Yes, it's all part of that giant One World Government conspiracy....

Troll Alert! Troll Alert! Troll Allert!

Rusty, do you realy know who Burt Rutan is?

Not at all. I didn't use the word nutter nor did I say Burt isn't allowed to speak his mind. So let's not put words in anyone's mouth. Burt and everyone else are entitled to their opinion. But if you're quoting him as your expert, then you're argument is a little thin. And if you're using him as your source of expertise on the subject, why? He isn't one. Just a smart guy in a different field.

Driver,

Yeah, he's the guy who admitted in that same presentation that he "isn't a climate change expert".

If he's not willing to say he is, why are you?

Hey OZ;

We have had done some sabre rattling over the years, but talking to this mob is like trying to reason with "Noddy and Big Ears". They are cynically unconcerned that vital CSIRO cash that should be spent on medical research "is misused on proving the science is is".

No wonder Gillard just stumped up a few more millions for those low paid workers in the "care industry". Add this to the failing dollar tossing "car" industry and there will be nothing left for the future to benefit our kids other than a perceived clean air future.

This mob need two tickets to go to the Zoo. One to get in and one to get out. Actually that covers their political affiliates in government.

True,Francis...very true.

Well we agree on one (and probably only one) thing. Nobody is going to be convinced of the others position no matter what we say. So I think I'll give it a rest. PeterC can of course continue to fight the good fight.

BTW, the millions (it was actually a billion) dollars for the "care industry" might come in handy when you get even older and grumpier, so that the worker in your aged care home takes home more cash than the local kid at McDonalds.

And "Federal shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the coalition supported the pay increases", as does Barry O'Farrell according to the SMH on the weekend. Don't know abut CanDo, he's too busy burning books.

On the auto industry, the Liberal State Govt kicked in some cash as well, and the federal Libs said they'd review it but "supported continuing and targeted assistance to the industry".

You've really got to stop picking on Labor for things that the Coalition agrees with (like CO2 reduction targets, for example) and have said they'll do as well. Choose something they actually disagree on, like IR.

We'll see if you give it a rest. Over to the tag team partner. Your turn peter.

Oh, and nobody said anything about IR. A red herring by any name. Next you'll all be screaming Workchoices.

Go back to the cage mate.

True dat. I lumped you together with Peter -my apologies.

BUT, play the ball, not the man. True science doesn't care where the data comes from. Political science does.

Burt talks about the diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as concentration of CO2 increases (doubling CO2 doesn't double its greenhouse effect). I haven't seen that referenced in any alarmist material. Is burt wrong?

Been a while since I read Burt's stuff but my recollection is that his main point is that the issue is so important that it should undergo a rigorous independent review - after all the governments require a very detailed type certification process for every new civil airliner. This is the engineering approach - test and verification. Not just engineering of course, I understand that the pharmaceutical approval process is similar. Why would we accept anything less rigorous here.

Similarly, I see that the FAA has decided that the certification applied to LSAs doesn't work - somewhat analagous to peer reviews.

Incidentally, I've long thought that Australia would be a safer place if CASA put the bulk of their efforts into surveillance of the public hospital system.

The generaly accepted theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and ignoring all other feedbacks increases temperature by about 1.1 degrees celsius. i.e. going from 300 parts per million to 600 parts per million will give a temperature increase of 1.1C - going from 600 parts per million to 1200 parts per million will give a temperature increase of about 1.1C.







.

.


Oh dear... and such a promising start...:ooh:




I was so looking forward to going through that "best" IPCC science document with yer Rusty1970...:) ....oh, well...



Reads like a cop-out to me..:hmm:



Edit - best finnish this off as it ties into other posts re the NASA/IPCC claims...

Oh, we is just gettin the basics done there Rusty1970


Lets see, we established that the world has come out of a mini ice and were showing a warming trend BEFORE CO2 were a consideration. The medieval warm period were warmer then today. UHI of up to 6 degrees C is a given. And we now have it accepted by Rusty1970 that atmospheric CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past and we is still here. (the claimed CO2 effect on climate comes later)






.

The Carbon Tax has been here for almost three weeks and it's been a big non-event.

The world didn't end, the sun still rises in the morning and unfortunately those nutty climate change sceptics are still raving.

Yes, and the climate hasn't changed for the better either. So the tax has achieved nothing.

.


Yep, always the same. Start havin a closer look-see at just what is behind the IPCC claims and those with a mild dose of climate hysteria disappear.

There's always the one though with a full blown case..:hmm:


peterc005, im still wondering where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science ?




Whilst we is on climate hysteria,David Karoly has made a muppet of himself... again... Another Untrue Allegation by Karoly « Climate Audit


Professor David Karoly is an ARC Federation Fellow and Professor of Meteorology in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne




.

.

GASP!... this dumb old hill farmer me has literacy... http://www.myemoticons.com/images/mi...tions/cool.gif


"...It’s easy to get the idea that global warming skeptics aren’t familiar with the science, that if they were more educated they would accept the idea catastrophe is right around the corner. A new study dispels this myth, in fact demonstrating the opposite—an increase in scientific literacy actually leads people to challenge the prevailing scientific wisdom concerning climate change..."


New end of the world book treats climate change just like many other end of times worries that have not come to pass.

These doomsday scenarios have actually bankrupted people and destroyed their lives. A few people have gotten rich at the expense of the more gullible.”

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4706524573794323&pid=1.1



Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion? | Watts Up With That?






.

Flying Binghi - Ok. I had hoped you'd look at the link I posted, where there are a number of pages which cite findings and where to find the relevant papers if they arent directly linked - often you will be taken to the authors or institutions publication listing from which the papers are available - but anyway...

Here is the abstract of the paper "Global Temperature Change", authored by Hansen, Sato et. al. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol 103, pages 14288-14293 and available to download here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/...sen_etal_1.pdf
As for warming ocean temperatures, one of the articles cited was "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems", by Levitus et. al., published in Geophysics Research Letters, Vol 36, April 2009. Available to download by googling the title, it is the first result that is returned. The paper opens with:
And some of the abstract of the paper "Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants.", by Root et. al. and published in Nature, edition 421, pages 57-60, available to download here:http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Root_etal.pdf
All these are good, solid peer reviewed science - there are plenty more papers available by looking through the "citations" section at the bottom of the NASA link and its subsidiary pages that I gave you earlier.

Im really not sure why you keep coming back to the urban heat island effect though. It is a red herring in the context of this discussion. I'll summarise here:

Is there an urban heat island effect? Yes.

Is it affecting global temperature measurements and giving them the impression of climate change where otherwise one isnt present? No.

How do we know? Research by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature group, among others, has shown this definitively. Here is the abstract of the paper "Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications", available to download from here: http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
(my italics).

FB CO2 effects on temperature are logarithmic not linear.

300-600ppm = +1.1C (examples only)
600-1200ppm = +.8C
1200-2400ppm = +.4C

Like that.

That combined with the undisputed fact that temperature variation precedes CO2 variation by 800 odd years (anyone who believes Schmidt's assertion that this was only true BEFORE 1800 and not since is a fool) proves that we have nothing to fear from a little warming and a little more CO2 - quite the opposite.

As for Rutan's video - how about you alarmists prove the DATA he presented is flawed rather than attack the individual presenting it. The data he presented is well accepted and anyone with a brain can understand/present graphs of data without needing a PHD in 'climate science'.

I challenge the alarmists here to watch all 4 parts of this video presentation by Bob Carter (a REAL climate scientist) and then come back and tell us we have a real problem that requires urgent action as opposed to a non problem that western pollies/'environmental' groups have grabbed hold of as a way of furthering socialist wealth redistribution.



Then watch this video presentation and ask yourself "If I was going to bet my house would I bet against AGW/CO2 or natural variation"

De_Fleiger. Very open with their data and how they modify it, aren't they?

Then again, expect no less from CRU and GISS.

The Carbon Tax has been here for almost three weeks and it's been a big non-event.

The world didn't end, the sun still rises in the morning and unfortunately those nutty climate change sceptics are still raving.