HAHAHAHAOriginally Posted by TimiBoy
You make no sense at all.
Grunter: Just did a bit of research and found this: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
This covers the objection quite well I think. And there is an interesting debate to follow.
It would seem that your average volcano would have a very minimal impact. Just as a point of interest does anyone know how much CO2 would be emitted after a volcanic eruption.
Well listening to sheep is about as interesting as the arguments pro and con for Global Warming so lets not rule the sheep out.1st you drive most of the "Greenies" off these pages Greg now I see you've set your sights on the poor old cows, you are a cranky old bugger. There seems to be plenty of sheep so I expect they'll be next.
Regards
mod5
Was that on co2? I suspect not if it was before the paranoia because co2 is a non event as a greenhouse gas, I suspect but do not know they may have been talking about greenhouse gas in total emitted during eruption.
From my studies years ago which thankfully was without political/radical influence it was science and nothing but understanding the science behind what drives the environment, mankind has but a minor impact upon total greenhouse gas emissions, we pail to something like 6% of the total, just the greenhouse gas emitters in Antarctica ONLY put the human race to shame.
You will need to check my facts here it's been a long while and I don't really have the interest to do it myself mainly because I have wasted enough of my life chasing up each absurd global warming claim or 'threat' without a single one of them even coming close to justifiable.
I think I have said it before on Ausfish, plug just one antarctic greenhouse emmiter and we (from the zealots point of view) have just saved the entire globe from a fate worse than death.....or have we
cheers fnq
"It would seem that your average volcano would have a very minimal impact"
As will Rudderless' Carbon tax on "global warming". Apart that is, from making life a misery for the average income earner. Its all but a socialist money making scam. I'll believe in man made global warming when the zealots can tell me:
1) Why the temp on Mars has increased (what CO2 are the Martians pumping out?). Just goole National Geographic Temp. on Mars and you will probably find the article.
2) Why the Vikings grew veggies on Greenland.
3) What cars did the dinosaurs drive? There was climate change back then, there will be climate change in the future.
4) I'm no scientist, but since when is carbon "pollution" as per the government ads (paid for by my tax dollars)? Don't plants thrive on the stuff? If its sooooooooo polluting, then I wish Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, and P Garret would lead by example and stop breathing the stuff out of their lungs!
5) Why is this crap being taught as "fact" in Social Studies, when there is a truck load of highly qualified Phd's out there who disagree with the "consensus"?
It’s a total con by the ALP. If they implement this tax and there is a weather disaster they can say "see, it would have been worse without our tax". If there is no weather disasters in the future they will say, "see our carbon reduction scheme is working". Absolute con, and I cannot believe people are swallowing it. Some people deserve to be poor/ripped off.
Yeah this really bothers me, I have a daughter who will one day be forced fed this dogma, I will be forced to allow it or she will be punished/victimised for speaking truths....fair dinkum is this a free country or what!
I guess it's as free as any country that doesn't have freedom of speech in law or protected by law.
Only hope is the scales of contempt and absurdity balance by the time she needs to be treated with respect as an individual by the authorities, time is running out.
cheers fnq
A non event as a greenhouse gas am I missing something here? Since when has CO2 become meaningless environmentally?Was that on co2? I suspect not if it was before the paranoia because co2 is a non event as a greenhouse gas, I suspect but do not know they may have been talking about greenhouse gas in total emitted during eruption.
From my studies years ago which thankfully was without political/radical influence it was science and nothing but understanding the science behind what drives the environment, mankind has but a minor impact upon total greenhouse gas emissions, we pail to something like 6% of the total, just the greenhouse gas emitters in Antarctica ONLY put the human race to shame.
You will need to check my facts here it's been a long while and I don't really have the interest to do it myself mainly because I have wasted enough of my life chasing up each absurd global warming claim or 'threat' without a single one of them even coming close to justifiable.
I think I have said it before on Ausfish, plug just one antarctic greenhouse emmiter and we (from the zealots point of view) have just saved the entire globe from a fate worse than death.....or have we
cheers fnq
Are you referring to methane clathrates? What are the Antarctic Greenhouse emmiters?
This article may give some additional perspective.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511
The foundation of science is to challenge assumptions/hypotheses. It is imprudent to assume such a new and imprecise theory as human-induced climate change is conclusive and that the findings of the IPCC are statements of fact, regardless of how many scientists are involved. When I hear statements from national leaders that human-induced climate change is now beyond debate it concerns me greatly. We are not at consensus science by a long stretch and it would be in a dangerous situation if we were ever to be so. All of us, believers and non-believers of human-induced climate change need the courage to question the assumptions being made. The "Emperor's new clothes" is a fable that immediately springs to mind.
The "cost of not acting on climate change" is specious reasoning; banning 2 stroke engines in the interests of climate change is specious reasoning, if the assumptions it is based on are flawed. There is strong evidence to suggest they are. Prudent science demands this evidence be given the same consideration. Those who have already declared their position in favour of human-induced climate change are unlikely to do this...publicly anyway. No one wants to be that emperor.
I looked up "specious" - it's a lovely word!
"apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false." Deceptively attractive in appearance." Collins English Dictionary.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
I dont tink this site is made up primarily or anti green climate change sceptics or right wing nutters but normal everyday hard working people who would like to enjoy what time we have left to go about our traditional Aussie existance without these turds trying to ban or tax every thing we hold dear. If whats been posted on here is any indication then the big lie may be sterting to unravel. The next federal election will be make or break time for this country , Id like to see the little weasel get punted ,as wll as cruhing his oversize ego it will send a loud clear message to both sides that the average Australian is no longer easily fooled and if they continue to peddle this shit their time in office is limited ,remember they work for us. Lookind at the general opinion overall Kev may not be around to collect a long sevice award as PM. My apologies if I sound like liberal zealot because Im not but Ive got a real derry on this mob cause I can see no good coming for this country if they continue down this path. Cheers fullas.
Yeah co2 is next to meaningless environmentally (caveats apply, plants need it etc), it has specific properties, those properties don't change simply because a clan of red necks with access to film archives decided it would make good theory to dupe other with.
Look up the power of crystals, from memory it all started when a scientist for a joke submitted a paper full of fantasy. He was making the point that the average person will believe anything that is presented as true, it says lots.
I dunno like I said I check my facts, my context could be out I am done with investigating null claims, nothing understood 20years in good basic science has changed, it's good if you are searching the around the riddle with open eyes.
If you are searching, volcanoes are next to non events, they have the power to alter the average temps we as human beings could be jealous of, although the earths heat budget is self righting, ying and yang, input/output although it all takes time, the inputs needed to drasticly change it over an extended term is mind boggling -co2 just hassn't got that ability without a multi fold increase in short time.
Look for aerosols (not so much in the context we have heard about them over the years on the radio), water, sulphur products and halogens all emitted, most if not all of these have very real and lasting effect on the heat budget within atmospheric science, it's about radiation and incident radiation V particle size/molecule size, co2 fails badly. if I remember correctly no I was not thinking of clathrates (they are captured complexes? that can be released?) anyway look more toward the basic atmospheric sciences, sorry I cannot remember specificly what are the Antarctic emmiters undersea (clathrates?) or terrestrial
cheers fnq
By most accounts carbon dioxide is not a pollutant per se. When we talk about say, air pollutants, we normally mean such things as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides.
Carbon dioxide is widely accepted as being a contributor to rising global temperatures hence the term Greenhouse Gas. The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005 lists carbon dioxide and five other gases (for reduction).
There is a lot of real scientific research which links increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide to rises in average temperature over long periods of time. Yes, I know that most of the studies over the past 50 years have been subject to some criticism but the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that there is a real relationship between increases in CO2 and global temperatures.
Having said that, I'll still be using my boat to go fishing
Fris Out
cfc's..now there was another sham perpetuated on the masses at great cost.By most accounts carbon dioxide is not a pollutant per se. When we talk about say, air pollutants, we normally mean such things as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides.
Carbon dioxide is widely accepted as being a contributor to rising global temperatures hence the term Greenhouse Gas. The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005 lists carbon dioxide and five other gases (for reduction).
There is a lot of real scientific research which links increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide to rises in average temperature over long periods of time. Yes, I know that most of the studies over the past 50 years have been subject to some criticism but the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that there is a real relationship between increases in CO2 and global temperatures.
Having said that, I'll still be using my boat to go fishing
Fris Out
Amazing how the substitutes have a supposed higher global warming value than the banned cfc's...but these are quite okay to use.
The entire green movement seems to operate in ways similar to that Senator McCarthy...just believe and act on what you perceive to be the truth and totally ignore any other evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps we need a sequel called "an inconvenient truth 2"How does one pull the flat earthers into what science now knows, it was ok but pathetic to force science to play catchup with such a wild initial assumption but with thanks to the quality of modern remote sensing and targeted investigation we are now at a point that cannot be denied except under more ideology simply for ideology.
Curious to know 'what' if anything would make a current and past believer in the global warming scam to dump the rhetoric and move on.??
cheers fnq
I know. It took me hours to find it!!!
To prove that CO2 does not have any negative impact environmentally, to prove that 6,000,000,000 people don't have any impact upon the environment; and to prove that an increase in population is sustainable.
A question directed to everyone: if you indeed believe Global Warming is not happening right now do you believe it is at all possible? Could we increase the population to say 10,000,000,000 and still the Earth's systems would not change?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote