Global Warming

[Merveille]

Your previous post referred to what was actually known as 'Amazongate!', and had nothing to do with the emails, which is what my initial post was about. it is all there in black and white and yellow.

Perhaps you should now read this in relation to the link you provided, I imagine we will have a 'retraction of the retraction'??
I will paste the last 2 paragraphs of the article but you really need to read the whole thing this time.

"Finally, we may recall, another newspaper recently published a prominent “correction” to its earlier report on Amazongate – accepting that “the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence” and that this was “based on research by the respected IPAM which did relate to the impact of climate change”. Since neither of these statements seems to be true, perhaps we can look forward to a retraction of the retraction?

Equally unhappy may be all those global warming enthusiasts who took this climbdown as licence to crow shamelessly over those of us who, last January, helped to expose Amazongate as a major IPCC system failure. The IPCC, they chorused, had been totally vindicated, the climate change sceptics had been utterly routed. Today, I fear, it is they who have been put to rout and we who have been vindicated. "


BUT, you really should read the whole article about the retraction by the Sunday Times seeing as you brought this up, as this the latest update - not that i expect you to, being in denial and all...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Your previous post referred to what was actually known as 'Amazongate!', and had nothing to do with the emails, which is what my initial post was about. it is all there in black and white and yellow.

Did you read my last post? I referred to the media storm after climategate, which includes the so-called Amazongate.

I also referred you to two, separate, independent reports that clear the scientists implicated in the climategate affair of any wrongdoing. Did you read those? This relates directly to the point you were making.

Perhaps you should now read this in relation to the link you provided, I imagine we will have a 'retraction of the retraction'??
I will paste the last 2 paragraphs of the article but you really need to read the whole thing this time.

"Finally, we may recall, another newspaper recently published a prominent “correction” to its earlier report on Amazongate – accepting that “the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence” and that this was “based on research by the respected IPAM which did relate to the impact of climate change”. Since neither of these statements seems to be true, perhaps we can look forward to a retraction of the retraction?

Equally unhappy may be all those global warming enthusiasts who took this climbdown as licence to crow shamelessly over those of us who, last January, helped to expose Amazongate as a major IPCC system failure. The IPCC, they chorused, had been totally vindicated, the climate change sceptics had been utterly routed. Today, I fear, it is they who have been put to rout and we who have been vindicated. "


BUT, you really should read the whole article about the retraction by the Sunday Times seeing as you brought this up, as this the latest update - not that i expect you to, being in denial and all...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html

Ah, now we are going to start quoting Booker. A man who claims white asbestos is the chemically the same as talcum powder, that there is no evidence of the dangers of second hand tobacco smoke, that there is no connection between BSE (mad cow disease) and the equivalent disease in humans, CJD, that 'Darwinists' base their belief on blind faith, that Intelligent Design proponents should be treated as the scientists that they are :. All in all, a professional skeptic. It doesn't surprise me that you turn to such for views on the climate.

That aside, what you see in that article is an example of taking one point (and his point on that figure cited in the IPCC report appears to be valid) and using that to say that there is no peer-reviewed literature on the topic and thus AGW is all a big conspiracy to make money for interested parties. Unfortunately he ignores the actual scientific evidence in the peer reviewed literature on the topic (that also happens to be in the IPCC report) that shows that, if anything, the IPCC's conclusions were conservative. George Monbiot has a good article on this very topic and Booker's conclusions. Take note of when this was published and when Booker's latest was published. It is interesting that Booker doesn't address any of the issues raised in this article and continues to point out the IPCC's error and the fact that this debunks the whole AGW myth :.

A retraction of the retraction? I think not.

 

[Freezer]

Deleted.

 

[evo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

 

[Merveille]

Some very interesting facts, and questions asked, here;

CO2 is not Carbon.
Neither CO2 nor Carbon is pollution.
CO2 emitted from coal fired power stations is not “dirty”, it’s odourless and colourless like all other CO2 molecules.
The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow.
Plants breathe CO2, and as they grow and reproduce they exhale oxygen, making the earth habitable for humans.

Here’s some CO2 stats:

Total man made CO2 in the atmosphere: approximately 5%
Percentage of man made CO2 emitted from Australia: 1.4% (and falling).
Therefore Australia’s contribution to global CO2: 0.07%.
Gillard aims to reduce Australia’s production of CO2 by 5%. This will affect global CO2 by 0.0035%.

Some suggested questions for Gillard, the Wongbot or indeed any warmenist politician:

By precisely how many degrees will your policy reduce global temperature?
By precisely how many degrees will global temperature be reduced if Australia never emitted another molecule of CO2?
How can the drop in global temperature caused by your policy be measured?
Have you considered the benefits to plants and agriculture if CO2 in the atmosphere is increased?
Why do you consider it a good idea to spend tax payer’s money for no measurable benefit?

 

[AngryAnt]

CO2 is not Carbon.

CO2 is carbon dioxide. It's a compound of carbon and oxygen - two oxygen atoms covalently bound to a carbon atom.

Neither CO2 nor Carbon is pollution.
CO2 emitted from coal fired power stations is not “dirty”, it’s odourless and colourless like all other CO2 molecules.

We are made primarily of carbon, as are plants and other organic material. It's why when you burn stuff like wood, you are left with ash (carbon), but burning things such as wood or fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

CO2 is referred to as a global warming gas as it absorbs radiant heat which remains trapped in the atmosphere.

CO2 emitted from coal fired power stations is not “dirty”, it’s odourless and colourless like all other CO2 molecules.

CO2 is CO2 is CO2. It's semantic, but really depends how you define pollution. Coal Fired power stations also release more CO2 per watt of electricity generated than other technologies - more than petrol, twice as much as natural gas, not to mention compared to renewables such as solar that release zero CO2.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow.
Plants breathe CO2, and as they grow and reproduce they exhale oxygen, making the earth habitable for humans.

Congratulations, you have a (partial) understanding of the carbon cycle. This includes the process of plant respiration and photosynthesis - where plants use solar energy to convert CO2 and water to carbon compounds (sugars), a by-product of which is indeed oxygen. Plants use these carbon compounds to grow, we eat plants, other animals eat plants, we eat them.

Anyhoo, a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to a simple increase in "plant growth". http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm Not to mention that every year we have less forest on a global scale. We don't have the same amount of plant-life sucking in all the CO2. (There are other "carbon sinks" that capture and store carbon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle for more).

Science is fun isn't it Mervs?

So, the problem with the carbon cycle is that in recent times, we have a CO2 surplus, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases over time. Because CO2 traps radiant heat (infrared and ultraviolet light) we get increased atmospheric temperatures and marine/land temperatures.

Here’s some CO2 stats:

Total man made CO2 in the atmosphere: approximately 5%
Percentage of man made CO2 emitted from Australia: 1.4% (and falling).
Therefore Australia’s contribution to global CO2: 0.07%.
Gillard aims to reduce Australia’s production of CO2 by 5%. This will affect global CO2 by 0.0035%.

Some suggested questions for Gillard, the Wongbot or indeed any warmenist politician:

Do you include Tony Abbott in that? He has a "direct action" plan to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[Merveille]

Why call it carbon pollution, why not Oxygen
pollution? After all there is twice as much
Oxygen in CO2 as there is carbon.

 

[Freezer]

CO2 is carbon dioxide. It's a compound of carbon and oxygen - two oxygen atoms covalently bound to a carbon atom.

Ah, so H2O would be two hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom?

Congratulations, you have a (partial) understanding of the carbon cycle. This includes the process of plant respiration and photosynthesis - where plants use solar energy to convert CO2 and water to carbon compounds (sugars), a by-product of which is indeed oxygen. Plants use these carbon compounds to grow, we eat plants, other animals eat plants, we eat them.

Year 11 Biology - I loved that stuff!

 

[AngryAnt]

Why call it carbon pollution, why not Oxygen
pollution? After all there is twice as much
Oxygen in CO2 as there is carbon.

Sure, start a campaign. I wish you the best of luck with your endeavours.

 

[AngryAnt]

Ah, so H2O would be two hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom?

So those science boffins say anyway.

Year 11 Biology - I loved that stuff!

Biology was my favourite as well. I was good at science at high school - understood the concepts - but not so good at maths. Unfortunately maths becomes increasingly important the further you go with science so my career as a brilliant research scientist never happened.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Why call it carbon pollution, why not Oxygen
pollution? After all there is twice as much
Oxygen in CO2 as there is carbon.

I am not sure if you are serious with these recent posts? Inane points.

The issue is carbon and specifically the carbon cycle as Ant pointed out. Carbon dioxide is carbon in its oxidised form. In that form it is a greenhouse gas. In its organic forms it is not. When we burn organic fossil fuels we oxidise the carbon to CO2.

As for plants and CO2, it is true that some plants might benefit from increased CO2 concentrations, but not all. All organisms tend to be adapted to the environment that they find themselves in. Change that environment too rapidly and it makes it difficult, if not impossible for species to adapt. That leads to mass extinction - something that we happen to be going through at the present.

 

[jb03]

So those science boffins say anyway.

Biology was my favourite as well. I was good at science at high school - understood the concepts - but not so good at maths. Unfortunately maths becomes increasingly important the further you go with science so my career as a brilliant research scientist never happened.

Nevermind A-man, you found your true calling as a soccer tipping service.

 

[AngryAnt]

Nevermind A-man, you found your true calling as a soccer tipping service.

Too kind jb03.

 

[AngryAnt]

I am not sure if you are serious with these recent posts? Inane points.

I think he's just following the herd really - it's the evolution of the anti-AGW conspirator. So the first stage was "global warming isn't happening", the second stage is that "it is happening but not due to any human activity", and the most recent stage is that "global warming is happening but is actually good as plants will grow faster and stuff". Of course, you'll still see the Bolta and his mates shift between these positions according to their mood.

 

[Merveille]

I think he's just following the herd really - it's the evolution of the anti-AGW conspirator. So the first stage was "global warming isn't happening", the second stage is that "it is happening but not due to any human activity", and the most recent stage is that "global warming is happening but is actually good as plants will grow faster and stuff". Of course, you'll still see the Bolta and his mates shift between these positions according to their mood.

Oh, you mean evolution like the term 'global warming' conveniently becoming 'climate change', to the point where I have read reports of global warming, I mean climate change, being blamed for all weather extremes - cold, hot, dry, wet etc etc blah blah

I also think you have your 'herds' back the front, upside down, inside out, mixed up.

"...my career as a brilliant research scientist never happened."
Nothing wrong with being a never was,wannabe Antman, we all had dreams. Explains your devotion to the science and 'love' of Panthera anyhow..

 

[Tiger74]

Oh, you mean evolution like the term 'global warming' conveniently becoming 'climate change', to the point where I have read reports of global warming, I mean climate change, being blamed for all weather extremes - cold, hot, dry, wet etc etc blah blah

I also think you have your 'herds' back the front, upside down, inside out, mixed up.

"...my career as a brilliant research scientist never happened."
Nothing wrong with being a never was,wannabe Antman, we all had dreams. Explains your devotion to the science and 'love' of Panthera anyhow..

I may be wrong, but I heard the "climate change" expression was introduced by the Bush administration to make it sound more natural and normal than "global warming" which sounds artificial and caused by man

 

[AngryAnt]

Oh, you mean evolution like the term 'global warming' conveniently becoming 'climate change', to the point where I have read reports of global warming, I mean climate change, being blamed for all weather extremes - cold, hot, dry, wet etc etc blah blah

Global warming leads to climate change mervs. How the media uses/misuses this term is up to the media. Suggest sending an angry email to Rupert Murdoch about this, your complaints will not go unheard.

"...my career as a brilliant research scientist never happened."
Nothing wrong with being a never was,wannabe Antman, we all had dreams. Explains your devotion to the science and 'love' of Panthera anyhow..

Reow!!! Catty is not a good look mervs.

Anyway, show me a better methodology, happy to change dude.

 

[cooltiger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JVwQmdmA9I

 

[Merveille]

Check this alarmism out - disgusting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE&feature=related

 

[AngryAnt]

I was trying my best to be alarmed but fortunately I don't read Finnish so the ad had no effect.