ClimateGate busts things wide open

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 20, 2012, 6:07 pm

THE OCEANS WILL BOIL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... uxfiuKB_R8

Repent ye carbon footprint sinners, the end is nigh ................ again



User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 20, 2012, 6:53 pm

ronan01 wrote:Do you believe exploiting the canadian tar sands will be game over for the climate? Do you support this standpoint?
I have no idea ronan, not being in possession of all the facts.
However you have not even quoted the 'eco-nut' correctly. He actually says..
if the tar sands are fully exploited
The total reserves of tar sand is 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of bitumen. Currently only 10% of the resource is even been considered as being recoverable, over a long time frame as well. The project is certainly chucking huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere even the companies processing the sand agree.
And even the non eco nuts exploiting the resource admit that something has to be done about the CO2 being released. 4 projects are under way in Alberta about CO2 extraction & storage.
To me, that is a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has vanished.

I do believe that there are serious questions to be answered about the project though. Just rejecting all criticism of the project as being from eco-loon nutjobs is complete foolishness.

The complete project might be a little more defensible if the oil extracted was being used by Canada, but more oil is actually exported to the USA by Canada than is used in Canada itself.
It is causing pollution & is a dangerous process that could easily go wrong. Financial rewards for a few are just too great to worry about details like that though!!

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 23, 2012, 7:34 am

BobHelm wrote:
ronan01 wrote:Do you believe exploiting the canadian tar sands will be game over for the climate? Do you support this standpoint?
I have no idea ronan, not being in possession of all the facts.
However you have not even quoted the 'eco-nut' correctly. He actually says..
if the tar sands are fully exploited
The total reserves of tar sand is 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of bitumen. Currently only 10% of the resource is even been considered as being recoverable, over a long time frame as well. The project is certainly chucking huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere even the companies processing the sand agree.
And even the non eco nuts exploiting the resource admit that something has to be done about the CO2 being released. 4 projects are under way in Alberta about CO2 extraction & storage.
To me, that is a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has vanished.

I do believe that there are serious questions to be answered about the project though. Just rejecting all criticism of the project as being from eco-loon nutjobs is complete foolishness.

The complete project might be a little more defensible if the oil extracted was being used by Canada, but more oil is actually exported to the USA by Canada than is used in Canada itself.
It is causing pollution & is a dangerous process that could easily go wrong. Financial rewards for a few are just too great to worry about details like that though!![/
quote]

OK - Canadian oil for Canadians - strong arguement. Why not:

- Saudi oil for Saudi's
- Columbian coffee for Columbians
- Chinese neodymium for Chinese (no more wind power for the naughty industrtialised west

It causes pollution and is a dangerous process that could go wrong - another strong arguement. There have been no "dangerous" projects before?, no pragmatic risk assessment and management done before?, no compliance with EPA laws?

The eco-loons rejecting the project because it is "dangerous" is poor foolishness. Why dont the eco-loons set up in Saudi Arabia in order to prevent the export of that "dangerous oil".

The relationship between so called global warming and CO2 is tenouus - CO2 emmissions have increased, but the temperatures have been flat line (maybe even decreasing) since about 1997 - reality does not agree with the AGW theory.

Tar sand and shale oil / gas have tempered the "peak oil" arguement. It seems we will not run out of fossil fules as soon as some would like us to believe.

And as for "big oil money" corrupting Canada. Greenpeace, WWF and similar NGO eco-facists have spent hundreds of millions of dollars against the Canadian gov and people. The eco-loons are not the underdogs - they are a well funded and organised groups who are accountable to nobody but themselves. Greenpeace's actions in trying to force people to purchase forest products approved by them is nothing more than an extortion racket. Greenpeace - the organisation that wanted to ban chlorine ... hahaha.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 23, 2012, 9:27 am

NOAA's 2011 Global Temperature Dataset Released & Confirms That IPCC's "Global Warming" Is DOA:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/noaa ... s-doa.html

Two adjacent 50 year periods are compared side by side, for overall global temperature rise, and overall ambient CO2 rise:

1912 to 1961: the temperature increase is 0.52C, the CO2 increase, 18ppm.
1962 to 2011: the temperature increase is 0.41C, the CO2 increase, 74ppm.

Whatever the overall effect of the CO2 increase is on global temperature, it is clearly not a dominating factor causing warming. The atmosphere is behaving as if the extra CO2 does not really matter very much at all since the temperature jumps are similar, whilst the CO2 jumps are clearly not.


The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.

Climate skeptics gathering influence in Tory Senate seats

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html

There is, in fact, no scientific consensus. What’s certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to resolve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about. The alarmism that often characterized this issue is no longer at stake. Canada is right to be cautious.”

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 23, 2012, 9:32 am

If you can't see the ridiculousness in suggesting that there is some correlation between the environmental impact of Coffee Bean production & oil from shale then you are probably not worth the effort of attempting to explain anything to.

As for 'risk assessment' of dangerous projects. They have done that & actually agree that environmental impacts need to be addressed (the 4 CO2 extraction projects) & yet continue to exploit the resource before the mitigation factors are in place.

Greenpeace is supported solely from contributions from its' 2.5 million members.
To suggest that it is some sort of multi million dollar organisation threatening small & poor oil extractors with its' wealth is one of the most ludicrous ideas that you have suggested on this thread....& there have been some pretty ludicrous ones as well.
BP ( you remember them, one of the oil companies that got their risk assessment very wrong in the Gulf of Mexico) is just one of many oil companies. It makes about 35,000 Million USD PROFIT a year.
To suggest that Greenpeace - the entire industry against exploitation - could even dream of having these sums of money available to it is simply stupid.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 23, 2012, 10:19 am

BobHelm wrote:If you can't see the ridiculousness in suggesting that there is some correlation between the environmental impact of Coffee Bean production & oil from shale then you are probably not worth the effort of attempting to explain anything to.

As for 'risk assessment' of dangerous projects. They have done that & actually agree that environmental impacts need to be addressed (the 4 CO2 extraction projects) & yet continue to exploit the resource before the mitigation factors are in place.

Greenpeace is supported solely from contributions from its' 2.5 million members.
To suggest that it is some sort of multi million dollar organisation threatening small & poor oil extractors with its' wealth is one of the most ludicrous ideas that you have suggested on this thread....& there have been some pretty ludicrous ones as well.
BP ( you remember them, one of the oil companies that got their risk assessment very wrong in the Gulf of Mexico) is just one of many oil companies. It makes about 35,000 Million USD PROFIT a year.
To suggest that Greenpeace - the entire industry against exploitation - could even dream of having these sums of money available to it is simply stupid.
I think it riculous to suggest the project would "sort of ok" if only Candaians used the oil. You have a problem with exporting oil!!!

You are a bit behind the times - Greenpeace is a multi million dollar organisation. It is attempting to bully companies that do not buy from their "approved purchasers". It has a CEO who is apid in the region of $500 000 p/a - not bad for a bunch of "volunteers". It is in Grenpeaces interest to maintain "alarmism" - it does this to maintain its cash flow.

The Alaska pipeline seems to work OK - no major drama there. But somehow a Keystone pipeline is "very dangerous and polluting".

CO2 emmissions are rising but the temperature is not - must be anothe BIG OIL conspiracy.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 23, 2012, 10:37 am

ronan01 wrote:The Alaska pipeline seems to work OK - no major drama there. But somehow a Keystone pipeline is "very dangerous and polluting".
Oh so the $697,232,869 worth of 'property damage' reported by PHMSA & the 375 fatalities associated with the Alaska pipeline is 'working OK' to you.
Little wonder that you have no conception of problems then really is it.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 23, 2012, 11:15 am

BobHelm wrote:
ronan01 wrote:The Alaska pipeline seems to work OK - no major drama there. But somehow a Keystone pipeline is "very dangerous and polluting".
Oh so the $697,232,869 worth of 'property damage' reported by PHMSA & the 375 fatalities associated with the Alaska pipeline is 'working OK' to you.
Little wonder that you have no conception of problems then really is it.
You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together.

Also, your main objection to Keystone seems to be CO2 - but it seems CO2 is not driving the temperature up.

You also seem to be happy to use a PC, mobile phone, etc - all derived from resource extraction one way or the other.

Good idea Bob - lets return to pre-industrtalised soviety - nobody will notice

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16084
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by jackspratt » January 23, 2012, 11:16 am

ronan01 wrote:
Greenpeace ............. has a CEO who is apid in the region of $500 000 p/a - not bad for a bunch of "volunteers".
As Greenpeace does not appear to have a "CEO", perhaps you could provide a credible link to show that their salary is ~ $500k.

To start things off, it would seem the 2010 total compensation of the US boss of GP (Executive Director Philip Radford) was ~ $130 - 140K.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=7596
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/nati ... ton-dc-458

The boss of Greenpeace International (Executive Director Kumi Naidoo) received total benefits in 2010 of ~ Euro 120K.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... t/reports/

So who is this mysterious CEO, and what does (approx) $500K relate to?

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 23, 2012, 12:13 pm

ronan01 wrote:You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together.
Where have I ever said anything even remotely resembling that??

You have lost the argument, again, so, as usual, you resort to nonsense.
As most of your arguments are nonsense I suppose that I should not be too surprised at that though---

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 24, 2012, 10:43 am

Misread the amount as pound stirling and did a bad coversion.

Lost the arguement Bob?

Explain how CO2 is increasing but the temperature refuses to budge.

Explain how the "expert" models consistently get it wrong - not one of them forecast the "slow down" from about 1997.

Explain how CO2 is a "pollutant" (humans exhale this pollutant everyday). When did CO2 become a pollutant?

Explain how CO2 causes "wild weather" when every single index shows nothing unusual.

CAGW is a crock, and the old put downs of: a) the science is settled; b) the majority of scientists agree and; c) the "deniers" are funded by big oil dont work anymore.

Spending money to sequester CO2 could be a total waste if CO2 does not appreciably increase the temperature - and it manifestly obvious it has not increased the temperature.

Wind power and solar power are collapsing across the world becuase they cant exist without subsidies. The carbon trading market has all but collapsed - how many "carbon stocks" have Jackpratt and Bob Helm bought?

The CAGW arguement was nonsense from the start and is now falling apart at the seams - only the hardline eco-loon believers cling to the fantasy of a carbon free existence.

WHY IS THE TEMPERATURE STATIC (EVEN DROPPING) WITH INCREASED AMOUNTS CO2?

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 24, 2012, 11:04 am

Ronan, as usual you are just contributing words to other people that they have just never said..

Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea.

Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases..

You cannot, because I have never said these things, because I simply do not know...

I do know that the temperature is still increasing though, slower than scientists suggested that it would & maybe not for the reasons they believe, but even the 'it is all a myth' charts you produced above said that the temperatures ARE increasing.

Yes, you lost the argument on the Alaska oil pipe line. It is dangerous, not something to be taken lightly.

Your head in the sand there is no problem is just plain stupid. To suggest that World weather is not getting more extreme defies any figures that are produced....take the denier glee story you posted before about CO2 & temperature increase not being related. I note that the deniers didn't bother to quote the rest of the figures that were also released at the same time, but I guess because they do not tie in with your beliefs they can be ignored...
This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.

Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 0.8°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F) and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and ranked as the 11th warmest on record.


La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Niña opened the year, then dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasting through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed during such a year.

The 2011 globally-averaged precipitation over land was the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation varied greatly across the globe. La Niña contributed to severe drought in the Horn of Africa and to Australia?s third wettest year in its 112-year period of record.


But there is no problem because Lord Monckton says there isn't.... :D :D

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 24, 2012, 11:21 am

BobHelm wrote:Ronan, as usual you are just contributing words to other people that they have just never said..

Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea.

Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases..

You cannot, because I have never said these things, because I simply do not know...

I do know that the temperature is still increasing though, slower than scientists suggested that it would & maybe not for the reasons they believe, but even the 'it is all a myth' charts you produced above said that the temperatures ARE increasing.

Yes, you lost the argument on the Alaska oil pipe line. It is dangerous, not something to be taken lightly.

Your head in the sand there is no problem is just plain stupid. To suggest that World weather is not getting more extreme defies any figures that are produced....take the denier glee story you posted before about CO2 & temperature increase not being related. I note that the deniers didn't bother to quote the rest of the figures that were also released at the same time, but I guess because they do not tie in with your beliefs they can be ignored...
This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.

Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 0.8°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F) and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and ranked as the 11th warmest on record.


La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Niña opened the year, then dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasting through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed during such a year.

The 2011 globally-averaged precipitation over land was the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation varied greatly across the globe. La Niña contributed to severe drought in the Horn of Africa and to Australia?s third wettest year in its 112-year period of record.


But there is no problem because Lord Monckton says there isn't.... :D :D
1881 WAS WARMER THAN 1880
1882 WAS WARMER THAN 1881
1883 WAS WARMER THAN 1882
1884 .......

1997 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR SINCE ..... SO WHAT, WHO CARES! It is a meaningless number. Demonstrate how this is related CO2 increase.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/noaa ... s-doa.html

Two adjacent 50 year periods are compared side by side, for overall global temperature rise, and overall ambient CO2 rise:

1912 to 1961: the temperature increase is 0.52C, the CO2 increase, 18ppm.
1962 to 2011: the temperature increase is 0.41C, the CO2 increase, 74ppm.

Whatever the overall effect of the CO2 increase is on global temperature, it is clearly not a dominating factor causing warming. The atmosphere is behaving as if the extra CO2 does not really matter very much at all since the temperature jumps are similar, whilst the CO2 jumps are clearly not.

The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.[/i]

Also - demonstrate the increase in storms, hurricanes, etc. It has not happened - its a product of your feverish imagination and the other true believers in the lost cause of CAGW.

Not so easy for you to say "denier", "the science is settled", "the majority of scientists agree". Present some facts that support the "wild weather" and "we will run out of water" alarmism that you spout.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 24, 2012, 11:49 am

In fact, as I’ve been explaining to some colleagues and friends today, the proponents of urgent action on climate change like to conflate five separate questions into one question in order to tag their opponents as being “unscientific,” “deniers,” “flat-earthers,” etc.

Here are the five key questions that Muller and any critic of so-called climate skepticism must confront:

Q1: How has the global average temperature changed in recent history?

Q2: How much of that change is attributable to human activities, and how much to a given activity?

Q3: What can we expect to happen to the climate in the future?

Q4: How will those predicted changes affect people in the future?

Q5: What should we do today in response to Q1–Q4?

Question 1: A Warmer World?

Muller and others have addressed Q1, which is the stuff of hard data, adjusting it for various discrepancies, and plotting it out. That’s real hard-science, and I agree, that’s about as real as we can hope to get with scientific thinking.

Still, expect debate over a number of points of the analysis from different quarters, including Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. After all, the magnitude of actual/factual warming is a theory-driver about the sensitivity of greenhouse-gas forcing on climate.

For questions 2 through 5, however, you depart the realm of hard science for the Assumption Zone.

Question 2: Anthropogenic Warming

So, for question 2, you have to start making assumptions about how the climate works, and what is “natural,” and by comparing that to observations, estimate how much change you can attribute to human activity. You then need more assumptions and estimates to tell you which human activity contributes to the observed change, and how strongly.

These are not simple questions, as the drivers of the climate are many, and some of those are non-linear. Skepticism on attribution of change is reasonable.

Question 3: Future Climate Change

Question 3 is even tougher than question 2, as making projections of the future requires highly advanced computer modeling. Current computer models have very little skill at predicting future states of the climate even in the big picture, much less at regional levels and over discrete actionable time periods of say, a decade at a time.

And, as you’re trying to predict future greenhouse gas emissions, you have to start throwing economic assumptions into the models on top of the physical assumptions you threw in for question 2. I’d say skepticism at this level is obligatory if anyone has paid attention to the limitations of computer models in recent years.

Question 4: Good or Bad Consequences?

Question 4, not surprisingly, entails yet more assumptions about how humans will react to future changes in the climate at both global and regional levels. It also entails assumptions about human technological development, economic activity, the population level, advances in medicine, agriculture, transportation, and so on.

I’d say a lack of skepticism at this level is actually a sign of irrational belief in the ability to predict what can’t be predicted.

Question 5: Policy Choices

And with question 5, you inject a bunch of values on top of your assumptions, since the question of “what do do” has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with values: how much do I save for retirement, versus putting toward my car loan today? How much do I put aside for my kid’s college education versus buying them a new baseball glove today?

These are not science questions at all.

Conclusion

Climate activists would like to conflate five questions that are partly hard science, partly soft-science, and entirely non-scientific and suggest that they all point to one answer: the immediate reordering of civilization based on carbon controls. This may let them defame anyone who disagrees with them as a “denier” of scientific reasoning, but it is an inaccurate characterization of the arguments over climate change.

Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 anyone?

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Glo ... uller.html

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 24, 2012, 12:28 pm

BobHelm wrote:
ronan01 wrote:You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together.
Where have I ever said anything even remotely resembling that??

You have lost the argument, again, so, as usual, you resort to nonsense.
As most of your arguments are nonsense I suppose that I should not be too surprised at that though---
BobHelm wrote:Ronan, as usual you are just contributing words to other people that they have just never said..

Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea.

Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases..

You cannot, because I have never said these things, because I simply do not know...
I am still awaiting references or an apology.
You cannot continue to be allowed to get away with these totally unsubstantiated lies ronan...

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 24, 2012, 1:30 pm

"To suggest that World weather is not getting more extreme defies any figures that are produced....take the denier glee story you posted before about CO2 & temperature increase not being related. I note that the deniers didn't bother to quote the rest of the figures that were also released at the same time, but I guess because they do not tie in with your beliefs they can be ignored... "

Why not simply produce the facts that show the weather is more extreme - should not be hard - have not seen it from you yet.

And why bother with the pathetic "this year was warmer than that year meme" - it is well known the earth is recovering from an ice age and there is probably not a lot we can do about it.

Why the obsession with CO2 outputs and the need to sequestre it? Why is CO2 sequestration or "treatment" necessary in economic modelling or project assessment? It seems important to you - tell us why

You like to have a bob each way - you dont have enough knowledge and so I cannot say if something is true or not - but you seem to have enough knowledge to label others a denier.

Bob about Bob.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 24, 2012, 1:35 pm

BobHelm wrote:
BobHelm wrote:
ronan01 wrote:You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together.
Where have I ever said anything even remotely resembling that??

You have lost the argument, again, so, as usual, you resort to nonsense.
As most of your arguments are nonsense I suppose that I should not be too surprised at that though---
BobHelm wrote:Ronan, as usual you are just contributing words to other people that they have just never said..

Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea.

Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases..

You cannot, because I have never said these things, because I simply do not know...
I am still awaiting references or an apology.
You cannot continue to be allowed to get away with these totally unsubstantiated lies ronan...

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » January 24, 2012, 4:00 pm

unsubstantiated lies???? List them. Cannot continue to be allowed to get away with these .... what does that mean?

As for lthe "lost the Alaska Pipeline arguement" - dream on. You quote a few numbers and conclude the project is a failure. Total rubbish. The project achieved what was intended - moving oil from A to B in the most efficient way.

As for Keystone being more defensible if the oil was used by Canadians only - total rubbish. Explain why "even the non eco nuts exploiting the resource admit that something has to be done about the CO2 being released". Why must CO2 emmissions be addressed - what harm does CO2 cause - explain.

Explain how CO2 is increasing but the temperature refuses to budge.

Explain how the "expert" models consistently get it wrong - not one of them forecast the "slow down" from about 1997.

Explain how CO2 is a "pollutant" (humans exhale this pollutant everyday). When did CO2 become a pollutant?

Explain how CO2 causes "wild weather" when every single index shows nothing unusual. List the wild weather due to "climate change" (a stupid term when the climate has and always will change).

Or will you revert to "I dont know enough to comment", but you are still a denier?

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by BobHelm » January 24, 2012, 4:17 pm

I will happily answer your questions & comments once you have answered mine.

You have accused me of 3 different of presenting 3 views which I clearly refute.

Either show where I have done so or admit that you are mistaken...

Simple really, but needs to be done...

I will repeat them for you as you seem to have forgotten...
You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together.
Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea.
Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases..

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16084
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by jackspratt » January 24, 2012, 6:09 pm

ronan01 wrote:Misread the amount as pound stirling and did a bad coversion.
Nope - sorry, that doesn't wash. [-X

None of the figures I quoted, even misread as Sterling, would convert to anywhere near $500k.

You have been caught out yet again Onan - unless you can provide the source of your "misread" amount.

Post Reply

Return to “World News”