The Climate Change Debate Thread

[ibis]

Increasingly shrill denials - is it the last hurrah now Bush is out?

[rhonda15]

China to count Abortions as Carbon off-set Credits. EU and UN Approve Applaud
China to count Abortions as Carbon off-set Credits. EU and UN Approve Applaud - 12.160Mhz ... Resisting the New World Order
(listen at 3:40)

Chris Horner Author of RED HOT LIES : How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed on Glen Beck
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233779789&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner: Books[/ame]
some of the reviews are quite interesting


China says one-child policy helps protect climate
China says one-child policy helps protect climate | Environment | Reuters

[Destiny's Soldier]

China to count Abortions as Carbon off-set Credits. EU and UN Approve Applaud
China to count Abortions as Carbon off-set Credits. EU and UN Approve Applaud - 12.160Mhz ... Resisting the New World Order
(listen at 3:40)

Chris Horner Author of RED HOT LIES : How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed on Glen Beck
Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner: Books
some of the reviews are quite interesting


China says one-child policy helps protect climate
China says one-child policy helps protect climate | Environment | Reuters

Incredible Stuff.

Boy I can't believe it. Is this not the most sinister development that we've seen yet on CO2 fraud?

I said all of this would be the likely conclusion to controlling CO2 emmissions. Ibis used to say I was a conspiracist. Well Rhonda15 has a link which shows I'm right. I'm right on the real agenda going on here and I'm right for pointing to Sunspot activity as being the cause of our weather patterns.

I was right a year ago when I said the coming year would be colder.

http://www.politics.ie/environment/2...ageddon-7.html

Every month across the country apart from May was colder than 07.
And Jan 09 was colder again than Jan 08.

[Irish Liberty Forum]

A bit crude, but the core message rings true for me, and is confirmed by all the sinister facts that emerge about the environmentalist movement.

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: ENVIRONMENTALISM IS RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM

[ibis]

Libertarians don't want to know about something that would require regulation to solve. Who would have thought it?

[zeleneye]

A bit crude, but the core message rings true for me, and is confirmed by all the sinister facts that emerge about the environmentalist movement.

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: ENVIRONMENTALISM IS RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM

The Republican right call anyone who doesn't agree with them communist - as Joe Biden will testify. If you want to believe that the UN IPCC is a communist conspiracy that is your prerogative.

[zeleneye]

I was right a year ago when I said the coming year would be colder.

Are you the Met Office? If so, I presume your prediction is that 2009 will be one of the top 5 hottest years?

[Destiny's Soldier]

Are you the Met Office? If so, I presume your prediction is that 2009 will be one of the top 5 hottest years?

Let's wait and see.

As long as Sunspot activity is minimal, this year will not be in the 5 hottest.
Lets discuss this again in September.

Note the Global avaerage temp is 14.0 from your link.

So how much can be attributed to the IR energy reflected from the surface of the earth?
Conduction and Convection the bulk .. at least 10 deg

Lets say 4 deg from IR light from Earths Surface. So 4 x 0.05 x 0.03 = 0.006 Deg from man

(95% IR absorbed by Water vapour, 5% from CO2 and 97% of that is natural.)

No matter how you look at it, MAN CANNOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING

[zeleneye]

No matter how you look at it, MAN CANNOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING

I think you mean not matter how 'you' singular choose to look at it.

I don't know what your scientific background is. I am not a scientist but I try to keep up with all the latest peer-reviewed science on CC and AGW. Not being a scientist specialised in the relevant fields, I can only accept the experts' judgement and projections (25 years ago AGW was still far from the mainstream): we are responsible for a sustained increased level of GHG that is beyond the system's standard absorption capacity. We are the straw on the camel's back in a cycle that is self-exacerbating.

Even if the scientists are proven wrong, which I certainly hope, shifting our economies away from dependency on polluting, finite energy sources (which in our case are imported) and energy consumption modes, can only be in our long-term interest as we are faced with life on a planet with fast-depleting finite resources, coupled with a fast expanding population.

Now I can't see why anyone has a problem with that.

[Destiny's Soldier]

I think you mean not matter how 'you' singular choose to look at it.

I don't know what your scientific background is. I am not a scientist but I try to keep up with all the latest peer-reviewed science on CC and AGW. Not being a scientist specialised in the relevant fields, I can only accept the experts' judgement and projections (25 years ago AGW was still far from the mainstream): we are responsible for a sustained increased level of GHG that is beyond the system's standard absorption capacity. We are the straw on the camel's back in a cycle that is self-exacerbating.

Even if the scientists are proven wrong, which I certainly hope, shifting our economies away from dependency on polluting, finite energy sources (which in our case are imported) and energy consumption modes, can only be in our long-term interest as we are faced with life on a planet with fast-depleting finite resources, coupled with a fast expanding population.

Now I can't see why anyone has a problem with that.

All fair and reasonable. Unfortunately the scientific community is divided. And there are plenty of peer reviewed papers disputing the IPCC theory.

If CO2 in Atmosphere is 0.038%, and Water vapour is at least 0.5% - 4% and Water Vapour absorbs 3 times more in the IR region than CO2 then, there is no getting around it.

All the esoteric "forcing" is junk because the basic maths shows it is impossible.

Even if all the surface temp was from IR light (not from conduction and convection) we'd have 14 deg x 0.05 x 0.03 = 0.021 Deg C. Where does a warming of 0.7 deg come from?

Hey, Patrick Neary did a peer review of the Banks. So did Ernst & Young. So did Anglo's internal auditors.

So why are we bailing out the Banks?

Peer review ... who's paying their wages more like it.