The Climate Change Hoax

Climate change is not a hoax.

How it is changing and what causes the changes are open to debate. Global Warming is the new fuel for the politics of fear now that the USSR is not around.

Last I heard the hole in the Ozone is getting smaller again ... I'm looking forward to hearing what we did to fix it ...

Was it the 20 tons of CO2 I added last year?

 

Good to hear.

It is . Agreed.
I wished SOMEONE would actually have the answer , and the evidence to prove it.

Tell me more....

Did we not reduce CFC' s ? .............I thought we did.....?

I don`t think so , no.

 

The 'skeptics' have pointed out all the huge holes in the AGW narrative all along. I'm not about to go into each of them too deeply here; I've already devoted countless hours (a shameful amount of time, really) to debunking this pseudo-science of AGW on the other thread on the subject and I encourage you to read the posts there.

In the end it won't make any difference; you likely still won't believe the rational explanation, preferring an irrational one that happens to dovetail with your 'Evil Human Industry, Destroyer of the World' viewpoint.

In the end WHO CARES if we can't really explain why climate changes? Recent changes are not in any way anomalous, so let's just learn to adapt rather than using AGW as a bogeyman, or as Menken put it: "Hobgoblins, all of them imaginary".

Jimbo

 

Agreed....
And just for the sake of the argument, lets assume that we are going towards a perfectly natural warming period. And just to live in peace with the rebels, lets just accept that "Yes, the emperor's cloths are green ad yellow and oh so cute!"

I have yet to be convinced that some warming will actually be bad for us.
It wan't.
We had warmer periods, much warmer where Greenland was actually green and not white, and so was Alaska and Canada and Russia.
Is that bad?
Human flourish in warmer climates, higher CO2 produces healthier and more abundant crops. In Antarctica it is -30, if it goes to -27 do you really think that such change will melt the ice away? Last time I checked ice freezes at 0C or close to that anyway with salt and all of that.
And drought? Higher temperatures produce more ocean evaporation and therefore more RAIN. Oh yes, if someone missed that, rain is actually water that has evaporated and when there is too much of it came back to earth, not the gift from the godess pacha mamma to reward the stewards of this planet.

 

Don`t ever speak for me thank you.

That ludicrous attempt to put words in my mouth only proves that you could not POSSIBLY understand what I think.

So speak for yourself or be quiet.

 

Hi Masalai, so you have installed solar panels.
Good for you. I looked into this and found it not to be to my liking.
The solar panels industry would be hard pressed to exist if it was not for subsidies galore.
And that is the problem. Home solar panels are the most inefficient way to produce energy and the subsidies only make matters worst. Subsidies do not stimulate efficiency only corruption and so panels are now dearer then before the subsidies yet are just as ineffective.
When you think that the double your money offered for the excess energy produced comes from the extra penalties imposed on the more efficient coal generators, my next door neighbour that does not have $20,000 to spare will be paying more for the electricity bill in order of the subsidy to be paid to me.

Since grants were given to people to insulate their houses, prices for insulation have increased by 100% and the quality of the workmanship tumbled down to worst than do it yourself, with 48 houses burned down this year alone, people electrocuted, installers falling through ceilings and the rest.

 

I am thinking of the longer term, where there is a strong prospect that if you do not make electricity yourself, buy candles while they last... Everything will be in very short supply before you know it... Just too many people and desertification because the rain harvesters (trees) have been chopped down... Things they are definitely a changing...

 

Yes, your scenario is possible but only if we cave into believing all the doomsday predictions. Just like the Y2K bug, the sky is not falling so no need to rush for candles. We have coal for another 2000 years so cheap and efficient coal generators are good for a long time yet.

CO2? Good for better harvest. Antropogenic CO2 at 0.018% of greenhouse gases is so incredibly negligiblethat it is admirable how people can fall for this gigantic con.
I am thinking that if I contract Al Gore to market dog poo as children snaks he most probably will make it a trendy food served in primary schools all over the world.
Yummy!

 

So put up or shut up. Show us a study of atmospheric CO2 residence time (with actual measurements, please!) that concluded that the residence time is long. You can't do that because no such study exists. Without this, there can be no accumulation of CO2 due to anthropogenic sources. There have been many studies on this subject, but every single one of them concluded that the residence time is short, such that the accumulation scenario which is a central part of the AGW narrative is absolutely impossible.

So either you produce such a study or be forced to admit the AGW alarmists have got it tragically wrong.

Jimbo

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at with all this stuff about having to prove 'residence time.' But here's a graph showing the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels at Mauna Loa for the last fifty years. Either the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography are flat lying to us, or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen significantly in that time.

edit: oops...forgot the link.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

 

It seems your limited " back yard science " and simplistic " marketing strategies " have a long way to go.

There are people out there , well trained and and knowledgable that have studied these issues at length. They would shoot down you hack " science" in short order.

 

Good link Troy.
I do question it a bit. In reading the link I didnt find any mention of weather the worlds largest volcano they are sitting on had any effect one way or the other on thier sampling data.

I would guess it dose, but Im just guessing.

K9

 

I picked that site because Mauna Loa has the longest unbroken record of atmospheric CO2 measurements. As far as I know, the data from other measuring stations, for the periods they've monitored, correlates well with that from Mauna Loa.

One example is Jubany Station in Antarctica, where the Italians have been taking measurements since 1994. Their data shows a pretty steady rise: "On the basis of annual averages calculated from monthly averages, CO2 levels at Jubany have risen from 356.75 in 1994 to 382.86 in 2008."

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html

 

"MY" science? Uhuu you give me too much credit. I am no scientist, neither are you since you have not ventured into any alternative "science"

Yours and my position and I presume the one of almost all people on this board, is one of faith and believe. Mainly who do we believe, which argument appeals to us personally since we as individuals have no way to personally test any of this. Just like I have never been to Antarctica and don't really know that it is there, and must rely on other people whom I believe to tell me so.

I choose to believe that global warming is not happening and that most of the believers are being conned by a small group of criminals who have organised this power grab for world domination by default.

My choice.

Your choice is different and I respect your choice yet I reserve the right to show you what and why I believe otherwise. No point repeating myself, yet please don't call it "my" science. I am not (unfortunately) one of the thousands of authors of true science who have their head screwed on and refuse to bow to the mainstream ******** and do so risking careears and grants, face discipline tribunals and are banned from publishing it.
Global warming is the new age nazional socialism of today and pursues the same objectives the nazi did. World domination, freedom restrictions, persecution of dissenters, all for the common good. "WE" know better, screw you.
I don't react well to this impositions and neither do half the planet population. The other half is yet to wake up to what is that they are supporting. No matter I am a patient man and most of global warming supporters are deep down good people and well intentioned, just a tad misguided.
Give them time.
Kind Regards
Marc

 

Oh, please.......running up the bs warning flag, here....how many millions of people have died so far in the name of global warming? How well-armed are climatologists, and where are the death camps?

You might be getting a wee bit carried away.