OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results. - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.


<snip>
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<snip>
Just had a look at your cite Trevor, Arrhenius was brilliant - no doubt - he
also thought global warming
would be a good thing, not a bad thing  !!! Arrhenius thought the natural
increase in CO2 caused by the
increased human influence would avert an ice age and a potential mass
starvation due to lack of food-
something that clever man thought would be much worse than any warming
trend. You can grow plants
in a greenhouse but not in freezer, something that has been overlooked.

And that is one of the points that is being glossed over these days - given
that the earth is warming (for
whatever reason)), isn't it a huge risk not to spend most of the available
money on adapting to the trend
to ensure the survival of our species by focussing on food production
instead of wasting it on
futile attempts to reverse what may be inevitable climate change?
 (This is already happening, of course. The smart money is going to research
projects around the
world that are developing food crops that will thrive in the expected warmer
conditions.)
We are going to run out of fossil fuels when all the oil, coal and gas is
extracted, so the atmospheric
CO2 from humans cannot increase forever. There is a natural brake on how
long us feeble humans
can influence atmospheric CO2. And if global warming continues for centuries
after we have stopped
burning fossil fuels because some other factor takes over, we will have
wasted our time and effort in
pandering to contemporary political pressures, eh?















Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Correct. You need to understand where Arrhenius lived to appreciate why
thought that more CO2 was a good idea. Unfortunately, the information
Arrheius had to work with was scant and he was clearly unaware of many of
the ramifications of a warming planet.

 Arrhenius thought the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. He thought exactly that. Fortunately we now have a lot more
information about the ramifications of a warming planet and realise that
Arrheius' OPINIONS on what may or may not be good for the planet were
unscientific speculation.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Huh? Direct me to where the climatologists have been claiming that the
planet is cooling. What YOU seem to be overlooking is that it is going to be
very difficult to grow crops under sea water. Long before that becomes a
problem, however, there will be massive shifts in where crops can be
successfully grown.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Short answer: No.

Long answer: How do you suggest we deal with the expected 75 Metres of sea
level rise and the consequent destruction of arable and inhabited land?
Bangladesh, for instance, will lose huge amounts of valuable land, placing
many millions of people searching for a place to live. Australia, perhaps?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it is vital. However,
mitigation of the problem is a far better course of action.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No one said it would. It COULD reach toxic levels though. There is enough
carbon on the planet to poison all the humans (after burning). That said,
you seem to miss the looming problem. Commonly referred to as the 'tipping
point'. It is estimated that when atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach
500ppm, that there will be nothing we can do stop runaway warming of 6
degrees C or more. At this point, the methane will be released from the
permafrost regions (which is starting to occur now), thus causing a dramatic
increase in the warming. Outgassing of CO2 from the oceans will add to the
effect. No one has figured how to prevent the runaway, once it starts.
Forget about crops. The massive sea level rise will finish off much of our
society. The cost will be incalculable.

 There is a natural brake on
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Is there? What would that "brake" be? Please describe the action  and cite
your science in your proof.

 And if global warming continues for
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That much you have right. After most of the people have been wiped from
this planet, anthropogenic CO2 emissions will fall. In a few tens of
thousands of years (or a few hundred thousand years), then the planet may
return to the state that it resembles today. Of course, our civilisation
will have been destroyed in the process.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Quoted text here. Click to load it



END OF PROBLEM.

I personally can't see a problem with that at all. The cycle of life and
all that. This whole global warming scam will just blow over, it's just
a grab for your dollar, like a worldwide Nigerian scam.

The only real threat is to humans and a few other species will get
sucked down as well, there's always plenty left. To doom sayers like
yourself you need to look at the real problem with the planet, there are
simply too many people living well beyond the means of the planet to
cope. The real way to "SAVE" the planet is to restrict population
growth, "by any means". There is no other real solution. 1 child per
woman for the next 10 generations should do it.

Have you ever tried or have you ever known people to live carbon
neutral? I know many that do. That does not mean only produce ?t of
carbon a day, it means only producing as much as you personally
recapture. Thanks to modern trends the number of people living like this
is diminishing each year. You won't ever go to living like this, so
don't preach about how paying an extra few dollars in tax will stop it.

Paying an extra 10% for everything won't fix anything, don't pretend it
will. In the long run you need to cut consumption of all goods by 90%,
bet you wouldn't stand for that at all. The modern consumer world can
not continue indefinitely, you can't keep digging up raw materials,
transport it around the world, only to throw them away after 1 use. How
can that continue forever?

Wake up and smell the roses, enjoy what we have here and now, and screw
anyone coming too late to the table to get the good prawns. Eventually
the sun will expand and consume this planet anyway.


--
Brad Leyden
6 43.5816' S 146 59.3097' E  WGS84
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
you retard,  where you say : "YOU explain the warming trend that has been
Quoted text here. Click to load it

its the natural  occuring changes in our world.

warming trend ???? you  ok there ?

The Global climate is continually in a state of change. Its part of the
Natural evolution

of our Planet and the Sun - Earth orbital relationship.

Global Warming or Cooling is not influenced by Climate change and I fail to

recognise how Science has been so falsified as to prove this.

We continually are brainwashed by those on the left of Politics and the

Environmentalists via the Mainstream Media into believing their conspiracy.
A review

of a vast number of Scientific Studies and Papers printed in the various
Scientific

Journals prove there is no connection.

The historical record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide claimed by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change has been widely used by the

Environmental Movement in an attempt to force Governments to reduce Green
House

Gas Emission. Professor Ernst Beck of Muran - Goeg in Germany, proves the
IPCC

falsified and misconstrued the pre 1957 CO2 levels measured from Ice Cores
and

ignored more than 90,000 direct measurements by Chemical Analysis from 1857
to

1957. Their sole aim was to prove that CO2 concentrations have been
increasing with

the progress of human industrial civilization. Becks research confirms a
wealth of

previous investigations, which clearly prove the IPCC cherry picked its data
in an

attempt to stop global industrialization in the developed world and prevent
any

development in third world countries or face extreme heat and melting
icecaps. Beck

further proved the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gas reduction is based on
scientific

fraud and violates the laws of the Universe, and does not recognise the well

established and accepted determination of climate by the cyclical variations
of the

Sun- Earth orbital relationship and in the Suns heat output. Greenhouse Gas
emissions

actually protect the Earth by forming a blanket in the Stratosphere and
bouncing off

the thermal heat produced by the sun and other radionuclides. Without the
greenhouse

effect the near surface air temperature would be -18 degrees C and not 15
degrees C

as it is now. The most important among these Greenhouse Gases is Water
Vapour,

which is responsible for about 96 to 99 % of the greenhouse effect.


Quoted text here. Click to load it




Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:07:06 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just to barge in uninvited here...

I agree that the scientific opinion is very much divided on the cause
of the climate change that is obvious to all of us who have lived on
this planet for more than half a century. As you say it might be a
temporary variation to the statistical norm, but it is just as likely
to be something else.

The introduction of CO2 into an atmosphere is easy to do, and it is
easy to show a "greenhouse" effect when it is done. Try it - all you
need is a large plastic bag and a thermometer, and a tiny amount of
CO2 to introduce after the first temp reading after an hour in the
sun. For the second reading start from scratch then introduce the CO2
and take the second reading after an hour in the sun.

I say that reduction of carbon can only be a good thing, and the cost
is very reasonable if governments think the process through, as this
one has. If we do nothing, future generations are in a good position
to condemn this generation for its selfish attitude in the highly
likely event that climate change deniers are wrong.

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.



** Vote Green do we ??

    Ride a bicycle ?

    Drive a Prius ?





....  Phil





Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:28:24 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, no, and no.

--
Sam

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**All are welcome.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided. The science is settled. The
arguments now come from religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio
hosts and fossil fuel apologists. Make no mistake: The guys who study the
climate of this planet are in agreement. The guys who deny it, do so for
other reasons, other than the science.

 As you say it might be a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The IPCC was originally formed to uncover the reasons why the planet was
warming. Hence the 'CC' in the title. It was determined that CO2 was the
only possible reason that could be attributed to the present warming, since
all the other influences were taken into account. There is no 'statistical
variation'. There is a physical reason why the planet is warming. The
reasons could have been due to variations in Solar flux, orbital
puturbations, smog and a bunch of other stuff. CO2 was the only standout
difference. CO2 is the problem.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of course. This experiment has been done many times, since the 19th
century, when the theory was first proposed. It has been well established
that oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR, whilst CO2, methane and
several other atmospheric gases are highly resonant at several IR
frequencies. Through this resonance, they acquire kinetic energy, which is,
in turn, transferred to the rest of the atmosphere, thus raising the kinetic
energy of the entire system.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. If the deniers are wrong, then inaction now, may lead to
irreversible damage to the planet.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Correct.

Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be.




....   Phil



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And yet, despite repeated requests, you have not supplied a shred of
science to support your claims, nor have you explained to Dr Ayers that he
is wrong.

You, Tony Abbott and George Pell deserve each other.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it


** YOU made the claim.

 But  YOU have no idea what  " science " is.

 Cos you have no education, no insight and no clue.




....  Phil







Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**_I_ made no such claim. I simply accept the science, as presented here:

www.ipcc.ch

and by this man:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Here, OTOH, are your claims (that you have yet to substantiate):

---
"It (climatology) is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it


** You have claimed over and over that it is " science".

 But you have no clue what science is so we cannot debate it.

 Your reasoning is the same as some fuckwit bible basher shouting

" This is the Word of the Lord ....  ".

  or some such drivel.



  ....  Phil







Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I made no such claim. I simply accept the science, as presented here:

www.ipcc.ch

and by this man:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Here, OTOH, are your claims (that you have yet to substantiate):

---
"It (climatology) is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
"Trevor Wilson = Bible Basher "
Quoted text here. Click to load it


** You have claimed over and over that it is " science".

 But you have no clue what science is so we cannot debate it.

 Your reasoning is the same as some fuckwit bible basher shouting

" This is the Word of the Lord ....  ".

  or some such drivel.



  ....  Phil








Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I made no such claim. I simply accept the science, as presented here:

www.ipcc.ch

and by this man:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Here, OTOH, are your claims (that you have yet to substantiate):

---
"It (climatology) is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** There it is !!!!

The magic word you refuse to discuss  !!!!

Cos you are an utter moron with no clue what it refers to.




....  Phil






Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
@mid.individual.net:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thats a great "gotcha"!

Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**PA's careful avoidance of answering any questions is not a "gotcha". PA's
careful avoidance of the science is not a "gotcha". It's just ignorance.
PA's refusal to pose questions to a climatologist, is not a "gotcha".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**  You refuse to explain your own choice of words.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Is TW  using the word  " science " in its religious sense ?

     Sure looks that way.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


**  Do not ever dream of telling me what to do

 -    you  PITA wanker.



....  Phil





Site Timeline