@chris 249 - re court case .... Was the complainant successful in proving his case ? .... Did the defendant pay Thousands of $$$ in damages ???? NO they didnt ... they 'merely' wrote a letter of apology , .... that is a win in most books - they stuck their heads above the parapitt and questioned the dogma .... Did he release all his data points ?
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
agree - great post Ian K - some rational sense publications ...
% of co2 in TOTAL atmosphere ? .... 1 tenth of 1 % -
And nature is responsible for 97% of that 1/10 of 1% ....
We humans are responsible for 3% of that 1/10 of 1% ....
So even if we halved emmisions by basically stopping industrialisation - we would effect 1.5% of 1/10 of 1 percent ...
I just don't buy the idea that 0.00003 % of co2 is controlling the whole of PLANET WARMING
Also - co2 has a reflective component if reflecting sun output back out to space , as well trapping heat within ..
If you look at graphs going back Millions of YEARS - (not just using graphs from 1900 onwards that cherry pick your arguament for climate scaremongers) - THE PROOF IS C02 AND TEMPERATURE - ARE NOT CORRELATED ...
I feel theory - proven by longterm graphs ... that we are in a GRADUAL overall warming phase thats been going on the last 1000's of years
Its been said - if all the variables were understood , accounted for and inputed into a correct program - in the worlds most powerful computer - it would take 8 years of computing to spit out an answer ... so what chance does a single scientist with his computing brain power have in coming to correct conclusion using short term timelines (last 100 years) , using dodgy numbers , and more importantly DODGY models ... For christ sake the IPCC have ONLY JUST started trying to comprehend the effect of Solar flares and electro-magnetic outputs on our weather systems (read - creating storms ) - and effects global temps ...
The IPCC gravy train - reinforcing its ' written mandate' - if it reported - nothing to see here - but gradual warming - then they would all be looking for work , and all the associated funding of AGW scientists ...
Re trillions in the fossil fuel industry - What about the $$$ in renewables - looking to change the status quo ( and potentially funding an agenda ) .... And remember - various parts of the fossil fuel sector WANT to scaremonger over climate change - say GAS LNG - want to promote an made climate change - to take $$$ away from coal , into their sector ...
Also - how many $$$ of subsidies did Obama fund in FAILED renewable start-ups ... ?????????
If you look at graphs in below links - they show only 1 deg warming overall since 1950 - woopy do ....
www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth's-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
So , common sense thinking - We have dumped back into the atmosphere 1/4 of total c02 in the last 50 years - and seen .... wait for it .... 1deg of warming ,...... and to get the next degree of warming - we would have to dump back double the amount of co2 based on logarithmic effect of co2 ...
So climate scaremongers - who want to believe all the worst case scenerios / hollywood end of days scenerios and scare the hell out of our kids - fearmongering they have a dire future (what a hideous proposition to put into young minds) - WHAT would you prefer - global warming , or global cooling ? because for sure global status quo is NOT an option based on natural variablility of our planetary cycles ... ? Global warming = greening of the planet - more prosperous agriculture ..... Global cooling has historically meant food famines and societal collapse ...
And yes professors are getting sacked - look at below case - professor ~ great barrier reef ... I was watching a scientific presentation on barrier reef recently - and the scientist said the recent loss of (from memory but for arguments sake ) of something like 200 sq km of reef - was quickly reported - but what WASNT reported was that in the previous years the reef had added 2000 sq km of reef reformed / recovered .. or could have been 2000 vs 20000 - cant remember ... Coral reefs have been around billions of years - and survived through c02 levels WAY WAY WAY multiple times in excess of what we have now ...
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful
The cultists explanation for all this - the tipping point.
A mighty,mighty fine tipping point.
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
I just don't buy the idea that 0.00003 % of co2 is controlling the whole of PLANET WARMING
You don't buy it because you've no way of completely understanding it.
Have a look at the paper in the link - can you summarize the findings in your own words or better show that they're wrong?
lib3.dss.go.th/fulltext/Journal/Analytical%20Chemistry/2000/v72no1p1-259/2000v72n1p216-221.pdf
No but we can all see patterns in a temperature chart.From the apparent end of the little ice age it had already warmed significantly before the industrial revolution .Where would you expect it to go up ,down or flatline from there.Thats why professor Mann had to get rid of the annoying thing not to mention all the warm and cool periods before.
Im not saying co2 does nothing its the percentage thats in doubt, and they know it because none of their models work.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
No but we can all see patterns in a temperature chart.From the apparent end of the little ice age it had already warmed significantly before the industrial revolution .Where would you expect it to go up ,down or flatline from there.Thats why professor Mann had to get rid of the annoying thing not to mention all the warm and cool periods before.
Im not saying co2 does nothing its the percentage thats in doubt, and they know it because none of their models work.
Climate science must be infinitely more complicated than the paper in the link which looks at just two isotopes of CO2, surely?
Cherry-picking a temperature chart and saying that models don't work - do you really understand all the relevant science and have access to the data?
lib3.dss.go.th/fulltext/Journal/Analytical%20Chemistry/2000/v72no1p1-259/2000v72n1p216-221.pdf
That hockey stick was a pretty good cherry pic don't you think ,on the part of Climate Scientists that is.
But is that ok?
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
@chris 249 - re court case .... Was the complainant successful in proving his case ? .... Did the defendant pay Thousands of $$$ in damages ???? NO they didnt ... they 'merely' wrote a letter of apology , .... that is a win in most books - they stuck their heads above the parapitt and questioned the dogma .... Did he release all his data points ?
Fact is, the defendant said it was wrong. That is a fairly good outcome in a defo matter; it's an area where significant damages are often hard to get.
An admission like that is a great embarrassment to an organisation like that; they rarely do it unless they have little option. I have never heard of a public organisation of that type issuing such an apology being seen as a win.
How much experience or study have you done in defo?
Nope, he didn't release his data. If he had written his paper today and then failed to release it, it could have looked bad. The Open Science movement is pretty new, though. I'd have preferred if he released the data but I can understand why he may not want to. People often misunderstand files. If, like you, people who read them were obviously extremely biased - the word "dogma"'indicates that - then you can get tangled for years explaining the data. If people were not biased enough to use a derogatory term like "dogma" it would be different
Seabreezer, I just went back to your earlier post. It was completely incorrect in so
many ways you should just have the decency to admit it.
You stated AS A FACT that the court said Mann was wrong. That is COMPLETELY wrong and you should have the guts and honesty to admit it instead of quibbling. The court made no such ruling.
If you get such a simple and obvious thing wrong you should perhaps be re-thinking your sources.
The Sun's output does vary, 1% or so, BUT 20% in some wavelengths! Synodic Resonance (conjunction of the planets) also makes a huge diff on the number of Sunspots (more, more heat). A MAJOR cause of the SLIGHT heating is the decrease in cloud cover caused by our cleaning the air of aerosols which are needed to make clouds. 6.8% decrease 1986 to 2009 - ref. John D.Maclean's PhD, Queensland University.
London air now 15 counts, air pollution versus 200 in 1950.........AND just changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints makes 0.7F difference, half of what is claimed by alarmists! My Bsc passed in 2 years; Liverpool.
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
@ logman .... so if you question science - its attention seeking behaviour ? .... 7032 attention seeking posts vs my 106 ????? .... wtf dude ... I must be really attn seeking ...
Ive got the feeling this AGW is quasi like the nutrition debate the last decades ... where scientists cherry picked their data and convinced the world that saturated fats caused heart disease / blocked your artuaries like a pipes plumbing scenerio !!! .... and convinced the world in repeated FLAWED studies that that was the case - and to eat low fat - avoid healthy fats , and .... fill the void with carbohydrates and sugar ... and here we are decades later with epidemic obesity and diabetes .... The dogma of low fat stayed ENTRENCHED for years propelled by media ... Im glad I question things personally ... and question the status quo ...
If we question things deeply, we find that there's lots of dogma on the "denier" side. Look, for example, at the lies they spin about "climate warriors" being rescued from a ship in the Arctic recently, when in fact it was a bunch of normal guys who were following an earlier expedition.
It's great to question things personally, but that doesn't mean just believing some websites; we've got to follow up what they say. A lot of what the "denialist" side is saying are just lies. So sure, some people may just follow dogma - but that can be happening on BOTH sides.
You stated AS A FACT that a court had ruled that Mann was wrong. That did NOT happen. If you are going to be honest and to try to search for the truth, surely you should start by admitting your original post was wrong, and trying to work out why it was so wrong.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
That hockey stick was a pretty good cherry pic don't you think ,on the part of Climate Scientists that is.
But is that ok?
The cherry picking on the other side has been pretty amazing. Mann gets a grovelling apology from one defendant and it doesn't seem to get much coverage from the "denialist" sites. Mann gets told he can't go to court because it's all taking too long, and they cherry pick that as if the court had ruled that his science was wrong.
A bunch of old Scandinavian guys who are trying to follow the course of an earlier exploration expedition get stuck in ice, and a bunch of "denialist" sites lie and claim that they are "climate warriors".
The head of the Scandi dudes tells a "denialist" site that they are not "climate warriors" and they ignore him.
You claim that "The bbc shut (Bellamy) out completely" when the truth is that it did not happen. He was not shut out completely.
Given that sort of track record of "denialists" being mistaken or misleading and deceitful and not even checking the basic facts (such as whether Bellemy was "shut out completely" or whether the old Scandi guys were "climate warriors") it seems odd to abuse the climate scientists for "cherry picking".
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Foghorn said..
That hockey stick was a pretty good cherry pic don't you think ,on the part of Climate Scientists that is.
But is that ok?
The cherry picking on the other side has been pretty amazing. Mann gets a grovelling apology from one defendant and it doesn't seem to get much coverage from the "denialist" sites. Mann gets told he can't go to court because it's all taking too long, and they cherry pick that as if the court had ruled that his science was wrong.
A bunch of old Scandinavian guys who are trying to follow the course of an earlier exploration expedition get stuck in ice, and a bunch of "denialist" sites lie and claim that they are "climate warriors".
The head of the Scandi dudes tells a "denialist" site that they are not "climate warriors" and they ignore him.
You claim that "The bbc shut (Bellamy) out completely" when the truth is that it did not happen. He was not shut out completely.
Given that sort of track record of "denialists" being mistaken or misleading and deceitful and not even checking the basic facts (such as whether Bellemy was "shut out completely" or whether the old Scandi guys were "climate warriors") it seems odd to abuse the climate scientists for "cherry picking".
I believe the man himself and good on him he still stands by his statements.But you can believe what you like and thats ok.
Its well known now that the ipcc places to much importance on co2 as a climate driver thats why their models run hot,but thats been there sole narratve to begin with.
I agree there's been loads of ridiculous claims from both sides .As ive said all a long politics has got its claws to deep into this one particularly as the US election looms.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..Chris 249 said..Foghorn said..
That hockey stick was a pretty good cherry pic don't you think ,on the part of Climate Scientists that is.
But is that ok?
The cherry picking on the other side has been pretty amazing. Mann gets a grovelling apology from one defendant and it doesn't seem to get much coverage from the "denialist" sites. Mann gets told he can't go to court because it's all taking too long, and they cherry pick that as if the court had ruled that his science was wrong.
A bunch of old Scandinavian guys who are trying to follow the course of an earlier exploration expedition get stuck in ice, and a bunch of "denialist" sites lie and claim that they are "climate warriors".
The head of the Scandi dudes tells a "denialist" site that they are not "climate warriors" and they ignore him.
You claim that "The bbc shut (Bellamy) out completely" when the truth is that it did not happen. He was not shut out completely.
Given that sort of track record of "denialists" being mistaken or misleading and deceitful and not even checking the basic facts (such as whether Bellemy was "shut out completely" or whether the old Scandi guys were "climate warriors") it seems odd to abuse the climate scientists for "cherry picking".
I believe the man himself and good on him he still stands by his statements.But you can believe what you like and thats ok.
Its well known now that the ipcc places to much importance on co2 as a climate driver thats why their models run hot,but thats been there sole narratve to begin with.
I agree there's been loads of ridiculous claims from both sides .As ive said all a long politics has got its claws to deep into this one particularly as the US election looms.
If we "believe the man himself" then we must believe that sources like the IMDB lied about his later appearances on the BBC that proved that he was not "shut out completely". We must also believe that "the man himself" was wrong when he said that if he was "banned from television" it was because he stood for politics years before.
To claim that Bellamy is right sometimes and wrong other times, that sources like the IMDB database are wrong, and that the man who interviewed Bellamy in 2002 are wrong looks very much like cherry picking.
Either there is some major conspiracy going on (complete with false Youtube clips and alterations to databases 
) or he was not "shut out completely" because of his views on climate science.
I agree, there have been ridiculous claims on both sides. I get annoyed with some from extreme Greens. That's why we should test the truth of the claims we read, no matter what side they come from.
Yes i would say it played part of it ,yes I read that to .And the part that conservation foundations had dismissed him based on his views.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..Chris 249 said..Foghorn said..
That hockey stick was a pretty good cherry pic don't you think ,on the part of Climate Scientists that is.
But is that ok?
The cherry picking on the other side has been pretty amazing. Mann gets a grovelling apology from one defendant and it doesn't seem to get much coverage from the "denialist" sites. Mann gets told he can't go to court because it's all taking too long, and they cherry pick that as if the court had ruled that his science was wrong.
A bunch of old Scandinavian guys who are trying to follow the course of an earlier exploration expedition get stuck in ice, and a bunch of "denialist" sites lie and claim that they are "climate warriors".
The head of the Scandi dudes tells a "denialist" site that they are not "climate warriors" and they ignore him.
You claim that "The bbc shut (Bellamy) out completely" when the truth is that it did not happen. He was not shut out completely.
Given that sort of track record of "denialists" being mistaken or misleading and deceitful and not even checking the basic facts (such as whether Bellemy was "shut out completely" or whether the old Scandi guys were "climate warriors") it seems odd to abuse the climate scientists for "cherry picking".
.But you can believe what you like and thats ok.
no, it's not ok........You can't keep spouting untruths and hope to get away with it because "that's what I believe and that's ok.
A lot of finger pointing here, but no "evidence", and I strongly suspect no one who has either read it or understands it.
Sure, no one can read or understand all of "the evidence" since that requires a high degree of understanding in chemistry, biology, meteorology, etc etc etc. No one lives long enough to learn all of that. But every day we rely on things we don't understand fully. If we have an operation, we put our entire life in the hands of people we do not know or understand, who use drugs and anaesthetics we do not understand, and hack us around in ways we do not fully understand. We don't fully understand the way our GPS works; we can't fully understand the source code and every piece of the relativistic calculations inside it; or the satellite's exact orbit and all the calculations involved, or the chemistry of the rocket fuel that got it there. We don't fully understand the design,maintenance, control, power and systems that keep the airlines we fly, the trains we catch, the lifts that get us into our office, or the computer we use when we get there.
So every day we put our trust in things we don't fully understand, because we know that other people have spent their live learning about those things. Anyone who says "we should not rely on anything unless we fully understand it" shouldn't fly on a plane, use a GPS or a phone, watch TV, get most medical treatments, drink city water (or even purified water), etc etc etc.There's not really any other way to live a modern life than to put our trust in the knowledge of others. Our lack of full understanding does not mean that we reject what we are told by those who DO understand more about the subject.
Back when dying by typhoid was common even among royalty, no under understood exactly why making sure that the drinking water didn't have sewerage in it stopped people from dying. No one (well, no one who was smart) sat around and said "until every one of us can fully understand exactly why drinking ** is killing us, we have to keep on drinking ** and dying from it".
It costs a lot of electricity to run the sun, this pulls power from our grid and contributes to global warming.
The hotter the sun the more energy it uses and hence more coal being burnt in power stations.
By running the sun on 2/3 power for a decade we reduce global warming and releasing less carbon dioxide from coal powered electricity used to light the sun.
Turning the sun down is a win win, less power used and long term less global warming
Select to expand quoteDelFuego said..
so many deniers on this forum
No there really are sun spots. 
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The idea that the sun,the source of all heat on earth could somehow influence a change in temperature is a conspiracy theory for most of the cultists.
Apparently Earth core is melted.Apparently not due to solar radiation.We dig a bit , and suddenly Earth is getting more warm inside then outside.Summarizing: Earth surface is heated by fusion and internally by fission.So maybe our climate is just result of those two? Earth magnetic field is result of the internal flow inside our liquid core and we are now just about the time that flow do change and poles are about to flip.I doubt we could do much about processes inside Earth, but one day we could hear voices to ban magnets and all other devices producing electromagnetic fields that could interfere with our Earth core.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Sure, no one can read or understand all of "the evidence" since that requires a high degree of understanding in chemistry, biology, meteorology, etc etc etc. No one lives long enough to learn all of that. But every day we rely on things we don't understand fully. If we have an operation, we put our entire life in the hands of people we do not know or understand, who use drugs and anaesthetics we do not understand, and hack us around in ways we do not fully understand. We don't fully understand the way our GPS works; we can't fully understand the source code and every piece of the relativistic calculations inside it; or the satellite's exact orbit and all the calculations involved, or the chemistry of the rocket fuel that got it there. We don't fully understand the design,maintenance, control, power and systems that keep the airlines we fly, the trains we catch, the lifts that get us into our office, or the computer we use when we get there.
So every day we put our trust in things we don't fully understand, because we know that other people have spent their live learning about those things. Anyone who says "we should not rely on anything unless we fully understand it" shouldn't fly on a plane, use a GPS or a phone, watch TV, get most medical treatments, drink city water (or even purified water), etc etc etc.There's not really any other way to live a modern life than to put our trust in the knowledge of others. Our lack of full understanding does not mean that we reject what we are told by those who DO understand more about the subject.
Back when dying by typhoid was common even among royalty, no under understood exactly why making sure that the drinking water didn't have sewerage in it stopped people from dying. No one (well, no one who was smart) sat around and said "until every one of us can fully understand exactly why drinking ** is killing us, we have to keep on drinking ** and dying from it".
Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.
AND, please tell me of 2 BAD things PRESENTLY from GW?
Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.
AND, please tell me of 2 BAD things PRESENTLY from GW?
Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.
Why should it be different now? Well, we seem to be stuck to living on the coast here, and at least for us in Australia, we are in a pretty dry country to start with, so if global warming brings more dry periods, it will affect us.
Surely we can start to move to renewal energy and reduce our carbon emissions, and worst case we end up with less polution and have less impact on the climate? Who is to know if human influence is good or bad, but a move to renewables seems like a good idea anyway.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.
Great prosperity compared to what?
And they seem to have managed without burning huge amounts of coal and oil, though I have read that there was noticeable deforestation during the Roman era.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.
How can you get a degree in Chemistry and Physics without encountering absorption spectra? That's the basis on which Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..Chris 249 said..
Sure, no one can read or understand all of "the evidence" since that requires a high degree of understanding in chemistry, biology, meteorology, etc etc etc. No one lives long enough to learn all of that. But every day we rely on things we don't understand fully. If we have an operation, we put our entire life in the hands of people we do not know or understand, who use drugs and anaesthetics we do not understand, and hack us around in ways we do not fully understand. We don't fully understand the way our GPS works; we can't fully understand the source code and every piece of the relativistic calculations inside it; or the satellite's exact orbit and all the calculations involved, or the chemistry of the rocket fuel that got it there. We don't fully understand the design,maintenance, control, power and systems that keep the airlines we fly, the trains we catch, the lifts that get us into our office, or the computer we use when we get there.
So every day we put our trust in things we don't fully understand, because we know that other people have spent their live learning about those things. Anyone who says "we should not rely on anything unless we fully understand it" shouldn't fly on a plane, use a GPS or a phone, watch TV, get most medical treatments, drink city water (or even purified water), etc etc etc.There's not really any other way to live a modern life than to put our trust in the knowledge of others. Our lack of full understanding does not mean that we reject what we are told by those who DO understand more about the subject.
Back when dying by typhoid was common even among royalty, no under understood exactly why making sure that the drinking water didn't have sewerage in it stopped people from dying. No one (well, no one who was smart) sat around and said "until every one of us can fully understand exactly why drinking ** is killing us, we have to keep on drinking ** and dying from it".
Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.
AND, please tell me of 2 BAD things PRESENTLY from GW?
Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.
As noted, you appear to only consider Europe - not places that were already uncomfortably hot, or low lying. If you lived in an area that is suffering from unprecedented drought, where firefighters cannot find water and hundreds of square ks of stringybarks are dying, you may not be so blind to the issues that can be caused by GW.
All your claims about your own expertise suffer from the problem that while you have an undergrad education, there are people who are vastly more qualified in the area of AGW who disagree with you. You infer that your two years of unrelated study gives you more knowledge about AGW than people who have studied the area for ten to twenty years. That is obviously illogical; if the amount of formal study is the measure of knowledge then while you rate above many people, you rate far below others who claim that AGW is occurring.
Do you believe that (to use some examples) Brian Schmidt and the Chief Scientist lack common sense and logic? So do you claim that Schmidt's Nobel Prize and financial and career success are simply down to blind chance? Do seriously claim that many Nobel prize winners are illogical and lack sense? My god that is nauseatingly arrogant.
