[fizzissist]

CO2 concentrations vs temperature is often cited in ancient references, but I like the more recent comparison where you look at the Medieval Warm Period and CO2 levels, then the following Little Ice Age, and the CO2 levels, it just doesn't fit with basic reasoning to make the assertion that ....

....C02 drives temperature????

Look at the swings in temperature before, during and after the MWP (~800-1300AD)and LIA (~1650-1850AD) and look at the C02 levels, then look at the IPCC predictions of the different scenarios, something ain't right. The IPCC predictions range between 1.4-5.8degC increase in temperature for given CO2 increases. But when you look at the temperature fluxuations of the MWP and LIA with the relative low CO2 levels of the period, it just doesn't fit the claim of CO2 as a first order climate forcing. Something far more powerful is at work.

The more I look at it, the less I believe that CO2 is the cause, and the more I view it as a byproduct.

[phoodieman]

Of course climate change (CC) has been happening "through the eons" but the current CC is man made and is happening much faster than natural CC.

For the past 200 or so years, we have been taking coal, oil & gas from the ground and burning it thus releasing CO2, water vapour, etc. These increase the green house effect and thus global warming & CC.

At the same time, we have been cutting down forests, producing larger and larger herds of cattle, etc. which all add to the CC.

I'm sorry to say this, but you really need to open your mind and study the evidence.

My mind has been opened. First they called it global warming. When the science proved it wrong they changed their tune. Now they call it climate change. Where did all the hype go about global warming? It really doesn't matter. It's the agenda that does. This whole thing is about carbon and carbon tax. CO2 is being demonized by the money controllers. They have conjured up a new way to make more money. After they have swindled the public into believing CO2 is the enemy then they can tax EVERYONE because they emit CO2 when they breathe. THEIR GOAL IS TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH DEBT BECAUSE THEY BREATHE. Do not buy into this BS. Question your leaders.

Phoodieman

[ljcox]

Do you think that Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University is ready to have his work peer reviewed?

What do you think of his presentation that is on YouTube in 4 parts?

Is he one of your fools? Your words, not mine.

"atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," arguing instead that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation".
--Bob Carter

My point is this. You make claims, then back 'em up.

My position can be summarised as follows:-

When I first heard about the greenhouse effect some 20 ~ 30 years ago my thoughts were:-

1. It seemed plausible that adding more & more green house gasses (GHG) to the atmosphere may be detrimental.
2. However, I did not know or care if it was right or wrong. My concern was that it MAY be right. Therefore, I felt that the world should immediately start making changes to reduce our GHG emissions.
3. No-one could predict what, if anything, would happen.
4. If something did happen, no-one could predict how bad it would be.
5. As an electronics engineer, I understand positive & negative feed back. So it occurred to me that there could be positive feed back effects that would eventually make the GH effect accelerate and possibly be unstoppable.
6. If we did nothing but argue the point about whether it is right or wrong, we may dither until it is too late to turn it around – should the “alarmists” eventually be proven right.

Today I feel that the “alarmists” are supported by more evidence than the sceptics.

I take exception to people on either side accusing the other side of being unethical, having hidden agendas, etc. Sure, these accusations may apply to some, but it is unproductive to tar everyone with the same brush. I feel sure that there are genuine people on both sides who are simply trying to do what they consider to be right.

The problem I have with the sceptics’ position is illustrated by the following hypothetical:-

If I gave a sceptic a glass of liquid and said:-

“There is a 1% chance that this liquid contains a tasteless but deadly poison”. Would he say “Oh well, that means that there is a 99% chance that it is harmless” and then drink it? I don’t think so.

So let’s not waste time producing learned papers trying to prove this or that. We should assume that the “alarmists” are right and start making the necessary changes before it is too late.

[DAZZ]

Hello all, I’ve been following this thread for quite some time and thought it time to chime in. As an Australian I thought it best to at least let the rest of the world know that not all of us here in Oz are brainwashed by the TV and newspapers. We are bombarded with Climate change propaganda on a daily basis. Almost every day there has been a TV ad on promoting CO2 as a pollutant. It’s basically any typical household using electrical appliances and they depict black balloons coming out of them and filling the room. This ad has been running for at least 6 months, maybe more. Our government supported TV station, the ABC, is totally biased in favour of AGW. Any sceptic that appears on its current affairs programs are spun to be nut-jobs by the presenters. Just hope that they are as see threw to everyone else watching as they are to me.
Enough about our media...

Today I feel that the “alarmists” are supported by more evidence than the sceptics.

I’d really like to see this evidence. The best I can find is someone sprouting that the weather is getting strange eg drought or polar bears are drowning or see levels are flooding low level islands. These are all effects not causes and the media seem to just join the two together and blatantly blame CO2. Please show me this evidence that CO2 is the cause. And I am being sincere.

The problem I have with the sceptics’ position is illustrated by the following hypothetical:-

If I gave a sceptic a glass of liquid and said:-

“There is a 1% chance that this liquid contains a tasteless but deadly poison”. Would he say “Oh well, that means that there is a 99% chance that it is harmless” and then drink it? I don’t think so.

So let’s not waste time producing learned papers trying to prove this or that. We should assume that the “alarmists” are right and start making the necessary changes before it is too late.

Your question is a bad analogy to the real situation. Of coarse the answer is going to be no. There’s nothing to loose in not drinking the liquid.
A more appropriate question would be:
If I gave a glass of liquid to a sceptic who was nearly dead from dehydration and said:-
“There is a 1% chance that this liquid contains a tasteless but deadly poison”. Would he say “Oh well, that means that there is a 99% chance that it is harmless” and then drink it? I think so.


Daz

[fizzissist]

My position can be summarised as follows:-


6. If we did nothing but argue the point about whether it is right or wrong, we may dither until it is too late to turn it around – should the “alarmists” eventually be proven right.

Today I feel that the “alarmists” are supported by more evidence than the sceptics.

I take exception to people on either side accusing the other side of being unethical, having hidden agendas, etc. Sure, these accusations may apply to some, but it is unproductive to tar everyone with the same brush. I feel sure that there are genuine people on both sides who are simply trying to do what they consider to be right.

The problem I have with the sceptics’ position is illustrated by the following hypothetical:-

If I gave a sceptic a glass of liquid and said:-

“There is a 1% chance that this liquid contains a tasteless but deadly poison”. Would he say “Oh well, that means that there is a 99% chance that it is harmless” and then drink it? I don’t think so.

If you're really an engineer, and you supposedly KNOW about feedback, then why are we even having this discussion? The effect of CO2 on climate is non-linear, a fourth order forcing, and even you doomsters admit that we don't know how much influence H2O has on climate while you do know that H2O's effects on climate far outweigh CO2s.

That glass of liquid analogy isn't even in the ballpark. CO2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless...and it's not a pollutant. The plants you eat require it to grow. It's in the beer you drink. Your physiology is set up to use CO2 as a trigger to breathe. What's your beef with CO2??

And you take exception "to people on the other side" having hidden agendas, etc...oh yeah?

Like what? Like the insurance giant AIG funding studies that demonstrate an increased frequency and amplitude (two words that should get your attention) of hurricanes in order to justify increasing insurance rates?

Where have your south atlantic hurricanes been THIS year, mister? The doomsters have been awful quiet about 'em. Despite the alarmism, they defied your "evidence" and didn't show up.

Maybe you missed the prior posts where we talked about "no problem, no funding" grants. Or Al Gore's hypocrisy? Never mind Rajendra Patchauri's.

More to the point...you say your evidence trumps mine??

Bring it on. Not rhetoric, which is all we've seen so far, but evidence.

[Mariss Freimanis]

I like the glass of water thing! I would say "There is a 1% chance it is a mild poison and a 99% chance it's beneficial wonder drug. It will cost you your life savings to dispose of the contents in case it is poison. Let's stop analyzing the fluid; we have decided the science is settled. We don't want any evidence it's a wonder drug." That is far more realistic analogy than the straw man one you put up.

You are an engineer? What engineer ignores running cost to benefit ratios? Engineers also don't "feel" about data, they think. What engineer ever says "I will not revise my design even though new tests show it won't work. The engineering is settled."

Mariss

[fizzissist]

You are an engineer? What engineer ignores running cost to benefit ratios? Engineers also don't "feel" about data, they think. What engineer ever says "I will not revise my design even though new tests show it won't work. The engineering is settled."

Mariss

Bingo!

[ljcox]

Well if you all want to keep your heads in the sand, then there is no point in me trying to discuss it further.

And I suggest Daz that you find a brain and learn to spell!

[DAZZ]

Well if you all want to keep your heads in the sand, then there is no point in me trying to discuss it further.

And I suggest Daz that you find a brain and learn to spell!

I’ll say it again. Please show me the evidence. I really don’t want to have my head in the sand.

Is attacking my spelling skills somehow evidence that CO2 is a cause? I couldn’t give a rat’s arse that I can’t spell. It doesn’t affect my ability to reason.

DAZ

[fizzissist]

Well if you all want to keep your heads in the sand, then there is no point in me trying to discuss it further.

And I suggest Daz that you find a brain and learn to spell!

Discuss what? What did you want to discuss? Give us a single point to discuss.

[rokag3]

1. It seemed plausible that adding more & more green house gasses (GHG) to the atmosphere may be detrimental.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CV265

The normal level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 350 ppm. Research on many crops has shown that if the ambient level of CO2 is increased to 800 to 1000 ppm, increased plant growth and yield will result. Injection of CO2 is a standard practice in winter greenhouse vegetable production in northern climates. In these climates, high CO2 levels can be maintained because the greenhouses are closed during the winter. In Florida, CO2 injection is not as efficient as in northern climates because of the large amount of ventilation required, even in winter.

as you can see it seemed plausible but it seemed only


2. However, I did not know or care if it was right or wrong. My concern was that it MAY be right. Therefore, I felt that the world should immediately start making changes to reduce our GHG emissions.
who is keeping is head in the sand ? you put your head in the sand to don't know and don't care
and then you have the morgue to asess that "the world should immediately start making changes to reduce our GHG emissions."
this world become more and more unpleasant because of "stupids" i do not like to sai it but i am affraid that you are part of them
So long sir
Lucien another kind of engineer

Well if you all want to keep your heads in the sand, then there is no point in me trying to discuss it further.

And I suggest Daz that you find a brain and learn to spell!

[fizzissist]

I read an article that says linear-bearing ways are junk and offer no rigidity. Haas mills have linear ways, therefore Haas mills are junk.

Anyone who would deny that has their head in the sand.

.....oooooohhhhh, I can see the hackles....

Now, if I were to jump into the Haas forum and make a blatant statement like that, shouldn't I expect people to be jumping all over me?

Would I not demonstrate that I really was open minded by offering that I've read engineering material that argues both the pros and cons of linear vs conventional ways, but I'm leaning towards conventional?

If I were to jump into a discussion that is almost 500 pages long and ignore everthing that has ALREADY been discussed.....

[Mariss Freimanis]

Well, that's mature. "I got people that disagree with me so I'll take my glove and baseball and go home." Another Algor seminar coached poster who cannot compete with the give and take of reasoned discussion. Throws a little ad hominem grenade as he departs in an "I'm superior" snit. What sand there is I think is entirely between your ears, my little friend.

Mariss

[posix]

hello there happy people! no nothing to add just thought I'd throw in some positive happy energy into this thread. :rainfro:
:wee:
:cheers:

now group hug group hug

(group)

[mrtool]

Thought someone might like this editorial in our local paper...
All problems should be made 'tradable'

Posted: 6/28/2007

Having contemplated the carbon credit proposal, I am struck with the sheer brilliance of the concept. It appears that if we trade carbon emissions as a commodity, then somehow we are addressing the source of the problem and remediating it. And I thought that to reduce the increase in CO2 we need to reduce the emissions of CO2.

If I am wrong and carbon trading is actually a viable method of reducing the CO2 increases, then I propose that we carry it to the next logical level, "disease credits." Countries with rampant disease such as malaria and AIDS could trade disease credits with healthier countries. By doing so we wouldn't have to actually do anything about disease but we could all feel better about it.

And what of "poverty credits"? Countries with many impoverished people could purchase "poverty credits" from countries with fewer impoverished people. I haven't figured out what they would pay with however.

It seems that if we can make all of our problems a tradable commodity, then we will have no problems at all. I am now going to speak to my kids about "chores around the house" credits.

Chris De Witt, Reno


http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...0301/1100/OPED

Your logic works for me! The only way to reduce Co2 or any other pollutant is to REDUCE it! Duh! Every time I hear reports about trading credits I wonder about the intelligence involved. Who with any modicum of smarts can be convinced that trading credits helps in any way? Thank you for putting the truth on the table!

[posix]

And what of "poverty credits"? Countries with many impoverished people could purchase "poverty credits" from countries with fewer impoverished people. I haven't figured out what they would pay with however.

actually you got it the wrong way 'round - countries WITHOUT poverty would buy poverty credits from impoverished countries. That way impoverished countries get rid of their excess poverty and rich countries in turn get their share of it. Yah, that would work!

Now, who wants to buy my mortgage credits?

[shotgunn]

Sooooo, this is what a can of worms is....

I guess this is the part of the forum where all of us who have a common interest (CNC) come to show our differences and insult each other.

What else can we disagree about... Oh well who cares, I have better things to do than POST IN THIS TOPIC FOR OVER TWO YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, I wish I had that kind of expendable time. Nah, I'd probably waste it too...

shotgunn

[posix]

how true. well I guess some people take idle chit chat too seriously. I'm outta here.

[JeffCNC]

The sun has been found to be the culprit behind climate change. Why is this still a big debate? Sure there are still power hungry people who will use anything to advance their power and control with any issue including this one, so what's new there? Nothing. The trouble with most people is their inability to think freely. Repeating what someone else told you without doing any research of your own isn't thinking, it's advancing dogma. The cult of religion that's called science by some is a farce. The real scientists in this world are not part of the "mainstream" and don't make very much money. Their ideas have alienated them from the "community" (cult) and they get nothing but badmouthed and ostracized by them. Get published in a scientific journal? Fine as long as anything you write doesn't go against the high priests.

P.S. - NASA is a complete joke whitewash waste.

- Jeff

[maz43]

Sooooo, this is what a can of worms is...

.

personally, I find this particular can of worms very entertaining.