What Carbon

[Moody]

So do you believe Al Gore that severe weather events are warning signs?

There are some models that predict that, there are others that say that recent phenomena (e.g. Australian bushfires) are just normal variations rather than a trend.

We will only know for sure in retrospect, but the models will get more accurate on the way.

 

[Moody]

The forum isn't the place to call people stupid. They have an entitlement to their opinion just as you have yours. Tackle the discussion point not the person.

People out themselves - my labels are actually superfluous.

So the discussion point is as follows - Is CO2 a pollutant? And your contribution is .... ?

 

[Pushka]

Of drought and flooding rain.

Published 1908.

I've already said that anything in excessive quantities can be a pollutant.

As far as people outing themselves, stupidity isn't one that comes readily to mind.

 

[SeatBackForward]

People out themselves - my labels are actually superfluous.

So the discussion point is as follows - Is CO2 a pollutant? And your contribution is .... ?

In my opinion, saying CO2 is not a pollutant is like saying - coughnic isn't a poison (in low enough ratios).

 

[drron]

There are some models that predict that, there are others that say that recent phenomena (e.g. Australian bushfires) are just normal variations rather than a trend.

We will only know for sure in retrospect, but the models will get more accurate on the way.

So the science isn't proven?
You see what annoys me is people such as Al Gore,Tim Flannery and Christine Milne all jump on the bandwagon after a severe weather event and blame global warming>In the case of hurricanes,cyclones and typhoons it just isn't right-
Atlantic hurricane season begins Sunday: Will record streak without major hurricane landfall end?

The other problem I have is the way warmists belittle anyone who has a different opinion to themselves.There is a long history of this.Here is Al Gore in the 90s trying to denigrate the opinion of one of his science mentors at Harvard.Incidentally that fellow headed the team that first showed that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and that it was warming the atmosphere-
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

 

[Pushka]

Weather = global warming in some circles. Until the next year when the dire event doesn't reoccur.

And the records that are reached each year. How does one countenance the fact that the initial occurrence may have occurred early in the 1900's.

I'd like an explanation as to why glaciers occurred at Hallett Cove SA thousands of years ago. Glaciers are always used as an example of global warming. Actually I do have one - that for almost "ever", planet Earth is a constantly changing globe. Trouble is mankind has only inhabited it for the last few "minutes" of its life cycle.

 

[JohnK]

Carbon cycle indeed JohnK.

Circular arguments?

 

[SeatBackForward]

Weather = global warming in some circles. Until the next year when the dire event doesn't reoccur.

And the records that are reached each year. How does one countenance the fact that the initial occurrence may have occurred early in the 1900's.

I'd like an explanation as to why glaciers occurred at Hallett Cove SA thousands of years ago. Glaciers are always used as an example of global warming. Actually I do have one - that for almost "ever", planet Earth is a constantly changing globe. Trouble is mankind has only inhabited it for the last few "minutes" of its life cycle.

Here's a clue: "rate of change".

 

[Pushka]

Seems to me a meteorite managed climate change in a blink.

 

[Moody]

Seems to me a meteorite managed climate change in a blink.

Yep - and that single event caused catastrophic results to the dominant lifeforms. Are you saying we should go there again, but this time deliberately?

 

[Pushka]

I'm saying that Mother Nature is bigger than anything man does. In a nanosecond she can undo anything us mortals can do.

 

[Moody]

...The other problem I have is the way warmists belittle anyone who has a different opinion to themselves.There is a long history of this.Here is Al Gore in the 90s trying to denigrate the opinion of one of his science mentors at Harvard.Incidentally that fellow headed the team that first showed that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and that it was warming the atmosphere-
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

I read this one-sided story. The main gripe with Al Gore seems to be the following :-

"On February 24, 1994, Ted Koppel revealed on his Nightline program that Vice President Gore had called him and suggested that Mr. Koppel investigate the political and economic forces behind the “antienvironmental” movement. In particular, Vice President Gore had urged Mr. Koppel to expose as fact that several U.S. scientists who had voiced skeptical views about greenhouse warming were receiving financial support from the coal industry and/or groups such as the Lyndon Larouche organization or Reverend Moon’s Unification Church."

I personally would be very suspicious of scientists been paid to seemingly follow the company line, but Ted Koppel's response was :-

"Is this a case of industry supporting scientists who happen to hold sympathetic views, or scientists adapting their views to accommodate industry?”

Good point, but like the old "Doctors Smoke Camels" campaign, I think it would be wise to consider motives.

 

[james4321]

I'm saying that Mother Nature is bigger than anything man does. In a nanosecond she can undo anything us mortals can do.

Oh thats good then - lets just not do anything, leave it all to good old Mother Nature. Perhaps she could ask for help from that other Fairy in the sky. That should work.

 

[Moody]

I'm saying that Mother Nature is bigger than anything man does. In a nanosecond she can undo anything us mortals can do.

Have you heard it's in the stars
Next July we collide with Mars
Well, did you evah?
What a swell party, a swell party
A swelligant, elegant party this is

[With apologies to the composer]

 

[drron]

I read this one-sided story. The main gripe with Al Gore seems to be the following :-

"On February 24, 1994, Ted Koppel revealed on his Nightline program that Vice President Gore had called him and suggested that Mr. Koppel investigate the political and economic forces behind the “antienvironmental” movement. In particular, Vice President Gore had urged Mr. Koppel to expose as fact that several U.S. scientists who had voiced skeptical views about greenhouse warming were receiving financial support from the coal industry and/or groups such as the Lyndon Larouche organization or Reverend Moon’s Unification Church."

I personally would be very suspicious of scientists been paid to seemingly follow the company line, but Ted Koppel's response was :-

"Is this a case of industry supporting scientists who happen to hold sympathetic views, or scientists adapting their views to accommodate industry?”

Good point, but like the old "Doctors Smoke Camels" campaign, I think it would be wise to consider motives.

I'm sorry but you obviously see what you wanted to see.Al Gore made those claims re financing without any proof.If you read the whole article you would see he made specious claims about Dr.Revell which were utterly false and in fact was why his supporters lost the libel case against Fred Singer.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Seems to me a meteorite managed climate change in a blink.

Meteorites and Volcanoes produce a more localised phenomena both physically and in time. Over the (tens and hundreds of) thousands of years that natural global warring and cooling cycles occur, they have only relatively minor and short term impacts.

 

[Pushka]

Guess you were right drron.

 

[JohnK]

Oh thats good then - lets just not do anything, leave it all to good old Mother Nature. Perhaps she could ask for help from that other Fairy in the sky. That should work.

That is so insulting and definitely not funny like you intended.

Your faith that humans could be causing irreparable damage is just that. No different in believing what you have just ridiculed.

Why do people think it is OK to ridicule the religious beliefs of others? You have absolutely no idea. And no I don't believe in your theory of everyone evolving from the pond of scum. It requires greater faith to believe that garbage.

 

[amaroo]

Talk about clutching at straws! This one is a real beauty - get a cotton farmer who knows nothing about the scientific method involved to back up a discredited climate skeptic, and sell the story to the denialist's bible ... where it is lapped up by the greedy and amoral who believe climate change is a leftie conspiracy rather than an obvious consequence of a complex environment.

It's so stupid it's comical ... only nobody is laughing.

Moods: if you measure something for years and years and years and it's only 4 inches long - no amount of hard manipulation or homogenisation will ever make it 8 inches long

 

[Moody]

I'm sorry but you obviously see what you wanted to see.Al Gore made those claims re financing without any proof.If you read the whole article you would see he made specious claims about Dr.Revell which were utterly false and in fact was why his supporters lost the libel case against Fred Singer.

There are plenty of examples of climate scientists (both real and self-proclaimed) receiving funding from those with the most to lose from climate action. In some cases it is simply because that is the only way for a scientisit swimming against the flow to get funding for their research, in other cases it is pure "cash for comment". There are also plenty of climate scientists funded through less grubby means that publish results that don't back up the so-called alarmists (actually just the more pessimistic amongst the 97% of believers).

And I can't find the part where Al Gore libelled Fred Singer - can you quote that for me?