wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Long term will be to late.
One may need to be bold, but with caution.
Plod you've gone from 'may' to 'will'.
Can I ask how you know with such certainty?
And Ozzie regarding that piece of absolute rubbish you posted on the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere using grains of rice.
Please clarify for us all since you didn't comment on the above quote.Instead, ensure you use tax payers funding to create TV ads that show sooty clouds and black smoke plumes from abandoned power plants.
The totalitarians are getting anxious... I've noticed a big step up in the politics in recent weeks, revealing their true agenda.
Just as the science is getting more uncertain than ever, the Hansen nutter has just called for a worldwide carbon tax.
Could anyone appraise me of the impact of human flatus upon global warming?
gg
Could anyone appraise me of the impact of human flatus upon global warming?
gg
Good point GG, plenty of it floating around here but not much focused info on the hot air and the associated crapola at this time.
I hesitate to post the following, but perhaps if one struck a Redhead between one's buttocks on passing flatus, the effect on global warming might be lessened.
gg
It is a balmy night here. A possum has re-established her position in the roller door. Let us wait for little possums.
25 °C
Clear
Wind: SE at 13 km/h
Humidity: 67%
gg
If it was a global tax then the impact on Australia would be greatly reduced, to the point that it wouldn't really bother me.Just as the science is getting more uncertain than ever, the Hansen nutter has just called for a worldwide carbon tax.
If it was a global tax then the impact on Australia would be greatly reduced, to the point that it wouldn't really bother me. Smurf 1976
If it was a global tax then the impact on Australia would be greatly reduced, to the point that it wouldn't really bother me.
It is the "escape route" of simply offshoring production which will bring about most of the economic cost and about which many are so concerned.
A Global carbon tax makes sense in terms of redirecting investment to non CO2 polluting technologies. And regardless of global warming issues we need to find long term renewable energy technologies. Fossil fuels can only disappear in the foreseeable future.
_____________________________________________________________
You are an exceptionally special piece of work Wayne. Calling Dr Hansen a nutter given his universally recognised capacities as a climate scientist is breathtakingly brilliant. I'm quite certain none of his academic foes would countenance such a comment.
And then you try to suggest the science of cliamte change is getting more and more uncertain.The evidence, the actual scientific research, just continues to fill in the dots that confirm what Dr Hansn and almost all other scientist in the field have been saying for decades. The article from the SMH that Logique introduced and you derided brought together many new pieces of research. What a sick sad joke.
Dear Lord, your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
BTW, can you point to ANY of his predictions that have come to pass?
By Dr Vincent Gray
It is a persistent claim by the IPCC and its supporters that since carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming its increase in concentration before any increase in temperature should be apparent in “proxy” measurements of both these quantities from past geological ages.
The current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome ice cores show that the temperature rises before the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for most of the past 42,000 years.
A recent paper claims the reverse: that CO2 change precedes temperature change:
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard Nature 484,49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915”
There is currently no evidence that increased human-based emissions of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gases” have any measurable effect on the climate. This view is based upon my experience as an expert reviewer of all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate and an intimate knowledge of everything in them.
The climate is such a complex system that any system which purports to understand it has to prove that it can forecast future climate over the whole range for which it is considered suitable, to a satisfactory level of accuracy, before it can be accepted. This exercise has never been made, let alone established as valid for the “Greenhouse” theory, so it should be ignored.
The claims of the IPCC Reports are based on estimates of various levels of “likelihood” that model “projections” are possibly true by the authors themselves. These estimates are not only entirely subjective, but they are also made by those paid to supply the models, and are therefore compromised by conflict of interest. The numerical levels of “significance” attached to these estimates have no basis in a scientific statistical study.
The assertion that “the earth is warming” is also without scientific basis, since it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface. The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” is so riddled with statistical errors that their realistic assessment would render any supposed “trend” to have an extremely low significance.
Much is made by the IPCC of the supposition that correlation, however unconvincing, is evidence of causation; in defiance of the ancient Greek logical maxim. To conceal this solecism they change the word “correlation” to “attribution”.
In the abstract to the above paper the authors seem reluctant to perjure themselves by denying the validity of such an ancient logical certainty, so they go only so far as to “suggest” “a close link” “between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages”. This opinion is supported by a compilation of 80 Globally distributed “proxy” measurements made by a variety of methods.
However, the title of the paper claims that this “suggestion” is a proven fact
The abstract also claims that “the temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is the most recent) deglaciation.”
So, how good isthe correlation and how “general” is the lag of temperature behind CO2?
In the abstract to the above paper the authors seem reluctant to perjure themselves by denying the validity of such an ancient logical certainty, so they go only so far as to “suggest” “a close link” “between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages”. This opinion is supported by a compilation of 80 Globally distributed “proxy” measurements made by a variety of methods.
However, the title of the paper claims that this “suggestion” is a proven fact
Please elaborate on the % of man's CO2 v's that produced by nature (of course please reference material that all scientists agree with v's only the AGW "traditional" or "elitist" scientists who's mission is to unanimously support new government taxes and levies.
Are you suggesting the Cate Blanchett tv ad was not rubbish and is based on fact? Please clarify for us all since you didn't comment on the above quote.
Perhaps we can use your response for another lesson on mindset change.
Front Cover
Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Issue 29
By James Edward Hansen, American Geophysical Union
This paper was published 1984, a succinct prediction is inferred pgs 255 to 261 regards temperature rise (k) due to the green house effect and disappearance of sea ice. There's more, but I just love the Arctic ice sheet, there's just no arguing with, its so dumb. It just begs the question how many examples do you need, and how silly do you want to be proven.
Oh and the 'uber right Koch foundation' Climate Report agree's with Hansens findings. I'd love your critique of it, 'in your own words'.
( I'll take your one patronise and raise you a snide(just a pity it has to be pointed out) )
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?