Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[up2u2]

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

The amount of CO₂ emitted by Man is easily identified.

Naturally occurring CFC's most certainly do occur. They are emitted by Volcanic activity.

Goodness me High School science. Where do you get this misinformation from?

[eliotness]

Methane release from melting

permafrost could trigger dangerous

global warming

"A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesnt adequately account for a methane warming feedback"

Policy Briefing Link

Dr. John Abraham Prof. Thermal Sciences

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isnt the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Guardian Article Link

Dr. Robert Holmes Earth System Scientist 'Woods Hole Research Center'

"Its essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the

possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming.

If they dont, I suspect that down the road well all be looking at the

2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror."

It is a real problem with IPCC Reports because of the political nature of GW / CC and the powerful and wealthy Fossil Fuel Industry funding Climate Denial they have to be so conservative in their reports and underestimate GW and CC.

If subterranean frozen Methane beds begin to be exposed and warmed it triggers a unstoppable feedback cycle of Global Warming and more Methane being released which then triggers more Global Warming.

The current Global Warming is caused by Man putting CO₂ into the atmosphere so Man can reduce it so it can be addressed. The Methane beds in the Arctic begin to be released we can only sit back and watch. Not much can be done.

You have ignored my post 418 about the scientific consensus on population growth. But how can mankind reduce CO2 emissions if the world's population is going to double in the 21st century ??? Live the dream my friend because it isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, your making light of the comment about holocaust deniers by equating them with people who question your beliefs ( Note I say beliefs and not facts, because a forecast of the future temperature of the earth is a projection based on computer models and NOT A FACT ) is so deeply offensive to anyone who is Jewish and/or had family killed by the Nazis.

The Guardian, which must be the greenest paper on the planet, has admitted a scientific consensus got it wrong, so why oh why do you keep on insisting your version of a scientific consensus is infallible ?

Your dismissal of historical records is very disturbing and rather reflects on the GW prophets of doom's wider education. You are without question a very focused person and I commend you for that, but you need to appreciate all the related topics.

With the population growth it is even more crucial to transition to non polluting Clean Energy. It actually makes population growth sustainable. Generate more energy to support a larger population without adding any more CO₂ pollutant.

I didn't mention Jews or Nazis

The Guardian actually reports the consensus on GW / CC correctly publishing the facts not propaganda.

GW / CC theory is based on historical records. I focus on the science full stop.

Yet again (and again) you say CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. It is an essential molecule for life on earth, without it there would be no life, as we know it on the planet.

The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ? I know the Guardian is the mouthpiece of the champagne socialists, the Liberal elite and the Green mafia and that is why the admitting of a scientific consensus being proved wrong after 20 years is so significant, especially as your much repeated scientific consensus on man-made GW is almost 20 years old

I stated before that climate change has always happened and quoted historical events. Your reply was to question who wrote about those events. Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?

The most worrying thing about your politics is your making light of the Holocaust, be it of the Armenians in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Ruanda, Cosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect), Cambodia and many other places. Holocaust denier is a criminal offence in some countries and for you to equate that with questioning some computer modelling of future climate is so so very deeply offensive and shows a very severe misunderstanding of history.

So what green energy do you think will make a doubling of the world's population sustainable, pray tell. Also include whether you have considered a full "Life Cycle Analysis" for your version of green energy. Apart from energy, how in goodness sake are we to feed and give clean water to 12 billion people ?

When pinned to the wall your argument is starting to show big holes, but "there is non so blind as those who will not see".

[up2u2]

Willie didn't seem to deny that the email existed so it must.

That really is the most fatuous statement imaginable, right down there at the level of the SkS Kidz themselves -- or Marsha Blackburn. But pretty much of a piece with mainstream Green/Left "logic", I suppose.

I sure hope the world comes up with better thinking than that when it gets together to discuss climate matters next month.

Old fraudster Willie was like a 'deer in the headlights'. He gets all fidgety and nervous drinking water lashing out at the questions and deflecting when all along the simple answer was NO there is no such email and that proposal was never made. Problem is that is exactly what the proposal was, wasn't it Willie. lmao.

Then when the student says Solar radiation is constant how do you explain the Warming over the last hundred years. Old Willies made a run for the door. Too funny.

[eliotness]

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

The amount of CO₂ emitted by Man is easily identified.

Naturally occurring CFC's most certainly do occur. They are emitted by Volcanic activity.

Goodness me High School science. Where do you get this misinformation from?[/quo





How on earth can you quantify the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere emitted by man at one time when there is a natural process of generation and consumption going on ? There is no question that man emits CO2, heck ! we breath, but to quantify that is JUST AN ESTIMATE based on what computer modelling you are using.


I know of NO natural process that emits CFCs , so as you frequently say "provide a peer reviewed reference that proves that "


And your last phrase sir is deeply insulting especially as you have never provided any indication of your internationally recognised qualifications and work experience.

The holes in your argument are getting bigger by the minute.

[up2u2]

Yet again (and again) you say CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. It is an essential molecule for life on earth, without it there would be no life, as we know it on the planet.

The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ? I know the Guardian is the mouthpiece of the champagne socialists, the Liberal elite and the Green mafia and that is why the admitting of a scientific consensus being proved wrong after 20 years is so significant, especially as your much repeated scientific consensus on man-made GW is almost 20 years old

I stated before that climate change has always happened and quoted historical events. Your reply was to question who wrote about those events. Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?

The most worrying thing about your politics is your making light of the Holocaust, be it of the Armenians in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Ruanda, Cosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect), Cambodia and many other places. Holocaust denier is a criminal offence in some countries and for you to equate that with questioning some computer modelling of future climate is so so very deeply offensive and shows a very severe misunderstanding of history.

So what green energy do you think will make a doubling of the world's population sustainable, pray tell. Also include whether you have considered a full "Life Cycle Analysis" for your version of green energy. Apart from energy, how in goodness sake are we to feed and give clean water to 12 billion people ?

When pinned to the wall your argument is starting to show big holes, but "there is non so blind as those who will not see".

Cyanide is a natural occurring molecule pour a few thousand litres into a river and get back to me. Anything can be a pollutant.

"The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ?"

Oh 'population' my mistake. Population and climate change are not relevant.

"Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?"

What is the Ancient Greeks position on modern day GW / CC? Do you have a link?

I made absolutely no comment on Armenian's in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Rwanda, Kosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect -I corrected it for you- your welcome), Cambodia and many other places. None whatsoever. GW / CC is the topic.

"life cycle analysis"? No problem pop it up and I will take a look. Do you have a link?

[up2u2]

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

The amount of CO₂ emitted by Man is easily identified.

Naturally occurring CFC's most certainly do occur. They are emitted by Volcanic activity.

Goodness me High School science. Where do you get this misinformation from?[/quo

How on earth can you quantify the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere emitted by man at one time when there is a natural process of generation and consumption going on ? There is no question that man emits CO2, heck ! we breath, but to quantify that is JUST AN ESTIMATE based on what computer modelling you are using.

I know of NO natural process that emits CFCs , so as you frequently say "provide a peer reviewed reference that proves that "

And your last phrase sir is deeply insulting especially as you have never provided any indication of your internationally recognised qualifications and work experience.

The holes in your argument are getting bigger by the minute.

"How on earth can you quantify the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere emitted by man at one time when there is a natural process of generation and consumption going on ?"

Look it up. It is very simple.

"I know of NO natural process that emits CFCs , so as you frequently say "provide a peer reviewed reference that proves that "

Look it up. It is pretty easy.

Sorry but this really is High School science 101.

"holes in my argument"> lol CFC's aren't' produced naturally. They most certainly are. Man made CO2 cannot be quantified. It most certainly can. Look it up, do some research I'm not here to hold your hand.

[eliotness]

Yet again (and again) you say CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. It is an essential molecule for life on earth, without it there would be no life, as we know it on the planet.

The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ? I know the Guardian is the mouthpiece of the champagne socialists, the Liberal elite and the Green mafia and that is why the admitting of a scientific consensus being proved wrong after 20 years is so significant, especially as your much repeated scientific consensus on man-made GW is almost 20 years old

I stated before that climate change has always happened and quoted historical events. Your reply was to question who wrote about those events. Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?

The most worrying thing about your politics is your making light of the Holocaust, be it of the Armenians in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Ruanda, Cosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect), Cambodia and many other places. Holocaust denier is a criminal offence in some countries and for you to equate that with questioning some computer modelling of future climate is so so very deeply offensive and shows a very severe misunderstanding of history.

So what green energy do you think will make a doubling of the world's population sustainable, pray tell. Also include whether you have considered a full "Life Cycle Analysis" for your version of green energy. Apart from energy, how in goodness sake are we to feed and give clean water to 12 billion people ?

When pinned to the wall your argument is starting to show big holes, but "there is non so blind as those who will not see".

Cyanide is a natural occurring molecule pour a few thousand litres into a river and get back to me. Anything can be a pollutant.

"The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ?"

Oh 'population' my mistake. Population and climate change are not relevant.

"Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?"

What is the Ancient Greeks position on modern day GW / CC? Do you have a link?

I made absolutely no comment on Armenian's in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Rwanda, Kosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect -I corrected it for you- your welcome), Cambodia and many other places. None whatsoever. GW / CC is the topic.

"life cycle analysis"? No problem pop it up and I will take a look. Do you have a link?

Who mentioned Cyanide, I said CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), so we now know your knowledge of Chemistry.

I said the Ancient Greeks invented science because they have historical data showing the climate "in their known world" Your reply was "what is the ancient Greeks position on modern day GW/CC". Now I know you are taking the piss.

The topic is without question CC, but your use of the word "denier" in this context is so linked to the holocaust, heck you even said "climate holocaust". Try and "deny" that.

Life Cycle Analysis, sure there is an ISO standard for that topic, which shows your lack of awareness of environmental management.

Keep digging my friend, 'cause the hole is getting deeper.

[up2u2]

Cyanide is a natural occurring molecule pour a few thousand litres into a river and get back to me. Anything can be a pollutant.

"The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ?"

Oh 'population' my mistake. Population and climate change are not relevant.

"Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?"

What is the Ancient Greeks position on modern day GW / CC? Do you have a link?

I made absolutely no comment on Armenian's in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Rwanda, Kosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect -I corrected it for you- your welcome), Cambodia and many other places. None whatsoever. GW / CC is the topic.

"life cycle analysis"? No problem pop it up and I will take a look. Do you have a link?

Who mentioned Cyanide, I said CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), so we now know your knowledge of Chemistry.

I said the Ancient Greeks invented science because they have historical data showing the climate "in their known world" Your reply was "what is the ancient Greeks position on modern day GW/CC". Now I know you are taking the piss.

The topic is without question CC, but your use of the word "denier" in this context is so linked to the holocaust, heck you even said "climate holocaust". Try and "deny" that.

Life Cycle Analysis, sure there is an ISO standard for that topic, which shows your lack of awareness of environmental management.

Keep digging my friend, 'cause the hole is getting deeper.

Anything can be a pollutant. Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean it cannot become a pollutant. Your analogy of CFC was wrong anyway. Ah Organic Chemistry one of my favourite subjects.

Yes Climate holocaust denier. A holocaust of climate. Have no idea what you are rabbiting on about.

Exactly so what is the life cycle analysis of population growth? Give me a link.

[up2u2]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

16th October 2015

Man what absolutely great news and well deserved.

John Cook B.Sc First Class Honours

Climate Communications Fellow University of Queensland

Founder of Skeptical Science Website - Awarded the Eureka Award for Science Communication

John Cook named as one of the 10 Distinguished Fellows by The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

"I'm honoured to be elected as one of ten new Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. It’s especially cool to be listed with some scientists whom I deeply admire such as Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky and James Powell."

His ability to communicate the science on GW / CC and debunk the myths propagated by Climate Deniers really is unequalled even by NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth.

If we could just get him to sort out Congresswoman Blackburn. She is beyond John Cook's skills in communication I think.

[eliotness]

Cyanide is a natural occurring molecule pour a few thousand litres into a river and get back to me. Anything can be a pollutant.

"The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ?"

Oh 'population' my mistake. Population and climate change are not relevant.

"Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?"

What is the Ancient Greeks position on modern day GW / CC? Do you have a link?

I made absolutely no comment on Armenian's in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Rwanda, Kosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect -I corrected it for you- your welcome), Cambodia and many other places. None whatsoever. GW / CC is the topic.

"life cycle analysis"? No problem pop it up and I will take a look. Do you have a link?

Who mentioned Cyanide, I said CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), so we now know your knowledge of Chemistry.

I said the Ancient Greeks invented science because they have historical data showing the climate "in their known world" Your reply was "what is the ancient Greeks position on modern day GW/CC". Now I know you are taking the piss.

The topic is without question CC, but your use of the word "denier" in this context is so linked to the holocaust, heck you even said "climate holocaust". Try and "deny" that.

Life Cycle Analysis, sure there is an ISO standard for that topic, which shows your lack of awareness of environmental management.

Keep digging my friend, 'cause the hole is getting deeper.

Anything can be a pollutant. Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean it cannot become a pollutant. Your analogy of CFC was wrong anyway. Ah Organic Chemistry one of my favourite subjects.

Yes Climate holocaust denier. A holocaust of climate. Have no idea what you are rabbiting on about.

Exactly so what is the life cycle analysis of population growth? Give me a link.

Like I said "keep digging"

You obviously no idea what "life cycle analysis" is all about or even bothered to look it up, oh dear, oh dear !

So "anything can be a pollutant" 555 yet again I ask you to refer to the definition in "The Oxford English Dictionary".

If you've no idea of the linking of the denial of the holocaust with CC, then you should maybe expect a visit soon from MOSSAD for some attitude adjustment.

If sir, organic chemistry was "one of your favourite subjects", I presume that was at junior school because you confused CFCs with Cyanide. So pray tell, why was my analogy of CFCs wrong ? Were they not a man-made pollutant (in the true sense of the word) and were they not effecting the Ozone Layer, and did not their universal banning help the Ozone Layer to begin recovery ???

I can lend you a spade if you've worn out the other one digging your very deep hole.

[eliotness]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

16th October 2015

Man what absolutely great news and well deserved.

John Cook B.Sc First Class Honours

Climate Communications Fellow University of Queensland

Founder of Skeptical Science Website - Awarded the Eureka Award for Science Communication

John Cook named as one of the 10 Distinguished Fellows by The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

"I'm honoured to be elected as one of ten new Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Its especially cool to be listed with some scientists whom I deeply admire such as Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky and James Powell."

His ability to communicate the science on GW / CC and debunk the myths propagated by Climate Deniers really is unequalled even by NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth.

If we could just get him to sort out Congresswoman Blackburn. She is beyond John Cook's skills in communication I think.

Are you actually saying he's just got a BSc , not a MSc, a PhD or a professorship ? You mean to say your scientific prophet is just a lowly BSc from an Australian University ????? Oh dear, forget the spade you'll need a JCB to continue digging your hole.

[up2u2]

Like I said "keep digging"

You obviously no idea what "life cycle analysis" is all about or even bothered to look it up, oh dear, oh dear !

So "anything can be a pollutant" 555 yet again I ask you to refer to the definition in "The Oxford English Dictionary".

If you've no idea of the linking of the denial of the holocaust with CC, then you should maybe expect a visit soon from MOSSAD for some attitude adjustment.

If sir, organic chemistry was "one of your favourite subjects", I presume that was at junior school because you confused CFCs with Cyanide. So pray tell, why was my analogy of CFCs wrong ? Were they not a man-made pollutant (in the true sense of the word) and were they not effecting the Ozone Layer, and did not their universal banning help the Ozone Layer to begin recovery ???

I can lend you a spade if you've worn out the other one digging your very deep hole.

You are the one pushing population growth not me. What is your life cycle analysis on population growth?

Yes anything can become a pollutant even noise, anything. Natural or man made.

MOSSAD? I think you are losing the plot lol.

Absolutely, Organic Chemistry is one of my top subjects. Loved it. Not in Junior High much later. It is why I generally correct CO2 to CO₂ because using the incorrect nomenclature irks me.

Your analogy on CO₂ being naturally occurring how can it be a pollutant. Well Cyanide is a naturally occurring molecule also and it most certainly can be a pollutant as can CO₂. Also your premise that CFC's can only be attributed to man because they do not occur naturally is simply not true. CFC's do occur naturally and can be separated as a pollutant and a proportion be attributed to Man. The same as CO₂ is naturally occurring and a proportion as a pollution can be attributed to man.

The facts are naturally occurring CFC's are not in themselves a pollutant. The CFC's produced by man certainly did become a pollutant and effected the Ozone Layer.

Naturally occurring CO₂ is not a pollutant in itself but the added man made CO₂ is a pollutant and is effecting Global Warming and causing Climate Change.

I am pretty sure everyone knows who is digging a hole lol

Da Daaaaaa!

[up2u2]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

16th October 2015

Man what absolutely great news and well deserved.

John Cook B.Sc First Class Honours

Climate Communications Fellow University of Queensland

Founder of Skeptical Science Website - Awarded the Eureka Award for Science Communication

John Cook named as one of the 10 Distinguished Fellows by The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

"I'm honoured to be elected as one of ten new Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Its especially cool to be listed with some scientists whom I deeply admire such as Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky and James Powell."

His ability to communicate the science on GW / CC and debunk the myths propagated by Climate Deniers really is unequalled even by NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth.

If we could just get him to sort out Congresswoman Blackburn. She is beyond John Cook's skills in communication I think.

Are you actually saying he's just got a BSc , not a MSc, a PhD or a professorship ? You mean to say your scientific prophet is just a lowly BSc from an Australian University ????? Oh dear, forget the spade you'll need a JCB to continue digging your hole.

A Bachelor of Science major in Physics First Class Honours. Currently a Communications Fellow at the Queensland University (Australia) Global Change Institute.

He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

Currently completing a PhD in Cognitive Psychology

Why?

[canuckamuck]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

16th October 2015

Man what absolutely great news and well deserved.

John Cook B.Sc First Class Honours

Climate Communications Fellow University of Queensland

Founder of Skeptical Science Website - Awarded the Eureka Award for Science Communication

John Cook named as one of the 10 Distinguished Fellows by The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

"I'm honoured to be elected as one of ten new Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Its especially cool to be listed with some scientists whom I deeply admire such as Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky and James Powell."

His ability to communicate the science on GW / CC and debunk the myths propagated by Climate Deniers really is unequalled even by NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth.

If we could just get him to sort out Congresswoman Blackburn. She is beyond John Cook's skills in communication I think.

Are you actually saying he's just got a BSc , not a MSc, a PhD or a professorship ? You mean to say your scientific prophet is just a lowly BSc from an Australian University ????? Oh dear, forget the spade you'll need a JCB to continue digging your hole.

A Bachelor of Science major in Physics First Class Honours. Currently a Communications Fellow at the Queensland University (Australia) Global Change Institute.

He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

Currently completing a PhD in Cognitive Psychology

Why?

Profile of a science propagandist.

[eliotness]

Like I said "keep digging"

You obviously no idea what "life cycle analysis" is all about or even bothered to look it up, oh dear, oh dear !

So "anything can be a pollutant" 555 yet again I ask you to refer to the definition in "The Oxford English Dictionary".

If you've no idea of the linking of the denial of the holocaust with CC, then you should maybe expect a visit soon from MOSSAD for some attitude adjustment.

If sir, organic chemistry was "one of your favourite subjects", I presume that was at junior school because you confused CFCs with Cyanide. So pray tell, why was my analogy of CFCs wrong ? Were they not a man-made pollutant (in the true sense of the word) and were they not effecting the Ozone Layer, and did not their universal banning help the Ozone Layer to begin recovery ???

I can lend you a spade if you've worn out the other one digging your very deep hole.

You are the one pushing population growth not me. What is your life cycle analysis on population growth?

Yes anything can become a pollutant even noise, anything. Natural or man made.

MOSSAD? I think you are losing the plot lol.

Absolutely, Organic Chemistry is one of my top subjects. Loved it. Not in Junior High much later. It is why I generally correct CO2 to CO₂ because using the incorrect nomenclature irks me.

Your analogy on CO₂ being naturally occurring how can it be a pollutant. Well Cyanide is a naturally occurring molecule also and it most certainly can be a pollutant as can CO₂. Also your premise that CFC's can only be attributed to man because they do not occur naturally is simply not true. CFC's do occur naturally and can be separated as a pollutant and a proportion be attributed to Man. The same as CO₂ is naturally occurring and a proportion as a pollution can be attributed to man.

The facts are naturally occurring CFC's are not in themselves a pollutant. The CFC's produced by man certainly did become a pollutant and effected the Ozone Layer.

Naturally occurring CO₂ is not a pollutant in itself but the added man made CO₂ is a pollutant and is effecting Global Warming and causing Climate Change.

I am pretty sure everyone knows who is digging a hole lol

Da Daaaaaa!
[/quote





It is obvious that you have no understanding of ISO 14040. Population growth has zero relation to life cycle analysis.

ONLY YOU mentioned Cyanide. How on earth you can compare Carbon Dioxide to Cyanide ? NO ONE EVER has died of CO2 poisoning but rather when CO2 has displaced Oxygen to a huge amount then people have died from Oxygen starvation and NOT Carbon Dioxide poisoning ( Carbon Monoxide is an all together different matter). I do agree that many naturally occurring chemicals can be toxic, after all many people have been murdered in the past by "naturally occurring poisons". But I feel that is a pretty wet attempt at diversion.


So where on earth (pardon the pun) do you get CFCs occur naturally. Please be so kind as to give a scientific reference because that would be amazing news to most environmental scientists, because I believe YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG 100%.

My point, which you obviously missed, was the atmosphere is in a dynamic state. So whilst it may be possible to calculate the amount of CO2 being produced by the Earth's 7+ billion people, it can only be an estimate of how much of that CO2 is "locked into the atmosphere" compared to how much can be attributed to natural processes.

By the way, to correct you, CO2 is not an organic chemical. If you had studied real chemistry you should know that.

It is simple maths to understand if the population of the earth doubles in a century then the earth's population then, not us now, will face a multitude of problems, not just 2 to 5 degrees Celsius rise, but massive political unrest, which will ultimately kill far more people than slightly warmer climate.

So sorry to irk you by using CO2. I do actually know how to write it correctly, but currently I am using a tablet rather than a computer and there is no facility for such niceties.

By the way, you have a way to dig before you exceed the hole in Kimberly, but you are certainly trying, LOL.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Scott

[DDbkh]

To say the debate is over depends on whether the Koch brothers and Big Oil will keep paying spurious scientists to support their view. Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen. This has become something akin to gun control for the looney right in America - i.e. There's no chance of them listening.

Maybe it would be more productive to talk about controlling pollution - but Big Oil would probably object to that as well !

[up2u2]

How the Right Wing Media Promotes

Propaganda on Climate Change.

Isoprene is a gas that assists aerosols to form Clouds. Depending on the type of Clouds that are formed will dictate whether they will trap heat (warming) or reflect heat (cooling). Aerosols in themselves reflect heat (cooling) but overall Aerosols / Clouds are net warming (Trenberth et al). So it is relevant to GW / CC.

Climate Model Simulations always showed more Isoprene than field measurements indicated. A recent study detected a sea surface micro layer that might produce more Isoprene into the Atmosphere. So this new information reconciles the discrepancy between the Climate Model Simulations and the field measurements.

As Co-Author Dr. Christian George comments:

Our study is a new brick that should help understanding our complex world,

by providing new knowledge on air-sea exchanges, but it definitively does not

question climate change, it just helps us understand its impact.

There is no question that the global climate will become warmer. The question

is just how much, how fast and how the effects will change our lives.

So overall this study confirms the Climate Models are more accurate than thought and in no way changes the current knowledge and understanding on GW / CC. Most importantly it does NOT show more Aerosols entering the Atmosphere that will create cooling.

Enter the Climate Denier Propaganda Media Machine:

James Dilingpole reports for Brietbart and claimed the Paper “may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory.” and "a hitherto unknown cooling process" Some right wing media outlets claim "the study had uncovered a global cooling process.” The Register and Express both reported that temperatures have been stable for 15 years and that this Paper could explain that fictional temperature stability. Well Global Temperatures have risen 0.2^OC over the past 15 years so it is difficult to understand where they got that idea from.

Prof. Piers Forster Professor of Physical Climate Change on the above 'journalists' (and I use the term very lightly) as "Quite Crazy":

“First, the media reports confuse background levels of isoprene with a change over time, he says.

In order to reduce the impacts of climate change, isoprene levels would need to rise to counterbalance

increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But the paper isn’t saying that isoprene levels are

getting higher, just that they’ve always been high

The natural aerosol cooling could be 100 times bigger than our current estimate,

but it would make no difference to climate change as it would stay more-or-less constant with time.”

Who does James Dilingpole seek out to confirm his Propaganda?

Not the Paper's author are an actual qualified Climate Scientist like Prof. Piers Forster but Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist and Director of Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

The UK government’s Charity Commission ruled last year that the GWPF was blurring fact and comment on climate change, lacked neutrality, and promoted a contrarian position on the subject.

I understand why the man in the street is fooled by these pedallers of propaganda.

Article

[up2u2]

It is obvious that you have no understanding of ISO 14040. Population growth has zero relation to life cycle analysis.

ONLY YOU mentioned Cyanide. How on earth you can compare Carbon Dioxide to Cyanide ? NO ONE EVER has died of CO2 poisoning but rather when CO2 has displaced Oxygen to a huge amount then people have died from Oxygen starvation and NOT Carbon Dioxide poisoning ( Carbon Monoxide is an all together different matter). I do agree that many naturally occurring chemicals can be toxic, after all many people have been murdered in the past by "naturally occurring poisons". But I feel that is a pretty wet attempt at diversion.

So where on earth (pardon the pun) do you get CFCs occur naturally. Please be so kind as to give a scientific reference because that would be amazing news to most environmental scientists, because I believe YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG 100%.

My point, which you obviously missed, was the atmosphere is in a dynamic state. So whilst it may be possible to calculate the amount of CO2 being produced by the Earth's 7+ billion people, it can only be an estimate of how much of that CO2 is "locked into the atmosphere" compared to how much can be attributed to natural processes.

By the way, to correct you, CO2 is not an organic chemical. If you had studied real chemistry you should know that.

It is simple maths to understand if the population of the earth doubles in a century then the earth's population then, not us now, will face a multitude of problems, not just 2 to 5 degrees Celsius rise, but massive political unrest, which will ultimately kill far more people than slightly warmer climate.

So sorry to irk you by using CO2. I do actually know how to write it correctly, but currently I am using a tablet rather than a computer and there is no facility for such niceties.

By the way, you have a way to dig before you exceed the hole in Kimberly, but you are certainly trying, LOL.

Sorry eliot but this is just getting too stupid to respond too.

Cyanide was an analogy that showed you were wrong.

"CO2 is not an Organic Chemical"

So what is it?

Volcanoes emit natural CFC's I told you ten posts ago.

[lifeincnx]

Just for fun, let's a take a deep dive at what Exxon thought internally about CO2 and climate change back in 1982.

At first, their research team was really gung ho in gathering, and ultimately finding conclusive evidence confirming that yes, Houston we have a problem. Then, oops, the boardroom brought in the PR folks and lobbyists to shut this huge internal cluster <deleted> down. They haven't changed their tune since, and their bought and paid 'scientific' campaign worked beautifully as so evidenced by the Climate Change deniers right here in TV la la land.

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

[eliotness]

It is obvious that you have no understanding of ISO 14040. Population growth has zero relation to life cycle analysis.

ONLY YOU mentioned Cyanide. How on earth you can compare Carbon Dioxide to Cyanide ? NO ONE EVER has died of CO2 poisoning but rather when CO2 has displaced Oxygen to a huge amount then people have died from Oxygen starvation and NOT Carbon Dioxide poisoning ( Carbon Monoxide is an all together different matter). I do agree that many naturally occurring chemicals can be toxic, after all many people have been murdered in the past by "naturally occurring poisons". But I feel that is a pretty wet attempt at diversion.

So where on earth (pardon the pun) do you get CFCs occur naturally. Please be so kind as to give a scientific reference because that would be amazing news to most environmental scientists, because I believe YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG 100%.

My point, which you obviously missed, was the atmosphere is in a dynamic state. So whilst it may be possible to calculate the amount of CO2 being produced by the Earth's 7+ billion people, it can only be an estimate of how much of that CO2 is "locked into the atmosphere" compared to how much can be attributed to natural processes.

By the way, to correct you, CO2 is not an organic chemical. If you had studied real chemistry you should know that.

It is simple maths to understand if the population of the earth doubles in a century then the earth's population then, not us now, will face a multitude of problems, not just 2 to 5 degrees Celsius rise, but massive political unrest, which will ultimately kill far more people than slightly warmer climate.

So sorry to irk you by using CO2. I do actually know how to write it correctly, but currently I am using a tablet rather than a computer and there is no facility for such niceties.

By the way, you have a way to dig before you exceed the hole in Kimberly, but you are certainly trying, LOL.

Sorry eliot but this is just getting too stupid to respond too.

Cyanide was an analogy that showed you were wrong.

"CO2 is not an Organic Chemical"

So what is it?

Volcanoes emit natural CFC's I told you ten posts ago.

Yet again you refuse to say were you got the information from that volcanoes emit Chlorofluorocarbons. So without peer reviewed scientific evidence I don't believe you.

Is the reaction of a carbonate with an acid an organic reaction ? Is Calcium Carbonate an organic chemical ?

So when you have no scientific counter you call the argument "stupid". That sir says a lot about your blinkered view of the subject.

And how your Cyanide analogy, bit like comparing potatoes and plums, proved me wrong, well if you think so up2u.

BTW how's the digging going ?

[up2u2]

Just for fun, let's a take a deep dive at what Exxon thought internally about CO2 and climate change back in 1982.

At first, their research team was really gung ho in gathering, and ultimately finding conclusive evidence confirming that yes, Houston we have a problem. Then, oops, the boardroom brought in the PR folks and lobbyists to shut this huge internal cluster <deleted> down. They haven't changed their tune since, and their bought and paid 'scientific' campaign worked beautifully as so evidenced by the Climate Change deniers right here in TV la la land.

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

Exxon and Koch Bros. come up the most in funding Climate Denial non science. I think most funding is laundered through bogus right wing 'foundations' now.

ExxonMobil got caught out funding Heartland Institute, Willie Soon and WUWT but now do not contribute funds directly.

If you look at Heartland Institute a high profile Climate Denier propaganda 'think tank' they no longer disclose their funders. If they didn't have anything to hide why not. Scientists disclose their funding.

Castle Rock Foundation

Sarah Scaife Foundation

John M. Olin Foundation

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Donors Trust (these guys hide where the money came from)

The only way to force these bogus Institutes to publish who funds them is to make it Law to do so and apply Jail terms if they get caught not revealing their funding. Also detailed published audits. It isn't that ExxonMobile pay any Tax it is that they pay a lot of campaign funds to congressmen. That's why this type of transparent Legislation doesn't get tabled.

[RickBradford]

To say the debate is over depends on whether the Koch brothers and Big Oil will keep paying spurious scientists to support their view.

Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen.

This has become something akin to gun control for the looney right in America - i.e. There's no chance of them listening.

Maybe it would be more productive to talk about controlling pollution - but Big Oil would probably object to that as well !

If you want to find scapegoats, the Koch Brothers won't really do. They're simply cartoon villains, like Fox News. Their actual influence is minimal but they manage to evoke terror in the Green/Left.

The amount the Kochs give to research is miniscule compared to the countless billions of taxpayer dollars that are p**sed away on pointless climate "activities" every year.

If you want real scapegoats, look no further than politicians. They've had countless opportunities to do something about the climate, but in reality have done nothing substantive. Nor are they going to.

Next month is the 21st Annual GreenBlob Ritual, or COP21, in Paris, and we already know it will be as much of a damp squib as the previous 20. Delegates from 180-odd nations, plus other important stakeholders like the Bianca Jagger Foundation and the World Association of Girl Guides, will gather to posture and prate about climate, but nothing more.

Fairly soon, climate alarmists will be no different to any other irrelevant group of shouty activists, and will have to move on to cool new activism like banning stand-up urinals or saving the capybara.

[DDbkh]

Well done excellent effort to deflect the point. The point is climate change (hot or cold) is caused by pollution, mainly hydro carbons from oil. That is the issue because it is the cause. Plastics pollute the sea, not just the rubber duck armada but small globules that are killing the fish today have not already been swept up by Taiwanese longline trawlers.

An interesting suggestion regarding the effects of climate change is that the Gulf Stream which is driven by polar waters could stop because the surface water is no longer colder than the deep water - and that will start an ice age !! Crazy but GW could trip an ice age!

[RickBradford]

The point is climate change (hot or cold) is caused by pollution, mainly hydro carbons from oil. That is the issue because it is the cause.

Please forward your intriguing theory to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, because they have spend decades believing that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide, and have wasted tens of billions of dollars trying to prove it, but failing.

Now we know why! It was hydrocarbons all the time!

If you're right, and I'm sure you've done your research, we can stop all the silly anti-CO2 conferences like GreenBlob 21, and get down to addressing the real concerns about hydrocarbons.

[chuckd]

Just did a quick scan of the internet and came up with some interesting figures on funding of both global warming and anti-global warming.

On the anti-global warming side are two players already mentioned several times on this thread..

The Koch brothers have donated a total of $79,048,951 since 1997, an average of $4.65 Million annually.

Exxon Mobil donated some $30 million beginning in 1981 but stopped donating in 2007.

On the warming side Tom Steyer spent some $70 million on the 2014 mid-term elections trying to get global warming advocates elected.

The elephant in the room for donating to the global warming theory is...

The US government.

The total for all pertinent departments comes to a rather impressive $21,408,000,000. That's $21.408 Billion.

I seriously doubt more than $3.00 of that total went to the anti-global warming side.

Following the money will tell you why the scientists are so heavily invested in global warming and keeping the cash cow belching money.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3115a362-20c0-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3okI7tSjX

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

[up2u2]

Just did a quick scan of the internet and came up with some interesting figures on funding of both global warming and anti-global warming.

On the anti-global warming side are two players already mentioned several times on this thread..

The Koch brothers have donated a total of $79,048,951 since 1997, an average of $4.65 Million annually.

Exxon Mobil donated some $30 million beginning in 1981 but stopped donating in 2007.

On the warming side Tom Steyer spent some $70 million on the 2014 mid-term elections trying to get global warming advocates elected.

The elephant in the room for donating to the global warming theory is...

The US government.

The total for all pertinent departments comes to a rather impressive $21,408,000,000. That's $21.408 Billion.

I seriously doubt more than $3.00 of that total went to the anti-global warming side.

Following the money will tell you why the scientists are so heavily invested in global warming and keeping the cash cow belching money.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3115a362-20c0-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3okI7tSjX

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard.

So when taxpayer funded science provides evidence of global warming the taxpayer should then fund pseudo 'Institutes', 'Foundations', 'Think Tanks','Unscientific Blog Sites' and pay for biased Media and opinion editorial that reject that scientific evidence.

Your theory is scientists from all over the world got together to invent global warming to become wealthy by defrauding governments around the world.

NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, UKMet all Research Universities around the World have simply made up the evidence?

The public should be guided on global warming and climate change by 'Institutions', 'Think Tanks', 'Foundations', 'Blog Sites', 'Media' and 'opinion editorial' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industries?

[eliotness]

Well done excellent effort to deflect the point. The point is climate change (hot or cold) is caused by pollution, mainly hydro carbons from oil. That is the issue because it is the cause. Plastics pollute the sea, not just the rubber duck armada but small globules that are killing the fish today have not already been swept up by Taiwanese longline trawlers.

An interesting suggestion regarding the effects of climate change is that the Gulf Stream which is driven by polar waters could stop because the surface water is no longer colder than the deep water - and that will start an ice age !! Crazy but GW could trip an ice age!

Good post, but I thought the Gulf Stream change would be because of changes in salinity of polar waters not water temperature. If it happened it would mean London would have similar winters to Moscow.

[up2u2]

An interesting suggestion regarding the effects of climate change is that the Gulf Stream which is driven by polar waters could stop because the surface water is no longer colder than the deep water - and that will start an ice age !! Crazy but GW could trip an ice age!

Do you have a link to the scientific evidence that Climate Change will alter the Gulf Stream and will trip a Glaciation (Ice Age)?

[eliotness]

Dear Up2u2

CFCs can be produced from volcanic eruptions, OK I admit it happens. Nevertheless it does not really affect what I said, man-made chemicals (albeit a group of cpds that can be found in trace amounts naturally) were identified as causing harm to the Ozone Layer. Campaigns were undertaken against the use of those chemicals. Those chemicsls are now banned in most countries and the Ozone Layer is recovering. Surely you don't have a problem with that ?!!!!!

I don't understand your mention of pyrene, which is a naturally occurring chemical found mainly in certain species of trees. Man's current generation comes mainly from natural rubber processing, although in the past the processing of coal/coke to produce town-gas would have contributed, as coal was formed from ancient forests. So I would appreciate to know your logic on choosing pyrene.

Have a nice day

[RidgeRunner]

The deniers know they can't win the arguement so they attempt to confuse people and hope for a draw.

I don't blame them. It's their job & they are paid to protect the polluters business interests.

Consult the National Academy of Scientists if interested in the facts of the matter.

It's their job to advise the government on science. And no, they are not paid. These are elites scientists that work for free.

Edited October 16, 2015 by RidgeRunner