The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Hitcher]

The words "Ian Wishart" and "above reproach" do not belong in the same sentence. Sorry. Must try harder.

[Quasievil]

Having had personal knowledge of a situation "revealed" in one of his exposes (not ones listed above) I know that his books are sensationalist garbage using highly selective and out of context research!

Okay, then in the matter in hand prove it, what evidence behind your comment do you have available ?

[Edbear]

Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not there is a political "war" being fought around climate change, and the first casualty of any war is truth!

I partly blame the media. They create doco's designed to shock and scare instead of searching for the truth.

I also think that the scientists have a long way to go to actually understand climate change, in relative terms I believe they have only just realised the earth isn't flat.

Actually you're not quite correct, close though. The media is driven by ratings, ie: money, and they use methods to increase their ratings, such a shock and scare and exaggerate and twist...

So what's causing this.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=...fier=ADP007311


This is nothing once the oceans start releasing methane.

So, does methane pose a threat today? Let us review the situation. We know there are extensive methane hydrate and permafrost deposits all around the world. We have evidence that we are at the beginning of a period of global warming that is probably being made worse by the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. Recent computer modelling incorporating the feed back effects of global warming that has already occurred suggests that by about 2050 we may start to loose the beneficial effects of the Amazon rain forest as a carbon sink. This could lead to temperature rises of 5 to 8 degrees centigrade by 2100. This would be uncharted territory and no one really knows at present how the world's environmental systems would change but we now have the evidence from the geological past. On the basis of this evidence global warming can lead to methane releases which once started would escalate. This would be the worst possible thing to happen because once started there would be no way of stopping a runaway methane global warming event. We CAN reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels but we COULD NOT reduce methane emissions once they started, huge natural forces would take over and change our world. This would probably result in the melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels by 50 metres and would completely change the climates of the world.


Skyryder

The permafrost in Siberia is now beginning to melt and nothing anyone can do will make a jot of difference to that. Google it, it's interesting reading...

[Quasievil]

The permafrost in Siberia is now beginning to melt and nothing anyone can do will make a jot of difference to that. Google it, it's interesting reading...

Yup it is at about 100 yards a year, thing is tho its not mankind causing this, its a natural cycle of the planet warming cooling warming cooling.
Additionally to that it needs to recognized natural process of melting is encouraging even more Co2 into the atmosphere.

Here is something interesting

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said

" the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from the pre industrialised period from 285ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180-300ppm) as determined from the ice cores"

WRONG what of the increases in C02 in the dinosour era, the IPCC has been very misleading, the impression is from this statement that C02 levels have usually been low on earth but now (OH MY GOD) are tracking dangerously high!! well if dangerous from climbing from 285ppm to 379ppm imagine how hot the earth was in the dinosour period when they where a WHOPPING 7000ppm !!!!!!
well the FACT is the earths temp was a balmy 22 centigrade...........no problems where faced

based on the above how can you link increased C02 ppm in the atmosphere to global warming .....exactly? and why should you pay carbon taxes ???

well like I say its a Scam and we are going to pay for it.

here is some more examples

480 million years ago C02 dropped from 7000ppm to 4000ppm the temperature stayed at 22 c

after that C02 levels rose from 4000 to 4500 very quickly guess what happened the temperatures DROPPED to todays average world temp of 12 c

So much for the global warming theory eh

with Co2 levels at 4500ppm compared to todays 370 ppm the temp is the same as earths is today

And with that ladies and gentlemen the C02 scam is revealed.

[trustme]

I can't cope with all this global warming shit.
I'm still recovering from the Y2K fallout & the dramatic effect it had on my life.
Not.

[MisterD]

The words "Ian Wishart" and "above reproach" do not belong in the same sentence. Sorry. Must try harder.

Hmmm a challenge...

Ian Wishart's credentials as a religious nutbar conspiracy-theorist of the first magnitude are above reproach.

There, how did I do?

[Magua]

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said

Which core was that from?

[Badjelly]

You dont have to, he is one in thousands saying the same thing including 31000 scientists you have signed a petition stating global warming is not man made, can you lead me to a petition or signatory list of even 500 saying the opposite ? no you cant and the reason you cant is because its a scam

"My Internet petition is bigger than your Internet petition"? Fuck me! That's almost as convincing as "It must be true, because a majority voted for it in a Kiwibiker poll."

Look, Quasievil, the number of actual scientists who disagree with the consensus position, that human beings are causing climate change via greenhouse emissions, is small. (They do exist. I know a few. Most of the ones I know would be better described as ex-scientists. The common phrase for this is "going emeritus".) Even fewer have written peer-reviewed papers explaining their disagreement.

Scientists at climate conferences don't debate the existence of human-caused climate change. They don't agonise over the recent wiggles in the global average temperature graph (the cooling since 1998 meme). They refrain from doing these things, not because there's a conspiracy to stop them, but because they consider this stuff completely unproductive. What they do is working on predicting the future trajectory of climate more accurately, getting a better handle on all the forcing factors, improving datasets and time series (there's been a lot of work recently on ocean heat content) and trying to make more precise predictions from models so the models can be tested more stringently.

The statement that there are more scientists who oppose the consensus view than support it is an example of the Big Lie: something so astonishingly untrue that someone, somewhere is bound to believe it.

[Quasievil]

"My Internet petition is bigger than your Internet petition"? Fuck me! That's almost as convincing as "It must be true, because a majority voted for it in a Kiwibiker poll."

Look, Quasievil, the number of actual scientists who disagree with the consensus position, that human beings are causing climate change via greenhouse emissions, is small.

its not actually its a very large number of scientists, but anyway just to clarify my position again, what I am very strongly opposed to is the Taxing which is coming our way very soon, NZrs will be getting a tax amounting to the thousands of dollars a year !
The science is not resolved, the juries are out, I have my opinion others have theirs but are you willing to Pay thousands for it, and if you do pay thousands for it , tell me what difference do you think it will make to the changing cycles of the earths climate.

Lastly it sounds like you have a brain so what do you make of my post above, can you explain it ?

Im here for a quality debate of facts, to help in Quasi's study

[Badjelly]

In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm) how does that compare to 2005? well 2005 was 379 ppm, and the IPCC said

" the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from the pre industrialised period from 285ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180-300ppm) as determined from the ice cores"

WRONG what of the increases in C02 in the dinosour era, the IPCC has been very misleading, the impression is from this statement that C02 levels have usually been low on earth but now (OH MY GOD) are tracking dangerously high!!...

The impression? The impression? Read what they said! "The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years". And you quote estimates from 600 million years ago to refute this? They said 650,000 years because they meant 650,000 years. Not 600 million years.

Here are some statements that all all climate scientists are taught as part of their basic education

• Floating ice does not raise sea level when it melts(*)
• The earth's climate has been highly variable over geologic time. It has been much warmer than it is now and much colder than it is now.
• CO2 levels vary naturally and have trended down over geological time. In the distant past they were much higher than they are now.

You have cited all these as astonishing FACTS that disprove the current climate consensus. Isn't it a little odd that your show-stopper FACTS are considered by climate scientists to be just ordinary, plain-old well-known, lower-case facts that don't conflict with their theories at all? (I'll have to check, but I think you can find all 3 facts in plain view in the latest IPCC report.)

(*)Actually it does, but only by a tiny amount. It's due to the density difference between fresh and sea water. Or something.

[MisterD]

The statement that there are more scientists who oppose the consensus view that who support is an example of the Big Lie: something so astonishingly untrue that someone, somewhere is bound to believe it.

...and yet, I am still to see any persuasive argument that the rise in global temperature is caused by, not simply correlated with the rise in CO2.

I want to know why as soon as anyone opens their mouth about sun-spot activity links to global temperature the AGW lobby shout "denier" just as a way to shut down the debate..."racist!"..."homophobe!"

Obvious scare-mongering like the famously discredited hockey stick, or 30m sea-level rises mean that the screeching from my bullshit detector tends to drown out any reasonable sensible pro-AGW voices (if there are any?)...

[trustme]

In the 70's oil crisis the expert/scientists told us oil would be finished by the new millenium , no more motor vehicles as we knew it
How are your pushbikes going guys.
Oops, sorry, forgot ,we ride MOTORbikes.

There have been countless other scientific predictions that the sky is falling,I am not convinced

[Badjelly]

In the Ice Core Samples taken scientists have been able to uncover the CO2 levels in the past, (a long time)
here is some facts
In the Paleozoic era 600 million years ago atmospheric Co2 levels where 7000 parts per million (ppm)

Which core was that from?

Not an ice core obviously. The oldest ice cores go to ~ 800,000 years ago. These older/longer cores were first analysed 1-2 years ago, beating the previous record of 400,000 years. The longer time series were antiicpated great interest, to see whether the 100,00 year cycle that's dominated the climate since 400,000 years ago also dominated further back. To the best of my recollection it didn't, and I think this was expected. ... Oops sorry, here I am talking about what scientists actually do rather than what they conspiracy nutters think they do.

I don't know what the estimates of older CO2 are based on, but I think they're considered pretty reliable. The Earth 600 million years ago was a very different place.

[Quasievil]

[*]CO2 levels vary naturally and have trended down over geological time. In the distant past they were much higher than they are now.[/LIST]

So can you then tell me why with Co2 levels in the several thousand ppm how come the temperature didnt rise, and in one era how the C02 level was so high the temperature came down??

remember the argument in the believers vs the sceptics is simply CO2 causes global warming and on this basis we will be paying taxes for it

[Badjelly]

So can you then tell me why with Co2 levels in the several thousand ppm how come the temperature didnt rise, and in one era how the C)2 level was so high the temperature came down??

Like I said, the world was a very different place 600 million years ago. I think there are theories about the balance between the different forcings at the time and I will look them up. But it doesn't have any direct relevance now.

remember the argument in the believers vs the sceptics is simply CO2 causes global warming and on this basis we will be paying taxes for it

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Higher levels of CO2 will cause (and likely have caused) the Earth to be warmer. At equilibrium, doubling the atmospheres's CO2 concentration will cause the earth to warm by 3 degC, with some uncertainty, say a plausible range of 2 to 4.5 degC. I can quote references to support these statements till the cows come home.

Note I didn't say CO2 is the only factor that causes global-average temperature, nor did I say that changes in global-average temperature don't affect CO2.