Sadly, CHAIRMAN, so true. So long as USEPA lists CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant, and Gillard et al play the money game with the balloonists, we are in peril of losing all sanity in public governance.
BerkeleyEarthSurfaceTemperatureStudy... yet another rehash of data that from the outset is useless, but continues to be used as the ultimate red Herring...
Before one can trade Tulips, one must establish their great 'value'.
the so called physicists and climatologists understood you cannot have a perpetual motion machine in nature or artificially they would have long shut up.
"I have spent about 37 years working with processing tomatoes in the Goulburn Valley in Australia, and the last 25 years or so, with research into growing and processing canning tomatoes. Since 1984, our industry in Australia has trebled the tomato yields from our paddocks, which is quite extraordinary. I was wondering whether yields have partially improved due to hotter temperatures, and increased carbon dioxide.
Most of our tomatoes are grown within a 100 kilometre radius of Echuca, so I decided to look at the temperature data from the BOM for that site. It is a high quality site according to the BOM, and has a long temperature record. It also has a small population (10,000?), and therefore should not experience the “Urban Heat Island” effect....
Australia's Joolya Gizzard government has decided to tax anybody who uses the sun's rays, because they are created by nuclear reactions, which are SOOOO politically incorrect.
She is planning to phase out the sun by 2013 or the end of her elected term, whichever happens first, and get us all to sit in the dark and work out a renewable energy source. Her hot air is non-taxable, of course, being in a government job.
MUST we have yet another thread like this? There is one below that has gone on forever supported by a band of zelaots. Please Mods, move/merge this thread or lock it. Why don't you guys make your own website for an unending talk-fes about this stuff?
via james ozzie; MUST we have yet another thread like this? There is one below that has gone on forever supported by a band of zelaots. Please Mods, move/merge this thread or lock it. Why don't you guys make your own website for an unending talk-fes about this stuff?
Yer musta missed the news reports james ozzie.Global warming claims have been the main news fer a few years now - it is a BIG SUBJECT and needs to be looked at in its component parts... i.e. several threads..
Seems to me the only ones who want to shut down the AGW debate are the climate histerics or climate profiteers. Of course if yer really seriously wanted to stop debate about AGW hysteria all yer need to offer is proof of claims.
Jo Nova offers some suggestions....
Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.
I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.
Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.
They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).
All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.
Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email... continues -
