@Viracocha711 What is sad is the way warmers go straight to abuse and shaming language so they don't have to actually engage on the science. Te global warming debate is not supported by the science.
@GalileoMovement No, the problem is DUMB videos like this one! If you don't like what you call "shaming language" then don't put your name on videos that deserve to be shamed! I would suggest you go learn what CO2 is & how it can be extremely harmful in high concentrations...Above 350ppm. It is not difficult to grasp CO2 traps heat & the more CO2 there is the more heat will be trapped & the hotter the planet will get! Good Luck!
@Viracocha711 Carbon Dioxide acts on a limited range of solar radiation, as all greenhouse gasses do. What that means is that adding additional CO2 produces a diminishing marginal effect on warming (technically a logarithmic effect). Atmospheric CO2 is actually NOT dangerous within the range of human history because it stops being effective above a certain concentration. -2
In addition the other main plank in the IPCC case is that CO2 stays resident for 100+ years, now they have cranked this up to 1000 years. Every study except the IPCC's shows CO2 residency to be between 4 and 12 years. tiny url: tiny.cc slash fc1rk . Because they have lost that argument warmers are now saying that the ocean absorbs CO2 and then outgasses it back over time, so our CO2 LIVES, LIVES I SAY for 1000 years. This is being debated now but I dont see any science to support it.
@GalileoMovement NOT TRUE! This logarithmic relationship means that each doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause the same amount of warming at the Earth's surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we dramatically decrease our emissions, global warming will accelerate over the 21st Century.
@Viracocha711 Mate that is dead wrong. Logarithmic means diminishing marginal returns, increasing quantities of X (CO2) cause ever decreasing quantities of Y (heat), there is a point where any increase in CO2 is simply going to have such a statistically small result that it is effectively zero. Please research this befoer replying.
Hey, no opinion on the carbon tax, but the suggestion in the video is that because the contribution of CO2 by man is small it must have no effect. A simple experiment with two sealed containers and two accurate thermometers soon proves it does.
@Bridgmanify Thank you for providing an example of simple home experiment that people can do to prove that even a commoner can do better science than Koch Industries, he hem, I mean the Galileo Movement.
@marsglorious Give it up Mars, we are not associated with any big business. Al Gore's simple experiment with CO2 added to sealed cannisters is faked, it cannot be replicated. Do you have another or is that it?
@Bridgmanify No we are not saying it has no effect, clearly it does. We are saying that even a very large increase in CO2, beyond anything man could produce, is only going to produce a 1 degree Celsius increase in temperatures. If the experiment you are talking about is Al Gore's from his 24 hours of nonsense then that has been proven to be a fake.
@GalileoMovement I wasn't referring to anything Al Gore did or didn't do. I meant that we can do the experiment ourselves. To do it properly you need accurate gear, but by the sounds of it you accept the properties of CO2. What I would like to know is where the figure of 1 degree comes from and why this is no problem.
@Bridgmanify I am unaware of any experiment that proves the warming capacity of CO2, so please provide a link or an explanation. The 1 degree warming from CO2 is actually controversial. Some sceptics who do not accept the greenhouse gas theory at all say co2 rise is actually a coolant. Those that do accept the GG premise simply point to the logarithmic effect of CO2 (see my exchange above with Viraocha711). -2
-2 You need to google Logarithmic plus CO2 at watts up with that. Why isnt that a problem - well because 2012 is not year zero for the CO2 increase, that started a long time ago, so we have probably had most of the warming we are going to get from CO2. Further increases will have to come from forcing and ocean heat sinks and those theories are anything but tested science.
@GalileoMovement The warming capacity of CO2? The answer to this question is out of my league. What I do know is that it does cause warming even in small quantities. An experiment of this nature can be seen on an episode of mythbusters. watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I You don't need expert knowledge to repeat this experiment but you do need accurate equipment. A simpler version of this can be done with two jars, one with air and one with some CO2 added. The one with higher CO2 heats up.
@customanalogue I cant debate you if you if you dont make an actual argument, and if you make up quotes and fail to provide a citation. I have asked you repeatedly for citations to your unique theories on AGW and all you provided was conspiracy theories and nonsense. Back in the sin bin till you show the readers of this thread some respect.
seriously? did you just say the GalileoMovement was a socialist? Go study up on politics before you start throwing around words you don't know how to use.
Galileo was not a free market fundamentalist - he was a naturalist scientist (this is my field of work as a R&D Fellow) and was not concerned about fiscal matters or how economies work. Yet clearly, THAT is what this video is about. Hence his admission, when I prompted him, that HE used the phrase Watermelons (Reds in disguise of Green), that the video is not about the science at all, he identified with a political MARKER: Watermelons !
Also, the suggestion that because scientists are not all that well paid (a fact that causes some of them to sell out to powerful corporates flashing lots of dough - and pays political lobbyists far more money than their political masters - who ends up in the pockets of lobbyists).
He thereby suggests that the POOR are more corrupt than the RICH ?
@younot2funny You didnt expose anything, you simply wasted the time of everyone who reads these comments looking for a debate on the science. Your comments are counter-productive to that. If you continue to flood the thread with irrelevant musings I will ban you again,
Are you familiar with the expanding troposphere which is expanding and that this cannot be explained by heat crossing the tropopause from the stratosphere side. The changing of the averaged out thermal mass means heat within the troposphere is being stored. It is a delicate balance.
The modelling re the "signal to noise ration" has dismissed other gasses and a direct causal link with CO2. Of course CO2 is not directly any danger - nobody says that. Water is the only gas of...
... water vapour is the only other gas of substance that has significant thermal mass to affect climate, AND IT DOES. But unexplained this can become a half-truth where the WRONG HALF gets believed (because of vested interests promoting half-science).
But vapour has a "noise" like signature, but CO2 has a long enough cycle to be statistically traced as a "signal" - my work is in "signal" retrieval in audio where the noise floor was previously defined as the limit of dynamic...
... as the limit of "dynamic range" - we have now gone well past that. We can now generate algorithms that can "profile" the short term cycling (or "noise") of humidity and rain induced effects as well as volcanic ash etc.
The key here is that statistical analysis using that process can easily isolate CO2 as shifting the balance over time.
Direct quote from a retired ANU Earth Sciences retired scientist.
"They may not like it, but the CAN NOT CHANGE IT."
@younot2funny I have deleted your off topic remarks, and left what might be construed as science. You dont get to use this thread for diatribes, debate means I say then you say then I say etc, There is an order and manners about it. If you continue flooding you wlil be banned again. Using technical sounding words doesnt constitute science. Can you give me the link to this CSIRO scientist's work you quoted so I can read the article and form a better idea of what you are talking about please.
@younot2funny 15 comments in 30 minutes none of which makes a scientific point is flooding. When you provide the citation for the science above we can continue the conversation, however I dont have any interest in debating the resonance of sound boards and the meaning of socialism with you.
I actually know a few "Imminent Scientists" (unlike your "imminent" Fred Singer).
This video is about the "Carbon Tax" and how to create a grassroot reaction against it in the typical Astroturfing mould.
I expect that it will disappear after the next election.
Personally I don't care one way or another about the Carbon Tax - and it may not be such a bad thing, it won't be the end world. There are much bigger issues happening here.
Accusing friends of mine of corruption is but one of them.
@mayuhavepeace I think the phrase is I wont dignify that load of shite with a response, having already replied to that allegation from you repeatedly.
Fred Singer? The Old-Cold-War-Warrior who believes that Environmentalism is the new Red Menace, "socialism in disguise" and calls them Melons, Green on the outside and Red on the inside.
MELONS !!!
Fred Singer has put nothing in writing that he has subjected to peer review and yet accuses Melons of insufficient peer review and his contributions are in the WALL STREET JOURNAL.
@mayuhavepeace after that unrestrained thought dump I understand why you chose that name for yourself. You are again talking complete shite. Andrew Bolt is not one of our experts, Lord Monckton simply presents the science written by others who are qualified to do so. I agree with Fred Singer's appraisal of most Green Politicians, in Australia we do call them watermelons. Once again I direct you to the website for the non governmental panel on climate change for real science.
"Jackson Wells is one of Australia’s leading independent public relations... firms. We have worked with over FIVE HUNDRED clients to: market products and services; manage issues; educate and MOTIVATE PUBLIC OPINION... engender and accelerate change...produce media and multimedia materials; and stage events and promotions.
We develop the right messages, and deliver those messages CREATIVELY through appropriate communication mechanisms."
@mayuhavepeace Partly paid by??? WTF Jackson Wells is a company I have never heard of and they are not associated in any way with this video or the Galileo Movement. You are pulling names out of your behind with no apparent rhyme or reason. Can I suggest a Bex and a good lie down.
Has anybody had a discussion on the effects of thermal mass. Do I hear anything here about Tropopause height - in fact the online spellchecker here doesn't even recognise the word.
The science - what science? The above video is designed to create doubt along with fear.
WHO is behind it, can we have some proper disclosure of the Galileo (the dead no longer have a choice in which way their name is invoked, but how about some respect for the name rather gross exploitation) Movement?
@customanalogue Your refusal to accept reality is rather a nice metaphor for your stubborn adherence to the failed religion of global warming. Galileo is not a PR company, it is simply people fed up with the lies your side is peddling and helped by people such as Prof Carter and Malcolm who provide the science. All relevant personnel are on our website and we are not associated with, and we have not accepted funding from any PR company or industry group. There is nothing else to disclose!
Photosynthesis has metabolised additional carbon dioxide to be new life on earth. No rise in average global carbon dioxide levels in the air. That is a nuclear lie!
Astroturfing is a form of advocacy typically to support an agenda with the appearance of a fake grass-roots organisation that is usually sponsored by corporations or those with a certain political interest. They work in such a way so that you are not aware that the corporate or political backing is present. You are led to believe that just an independent public organisation is speaking out. A lot of ethical issues are raised by doing this.
@customanalogue As usual for the warmers, you cannot debate us on the science so you attack the messenger. Any google on Galileo Movement shows it is a real grass roots movement - a bunch of people who are fed up with bad government policy and climate change hysteria based on false science. Once again you are playing the man not the ball.
Your video does not present any science at all. It is a complete misrepresentation of the science put into a simplistic two-dimensional argument. It is totally flawed. But complexities are not easily discussed in the public domain, but the "opinion-makers" like Allan Jones revels in this sort of stuuf.
Like his HUGE mistake on fibre-optics. Haven't heard of that. But he gets away with it.
Can you assure me that your 'movement' is not Astroturfing?
As for AGW, it will all come out in the wash, just like tobacco. Oops, sorry, saying tobacco is not inversely politically correct with you. LOL
May well need God to save us.
BTW, in the US as many as 25% still doubt that tobacco is harmful and 40% believe Saddam Hussein bombed the Twin Towers.
Have you heard of "Merchants of Doubt" - suggest you read it. See that there is a side to this that you may not have considered, or maybe have not WANTED to consider.
@customanalogue inversely politically correct?? Actually its just an irrelevant thing to say, as is Saddam and anything else you bring up to muddy the waters. What matters is the science, and you continue to offer all these red herrings to avoid talking about the science.
@customanalogue You seem to still be missing the point. As you said yourself - you took on "Alan Jones" rather than what Alan Jones actually said. Warmers cant help playing the man not the ball. If you had challenged what the video actually said we would be having a polite debate on the science, as you will see us do if you read through the 650 comments that have been made on this video so far.
Many of them are strangely conservative and very reluctant to take on the likes of Allan Jones. They feel that being interviewed by Allan Jones they would be humiliated and torn to pieces using invective questioning that they are simply not armed to deal with & not media savvy, indeed that is not their job.
Indeed they believe the media, the government should take notice when results are published, when they feel that their work is largely done.
@customanalogue Great then invite them to debate the issue right here, we love debating real scientists about real science. Have they popped by Anthony Watts blog? Unlike warmer's websites, dissenting opinion and scientific debate are always welcome in skeptic land.
You know, you really are extraordinary, I have a number of friends who have been defamed by Allan Jones because of their scientific work. They have never taken a dishonest dollar and they live quite modestly - I know because I have been to their homes. I do R&D and my work has led me to know these guys.
Many of them KNOW that their life's work has bee questioned and their motive for their work.
Denial is a perfectly good word. It's in the dictionary for a good reason.
@customanalogue Define "dishonest dollar". Money taken with the expectation of providing a predetermined result in favour of AGW is certainly one definition. The fact that scientists struggle for money in this country is EXACTLY the reason AGW funding has proven so attractive. Thanks for mentioning that.
Brother, you know how to dish it out, but you don't know how to take it.
A bit like Allan Jones, go have a three hour lunch with him, I am sure you two will get on famously.
BTW, I actually know a number of scientists - and libelling them seems to be OK in the "right" of your own eyes.
Allan Jones only speaks to the 2-3% of scientists that agrees with him, and as I have been told by DM (a retired scientist), that it was always a danger that CORPORATE money posed and some selling out.
@customanalogue OK well thanks for deleting the insulting part, now find me the libel in our position - which is that a small number of scientists have taken the AGW money and produced work that is not scientific and doesnt stand close scrutiny.Warmers are using this to maintain a scare that cannot be supported by the actual science, and indeed, by the actual temperature record, both current and historical.
I would love you to find that corporate money you mob reckon we skeptics are getting, we are funding this out of our own pockets. BTW thanks for acknowledging that Alan Jones speaks for real scientists, now lets talk about that whole science is settled thing.
Would you mind, for the sake of natural justice, please specify what was the libel. Since you have erased it, you have not given me the opportunity to review what I said.
And is this just blatant censorship, a charge I could now legitimately aim at you?
So please (I am asking nicely), could please you explain?
@customanalogue Not blatant censorship just Youtube Terms of Service. Calling Alan Jones bad names is libel. In case you missed it this forum is for grown ups to debate the science of climate change and the merits of the carbon tax.
@AdNeeb Another paid social media comment from big money protecting their AGW gravy train. One comment and then he disappears - channel and all. Consider as a response this Galileo quote: In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Your quote is irrelevant, because Galileo was an actual scientist speaking about his own field. Authority doesn't establish a fact, but that doesn't mean anybody who feels like shooting their mouth off about a field without first establishing their expertise by completing an advanced degree in that field should be taken seriously. There is a clear consensus among actual, real climate scientists, and you are on the wrong side of it.
@AdNeeb A hidden channel and your second appearance is to repeat one of the most common propaganda talking points the warmers have, I see nothing to say I have you pegged wrong. According to Prof Carter to be able to speak about all aspects of AGW you would need 32 different university degrees - physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, botany and the list goes on. The reality is no one person is qualified to speak on climate change, only their field within it.
And the Galileo quote relates to Science, not astronomy, look it up. You warmers use engineers and politicians and its OK for them to talk about Climate Change, but the skeptics put up a different set of engineers and politicians and suddenly they are not qualified. You're argument is an appeal to authority and nothing more.
The joint statements made by the national science academies are consensus reports, and the IPCC is the single largest scientific organization studying climate. Engineers and politicians are irrelevant to the scientific discussion.
@AdNeeb Engineers and politicians are irrelevant to the scientific discussion - Oh good that eliminates Al Gore and the head of the IPCC. The joint statements are not consensus reports. There are scientists that disagree with those reports, ergo there is no consensus. For google nipccreport
And you are absolutely correct. No one person could have the necessary training to understand climate in its totality. That is true of pretty much all of science. That is why science is a collaborative, interdisciplinary enterprise. It is conducted in cooperation with the scientific community through the peer-reviewed literature, not in musty labs by lone geniuses.
@AdNeeb yet the climategate emails clearly show the corruption of the peer review process inherent in climate change "science". The only scientists co-operating in the AGW process are those that agree with AGW. Dissenting opinion is shut out. Your consensus is manufactured and designed to prevent discussion of the science, which I note you are still refusing to do.
@AdNeeb yet the "Climategate" emails clearly show the corruption of the peer review process inherent in climate change "science". The only scientists co-operating in the AGW process are those that agree with AGW. Dissenting opinion is shut out. Your consensus is manufactured and designed to prevent discussion of the science, which I note you are still refusing to do.
@AdNeeb - again with the appeal to authority - they are smart they must be right. Actually they have the science wrong and I would be happy to debate you on the science.
There is no appeal to authority in that statement. And in any case, neither of us are climate scientists, and so have no choice but to rely on consensus statements from bodies relevant experts. I cannot fathom why this is so difficult to grasp. You surely don't hold yourself out to be an independent reviewer of the science in other fields, so why this one?
@AdNeeb No my degree is in a social science with substantial credits in pure mathematics. My point is anyone with a good education, a browser and time on their hands can sus out the truth behind global warming. Finer points like the loss of radiative forcing caused by the curvature of the earth can be debated forever, the truth is it doesn't make a difference to the science of whether humans are warming the planet or not.
The real errors in AGW are not scientific they are observational - simply examining the temperature record shows that the recent (and now completed) heating cycle was a natural cycle, looking through the paleo record to see times when CO2 was up to 20 times higher than it is now and yet the temperature was lower - these things don't need an expert to decipher. Look through the research on CO2 half life and you see 19 studies saying 10 years and 1 saying 100 years, and gee its from the IPCC...
Compare the projections for man made global warming made by Mann in his testimony to Congress in 1998 back to what actually happened and you see his projections are nonsensically overstated. After spending hundreds of hours researching global warming from a mathematicians perspective I can call bullshit on AGW with complete certainty. BTW while I am not a scientist there are several Galileo Moderators who are - you will no doubt meet them if you ever start talking about the science.
Clap trap. It's a load o clap trap. Total & utter bull poo. 2 + 2 is 4. Always will be. And so do the maths. Work out how thick the CO2 between the earth's suraface and outer space is, if concentrated or separated as a layer at sea level. Then measue how much the heat from a bonfire (a BIG ONE) gets through. That will be a rough measure of the BLANKETING effect this odourless trace GAS has on global temperature. Especially at night. The dark side of Mercury is a snap frozen peas's nightmare!
@GalileoMovement But I only mimick the words of the speaker to whom I address my reply. I rarely use Clap Trap & Bull Poo. Besides, science isn't something that non-scientists can debate, without it becoming non-sensical. I become sick in the stomach when I realise I'm talking nonsensically. When I'm out of my depth, I defer to experts. I like to listen. And I'm good at picking the non-experts pretending. For that reason I hate tabloid and tabloidists. In other words, I revile Alan-speak.
so you believe that co2 is correlated with temp increase, but does not have a significant effect. what about studies that investigate the palaoecene-eocene thermal maximum? we know that >2000Gt of carbon was injected into the atmoshpere and temperatures rose >5 degrees C. this equates to a climate sensitity of ~4 degrees per doubling of co2. this event also happened over ~10ka whereas the exhaustion of the remaining fossil fuel reserves will release ~5000Gt over a few hundred years (cont)
this is real science, produced by scientists with not govenmental agenda, they produce this data because it has real implications to what we may go through in the future, yet you think that all climate change scientists are evil, government puppets that fudge their results and lie. your evidence however is garbage and doesn't have a leg to stand on in the scientific community. the ethics behind your views are laughable, another of your videos has a guy with a mining engineering degree. WOW!
@CitizenSniiiips Having failed to prove AGW with modern science warmers are taking refuge in prehistory with cherry-picking and misrepresentation. Be honest about the paleo records please. visit google shortened url pdt0X Sample: To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today.
So your argument is basically "CO2 is a trace gas so it can't have much of an effect", correct?
Atmospheric ozone has a concentration roughly one thousand times less that CO2, yet I'm yet to see a video proclaiming that ozone is such a small proportion of the atmosphere that it can't possibly reduce incoming ultraviolet radiation.
Also, you seem to put CO2 last in the list of gases, twice, even though it is the fourth most prevalent in the atmosphere after Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon.
But what is interesting is that it is a HEAVY gas, indeed water vapour is the only "gas" not even among the gasses listed, that has higher "thermal mass" than CO2.
So it is oh so easy to mislead. Water in the atmosphere has a known short cycle, so it's effect, though higher thermal mass, has little long term effect. The CO2 cycle is extremely LONG. May a THOUSAND YEARS.
Hardly anybody actually discusses the science, just name calling.
@customanalogue Yes, I agree with you on those points. I just find the argument used in this video rather odd. No one uses a similar argument against ozone, which is a thousand times less concentrated, as I pointed out.
Oh indeed. And we seem to forget that governments did move against CFCs using taxes and the public also came on board, even though some had tried counter. strangely that these well-funded deniers also had strong links to the tobacco industry, as indeed many global warming deniers now.
There is an industry out there over the years, that have spread "doubt" about ozone, acid rain, CFCs etc. Yes, "doubt is our product" as in fact one tobacco industry heavyweight said exactly this.
@customanalogue well funded deniers. Firstly use of the term denier is to conjure images of Nazi Holocaust deniers and is a pejorative term. You decry commenters who abuse and then use the worst possible insult against us. Then you compare us to tobacco which is standard for warmers unable to debate us on the science but actually is a nonsensical argument - CO2 has nothing to do with cigarettes and skeptics have not taken money from tobacco. -2
This is another "misdirection" - that we are well-funded and warmers are being outspent. Warmers have received more than $100 BILLION in grants, programs and funding across western governments. Skeptics have received a few million. Greenpeace has an annual budget of a quarter of a billion dollars, Get Up here in Australia $5 million+ . You are repeating a lie so people do not realise just how much money warmers have. This video was paid for out of the pockets of the Galileo movement!
But what is also clear, and in my case this is also a little more personal as I have scientists as friends and also work as a technician. This "War on Science" - as if there is now a world-wide conspiracy of scientists - and that this is actually believed by an increasing number, maybe even a majority of the public?
This is clearly "demonising" and reminds me what happened in the 30s - where you can shed blame on a group of largely innocent people. I find that disturbing.
@customanalogue yes, "anti-science" seems to be an increasing trend these days. Odd that it's loudest proponents are more than willing to utilize technologies provided to them by the tools of science though.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree always and I can give you some good examples. What is not understood is that there is "observational science" and "theoretical science" - that latter is rather open slather but the former is far more rigid - and they usually get it pretty right.
Another point, they attack the "peer" review, yet the leading journal publishing DENIALS is in fact The Wall Street Journal, a MONEY magazine. No peer review at all. "Free Market Fundamentalism" here !!
@customanalogue Yes, people on both sides of the argument make mistakes regarding the science. Though I find it rather odd that many of those who are skeptical of climate change claim that it is not scientific but rather of political or monetary motivation, yet these same people are the ones who generally bring politics or money into the discussion by suggesting such things. The best explanation I can think of is that it is a form of projection.
@ferrett78 A form of projection - so no proof that skeptics are funded by big money (because none exists) just a "methinks the maiden doth protest too much.". Where is your argument on our science - oh wait - you dont have one, just smear, innuendo and complete nonsense. in Australia we call that playing the man not the ball. It gets a red card.
Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the entire premise of your argument in this video is incorrect? OK, here's a reminder.
You have no hassle accepting that ozone absorbs ultraviolet wavelengths of light, even though it is 1000 times less concentrated than atmospheric CO2, yet claim that CO2 being a trace gas implies it has little effect on infrared absorption? Explain.
@ferrett78 CO2 impacts on a limited range of wavelengths. Adding more CO2 doesnt expand the reach of CO2, it still blocks the same range of wavelengths, but it does block them more effectively. Hence logarithmic, or diminishing marginal returns. Once all of those wavelengths are blocked by CO2 then adding more will not make a zot of difference - radiation will still get in and out. Therefore CO2 cannot produce the level of climate change predicted - it is already blocking about -2
as much CO2 as it is going to - perhaps a half degree of CO2 warming left and thats from all sources. Then we start arguing the issue of forcing by increased water vapour caused by that extra half degree of warming - BTW there is a recent paper that says the effect of water vapour is cooling, not warming. Thats what I meant.
@ferrett78 I just did, but it looks like our comments crossed in the timeline. For moe information on this simply follow the links in the body of our videos to the Galileo website, or the website for the non governmental panel on climate change, which is nipccreport with a dot org on the end.
@ferrett78 And yet we have debated the accuracy of our science across 900+ comments, with some of the internet's leading warmers. None of them have disproven our science, which, once again, is set out on our website at galileomovement with a dot com dot au. Follow the link under the video.
@GalileoMovement I'll get to it right after you remove this video and make a public statement clarifying that the claims made within it are misleading and inaccurate.
@ferrett78 But they are not misleading and they are accurate. If you wish to continue in this vein please ensure your next post is accompanied by references that prove your statements.
@GalileoMovement The comparison to atmospheric concentration of ozone was made in my original comment. This video suggests that CO2 cannot be responsible for warming because it is a trace gas, yet ozone is 1000 times less concentrated and is responsible for absorbing the majority of UV radiation and heating the thermosphere. To imply CO2 cannot absorb a different wavelength of light and result in warming IS misleading.
PS: Im yet to see any references for your earlier claims, either.
@ferrett78 You are advancing an argument that is scientific nonsense, its like arguing the earth is flat. The scientific truth that CO2 cannot act on a wavelength out side of it's range is accepted by both sides of this debate. see elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5 dot html
@ferrett78 I said Leading warmers and you said so no Climate Scientists - not sure how you got there form my comment. If you look through you will see Sceptical Science engaged us for quite some time, so indeed we engaged in debate with Climate Scientists. They have their science and we have ours... and we left it to the readers to decide. That is why we did these videos - have a debate and get all the facts out there.
@customanalogue Besides, last I checked, both sides of Australian politics support plans for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Considering politicians rarely agree on anything, it's a little strange to be arguing that action on climate change is politically motivated.
@ferrett78 And another fallacy argument - this time an appeal to authority - the Government and the Opposition agree so we must be right. Actually it just means that politicians are saying what they think will get votes. They are not making any scientific judgement. As the percentage of AGW believers drops below 50% watch the politicians jump ship. 5 comments now and still not one argument about the science.
Since the important thing is scientific judgments then, I expect you will change your campaign to reflect what the majority of scientists in the appropriate field claim.
"As the percentage of AGW believers drops below 50% watch the politicians jump ship."
Yet this suggests nothing about the "correctness" of climate change claims - it's an appeal to popular opinion fallacy.
@ferrett78 Why would we change our position when science is on our side? Just because some scientists have taken the money and some others are more interested in their careers than their integrity? Does it so upset you that skeptics have the courage to stand apart from the crowd and stick to their convictions? this is a concept that warmers cant seem to get their heads around. Its called free thought!
"Why would we change our position when science is on our side? "
Except according to the majority of scientists in the relevant fields, and the vast majority of published science relating to effects of climate change across numerous scientific disciplines. Luckily, I have journal access, and it doesnt take much effort to see how rarely contrary papers are published.
@ferrett78 The Climategate and Climategate 2 emails clearly show the lengths warmers go to keep skeptical science from being published and to create the illusion of settled science. Just like you are doing now by repeating the mantra "the science is settled, the science is settled" ad nauseum. The last editor to publish a skeptical paper was sacked. Follow the links in the video - there is a peer reviewed dissenting opinion from qualified scientists.
@GalileoMovement "The last editor to publish a skeptical paper was sacked."
A paper which I read, and was clearly and seriously flawed. As I recall, he resigned.
"Just like you are doing now by repeating the mantra "the science is settled, the science is settled"
Actually that's not what I said. I said that the majority of published science in my personal experience supports the anthropogenic climate change theory. Nice attempted straw man.
@customanalogue Again with the insulting denial label. When warmers have ensured the editor of a Science Journal was sacked for printing a peer reviewed skeptics' research paper of course no-one else is going to print the truth. The Climategate emails clearly detail the lengths warmers go to to ensure our message is kept from the public - you dont have the guts to allow our message to be widely available because it shreds the whole AGW "science".
@ferrett78 Its a shame you care more for the feelings of these rogue scientists than you do for the scientific process that has been so badly trashed in the stampede for AGW money.
@customanalogue That is what happens when a few percent of the population of scientists sell out in return for research funding, fame and job progression while the other 97% of scientists stay quiet to protect their careers, Evil triumphs when good scientists do nothing.
@customanalogue I have only erased one of your posts and as always left a note saying why - the one where you called Alan Jones names. Feel free to retype this mystery comment against this comment and lets see it.
What "names" were these. I am not able to review my post since you deleted it.
Also, what about the "names" that Allan Jones uses? Would you delete a post by him?
You yourself have defamed the majority of climate scientists by saying they are in the pocket of some governmental conspiracy. You have also stated injuriously that because they are paid LESS than the likes of Allan Jones (and his money must come fromsomewhere), that THEY, the scientists, ARE EASILY CORRUPTED !!!
@customanalogue Give it up, I am not going to repeat your comment nor engage on this issue again. Feel free to talk about the actual Carbon Tax or Global Warming.
@customanalogue Yes I agree that most comments cant resist name calling rather than debating the science. Please prove your comment on CO2 lasting 1000 years, 19 studies over the last 30 years say it averages just 12 years - one of many real science reasons why AGW is wrong - see galileo website for more. We ignore Ozone because while it is more active than CO2 or water vapour, it only acts on a very narrow range of wavelengths and cant affect climate to a significant degree.
@customanalogue Yes the signature of man-made CO2 is different to the signature of natural CO2, so yes we can see man made CO2 in the atmosphere. So far however knowing that fact hasn't helped shed any more light on the actual science of CO2 impact on the environment. It offers no proof for AGW. There is however no science that refers to your odd short term cycles having one signature and long-term another - if you have a reference on that feel free to share it.
Skeptics have always agreed that the world was warming slowly and has been since the last ice age. We also agree that CO2 causes a small and logarithmic increase in temperatures - so far since the industrial age began just a few points of a degree. Even a doubling of CO2 is unlikely to get that increase above 1 degree. CO2 increases cannot effect any larger a change than that. Talk of changing their tune is just another propaganda statement, and the science is clearly not settled!
So what's the reallity of axeing this tax Now! it was'nt given in referendum so we have no say! Both parties believe in the BS UN Agenda 21 policies and fake AGW.So where do we go now? What happens to the voices of the millions of Aussies that have not fallen for this BS agenda.Who do I vote for when both parties still refuse the Real non governmental science and only listen to the ones that have huge grants to lose? What happened to democracy? Why don't I get a say? Are we now bonded Slaves?
@ClimateAdaption There really isn't that much point in arguing with this guy. He's a nutter. After reading his paper, it is clear that anyone who could write that crap has no interest the truth. Also if you intend to argue each non-scientific point, you'll be here for weeks, thetre are just too many. You're better off using emotive arguments. Retards understand those.
@marsglorious "After reading his paper" - there isn't a paper, there is a website with AGW Science form actual scientists. I note your repeated use of the phrase "retards" to describe skeptics - it says more about you than us.
@marsglorious Nothiing pseudo-science about it - I assume you have followed the links in the description section to read the many scientific papers that go with this video? The arsenic analogy has been used before in this comments thread. Its a nothing comment - you cant compare the human body with the Earth and all that goes into the ecosystem.
@GalileoMovement Carbon Dioxide contributes up to 26% to the warming of the planet due to the greenhouse effect. The point you make about the SMALL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is simply an attempted to mislead people.
All the science you reference on your website and here is junk science. You twist science to sound bad, but really most of the stuff you say on your website is wrong and what is science, is JUNK science. But to you climate science is a lie, yet you reference it. Why??
@ClimateAdaptation "All the science you reference on your website and here is junk science." Now you are being silly. These papers that we site are from major universities, NASA for heavens sake. There is nothing junk about it and this comment is way out of order.
I could not find one thing on your website that proves anything, all I see is point less lies about real climate science. You only reference junk science that everyone dismisses.
@ClimateAdaptation OK if when presented with scientific argument by people qualified to do so all you see is junk science then I am really sorry for you. Thanks for coming, you have had your say.
Here is better advice Its all bull shit, look that up clowns. if an economist can make statements on climate change based on his computer model programs it is a sad day for real science.
It's a shame not everyone understands the facts conveyed in this video. Of course, Bob and Juliar know all this but have chosen to fuck the country up anyway.
@lumabi25 Rubbish. And of course Bob & Juliar KNOW better. They know they are best advised on global effects of excess CO2 by listening to scientists rather than a rumour monger of the likes of Alan & Lord Popeye. & of course not everyone takes such advice. That is why there are TV programmes that advise us on what the Taro Cards predict. So you might wish to believe Alan Jones is a better source of scientific knowledge & advice than a Taro Reader. Or that water flows up hill & UFO's exist.
This video has MONSTERED the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The bridge was never designed or intended to be used as a ruler. I SAY leave the Sydney Harbour Bridge alone. Yes, it is true that it was once the centrepiece of high political DRAMA. But it is now a Lady of great importance & respect & she wishes to exit politics and enjoy her retirement. She thinks this disgusting anti-scientific debate is repugnant and her Engineer & scientific father (Brafield) would undoubtedly support the pricing of CO2.
BTW. Abott is a monster because he MONSTERED Kate Blanchet. How dare he personally attack anyone for having a common and unsurprising political opinion. Would he ay the same if a business woman express the same opinion?
@sydneybb2 And BTW, yes, you have discovered my weakness. I am a child. I'm now 6yrs old and growing up fast. I aged a year today because LABOR voted a CO2 price (not a tax IMHO). Now at last I look forwards to growing up. The Black Shirt (aka Nazis) Catholic ideolog monster, the mad monk set himself up to crash or crash thru, has all but lost, praise be to God! All three manifestation, btw. The disunity within the Liberals is very suppressed. Something a catholic can inflict.
you state that of all the carbon created on the planet, 3% is made by man, of that you say australians contribute 1.3% that represents 43.3% of all man made carbon represented by Australians. the global human population is estimated at 6,775,235,700 yet australias population is 21,874,900 which represents 0.003% so your trying to suggest that 0.003% of the population is contributing 43.3% of the human global carbon source? why would we not try anything!?
@youtewber100 Exactly. I think Potholer54 has proved, as you have, that this ALAN f'ing JONES shit piece (assuming he put it together, authorised it or endorsed it) is ABSOLUTE (a favourite Alan Jones word btw) RUBBISH (another favourite word). Would you trust your doctor over & above Alan Jones? Doctors & climatologists are scientific Peers. Alan Jones is a rumour monger. His peers are other mongers. Mongers sometimes have poppy out eyes (Lord Muck) & they need to 1st go see a real Doctor.
@sydneybb2 How can you say "EXACTLY" when his maths are wrong? Can you explain what on earth he is talking about? And what is all this ad-hominen "poppy out eyes" - WHAT ARE YOU - 3 YEARS OLD.
@youtewber100 I do hope that you have not created a brand new youtube account just to come here and post this confusing post - if youcant impress them with your knowledge bamboozle them with bullshit perhaps? Your maths are way off - please explain where the 43.3% thing comes from, its not a figure in the video, or on our website or that I can get to in any way.
More utter stupidity meant for consumption by those who know no better! SAD!!
Viracocha711 1 week ago
@Viracocha711 What is sad is the way warmers go straight to abuse and shaming language so they don't have to actually engage on the science. Te global warming debate is not supported by the science.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement No, the problem is DUMB videos like this one! If you don't like what you call "shaming language" then don't put your name on videos that deserve to be shamed! I would suggest you go learn what CO2 is & how it can be extremely harmful in high concentrations...Above 350ppm. It is not difficult to grasp CO2 traps heat & the more CO2 there is the more heat will be trapped & the hotter the planet will get! Good Luck!
Viracocha711 1 week ago
@Viracocha711 Carbon Dioxide acts on a limited range of solar radiation, as all greenhouse gasses do. What that means is that adding additional CO2 produces a diminishing marginal effect on warming (technically a logarithmic effect). Atmospheric CO2 is actually NOT dangerous within the range of human history because it stops being effective above a certain concentration. -2
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
In addition the other main plank in the IPCC case is that CO2 stays resident for 100+ years, now they have cranked this up to 1000 years. Every study except the IPCC's shows CO2 residency to be between 4 and 12 years. tiny url: tiny.cc slash fc1rk . Because they have lost that argument warmers are now saying that the ocean absorbs CO2 and then outgasses it back over time, so our CO2 LIVES, LIVES I SAY for 1000 years. This is being debated now but I dont see any science to support it.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement NOT TRUE! This logarithmic relationship means that each doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause the same amount of warming at the Earth's surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we dramatically decrease our emissions, global warming will accelerate over the 21st Century.
Viracocha711 1 week ago
@Viracocha711 Mate that is dead wrong. Logarithmic means diminishing marginal returns, increasing quantities of X (CO2) cause ever decreasing quantities of Y (heat), there is a point where any increase in CO2 is simply going to have such a statistically small result that it is effectively zero. Please research this befoer replying.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement You don't even know simple Physics...CO2 traps heat! Science has known this for over a 100yrs yet you claim this is not true?!? LOL!
Viracocha711 1 week ago
The comments seem to have gotten more trivial. This is good sign.
People are giving this the respect it deserves.
marsglorious 3 weeks ago
@garrywarne1
okay, just checking, cause there is a huge difference between communism and facism..
MrPurplefood 4 weeks ago
Hey, no opinion on the carbon tax, but the suggestion in the video is that because the contribution of CO2 by man is small it must have no effect. A simple experiment with two sealed containers and two accurate thermometers soon proves it does.
Bridgmanify 4 weeks ago
@Bridgmanify Thank you for providing an example of simple home experiment that people can do to prove that even a commoner can do better science than Koch Industries, he hem, I mean the Galileo Movement.
marsglorious 3 weeks ago
@marsglorious Give it up Mars, we are not associated with any big business. Al Gore's simple experiment with CO2 added to sealed cannisters is faked, it cannot be replicated. Do you have another or is that it?
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@Bridgmanify No we are not saying it has no effect, clearly it does. We are saying that even a very large increase in CO2, beyond anything man could produce, is only going to produce a 1 degree Celsius increase in temperatures. If the experiment you are talking about is Al Gore's from his 24 hours of nonsense then that has been proven to be a fake.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement I wasn't referring to anything Al Gore did or didn't do. I meant that we can do the experiment ourselves. To do it properly you need accurate gear, but by the sounds of it you accept the properties of CO2. What I would like to know is where the figure of 1 degree comes from and why this is no problem.
Bridgmanify 1 week ago
@Bridgmanify I am unaware of any experiment that proves the warming capacity of CO2, so please provide a link or an explanation. The 1 degree warming from CO2 is actually controversial. Some sceptics who do not accept the greenhouse gas theory at all say co2 rise is actually a coolant. Those that do accept the GG premise simply point to the logarithmic effect of CO2 (see my exchange above with Viraocha711). -2
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
-2 You need to google Logarithmic plus CO2 at watts up with that. Why isnt that a problem - well because 2012 is not year zero for the CO2 increase, that started a long time ago, so we have probably had most of the warming we are going to get from CO2. Further increases will have to come from forcing and ocean heat sinks and those theories are anything but tested science.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement The warming capacity of CO2? The answer to this question is out of my league. What I do know is that it does cause warming even in small quantities. An experiment of this nature can be seen on an episode of mythbusters. watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I You don't need expert knowledge to repeat this experiment but you do need accurate equipment. A simpler version of this can be done with two jars, one with air and one with some CO2 added. The one with higher CO2 heats up.
Bridgmanify 1 week ago
@garrywarne1
.... go look those words up in the dictionary.
MrPurplefood 4 weeks ago
@MrPurplefood I was joking, those words are politically extreme beliefs, and many of them are in direct opposition to each other.
garrywarne1 4 weeks ago
What a real coward.
Can't take it when somebody actually wants to debate the science with you.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.
customanalogue 1 month ago 3
@customanalogue I cant debate you if you if you dont make an actual argument, and if you make up quotes and fail to provide a citation. I have asked you repeatedly for citations to your unique theories on AGW and all you provided was conspiracy theories and nonsense. Back in the sin bin till you show the readers of this thread some respect.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@customanalogue , @mayuhavepeace, @younot2funny - for those watching this exchange these are all the same person.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@customanalogue YOU ARE A SHONK.. A LABOUR STOOGE !!
SisyphusTwo 3 weeks ago
@younot2funny
You posted that Galileo movement was a socialist, then you posted he was a nazi HAHA, nazi’s were fascist. Damn, looks like he missed the boat.
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood Yes, he's a Nazi-Commie-Fascist-Totalitarian-Authoritarian-Anarchist! It all makes perfect sense now!
garrywarne1 4 weeks ago
@younot2funny
seriously? did you just say the GalileoMovement was a socialist? Go study up on politics before you start throwing around words you don't know how to use.
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood
Galileo was not a free market fundamentalist - he was a naturalist scientist (this is my field of work as a R&D Fellow) and was not concerned about fiscal matters or how economies work. Yet clearly, THAT is what this video is about. Hence his admission, when I prompted him, that HE used the phrase Watermelons (Reds in disguise of Green), that the video is not about the science at all, he identified with a political MARKER: Watermelons !
younot2funny 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood
So exposed him and he banned me.
Also, the suggestion that because scientists are not all that well paid (a fact that causes some of them to sell out to powerful corporates flashing lots of dough - and pays political lobbyists far more money than their political masters - who ends up in the pockets of lobbyists).
He thereby suggests that the POOR are more corrupt than the RICH ?
That would make a great comedy sketch. LOL
younot2funny 1 month ago
@younot2funny You didnt expose anything, you simply wasted the time of everyone who reads these comments looking for a debate on the science. Your comments are counter-productive to that. If you continue to flood the thread with irrelevant musings I will ban you again,
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
Are you familiar with the expanding troposphere which is expanding and that this cannot be explained by heat crossing the tropopause from the stratosphere side. The changing of the averaged out thermal mass means heat within the troposphere is being stored. It is a delicate balance.
The modelling re the "signal to noise ration" has dismissed other gasses and a direct causal link with CO2. Of course CO2 is not directly any danger - nobody says that. Water is the only gas of...
younot2funny 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
... water vapour is the only other gas of substance that has significant thermal mass to affect climate, AND IT DOES. But unexplained this can become a half-truth where the WRONG HALF gets believed (because of vested interests promoting half-science).
But vapour has a "noise" like signature, but CO2 has a long enough cycle to be statistically traced as a "signal" - my work is in "signal" retrieval in audio where the noise floor was previously defined as the limit of dynamic...
younot2funny 1 month ago 6
@GalileoMovement
... as the limit of "dynamic range" - we have now gone well past that. We can now generate algorithms that can "profile" the short term cycling (or "noise") of humidity and rain induced effects as well as volcanic ash etc.
The key here is that statistical analysis using that process can easily isolate CO2 as shifting the balance over time.
Direct quote from a retired ANU Earth Sciences retired scientist.
"They may not like it, but the CAN NOT CHANGE IT."
Lump it!
younot2funny 1 month ago 6
@younot2funny I have deleted your off topic remarks, and left what might be construed as science. You dont get to use this thread for diatribes, debate means I say then you say then I say etc, There is an order and manners about it. If you continue flooding you wlil be banned again. Using technical sounding words doesnt constitute science. Can you give me the link to this CSIRO scientist's work you quoted so I can read the article and form a better idea of what you are talking about please.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@younot2funny 15 comments in 30 minutes none of which makes a scientific point is flooding. When you provide the citation for the science above we can continue the conversation, however I dont have any interest in debating the resonance of sound boards and the meaning of socialism with you.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
And if YOU care about the Earth?
THEN YOU ARE A "MELON".
You are a "SOCIALIST."
An "ENVIRONMENTAL NAZI".
So THAT is what the ill-named Galileo Movement is really about.
It is the classic THEM and US - and they will use ANY NAME-CALLING REQUIRED.
Of course they get MIGHTY OFFENDED if you give them a little back. LOL
I know a LOT about Galileo, it was FALSE CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS THAT OPPOSED HIM, not fellow scientist. That's a TWIST!
Now the ZEALOTS HAVE STOLEN HIS IDENTITY.
younot2funny 1 month ago
I actually know a few "Imminent Scientists" (unlike your "imminent" Fred Singer).
This video is about the "Carbon Tax" and how to create a grassroot reaction against it in the typical Astroturfing mould.
I expect that it will disappear after the next election.
Personally I don't care one way or another about the Carbon Tax - and it may not be such a bad thing, it won't be the end world. There are much bigger issues happening here.
Accusing friends of mine of corruption is but one of them.
mayuhavepeace 1 month ago
@mayuhavepeace I think the phrase is I wont dignify that load of shite with a response, having already replied to that allegation from you repeatedly.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Andrew Bolt is one of your "experts" !!!
This surely is a bad joke?
Lord Moncton?
Fred Singer? The Old-Cold-War-Warrior who believes that Environmentalism is the new Red Menace, "socialism in disguise" and calls them Melons, Green on the outside and Red on the inside.
MELONS !!!
Fred Singer has put nothing in writing that he has subjected to peer review and yet accuses Melons of insufficient peer review and his contributions are in the WALL STREET JOURNAL.
Google Singer and TOBACCO!
mayuhavepeace 1 month ago
@mayuhavepeace after that unrestrained thought dump I understand why you chose that name for yourself. You are again talking complete shite. Andrew Bolt is not one of our experts, Lord Monckton simply presents the science written by others who are qualified to do so. I agree with Fred Singer's appraisal of most Green Politicians, in Australia we do call them watermelons. Once again I direct you to the website for the non governmental panel on climate change for real science.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@mayuhavepeace has now left the debate for flooding. One piece of incomprehensible nonsense at a time please.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Partly paid by:
"Jackson Wells is one of Australia’s leading independent public relations... firms. We have worked with over FIVE HUNDRED clients to: market products and services; manage issues; educate and MOTIVATE PUBLIC OPINION... engender and accelerate change...produce media and multimedia materials; and stage events and promotions.
We develop the right messages, and deliver those messages CREATIVELY through appropriate communication mechanisms."
ASTROTURFING!
mayuhavepeace 1 month ago
@mayuhavepeace Partly paid by??? WTF Jackson Wells is a company I have never heard of and they are not associated in any way with this video or the Galileo Movement. You are pulling names out of your behind with no apparent rhyme or reason. Can I suggest a Bex and a good lie down.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Has anybody had a discussion on the effects of thermal mass. Do I hear anything here about Tropopause height - in fact the online spellchecker here doesn't even recognise the word.
The science - what science? The above video is designed to create doubt along with fear.
WHO is behind it, can we have some proper disclosure of the Galileo (the dead no longer have a choice in which way their name is invoked, but how about some respect for the name rather gross exploitation) Movement?
Disclosure?
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue Your refusal to accept reality is rather a nice metaphor for your stubborn adherence to the failed religion of global warming. Galileo is not a PR company, it is simply people fed up with the lies your side is peddling and helped by people such as Prof Carter and Malcolm who provide the science. All relevant personnel are on our website and we are not associated with, and we have not accepted funding from any PR company or industry group. There is nothing else to disclose!
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Photosynthesis has metabolised additional carbon dioxide to be new life on earth. No rise in average global carbon dioxide levels in the air. That is a nuclear lie!
JonThm 1 month ago
BEWARE !!!
Astroturfing is a form of advocacy typically to support an agenda with the appearance of a fake grass-roots organisation that is usually sponsored by corporations or those with a certain political interest. They work in such a way so that you are not aware that the corporate or political backing is present. You are led to believe that just an independent public organisation is speaking out. A lot of ethical issues are raised by doing this.
This video seems an obvious example.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue As usual for the warmers, you cannot debate us on the science so you attack the messenger. Any google on Galileo Movement shows it is a real grass roots movement - a bunch of people who are fed up with bad government policy and climate change hysteria based on false science. Once again you are playing the man not the ball.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
Your video does not present any science at all. It is a complete misrepresentation of the science put into a simplistic two-dimensional argument. It is totally flawed. But complexities are not easily discussed in the public domain, but the "opinion-makers" like Allan Jones revels in this sort of stuuf.
Like his HUGE mistake on fibre-optics. Haven't heard of that. But he gets away with it.
Can you assure me that your 'movement' is not Astroturfing?
I want to follow the money.
customanalogue 1 month ago
There has been no increase in carbon dioxide since it fell at the end of the little ice age
JonThm 1 month ago
@JonThm
Reference please.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue beat mke to it. I think its gone from 330ppm to 385ppm this century? No?
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Defending Allan Jones says it all.
As for AGW, it will all come out in the wash, just like tobacco. Oops, sorry, saying tobacco is not inversely politically correct with you. LOL
May well need God to save us.
BTW, in the US as many as 25% still doubt that tobacco is harmful and 40% believe Saddam Hussein bombed the Twin Towers.
Have you heard of "Merchants of Doubt" - suggest you read it. See that there is a side to this that you may not have considered, or maybe have not WANTED to consider.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue inversely politically correct?? Actually its just an irrelevant thing to say, as is Saddam and anything else you bring up to muddy the waters. What matters is the science, and you continue to offer all these red herrings to avoid talking about the science.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Look what happen when anybody takes on Allan Jones.
It is NOT pretty.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue You seem to still be missing the point. As you said yourself - you took on "Alan Jones" rather than what Alan Jones actually said. Warmers cant help playing the man not the ball. If you had challenged what the video actually said we would be having a polite debate on the science, as you will see us do if you read through the 650 comments that have been made on this video so far.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Many of them are strangely conservative and very reluctant to take on the likes of Allan Jones. They feel that being interviewed by Allan Jones they would be humiliated and torn to pieces using invective questioning that they are simply not armed to deal with & not media savvy, indeed that is not their job.
Indeed they believe the media, the government should take notice when results are published, when they feel that their work is largely done.
They are unable to fight the corporate media.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue Great then invite them to debate the issue right here, we love debating real scientists about real science. Have they popped by Anthony Watts blog? Unlike warmer's websites, dissenting opinion and scientific debate are always welcome in skeptic land.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
You know, you really are extraordinary, I have a number of friends who have been defamed by Allan Jones because of their scientific work. They have never taken a dishonest dollar and they live quite modestly - I know because I have been to their homes. I do R&D and my work has led me to know these guys.
Many of them KNOW that their life's work has bee questioned and their motive for their work.
Denial is a perfectly good word. It's in the dictionary for a good reason.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue Define "dishonest dollar". Money taken with the expectation of providing a predetermined result in favour of AGW is certainly one definition. The fact that scientists struggle for money in this country is EXACTLY the reason AGW funding has proven so attractive. Thanks for mentioning that.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Brother, you know how to dish it out, but you don't know how to take it.
A bit like Allan Jones, go have a three hour lunch with him, I am sure you two will get on famously.
BTW, I actually know a number of scientists - and libelling them seems to be OK in the "right" of your own eyes.
Allan Jones only speaks to the 2-3% of scientists that agrees with him, and as I have been told by DM (a retired scientist), that it was always a danger that CORPORATE money posed and some selling out.
Cheers.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue OK well thanks for deleting the insulting part, now find me the libel in our position - which is that a small number of scientists have taken the AGW money and produced work that is not scientific and doesnt stand close scrutiny.Warmers are using this to maintain a scare that cannot be supported by the actual science, and indeed, by the actual temperature record, both current and historical.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
I would love you to find that corporate money you mob reckon we skeptics are getting, we are funding this out of our own pockets. BTW thanks for acknowledging that Alan Jones speaks for real scientists, now lets talk about that whole science is settled thing.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@customanalogue deleted for libel - feel free to try again and debate the science this time.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
What libel.
Would you mind, for the sake of natural justice, please specify what was the libel. Since you have erased it, you have not given me the opportunity to review what I said.
And is this just blatant censorship, a charge I could now legitimately aim at you?
So please (I am asking nicely), could please you explain?
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue Not blatant censorship just Youtube Terms of Service. Calling Alan Jones bad names is libel. In case you missed it this forum is for grown ups to debate the science of climate change and the merits of the carbon tax.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
The European carbon tax is illegal and anti competition legislation
JonThm 1 month ago
@JonThm
Why is this not libel?
customanalogue 1 month ago
Utterly repugnant misappropriation of the name of a great scientist.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@AdNeeb Another paid social media comment from big money protecting their AGW gravy train. One comment and then he disappears - channel and all. Consider as a response this Galileo quote: In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
Nice paranoid delusion, bro.
Your quote is irrelevant, because Galileo was an actual scientist speaking about his own field. Authority doesn't establish a fact, but that doesn't mean anybody who feels like shooting their mouth off about a field without first establishing their expertise by completing an advanced degree in that field should be taken seriously. There is a clear consensus among actual, real climate scientists, and you are on the wrong side of it.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@AdNeeb A hidden channel and your second appearance is to repeat one of the most common propaganda talking points the warmers have, I see nothing to say I have you pegged wrong. According to Prof Carter to be able to speak about all aspects of AGW you would need 32 different university degrees - physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, botany and the list goes on. The reality is no one person is qualified to speak on climate change, only their field within it.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
And the Galileo quote relates to Science, not astronomy, look it up. You warmers use engineers and politicians and its OK for them to talk about Climate Change, but the skeptics put up a different set of engineers and politicians and suddenly they are not qualified. You're argument is an appeal to authority and nothing more.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
The joint statements made by the national science academies are consensus reports, and the IPCC is the single largest scientific organization studying climate. Engineers and politicians are irrelevant to the scientific discussion.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@AdNeeb Engineers and politicians are irrelevant to the scientific discussion - Oh good that eliminates Al Gore and the head of the IPCC. The joint statements are not consensus reports. There are scientists that disagree with those reports, ergo there is no consensus. For google nipccreport
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
Still a paranoid delusion.
And you are absolutely correct. No one person could have the necessary training to understand climate in its totality. That is true of pretty much all of science. That is why science is a collaborative, interdisciplinary enterprise. It is conducted in cooperation with the scientific community through the peer-reviewed literature, not in musty labs by lone geniuses.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@AdNeeb yet the climategate emails clearly show the corruption of the peer review process inherent in climate change "science". The only scientists co-operating in the AGW process are those that agree with AGW. Dissenting opinion is shut out. Your consensus is manufactured and designed to prevent discussion of the science, which I note you are still refusing to do.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@AdNeeb yet the "Climategate" emails clearly show the corruption of the peer review process inherent in climate change "science". The only scientists co-operating in the AGW process are those that agree with AGW. Dissenting opinion is shut out. Your consensus is manufactured and designed to prevent discussion of the science, which I note you are still refusing to do.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
nationalacademies[dot]org/onpi/06072005.pdf
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@AdNeeb - again with the appeal to authority - they are smart they must be right. Actually they have the science wrong and I would be happy to debate you on the science.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
There is no appeal to authority in that statement. And in any case, neither of us are climate scientists, and so have no choice but to rely on consensus statements from bodies relevant experts. I cannot fathom why this is so difficult to grasp. You surely don't hold yourself out to be an independent reviewer of the science in other fields, so why this one?
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@AdNeeb No my degree is in a social science with substantial credits in pure mathematics. My point is anyone with a good education, a browser and time on their hands can sus out the truth behind global warming. Finer points like the loss of radiative forcing caused by the curvature of the earth can be debated forever, the truth is it doesn't make a difference to the science of whether humans are warming the planet or not.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
The real errors in AGW are not scientific they are observational - simply examining the temperature record shows that the recent (and now completed) heating cycle was a natural cycle, looking through the paleo record to see times when CO2 was up to 20 times higher than it is now and yet the temperature was lower - these things don't need an expert to decipher. Look through the research on CO2 half life and you see 19 studies saying 10 years and 1 saying 100 years, and gee its from the IPCC...
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Compare the projections for man made global warming made by Mann in his testimony to Congress in 1998 back to what actually happened and you see his projections are nonsensically overstated. After spending hundreds of hours researching global warming from a mathematicians perspective I can call bullshit on AGW with complete certainty. BTW while I am not a scientist there are several Galileo Moderators who are - you will no doubt meet them if you ever start talking about the science.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
we lost.. the people in Aus always do. we need to riot
TJ12Ghost 3 months ago
Clap trap. It's a load o clap trap. Total & utter bull poo. 2 + 2 is 4. Always will be. And so do the maths. Work out how thick the CO2 between the earth's suraface and outer space is, if concentrated or separated as a layer at sea level. Then measue how much the heat from a bonfire (a BIG ONE) gets through. That will be a rough measure of the BLANKETING effect this odourless trace GAS has on global temperature. Especially at night. The dark side of Mercury is a snap frozen peas's nightmare!
listen2meokidoki 3 months ago
@listen2meokidoki I would love to debate you if your comment actually made any sense. Feel free to try again, without the abuse if you wouldnt mind.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement But I only mimick the words of the speaker to whom I address my reply. I rarely use Clap Trap & Bull Poo. Besides, science isn't something that non-scientists can debate, without it becoming non-sensical. I become sick in the stomach when I realise I'm talking nonsensically. When I'm out of my depth, I defer to experts. I like to listen. And I'm good at picking the non-experts pretending. For that reason I hate tabloid and tabloidists. In other words, I revile Alan-speak.
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
so you believe that co2 is correlated with temp increase, but does not have a significant effect. what about studies that investigate the palaoecene-eocene thermal maximum? we know that >2000Gt of carbon was injected into the atmoshpere and temperatures rose >5 degrees C. this equates to a climate sensitity of ~4 degrees per doubling of co2. this event also happened over ~10ka whereas the exhaustion of the remaining fossil fuel reserves will release ~5000Gt over a few hundred years (cont)
CitizenSniiiips 3 months ago
this is real science, produced by scientists with not govenmental agenda, they produce this data because it has real implications to what we may go through in the future, yet you think that all climate change scientists are evil, government puppets that fudge their results and lie. your evidence however is garbage and doesn't have a leg to stand on in the scientific community. the ethics behind your views are laughable, another of your videos has a guy with a mining engineering degree. WOW!
CitizenSniiiips 3 months ago
@CitizenSniiiips Having failed to prove AGW with modern science warmers are taking refuge in prehistory with cherry-picking and misrepresentation. Be honest about the paleo records please. visit google shortened url pdt0X Sample: To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Its a TOXIC TAX ! How do I know this? you commie's may well ask, well i'll tell yop how I know, Tony told me. so there!
2porangi 3 months ago
So your argument is basically "CO2 is a trace gas so it can't have much of an effect", correct?
Atmospheric ozone has a concentration roughly one thousand times less that CO2, yet I'm yet to see a video proclaiming that ozone is such a small proportion of the atmosphere that it can't possibly reduce incoming ultraviolet radiation.
Also, you seem to put CO2 last in the list of gases, twice, even though it is the fourth most prevalent in the atmosphere after Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon.
ferrett78 3 months ago
@ferrett78
Yes, it is the FOURTH most common gas.
But what is interesting is that it is a HEAVY gas, indeed water vapour is the only "gas" not even among the gasses listed, that has higher "thermal mass" than CO2.
So it is oh so easy to mislead. Water in the atmosphere has a known short cycle, so it's effect, though higher thermal mass, has little long term effect. The CO2 cycle is extremely LONG. May a THOUSAND YEARS.
Hardly anybody actually discusses the science, just name calling.
customanalogue 3 months ago
@customanalogue Yes, I agree with you on those points. I just find the argument used in this video rather odd. No one uses a similar argument against ozone, which is a thousand times less concentrated, as I pointed out.
ferrett78 3 months ago
@ferrett78
Oh indeed. And we seem to forget that governments did move against CFCs using taxes and the public also came on board, even though some had tried counter. strangely that these well-funded deniers also had strong links to the tobacco industry, as indeed many global warming deniers now.
There is an industry out there over the years, that have spread "doubt" about ozone, acid rain, CFCs etc. Yes, "doubt is our product" as in fact one tobacco industry heavyweight said exactly this.
customanalogue 3 months ago
@customanalogue well funded deniers. Firstly use of the term denier is to conjure images of Nazi Holocaust deniers and is a pejorative term. You decry commenters who abuse and then use the worst possible insult against us. Then you compare us to tobacco which is standard for warmers unable to debate us on the science but actually is a nonsensical argument - CO2 has nothing to do with cigarettes and skeptics have not taken money from tobacco. -2
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
This is another "misdirection" - that we are well-funded and warmers are being outspent. Warmers have received more than $100 BILLION in grants, programs and funding across western governments. Skeptics have received a few million. Greenpeace has an annual budget of a quarter of a billion dollars, Get Up here in Australia $5 million+ . You are repeating a lie so people do not realise just how much money warmers have. This video was paid for out of the pockets of the Galileo movement!
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@ferrett78
But what is also clear, and in my case this is also a little more personal as I have scientists as friends and also work as a technician. This "War on Science" - as if there is now a world-wide conspiracy of scientists - and that this is actually believed by an increasing number, maybe even a majority of the public?
This is clearly "demonising" and reminds me what happened in the 30s - where you can shed blame on a group of largely innocent people. I find that disturbing.
customanalogue 3 months ago
@customanalogue yes, "anti-science" seems to be an increasing trend these days. Odd that it's loudest proponents are more than willing to utilize technologies provided to them by the tools of science though.
ferrett78 3 months ago
@ferrett78
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree always and I can give you some good examples. What is not understood is that there is "observational science" and "theoretical science" - that latter is rather open slather but the former is far more rigid - and they usually get it pretty right.
Another point, they attack the "peer" review, yet the leading journal publishing DENIALS is in fact The Wall Street Journal, a MONEY magazine. No peer review at all. "Free Market Fundamentalism" here !!
customanalogue 3 months ago
@customanalogue Yes, people on both sides of the argument make mistakes regarding the science. Though I find it rather odd that many of those who are skeptical of climate change claim that it is not scientific but rather of political or monetary motivation, yet these same people are the ones who generally bring politics or money into the discussion by suggesting such things. The best explanation I can think of is that it is a form of projection.
ferrett78 3 months ago
@ferrett78 A form of projection - so no proof that skeptics are funded by big money (because none exists) just a "methinks the maiden doth protest too much.". Where is your argument on our science - oh wait - you dont have one, just smear, innuendo and complete nonsense. in Australia we call that playing the man not the ball. It gets a red card.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement "Where is your argument on our science"
Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the entire premise of your argument in this video is incorrect? OK, here's a reminder.
You have no hassle accepting that ozone absorbs ultraviolet wavelengths of light, even though it is 1000 times less concentrated than atmospheric CO2, yet claim that CO2 being a trace gas implies it has little effect on infrared absorption? Explain.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 CO2 impacts on a limited range of wavelengths. Adding more CO2 doesnt expand the reach of CO2, it still blocks the same range of wavelengths, but it does block them more effectively. Hence logarithmic, or diminishing marginal returns. Once all of those wavelengths are blocked by CO2 then adding more will not make a zot of difference - radiation will still get in and out. Therefore CO2 cannot produce the level of climate change predicted - it is already blocking about -2
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
as much CO2 as it is going to - perhaps a half degree of CO2 warming left and thats from all sources. Then we start arguing the issue of forcing by increased water vapour caused by that extra half degree of warming - BTW there is a recent paper that says the effect of water vapour is cooling, not warming. Thats what I meant.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement "Where is your argument on our science"
I eagerly await such an argument to be made.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 I just did, but it looks like our comments crossed in the timeline. For moe information on this simply follow the links in the body of our videos to the Galileo website, or the website for the non governmental panel on climate change, which is nipccreport with a dot org on the end.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement I expect you shall correct this video soon then, as the argument presented within is clearly not accurate.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 And yet we have debated the accuracy of our science across 900+ comments, with some of the internet's leading warmers. None of them have disproven our science, which, once again, is set out on our website at galileomovement with a dot com dot au. Follow the link under the video.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement I'll get to it right after you remove this video and make a public statement clarifying that the claims made within it are misleading and inaccurate.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 But they are not misleading and they are accurate. If you wish to continue in this vein please ensure your next post is accompanied by references that prove your statements.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement The comparison to atmospheric concentration of ozone was made in my original comment. This video suggests that CO2 cannot be responsible for warming because it is a trace gas, yet ozone is 1000 times less concentrated and is responsible for absorbing the majority of UV radiation and heating the thermosphere. To imply CO2 cannot absorb a different wavelength of light and result in warming IS misleading.
PS: Im yet to see any references for your earlier claims, either.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 You are advancing an argument that is scientific nonsense, its like arguing the earth is flat. The scientific truth that CO2 cannot act on a wavelength out side of it's range is accepted by both sides of this debate. see elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5 dot html
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GalileoMovement "You are advancing an argument that is scientific nonsense, its like arguing the earth is flat."
That's an Appeal to ridicule, not evidence.
"The scientific truth that CO2 cannot act on a wavelength out side of it's range"
I never said it did, which makes that argument a strawman (and a red herring).
If you're going to point out logical fallacies in my arguments, you could at least attempt to avoid them yourself.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement " And yet we have debated the accuracy of our science across 900+ comments, with some of the internet's leading warmers"
So, no actual climate scientists then, eh?
"None of them have disproven our science"
If you do say so yourself.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 I said Leading warmers and you said so no Climate Scientists - not sure how you got there form my comment. If you look through you will see Sceptical Science engaged us for quite some time, so indeed we engaged in debate with Climate Scientists. They have their science and we have ours... and we left it to the readers to decide. That is why we did these videos - have a debate and get all the facts out there.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@customanalogue Besides, last I checked, both sides of Australian politics support plans for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Considering politicians rarely agree on anything, it's a little strange to be arguing that action on climate change is politically motivated.
ferrett78 3 months ago
@ferrett78 And another fallacy argument - this time an appeal to authority - the Government and the Opposition agree so we must be right. Actually it just means that politicians are saying what they think will get votes. They are not making any scientific judgement. As the percentage of AGW believers drops below 50% watch the politicians jump ship. 5 comments now and still not one argument about the science.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
"They are not making any scientific judgement."
Since the important thing is scientific judgments then, I expect you will change your campaign to reflect what the majority of scientists in the appropriate field claim.
"As the percentage of AGW believers drops below 50% watch the politicians jump ship."
Yet this suggests nothing about the "correctness" of climate change claims - it's an appeal to popular opinion fallacy.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 Why would we change our position when science is on our side? Just because some scientists have taken the money and some others are more interested in their careers than their integrity? Does it so upset you that skeptics have the courage to stand apart from the crowd and stick to their convictions? this is a concept that warmers cant seem to get their heads around. Its called free thought!
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
"Why would we change our position when science is on our side? "
Except according to the majority of scientists in the relevant fields, and the vast majority of published science relating to effects of climate change across numerous scientific disciplines. Luckily, I have journal access, and it doesnt take much effort to see how rarely contrary papers are published.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@ferrett78 The Climategate and Climategate 2 emails clearly show the lengths warmers go to keep skeptical science from being published and to create the illusion of settled science. Just like you are doing now by repeating the mantra "the science is settled, the science is settled" ad nauseum. The last editor to publish a skeptical paper was sacked. Follow the links in the video - there is a peer reviewed dissenting opinion from qualified scientists.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement "The last editor to publish a skeptical paper was sacked."
A paper which I read, and was clearly and seriously flawed. As I recall, he resigned.
"Just like you are doing now by repeating the mantra "the science is settled, the science is settled"
Actually that's not what I said. I said that the majority of published science in my personal experience supports the anthropogenic climate change theory. Nice attempted straw man.
ferrett78 1 month ago
@customanalogue Again with the insulting denial label. When warmers have ensured the editor of a Science Journal was sacked for printing a peer reviewed skeptics' research paper of course no-one else is going to print the truth. The Climategate emails clearly detail the lengths warmers go to to ensure our message is kept from the public - you dont have the guts to allow our message to be widely available because it shreds the whole AGW "science".
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@ferrett78 Its a shame you care more for the feelings of these rogue scientists than you do for the scientific process that has been so badly trashed in the stampede for AGW money.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@customanalogue That is what happens when a few percent of the population of scientists sell out in return for research funding, fame and job progression while the other 97% of scientists stay quiet to protect their careers, Evil triumphs when good scientists do nothing.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@ferrett78 see previous response
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@ferrett78
I think I am about to get the boot from him if I continue... he erased my last post.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue I have only erased one of your posts and as always left a note saying why - the one where you called Alan Jones names. Feel free to retype this mystery comment against this comment and lets see it.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
What "names" were these. I am not able to review my post since you deleted it.
Also, what about the "names" that Allan Jones uses? Would you delete a post by him?
You yourself have defamed the majority of climate scientists by saying they are in the pocket of some governmental conspiracy. You have also stated injuriously that because they are paid LESS than the likes of Allan Jones (and his money must come fromsomewhere), that THEY, the scientists, ARE EASILY CORRUPTED !!!
customanalogue 1 month ago
@GalileoMovement
You accuse ME of libel? Then why don't you restate what I said (and help out my memory) and then let Allan Jones decide whether he will sue me?
Or is this just your selective CENSORSHIP that is influenced by the BIAS you already have shown evidence of.
Personally, I don't really think you know my position at all. It may actually surprise you and all you have to do is ask.
I am NOT an environmentalist, although any sane person would and should have concerns.
customanalogue 1 month ago
@customanalogue Give it up, I am not going to repeat your comment nor engage on this issue again. Feel free to talk about the actual Carbon Tax or Global Warming.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@customanalogue Yes I agree that most comments cant resist name calling rather than debating the science. Please prove your comment on CO2 lasting 1000 years, 19 studies over the last 30 years say it averages just 12 years - one of many real science reasons why AGW is wrong - see galileo website for more. We ignore Ozone because while it is more active than CO2 or water vapour, it only acts on a very narrow range of wavelengths and cant affect climate to a significant degree.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
@ferrett78
It is how these gases "cycle" that is critical. Short term "cycles" have a noise like signature. Long term "cycles" have a "signal" signature.
This is important to understand as that it how it was detected the the increase in CO2 had a "discernible" human influence.
BTW, even many who opposed that CO2 was causing rising temp has CHANGED THEIR TUNE.
Now they say it's true, but deny human influence.
SO THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED THAT CO2 CAUSES TEMPERATURE INCREASE!
customanalogue 3 months ago
@customanalogue Yes the signature of man-made CO2 is different to the signature of natural CO2, so yes we can see man made CO2 in the atmosphere. So far however knowing that fact hasn't helped shed any more light on the actual science of CO2 impact on the environment. It offers no proof for AGW. There is however no science that refers to your odd short term cycles having one signature and long-term another - if you have a reference on that feel free to share it.
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
Skeptics have always agreed that the world was warming slowly and has been since the last ice age. We also agree that CO2 causes a small and logarithmic increase in temperatures - so far since the industrial age began just a few points of a degree. Even a doubling of CO2 is unlikely to get that increase above 1 degree. CO2 increases cannot effect any larger a change than that. Talk of changing their tune is just another propaganda statement, and the science is clearly not settled!
GalileoMovement 1 month ago
So what's the reallity of axeing this tax Now! it was'nt given in referendum so we have no say! Both parties believe in the BS UN Agenda 21 policies and fake AGW.So where do we go now? What happens to the voices of the millions of Aussies that have not fallen for this BS agenda.Who do I vote for when both parties still refuse the Real non governmental science and only listen to the ones that have huge grants to lose? What happened to democracy? Why don't I get a say? Are we now bonded Slaves?
2wheels88 3 months ago
@ClimateAdaption There really isn't that much point in arguing with this guy. He's a nutter. After reading his paper, it is clear that anyone who could write that crap has no interest the truth. Also if you intend to argue each non-scientific point, you'll be here for weeks, thetre are just too many. You're better off using emotive arguments. Retards understand those.
marsglorious 4 months ago
@marsglorious "After reading his paper" - there isn't a paper, there is a website with AGW Science form actual scientists. I note your repeated use of the phrase "retards" to describe skeptics - it says more about you than us.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago 2
Nice psuedo-science.
"Don't worry this bottle of water only contains 0.4% arsenic. How would you like to drink it?"
marsglorious 4 months ago
@marsglorious Nothiing pseudo-science about it - I assume you have followed the links in the description section to read the many scientific papers that go with this video? The arsenic analogy has been used before in this comments thread. Its a nothing comment - you cant compare the human body with the Earth and all that goes into the ecosystem.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago
@GalileoMovement Carbon Dioxide contributes up to 26% to the warming of the planet due to the greenhouse effect. The point you make about the SMALL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is simply an attempted to mislead people.
All the science you reference on your website and here is junk science. You twist science to sound bad, but really most of the stuff you say on your website is wrong and what is science, is JUNK science. But to you climate science is a lie, yet you reference it. Why??
ClimateAdaptation 4 months ago
@ClimateAdaptation "All the science you reference on your website and here is junk science." Now you are being silly. These papers that we site are from major universities, NASA for heavens sake. There is nothing junk about it and this comment is way out of order.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago
@GalileoMovement
I could not find one thing on your website that proves anything, all I see is point less lies about real climate science. You only reference junk science that everyone dismisses.
ClimateAdaptation 4 months ago
@ClimateAdaptation OK if when presented with scientific argument by people qualified to do so all you see is junk science then I am really sorry for you. Thanks for coming, you have had your say.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago
Here is better advice Its all bull shit, look that up clowns. if an economist can make statements on climate change based on his computer model programs it is a sad day for real science.
jazzysnaps 4 months ago
@ClimateAdaptation Thanks man!
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
41 people are blind
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
It's a shame not everyone understands the facts conveyed in this video. Of course, Bob and Juliar know all this but have chosen to fuck the country up anyway.
lumabi25 4 months ago
@lumabi25 Rubbish. And of course Bob & Juliar KNOW better. They know they are best advised on global effects of excess CO2 by listening to scientists rather than a rumour monger of the likes of Alan & Lord Popeye. & of course not everyone takes such advice. That is why there are TV programmes that advise us on what the Taro Cards predict. So you might wish to believe Alan Jones is a better source of scientific knowledge & advice than a Taro Reader. Or that water flows up hill & UFO's exist.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
@sydneybb2 Not a lot we can reply to there .... but thanks for coming.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago
This video has MONSTERED the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The bridge was never designed or intended to be used as a ruler. I SAY leave the Sydney Harbour Bridge alone. Yes, it is true that it was once the centrepiece of high political DRAMA. But it is now a Lady of great importance & respect & she wishes to exit politics and enjoy her retirement. She thinks this disgusting anti-scientific debate is repugnant and her Engineer & scientific father (Brafield) would undoubtedly support the pricing of CO2.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
BTW. Abott is a monster because he MONSTERED Kate Blanchet. How dare he personally attack anyone for having a common and unsurprising political opinion. Would he ay the same if a business woman express the same opinion?
sydneybb2 4 months ago
@sydneybb2 And BTW, yes, you have discovered my weakness. I am a child. I'm now 6yrs old and growing up fast. I aged a year today because LABOR voted a CO2 price (not a tax IMHO). Now at last I look forwards to growing up. The Black Shirt (aka Nazis) Catholic ideolog monster, the mad monk set himself up to crash or crash thru, has all but lost, praise be to God! All three manifestation, btw. The disunity within the Liberals is very suppressed. Something a catholic can inflict.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
you state that of all the carbon created on the planet, 3% is made by man, of that you say australians contribute 1.3% that represents 43.3% of all man made carbon represented by Australians. the global human population is estimated at 6,775,235,700 yet australias population is 21,874,900 which represents 0.003% so your trying to suggest that 0.003% of the population is contributing 43.3% of the human global carbon source? why would we not try anything!?
youtewber100 4 months ago
@youtewber100 Exactly. I think Potholer54 has proved, as you have, that this ALAN f'ing JONES shit piece (assuming he put it together, authorised it or endorsed it) is ABSOLUTE (a favourite Alan Jones word btw) RUBBISH (another favourite word). Would you trust your doctor over & above Alan Jones? Doctors & climatologists are scientific Peers. Alan Jones is a rumour monger. His peers are other mongers. Mongers sometimes have poppy out eyes (Lord Muck) & they need to 1st go see a real Doctor.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
@sydneybb2 How can you say "EXACTLY" when his maths are wrong? Can you explain what on earth he is talking about? And what is all this ad-hominen "poppy out eyes" - WHAT ARE YOU - 3 YEARS OLD.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago
@youtewber100 I do hope that you have not created a brand new youtube account just to come here and post this confusing post - if youcant impress them with your knowledge bamboozle them with bullshit perhaps? Your maths are way off - please explain where the 43.3% thing comes from, its not a figure in the video, or on our website or that I can get to in any way.
GalileoMovement 4 months ago
The carbon tax is for red hairs :) LOL
Ryanbyou2ube 4 months ago