Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Monniehawk]

daytripper, is that you?

OK! OK!

...once a month..

..sometimes

(I'm of English stock, y'know!)

And it always gets you a seat, even in peak hour.

 

[Pie eyed]

OK! OK!

...once a month..

..sometimes

(I'm of English stock, y'know!)

And it always gets you a seat, even in peak hour.

I am really concerned about those Village People records.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

You mean models like these?

Hmmm. Who to believe? Dan26 or my own lying eyes!

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Alan Kohler

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/kohler-emissions-targets-increase-ahead/3916840

The idea that Australia is leading the world on climate change is quickly becoming untrue.

Australia will have to increase its greenhouse gas reduction target from the current 5 per cent by 2020, to at least 15 per cent within two years under the policies of both the ALP and the Coalition.

That's because the conditions for doing that look like being met. Remember… the Government's reduction target is 5 per cent below 2000 levels unilateral and 15 per cent if "major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia's".

The Opposition has signed up to both the 5 per cent and 15 per cent targets, although it hasn't mentioned the second one for a while.

It's clear that science is beginning to reassert itself on this subject after a few years on the sidelines following the debacle in Copenhagen in 2009.

Current advanced country pledges already suggest a 10-20 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. China has imposed quotas on carbon emissions and is likely to have an emissions trading scheme in place by 2015; it already has them in nine provinces. The action being taken by other developing countries is already sufficient for a 15 per cent reduction in Australia.

The idea that Australia is leading the world on climate change is quickly becoming untrue. Moreover the delays caused by the 2009/10 political convulsions, which saw both the opposition leader and the prime minister sacked over climate change, will mean Australia ends up paying a much higher price than it would have.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Climate change is inevitable. Not global warming or cooling or any other catch phrase spouted by the masses. Just climate change. It is inevitable. Are we causing it? No. Are we contributing to it changing marginally quicker than it ultimately would have? Probably, but not significantly.

There can be no doubt that the man-made proportion of total greenhouse emissions is very low. The question nobody seems in agreement about is, how much has that small percentage upset the balance?

Despite considering myself something of a nature lover, the proliferation of fashionable pseudoscience used to justify measures such as the carbon tax has pushed my views on this subject hard to the right.

 

[Chief]

No doubt?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The question nobody seems in agreement about is, how much has that small percentage upset the balance?

What is that supposed to mean? It's very much in agreement.

Regardless of how small the percentage is, the fact of the matter is that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are now nearly 1/3 higher than they have been at any point in at least 800,000,000 years and most likely the last 7 million years.

The carbon cycle is large, no doubt about it, but we have a VERY good idea of how much of the total carbon budget is absorbed by the biosphere. And of that small percentage that human activity produces about HALF of that is also absorbed by the biosphere. But it is the OTHER half of that small percent that isn't being absorbed and is accumulating in the atmosphere. There is NO disagreement on this fundamental point among the scientific community. It is eminently quantifiable.

CO2 is accumulating, that is beyond debate, concentrations are higher now than at any point in the last 800,000 years. This is a fact. It is not contested by even the "sceptical" climate scientists. That CO2 has a particular chemical signature - because it is put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels it is much older than the CO2 being circulated on an annual basis the rate of isotopic decay is very distinct - there is NO question that CO2 from human sources is what is accumulating.

I know the denier machine has been very successful in promoting this false idea that there is debate within the science community and I would even go as so far as to say that there are a very small minority of climate scientists who DO question elements of the mainstream consensus. But they contest the scope of the problem and whether the planet is as sensitive to CO2 as most scientists think. NO ONE questions the basic mechanics. They are quantifiable and undeniable facts.

 

[Ron The Bear]

No doubt?

None whatsoever. The man-made contribution is between 3 and 3.5 percent, depending on your preferred data source.

 

[Ron The Bear]

What is that supposed to mean? It's very much in agreement.

Regardless of how small the percentage is, the fact of the matter is that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are now nearly 1/3 higher than they have been at any point in at least 800,000,000 years and most likely the last 7 million years.

The carbon cycle is large, no doubt about it, but we have a VERY good idea of how much of the total carbon budget is absorbed by the biosphere. And of that small percentage that human activity produces about HALF of that is also absorbed by the biosphere. But it is the OTHER half of that small percent that isn't being absorbed and is accumulating in the atmosphere. There is NO disagreement on this fundamental point among the scientific community. It is eminently quantifiable.

CO2 is accumulating, that is beyond debate, concentrations are higher now than at any point in the last 800,000 years. This is a fact. It is not contested by even the "sceptical" climate scientists. That CO2 has a particular chemical signature - because it is put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels it is much older than the CO2 being circulated on an annual basis the rate of isotopic decay is very distinct - there is NO question that CO2 from human sources is what is accumulating.

I know the denier machine has been very successful in promoting this false idea that there is debate within the science community and I would even go as so far as to say that there are a very small minority of climate scientists who DO question elements of the mainstream consensus. But they contest the scope of the problem and whether the planet is as sensitive to CO2 as most scientists think. NO ONE questions the basic mechanics. They are quantifiable and undeniable facts.

You're far better versed in the science than I am. But I maintain there is no agreement on even the simple question of whether the earth is warming, e.g.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

It was the switch of terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change', when observations didn't fit alarmist forecasts, that caused me to question the facts.

Having said that, whilst I remain a skeptic, I can and do take on board opinions from the other side of the debate. Just not when they're presented like National Geographic's doco The Final Prophecy. If I'd had a brick handy while watching that dross...

 

[Final Siren]

It was the switch of terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change', when observations didn't fit alarmist forecasts, that caused me to question the facts.

That phrasing change was recommended by Republican Party strategist Frank Luntz for the Bush administration. The idea was that if it didn't sound as scary, people wouldn't push as hard to do something about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

 

[Ron The Bear]

That phrasing change was recommended by Republican Party strategist Frank Luntz for the Bush administration. The idea was that if it didn't sound as scary, people wouldn't push as hard to do something about it.

I'll take your word for it. But why would the activists have changed horses unless there was no warming trend?

Whilst I'm in no doubt that many highly intelligent people support the underlying philosophy, the facts presented to date on 'climate change' point to it being little more than an opportunist industry like that which sprang up around the mythical 'Y2K bug'.

 

[Dan26]

You're far better versed in the science than I am. But I maintain there is no agreement on even the simple question of whether the earth is warming, e.g.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

It was the switch of terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change', when observations didn't fit alarmist forecasts, that caused me to question the facts.

Having said that, whilst I remain a skeptic, I can and do take on board opinions from the other side of the debate. Just not when they're presented like National Geographic's doco The Final Prophecy. If I'd had a brick handy while watching that dross...

The mainstream media, and the ABC in particular are incredibly biased on this issue, always promoting the "alarmist" side. Journalists - who usally lean to the left in their profession - take an alarmist view. It's quite pathetic really.

Yet, to Upton's credt, much of what he just said is right. The main points that C02 is warming the atmosphere and that humans are putting more C02 into the atmosphere are not in dispute. We know C02 has a warming effect. That is a fact and no sceptic like myself would deny that.

The debate has always been about the alarmism. The debate is how much humans are warming the atmosphere, is it dangerous, is it even a good thing (probably) and to what extent is this warming happening? And importantly is it cost effective or even worthwhile to bother doing anything about it (no.)

There is no empirical evidence in any peer reviewed paper anywhere that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. None. All of the climate models have been wrong, there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years and all of the data fudging and missrepresntation have been on the alarmist side (climategate, the heartland institute debacle etc)

There is no consensus anymore despite what you may hear. The "97% of climate scientists agree" figure is really only 75 people out of 77 answering 2 questions worded in such a way that even I would answer yes to them. I can point to 30,000 sceptics including 9000 PHD's who are sceptics and that's just a small sample of them.

Doesn't it even strike you as odd that the alarmists are usually government funded scientists - those with something to lose. While those promoting the sceptic case are usually retired scientists or independent, who can speak freely.

But try telling any of this to a left-leaning militant warming ABC loving alarmist like Upton Sinclair.

I've been trying to tell Upton hat he can still be a Green voter or Labor voter and be a sceptic too, but he can't bring himself to admit that truth. To him it's a religion. They "assume" the alarmism is true without looking at the evidence. That's what religious types do, with their irrational beliefs in God. They ignore the evidecne on the other side and gravitate to things that suit their beliefs - it's called confirmation bias.

The alarmists don't give up, though: Just look at this rubbish.

Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heatwaves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists says in a new report…

You can see why this change has been forced on alarmists. The secret is out that the world hasn't been warming, and to instead now blame global warming for every weather event, whether drought OR a flood, makes the militant warmist always right, regardless of what happens.

Just look at this latest example two days ago of another incorrect model being blown apart:

William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton:

GLOBAL WARMING MODELS ARE WRONG YET AGAIN
"It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions."

If the models are wrong, why are we spending billions to stop what they warn of?


The alarmism is bad enough. The bullying to make the rest of us accept it is even worse:

 

[Upton Sinclair]

You're far better versed in the science than I am. But I maintain there is no agreement on even the simple question of whether the earth is warming, e.g.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

It was the switch of terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change', when observations didn't fit alarmist forecasts, that caused me to question the facts.

Having said that, whilst I remain a skeptic, I can and do take on board opinions from the other side of the debate. Just not when they're presented like National Geographic's doco The Final Prophecy. If I'd had a brick handy while watching that dross...

There was no change in terminology. Global warming was first coined in a paper from 1975 by Wally Broecker titled "Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?". The two have been used interchangeably ever since.

The only politically motivated change in the use was from an internal memo within the Republican Party from Frank Luntz that recommended using 'climate change' over 'global warming' because it sounded more benign - so if what you say is correct it is because deniers thought it would help their case, not because of anything climate scientists predicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

As for your WSJ article, let me just say that for starters whether it has warmed or not is not the point you were making, the point you made was about how small the anthropogenic contribution to the overall carbon cycle is and whether it is upsetting the balance or not.

But, to challenge the article you quoted, I'd suggest reading this refutation form ACTUAL climate scientists, not people who deny things like HIV and smoking, because the points raised have all been debunked ad nauseum:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012...er-op-ed-like-dentists-practicing-cardiology/

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

• Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
• Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
• Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute
• Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University
• Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
• Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington
• Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
• Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana
• Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation
• Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior’s Climate Science Center at Colorado State University
• Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
• Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia
• Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
• Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
• David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
• Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois
• Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK
• Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada
• Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire
• David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia
• Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia
• William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University
• Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT
• Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
• Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
• Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK
• Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University
• Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany
• Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
• William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
• Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
• Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine
• Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

 

[rayven]

There can be no doubt that the man-made proportion of total greenhouse emissions is very low. T

Yo do have a refrence for that claim, no doubt?

 

[Final Siren]

Doesn't it even strike you as odd that the alarmists are usually government funded scientists - those with something to lose.

I must say, this is by far the weirdest argument I hear against climate change. If I'm going to believe it's a case of following the money, I'll be looking askance at the heavy polluting industries with billions to lose, not the CSIRO scientist.

 

[Final Siren]

the mythical 'Y2K bug'.

Geez, Ron, I thought you worked in IT. That was a real thing.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

\But try telling any of this to a left-lenaing militant wrming ABC loving alarmist like Upton Sinclair.

Hi Dan,

Good to see you again. Are you finally going to start answering all the points you have been called out on and have studiously been avoiding answering? I look forward to your reply

• Evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
• Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
• Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
• That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
• That the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
• Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
• Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
• Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4.
• Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
• Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
• Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
• Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
• Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
• Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon tax won't effect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
• Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
• Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
• Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
• Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
• Acknowledge that you plagiarised text from Joanne Nova's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
• Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
• Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.

Start answering them and we might have something approaching a "debate". until then I will continue to call you out for the lying fraud that you really are

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I'll take your word for it. But why would the activists have changed horses unless there was no warming trend?

No one has "changed horses" and there IS a warming trend. You have been sorely deluded if you think there hasn't been.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

MODS - Can we please merge this with the other denier derp thread? There is really no need for two threads going over the same old tired arguments that really belong in QT anyway

 

[Pie eyed]

Geez, Ron, I thought you worked in IT. That was a real thing.

And a great little earner it was too.

 

[Dan26]

Hi Dan,

Good to see you again. Are you finally going to start answering all the points you have been called out on and have studiously been avoiding answering? I look forward to your reply

• Evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
• Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
• Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
• That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
• That the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
• Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
• Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
• Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4.
• Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
• Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
• Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
• Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
• Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
• Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon tax won't effect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
• Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
• Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
• Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
• Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
• Acknowledge that you plagiarised text from Joanne Nova's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
• Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
• Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.

Start answering them and we might have something approaching a "debate". until then I will continue to call you out for the lying fraud that you really are

That's the best you can do? Regurgitate information that I have already provided to you, just so I can run off spending hours finding links all for your benefit, when you can find them all yourself with a bit of research on the other side. But you won't listen to the other side.

Your extreme left-leaning political views totally corrupt your view. You know this is true. Just admit it. You're totally corrupted.

You're not an idiot. You seem reasonably articualate and I'm sure there is a brain functionaing reasonably well somewhere in there. So, why is it so hard to put the politics aside and admit the fact there is simply no empirical evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming?

Wanting a carbon Tax "just in case" is simply not a good enough reason, and is just an excuse for the left to shove their irrational alarmism down the throats of the rest of us.

When you eventually admit the truth and switch sides, it will be soothing for you I reckon. I think you want to switch, but it's almost as if you've come too far and you can't go back.

Well, I've got news for you - you can go back. So do it. Prove you're strong.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And a great little earner it was too.

Oh. Give. Me. A. Break.

WTF do you know about IT? You sound like a regular conspiracy theorist right now.

 

[Dan26]

Typical of the extreme bias of the ABC. Why would a left leaning militant warmist stick up for this mob, after they have been exposed like this.

THE ABC CAUGHT LYING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
[YOUTUBE]sqi5BY0DLh0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Dan, running away from the debate he demanded. Just answer the questions Dan. You've been pinned down numerous times and just run away every time. Now you're posting Monckton videos?

I'll keep posting this until you do finally re-enter the debate, until then you will remain the blustering, blithering fool that you are

• Evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
• Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
• Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
• That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
• That the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
• Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
• Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
• Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4.
• Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
• Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
• Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
• Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
• Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
• Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon tax won't effect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
• Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
• Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
• Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
• Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
• Acknowledge that you plagiarised text from Joanne Nova's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
• Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
• Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.

 

[Dan26]

Dan, running away from the debate he demanded. Just answer the questions Dan. You've been pinned down numerous times and just run away every time. Now you're posting Monckton videos?

I've already explained that I'm "onto you." I know your tactic. I have already gone over all those things but all you are doing is asking me to go back again and provide even more evidence, links. All of this at great personal time-consuming expense to myself, jsut so you don't have to engage in a debate. Get over yourself. I can see exacty what you and your ego are doing. I'm not an idiot. Why would I run off searching for 30 things that I have already explained just because YOU want me to???? I'm not bloody idiot, Upton.

Now, what did you think of the video? Oh, it wasn't a Monckton video at all, which goes to show you didn't watch it, because you have no interest in learning anything about this debate from the other side. The video was about the biased reporting of the ABC. Watch it.

What is it you're afraid of? Do you not want to be convinced?

If you do want a Monckton video (he is utterly brilliant on this topic and 6-0 in debates) I have a good one for you. Over the weekend I'd like you to watch it. Monckton has also utterly rebutted those idiotic Peter Hadfield videos by the way, which were nothing more than personal attacks, by an obvious left-leaning alarmist.

Monckton recently addressed a room full of young greenie alarmists. And had them in the palm of his hand. God I would have loved for you to be in that room.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/

The video of the event is here

At the end of the article is the video. Check it out.