The Greenhouse Conspiracy - Aussie movie from 1990

You just dont get it do you, well no matter how high you jump or how hard you knowk your head against the wall ist not going to change the fact that,

THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES A RUN AWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON EARTH, NOT IN OUR PAST AND NOT NOW.

I repeat so you maybe able to digest the situation i' putting forward to you,

THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES A RUN AWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON EARTH, NOT IN OUR PAST AND NOT NOW.

Now i hope you have understood ny message.

It doesn't matter how many spectaral papers you present they only way they can make sense out of all the radiance is to put it through a computer which has parametric values placed at the front end the coal face, at this stage of their development they haven't even began to crawl.

You are the one crying out strawman yet your case is weak as far as i'm conserned, so how have you proved my statements above to be a straw man arguement, if thats what your mind is telling you who am i to argue, the spectaral papers prove SFA.

Listen you started the sachasim and name calling - it wasn't me, why dont you read some of your posts or is it all my fault then. You want to be treated respectably then behave so.

I dont deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas i dont deny that it may cause warming to the atmosphere, i'm not agianst renewablr energy and i certainly want all these corporation to clean up the mess.

What i am against is the financial slavery that is the labor green parties Carbon Tax the biggest SCAM in our history.

There is no need to prove you wrong who are you to prove you wrong?

Again i reiterate the science is not and we are going to get a carbon tax that will sell us into financial slavery and lower our standard of living including our kids and grand kids.

Whatever.

 

Hmmmm - no empirical evidence

Then would you care to explain the following?

More warming at night than during the dayhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/hottestsummer/
Changes in radiation consistent with the what is known to be caused by GHGs http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Increasing ocean heat http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/270.short


I am posting a you tube as that seems to be a format you like

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=149

but there is plenty more out there -

 

Hmmmm - no empirical evidence

Then would you care to explain the following?

More warming at night than during the dayhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/hottestsummer/
Changes in radiation consistent with the what is known to be caused by GHGs http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Increasing ocean heat http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/270.short


I am posting a you tube as that seems to be a format you like

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=149

but there is plenty more out there -

 

You will have to excuse my scepticism and lack of faith in these scientist who claim they know everything about the sun. Especially when they say and do nothing to seriously help the environment, but so only when its financially favourable to their careers and pockets.

For example: Tim Flannery (flim-flam-man) who is now being exclusively paid to advertise the Toyota Prius by him being shown driving it around during all his fabled documentaries. I suppose the Prius is the only hybrid available in Australia right?

You can place you faith in these fraudsters like Gods if you like, but on a planet whereby people and crops are still being ravished by disease; where we still have not advanced beyond burning fossil fuels as energy; can barely escape our own planets gravity, and have yet to colonise any other planet, then my faith in these scientist advocating they know everything about what’s happening with one on the mysteries in our Universe still remains.

You can call my rational “Harry Potter” science to justify what you think is my preference in political parties, but I suspect you are doing the same thing.

Surely you are not going to try and convince me these (*)(*)(*)(*)-ants who cannot even destroy a tiny little virus on their own planet know even a millionth of a fraction of what’s happening to something they was created at the beginning of our solar system - surely you jest?

What “solid” bit of scientific truth that’s been practised here on Earth have they discovered for you to put so much of your faith into them? Where are their practice examples that we the people are benefiting from - we certainly don’t benefit from models and make-believe do we?

 

"financially favourable" a scientist? in Australia? You have to be kidding!!

http://content.mycareer.com.au/salary-centre/scientific/scientist

It has improved recently but it is still only HALF what you could earn as a GP http://www.gpaustralia.org.au/content/what-can-you-earn

And you would be getting that for freezing your bollocks off in Antarctica counting snowflakes.

Good for him - he is ONE person - do you know how many scientists there are in Australia? They are not all being paid by Pruis

We can and have successfully escaped our planet's gravity - what is preventing colonisation is A) money B) a viable way of stopping people from being fried by radiation C) money d) acceptance of the ionising impulse engine e) money and did I mention MONEY???

And yet you are ignoring the strides we have already made in the last few years to grizzle (inaccurately) about what we have not done. We have vaccines for a LOT of human diseases but it is difficult to develop a vaccine for a virus that mutates faster than we can produce the vaccines

Oooooooh! Let me see - how about the whole basis of physics and chemistry without which we would not be communicating on small desktop/laptop/Ipads over the internet. I remember when I was a teenager my then boyfriend was studying computer science and he took me into the computer room at UQ to play "moon landing" - the computer took up most of the room (yes I am that old) and we could only play for a short period because the "game" took up too much of the memory. Today there are games a thousand times more sophisticated running on mobile phones.

This is what I mean by "Harry Potter Science". The mobile phone did not come about through magic, the iPad did not come about through magic, the HPV vaccine, the "artificial heart" crap! what about Streotokinase and the lysis revolution with heart attacks - not to mention the angioplasty revolution that saved millions needing open heart surgery

Do you really want me to go on?

 

Ohh and what does that mean, this may have been happening for eons, just because they have detected it now it doesn't mean that it comes from AGW and increasing CO2 levels.

That first site skeptical science is a good one, take your time and read some of the responses on the bottom of that page, you might learn something.

The science mag one is again modellers but check out the start of the abstract reads,

Large scale hey well we all know the temperature in the last 100 years has risen 0.5 degrees celcius right, so is this the large scale increases detected by their Global Circulation Model?

Feel free to throw up as many papers as you like, the fact is,

THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES A RUN AWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON EARTH, NOT IN OUR PAST AND NOT NOW.

If there was evidence that CO2 caused a runaway greenhouse effect the IPCC would be show casing it and you would be ramming this fact down my throat, i mean you are already trying to do it with emty hands image what you would do if you actually had a weapon.

Now that graph shows that 550 million ago the levels of CO2 were at 7000ppm what have you to say about that when here the IPCC is scaring becuase CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 390ppm.

Lets throw up some more i recon so our crops can grow bigger and healthier, after all CO2 is plant food its not pollution.

Why do you think the scientists are getting all these grants to do their computer modelling.

If the science was settled the grants would dry up.

FAIL.

 

LOL. You just changed your argument from "the only evidence we are having any sort of impact comes from IPCC computer models" to "THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES A RUN AWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON EARTH, NOT IN OUR PAST AND NOT NOW." and you also failed to provide evidence that the study claims "most of the global warming is due to increase concentrations of CH4".

What do you take me for? A complete idiot?

FAIL.

So you accept you were wrong in your claim that the only evidence comes from IPCC computer models? Do you also accept that these studies were based on observation as well as computer models? Please address my questions directly.It is pointless otherwise.

What am I to make of this response? Do you honestly believe people are saying CO2 is solely responsible for recent warming?? That statement alone speaks volumes about your knowledge on the subject.

Sarcasm? Also, I don't care how I'm treated, I'd just like a straight answer out of you.

Huh? That is a different topic altogether. Does this mean you agree there is empirical evidence we are having an impact on the Earth and it's atmosphere? If so then we can end this dispute.

So you haven't got any evidence or any credible skeptics advocating this position? Why do you then maintain it?

So you agree the majority of studies show the sun not to be the dominant factor in recent warming? I really wish you would stop dodging my points and questions.

LOL. I like this tacit recognition of your indefensible position........Hey, that rhymes

 

Yep the IPCC are the ones in my gun sights because there mainly the ones pushing for all nations to jump on board their carbon pricing scheme so their mother company can get 10% of the revenue, your right i guess i should have said all GCM's but in a way i'm sure the IPCC references those papers that are in agruement with their supposed fraudulant findings.

Therefore if the IPCC do reference those papers you have been throwing up technically it includes them as well, if they dont reference them then i mean all GCM's no matter who prints the garbage cause its garbage in garbage out.

I read all the papers except the last one whether you belive me or not is your own affair, do some reasearch i'm not handing you anything for free.

Read my lips, how hard is it to understand this staement?

THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES A RUN AWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON EARTH, NOT IN OUR PAST AND NOT NOW

Well if your not an idiot how is it that you dont understand what i've been saying and that is the above quote, because even though we have had CO2 concentration levels at 7000ppm in the past you fail to equate this to a runaway green house effect.

When we had 7000ppm the atmosphere and the temperature didn't behave like your beloved IPCC is saying it should, so then why should we worry about 100ppm increase in CO2, it will help us grow our grops and just in case you dont know CO2 is not a pollutatant its plant food and just in case you dont know its in our beer and our soft drinks and our wine.

So then are we drinking pollution?

I dont accept anything your the one with all these accusations and what not, what i should have said is all GCM's but like i said the IPCC is my main target.

Yes studies that take satelite data and then use parametric modelling what the heel use is that, its different if they feed the computer all the elements of the atmosphere but ofcourse they just aren't able to cope at this stage of their development.

So GCM's spells garbage in garbage out until they can become more sophisticated, and you havn't got aleg to stand on refrencing GCM's, i'm not the one saying these things even the all mighty IPCC admits that GCM's are a wotk in progress and dont address the atmosphere in its entirety.

So now that you have learnt alittle you try to use to your advantage i dont know why i bother.

Your getting them now.

It means what it means read it again and understand it, its not a different topic the carbon tax maybe be discussed in its entirety that includes technical and financial, its not changing the topic, AGW - CO2 _ Carbon Tax ar all under the same umbrella, was it you who reported me about this same issue to the forum moderators?

Well in my books its all under the same umbrella and i am willing to discuss any aspect that this AGW - CO2 - carbon tax.

You wish here its is again prove me wrong if you can.

THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 CAUSES A RUN AWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON EARTH, NOT IN OUR PAST AND NOT NOW

PPPFFFFTTTT exactly what leg are you standing on for your defence?

A big fat zero me thinks, bring something interesting to the table instead of your ridiculous remarks in your endeavor to prove me wrong.

I'll be waiting.

 

I think I've said enough and exposed your dishonesty quite thoroughly. To keep responding would just be cruel.

 

Just face it lep you cannot prove that CO2 causes a run away green house effect, because there is no evidence to show it.

So I can understand why you woiuld want to back down by showing that i'm wrong in some statement that i made about the IPCC and GCM's.

If in your mind you think you have won some sort of victory good for you.

But you have failed in your attempt to show that CO2 causes a runaway greenhouse effect.

cherio.

 

I gave up a while ago and decided that if an when the post is worth responding to I will

I do not indulge in conspiracy theories or Harry Potter Science

 

Actually I'm just not playing your silly games. You made a red herring by changing the argument. It is dishonest and shows your are incapable of a mature discussion.

EDIT: I also didn't back down. I proved your claim about the only evidence we are having an impact is from IPCC computer models as being completely false. Instead of conceding this you mad a red herring and started on a completely different subject. It was an absolute farce

 

If it makes you feel like honest john to make me look dishonest then so be it i dont really care because you have failed to prove the most important thing in this whole topic of AGW, CO2 and the carbon tax and that is that CO2 causes a runaway green house effect.

I did say that i conceded on the point and statement that i made about the IPCC and their GCM's i guess i should have been saying all GCM's, but then again if we stick to statements verbatim and the IPCC uses these papers or includes them in their references (i dont know if they do) i guess technically i would be correct if not then yes you proved your point but like a record player thats stuck thats the only tune you can play.

I have been proven wrong on here before and i have taken a bow and said that i stand corrected.

The whole issue was and still is that we are being given a carbon tax on false pretenses that CO2 causes a runaway green house effect and that we should reduce our emissions by commiting every man woman and child here in Australia to financial slavery by sending out billions of Australian tax payer dollars and reducing our standard of living.

You focused on the fact that i said there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes a runaway greenhouse effect the only evidence we have is the IPCC GCM's, i should have said all GCM's but its the IPCC that leads the world in AGW they are suppose to be the authority on this issue so i showed them.

Your whole arguement has been a waste of time because even though you did prove that my statement was wrong you didn't go anywhere when it came to the heart of the issue that is AGW, CO2 and the carbon tax.

So whats more important getting me to say that yes i was wrong because i only stated the IPCC GCM's?

Or the fact that our standard of living will be reduced based on a lie and what about all the billions of dollars that we will be sending to overseas institutions, this money could be better spent here in Australia retrofitting our existing infrastructure with the latest technology pollution emissions.

If you really do want to clean up the environment like i do then how can you believe in a system that allows the biggest polluters to reach their CO2 emissions target then go out on the market and buy up carbon credits and have their sheets showing that they have actually decreased their carbon footprint when in reality the have increased it.

So yeah you may have achieved your self gratification by proving one of my statements incorrect but i'm afraid you have missed the point entirely and why i have made those statements in the first place.

 

lol this guy just doesn't get it.

 

What ever it is that your thinking unless you share it then you cannot expect me to read your mind.

 

That is a lie. At least be honest with yourself.

Even if presented with sincerity, you're not qualified to change your opinion based on facts. Your gut is making the call based on other beliefs.

I still say you're a plant.

 

No, he doesn't. Even when i explain to him/her why (many times), he/she still doesn't get it.

I actually believe he/she is here to stir this up, may even be getting paid to do it (or have some vested interest that has not been revealed).

 

Yeah but if you were being paid to stir trouble - wouldn't you do a better job than posting a link to a 21 year old Doco?

I should have thrown it a "coming of age" party!

 

Girls Girls Girls

Just goes to show that aussies are pretty good at detecting snake oil.

We detected it back in the 90's.

 

And IF anyone has bothered with it (and considering the number of years I have been tracking the arguments surrounding global warming and the fact I have never heard of it before) then I can assure you the "facts" if any, would by now have been debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a cyclone

 

If it was free unadulterated science i have no doubt the scales would be more evenly balanced.

But since it has become politicized you only have two choices either join the religion that is climate change or be ostracized from the scientific community.

It really is sad that we are being forced to a lifestyle changing tax based on a lie.

I for one would like to see this arguement placed under a microscope and all angles explored.

Instead alarmist act like ravenous dogs ready to rip anyone apart who may have a different point of view other than their one.

 

Read it and weep

Funded by the Koch Bros and carried out by scientists known for their sceptical stances

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary-20-october-2011.pdf

Now for the usual goal post shift..................................

Oh! And the myriad of so called "sceptical points" - they are given fair hearing here http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Feel free to dissect any argument put forth on that site, adding what you think would be valid research to support any of the arguments and weigh the results against what the posted research

Go for it!!

 

There is nothing conclusive in that paper that would make me weep, yeah sure there has been warming and there has been cooling its called climate change and has been with us since the earth started forming from a valcanic rock to what we have today and there will be much more climate change as our sun ages and the moon pulls further from the Earth's gravity that is guaranteed.

I dont understand how these scientists can think that the urban heat island affect can play no role, this is really outstanding for me, i mean we can feel it ourselves go in the middle of the city and then drive out 60 km into the bush on the same night. All you have to do is take a thermometer with you in both cases and i bet in the city the temperature will be higher than in the country.

Yes i know this is the only blog that makes you feel fuzzy inside, its a good site and the guy is definetly an alarmist but it doen't prove that manmade CO2 is responsible for a runaway green house effect or that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can drive major climate change.

I probably dont have to, all you have to do is look ate the replies at the bottom of the page.

When i get around to it.

 

Wh

Just had a look at the first one, i actually cant be bothered, his summation is so general and his defence so one sided.

This is what i mean about putting all these ideas under the microscope and actually getting to the nitty gritty of it all.

Not a case that you would go to court over is my summation.

On a scale of one to ten i would give him a two for that one.

BTW read some of the comments at the bottom of that page and also his frantic attempt to explain it all.

Skeptical science - a good blog for disecting why its not manmade CO2 that is doing the warming.

Trying to blame CO2 for the last 30 years of warming is really a joke.

What i want to know is? Is he blaming the 97% CO2 that comes natural from the ecosystems

OR

Is he blaming all this warming on the 3% manmade Co2 in the atmosphere?

If i was a betting man i would go for the bigger guy thats for sure.

Anyway TOTAL CO2 manmade and ecosystems still isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere to drive major climate change or a runanway greenhouse effect.

One thing this guy forgot is that water vapour the most prominent greenhouse gas drives 95% of all climate change on Earth, where does that leave CO2 probably with a neglible effect at best.

 

No lie and i'm being honest with myself, dont you girls usual go with that gut feeling about almost all things /

Yes i do yearn fro freedom