The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Badjelly]

If you're impressed with Ian Wishart's book, here's a review that might challenge you

http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/

[Swoop]

what a load of crap and shame on TVNZ for presenting a one eyed factually floored presentation on what should be investigative journalism

What else does one expect from the state-funded-propaganda network...
It should be sold off and made to stand on its own merits, instead of paying over-egoed presenters to tout their private agendas.

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

http://iceagenow.com/

[Quasievil]

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.



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.

Hang on, not once in 600 millions years has a increase in C02 levels caused the earth to become warmer and that goes right up to recent times (by earth standards)

as I said earlier C02 levels have been 20 times what they are today and the earth has not warmed as a consequence.

[Quasievil]

If you're impressed with Ian Wishart's book, here's a review that might challenge you

http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/

Yeah read that, but this is like a religion, those pro those against aint it, therefore no surprise that there are such writings.

Anyway, the non believers arent asking the world for money and power, its not up to the skeptics to prove their case, and the believers are struggling to, that is C02 causes global warming

and why C02 ? cause its easy to tax.....................pure n simple

[Hitcher]

I think that there is plenty of incontrovertible evidence that the world is warming.

What is not so incontrovertible is whether this is anything other than a "normal" cycle, whether people are contributing to this and, if so, whether it's possible to "undo" this change by doing something differently, and what the magnitude of the impact may be at a macro level.

Climate change aside, reducing carbon emissions makes sense for other reasons, like economics for one.

[Mikkel]

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.

It's CO2 - not Co2 or C02... Consistency is the first pre-requisite in a debate, otherwise we can't be sure what we are talking about.

Your post also contains a lot of glaring logic slips - but I think that was pointed out quite satisfactorily by Badjelly.

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.)

Shhh, minor detail.

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

That and the fact that the density of water actually changes with temperature in a rather odd way around the solid-liquid phase transition. If it didn't ice would sink and the worlds oceans would long since have frozen from the bottom up...

...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.

Which is a very good point. And so it would certainly not be a bad idea to thoroughly investigate whether there is a causal link between the two.

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?)...

Indeed, the more sensationalistic a prediction is, the more important it is to rigorously apply your "baloney detection kit" - alas not all people have been equipped with one.

Hang on, not once in 600 millions years has a increase in C02 levels caused the earth to become warmer and that goes right up to recent times (by earth standards)

as I said earlier C02 levels have been 20 times what they are today and the earth has not warmed as a consequence.

Are you sure you even want a discussion of the subject. You seem to have made up your mind already. In fact you even mentioned the term believers in an earlier post. Belief is not good enough here - we need to know.

That is not to say that I don't think the way it is all being handled is correct or even sensible for that matter. But doing something about it, even if it isn't perfect, is infinitely better than doing nothing, covering your ears and going:
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[Quasievil]

I think that there is plenty of incontrovertible evidence that the world is warming.



Climate change aside, reducing carbon emissions makes sense for other reasons, like economics for one.

No Actually it hasn't warmed in ten years.

And the only reason reducing carbon emissions has a economic impact is due to the factless scam in the first place.

[Edbear]

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?

Oh, come, come my friend, Ian Wishart is one of the fairest and unbiased journalist's in the whole media industry! He has no agenda...

In fact we can implicitly trust the whole media to be completely fair and honest with no consideration to ratings wars or sensationalism or bias or anything like that!

[Quasievil]

Are you sure you even want a discussion of the subject. You seem to have made up your mind already. In fact you even mentioned the term believers in an earlier post. Belief is not good enough here - we need to know.

That is not to say that I don't think the way it is all being handled is correct or even sensible for that matter. But doing something about it, even if it isn't perfect, is infinitely better than doing nothing, covering your ears and going:
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

lol this is hard work you fuckers, two Science big brains and me working me arse off

anyway, yeah I do want a discussion on the subject.

Anthropogenic (my new word means human activity) global warming, and the theory that human Co2 emissions are the main cause of global warming is the only discussion point as it relates to the belief that a TAX is going to stop global warming, and come December we will be paying those taxes ans so again I want to ask can you show me where Co2 (or however the hell you write it) has directly been the cause for global warming .......ever, as with my research it hasnt once ever.
As above (assuming you havent read it) we have had 4000ppm and even higher levels of Co2 and no warming, infact we have had some cooling with such rampant Co2 levels.

Currently we are at a much lower level of 385 ppm and they want to tax us because the planet is about to collapse if we dont act now.


p.s I hope you had a nice weekend mate

[Badjelly]

Hang on, not once in 600 millions years has a increase in C02 levels caused the earth to become warmer and that goes right up to recent times (by earth standards)

That's a pretty definitive statement. I wonder how you could possibly know that.

as I said earlier C02 levels have been 20 times what they are today and the earth has not warmed as a consequence.

The Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and it has had much higher CO2 levels.

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was a very dramatic climatic event. (And yes, you're right, there were no SUVs then, so people didn't cause it.) It involved a large rise in CO2 and in methane, another greenhouse gas, thought to have been released from clathrates (methane-ice). The ultimate trigger is not known.

Are you referring to the fact that in the ice-core records, temperature increases are seen to precede CO2 increases by ~ 800 years. This is not the obstacle to the theory of human-caused global warming that you think it is. The fact that temperature affects CO2 does not mean that CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Both can be true, both almost certainly are true, though the question of how global-average temperature feeds back onto CO2 isn't settled. To explain a lag as large as 800 years you probably have to involve changes in the ocean circulation, maybe also the ocean chemistry.

Variations between glacial and interglacial conditions seem to be driven by variations in the Earth's orbit. Ever since this was proposed by a guy named Milankovitch, it's been a big ask to understand how these variations (which don't change the total amount of sunlight received by the earth at all, just its distribution by latitiude and season) could drive such huge changes in the climate. They seem to do it by triggering feedbacks in the greenhouse gases and in the amount of ice (which reflects sunlight). This was proposed by a group of scientists (including the denialists' arch-villian, James Hansen) in a paper in Nature in 1990(*). If this is the case, and given that no-one's thought of a way that the orbital variations can affect CO2 and CH4 directly, then the orbital variations have to affect temperature first and then CO2 & CH4. So it would be a surprise if there weren't a lag.

Recent increases in CO2 have been caused by fossil-fuel emissions. (Yes there are people who'll argue with that, but there are people who'll argue with anything.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's radiation balance and hence its temperature. The temperature changes may indeed feed back on CO2 and/or CH4 levels, possibly leading to further warming. Er, why would anyone find this reassuring?



(*) Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Hansen, J.E., Treut, H.L., 1990. The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature 347 (6289), 139-145.

[Mikkel]

lol this is hard work you fuckers, two Science big brains and me working me arse off

anyway, yeah I do want a discussion on the subject

Anthropogenic (my new word means human activity) global warming, and the theory that human Co2 emissions are the main cause of global warming is the only discussion point as it relates to the belief that a TAX is going to stop global warming, and come December we will be paying those taxes ans so again I want to ask can you show me where Co2 (or however the hell you write it) has directly been the cause for global warming .......ever, as with my research it hasnt once ever.
As above (assuming you havent read it) we have had 4000ppm and even higher levels of Co2 and no warming, infact we have had some cooling with such rampant Co2 levels.

Currently we are at a much lower level of 385 ppm and they want to tax us because the planet is about to collapse if we dont act now.

It's not that I don't see your point about the tax thing. However, there is very real concern amongst leading scientists within the field of climatic studies about what role CO2 emissions play in the jigsaw puzzle that is planet Earth. It may be that it isn't that important, but it could have a catastrophic impact for all we know. It is important that we find out before it is too late. If a tax that forces the general population to restrict their CO2 emissions is put in place (and it works) it may buy us time - unless it is already too late and then it will ultimately not matter.

Earth is an ever-changing system. Thinking we can achieve a status-quo is naive. However, if we learn to understand the system we may be able to nudge it in the direction we want to go instead of steering it towards a state that does not lend itself well to supporting a human society.

As for Aircon - the review that was linked earlier suggests that it is a scientifically unsound publication that uses such tricks as ad hominem arguments, sensationalism and conspiracy theories to push forward the authors agenda. You quite simply have to be critical of it's conclusions. The more sensational a conclusion is, the more solid the underlying evidence has got to be.

If I may suggest something - read "The Demonhaunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan (people must be starting to think I'm getting royalties by now) and then re-read Aircon and you might take something different from it.
Sagan's book has nothing to do with global warming - but it may help you to distinguish between solid and fallacious arguments. And it will most definitely help you to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.

p.s I hope you had a nice weekend mate

Thanks. I did. I had somewhere between 8 and 12 hours of flying lessons from an older japanese gentleman in a white shirt and a skirt Needless to say I am a bit sore and tired today. Good stuff though. Hope yours was good too and that if you were riding your motorcycle you are less sore than I today.

[Quasievil]

That's a pretty definitive statement. I wonder how you could possibly know that.



The Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and it has had much higher CO2 levels.

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was a very dramatic climatic event. (And yes, you're right, there were no SUVs then, so people didn't cause it.) It involved a large rise in CO2 and in methane, another greenhouse gas, thought to have been released from clathrates (methane-ice). The ultimate trigger is not known.

Are you referring to the fact that in the ice-core records, temperature increases are seen to precede CO2 increases by ~ 800 years. This is not the obstacle to the theory of human-caused global warming that you think it is. The fact that temperature affects CO2 does not mean that CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Both can be true, both almost certainly are true, though the question of how global-average temperature feeds back onto CO2 isn't settled. To explain a lag as large as 800 years you probably have to involve changes in the ocean circulation, maybe also the ocean chemistry.

Variations between glacial and interglacial conditions seem to be driven by variations in the Earth's orbit. Ever since this was proposed by a guy named Milankovitch, it's been a big ask to understand how these variations (which don't change the total amount of sunlight received by the earth at all, just its distribution by latitiude and season) could drive such huge changes in the climate. They seem to do it by triggering feedbacks in the greenhouse gases and in the amount of ice (which reflects sunlight). This was proposed by a group of scientists (including the denialists' arch-villian, James Hansen) in a paper in Nature in 1990(*). If this is the case, and given that no-one's thought of a way that the orbital variations can affect CO2 and CH4 directly, then the orbital variations have to affect temperature first and then CO2 & CH4. So it would be a surprise if there weren't a lag.

Recent increases in CO2 have been caused by fossil-fuel emissions. (Yes there are people who'll argue with that, but there are people who'll argue with anything.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's radiation balance and hence its temperature. The temperature changes may indeed feed back on CO2 and/or CH4 levels, possibly leading to further warming. Er, why would anyone find this reassuring?



(*) Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Hansen, J.E., Treut, H.L., 1990. The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature 347 (6289), 139-145.

Cheers, that was complicated so if I miss the point you made forgive me.

but the info is from
http://www.ajsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/2/182

The manmade carbon level is around 1.7 % the remainder is 98.3% which comes from vegative matter, oceans animals etc, how can taxing 1.7% make a blind piece of difference against a natural process.

Also still can you show me how/ why in the past with levels of C02 being so high like 7000ppm against todays 385 ppm why the planet didnt warm as a consequence and in one case actually cooled with a increase in ppm of C02?
to me this completely fails the argument and any basis for the Kyoto cap in hand and the Copenhagen taxing agendas

[Badjelly]

lol this is hard work you fuckers, two Science big brains and me working me arse off

I'm putting a bit of work into it myself!

I want to ask can you show me where Co2 (or however the hell you write it) has directly been the cause for global warming .......ever, as with my research it hasnt once ever.

You want instances in geologic times where CO2 has directly caused global warming? (What do you mean by "directly" Acting on its own?) You're not going to get this because:

• In the past CO2 has been controlled by ocean chemistry and such like and changes in CO2 have never occurred on their own
• When scientists examine the evidence & conclude that greenhouse gases played a major part in the glacial/interglacial cycles, or the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, you don't believe them.

The only way you could observe CO2 directly causing global warming is to raise atmospheric CO2 levels for a century or 2--say by digging up huge amounts of fossil fuels and burning them--then study the effects. Cool experiment, eh? I'll write a research proposal tomorrow.

As above (assuming you havent read it) we have had 4000ppm and even higher levels of Co2 and no warming, infact we have had some cooling with such rampant Co2 levels.

If CO2 is high at a steady level, then (all else being equal) the global average temperature will also be high at a steady level. Not warming rapidly. And it may well cool if CO2 levels drop or some other forcing comes along.

Currently we are at a much lower level of 385 ppm and they want to tax us because the planet is about to collapse if we dont act now.

The world is a very different place now from what it was when CO2 was at 4000 ppm. How it was then is irrelevant to us now considering the effects of raising CO2 to 450 ppm, or whatever.

The planet is not about to collapse. Life is robust and will go on.

[Mikkel]

The manmade carbon level is around 1.7 % the remainder is 98.3% which comes from vegative matter, oceans animals etc, how can taxing 1.7% make a blind piece of difference against a natural process.

The only way vegetation produces CO2 is if you burn it. (Be it old stuff as in oil or new stuff as in forest fires). The rest of the time all the plants are actually absorbing CO2 and releasing O2 as part of the photosynthetic process.

Also still can you show me how/ why in the past with levels of C02 being so high like 7000ppm against todays 385 ppm why the planet didnt warm as a consequence and in one case actually cooled with a increase in ppm of C02?

There are other factors that may impact global temperature. E.g. dust released into the atmosphere from big vulcanic erruptions or metorite impacts.
It is to be expected that there used to be much higher CO2 levels - afterall a lot of CO2 has been absorbed by organic matter over the aeons and then buried underground. In fact - that is very all our oil is coming from. Burning that oil releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
In pre-historic times there have been periods where the oxygen level was much higher than today - fossils of dragonflies over 50 cm confirms this (insects absorb their oxygen through their skin so their maximum size is tied closely to the oxygen level). And there have also been periods with higher temperatures - neither was Antarctica always covered in ice.

[Mikkel]

The only way you could observe CO2 directly causing global warming is to raise atmospheric CO2 levels for a century or 2--say by digging up huge amounts of fossil fuels and burning them--then study the effects. Cool experiment, eh? I'll write a research proposal tomorrow.

Don't bother a guy called James polished off the rough draft left behind by Thomas a long time ago.
The experiment is coming along nicely and everybody on this forum are doing all they can to help.
Of course there's always some nasty nasty people with big horn-rimmed glasses in floral shirts who want's to stop the party.