found a great site with the truth about CO2

Interesting...

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/downloads.php

(oh, and James Darby was or is a Liberal Party fundraiser and somehow linked to the Aussie Tea Party)

Geez Malcolm Roberts looks a lot like:
http://toowongprobus.com.au/?page_id=29
http://toowongprobus.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/4434623393_1405cf2935_m.jpg

Who wrote this paper for this website:

. The owner of that site posts quite a lot on the Tea Party site too.

...and Malcolm Roberts belongs to this group: Mine Managers Association of Australia.

All that in 30 mins. Oh if i was a journalist and had time, money, and a reason to spend any more time on this crap.

I'm sorry, did someone say "vested interests"?

You guys have been, and continue to be utterly duped by your own massively distorted confirmation bias with rubbish from these people that it's pathetic. It's like the kid who believes the lolly shop owner over their dentist when it's time to decide how much crap to consume (literally and metaphorically).

 

Oh yeah, like all those dudes paid by the big oil corporations. I've given you the stats on that before, but you preference is to ignore facts and just keep pushing your personal bias.

 

Actually all scientists are supposed to be eternal sceptics. That is the core of their business.

 

When you attack the personalities instead of the science, you have lost the argument.

 

Do you mean something i said?

 

The "natural order of things"!?!?!?

Oooooohh!!! THat sounds all very mysterious!

Could you explain to us how this "natural order of things" impacts upon climate? What is the actual mechanism involved? How does this "natural order of things" prevent a rapid significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of a known greenhouse gas from impacting upon climate?

The Montreal Protocol was an international agreement put in place to phase out certain ozone depleting substances, with assistance available to developing nations who were not able to comply with the Protocol.

Pretty much the same approach the Kyoto Protocol took - but idiot governments in the 2 largest per capita polluting countries (USA and Australia) doomed that to failure by failing to ratify.

"Global warming" and "climate change" are terms referring to 2 different things. Both terms have been in use for at least 30 years and both terms are stiil in current use. This "they changed the name" crap is truly on of the most juvenile and ignorant of all denier talking points. I am not surprised you use it.

There is a push to reduce co2 emissions. Are you not paying attention? Sure if you prefer a ban - that could work, but it sounds a bit totalitarian. Most conservative people prefer the use of market mechanisms rather than direct government intervention. That is why an emission trading scheme is being implemented in Australia. Personally, I would prefer a direct tax - but our government is not actually giving us that.

 

LOL, i love it when desperate loops have to resort to per capita emissions to portray OZ in a bad light.

Tell me genius, which direction do you think the per capita emissions in China and India are going?

 

(and Australia. Despite the tax - our emissions will continue to rise.)

 

CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise even if every human being on earth suddenly dropped dead.

We could drastically reduce our emissions quite quickly but the Dullard government is not interested, they just want more tax. You have to ask yourself why they have increased the taxes and levies on clean renewables like ethanol and bio diesel instead of making them cheaper and encouraging their use. Why? because they want more tax! 'Climate change' and 'global warming' and 'carbon pollution' are just slogans they use to dupe the gullible.

 

Here's a good site http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
"Anthroprogenic CO2 would cause an immeasureably small effect, if any at all on climate".

 

I am very disappointed in these links. Most of them make assertions but completely ignore the science that contradicts their position. Instead of refuting it they just ignore it! Sad to see so many gullible people falling for these specious arguments.

 

Such as?
Please provide us all with PROOF that AGW is anything more than just a theory?

Yes the planet is getting a bit warmer..no it isnt caused by man...

 

The amount of misinformation is almost too much to go through. I will be here for quite a while if I attempt to accurately refute their assertions. If you are completely unable to do further research yourself, then I will oblige and point out a few problems as an example.

AGW is a scientific theory, not just a regular theory. There is an important difference in definition here.

I am yet to see convincing evidence that supports the hypothesis that man has no effect. There have been some good studies lately that raise new questions, but none that altogether refute the idea of AGW.

 

Got a brail keyboard have you Leper? (or is it Bugsy in disguise?) Because you certainly can't see what's on the screen.
Go and have another look at the link I provided above, it's ALL science.
You have got it all arse-about-face Leper, it is the anthro climate change alarmists that completely ignore the science that contradicts THEIR claims.

 

Your link seems to be accurate overall, though I do have one problem with it that you might be able to clear up.

Yes, water vapour is largely of natural origin and yes it is the dominant GHG. The main problem I see is that it omits/ignores the positive feedback loop that is created by water vapour and the implications of this. Water vapour is directly related to temperature, meaning a rise in temperature means more water vapour in the atmosphere. Couple this with an increase of temperature from other GHGs and you will see an amplifying effect due to more water vapour being released. This study points out:

Worth checking out if you are interested in this. You will find articles that explain it a lot better than I could. There is a lot more information out there but it is a bit early in the morning for me to trawl the internet

 

So for you then the science is in.

Considering world wide emissions will increase in the future, are you scared?

Or do you live by the water like hypocrite Tim "BIG GREEN" Flannery?

 

Please share how this may be achieved, I am very interested

 

I can see some basic problems with the argument in this page...

The 3.207% figure given for anthropogenic CO2 is actually per year in addition to the natural carbon cycle.

We have accumulated nearly 40% more CO2 then is natural in the atmosphere in the last 150 years.

The math in your geocraft website is subtly mashed up and it hurts my brain to follow it and weed out all the errors but the final answer of human contribution to the greenhouse effect comes out to over 3% total (water vapour included) and the 0.28%, which sounds small, is actually our growing contribution per year to the effect.

I am having a look at http://www.galileomovement.com.au and am quite surprised people don't investigate these things closer. Every time I scratch beyond the surface, the credibility of it falls apart.

Actually, do you know anything about Galileo? He came up with what at the time was considered heresy by suggesting our local heavens were solarcentric from observations he made with one of the worlds first telescopes, hand crafted by himself. The Pope had him put under house arrest for the rest of his life for defying church doctrine. I am not sure Galileo is an appropriate figure for an anti science movement, or is it a warning?

 

Get over yourself. You're as ignorant as him/her or me on this.

 

Are you a climatologist?

Don't worry about Adultmail (i.e. ignore his scientific expertise), he's clueless on this, as are the rest of us.

 

No, not a climatologist or scientist. Just have an interest in this debate as it is so controversial lately.

 

Thanks for informing us of your clueless state Recusant, I will make sure I discard any comment of yours in the future.

 

That is correct, there has never been any argument over this figure. Why is it a 'basic problem' for you?

Where do you get 40% more than natural from?? Go back and look at the figures. 288,000 pre-industrial to 368,400 today, that's a total increase of 28% and mans contribution at 11,882 is 4%
What you have just spouted above is pure alarmist bullcrap.

Weed out all the errors??? after your 40% statement above? Ah AH Ah!!

How much scratching have you done at the surface of the agw alarmist surface? None whatsover I'd warrant.

What anti science movement are you refering to? It's Bugsy again, isn't it?! Go on, tell the truth!

Try this one, http://www.climatecooling.org

 

Curious as to where you pulled those figures from....The latest research puts CO2 levels at 392.01 ppm [1] and the pre-industrial levels get put anywhere from 270ppm to 288ppm [2] [3] [4]

I responded to your post on the last page btw, just in case you missed it.

 

From the page azulene was talking about. There was link in my previous message. But hey, it doesn't change anything, mans contribution is still minicule, not 40%!! We can talk about co2 in the atmosphere until the cows come home but the real question is what effect it is having on climate? Seems to me that mans contribution to any climate change is actually too small to measure or non existent.