LIVID!! !! !! !! !! !!

Post Reply New Topic

First they tax the carbon you use or make. Then they tax each breath you take.

ruveyn

It's precicely my point that I haven't heard the scientists take on this; merely the rabbling of political sorts. I didn't say I don't believe that we cause Global Warming, rather I have not heard an Advocate for the idea who's convinced me of the truth of the theory. Until then, I'll remain agnostic, as anyone should do in the absence of strong opinion or deep understanding.



Oh yes, three years worth of weather is certainly good evidence for any climate model you want to put forward



I'm sure the Scientists aren't, but 90% of the proponents of neo-environmentalism are. The Scientists should tell the hippy's and con men and hippies to sit down, and publicise this issue themselves.



You could try reciting the mantra "correlation does not imply causation". The earth may have cooled due to other factors, and CO2 may have slowed the cooling. If you rule out other variables, then what you said is evidence. Otherwise it's just a sophist argument.

You do realize any data from more then 800,000 y.a. is almost purely speculative, due to the ice core record only going that far?

@Vigilans

You've always struck me as a smart guy. Read the rest of what I wrote. The glaciation of Greenland BEGAN in the Pliocene. This is proven by more than ice cores. Things such as alluvial dislocation and erosion and geological sampling from around the Greenland coast. And, might I add, with most of the Greenland ice sheet still in evidence, it naturally holds that ice coring would work, too. Which it does.

Anyway, the glaciation of Greenland, and this takes twenty-minutes of your own precious time to prove, was due to a shift in the jetstream caused by the creation of the Himalaya and Rockies, the creation of the Panama Isthmus which increased salinity in the North Atlantic, decreasing precipitation over the mainland and pushing it out to sea, and the end of the continual El-Nino that presided over most of the Miocene which, again, increased North Atlantic precipitation. This was settled science before CO2 extremism came along. One hundred years or more before CO2 extremism came along.

It's funny, too, is the ability of scientists in no way involved in climatology who always feel loath to record any thoughts outside of their field, feel perfectly okay to spout nonsense about climate change. I have never heard a CLIMATOLOGIST who has said that CO2 is precipitative of climate change. He or she will always tell you that CO2 is a necessary component of our atmosphere and that if it has an effect, it's negligible. This is the point.

I can't increase the font, so I'll repeat it for you. CO2 is NEGLIGIBLE.

Didn't mean to sound snarky or anything here, I've gone through a lot of courses related to climate change/environmentalism I'm probably more sick of hearing about it then you. I did 6 months of 'environmental geography' and it was one of the most boring, abbreviation-infested periods of my life.



Actually we've discussed the nature of tectonics in relation to climate before which I found rather interesting. In truth, CO2 has been observed to increase with temperature rise. CO2 has increased by more then 100 parts per million (~30-40%) since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and it is now generally agreed (even among non-climate scientists) that anthropogenic causes are likely. However this doesn't necessarily mean that the CO2 is the cause of global warming. There is also the 'Milankovitch Cycles' that are theorized to cause changes in glaciation through variations in axial tilt and precession, as well as apsidal precession and orbital inclination

I think that media influence has made the whole concept seem a lot scarier then reality and of course, in the nature of capitalism, some people want to profit off of it. Not to mention that coincidentally there has been some bad hurricane activity and weather in some places in the world that some want to link to anthropogenic climate change...



I would have to disagree here, I have read a lot of literature from climatology and it is really boring but clearly discusses the role of CO2. That doesn't mean we should start a carbon tax or anything, at least I think. Or even that CO2 is the main cause.
Carbon does have environmental effects though. Darwin's classic example of the darker/lighter pepper moth illustrates how even over a hundred years ago the carbon from industrialization had some effect on the environment.

There is also evidence that mass eruptions of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past were detrimental to life on Earth, possibly resulting in extinction events of various degrees of severity. These eruptions were probably volcanic in nature but it is also possible that frozen CO2 on the ocean floor can be disturbed by under water vulcanism as well, and there are also many other frozen greenhouse gases (the 'Clathrate Gun Hypothesis') on the Ocean floor

I would be more worried about what would happen if the trace gases in the atmosphere were to change in composition slightly and what effects that would have on the current biology. Warming is not really my concern, but how life would adapt to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that could be similar to the theorized levels of the distant past

Over that long a time period there could have been a number of forcings counteracting the effect of increasing CO2. I haven't studied much paleoclimatology so I don't know what the theories are for the Pliocene. In any case 22 C is still a heck of a lot warmer than today.


Do you have any evidence of this. The East Anglia emails are all over the web, so if there was such a conspiracy it should be easy to show.


Using data from a single location is completely pointless. Even a global temperature rise of 1C isn't going to show an upward trend in every single location.

Here is an explanation for why CO2 isn't negligible.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

The CO2 effect is significant in the upper troposphere where the amount of water vapor (the other main greenhouse gas) is an order of magnitude lower than it is in the lower troposphere. The fact that there is less convective mixing in the upper troposphere makes the radiative properties much more important in the total energy budget at that altitude. The effect of water vapor "saturating" the infrared window is only significant in the lower, moister (because it is warmer) portion of the atmosphere where convection dominates the energy balance anyways.

One thing that I think needs further investigation is the noted increase in Noctilucent Clouds over the past decades. Or the fact that they only began to be reported after the industrial revolution began

Then you have not paid attention. The university I attend is home to one of the top atmospheric and climate science centers in the world, and I don't know of any professors here who doubt the fact that CO2 contributes to climate change.

This is very interesting. I know very little about climate science but I am interested. I will watch this thread with interest.

The TRUTH of the matter is, if they didn't say this, they would lose their positions.

I'm sorry, but the Ministry of Truth is alive and well.

Open your eyes people, and research this YOURSELF and you will find that it is all a swindle is the CO2 extremism permeating the world today.

As a simple aside, a recent poll of Australians, asking if we wanted a Carbon Tax, 89% said NO.

Wow. Will of the people my foot. It's a good thing my heartrate is so low. As I think it was ruevyn said, my apologies if incorrectly spelt, the next thing to tax is CO2 emissions from breathing.

Of course. You disagree with the scientists, so the thing to do is posit a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth.


It would take many years of study for me to make a really informed assessment of the scientific data (and those are years of study I know you have not undertaken either). Barring any major new developments, I will trust the consensus of intelligent people who have spent a large amount of time studying this issue- that is, climate scientists. The descriptions I have seen explaining the role of CO2 in climate change seem plausible enough.


Carbon taxes are a political issue, not a scientific one.

I'm forgetting the name of my own thread... Thankyou for opening my eyes, Orwell...

FACTS, to quote Dickens instead of Orwell:

1) The University of East Anglia emails definitively prove an attempt to defraud the integrity of the IPCC deliberations through the deliberate distribution of knowingly fraudulent material.

2) The world has not warmed an iota since 1998. You can read the raw data yourself. This does not take years.

3) The IPCC champions its 1600 strong panel of 'experts' mostly non-climate scientist who contributed to the report. I forget the name of the organisation, but they have 30,000 signatories, 9000 of whom are PhD holders, who refute every claim of CO2 extremism. This is not consensus with the warming thesis, neither is it settled.

4) The Hockey Stick is a piece of, well, whatever those rats that would have eaten Winston Smith had for dinner instead. It was definitively proven false by the very review committee stacked with Global Warming Sympathisers.

5) Nowhere is it recorded that CO2, by any CLIMATOLOGIST, has any, and listen to the semantic here, please, this is important and proves intellect, PRECIPITATIVE effect on climate. CO2 levels fluctaute as wildly as does climate. The two are interwoven, but they are not dependent upon each other. Neither is water vapour a PRECIPITATIVE climate changing gas.

6) Proven. When the temperature increases, severe weather events decrease.

7) Proven. The weather events of recent history are no more intense or frequent than throughout the rest of the industrial era. Or before.

Independent scientist lose funding for proving, at least limitedly, that CO2 and climate are not precipitative of changes with respect of one to the other. Proven.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, and all it takes is a moment to think for yourself and about an hour's research if you can come at it from a premise that makes sense. Such as, with Vigilans I think it was, my short discussion on the settled science of the Pliocene. Whether CO2 was involved or not, the Pliocene science was settled before CO2 extremism came along. Read that post, take the twenty minutes it takes to verify it for yourself, and then wonder, how did we get where we are today?

As an aside, the co-founder of Greenpeace, here's the rub, people, will be more inclined to agree with me because the position of the Environmental movement, in this respect, is political and has no bearing scientifically.

Do not get me started on Post-natural science and its perversions of scientific statute. I have no patience to debate the nothingspeak of both you Orwell and Awesomelyglorious.

Thankyou for your time.

I'm not interested in arguing the science of a subject of which neither of us has an adequate understanding. It would be akin to a one-armed m***et playing tennis against a quadriplegic. I will say only the following:
1) There exist people who understand the science far better than I do, and certainly far better than you do (my background in applied math probably puts me closer to understanding the subject than you)
2) I have no compelling reason to question the motives of the entire scientific community
3) The explanations of climate science that I have seen, though obviously greatly simplified, seem reasonable.
4) I am going to trust the consensus of the people mentioned in (1).

I remember Ian Plimer and Christopher Monkton both stating that very few geologists (not climatologists) actually support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Though I personally think we ought to hedge our bets and move towards renewables anyway.

I can resolve, thanks to my studying engineering, a third-order differential equation. Applied math, well, we can all do that. All you need to do is learn the trick.

Like, say, investigating the deliberate manipulation of scientific data in support of a known, disproven hypothesis.

Anyway, what you're saying is that you've made up your mind and will support the WRONG team, of whom you are emotionally invested. Wow. Amazes me that someone who constantly asserts rationality over all things could be so equivocal when it comes to his emotional investment in the incorrect use and manipulation of data.