The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Mikkel]

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)

See, that is where you go wrong. Statistics are not facts - statistics can be used to illustrate how well we know something (i.e. confidence and uncertainty). Seriously, I see no point in wasting my time digging out references to support the points I have been making above, they are my opinions and that is all. I am not quoting any figures or claiming one thing or the other - not anything that requires a reference anyway.

I am not a climatic researcher, I do not have the competence to engage in a serious scientific debate on the subject - and neither do you, I would dare assume.

Consider what I have read as a presentation of an alternative perspective upon the matter and as an encouragement to engage in critical assesment of both those sources that support and those that challenge the belief that you would like to be true (namely that there is no good reason why you should pay $3000 in tax - it's always about the bloody money isn't it?).

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.

I am neither supporting the scaremonger nor the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp. Both arguments are equally idiotic as far as I am concerned. As with most other things the real truth will be found somewhere in-between those two extremes.

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)

Again, you are just going "LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And I am not saying we have to pay taxes. But if you are going to pay your income tax without questioning how it is being used, why make a bloody fuzz about CO2 tax? At least the tax rate is more reasonable down here than some other places I could care to mention.

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)

I am absolutely confident that I would not be able bring myself up-to-date with the entire field of climatic research in a week, even if I spent 8 hours a day on it - and with all due respect I very much doubt you would too. Give me half a year and then maybe I'd have a decent overview.
And that is my point - you interest has been piqued, now abandon the arrogance of thinking that just because you have read a book (of questionable integrity by all accounts) you are now an expert upon the subject. You're not the first one to fall into this trap - not to mention any names but if you want to see how far such folly can be taken go read some of the stuff in religious ravings.
Read the book I suggested, and come back and tell me if you still hold the same opinion as you do now, please.

And I don't so much ride a motard as I crash it... so much for intelligence

[Badjelly]

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.

One of the fun things about debating with climate change deniers is working out where they get their "facts" from. There are WWW sites devoted to categorising these facts, their origin, their modes of transmission and their transformations on the way. (For some light amusement, type "bellamy 555" into Google and click on the 3rd link to read the story of how one of these facts came to be. Hint: "55%" becomes "555" if you forget to press the shift key.)

So where does your "1.7 % of the total C02 emissions" come from? IIRC you first mentioned it immediately after citing the AJS paper on Palaeozoic carbon levels, but it's not from there, is it? Is it?

[Quasievil]

See, that is where you go wrong. Statistics are not facts - statistics can be used to illustrate how well we know something (i.e. confidence and uncertainty). Seriously, I see no point in wasting my time digging out references to support the points I have been making above, they are my opinions and that is all. I am not quoting any figures or claiming one thing or the other - not anything that requires a reference anyway.

I am not a climatic researcher, I do not have the competence to engage in a serious scientific debate on the subject - and neither do you, I would dare assume.

Consider what I have read as a presentation of an alternative perspective upon the matter and as an encouragement to engage in critical assesment of both those sources that support and those that challenge the belief that you would like to be true (namely that there is no good reason why you should pay $3000 in tax - it's always about the bloody money isn't it?).



I am neither supporting the scaremonger nor the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp. Both arguments are equally idiotic as far as I am concerned. As with most other things the real truth will be found somewhere in-between those two extremes.



Again, you are just going "LA LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And I am not saying we have to pay taxes. But if you are going to pay your income tax without questioning how it is being used, why make a bloody fuzz about CO2 tax? At least the tax rate is more reasonable down here than some other places I could care to mention.



I am absolutely confident that I would not be able bring myself up-to-date with the entire field of climatic research in a week, even if I spent 8 hours a day on it - and with all due respect I very much doubt you would too. Give me half a year and then maybe I'd have a decent overview.
And that is my point - you interest has been piqued, now abandon the arrogance of thinking that just because you have read a book (of questionable integrity by all accounts) you are now an expert upon the subject. You're not the first one to fall into this trap - not to mention any names but if you want to see how far such folly can be taken go read some of the stuff in religious ravings.
Read the book I suggested, and come back and tell me if you still hold the same opinion as you do now, please.

And I don't so much ride a motard as I crash it... so much for intelligence

cheers bro.........Im still readin it and it may take a while but Im looking at the other side to trust me.
I still cant find a fact that blows the AIRCON statements outta da water tho.

Im not the smartest dude for sure but I aint a dummy and when governments collectively get together to get money off the masses Im one suspicious muther fucker.

I know one thing is this world to be true in nearly every case and it is this

IF YOU WANT TO FIND THE TRUTH, FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL

If there is big money involved and you get a scent of a rat there will be one, there is only one side wanting our money and I want them to factually explain why they should get it, to date their case of Co2 and human global warming being linked, is simply just not convincing enough.
And money dont fix that anyway

[Quasievil]

One of the fun things about debating with climate change deniers is working out where they get their "facts" from. There are WWW sites devoted to categorising these facts, their origin, their modes of transmission and their transformations on the way. (For some light amusement, type "bellamy 555" into Google and click on the 3rd link to read the story of how one of these facts came to be. Hint: "55%" becomes "555" if you forget to press the shift key.)

So where does your "1.7 % of the total C02 emissions" come from? IIRC you first mentioned it immediately after citing the AJS paper on Palaeozoic carbon levels, but it's not from there, is it? Is it?

Thats easy UN IPCC, the UN's intergovernmental panel on CLimate Change, the actual figure is 3.4% but only 1.7% gets into the atmosphere the rest is absorbed by plants etc.

Common, come to the light side luke, leave the dark side...........common you know you want to !!

Will type bellamy 555 soon, I know though that david bellamy is on the skeptics side like me

[Quasievil]

Okay clicked the link and stopped reading at this comment

If Bellamy has indeed written off the entire scientific community, where is he getting his information to back up his remarkable claims that carbon emissions are not driving climate change?

the arrogance of it all, "the entire scientific community" hardly so that article is a waste of space


okay okay I will go back and read it ...............in the name of science of course

[Badjelly]

I am neither supporting the scaremonger nor the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp. Both arguments are equally idiotic as far as I am concerned. As with most other things the real truth will be found somewhere in-between those two extremes.

That's the trap the deniers are setting. They come out with a whole bunch of spurious arguments, everyone argues for a while, then the politicians and media say, "We don't really understand the arguments, but the truth must lie somewhere in between."

As far as I'm concerned, the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp use much more idiotic arguments than the scaremongers, and the real truth may be found somewhere in between the extremes, but closer, I suspect, to the scaremongers.

Mind you the things that happened in that film, The Day After Tomorrow, are completely unrealistic, but that's only fiction.

[Quasievil]

As far as I'm concerned, the willfully-deaf-and-blind camp use much more idiotic arguments than the scaremongers

And yet none of my arguments have been refuted
And note also that the Non-Believers dont actually have to prove anything, we aren't asking the world for their money and power, you believers need to explain your case.


So erm again, what evidence is there that more C02 forces the temperature up further ?

[Badjelly]

the arrogance of it all, "the entire scientific community" hardly so that article is a waste of space

Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but people like Bellamy have pretty much written off the entire scientific community. As have you, to judge from your earlier comments. One thing people find hard to believe is just how little attention scientists actually working on climate pay to people like Bellamy, because they never put their arguments into the form of scientific papers which can be examined and debated. If that's arrogant, sorry, but in science you can't rely on bluster you have to actually write your ideas down and be prepared to defend them and admit it when you make a mistake. Judging by the 55%/555 blunder, Bellamy isn't prepared to do anything of these things.

[Jantar]

...
I am not a climatic researcher, I do not have the competence to engage in a serious scientific debate on the subject - and neither do you, I would dare assume.
....

That's OK, I am involved in climate research as part of my job.

[Badjelly]

So erm again, what evidence is there that more CO2 forces the temperature up further?

A fair question. I've been too busy responding to various "facts" that you've put up to deal with stuff like that. I'll see what I can do.

Edit: sorry, i failed to notice this one

And yet none of my arguments have been refuted

That's funny, I thought I'd refuted all your arguments. :-)

[Jantar]

So erm again, what evidence is there that more C02 forces the temperature up further ?

A fair question. I've been too busy responding to various "facts" that you've put up to deal with stuff like that. I'll see what I can do.

There is no question that CO2 does force temperature, that is a known relationship where the temperature forcing is directly corelated to the log of the CO2 concentration. This means that 10 times the CO2 concentration will cause a doubling of the temperature forcing. (I'll check back through my notes to get the exact formula if anyone wants it.)

We must not lose sight of the fact that our planet depends on the greenhouse effect to remain habitable. Without greenhouse gasses forcing the temperature the natural average temperature of Earth would be around -15C instead of +15C that we enjoy. CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas, but it does punch above its weight in terms of concentration. The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.

[Mikkel]

cheers bro.........Im still readin it and it may take a while but Im looking at the other side to trust me.
I still cant find a fact that blows the AIRCON statements outta da water tho.

It wasn't a link - I was talking about the book I recommended a couple of pages back. Unless you had it standing on your bookshelf already I doubt you'd been able to get a copy so quickly. Fastest way to get it is here I think.

You could try your local bookstore, but I'd recommend calling them in advance before heading in.

And as I said, that particular book does not concern itself with climate changes - but I am fairly certain that if you read it you'll see Aircon in a different light.

That's OK, I am involved in climate research as part of my job.

That comment was directed at Quasievil. I wouldn't assume that there was no-one here who didn't work with climatic research one way or the other.

[Badjelly]

That's OK, I am involved in climate research as part of my job.

So you'll understand why the "temperature leads CO2" issue is a red herring?

[Badjelly]

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.

Indeed it is, but the water vapour is continually evaporated and rained out, so its concentration is controlled by those processes. And it seems to be true--though it's not a fundamental law of nature or anything--that as (say) the temperature increases, the water vapour concentration also increases so as to hold the relative humidity more or less constant. (This is a prediction of the global climate models and there is data that suggests it's held true during the warming of the recent decades.) So, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas this provides a positive feedback for the other climate forcing factors such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variations.

[Jantar]

So you'll understand why the "temperature leads CO2" issue is a red herring?

No, it isn't a red herring at all. The world's largest carbon sink is the ocean. CO2 becomes more soluable in water as the water temperature decrease, and less soluable as the temperature increases. Because of inertia (already mentioned a few pages back) it takes centuries for atmospheric temperature change to filter down to the ocean depths and release or absorb CO2. So a rising global temperature, like we have seen since the last mini ice age 200 years ago is only now starting to show up as increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for hundreds of years after the global temperature starts to fall again.

There is a slight positive feedback, as I already mentioned in a previous post, where CO2 concentrations do assist with driving the temperature. Just as well too, or else the earths temperature would flipflop so violently that we would only ever see extremes of weather.