How to get expelled from school - AGW brainwashing our kids at school

I answered YES in red above, i am denying it.

Ok so where and how are they measuring a substance that is 0.0383% or

0.000383 out of 1.0 of the Earth's atmosphere.

Are they going up on hot air baloons in a neutral zone.

They must have to wait a while between CO2 particles thats if they find any at all.

Like a needle in a hay stack.

Or are they just going down to the nearest coal fired power station.

 

95% of global warming is caused by water vapour in the air.

CO2 levels dont come into it at all.

You know why because they are so miniscule, irrelevant, negligable.

You dont have to be a rocket scienstist to work that one out.

Is it warmer on a clear night or on a cloudy night?

CO2 content probably the same.

 

The arctic is decreasing the antarctic is increasing, nature balances her self out.

FACT!!!!

Its called climate change.

Better get used to it because its been here from day one when the Earth was a molten rock.

Where did all the water come from bugs?

 

Hey bugs i'm all for cleaning up our pollution.

But when they (*)(*)(*)(*) down my back and tell me its raining well they can go and get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

Just answer me one question why do we have to be chained to the European ETS???

Why cant we just fix the problem right here at home with no outside interference?

We've always done it before whats different know!

 

And you are wrong.
The majority of this increase in atmospheric CO2 has been anthropogenic. This has been demonstrated by measurement of the c12/c13 ration of the CO2.


BTW - does your denial carry any explanation? Do you have an alternative source for all of this CO2? Or are you just repeating what Bolty told you?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/sio-keel-flaskmlo_c.html

 

Please don't make things up. It is really silly

CO2 absords heat at certain wavelengths and re-emits it. It is one of the main reasons this planet is habitable. This is basic science.

Making a planet habitable rather than non-habitable is neither miniscule, irrelevant or negligable.

Why do you think this question is relevant?

 

Apples are red - oranges are orange. FACT!!!!

Comparing 2 completely different things is a really dumb thing to do.

Yes. And What is causing the observed temperature increases of recent decades?

Yes. And What is causing the observed temperature increases of recent decades?

Which water would this be?

 

Who told you that bugs, Al Gore and the scientists that work for the international bankers?

Even if its true and it might well be the miniscule amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming.

The sun is the main source of global warming along with the oceans here on Earth and then the water vapour that gets sent up into our atmosphere.

But isn' the Earth cooling right now bugs and thats why these alarmists have changed their tune from global warming to climate change.

Heaven forbid we fall into global cooling what the fark will they say then.

 

I'm stating facts, i thought educated people could think for themselves bugs.

And water vapour doesn't turn heat into energy then, its just CO2 right, that tiny little miniscule 0.000383 CO2 in our atmosphere, crickies dude the Earth is always covered by clouds which are more abundant than CO2.

Well if you have ever slept under the stars bugs you will know that on a clear night when there are no clouds to trap the heat in it gets colder.

And i bet the CO2 content is probably the same with or without clouds, so which is a more efficient green house gas bugs?

Yes lets hope our planet reamins warm beacuse if it freezes over we'll all die.

 

Not CO2 my friend, thast for sure.

The 70% of water on the Earth surface?

 

I gave you a source already. Let me post it again for you:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1984/JD089iD07p11731.shtml

Would you like more reference from actual published science to explain about how the anthropogenic origins of atmospheric CO2 are determined?

it is.

But you denied it anyway. With no cause.

Big ups to your champ.

Why not?

The amount of CFCs in the atmosphere is many times of magnitude less than CO2. Are you saying that CFCs do not impact upon the atmosphere?

The sun is pretty much the only source of warming.
So why is more water vapour being sent into the atmosphere?
Is the sun getting hotter?!?!

No - it isn't. It is warming.

Please!?!? Are you seriously still on that crap?!?!?

The IPCC (CC =Climate Change) was formed in 1988.
Global warming and Climate Change ARE NOT the same thing.
One HAS NOT replaced the other.
BOTH terms have been used for over 30 years. BOTH terms are still in use.
GLOBAL WARMING causes CLIMATE CHANGE. Could you PLEASE get that simple fact into your head and stop regurgitating (*)(*)(*)(*).

That really is the most ignorant argument of all time. That is disgraceful

WHy would that happen?

 

I read that paper bugs and no its not convincing because the authors say one word that puts everything back up in the air and that is MAY and their not refering to the month either.

How is it true bugs how are they measuring it, you cannot put the atmosphere in a test tube my friend there are just too many variables as i'm sure you know if you work in this field.

You're going to have to do better than that to convince me.

This tiny amount of Co2 humans have kicked up into our atmosphere is miniscule and plays no role in global warming or climate change both expresions go hand in hand like an ass on a jock strap, one cant do without the other.

I agree about CFC's they did enormous damage to our ozone layer, but you forgot to mention that our ozone layer is about 3 millimeters (1/8") thick, you know jet planes flying around at those altititudes dont help much either not to mention aboveground nuclear tests.

At least we have one possitive from industrial smog and that is given the right conditions the chemical reactions of CO, NOx and others released through the burning of fossil fuels actually produce ozone.

But hey we are getting away from the subject now and that is manmade CO2 doesn't cause global warming no matter what the IPCC has been telling us.

Who owns the IPCC?

The World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme, and these two organisations are the main source of climate change propaganda.

Now you might want to ask yourself who ownes and controls these two organisations?

When you find the truth then come back and we can talk.

And you still haven't answered my question?

Why dowe have to be chained to the European ETS system in order to clean up our back yard?

Why cant we do this independendtly like we have always done?

Bugs either you are a very inteligent person in his field of work and outside it you're a moron.

Or you are rich and a greeny!

Or you are a politician which means the carbon tax will not affect you.

 

Actually - it is about 50km. Not 3mm.

But please - don't let facts stand in the way of your rant

 

If the ozone layer over the US were compressed to zero degrees Celsius and one atmosphere pressure, it would be about 3 mm thick. So 0.01 mm thickness at 0 °C and 1 ATM is defined to be 1 DU; this makes the average thickness of the ozone layer over the US come out to be about 300 DU

 

But the ozone layer over the US isn't compressed to zero degrees Celsius and one atmosphere pressure.

It is about 50 km thick. Not 3mm.

 

Does the word "Global" mean anything to you?

I mean I know the right wing Yanks have no idea about the fact that the term global is synonymous with world wide but hey! I thought Aussies knew better

 

Yes bugs its dispersed over a 50km height.

But to get an idea of how much ozone is actually in our atmosphere if we compressed it to one atmosphere at 0 degrees celsius it would be about 3mm or (1/8") thick.

Pure and simply to get the picture in your head!

 

Hey bowerbird

The carbon tax is the biggest lie we have been sold thus far.

Nothing more than a ponzy scheme, it will do nothing to clean the environment.

It's the first world global tax that will be imposed on the people of the Earth and it wont be the last.

The United Nations and Wall Street will reap the benefits.

Companies (big polluters) will go on doing what they do, and by ofsetting their carbon foot print with carbon credits they will look as though they are doing something about glabal warming.

When in fact they will actually be increasing their carbon footprint.

How can anyone support such a scheme?

 

So, do you have a solution or just a gripe??

 

Yeah i do have a solution.

We could employ the latest technology in

1. Fabric Filter Bags
2. Electrostatic Precipitators
3. Gas Scrubbers
4. Co2 sequestration

We could be the cleanest polluters on Earth by far and we wouldn't have to send billions of dollars to over seas instituitions for infinity.

 

I don't believe that all of the solutions suggested by you were Australian innovations. Hence the need to support other scientists elsewhere to combat climate change.

If Tony Abbott was PM, then he wouldn't even fund Australian scientists doing research. That's why Australia is at the bottom of the list of innovation due the affects of John Howard who cut funding to universities and believe all Australians were capable to fund their own university fees.

Scientists in Australia complain that it's impossible to do research in Australia because of the lack of funding and hence go overseas to Switzerland, America, Norway... No wonder they are always ranked higher than Australia.

No wonder the ATAR cut off mark for Bachelor of Science is soooooo low because it's a NATIONAL PRIORITY and that the course fees are like $8000. No one is going to do it if no one's going to fund people doing research... This is a shame because you're saying 4 TAFE courses are the same as one university degree - where at the end the income of a BSc is far greater than the income of an individual with TAFE qualifications.

Tony Abbott cutting funds to education and health care sectors means poorer quality teachers due to less income and no incentive for people to become teachers. You would find those that do become teachers don't do it for the money but do it to benefit society.

I cry for Australia.

 

I never claimed that all the above proposals were Australian inventions, some might be.

The crux of the situation is that these methods are a reality they exist and are readily available.

We could clean up our pollution right here in Australia without the need to channel billions of dollars to the United Nations, Wall Street and the World Bank.

We could be the cleanest polluters on Earth without being tied to a European ETS ponzy scheme that will do nothing to clean up pollution.

Again dont cry, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

 

Where's the incentive to change over to these clean sources which you have listed without a carbon tax?

 

If this model of the carbon tax actually did something to clean up the environment i would not hate it so much.

The incentive - instead of funnelling billions of dollars to the United Nations, The World Bank and Wall Street, that money could be put to good use here for alternative fuels.

But you know we have had some Australian inventors in the past that have produced an engine that ran on water i think he was from Perth and it was in the late 80's or 90's?

What happened to him?

The oil companies lined his pockets with gold took ownership of the design and shelved it.

This is happening all around the world, why would the oil companies have a change of heart now.

Anyway they already have hundreds maybe thousands of designs on alternative fuels and engines which they bought and shelved.

The bottom line is the oil-coal-gas market is a 2 trillion dollar market world wide and international bankers own it all.

Does anyone really think they are going to let us switch to clean fuel alternatives?

 

Who Killed the electrical car

http://www.feandft.com/11 The Electric Car Sabotaged.htm


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiA7025xq8"]The History of the EV Gray Motor - Lecture - YouTube[/ame]



.