seabreezer said..
agree - great post Ian K - some rational sense publications ...

% of co2 in TOTAL atmosphere ? .... 1 tenth of 1 % -
And nature is responsible for 97% of that 1/10 of 1% ....

We humans are responsible for 3% of that 1/10 of 1% ....

So even if we halved emmisions by basically stopping industrialisation - we would effect 1.5% of 1/10 of 1 percent ...

I just don't buy the idea that 0.00003 % of co2 is controlling the whole of PLANET WARMING

Also - co2 has a reflective component if reflecting sun output back out to space , as well trapping heat within ..

If you look at graphs going back Millions of YEARS - (not just using graphs from 1900 onwards that cherry pick your arguament for climate scaremongers) - THE PROOF IS C02 AND TEMPERATURE - ARE NOT CORRELATED ...

I feel theory - proven by longterm graphs ... that we are in a GRADUAL overall warming phase thats been going on the last 1000's of years

Its been said - if all the variables were understood , accounted for and inputed into a correct program - in the worlds most powerful computer - it would take 8 years of computing to spit out an answer ... so what chance does a single scientist with his computing brain power have in coming to correct conclusion using short term timelines (last 100 years) , using dodgy numbers , and more importantly DODGY models ... For christ sake the IPCC have ONLY JUST started trying to comprehend the effect of Solar flares and electro-magnetic outputs on our weather systems (read - creating storms ) - and effects global temps ...

The IPCC gravy train - reinforcing its ' written mandate' - if it reported - nothing to see here - but gradual warming - then they would all be looking for work , and all the associated funding of AGW scientists ...
Re trillions in the fossil fuel industry - What about the $$$ in renewables - looking to change the status quo ( and potentially funding an agenda ) .... And remember - various parts of the fossil fuel sector WANT to scaremonger over climate change - say GAS LNG - want to promote an made climate change - to take $$$ away from coal , into their sector ...

Also - how many $$$ of subsidies did Obama fund in FAILED renewable start-ups ... ?????????

If you look at graphs in below links - they show only 1 deg warming overall since 1950 - woopy do ....

www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth's-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

So , common sense thinking - We have dumped back into the atmosphere 1/4 of total c02 in the last 50 years - and seen .... wait for it .... 1deg of warming ,...... and to get the next degree of warming - we would have to dump back double the amount of co2 based on logarithmic effect of co2 ...

So climate scaremongers - who want to believe all the worst case scenerios / hollywood end of days scenerios and scare the hell out of our kids - fearmongering they have a dire future (what a hideous proposition to put into young minds) - WHAT would you prefer - global warming , or global cooling ? because for sure global status quo is NOT an option based on natural variablility of our planetary cycles ... ? Global warming = greening of the planet - more prosperous agriculture ..... Global cooling has historically meant food famines and societal collapse ...

And yes professors are getting sacked - look at below case - professor ~ great barrier reef ... I was watching a scientific presentation on barrier reef recently - and the scientist said the recent loss of (from memory but for arguments sake ) of something like 200 sq km of reef - was quickly reported - but what WASNT reported was that in the previous years the reef had added 2000 sq km of reef reformed / recovered .. or could have been 2000 vs 20000 - cant remember ... Coral reefs have been around billions of years - and survived through c02 levels WAY WAY WAY multiple times in excess of what we have now ...

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful

seabreezer said..
I just don't buy the idea that 0.00003 % of co2 is controlling the whole of PLANET WARMING

Foghorn said..
No but we can all see patterns in a temperature chart.From the apparent end of the little ice age it had already warmed significantly before the industrial revolution .Where would you expect it to go up ,down or flatline from there.Thats why professor Mann had to get rid of the annoying thing not to mention all the warm and cool periods before.
Im not saying co2 does nothing its the percentage thats in doubt, and they know it because none of their models work.

seabreezer said..
@chris 249 - re court case .... Was the complainant successful in proving his case ? .... Did the defendant pay Thousands of $$$ in damages ???? NO they didnt ... they 'merely' wrote a letter of apology , .... that is a win in most books - they stuck their heads above the parapitt and questioned the dogma .... Did he release all his data points ?

seabreezer said..
@ logman .... so if you question science - its attention seeking behaviour ? .... 7032 attention seeking posts vs my 106 ????? .... wtf dude ... I must be really attn seeking ...

Ive got the feeling this AGW is quasi like the nutrition debate the last decades ... where scientists cherry picked their data and convinced the world that saturated fats caused heart disease / blocked your artuaries like a pipes plumbing scenerio !!! .... and convinced the world in repeated FLAWED studies that that was the case - and to eat low fat - avoid healthy fats , and .... fill the void with carbohydrates and sugar ... and here we are decades later with epidemic obesity and diabetes .... The dogma of low fat stayed ENTRENCHED for years propelled by media ... Im glad I question things personally ... and question the status quo ...

Foghorn said..
That hockey stick was a pretty good cherry pic don't you think ,on the part of Climate Scientists that is.
But is that ok?

Kamikuza said..








Yes. Why don't they?

Chris 249 said..




The cherry picking on the other side has been pretty amazing. Mann gets a grovelling apology from one defendant and it doesn't seem to get much coverage from the "denialist" sites. Mann gets told he can't go to court because it's all taking too long, and they cherry pick that as if the court had ruled that his science was wrong.

A bunch of old Scandinavian guys who are trying to follow the course of an earlier exploration expedition get stuck in ice, and a bunch of "denialist" sites lie and claim that they are "climate warriors".

The head of the Scandi dudes tells a "denialist" site that they are not "climate warriors" and they ignore him.

You claim that "The bbc shut (Bellamy) out completely" when the truth is that it did not happen. He was not shut out completely.

Given that sort of track record of "denialists" being mistaken or misleading and deceitful and not even checking the basic facts (such as whether Bellemy was "shut out completely" or whether the old Scandi guys were "climate warriors") it seems odd to abuse the climate scientists for "cherry picking".

Foghorn said..








I believe the man himself and good on him he still stands by his statements.But you can believe what you like and thats ok.
Its well known now that the ipcc places to much importance on co2 as a climate driver thats why their models run hot,but thats been there sole narratve to begin with.
I agree there's been loads of ridiculous claims from both sides .As ive said all a long politics has got its claws to deep into this one particularly as the US election looms.

Foghorn said..



.But you can believe what you like and thats ok.

DelFuego said..
so many deniers on this forum

petermac33 said..
The idea that the sun,the source of all heat on earth could somehow influence a change in temperature is a conspiracy theory for most of the cultists.

Chris 249 said..
Sure, no one can read or understand all of "the evidence" since that requires a high degree of understanding in chemistry, biology, meteorology, etc etc etc. No one lives long enough to learn all of that. But every day we rely on things we don't understand fully. If we have an operation, we put our entire life in the hands of people we do not know or understand, who use drugs and anaesthetics we do not understand, and hack us around in ways we do not fully understand. We don't fully understand the way our GPS works; we can't fully understand the source code and every piece of the relativistic calculations inside it; or the satellite's exact orbit and all the calculations involved, or the chemistry of the rocket fuel that got it there. We don't fully understand the design,maintenance, control, power and systems that keep the airlines we fly, the trains we catch, the lifts that get us into our office, or the computer we use when we get there.

So every day we put our trust in things we don't fully understand, because we know that other people have spent their live learning about those things. Anyone who says "we should not rely on anything unless we fully understand it" shouldn't fly on a plane, use a GPS or a phone, watch TV, get most medical treatments, drink city water (or even purified water), etc etc etc.There's not really any other way to live a modern life than to put our trust in the knowledge of others. Our lack of full understanding does not mean that we reject what we are told by those who DO understand more about the subject.

Back when dying by typhoid was common even among royalty, no under understood exactly why making sure that the drinking water didn't have sewerage in it stopped people from dying. No one (well, no one who was smart) sat around and said "until every one of us can fully understand exactly why drinking ** is killing us, we have to keep on drinking ** and dying from it".

kilo54 said..

Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.
AND, please tell me of 2 BAD things PRESENTLY from GW?

Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.

kilo54 said..


Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.

kilo54 said..



Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.

kilo54 said..




Had typhoid myself. Chris, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. Population boomed; crops did well; frost free days increased. So WHY should our slight warming be any different? Does not make sense.
AND, please tell me of 2 BAD things PRESENTLY from GW?

Have degree in chem, physice, oceanography. Am IFR and aerobatic pilot; forensic auditor (Number Frequency Analysis!); marksmen; minor polyglot; have exam in "Latin Verse", so very useful! et al...
From ANY and EVERY angle, CO2 GW does NOT make sense. QED. The GW lot must be stopped. Dishonesty and bullying are their techniques.
Logic, common sense seem not to matter.