Top 10 Global Warming Lies!

[fishingjew]

For those that like to look at both sides of the fence then walk round in circles
like me?

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?...yths/top10.htm

[manchild]

Thank you Fishingjew.Now wait for the onslaught from the treehugger brigade
George

[Roughasguts]

Hmmm pretty much what I though.

Good argument against.

So where does this leave the ozone layer, still depleating.

Or is it not depleting as it's suposed to be 1 metre thick, and virtually just a cloud or bubble around the earth. As far as I can see of course it will have holes in it theres no way it could maintain a complete wrap around the Earth, it's just a gas nothing holding it there. (just like clouds have breaks in them) Not over cast the hole way around the earth.

Or have I got it all wrong?? I would like to be set straight on that. I had to do advanced Meteorology 25 years ago and this is basically what was under stood.

[Brett1907]

I remember when the media made a big hype about the hole in Ozone layer near Australia. I also remember a few years later, in a much quieter media release that the same scientists had 'discovered' that the Ozone layer isn't a uniform thickness and does thin out to almost nothing at times in different areas.

Since the beginning of science, they have been discovering one thing and claiming it as fact, and then discovering they were wrong. The Earth was the centre of the universe, and flat once upon a time. Radiation was reasonably safe, mobile phones didn't cause brain tumors and it was ok to build a house under power lines.

Oh, and the earths weather systems are STABLE!!!

Brett

[Roughasguts]

So the truth if it ever really come out is, that we (scientists) need to justify our next research or goverment study grant, to keep us in jobs.

And the best way to do that is keep running around in circles, and calling it a new study. With up dated rubbish and more mis leading findings.

[straddie]

Ok just lost everything I typed out so just the very short version now,
In Part 9 D it says 25% of climatologists did not agree humans were WHOLLY to blame for global warming.

So this means 75% (3 out of every 4) climatologists, this is not just the generic "scientists" (which could include vets) said that humans were WHOLLY responsible. Anyone want to take bets that it is very likely that a large number of those 25% that did not agree may believe humans are only partly responsible.

Mr Jenkins has put plenty of spin on what are very damning numbers.

[PinHead]

Hmmm pretty much what I though.

Good argument against.

So where does this leave the ozone layer, still depleating.

Or is it not depleting as it's suposed to be 1 metre thick, and virtually just a cloud or bubble around the earth. As far as I can see of course it will have holes in it theres no way it could maintain a complete wrap around the Earth, it's just a gas nothing holding it there. (just like clouds have breaks in them) Not over cast the hole way around the earth.

Or have I got it all wrong?? I would like to be set straight on that. I had to do advanced Meteorology 25 years ago and this is basically what was under stood.

The good old hole..is it still there. We took the wonderful step of ridding ourselves of R12...which cost all of us a fortune...and has the hole changed..not too much. China and Indonesia are still using R12...fat lot of difference we would make against them. We now have the new R134A to replace 12...this has an ODP of 0 but..it has certain global awrming features...so what you lose on the swings you win on the merrygo round. R22 is slowly being phased out and in its place is R410A..more expensive installation costs and more expensive repair costs also...but..someone decreed we need this.

[DaMaGe]

Alot of links from that webpage don't work.. These links are his proof.

[tunaman]

Well, What you beleve in, is what you get. You choose your own god. People can
be convinced of absolutely anything. Its your choice.




signed tunaman

[trueblue]

Don't put any faith into any report that is not footnoted with proper references that can be checked out. (And I am not referring to his web links that don't work... weblinks are not normally considered to be a reference, as proper references must originate back to source data as much as practicable)

Without proper referece to scientific data, the entire article is just that dudes personal opinion. And an opinion is just like an @rsehole - everybody has got one...

cheers

[FNQCairns]

The numbers say that the earth is warming, it's a heat budget type of thing, at uni while studying for an environmental science degree we looked into claims made at that stage regarding greenhouse gasses, 90% of it I now forget, although one portion that struck me then and still does now is of all the greenhouse emitters over the last 40,50,60 odd years the human contribution is small when compared to natural processes.
Bottom line is even if we hamstring, guilt, deny , con and dare say abuse people into losing liberties/quality of life that can never be regained in their lifetime, the process will not be reversed, slowed, redirected etc by simple changes in human economics and behaviour.

Best to work out how to cap a couple of volcanoes, if we are serious although I suspect the feeding frenzy and propoganda driven ideologists will see smaller bank balances as a result so we will be stuck with whatever the whacko's think is appropriate.

Hitler howard has got almost everything screwed up today although on this he has been honestly advised -doubt he will continue to tow this honest line as votes drop away, it's just a shame.

For a society that prides it's self on sophistication there are one hell of alot of sheep out there that only know and can opinion on topics that they have seen on TV or in the local rag - these people are the real threat to community under global warming.

cheers fnq

[BilgeBoy]

I dunno much about this stuff...I just know that I burn REAL QUICK these days...I am up to my 15th Sun cancer burnt off and 3 cut out. My hat is getting bigger and my grass aint that green!! Maybe it's just old age making me complain more...who knows.

[straddie]

Heya FNQCairns

That's a very narrow focus for someone with an environmental science degree. In a balanced system does it take much more than a small contribution to knock it out of balance?
I think if greenhouse emissions were our only contribution to globabl warming then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Even the heat generated by our combustion processes isn't significant when compared to that of lightning, but start to add in all of the other things we do and you have a compounding impact on global warming. Our varying contributions are on their own small, but are all to the detriment of the enviroment and its remedial processes.
We haven't just contributed to the warming and insulation processes but have also reduced the coping mechanisms (through deforestation etc) that could bring it back under control.

[DICER]

Fact A - we're contributing millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere every day. They are both greenhouse gases.

Try and debunk that one.

[Roughasguts]

Dicer, all gases reguardless how they are produced could be called green house gasses.

There ain't no where else for them to go except up, if there lighter than air.

Maybe we can harness these gasses up there and make use of them.