The real Global warming problem...

 

*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns *
--

 

Jonno wrote:

This is like a religious cult to you.  You feel you must proselytise and at
the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the issue.  Coleman
gives us the same old one-line half truths that you have dug up before but
never once do you consider that the spin that he gives has been debunked
many many times.  And some of them are so *obviously* nonsense where you
don't need to be any sort of scientist to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore it is
totally benign   (Not true).  Being natural does not mean it cannot cause
harm if the complex systems that include it are forced out of balance.  Let
me give you an example where the weakness of this arguiment is clearer.
Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body and your digestion needs it,
therefore it is benign.

- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true).  Therefore CO2 is not
causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur)  He presents no
evidence at all that being present in small quantities means it can do no
harm  He is if fact assuming his conclusion.  Many things that have always
been in the environment in small amounts can be harmful in excess.

About glacial and intergalcial periods

-  There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long history
that were not caused by mankind.  (True.)  This warm period is just one of
those. (Presented with no evidence and despite evidence to the contrary)
Therefore this warm period is normal and nothing to worry about. (false
conclusion)

About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

-  The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow that of
CO2.  (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be because of CO2.
(false,) This is a strawman argument, climate scientists do not say that
these graphs must follow on to the other, they say that the system is more
complex than that but nevertheless anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.

- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in temperature seen
recently because the graph of one follows the other (false)  See
http://www.realclimate.org/  for the explanation.

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for this"
smear campaign.

Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically.  Try checking out what
these deniers are saying and think about it instead.  They keep pulling the
wool over your eyes.

And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV weatherman in
an expensive suit not a climate scientist.

David

 

Dont be dogmatic.
See for yourself.
There are none so blind, comes to mind.
If there is climate change, then you must first prove that we can do
something about it.
The scientists who are employed by governments are seen to be toeing
their line or get sacked, like the CSIRO scientists we had leave here in
Australia, and yet were the very experts in weather/climate change.
I dont follow public opinion, I see whats happening.
Are you also employed by these people.....????
Your naivety here seems to be showing.
I dont see that by creating a self serving global institution for
climate change is going to work.
And just quietly, I dont think you do either.
Read further and see what I think of your comments, which I havent said
much about until now.

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

Yes thats true, But its not in the atmosphere in great amounts, nor is CO2.

The fact is when, its hits a certain level, (and it has) even if it
increased ten fold it will not continue to increase its effect
proportionally.

Why is this one not normal to you! What an idiotic statement.

Character assasination when all else fails. Your are pathetic.
You dont know his credentials do you. He's also a scientist. READ IT ALL
before you post YOUR stupid theories.

Only sheep can have that done. They certainly worked on you!

Why should I be critical? Youre doing a great job...

 

Jonno wrote:

No you have that backwards.  First we must acknowledge that it is happening
and understand why and how it is happening.  Then we are in a position to
decide on appropriate action.  Why would you take action about something
that wasn't happening?  I find this point of yours quite baffling.


You repeatedly give us pre-prepared cases made by other people that you have
accepted uncritically and it seems without understanding.  You don't do your
own study.  This is not independent thinking.


Around the world right wing demagogues are claiming that climate change is
all a left wing plot to institute world government by stealth. This is just
an appeal to the fears of some and it seems to work well for them, it has
worked on you.  But you say I am naive for not swallowing such mad
conspiracy theories.


If there is any hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere where you are you are
living in a very polluted area.  It is in your gut, a component of your
digestive juices.  I should have used a better example.

How can you keep repeating this mantra that CO2 is only in small quantities
therefore it is not doing any harm?  You keep stating this without any
evidence at all.

Let me try another example.  The gas radon is only present in exceedingly
small quantities in the air (less that 1 quadrillionth of the amount of CO2)
yet it is directly responsible for harm to humans.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

Do you see the point?  By your argument radon couldn't possibly do any harm
for there is so liitle in the air - one part in 1000000000000000000000. It
is the *effect* of that tiny amount that is important.

It is not that CO2 is only 300 ppm (or whatever the figure) it is the
*effect* of that concentration that is important.  It is the *effect* of
changing that value over a short period (in geological terms) that is
significant.



But what is your point? Are you now saying that the graph of temperature
over time should not follow that of CO2 because the cause and effect is not
a direct relationship?  I am glad you have come around on that one.


It is not normal in the sense of being part of the natural cycle of long
term temperature changes because there is considerable evidence of the fact
that it is caused by emissions of GHG. Assuming it is "normal" is just
ignoring the evidence.  That is all Coleman does he assumes it.  You will
find this one debunked on realclimate too.



I notice that you skipped these two point.  Does that mean you accept them?


But  Coleman says scientists are corrupt, they lie about climate change and
take money from vested interests for their own personal gain.  It said so in
the video.  How does this make being a scientist a credible witness?

BTW I was going on the credentials that the man himself gave in the video.
Now that you draw my attention to it he seems to have a degree in
journalism.  Please tell us about his scientific credentials because I
cannot find any.



No Jonno.  I did not accept any of this uncritically.  I did much reading
and thinking before coming to my current position.  You on the other hand
show no interest in doing that instead just regurgitating propaganda that
supports gut feeling.


Eveybody should be critical.  That is what I am asking you and the lurkers
to do.  You are so emotionally wedded to your position that quite frankly I
see no chance of me convincing you otherwise.  I make these responses
because I think others need to know that your position has been often
refuted.


David

 

This rhetoric sounds like a tail wagging the dog.
Youre not very convincing at all!
There is HCL in the atmossphere and H2so4 and many other things, as well
as modern aircraft which are spreading aerosols of over the stratosphere.
These are much worse, and of course a more immeadiate problem.
Theyre not mentioned. CO2 is not even in the race.
You keep popping up. Well, time will tell. Youre wrong,
How many scientists does it take to convince David Hare Scott?
None he only listens to the ones which will boost his shares.
End of rant....

On 16/01/2010 11:44 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote: