The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Swoop]

...............

[Badjelly]

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.

Whew, that's heavy stuff! So these guys have established that CO2 has been controlled over geologic time by a shitload of stuff including rock weathering and plant types, etc.

But then, they didn't have SUVs then, did they (as the sceptics like to say)? There is plenty of evidence that the recent increase is human-driven. (Yes, I know I keep saying that, and I will back it up, if someone really wants me to.) The existence of other processes controlling CO2 on geologic time scales doesn't contradict that at all.

I assume you don't browse American Journal of Science abstracts for fun (neither do I) and that you got that reference from someone else, presumably Mr Wishart, who probably doesn't browse AJS abstracts for fun either, so he probably got it from somewhere else. Somebody, somewhere feels this is inconsistent with the theory of AGW (*). I certainly don't. I'm idly curious as to what Drs Berner and Kothavala think.


Isn't Google great:

(*) http://www.friesian.com/crichton.htm

I'll have a read of it.

[Quasievil]

Okay got your points my good men, still dont agree tho , the whole Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas are simply that C02 emissions must be taxed to prevent global warming, clearly this cannot be backed up with clear and concise science as history shows there is no direct link.

however can you justify the incoming taxes and costs that are going to affect us all?????

the science is NOT SETTLED (despite what you might believe)

so can you tell me why I should pay $3000 odd a year please ? especially as humans only account for 1.7% of C02 anyway

[Badjelly]

Okay got your points my good men, still dont agree tho , the whole Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas are simply that C02 emissions must be taxed to prevent global warming, clearly this cannot be backed up with clear and concise science as history shows there is no direct link.

however can you justify the incoming taxes and costs that are going to affect us all?????

the science is NOT SETTLED (despite what you might believe)

so can you tell me why I should pay $3000 odd a year please ? especially as humans only account for 1.7% of C02 anyway

Stubborn bugger, aren't you?

Humans account for all the recent rise in CO2 and then some (the fraction that's gone into the oceans).

Your requirement for clear and concise science could be satisfied how, exactly? You've been talking about evidence from the geologic record. The geologic record never gives clear evidence about cause and effect. Correlation is not causation, as they say.

And why should the science be concise? Reality is not concise.

The taxes and costs are a different subject.

[Mikkel]

Whew, that's heavy stuff! So these guys have established that CO2 has been controlled over geologic time by a shitload of stuff including rock weathering and plant types, etc.

The abstract would be to condensed for anyone outside the field to really understand I'd say. If anyone wants to read the whole article -23 pages - flick me a PM and I'll get you a copy. I am sure posting the PDF-file on a public forum is a breach of the university's user license.

Okay got your points my good men, still dont agree tho , the whole Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas are simply that C02 emissions must be taxed to prevent global warming, clearly this cannot be backed up with clear and concise science as history shows there is no direct link.

however can you justify the incoming taxes and costs that are going to affect us all?????

the science is NOT SETTLED (despite what you might believe)

so can you tell me why I should pay $3000 odd a year please ? especially as humans only account for 1.7% of C02 anyway

If the fact that you have to pay $3000 to maintain your current contribution to CO2 emissions means you are likely to reduce your emissions it works as intended. If I have any skepticism it's that the money won't go towards climatic research. Anyway, it's justification is to try and limit the CO2 emissions until we have a better understanding of what is going on. As it is, emissions are currently going up and not only are the emissions increasing, the rate of the increase is climbing too.

Everybody has got an agenda - your's is that you don't want to pay $3000 for something you don't understand and where you feel you won't see a return. May I ask how much you pay in taxes every year?

[Quasievil]

Stubborn bugger, aren't you?

Humans account for all the recent rise in CO2 and then some (the fraction that's gone into the oceans).

Your requirement for clear and concise science could be satisfied how, exactly? You've been talking about evidence from the geologic record. The geologic record never gives clear evidence about cause and effect. Correlation is not causation, as they say.

And why should the science be concise? Reality is not concise.

The taxes and costs are a different subject.

Well yeah I am really but I am genuine with my interest in this subject.

My requirement for clear and concise science will make it easier for me to pay the incoming taxes, I cant find any yet.

Guys, Apparently "Co2 increases are causing global warming".................thats the argument presented to us by the ones that will be asking for yours and my money, thats it nothing else, nothing less,and thats the reason we are going to have to pay cash over to the government and Carbon traders after they sign the Copenhagen treaty (assuming they do)

But since 1998 Co2 has been rising and the global temperatures have been DECLINING!!!

The above is a fact not a Quasi spin, so how many more years of decline is needed before this whole "global warming caused by human Co2" crap is over ??? One, five how about 15 ???

To me its simple sorry

[Quasievil]

If the fact that you have to pay $3000 to maintain your current contribution to CO2 emissions means you are likely to reduce your emissions it works as intended. If I have any skepticism it's that the money won't go towards climatic research. Anyway, it's justification is to try and limit the CO2 emissions until we have a better understanding of what is going on. As it is, emissions are currently going up and not only are the emissions increasing, the rate of the increase is climbing too.

So the scientist dont know whats going on but we better be taxed anyway just in case ??? common lol

[Skyryder]

Actually, NO!

The declaration talked about is the Manhatton declaration http://www.climatescienceinternation...id=37&Itemid=1

The Chairman was : Professor R. Timothy Patterson, PhD (Canada)
This declaration has absolutely nothing to do with the 1995 petition.

Have a look at the signatures you may even recognise some.

Quasi stated a 'petition' and not a declaration. OK not much difference. He stated a figure of 31000. The petition that I believed he was talking about is this one
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php that has a current 31,478. Pretty close.
Quosi also has mentioned both the Copenhagen and Kyoto summits, where the ‘petition’ that I posted has some connections. In light of the information that Quasi posted I do not think that it is unreasonable to believe that this was the petition that he was referring to.

You claim that this is incorrect and that it is the Manhattan Declaration. OK

This was sponsored by the Heartland Institute an American, Libertarian Free market think-tank and you seriously expect me to believe that these guys are independent and have independent views on climate change. Either way both petitions or declarations are suspect. One on a political basis and the other on credibility of the signatories who attended a climate change summit paid/sponsored for by a Free market think tank.


Skyryder

[Drunken Monkey]

Pro / Anti anthro global warming aside, does anyone else think the carbon/emission trading scheme reeks slightly of Enron's energy trading in California or their even dodgier failed Bandwidth trading schemes?

[Skyryder]

Pro / Anti anthro global warming aside, does anyone else think the carbon/emission trading scheme reeks slightly of Enron's energy trading in California or their even dodgier failed Bandwidth trading schemes?

Enron is what happens when you give the markets exclusive control and the privatisation of utliities. I don't know enought about carbon trading but with any kind of free market trading scams are always on the cards. I have no reason to think otherwise with Carbon trading


Skyryder

[Mikkel]

So the scientist dont know whats going on but we better be taxed anyway just in case ??? common lol

Funnily enough you seem to use the argument, that a group of scientists (the specialty of which we don't know btw) has signed an online petition, as an argument that the whole deal is a conspiracy designed just to rob you of $3000 a year...

You must be familiar with - and appreciate - the concept of "better safe than sorry" - otherwise you wouldn't be selling motorcycle safety gear. Now apply the same reasoning to a system so complex that even the experts has not come to an agreement of how it works. Here are some facts you can not dispute:

-There has without reasonable doubt been proven a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
-We are burning fossil fuels at the rate of approximately 1 million years production per year. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere that has been bound within the Earth's crust for million of years.

In light of those two facts, wouldn't you agree it would be nice to at least have an idea of what the potential consequences of our actions might be?

[Jantar]

....-There has without reasonable doubt been proven a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures......

Absolutely correct. The correlation is undeniable and obvious to anyone who cares to graph the two. The only (very small) matters to consider are:
Why is it that changes in temperature lead changes in CO2 concentration? Do we really see the effect happening before the cause?
Does the CO2 greenhouse effect break the laws of thermodynamics?
Is this the secret to developing time travel?

[Mikkel]

Why is it that changes in temperature lead changes in CO2 concentration? Do we really see the effect happening before the cause?

At least in some cases temperature rises lead the CO2 concentration, yes. But, is it always the case?

As said, a correlation - the causal link is more elusive and most likely vastly more complicated. It would be an advantage to know...
Another thing that hasn't even been mentioned - inertia. A planet-sized system does not just change overnight. It is not unthinkable that by the time real change is observable it would already have been under way for years.

Does the CO2 greenhouse effect break the laws of thermodynamics?
Is this the secret to developing time travel?

I don't know - but I have a feeling that there would be some distinguished physicists who would turn in their graves if it was ever to be the case.

[Badjelly]

...

But since 1998 Co2 has been rising and the global temperatures have been DECLINING!!!

The above is a fact not a Quasi spin, so how many more years of decline is needed before this whole "global warming caused by human Co2" crap is over ??? One, five how about 15 ???

Here's a link to a graph of one of the instrumental temperature data sets:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The highest value in this dataset is in 2005 and the next-highest is in 1998. (In some other datasets, 2005 is a little lower than 1998.) The red trend line is the running 5-year mean. The last year, 2008, is below the trend line. It's a bit of a stretch to say that global temperatures have been declining since 1998, though if you choose your range of years carefully you can draw a trend line through the recent data that slopes downwards. (Hint: make sure you start the trend calculation in 1998 or 2001, not in 1999 or 2000.) But if you look at the rest of the graph you'll see there are lots of wiggles, with individual years above or below the red line by up to 0.1 degC, sometimes by 0.15 degC. Even in the last few decades, which have shown a pretty consistent warming trend, there have been several periods of a few years each in which temperatures dropped.

In the presence of this short-term variability, you can't conclude anything much by looking at short segments of the data. How long would the data have to show a lack of warming before we could conclude the models that predict warming are wrong? Good question. I'd be pretty surprised if any given decade wasn't warmer than the last. I've seen some more careful analyses of this question, but can't track them down right now.

[Quasievil]

Funnily enough you seem to use the argument, that a group of scientists (the specialty of which we don't know btw) has signed an online petition, as an argument that the whole deal is a conspiracy designed just to rob you of $3000 a year...

You must be familiar with - and appreciate - the concept of "better safe than sorry" - otherwise you wouldn't be selling motorcycle safety gear. Now apply the same reasoning to a system so complex that even the experts has not come to an agreement of how it works. Here are some facts you can not dispute:

-There has without reasonable doubt been proven a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
-We are burning fossil fuels at the rate of approximately 1 million years production per year. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere that has been bound within the Earth's crust for million of years.

In light of those two facts, wouldn't you agree it would be nice to at least have an idea of what the potential consequences of our actions might be?

I haven't used the petition as the basis for my sole argument at all my good man, I have used loads of stats and figures aka FACTS to back up my argument, not alot from your side tho (just quietly)

yes there maybe a link between C02 and temperatures however not the convieniant one the global warming scare mongers want.

Yes we burn fossil fuels and contribute a pathetic 1.7 % of the total C02 emissions in doing so, again not a figure convieniant to the pro cause.

The potential consequences??????

Common Mikkel mate, read above why do we need to pay taxes against a belief that the climate is getting warmer due to Co2 emissions when infact its not true. The climate is getting cooler (fractionallyand Co2 is getting higher (fractionally)

The global warming debate and the Co2 scaring is fundamentally floored, shit if I can pick it up in a week how come you cant bro ? you ride a motard ffs so you must have some intelligence in there (said in gest lol)