Poor David Cameron, not getting good press at the moment.

[Teckair]

You are losing more credibility. Do YOU believe your god will look after it or the end of the world is imminent and it doesn't matter? Ronald Raygun believed that. and he would probably know these things, otherwise he wouldn't have been President, right? Nev

After all the made up crap presented by the LWLs how much credibility do you think you guys have?

 

 

[Teckair]

Apparently Al Gore lives in a mansion which requires truck loads of power to function then he makes a movie about global warming, a fat lot of credibility there.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Dutch really is a man of faith! But you forgot manbearpig:

 

Might be time to round up the thousands of climate scientists that disagree with the extremist warmies and re-educate them, that's how your type of 'science by majority consensus' works no? Edit the temperature data to show some warming too, hide the decline and all.

1) There are not "thousands of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus". That is absolute rubbish. There are about half a dozen - literally out of many thousands who are studying and researching the science of global climate and closely related fields.

 

2) The "hide the decline" statement which was taken from a leaked email and the actual true meaning of which has been explained in 4 separate inquiries into climate data had absolutely nothing to do with surreptitiously "showing some warming" if there was none present. That you even quote it shows extreme ignorance as to what it was all about.

 

Questions for Gnarly Gnu: Have you you even read the scientific paper where that originated? Can you explain to us exactly what it was all about? I look forward to you educating us about conflicting temperature proxies versus actual observations. Which was it that showed a "decline"? What did scientists discover about that "decline"? What did they then do about it? What was explained at the subsequent inquires?

 

Another question for Gnarly Gnu: Climate sceptics then set up a group of fairly well qualified scientists to analyse the global temperature datasets to determine what, if anything, had been "fudged". This was called the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature group. What did this sceptical group of scientists discover about the temperature data, GG?

 

 

Caution: please do not research the answers to these questions if you want to get your argument completely trashed.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Apparently Al Gore lives in a mansion which requires truck loads of power to function then he makes a movie about global warming, a fat lot of credibility there.

You'll note that I have never said anything about Al Gore.

 

I have never even seen his movie on the subject.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Apparently Al Gore lives in a mansion which requires truck loads of power to function then he makes a movie about global warming, a fat lot of credibility there.

This is what it all comes down to doesn't it, global warming is something designed by the rich lefties to keep you poor

 

 

[Teckair]

This is what it all comes down to doesn't it, global warming is something designed by the rich lefties to keep you poor

I saw the carbon tax as something to take from big companies and give to the poor. Which is OK if it worked like that but I did not think that would be the case. I thought it would have stifling effect on the economy and make everybody poor. I also thought it was more about raising revenue than protecting the environment.

 

 

[dutchroll]

This is what it all comes down to doesn't it, global warming is something designed by the rich lefties to keep you poor

Well that's right.

 

Rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were instigated by scientists working at universities because they weren't happy with just their Porsche 911s (which you can see rows and rows of at any Uni staff car park). They wanted Gulfstream 650s too!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

poor old teckair, nothing makes him angrier than a rich leftie

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Yeah firstly explain why the earth stopped warming 18 years ago despite every warmy climate model showing this was impossible.

 

Is CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'? Sure it is but the effect is low level (compared to the effect of water vapour for example) and exponentially decreasing as the CO2 level rises not to mention we are talking such tiny percentages here. If I pee into the ocean does the ocean level rise? Exact same thing. Even the men you put all your faith in know this is all a game, not one of them actually lives in the manner they would if the theory actually had any basis. As do you.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

but what if it only stopped warming for 2 years GNu?

 

 

[octave]

Yeah firstly explain why the earth stopped warming 18 years ago despite every warmy climate model showing this was impossible.

Is CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'? Sure it is but the effect is low level (compared to the effect of water vapour for example) and exponentially decreasing as the CO2 level rises not to mention we are talking such tiny percentages here. If I pee into the ocean does the ocean level rise? Exact same thing. Even the men you put all your faith in know this is all a game, not one of them actually lives in the manner they would if the theory actually had any basis. As do you.

 

I am open minded, perhaps if you can use your scientific knowledge to disprove this - http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ you may be able to convince me, but I suspect that you will not or can not.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would be in raptures if this wasn't happening, but the most reliable information says it is. What I want doesn't matter. I study some from both sides but the deception is predominantly coming from the fossil fuel industry funded groups like IPA and Heartland institute Peer review is part of science so it has a chance of improving the theory with more information and knowledge. Any scientist who has used incorrect process is like an athlete on drugs when it's discovered.

 

The atmosphere isn't that extensive. By the time you get to FL180 half the molecules are below you. That doesn't mean the atmosphere stops at double that height, but you just cant put millions of tonnes of CO2 into it and not make any difference. We are absolutely addicted to fossil fuel and waste most of it. Nev

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

BTW Dutch I should make it clear I have no problem with you putting your faith in this theory, I just don't wish to follow or pay any form of CO2 tax because to me it is a green religious hoax.

 

you just cant put millions of tonnes of CO2 into it and not make any difference. We are absolutely addicted to fossil fuel and waste most of it. Nev

That's your view (I hold the extra CO2 is environmentally beneficial) - you are entitled to your view and are free to stop using 'fossil fuels' and emitting CO2 any time you like.

 

 

[dazza 38]

We had plenty of snow in QLD this winter, must be caused by global warming.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Jeez you really live down the rabbit hole, don't you GG. Black is white, atheists are religious, science is faith, renewables are crap, fossil fuels are great. Must be a funny old place inside your head.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

2 days of snow in QLD is consistent with the poles melting

 

ignore the fact that the winter was shorter than usual.

 

remember to pick and choose the facts and ignore those inconvenient truths

 

 

[Marty_d]

Send them an invite and see what happens.

'bout the same thing as you inviting Rupert Murdoch, Alan Jones and Gina Rinehart, I reckon.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/71151447/good-government-neednt-be-a-punchline-tony-abbott

[facthunter]

Glaciers are receding like you wouldn't believe. If global warming is not happening which glaciers are NOT receding. Name one or tell me where it is. I would love to know global warming is not happening. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

What would that prove Tecky? Whether it happens or not the appreciation of these peoples contribution to the debate is what is the message. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah firstly explain why the earth stopped warming 18 years ago despite every warmy climate model showing this was impossible.

It didn't stop warming, although atmospheric warming slowed as heat was instead absorbed into the oceans (which has created problems of its own). You are repeating a false talking point from the anti-science community.

 

Is CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'? Sure it is but the effect is low level (compared to the effect of water vapour for example)

The effect of water vapour is not critical because water vapour in the atmosphere precipitates out quite quickly and the greenhouse effect due to it remains in a state of equilibrium.

 

CO2 does not do this. When was the last time you had to pop up your umbrella because it was raining dry ice?

 

...... not to mention we are talking such tiny percentages here. If I pee into the ocean does the ocean level rise?

How many parts per million of blue ink would you need to put into a bucket of water to turn it blue?

 

How many parts per million, by body weight, of ricin toxin does it take to kill a human?

 

Without ozone in the atmosphere, life on Earth would cease to exist as it would be quickly killed off by UV radiation. What's the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere compared to CO2?

 

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 0.026% by volume to 0.038% by volume during the industrial age. What therefore is the percentage increase by volume of atmospheric CO2?

 

Hint, from Grade 7 maths: We mathematically treat a "percentage by volume" the same as if it was kg, lb, or whatever. So long as the units are consistent between the numerator and denominator in the equation prior to multiplying by 100. Therefore total percentage increase = (new % - old %)/old % x 100.

 

If toying with percentages by volume screws with your mind too much, convert them to parts per million. 0.026% by volume = 260 ppm. So percentage increase = (380-260)/260 x 100. And magically you will get the same answer.

 

 

[coljones]

This is what it all comes down to doesn't it, global warming is something designed by the rich lefties to keep you poor

as opposed to the rich righties who want to pay no taxes at all so they can employ more peasants on slave wages to bring about a better society.

 

 

[M61A1]

Could also be labour on budget issues......

 

 

[fly_tornado]

as if abbott was ever going to pay down the debt after howard sold the cream

[dutchroll]

Abbott Announces New Rebate Scheme For Rooftop Coal-Fired Power Stations

 

 

Australians who install coal-fired power stations on their roof at home will soon be eligible for a Government-funded rebate, under new plans unveiled today.

 

Speaking at the program’s launch, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the initiative would become the centerpiece of a range of Government policies designed to address the country’s future energy needs.

 

“Let’s be up front about this, the world is changing. So we need to think differently about how we generate our power needs into the future,” he said.

 

Mr Abbott said the new scheme was innovative and cost effective. “What this new scheme does is allow ordinary Australians to generate their own electricity, reducing their reliance on more traditional forms of energy, and lowering the monthly bill at the same time”.

 

Homeowners will be eligible for rebates of up to $5,000, depending on the size of their power station.

 

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the scheme will mean production and emissions levels at large-scale coal-fired power plants will fall. “We expect carbon emissions in some stations to fall by as much as 30%. That’s above and beyond the targets set by many other OECD countries,” he said.

 

Mr Abbott said as part of the new initiative rebate schemes for solar panels will be scrapped. “People can still install solar panels if they wish, but there won’t be a rebate. They’re unsightly and ugly, so we’re trying to discourage them”.

 

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2015/08/13/abbott-announces-new-rebate-scheme-for-rooftop-coal-fired-power-stations/