Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

Fact.

[Aussie]

Too complicated for you Aussie?

Yep.....hence my challenge. You up for it?

[IQS.RLOW]

Get your crayons and chalk out RS and make sure he doesn't chew them.

[Rorschach]

Too complicated for you Aussie?

Yep.....hence my challenge. You up for it?

Nope... but I do understand where both sides stand on the issue.

[Rorschach]

Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

Alarmists have been dismissive of this either ignoring it or creating all sorts of unlikely scenarios to get around it. When in all likely hood the answers are much simpler even if they may not support their beliefs.

Human life on Earth may not cope and may not survive. That is the point......

Well there is no evidence that that is correct. That is an alarmist statement.

But you did say "may not"

Just as the IPCC and others continually say things such as; "may be the cause of" "may lead to" "could lead to" "is likely to" etc, etc, etc....

[Super Nova]

Impact of CO2 on it's own.

Question around action we need to take earlier.

The graph below shows that if we take no action, CO2 will grow and the earth could be 6 degrees hotter by end of century. We need to do something or we will have this worst impact.

[IQS.RLOW]

Old news SN...the facts have changed.
When the facts have changed, what do you do, sir?

[Super Nova]

RS (tied of trying to remeber who to spell you handle, if you don't like this approviation, give me one you are happy with)

Since you like quotign articles, Try this from the NY Times 2 weeks ago.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/scie ... index.html
Scientists learned long ago that the earth’s climate has powerfully shaped the history of the human species — biologically, culturally and geographically. But only in the last few decades has research revealed that humans can be a powerful influence on the climate, as well.

A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world’s climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere’s invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide as an impacton the atmosphere.

That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world’s leading organizations of climate and earth scientists.

In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.

Some fluctuations in the earth’s temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity — because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

In addition, a report released by the I.P.C.C. in November 2011 predicted that global warming will cause more dangerous and “unprecedented extreme weather” in the future.

Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies.

I feel your postition is similar to the underlined above.

[IQS.RLOW]

Science isn't run by consensus

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the theory says that increasing CO2 leads to warming yet the last 16 years have no warming despite a 58% increase in CO2?

Does that not tell you that not only is the theory flawed but the panic merchants are selling you a bridge?

[Rorschach]

The graph below shows that if we take no action, CO2 will grow and the earth could be 6 degrees hotter by end of century. We need to do something or we will have this worst impact.

You are just not listening SN...
You are not stating facts.
I just quote articles and scientists because you don't listen to anything I say.

Australia's Climate Commissioner stated that; “If we cut emissions today global temperatures are not likely to
drop for about a thousand years.” ...

Don't you think there will be technological change somewhere in that 1000 years?