The Great Global Warming Swindle

[dipshit]

Well if like in the graph i posted - if in the last 400,000 years CO2 hasn't risen past 300ppm and then suddenly we find ourselves at 375ppm, i would say that was unusual.

And by the way, the difference between 300ppm and 200ppm is the difference between warm periods and ice ages.

[Maki]

very good point, but i do not see how 'carbon trading' or the Kyoto protocol is going to fix the problem, it is just another tax

The only way to fix the problem is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel, coal, gas and oil being taken out of the ground. All of that is inevitably going to be burned and CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere. We can carbon trade until we are blue in the face but it is not going to do us any good while we export coal, gas and oil to other countries. Global warming is a GLOBAL problem.

So, are we going to stop coal mining and gas and oil drilling? I never heard auntie Helen say a word about that. Not the greens either for that matter....

What we need is a viable alternative source of energy. Nuclear power anyone???
LOL

[davereid]

very good point, but i do not see how 'carbon trading' or the Kyoto protocol is going to fix the problem, it is just another tax

Exactly. Kyoto won't help a bloody thing, all it will do is cost.

We will freeze our old people because they can't use coal or afford electricty.

We will starve the poor as we divert croplands to biofuels, while tons of oil and coal goes unused.

But the best bit ?

Normal kiwis who ARE environmentally aware will tred carefully.
We will think very hard before we flood a valley in case we are destroying the environment. We will think very hard before we use nuclear energy to generate power.

And the government will take our money, and it will end up in Estonia or some other ex iron curtain state.

Cos, in Estonia they don't give a damn about the environment. They will just flood any valley they want. They'll chuck up cheap dirty nukes, and we will pay them to do it.

[Jantar]

Hokitika is coastal and is largely going to be influenced by ocean temperatures. Try looking up some inland areas.
....

It is because Hokitika is both a rural and a coastal site that it is used as a reference site internationally. But that's fine, I'll do the same for any long term rural site you care to name. I can't be bothered dealing with urban sites as it'll take too long to isolate the Urban Heat Island eefect.

[dipshit]

What we need is a viable alternative source of energy. Nuclear power anyone??? LOL

Sadly that is about the only real alternative we have at the moment. Yet ironically because the greens don't like nuclear power and have been resisting it for the last 30 years, the world has continued to use vast amounts of fossil fuel.

[dipshit]

But that's fine, I'll do the same for any long term rural site you care to name.

Your town of Alex or somewhere nearby would be as good as any.

[Jantar]

Well if like in the graph i posted - if in the last 400,000 years CO2 hasn't risen past 300ppm and then suddenly we find ourselves at 375ppm, i would say that was unusual.

What facts are you talking about?

Yes, an interesting graph. But totally debunked in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology (Spring/Summer 2007) as attached.

[FJRider]

Manurewa MUST be rural, judging by the number of 4 wheel drives there.

[Hitcher]

I agree 100%. But that is a totally diferent discussion to the one about whether or not man is changing the climate.

Or whether the amount of time, effort and money that's being invested in "climate change" would be better invested on things that make a real difference, such as the fight against poverty, hunger and disease.

[dipshit]

Yes, an interesting graph. But totally debunked in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology (Spring/Summer 2007) as attached.

"About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps
even 1,000 times higher than today. According to today’s
climate models, the Earth would have been too hot for life at
that time (Ohmoto et al. 2004). However, geologic evidence
suggests there was not a Venus-style, “runaway warming.”
Instead, life flourished then in the oceans and land, with such
enormously high levels of this “gas of life,” from
which our bodies and all living creatures are built
(Godlewski 1873). Yet, Greens now call this gas a
dangerous “pollutant.”"


Oh brother! Yes 2 billion years ago CO2 levels were high. But unless you want all life on earth to consist of nothing more than the slime that lives on rocks or in puddles that converted the CO2 into oxygen over millions of years - then I would suggest we don't go back there.

Was this scientist funded by the American pickup truck association?

[Skyryder]

What we need is a viable alternative source of energy. Nuclear power anyone???
LOL

Nope. Geothermal.


Worked on Wairakei in the 60's. Word then from the MOW geologists on site that NZ had enough geothermal energy to power all NZ. It's just that dams were cheaper.


Skyyrder

[Magua]

Your second paragraph does not prove the point you think it does. It confirms mine. Localised unreliable climate records do not present a case for global warming.

Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature
Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset
N. A. RAYNER, P. BROHAN, D. E. PARKER, C. K. FOLLAND, J. J. KENNEDY, M. VANICEK, T. J. ANSELL,
AND S. F. B. TETT
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Land surface air temperature and surface sea temperature (ever more data as the trade routes expanded) blended to get the global picture.
Regional means calculated (hemispheric etc)
Several studies, near identical data.
Check out Jones and Moberg (2003), Brohan et al. (2006) (www.cru.uea.ac.uk)
Hansen etl al. (2001) updated 2005.

Not such a limited dataset as you thought.

A lot of the inhomogeneity through different weather screens pre adoption of the universal screen (stevenson I think) can been removed and has been (with associated margins of error) by comparing screens, then adjustments to the instrumental record can be made.

[98tls]

This guys got the answer.http://www.tlzone.net/forums/redirec...26movie%3D9108

[N1CK]

Ok, I have never tried to present myself as an expert but the one thing that stumps me is that CO2 makes up 0.054% (i think that is right) of the atmosphere. If that is correct, how could changing that by 0.001% have any impact on the earths temperature?? Is the global climate on that much of a knife edge?? Surely not!

I also want to know.

And the Co2 levels are actually 0.0383%, But main part of greenhouse gases is not Co2, but water vapor!

The most powerful greenhouse gases are
- water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
- carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
- methane, which causes 4–9%
ozone, which causes 3–7%

And like they said on the doco – The earth goes through cycles where it warms for 30 years and then cools for 30 years and it has been doing this for thousands of years!

Its a load of Bull $h!t, money makes the world go around.

[Mully]

This guys got the answer.http://www.tlzone.net/forums/redirec...26movie%3D9108

You did post it here!!! Bwahahaha.

Must spread some bling before blinging you again.