Please listen to this, Ian Plimer Climate Change sceptic.
 

Quote " Man made Co2 accounts for only 3% of the Co2 put into the atmosphere every year "

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/p...thpatkenny.mp3


This is great stuff. Even the presenter turns on the pro CC journo. :luxhello:

Downloaded, will listen in the morning.

Inventer of the interwebything and the saviour of the planet, Al Gore, isn't going to Hopenhagen.

Mann, the CRU "trick" to hide the decline has spooked the big guns.

Mr Flight Man sir, i haven't got the ability to watch that here. But, and i'm promising to myself only to post once on this thread, please could you tell treehuggers like me why 3% of a total, which was so small as to be a negligible % up till very recently (in Earth terms), is still statistically unimportant. Why can you be so sure that the ecosystem, built up over millions of years, is oblivious to a 3% change in anything, let alone Co2. Is it because 3% in human terms seems such a small number?

He does have a point ^ :)

What about the massive(in terms of where we are now) changes of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere having no definite direct link to temperatures? Why would another 3% at the relatively low level we have now, change anything?

If you read some of the links in previous threads you'll find the answers to that which you search ... ! Grasshopper .....

But take a look at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v4.pdf

The Abstract states:

"... The atmospheric greenhouse eect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scientic foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green-house eects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned dierence of 33 [deg] C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified ..."


So you'll see that CO2 in the atmosphere is a completely bogus *culprit* for climate change. It's an essential trace gas, without it we wouldn't be able to survive.

Also, the bit I've highlighted in bold, I've asked before on SN and got no answer, HOW do you calculate an *average* temperature for the whole planet? Even if you could, how do you then work out what the *ideal* value is?

Basic primary school mathematics and science tells you that the whole AGW scam is just that, a scam!

Dave

PS: at least when I was at primary school we did 'averages' in maths. It's probably not taught until A Level these days ......

When you go home, listen to the clip. It's all there, and put far more succinctly than I can manage. :thumb:

Plimer gives statistics and analysis to back up his conclusions. His opponent resorts to name calling. At one point he calls Plimers book
"school boy science " then admits to not having read it! :cuckoo:

I was always under the impression that science was about debate. The IPCC aren't allowing any. To them, and therefore our political masters, it is happening and any debate must be stamped on. That is dangerous.

If Plimers science, (and those that think like him) is wrong, then it should be easy to disprove. Why resort to name calling? :wonder:

Well whatever way you look at it, the journalist came across badly. Sounded very petty indeed. Did he make a single relevant point?

A bit like Al Gore talking on geothermal energy that at about 2kms beneath the surface of the Earth, it's millions of degrees down there.

LMAO

I've been following Plimer's work for a while now & he talks a lot of sense. It's just a shame that he's marginalised, like a lot of MMGW critics. In fact the whole debate has descended into some sort of quasi-religious crusade where if someone doesn't accept the dogma that climate change is man made, they're branded a heretic.
The Copenhagen summit is basically going to be used to promote the ridiculous carbon cap and trade system in an attempt to reduce emissions (short video on how it works here ). However, the system is open to widespread abuse like VAT fiddling to name just one.

An interesting listen. The journo didn't really do very well. He admitted that he hadn't read the bookand simply refused to take on board even the possibility that AGW may not be true.

It's like the old religion argument, atheists would believe in God if proven, but theists will never accept another view.

As Plimer says, the best evidence is through observation and collection of data, not through computer modelling, as th models have been proven wrong several times now (they certainly didn't see 10 years of static temperatures or cooling!)

Geezer

Absolutely. The only reason governments haven't decided purely to tax *carbon* emissions [it's actually carbon dioxide emissions - ever tried to *emit* carbon ... ?? :Suspiciou ] is that bankers wouldn't make any money out of it ...... 'Taxing' would be a far simpler way to do it.

If CO2 was such a problem why are the BBC sending 35 people to cover the summit? BBC dispatches 35 staff to climate talks – creating as much carbon as an African village does in a year | Carbon Offsets Daily

"... The BBC is sending 35 people to next month’s climate change talks in Copenhagen – creating as much carbon dioxide as an African village does in a whole year ..."

Now I don't give a t*ss about the amount of CO2 being produced but it's fairly hypocritical of the AGW-hyping Beeb to do this ....

Dave

And ~50% of that ~3% goes....somewhere, no-one knows. No scientist, no monitoring station, no core sample, no currently orbiting satellite. That is why a new satellite was launched to find out, but it crashed.

Most atmospheric "heat" radiation from Earth occurs spaceward (It's the easiest path).

^^^Nail, head, hit^^^

Good stuff :D

Excellent! Succinct and to the point.

Noticed this link on the same page ... Gropenhagen: Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex Watts Up With That?

"... Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings ..."

Wonder how the *scientists* will offset their extra carbon emissions from all that activity ... ? :Suspiciou

Dave

Its all rubbish, even the climate change experts have recently been discredited.
The Romans had vineyards at Hadrians wall, and Greenland was in fact a very fertile breadbasket.

And go see Copenhagen – Counting Cats in Zanzibar

"... 0.7% of GDP, every year, turned over to the UN. Bigoted, racist and corrupt.

That’s a whole lot of moolah to be spent on buying patronage and clientele, isn’t it. How much exactly? Well, Australia has a GDP of 1 trillion dollars US. That’s seven billion dollars from po’ lil ole Oz alone. The UK? $2.6 trillion or 17 billion dollars in payments. The US? $14 trillion or 98 billion dollars.

Just from those three countries the UN gets $122 billion dollars to spend on all its favourite people. ..."

Money and politica. Power over us proles. The real story behind Copenhagen!

Dave

B&gger! Double post .. AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A couple of decent sized volcanic eruptions and we'll all be shivering....

dunx

mmm about 9.15 tomorrow morning, could well be an eruption, in the cambs area

Just popping my head into the thread to say - as I always do..

I've consistently said all this since joining Scoobynet in 2002. Every climate change thread, I've been there saying it's all sh*t. For many years I was laughed at but nearly every thread I see now is people trying to prove it's all sh*t.

Dibs....I called this first.

Gordon Brown has just decided to wade into Climategate.

He’s just released this statement via the Downing Street press office:

“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act.”

Calling the electorate names now are we Gordon? Well as you started it can I just say I think you are a one eyed, slack jawed, scum sucking ret@rd. :mad:

I thought this was a wind up until I googled it and saw this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-earthers.html


I really cant quite believe just how "fvck you" this Gvmt is being in the face of all evidence that the data is false, the code is bugged AND DELIBERATELY HARD CODES ANY CHANGE. This is a TOTAL outrage :content::wall:

But there's no conspiracy going on ... Googlegate? Talking About The Weather

"... As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list. Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange ..."

Hmmmm. And if you read the comments apparently 'bing' did the same ....

Dave

If just one does it we're all screwed, this one : Yellowstone Park. And it's overdue an eruption !

Armageddon Online - Yellowstone Park is a Super Volcano - an eruption would destroy America

Go and watch this video as well. From the Speccie but the guy in the 'No coverup' camp gets a little 'hysterical' ..... What happens when you try to debate climate change... | The Spectator

Enjoy!

Dave

...and the government don't want the Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data!!

Unbelievable :( :mad:

mb