Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject. They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may or may not be experts.
Only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to do with climate in their daytime jobs:
Of course, I'm not an expert on the subject of climate, so please feel free to ignore me.
There is a significant difference. In most cases automobiles use fossil fuels; thus they release carbon (as CO2) that was sequestered for millenia. If I take a corn crop and ferment it into alcohol, feed it to cattle, or plow it into the ground, the carbon (as CO2) was removed from the atmosphere within the last 6 - 9 months. If the alcohol is used to produce wiskey it will be out of the atmosphere for less than a decade; the other uses return it to the atmosphere more quickly. Even if I let the field go to weeds, the same process will occur.
PlainBill
:
rge
. eTrevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do, then you must be :
- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".
Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything outside his limited trade training B
Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.
: r
it
rion
eO2
mew)
in
),
rts.
it
ymmm, now that is interesting. Explains a lot too.
: r
it
rion
eO2
mew)
in
),
rts.
it
yI wonder which one of these he is ?
The one with no clue and an agenda ?
he
That sounds like Trev ;)
No wonder he is so Pro- AGW - especially if his missus works there.
There are probably substantial public service incomes and benefits coming into many households from departments like this, creating lots of people living it up at the taxpayers expense and with the AGW theories disintegrating in the eyes of the public, this probably puts a lot of cushy jobs at risk, not to mention the credibility that the CSIRO.previously had.
Anyone who wanted to gut it of these "climate scientists" and funding generally would probably get a lot of political mileage from it.
If the credibility of the place was severely damaged by associating itself with AGW, a lot of scientists in other parts of it would probably cop flack over it too for having worked there, even if they had nothing to do with AGW "research" which could hurt their future job prospects.
Fair enough though I say, they thought it was a good joke to condone ripping off the Australian public with a carbon tax, lets see how they like being on the receiving end. karma is a bitch.
This explains the obsession with:
-Abbott (who is a potential threat to this "AGW research" gravy train
- with the blessings of the public - if elected).
-Anyone who has a voice in the anti-AGW forum who is in any way religious, and might therefore be serious about core christian values, you know, ones like: "thou shalt not steal" (the taxpayers money - and abuse the public in return) and "thou shalt not bear false witness". Many would be happy to publicly expose those who blatantly behave in any way contrary to these commandments, specially when a significant proportion of their entire nation is threatened by it
This is my honest opinion anyway, for what its worth.
Trevor Wilson schrieb:
Hello,
the CO2 in soft drinks is released to the atmosphere again when these drinks are consumed. This CO2 is exhaled after some time.
Bye
**Duh.
Typical response from you. :(
**Nope. Just a succinct one. Here, OTOH, is a typical response from me (after an idiotic post from you): **I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:
This is an interesting primer on the topic:
-- Trevor Wilson
You can find websites that say whatever you want, 'Chicken Little'. None of their so called science is proven, just like your claims.
You can't expect much more from it.
**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor have you commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your idea of a cogent argument is to refuse to respond to questions and points of logic and resort to pitiful sniping.
You are a failure.
Considering how little demonstrable formal education tweva had his response is not surprising , when queried about education the reply was studiously avoided offering a fair indication of having nothing to back the claims bar fallacious innuendo and blurred badly modelled results based on poor information and guesses designed to support a result rather than obtaining a truthful result and hence by omission maintain the funding model and income .
I don't expect anything from people who refuse to look at the sources of the material they quote.
u
ort
Nothing that could be said to you would break you out of your cult.
In what way ?
I would say that my life has been pretty good to me regarding my career, marriage family, friends, health etc. I worked hard for everything I have and have not had to accept handouts, or "sheltered" jobs, "jobs for the boys" etc.
To me that is not failure and if it is failure in your opinion, so be it.
As long as you keep quoting, paid off/vested interest "sources" as fact, I'm not going to..
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required