This fantastic dodo comes in two parts; the first was from 1992 at 15 minuts

And the second in 1998 at 30 minutes

I’d bet this years reciepent of the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science, Professor Graham Farquhar AO, was inspired by these docos.

Featuring a multitude of biologists & ecologists, they show how, & correctly predict, the enormas benifits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Real scientists, (not environmentalists), with real observations & real predictions that have come true (unlike the hysteria promoted by the unscientific) this is a solid piece of science that should be shown to all youth (as I & my friends do) as it is a good news doco based on fact rather than a horror story based on bullshit.

enjoy viewing

The_observer said:

This fantastic dodo

ROFL, you said it.

dv said:

The_observer said:

This fantastic dodo

ROFL, you said it.

get back to me when you have something useful to add

laughs are more useful than fanciful dribbling……

Postpocelipse said:

laughs are more useful than fanciful dribbling……

I’ve seen neither here

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

laughs are more useful than fanciful dribbling……

I’ve seen neither here

I might also point out that you(someone who is more or less considered a zealous nutjob hereabouts) asked dv(one of the most respected and well read contributors here) to contribute something useful. So you basically want him to lie so that you have something you consider useful.

I don’t know what else I expected from you I guess…….

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

laughs are more useful than fanciful dribbling……

I’ve seen neither here

I might also point out that you(someone who is more or less considered a zealous nutjob hereabouts) asked dv(one of the most respected and well read contributors here) to contribute something useful. So you basically want him to lie so that you have something you consider useful.

I don’t know what else I expected from you I guess…….

well obviously science doesn’t count for nil between the pair of you, & I’d bet you haven’t seen either doco for that matter.

are you suggesting that increased co2 has had no benifit at all?

You can sharpen an axe so far there is no axe left btw……….

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

I’ve seen neither here

I might also point out that you(someone who is more or less considered a zealous nutjob hereabouts) asked dv(one of the most respected and well read contributors here) to contribute something useful. So you basically want him to lie so that you have something you consider useful.

I don’t know what else I expected from you I guess…….

well obviously science doesn’t count for nil between the pair of you, & I’d bet you haven’t seen either doco for that matter.

are you suggesting that increased co2 has had no benifit at all?

The question is barely about co2. Aside from sea level rising there is the matter of sequestered gases being released from the ocean floor precipitating an ocean of noxious substances that would ensure all life on earth bar the most rugged microbes becoming a footnote in the history books. Try thinking a little bigger.

Postpocelipse said:

You can sharpen an axe so far there is no axe left btw……….

you needn’t take part in this thread.

It’s for people open to scientific facts, not alarmist bullshit

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

You can sharpen an axe so far there is no axe left btw……….

you needn’t take part in this thread.

It’s for people open to scientific facts, not alarmist bullshit

if you say so

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

I might also point out that you(someone who is more or less considered a zealous nutjob hereabouts) asked dv(one of the most respected and well read contributors here) to contribute something useful. So you basically want him to lie so that you have something you consider useful.

I don’t know what else I expected from you I guess…….

well obviously science doesn’t count for nil between the pair of you, & I’d bet you haven’t seen either doco for that matter.

are you suggesting that increased co2 has had no benifit at all?

The question is barely about co2. Aside from sea level rising there is the matter of sequestered gases being released from the ocean floor precipitating an ocean of noxious substances that would ensure all life on earth bar the most rugged microbes becoming a footnote in the history books. Try thinking a little bigger.

sea level rise is natural, still from the last iceage, and is not accelerating!

sequestered gases being released from the ocean floor have nil to do with co2 in the atmosphere

I get the distinct impression that after these bouts of “science” you go away and sulk till you find something you think is science to wave around.

The_observer said:

sea level rise is natural, still from the last iceage, and is not accelerating!

sequestered gases being released from the ocean floor have nil to do with co2 in the atmosphere

Apart from the fact that raising global atmospheric co2 raises the ambient temperature which results in the release of ocean floor gases. So how are they not related?

For the sake of the others using the forum I will leave your subjects alone observer. Enjoy yourself.

Postpocelipse said:

I get the distinct impression that after these bouts of “science” you go away and sulk till you find something you think is science to wave around.

not at all.

I make no attempt to change anyones mind on the matter.

I do it to piss off alarmists like you who cannot handle a sceptic who has science on his side.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

I get the distinct impression that after these bouts of “science” you go away and sulk till you find something you think is science to wave around.

not at all.

I make no attempt to change anyones mind on the matter.

I do it to piss off alarmists like you who cannot handle a sceptic who has science on his side.

Well guess what. I’m far from pissed off. You just about give me a belly laugh with your incessant conviction.

;D

the_observer: in all seriousness, the fact that higher CO2 is linked to higher productivity in both crops and non-crop plants is covered in the IPCC reports. The information is not iconoclastic: it is part of mainstream knowledge.

This excerpt from the original IPCC report “The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability”:

4.3.1.2. Soil Properties and Plant Growth
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 will have a considerable impact on the growth and morphology of plants, with likely increases in potential productivity through increases in carbon assimilation, water-use efficiency, and possibly nutrient-use efficiency. Increased water-use efficiency under higher CO2 conditions will lead to higher productivity, especially in water-limited systems; but the magnitude of the response will depend on other limiting factors such as soil nitrogen (Eamus, 1991; Gifford, 1992). Some experiments have shown an “acclimatization” or “acclimation” effect, in which the growth response to higher CO2 in the longer term is less than in short-term experiments (Gunderson and Wullschleger, 1994); whether this effect applies at the ecosystem level over many years remains untested, however.
In temperate zones, increased temperatures generally enhance the rate of plant and soil biochemical processes and lead to greater plant productivity. Thus, higher air temperatures are likely to increase plant growth in the mid-latitudes of New Zealand and southern Australia, where productivity is currently limited by lower temperatures. In Australia’s tropical areas, however, higher temperature stresses (above 35-40�C over extended periods) may result in more frequent damage to the vegetation from desiccation and sunscald (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 1.4.3.2). In systems where C3 and C4 species co-exist, their relative proportions may or may not change much, depending on the balance between increased photosynthesis in C4 species at higher temperatures and increased photosynthesis in C3 species arising from elevated CO2 concentration (Campbell and Hay, 1993).

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

sea level rise is natural, still from the last iceage, and is not accelerating!

sequestered gases being released from the ocean floor have nil to do with co2 in the atmosphere

Apart from the fact that raising global atmospheric co2 raises the ambient temperature which results in the release of ocean floor gases. So how are they not related?

this threads about the doco.

If you like you can start a new thread of your own, stating the mecanism where increasing co2, which warms the upper atmosphere slightly as it increases, where longwave back radiation penetrates the surface of a body of water less than a millimeter, (where as sunlight penetrates many meters) can warm the oceans to any significant degree to cause them to release sequestered gases from the ocean floor, and especially in the case where warming of the oceans – 0-700 and 0-2000 meters the rates of warming (based on the linear trends) have so far accounted for about 0.03 deg C/decade

Postpocelipse said:

For the sake of the others using the forum I will leave your subjects alone observer. Enjoy yourself.

thanks, appreciated

dv said:

the_observer: in all seriousness, the fact that higher CO2 is linked to higher productivity in both crops and non-crop plants is covered in the IPCC reports. The information is not iconoclastic: it is part of mainstream knowledge.

This excerpt from the original IPCC report “The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability”:

4.3.1.2. Soil Properties and Plant Growth
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 will have a considerable impact on the growth and morphology of plants, with likely increases in potential productivity through increases in carbon assimilation, water-use efficiency, and possibly nutrient-use efficiency. Increased water-use efficiency under higher CO2 conditions will lead to higher productivity, especially in water-limited systems; but the magnitude of the response will depend on other limiting factors such as soil nitrogen (Eamus, 1991; Gifford, 1992). Some experiments have shown an “acclimatization” or “acclimation” effect, in which the growth response to higher CO2 in the longer term is less than in short-term experiments (Gunderson and Wullschleger, 1994); whether this effect applies at the ecosystem level over many years remains untested, however.
In temperate zones, increased temperatures generally enhance the rate of plant and soil biochemical processes and lead to greater plant productivity. Thus, higher air temperatures are likely to increase plant growth in the mid-latitudes of New Zealand and southern Australia, where productivity is currently limited by lower temperatures. In Australia’s tropical areas, however, higher temperature stresses (above 35-40�C over extended periods) may result in more frequent damage to the vegetation from desiccation and sunscald (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 1.4.3.2). In systems where C3 and C4 species co-exist, their relative proportions may or may not change much, depending on the balance between increased photosynthesis in C4 species at higher temperatures and increased photosynthesis in C3 species arising from elevated CO2 concentration (Campbell and Hay, 1993).

great dv, so then, why the ROFLOL ?

The_observer said:

dv said:

the_observer: in all seriousness, the fact that higher CO2 is linked to higher productivity in both crops and non-crop plants is covered in the IPCC reports. The information is not iconoclastic: it is part of mainstream knowledge.

This excerpt from the original IPCC report “The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability”:

4.3.1.2. Soil Properties and Plant Growth
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 will have a considerable impact on the growth and morphology of plants, with likely increases in potential productivity through increases in carbon assimilation, water-use efficiency, and possibly nutrient-use efficiency. Increased water-use efficiency under higher CO2 conditions will lead to higher productivity, especially in water-limited systems; but the magnitude of the response will depend on other limiting factors such as soil nitrogen (Eamus, 1991; Gifford, 1992). Some experiments have shown an “acclimatization” or “acclimation” effect, in which the growth response to higher CO2 in the longer term is less than in short-term experiments (Gunderson and Wullschleger, 1994); whether this effect applies at the ecosystem level over many years remains untested, however.
In temperate zones, increased temperatures generally enhance the rate of plant and soil biochemical processes and lead to greater plant productivity. Thus, higher air temperatures are likely to increase plant growth in the mid-latitudes of New Zealand and southern Australia, where productivity is currently limited by lower temperatures. In Australia’s tropical areas, however, higher temperature stresses (above 35-40�C over extended periods) may result in more frequent damage to the vegetation from desiccation and sunscald (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 1.4.3.2). In systems where C3 and C4 species co-exist, their relative proportions may or may not change much, depending on the balance between increased photosynthesis in C4 species at higher temperatures and increased photosynthesis in C3 species arising from elevated CO2 concentration (Campbell and Hay, 1993).

great dv, so then, why the ROFLOL ?

You said dodo

The_observer said:

this threads about the doco.

If you like you can start a new thread of your own,

Were I to start a new thread I would not waste my time trying to convince you of anything and the thread would be called “Why Sufferers of Tunnel-Vision Can Only Split Hairs”. You would be the case study of course……..

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

dv said:

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

this threads about the doco.

If you like you can start a new thread of your own,

Were I to start a new thread I would not waste my time trying to convince you of anything and the thread would be called “Why Sufferers of Tunnel-Vision Can Only Split Hairs”. You would be the case study of course……..

Oh, I see.

so if someone disagrees with you its ad hominem time.

“On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change”

oh yes, and a rapid change to an ice age, just as possible, would also be devistating.

one can make up any scenario one wishes, & then contemplate what might be

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

historically very low of course.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

this threads about the doco.

If you like you can start a new thread of your own,

Were I to start a new thread I would not waste my time trying to convince you of anything and the thread would be called “Why Sufferers of Tunnel-Vision Can Only Split Hairs”. You would be the case study of course……..

Oh, I see.

so if someone disagrees with you its ad hominem time.

Not at all. You don’t find that subject of interest I take it. The comment was tic so you should treat it as such rather than get uppity.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

historically very low of course.

The current artificial circumstance cannot be compared to previous natural ones with any particular relevance.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Were I to start a new thread I would not waste my time trying to convince you of anything and the thread would be called “Why Sufferers of Tunnel-Vision Can Only Split Hairs”. You would be the case study of course……..

Oh, I see.

so if someone disagrees with you its ad hominem time.

Not at all. You don’t find that subject of interest I take it. The comment was tic so you should treat it as such rather than get uppity.

uppity??? dont know what that even means, friend

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Oh, I see.

so if someone disagrees with you its ad hominem time.

Not at all. You don’t find that subject of interest I take it. The comment was tic so you should treat it as such rather than get uppity.

uppity??? dont know what that even means, friend

yes I’ve noticed your lack of personal insight also. :P

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

historically very low of course.

The current artificial circumstance cannot be compared to previous natural ones with any particular relevance.

if you say so

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Not at all. You don’t find that subject of interest I take it. The comment was tic so you should treat it as such rather than get uppity.

uppity??? dont know what that even means, friend

yes I’ve noticed your lack of personal insight also. :P

ad hominem, I know what that means, friend

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

If you literally mean “at the current rate”, then it would take 140 years.

If you mean “under current Business As Usual projections” then it would be more like 80 years.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

If you literally mean “at the current rate”, then it would take 140 years.

If you mean “under current Business As Usual projections” then it would be more like 80 years.

we will get to 2 x co2, without any doubt at all.

then the real science can shine through

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

uppity??? dont know what that even means, friend

yes I’ve noticed your lack of personal insight also. :P

ad hominem, I know what that means, friend

well just for your sake

uppity

adjective-informal
self-important; arrogant.
“an uppity MP and his lady wife”

The_observer said:

“On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change”

oh yes, and a rapid change to an ice age, just as possible, would also be devistating.

one can make up any scenario one wishes, & then contemplate what might be

Sure, and you can even decide a course of action to prevent rapid change.

Luckily, folks have already done this…

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

I’ve often thought that the anti-climate-change thing must be particularly hard to sell in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that their economy is doing well from fossil-fuel exports, climate change will be a huge boon to their agriculture because of increase in temperature and CO2 conc, lower their heating costs, make life more pleasant and increase the habitable area and make it easier for them to ship to Asia and Russia due to the loss of Arctic ice.

On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change would destabilise the world economy. Probably what Canada should be praying for is an increase to about 600-700 ppm, enough for them to see the benefits but not enough to turn the world into some Mad Max style cataclysmic war zone.

At the current rate of co2 release, how long would it take to get to 700 ppm?

If you literally mean “at the current rate”, then it would take 140 years.

If you mean “under current Business As Usual projections” then it would be more like 80 years.

Interesting.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

yes I’ve noticed your lack of personal insight also. :P

ad hominem, I know what that means, friend

well just for your sake

uppity

adjective-informal
self-important; arrogant.
“an uppity MP and his lady wife”

he he, I was only joking about not knowing its meaning, friend

Hi Observer, I don’t currently have the time to watch a 23 year old and a 12 year old documentary, can you tell me who made them and give a short summary of them?

Dodo. Gone, along with the dinosaurs.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

ad hominem, I know what that means, friend

well just for your sake

uppity

adjective-informal
self-important; arrogant.
“an uppity MP and his lady wife”

he he, I was only joking about not knowing its meaning, friend

It’s all a good laugh bloke. Don’t worry about me. ;)

ruby said:

Hi Observer, I don’t currently have the time to watch a 23 year old and a 12 year old documentary, can you tell me who made them and give a short summary of them?

Dodo. Gone, along with the dinosaurs.

Except hungry sailors didn’t eat the dinosaurs. :/

dv said:

The_observer said:

“On the other hand a seriously rapid climate change”

oh yes, and a rapid change to an ice age, just as possible, would also be devistating.

one can make up any scenario one wishes, & then contemplate what might be

Sure, and you can even decide a course of action to prevent rapid change.

Luckily, folks have already done this…

well no they haven’t.

for a start, rapid change is not occuring, and, both Lomborg & MIT have modelling that shows that a total agreement at COP 21 will reduce warming, by the year 2100, by about 0.2 C.

And that is based on the over sensitive climate model projections

ruby said:

Hi Observer, I don’t currently have the time to watch a 23 year old and a 12 year old documentary, can you tell me who made them and give a short summary of them?

Dodo. Gone, along with the dinosaurs.

no ruby, I haven’t currently got ther time.

Gee, that was very dismissive, Observer. Have you watched them?

Ruby – since “The_observer” can’t be bothered.

The first one was made by: the Institute for Biospheric Research and sponsored by Western Fuels Association, Inc

The message appears to be that CO2 is good for us, good for the planet, and good for everything.

I think the second one is by the same people, and has the same message, but I didn’t check.

ruby said:

Gee, that was very dismissive, Observer. Have you watched them?

considering the amount of theories supporting his arguement, the fact that ‘e repeats the same prase ad infinitum, i’m guessing no…
or yes and it all went straight over h’ head…

ruby said:

Gee, that was very dismissive, Observer. Have you watched them?

yes ruby, I’ve watched both for the first time today.

doesn’t matter the age (and it isn’t 12 years, its 17 years) because it just makes them more relevant in regards to their predictions.

See, I can call them predictions because they’ve been validated (as correct)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ruby – since “The_observer” can’t be bothered.

well rev, ruby culdn’t be bother watching them either, off course.

stumpy_seahorse said:

ruby said:

Gee, that was very dismissive, Observer. Have you watched them?

considering the amount of theories supporting his arguement,

interesting ss. what would those theories be?

Thanks Rev D. A gentleman as always.

This is the only thing I could find on The Institute for Biospheric Research:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=99

ruby said:

Thanks Rev D. A gentleman as always.

yeh, thanks rev

And thank you Observer for correcting my maths.

the_observer:

There have certainly been times in the past when CO2 levels were much higher. It was well over 1000 ppm for the whole of the Triassic and Jurassic.

So we know that such high levels of CO2 are fundamentally compatible with the existence of life on earth.

The problem, then, is not so much about the absolute levels but the rates of change.

From the Carboniferous to the Triassic it took 100 million years for the CO2 level to go from about what it is now to about 2000 ppm.

That’s quite a different kettle of fish to going from 402 ppm to 1000 ppm in the space of not much more than century but that’s what would happen if there were no action taken to change course from business as usual.

Currently we are at the highest levels since 23 million years ago. This is after a sustained set of very regular glacial cycles, with peaks at about 270 ppm and troughs at 220 ppm.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

ruby said:

And thank you Observer for correcting my maths.

oh ruby, my pleasure

dv said:

the_observer:

There have certainly been times in the past when CO2 levels were much higher. It was well over 1000 ppm for the whole of the Triassic and Jurassic.

So we know that such high levels of CO2 are fundamentally compatible with the existence of life on earth.

The problem, then, is not so much about the absolute levels but the rates of change.

From the Carboniferous to the Triassic it took 100 million years for the CO2 level to go from about what it is now to about 2000 ppm.

That’s quite a different kettle of fish to going from 402 ppm to 1000 ppm in the space of not much more than century but that’s what would happen if there were no action taken to change course from business as usual.

Currently we are at the highest levels since 23 million years ago. This is after a sustained set of very regular glacial cycles, with peaks at about 270 ppm and troughs at 220 ppm.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

dv, if sensitivity to co2 was high, then rapin increases may be applicable to you scenario of danger

but if the warming from 2 x co2 is say only 0.5 C then rapidity is inconsequential

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is the only thing I could find on The Institute for Biospheric Research:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=99

so i guess rev, seeing the IPCC has the same information on their website, pleasantly provided by dv, the IPCC too must be funded by BIG OIT.

BY THE WAY REV, DID YOU DO ANY RESEARCH TO CHECK IF THAT LINK HAD ANY CREDIBILITY?

OR DID YOU, AS USUAL, BE VERY UNSCEPTICAL AND LINK IT NO MATTER IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH IN IT?

sorry about the caps.

also, does the fund source change facts, rev?

lol

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

ruby said:

Gee, that was very dismissive, Observer. Have you watched them?

considering the amount of theories supporting his arguement,

interesting ss. what would those theories be?

you have google, and access to the same woo sites I do (as shown by many of your previous threads)

rev, are you aware that fossil fuel companies donate generously to environmental organisations?

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

considering the amount of theories supporting his arguement,

interesting ss. what would those theories be?

you have google, and access to the same woo sites I do (as shown by many of your previous threads)

oh I thought you were refering to my theory as to why warming from co2 × 2 will be suttle

The_observer said:

dv said:

the_observer:

There have certainly been times in the past when CO2 levels were much higher. It was well over 1000 ppm for the whole of the Triassic and Jurassic.

So we know that such high levels of CO2 are fundamentally compatible with the existence of life on earth.

The problem, then, is not so much about the absolute levels but the rates of change.

From the Carboniferous to the Triassic it took 100 million years for the CO2 level to go from about what it is now to about 2000 ppm.

That’s quite a different kettle of fish to going from 402 ppm to 1000 ppm in the space of not much more than century but that’s what would happen if there were no action taken to change course from business as usual.

Currently we are at the highest levels since 23 million years ago. This is after a sustained set of very regular glacial cycles, with peaks at about 270 ppm and troughs at 220 ppm.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

dv, if sensitivity to co2 was high, then rapin increases may be applicable to you scenario of danger

but if the warming from 2 x co2 is say only 0.5 C then rapidity is inconsequential

Okay but as you must be aware, the consensus view of “Real scientists (not environmentalists)” as you call them is that the sensitivity per doubling is in the range from 2.0 to 4.5 K. This is the most recent range estimate: it has tracked upwards a little bit as more evidence has rolled in but has basically remained in the same range. It is extremely unlikely to be lower than 1.5 K or higher than 6 K.

0.5 K, to paraphrase Monty Python, is right out. No point in even mentioning it.

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

interesting ss. what would those theories be?

you have google, and access to the same woo sites I do (as shown by many of your previous threads)

oh I thought you were refering to my theory as to why warming from co2 × 2 will be suttle

you do know that many browsers offer a spellcheck for posts right?

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is the only thing I could find on The Institute for Biospheric Research:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=99

so i guess rev, seeing the IPCC has the same information on their website, pleasantly provided by dv, the IPCC too must be funded by BIG OIT.

No, the IPCC information provided by dv was not the same information as shown in the videos. The IPCC information was part of a balanced report, examining all aspects of how we might be affected by increasing GHG levels. The videos were industry sponsored propaganda intended to support a point of view that would be financially beneficial to the company paying for them.

The_observer said:

BY THE WAY REV, DID YOU DO ANY RESEARCH TO CHECK IF THAT LINK HAD ANY CREDIBILITY?

OR DID YOU, AS USUAL, BE VERY UNSCEPTICAL AND LINK IT NO MATTER IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH IN IT?

sorry about the caps.

I don’t find all caps in the least bothersome.

As I said, that was the only link I found, and I posted it without comment. However, since the bulk of the information in the link was repeated in the intro to the videos (i.e. that they had been sponsored by an industry association), I don’t see any reason to doubt it.

The_observer said:

also, does the fund source change facts, rev?

No, it doesn’t change facts. It does change the way that the facts are presented, and the facts that are chosen to be presented, as you know very well.

The_observer said:

lol

That someone who calls himself a “sceptic” would post a link to these videos, suggesting that they were worth watching, is indeed lolable.

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

the_observer:

There have certainly been times in the past when CO2 levels were much higher. It was well over 1000 ppm for the whole of the Triassic and Jurassic.

So we know that such high levels of CO2 are fundamentally compatible with the existence of life on earth.

The problem, then, is not so much about the absolute levels but the rates of change.

From the Carboniferous to the Triassic it took 100 million years for the CO2 level to go from about what it is now to about 2000 ppm.

That’s quite a different kettle of fish to going from 402 ppm to 1000 ppm in the space of not much more than century but that’s what would happen if there were no action taken to change course from business as usual.

Currently we are at the highest levels since 23 million years ago. This is after a sustained set of very regular glacial cycles, with peaks at about 270 ppm and troughs at 220 ppm.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

dv, if sensitivity to co2 was high, then rapin increases may be applicable to you scenario of danger

but if the warming from 2 x co2 is say only 0.5 C then rapidity is inconsequential

Okay but as you must be aware, the consensus view of “Real scientists (not environmentalists)” as you call them is that the sensitivity per doubling is in the range from 2.0 to 4.5 K. This is the most recent range estimate: it has tracked upwards a little bit as more evidence has rolled in but has basically remained in the same range. It is extremely unlikely to be lower than 1.5 K or higher than 6 K.

0.5 K, to paraphrase Monty Python, is right out. No point in even mentioning it.

wrong dv. the estimate has been LOWERED to 1.5 C. Thats from the last IPCC report. Also in that report, no best estimate was provided (formally 3 C) because of the difference between model projections & the data.

That model projection, dv, of 1.5 to 4.5 is based on net positive feedback where positive water vapour feedback to increasing co2 is not only positive, but by far the strongest of all the feedbacks, positive or negative.

If wtare vapour feedback to increasing co2 is either neutral or negative, then net feedback is net negative, & warming from 2 x co2 will be less than 1 C.

The data shows that water vapour feedback to increasing co2 is not positive. Almost all recent papers show sensitivity estimates well lower than the IPCC model projections.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is the only thing I could find on The Institute for Biospheric Research:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=99

so i guess rev, seeing the IPCC has the same information on their website, pleasantly provided by dv, the IPCC too must be funded by BIG OIT.

No, the IPCC information provided by dv was not the same information as shown in the videos. The IPCC information was part of a balanced report, examining all aspects of how we might be affected by increasing GHG levels. The videos were industry sponsored propaganda intended to support a point of view that would be financially beneficial to the company paying for them.

I don’t find all caps in the least bothersome.

As I said, that was the only link I found, and I posted it without comment. However, since the bulk of the information in the link was repeated in the intro to the videos (i.e. that they had been sponsored by an industry association), I don’t see any reason to doubt it.

The_observer said:

also, does the fund source change facts, rev?

No, it doesn’t change facts. It does change the way that the facts are presented, and the facts that are chosen to be presented, as you know very well.

The_observer said:

lol

That someone who calls himself a “sceptic” would post a link to these videos, suggesting that they were worth watching, is indeed lolable.

the docos are proven to be factual, rev. You’re such an unsceptical alarmist.

Please, stop invading my personal threads with yopur unsceptical, alarmist, one eyed propaganda

The_observer said:

the docos are proven to be factual, rev. You’re such an unsceptical alarmist.

Please, stop invading my personal threads with yopur unsceptical, alarmist, one eyed propaganda

The level of your hypocrisy is also extremely lolable.

Here’s the direct quote from the most recent IPCC report (No 5)

• The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury
time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
16.
The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the
same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean,
and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

well Rev seems to have more luck getting a rise out of you than I do observer. I’ll leave you to him.

Impressive work as always Rev.

:P

Postpocelipse said:

well Rev seems to have more luck getting a rise out of you than I do observer. I’ll leave you to him.

Impressive work as always Rev.

:P

I mean caps lock and everything. chuckle

dv said:

Here’s the direct quote from the most recent IPCC report (No 5)

• The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury
time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
16.
The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the
same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean,
and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

why on earth would you quote the IPCC to me?

the IPCC is an organisation of unelected left leaning bureaucrats, established to find a link between co2 & recent warming.

their summary for policy makers is edited to such a degree that it has sends a message that has little in relation to the report that it is taken from.

I say again, if water vapor feedback is neutral or negative to increasing co2, then the scare is non existent

Postpocelipse said:

well Rev seems to have more luck getting a rise out of you than I do observer. I’ll leave you to him.

Impressive work as always Rev.

:P

you mistake my posting of my opinion – description of the rev as anger

not at all angry, just observing

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

well Rev seems to have more luck getting a rise out of you than I do observer. I’ll leave you to him.

Impressive work as always Rev.

:P

I mean caps lock and everything. chuckle

yeh, cap locks, lol

anyway, like ruby, my time is limited at the moment & I have to go.

thanks for all the replies I have recieved here, from my forum friends (it fun to be popular)

and relax, enjoy the docos, & the interglacial

The_observer said:

why on earth would you quote the IPCC to me?

Why would I quote the world’s peak climate change science body on the topic of climate change science?

I … I don’t know. A moment of madness.

dv said:

The_observer said:

why on earth would you quote the IPCC to me?

Why would I quote the world’s peak climate change science body on the topic of climate change science?

I … I don’t know. A moment of madness.

sibeen said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

why on earth would you quote the IPCC to me?

Why would I quote the world’s peak climate change science body on the topic of climate change science?

I … I don’t know. A moment of madness.

Nice one

We may well get to see how CO2 at 6-700ppm affects things if the rest of the world follows the Abbott/Turnbull “coal is good for humanity” line…

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has told a sideline event at the climate talks in Paris that there is a long future ahead for fossil fuels.

At an Indonesian event on transitioning to a low carbon economy, Ms Bishop indicated long-term change would come not through immediate action, but through as-yet-undiscovered or undeveloped technologies.

“Technological breakthroughs and innovation will drive much of the change that will underpin the transition to a low-carbon economy.

“That means coal-fired power generation is here to stay,” she said.

Ms Bishop went on to underline the importance of fossil fuels for economic growth.

“Fossil fuels will remain critical to promoting prosperity, growing economies, alleviating hunger for years to come,” she said.

“It is a fact that energy is a mainstay of our respective countries’ export markets and underpins economic growth.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-forecasts-long-future-fossil-fuels/7012382

Ian said:

We may well get to see how CO2 at 6-700ppm affects things if the rest of the world follows the Abbott/Turnbull “coal is good for humanity” line…

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has told a sideline event at the climate talks in Paris that there is a long future ahead for fossil fuels.

At an Indonesian event on transitioning to a low carbon economy, Ms Bishop indicated long-term change would come not through immediate action, but through as-yet-undiscovered or undeveloped technologies.

“Technological breakthroughs and innovation will drive much of the change that will underpin the transition to a low-carbon economy.

“That means coal-fired power generation is here to stay,” she said.

Ms Bishop went on to underline the importance of fossil fuels for economic growth.

“Fossil fuels will remain critical to promoting prosperity, growing economies, alleviating hunger for years to come,” she said.

“It is a fact that energy is a mainstay of our respective countries’ export markets and underpins economic growth.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-forecasts-long-future-fossil-fuels/7012382

Thats pretty much what Australias chief scientist has said, so quote him rather than Bishop or Abbott.

what is needed to replace hydrocarbon energy is a reliable, abundant, cheap source of energy, and the only source, as of now, that comes close is nuclear

The_observer said:

Ian said:

We may well get to see how CO2 at 6-700ppm affects things if the rest of the world follows the Abbott/Turnbull “coal is good for humanity” line…

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has told a sideline event at the climate talks in Paris that there is a long future ahead for fossil fuels.

At an Indonesian event on transitioning to a low carbon economy, Ms Bishop indicated long-term change would come not through immediate action, but through as-yet-undiscovered or undeveloped technologies.

“Technological breakthroughs and innovation will drive much of the change that will underpin the transition to a low-carbon economy.

“That means coal-fired power generation is here to stay,” she said.

Ms Bishop went on to underline the importance of fossil fuels for economic growth.

“Fossil fuels will remain critical to promoting prosperity, growing economies, alleviating hunger for years to come,” she said.

“It is a fact that energy is a mainstay of our respective countries’ export markets and underpins economic growth.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-forecasts-long-future-fossil-fuels/7012382

Thats pretty much what Australias chief scientist has said, so quote him rather than Bishop or Abbott.

what is needed to replace hydrocarbon energy is a reliable, abundant, cheap source of energy, and the only source, as of now, that comes close is nuclear

We need Solar, wind and wave power, not nuclear

the overall cost including waste management is very high

and you wont get me living next to one

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Ian said:

We may well get to see how CO2 at 6-700ppm affects things if the rest of the world follows the Abbott/Turnbull “coal is good for humanity” line…

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has told a sideline event at the climate talks in Paris that there is a long future ahead for fossil fuels.

At an Indonesian event on transitioning to a low carbon economy, Ms Bishop indicated long-term change would come not through immediate action, but through as-yet-undiscovered or undeveloped technologies.

“Technological breakthroughs and innovation will drive much of the change that will underpin the transition to a low-carbon economy.

“That means coal-fired power generation is here to stay,” she said.

Ms Bishop went on to underline the importance of fossil fuels for economic growth.

“Fossil fuels will remain critical to promoting prosperity, growing economies, alleviating hunger for years to come,” she said.

“It is a fact that energy is a mainstay of our respective countries’ export markets and underpins economic growth.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-forecasts-long-future-fossil-fuels/7012382

Thats pretty much what Australias chief scientist has said, so quote him rather than Bishop or Abbott.

what is needed to replace hydrocarbon energy is a reliable, abundant, cheap source of energy, and the only source, as of now, that comes close is nuclear

We need Solar, wind and wave power, not nuclear

the overall cost including waste management is very high

and you wont get me living next to one

See what i mean cymek

we need to get away from the idea of non nonrenewable

embrace Solar wind and wave technology observer

because your non renewable are old technology and no one want them anymore

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Thats pretty much what Australias chief scientist has said, so quote him rather than Bishop or Abbott.

what is needed to replace hydrocarbon energy is a reliable, abundant, cheap source of energy, and the only source, as of now, that comes close is nuclear

We need Solar, wind and wave power, not nuclear

the overall cost including waste management is very high

and you wont get me living next to one

See what i mean cymek

maybe China and India could do with some nuclear powerplants until renewables catch up with output

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Thats pretty much what Australias chief scientist has said, so quote him rather than Bishop or Abbott.

what is needed to replace hydrocarbon energy is a reliable, abundant, cheap source of energy, and the only source, as of now, that comes close is nuclear

We need Solar, wind and wave power, not nuclear

the overall cost including waste management is very high

and you wont get me living next to one

See what i mean cymek

I haven’t posted in this thread as far as I remember

CrazyNeutrino said:

we need to get away from the idea of non nonrenewable

embrace Solar wind and wave technology observer

because your non renewable are old technology and no one want them anymore

If W. W. S. r the answer Czy why is China, India & asia going coal?

cheap abundant, reliable

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

We need Solar, wind and wave power, not nuclear

the overall cost including waste management is very high

and you wont get me living next to one

See what i mean cymek

I haven’t posted in this thread as far as I remember

Yes, see thorium thread

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

we need to get away from the idea of non nonrenewable

embrace Solar wind and wave technology observer

because your non renewable are old technology and no one want them anymore

If W. W. S. r the answer Czy why is China, India & asia going coal?

cheap abundant, reliable

China and India are doing what they can to keep up with demand, thats all. nothing to get exited about

The world world needs to go renewable energy

coal gas and uranium need to stay in the ground

seems you have vested interests observer

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

See what i mean cymek

I haven’t posted in this thread as far as I remember

Yes, see thorium thread

That’s another thread

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

we need to get away from the idea of non nonrenewable

embrace Solar wind and wave technology observer

because your non renewable are old technology and no one want them anymore

If W. W. S. r the answer Czy why is China, India & asia going coal?

cheap abundant, reliable

China and India are doing what they can to keep up with demand, thats all. nothing to get exited about

The world world needs to go renewable energy

coal gas and uranium need to stay in the ground

seems you have vested interests observer

Yeh, im a magnate

got to make a profit out of these non renewable

cause maybe someone else will will, we have to

very hard to leave gold in the ground isn’t it rich people

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

If W. W. S. r the answer Czy why is China, India & asia going coal?

cheap abundant, reliable

China and India are doing what they can to keep up with demand, thats all. nothing to get exited about

The world world needs to go renewable energy

coal gas and uranium need to stay in the ground

seems you have vested interests observer

Yeh, im a magnate

or shares perhaps?

Non renewable is old technology and no one wants them anymore. Apart from people who own the companies, I guess.

China is the world’s biggest investor into renewables.

ruby said:

Non renewable is old technology and no one wants them anymore. Apart from people who own the companies, I guess.

China is the world’s biggest investor into renewables.

China is the biggest emitter at 30 % US 15% Aust 1%

Chinas yearly increase is greater than Australias total emissions

China is building a new coal plant on ave every 5 days

China is upping its gas emergy

they also build dams

Not sure the human race can be trusted enough to build and maintain fission reactors without cutting costs and becoming complacent about safety. Possible prime target for terrorists as well. It’s a pity such an energy dense material may go to waste

ruby said:

Non renewable is old technology and no one wants them anymore. Apart from people who own the companies, I guess.

China is the world’s biggest investor into renewables.

yes and they need to keep doing it, more the better too

they still rely heavily on coal and gas and uranium

they are building more nuclear power plants, more solar power stations

but fine tuning the dollar / economic value between non renewables against renewables is not good for the environment

good for rich pockets but not good for the planet

Cymek said:

Not sure the human race can be trusted enough to build and maintain fission reactors without cutting costs and becoming complacent about safety. Possible prime target for terrorists as well. It’s a pity such an energy dense material may go to waste

Terrorists target, gees

attack the water supplies

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Not sure the human race can be trusted enough to build and maintain fission reactors without cutting costs and becoming complacent about safety. Possible prime target for terrorists as well. It’s a pity such an energy dense material may go to waste

Terrorists target, gees

attack the water supplies

anything is a target, so what

DCrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Not sure the human race can be trusted enough to build and maintain fission reactors without cutting costs and becoming complacent about safety. Possible prime target for terrorists as well. It’s a pity such an energy dense material may go to waste

Terrorists target, gees

attack the water supplies

anything is a target, so what

I was thinking of the clean up costs

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Not sure the human race can be trusted enough to build and maintain fission reactors without cutting costs and becoming complacent about safety. Possible prime target for terrorists as well. It’s a pity such an energy dense material may go to waste

Terrorists target, gees

attack the water supplies

anything is a target, so what

Exactly

so dont have a water supply?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Terrorists target, gees

attack the water supplies

anything is a target, so what

Exactly

so dont have a water supply?

maybe don’t have energy guzzling population at all

Cymek said:

I was thinking of the clean up costs

I was interested in the figures after the latest nuclear thread. I was quite surprised to read that it’s going to cost the UK about 50 billion pounds to clean up Sellafield. You can buy a lot of smarties for 50 billion.

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

Who wants popcorn?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Planetary resources should belong to everyone regardless of there location, share them, we have more than enough to look after everyone at a decent standard of living without wrecking the planet to do so.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

In fact it’s exactly the sort of attitude the NAZI’s proliferated. “If you are poor or have aother belief to mine you are evil”

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

No my anxiety is not to become rich, but for the rich people to share world resources

something which is hard for them to do because they are genetically programmed to be greedy

So you are simply wrong observer

now wake up to yourself

not everybody wants to be rich

that is a media driven meme

that behavior needs to change

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

Is a dog eat dog world something keeping or will it lead to our own self destruction

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

No my anxiety is not to become rich, but for the rich people to share world resources

something which is hard for them to do because they are genetically programmed to be greedy

So you are simply wrong observer

now wake up to yourself

not everybody wants to be rich

that is a media driven meme

that behavior needs to change

The pursuit of wealth is a trapping and leads to some of the most abhorrent actions imaginable

Cymek said:

The pursuit of wealth is a trapping and leads to some of the most abhorrent actions imaginable

Yeah everything after standing on the down trodden for leverage to the top is just icing on their cake………

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Maybe the United Nations should consider taking away the profit from Global non renewables

Im fed up with the way rich people look for and grab at resources

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

Ok then P; what do you have to say about Crazy’s suggestion that my views r based on me having a vested interest in fossil fuels?

nothing, so fuck off

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

Ok then P; what do you have to say about Crazy’s suggestion that my views r based on me having a vested interest in fossil fuels?

nothing, so fuck off

Who said my view was “nothing”? Unless you are stating that my view is “fuck off”. In that case you are welcome to.

Nine Inch Nails sums it up with the song Head Like A Hole

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

The fact that you pursue this line with only your own ego as compensation is what astounds me observer. Somewhat tenacious……..

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

Ok then P; what do you have to say about Crazy’s suggestion that my views r based on me having a vested interest in fossil fuels?

nothing, so fuck off

Who said my view was “nothing”? Unless you are stating that my view is “fuck off”. In that case you are welcome to.

Enjoy the docos Post

lol

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

is that your phrase for the day?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

is that your phrase for the day?

If you were paying attention I didn’t call you a NAZI. I compared you to them.

out with big homes

out with big cars

all this glossy magazine lifestyle

not good for the environment one bit

keep your non renewables in the ground

change building laws to favor smaller homes

charge more for revheads who just want to drive a V8 (with no caravan or boat or work related trailers )

Rich people need to change their views on global resource ownership

You can have your rich lifestyle observer, its ugly greedy and not environmentally friendly at all

I don’t think much of extreme capitalism, its gone mad

Keep your rich lifestyle away from me, because its not natural, its a product of modern society

driven by media memes

I’m happy to tell you I do not share rich peoples motives for greed

they have become detached from nature like a lot of other people

detached and collectively indifferent

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

>>Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

So is the Irony…

Postpocelipse said:

The fact that you pursue this line with only your own ego as compensation is what astounds me observer. Somewhat tenacious……..

Im just happy u r enjoying my thread

still waiting 4 urs on ocean floor gases dear

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

>>Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

So is the Irony…

oooh well-lly put :D

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The fact that you pursue this line with only your own ego as compensation is what astounds me observer. Somewhat tenacious……..

Im just happy u r enjoying my thread

still waiting 4 urs on ocean floor gases dear

Wait till I’ve finished enjoying you venting your gases if you don’t mind…….

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

is that your phrase for the day?

Its compatible

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Your anxiety is a product of envy

typical of socialist & those dependent on welfare

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

Ok then P; what do you have to say about Crazy’s suggestion that my views r based on me having a vested interest in fossil fuels?

nothing, so fuck off

You need to work on being friendly Observer

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

is that your phrase for the day?

Ad hominem is not an insult. An ad hominem is refuting an argument by condemning some other thing not related to the subject.

Calling someone an idiot or a nazi by itself is not an ad hom.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Wow, now ima nazi

lol

the ad hominem, its hilarious

is that your phrase for the day?

If you were paying attention I didn’t call you a NAZI. I compared you to them.

Which of the docos did u enjoy the most P?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The fact that you pursue this line with only your own ego as compensation is what astounds me observer. Somewhat tenacious……..

Im just happy u r enjoying my thread

still waiting 4 urs on ocean floor gases dear

Wait till I’ve finished enjoying you venting your gases if you don’t mind…….

Dont rush

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

is that your phrase for the day?

If you were paying attention I didn’t call you a NAZI. I compared you to them.

Which of the docos did u enjoy the most P?

Number 5………

Here’s a mining disaster that will take years to fix

Brazil dam burst: Mine owners BHP, Vale tour devastation as new evacuations ordered over fears for third dam

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

If you were paying attention I didn’t call you a NAZI. I compared you to them.

Which of the docos did u enjoy the most P?

Number 5………

you take yourself very seriously to

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

That is avery condescending and pschology hobbyist type answer. In other words a complete load of horseshit barely worthy of the schoolyard……….

Ok then P; what do you have to say about Crazy’s suggestion that my views r based on me having a vested interest in fossil fuels?

nothing, so fuck off

You need to work on being friendly Observer

Im friendly, & popular

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Which of the docos did u enjoy the most P?

Number 5………

you take yourself very seriously to

? Seriously

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Number 5………

you take yourself very seriously to

? Seriously

yes. why the hell would i bother watching your docos? I’m only here for the laugh or until someone puts something up worth investigation.

The docos r very informative & feel good because they are scientists, unaffected by environmentalism, and political ideology.

and no nazis involved

enjoy friends

The_observer said:

The docos r very informative & feel good because they are scientists, unaffected by environmentalism, and political ideology.

and no nazis involved

enjoy friends

I can’t afford the download mostly

The_observer said:

The docos r very informative & feel good because they are scientists, unaffected by environmentalism, and political ideology.

and no nazis involved

enjoy friends

Isn’t everyone affected by some sort of ideology

The_observer said:

The docos r very informative & feel good because they are scientists, unaffected by environmentalism, and political ideology.

I wonder what’s happened to those scientists, nearly a quarter of a decade on since those docos were made.

PermeateFree said:

!http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcu9im42cU1rjicc5o1_1280.jpg

I have no illusions. All I have, is stark reality.

The_observer said:

Im friendly, & popular

References?

The_observer said:

This fantastic dodo comes in two parts; the first was from 1992 at 15 minuts

And the second in 1998 at 30 minutes

I’d bet this years reciepent of the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science, Professor Graham Farquhar AO, was inspired by these docos.

Featuring a multitude of biologists & ecologists, they show how, & correctly predict, the enormas benifits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Real scientists, (not environmentalists), with real observations & real predictions that have come true (unlike the hysteria promoted by the unscientific) this is a solid piece of science that should be shown to all youth (as I & my friends do) as it is a good news doco based on fact rather than a horror story based on bullshit.

enjoy viewing

Am enjoying viewing. Earth wasn’t very green during the ice ages when most of North America, Europe and Russia were under thick ice sheets.

The_observer said:

The docos r very informative & feel good because they are scientists, unaffected by environmentalism, and political ideology.

and no nazis involved

enjoy friends

Yes you can tell a real scientist because they skip and hold hands when they tell you to go into the “shower”.

http://www.sciencealert.com/greenpeace-sting-operation-exposes-academics-hired-to-cast-doubt-on-climate-science

ChrispenEvan said:

http://www.sciencealert.com/greenpeace-sting-operation-exposes-academics-hired-to-cast-doubt-on-climate-science

Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.

Greenpeace appears to have subjected Dr Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton University, to a maladroit attempt at entrapment that has badly backfired on it.

In November 2015, out of the blue, Professor Happer received an email from “Hamilton Ellis”, a soi-disant “business consultancy” operating out of rent-by-the-hour offices in a crumbling concrete block in the Beirut souk.

The bucket-shop “consultancy’s” email said that a “client”, an energy and power company “concerned about the impacts of the UN climate talks”, wanted to commission Professor Happer to prepare a “briefing” to be released early in 2016 “which highlights the crucial role that oil and gas have to play in the developing economies, such as our client’s Middle East and North Africa region”.

The email smarmed on:

“Given your influential work in this area and your position at Princeton we believe a very short paper authored or endorsed by yourself could work strongly in our client’s favour. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in discussing further?”

Will Happer replied enclosing a white paper written, with major input from him, by the CO2 Coalition, a new group that he had helped to establish earlier in 2015. He also sent a copy of testimony on the “social cost of carbon” that he had given at a regulatory hearing in St Paul, Minnesota. Crucially, he added: “I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client.”

In short, he was not prepared to be bought. He would help the “client” of the “business consultancy” if and only if he was not asked to attest to anything that he did not already believe.

Will Happer also emailed,

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”

On payment for his service, Happer replied -

“My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501©(3) tax exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.”

==

unsceptical uncritical tripe ChrispenEvan, Judgemental, boris, sockpuppet, attack dog

The previous quote from The Observer is from an article on the Watts Up With That website.

Lots of tinfoil hats being worn by people in the comments section.

ruby said:

The previous quote from The Observer is from an article on the Watts Up With That website.

Lots of tinfoil hats being worn by people in the comments section.

Watts Up With That features material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, including claims the human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming. It hosts several contributors, such as Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer, in addition to Watts. It is among the most prominent climate change denial blogs, and is described by climatologist Michael E. Mann as the most popular, having surpassed Climate Audit. Columbia Journalism School writer Curtis Brainard has written that “scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record.”

A favourite with the Cs

I might change my name to Brainard…….

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

http://www.sciencealert.com/greenpeace-sting-operation-exposes-academics-hired-to-cast-doubt-on-climate-science

Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.

Greenpeace appears to have subjected Dr Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton University, to a maladroit attempt at entrapment that has badly backfired on it.

In November 2015, out of the blue, Professor Happer received an email from “Hamilton Ellis”, a soi-disant “business consultancy” operating out of rent-by-the-hour offices in a crumbling concrete block in the Beirut souk.

The bucket-shop “consultancy’s” email said that a “client”, an energy and power company “concerned about the impacts of the UN climate talks”, wanted to commission Professor Happer to prepare a “briefing” to be released early in 2016 “which highlights the crucial role that oil and gas have to play in the developing economies, such as our client’s Middle East and North Africa region”.

The email smarmed on:

“Given your influential work in this area and your position at Princeton we believe a very short paper authored or endorsed by yourself could work strongly in our client’s favour. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in discussing further?”

Will Happer replied enclosing a white paper written, with major input from him, by the CO2 Coalition, a new group that he had helped to establish earlier in 2015. He also sent a copy of testimony on the “social cost of carbon” that he had given at a regulatory hearing in St Paul, Minnesota. Crucially, he added: “I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client.”

In short, he was not prepared to be bought. He would help the “client” of the “business consultancy” if and only if he was not asked to attest to anything that he did not already believe.

Will Happer also emailed,

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”

On payment for his service, Happer replied -

“My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501©(3) tax exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.”

==

unsceptical uncritical tripe ChrispenEvan, Judgemental, boris, sockpuppet, attack dog

Something for you to read Observer, written by an actual climate scientist.

http://www.sciencealert.com/explainer-how-scientists-know-climate-change-is-happening?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1