

people do you actually have a brain outside your own scientific craving for attention and research monies, this shit is real and your shit aint proven and to date you cant prove it.

sorry just some thoughts all good in debate !

Oh dear Quasi, you have it bad.

I've italicised the emotive elements of your post. No disrespect but.......the words and descriptions you use are common to conspiracy theorists and non-scientists. What you have said above is that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool or a scammer. The words used are pejorative and histrionic.

Contrast this with posts by Mikkel and Jantar (among others). Their explanations are rational, logical, unemotive, and calm. This approach is consistent with scientific debate and echos the reasoned research you can find in abundance on climate change.

Go to the web and you'll see anti-climate change proponents rely heavily on ad hominen attacks, sarcasm, cynicism, conspiracies, and deception. For example your post saying an English High court judge proved Al Gore was wrong - that's completely incorrect but has been repeated so often I don't blame you for being misled.

If you want a balanced starter point, go to our very own Dennis Dutton's site Climate Debate Daily - no sides taken, read what you choose. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

[Mikkel]

Oh dear Quasi, you have it bad.

I've italicised the emotive elements of your post. No disrespect but.......the words and descriptions you use are common to conspiracy theorists and non-scientists. What you have said above is that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool or a scammer. The words used are pejorative and histrionic.

Contrast this with posts by Mikkel and Jantar (among others). Their explanations are rational, logical, unemotive, and calm. This approach is consistent with scientific debate and echos the reasoned research you can find in abundance on climate change.

Go to the web and you'll see anti-climate change proponents rely heavily on ad hominen attacks, sarcasm, cynicism, conspiracies, and deception. For example your post saying an English High court judge proved Al Gore was wrong - that's completely incorrect but has been repeated so often I don't blame you for being misled.

If you want a balanced starter point, go to our very own Dennis Dutton's site Climate Debate Daily - no sides taken, read what you choose. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Oh dear, so you are saying I am not using sarcasm, ad hominem attacks and cynicism?

I'll get me coat then. ...I have to see my doctor

[Pixie]

Okay....but surely the weight of the ice is a factor as well? Does the does a sqm2 of ice weigh more than the water it melts into...if not then to some extent does one outweigh the other?

The only way it could weigh more is if it teleports itself do a planet of different mass as it melts.

[Pixie]

On the TV the other night they showed part of a doco 2 hippies produced about an island near Papua that is being "flooded by Global Warming".
I'd like someone to explain how the mean oceanic sea level can be different in different parts of the same ocean.
i.e. why isn't Takapuna being flooded?

-The island is actually on a subducting tectonic plate.