Global warming fraud heads to court!

[Camhawk88]

C'mon. James Frank says so, so it must be true? Yet in his short essay he has not quoted any paper proving this theory. Why not? There isn't one. Epic Fail. And there are peer reviewed papers out there specifically researching and clearly debunking the idea that CO2 drove temperature in the past. It can be clearly demonstrated that most times (but not always - interesting, isn't it - suggestive of something else being a cause? What might that be? No one knows!) CO2 lags temperature.



Ah, I see. So you admit you are accepting CAGW on the basis of Faith. Goodo. I used to be terrified about CAGW, like you. But I MADE the time, and went exploring. I leave nothing on this Earth up to Faith.

Again- and I'll try to be clear on this- No where have I said or admitted,that I believe (or for that matter am terrified of) climate change, and in fact I dont believe the evidence is there too conclusively prove either argument. Faith in governments? I have been around long enough to trust nothing said by governments.


But you were so keen on the Scientific Method before. Why not now? It's your Hypothesis, you prove it. Though I'd hazard a guess you'll have no luck, given the BILLIONS of dollars and multitude of years already spent trying to do so.

I stand by the scentific method as the best way humans have (so far) of understanding the natural world- in no way have I denounced it. I do however recognise it's shortcomings and its susceptability to corruption. This has occured on both sides of this debate and if you think it is all one way traffic perhaps you arent as broad minded as you think you are.
Oh not my hypothesis either I have nothing to prove- it seems you think because I have pulled you up on a few things that I must be a climate change proponent- not the case. I also believe the alarmists and sceptics alike tinker with the truth to meet their end. Problem is blokes such as yourself seem to dismiss out of hand anything that goes against your beliefs by trundelling out the tried and trusted- prove it absolutely. Hence why I ask you to prove your theory absolutely- cant be done.


Very true. I say that because it is the crux of the Scientific Method.

The more people that see through this (as a result of the complete lack of real evidence supporting the CAGW view) the harder it will be to put a price on Carbon.
By accepting absolutely no evidence that counters your beliefs you are coming across like the article that started this thread- extremist and closed minded. Therefore making it harder for people to side with you. I believe, right or wrong, we are heading for a Carbon Tax. It is the democratic way for a sides of the argument to debate this but I think it is inevidible.



Tim

Epic, Epic Fail, Guys.

Timi you've been spending way too much time goggling funny pictures.

[Camhawk88]

You have absolutely no idea what I read...I probably read more thqan most people.

Dead right Pinhead, I dont and you may. I wasn't making a statement on what or how much you read but rather your demonstrated (in this thread anyway) inability to actually see past your prejudices and take in and interpret what is being said. Your regular references to me being a climate change follower is proof of this. If you want to refute this please find where I have said I support the climate change theory and denounce the alternative theory and quote me on it.

[finga]

yep..but you can fool the lemmings..and the world is full of them..so far the lemmings have followed along on Y2K..CFC's and now man made global warming..I wonder how many more dollars will be sucked out of the lemmings pocket on this doom and gloom episode..something else will crop up soon and away we go again.

Start a rumour that sunscreen causes more cancer then the sun does and you have a new type of totally chemical free sunscreen called a personal shadow maker (we'll call them a hat) and make a motza.

Personally I'm not too sure about all the chemicals classed as sunscreens that all these expert people want me to pump into my skin to protect me from something our body needs.

[PinHead]

You have absolutely no idea what I read...I probably read more thqan most people.

Dead right Pinhead, I dont and you may. I wasn't making a statement on what or how much you read but rather your demonstrated (in this thread anyway) inability to actually see past your prejudices and take in and interpret what is being said. Your regular references to me being a climate change follower is proof of this. If you want to refute this please find where I have said I support the climate change theory and denounce the alternative theory and quote me on it.

no point in this discussion any more..too many assumptions..read what you read and not and try and read into things..dunno where I ever said you are a climate change follower..and therin lies a lot of the problem..basic reading and comrehensions skills leave a lot to be desired.

[Tangles]

I went to a lecture the other night to accept an award, rather interesting with ex premiers/mayors and governors attending etc, quite illuminating that every speech had reference to the original landowners and Climate Change in the first two sentences..

point being lemmings as Phd noted, well they are in corner, under every bed, from every walk of life and Greg nailed it on the head, and i wish i could say that the average bloke in the street has more sense than the latte sippers but election results throw that one out the window..

just as always follow the money.

[Camhawk88]

no point in this discussion any more..too many assumptions..read what you read and not and try and read into things..dunno where I ever said you are a climate change follower..and therin lies a lot of the problem..basic reading and comrehensions skills leave a lot to be desired.

Agreed- this is going around in circles a bit- but it has been fun.

Not sure what the middle part of your last post was getting at- perhaps a proof reading issue?

I do stand corrected (you know- broad shoulders and all). Between yourself and Timiboy the posts have being flying thick and fast, I have got you 2 mixed up in who has been throwing COGW barbs at me (it was Timi).

As for basic reading and comprehension skills- good to see you admitting it Pinhead- it takes a big man.

[TimiBoy]

Is there proof (repeatable, specific, experimental proof, not a closed system Lab Experiment) that delivers the absolute evidence that CO2 interacts with water vapour to increase it's capacity to trap heat by several orders of magnitude, and removes CO2's well proven logarithmic behaviour as to it's capacity to trap heat (every doubling of CO2 normally adds 1 degree Celsius without alleged feedbacks, and notwithstanding the negative feedback action of clouds)?

Apparently not.

And now we see the ultimately predictable reaction of the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) Believer. Sighs, says "Oh well", picks up his bat and ball, accuses everyone disagreeing of having closed minds and walks away. Still believing.

- even though he/she has been asked over and over for the clinching proof of the Much Loved Hypothesis.

- even though in every other branch of Science it is the task of the supporters of the Hypothesis to prove it before it is accepted.

That's called Faith. It's a Religion. Now I believe everyone has freedom of Religion. I just wish they'd admit to it being one, so we could put it in it's rightful place.

Tim

[nigelr]

lol, part of wicca perhaps?

[Camhawk88]

Apparently not.

And now we see the ultimately predictable reaction of the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) Believer. Sighs, says "Oh well", picks up his bat and ball, accuses everyone disagreeing of having closed minds and walks away. Still believing.

- even though he/she has been asked over and over for the clinching proof of the Much Loved Hypothesis.

- even though in every other branch of Science it is the task of the supporters of the Hypothesis to prove it before it is accepted.

That's called Faith. It's a Religion. Now I believe everyone has freedom of Religion. I just wish they'd admit to it being one, so we could put it in it's rightful place.

Tim

Just wondering Timiboy, have you asked this question on a forum dedicated to atmospheric physics or similar?
You may find there is a bit more knowledge on the subject there than in a fishing forum and perhaps an answer may be forthcoming.
The world is a bigger place than Ausfish.

[TimiBoy]

Just wondering Timiboy, have you asked this question on a forum dedicated to atmospheric physics or similar?
You may find there is a bit more knowledge on the subject there than in a fishing forum and perhaps an answer may be forthcoming.
The world is a bigger place than Ausfish.

Oh dear. Ummm... yes. I've managed to get banned from several Alarmist Forums for asking the same question. They refuse to give a straight answer because they can't.

I'm a little more widely read than you seem to give me credit for, and, I suspect, vastly more educated than you might think. Sorry about that, Son.

Tim

[Camhawk88]

Oh dear. Ummm... yes. I've managed to get banned from several Alarmist Forums for asking the same question. They refuse to give a straight answer because they can't.

I'm a little more widely read than you seem to give me credit for, and, I suspect, vastly more educated than you might think. Sorry about that, Son.

Tim

Toucheee. Starting to loose your cool a little bit there Timi, surely you arent playing the man??

I have made no mention of your eductional or reading status other than to say you seem intellegent.

Did they refuse to give you a 'straight' answer or the one you were looking for?

[Camhawk88]

Ok look we are going in circles here with- if you cant answer it must be fake etc etc. This will not come to a conclusion.
However I have a few questions that I would be interested in hearing your opinions on:

Are you against a Carbon Tax being issued on the sole basis of your opposition to the 'Climate Change conspiracy'?

Do you accept that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased significantly since the start of the industrial revolution, more so than could be expected by natural variation/processes?

Do you believe an increase in atmospheric CO2 will increase the pH of the worlds oceans?

Do you believe that we can continue to consume fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate and not run out?

Have you any suggestions on how to limit fossil fuel consumption in a rapidly expanding population with a higher demand than ever before, that does not involve a financial restriction?

[TimiBoy]

Toucheee. Starting to loose your cool a little bit there Timi, surely you arent playing the man??

I have made no mention of your eductional or reading status other than to say you seem intellegent.

Did they refuse to give you a 'straight' answer or the one you were looking for?

They clearly cannot prove their Hypothesis. And when you push, they ban you. Pretty standard fare, really, and one of the behaviours that made me start to look really, really hard at this whole thing, about ten or twelve years ago.

Tim

[TimiBoy]

Ok look we are going in circles here with- if you cant answer it must be fake etc etc. This will not come to a conclusion.
However I have a few questions that I would be interested in hearing your opinions on:

Yes, and I note you still cannot (or will not?) answer my question. And yet you deem it appropriate to quiz me on whatever you feel like. That's OK, I'm a gracious bloke. But forgive me for insisting on reminding you that you...cannot...answer...my...question.

Are you against a Carbon Tax being issued on the sole basis of your opposition to the 'Climate Change conspiracy'?

I am against a Carbon Tax. Not because of a "conspiracy", but because it will cost everyone a fortune, drive jobs offshore, drive production and yes, CO2 production offshore to places which will be less efficient and less clean in their processes, and have an unmeasureable effect on anything except our economy.

Do you accept that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased significantly since the start of the industrial revolution, more so than could be expected by natural variation/processes?

Man's effect is marginal at best; about 3.6% of total CO2 Planetary production at this time. CO2 is also at very low levels, in comparison with the Geological record.

Given that CO2 increase lags temperature increase (yes there is debate about this) it is very difficult to identify the Anthropogenic signal in the current increase.

Do you believe an increase in atmospheric CO2 will increase the pH of the worlds oceans?

It may, but it will be marginal. Given there is great variance in Ocean pH in any case from one place to another and from one time/season to another, the likely effect will be within normal variances. Given that we are responsible (in total) for 3.6% of CO2 output, it is logical that any change in Ocean pH would be almost entirely driven by Nature.

Do you believe that we can continue to consume fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate and not run out?

No I don't. I believe that as scarcity pressures us, the price will go up (basic Economics), which will bring research & new technology to an affordable level, with minimal Government interference. Called a "market" - a term often missing from the vocabulary of Left Wing Ideologues.

Given we have enough coal to last several Centuries, and it's relatively easy to convert coal into petrol, diesel and gas, I don't think we need to panic yet, indeed not for several more generations. By then there will have been advances we cannot imagine.

Have you any suggestions on how to limit fossil fuel consumption in a rapidly expanding population with a higher demand than ever before, that does not involve a financial restriction?

Yep. Leave it to a slightly regulated market. I say slightly, because if there is no regulation at all we will see great rewards for irresponsible behaviour, something seen many times since free markets "became." But you assume by the asking of this question that I believe it needs to be limited. I don't.

Tim

[Camhawk88]

Yes, and I note you still cannot (or will not?) answer my question. And yet you deem it appropriate to quiz me on whatever you feel like. That's OK, I'm a gracious bloke. But forgive me for insisting on reminding you that you...cannot...answer...my...question.

Geez talk about ego- do I deem it appropriate to quiz you whenever I feel?
Are you serious?
Your extremism is matched only by your elitism (as misguided as it is).

You are forgiven by the way, however I remind you I have given my response to your question in a previous post- go look it up.