Dont be dogmatic.
See for yourself.
There are none so blind, comes to mind.
If there is climate change, then you must first prove that we can do
something about it.
The scientists who are employed by governments are seen to be toeing
their line or get sacked, like the CSIRO scientists we had leave here in
Australia, and yet were the very experts in weather/climate change.
I dont follow public opinion, I see whats happening.
Are you also employed by these people.....????
Your naivety here seems to be showing.
I dont see that by creating a self serving global institution for
climate change is going to work.
And just quietly, I dont think you do either.
Read further and see what I think of your comments, which I havent said
much about until now.

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the
issue. Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you
have dug up before but never once do you consider that the spin that
he gives has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so
*obviously* nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist
to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore it
is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it cannot
cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced out of
balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of this
arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body and
your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

Yes thats true, But its not in the atmosphere in great amounts, nor is CO2.
- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2
is not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He
presents no evidence at all that being present in small quantities
means it can do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many
things that have always been in the environment in small amounts can
be harmful in excess.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

The fact is when, its hits a certain level, (and it has) even if it
increased ten fold it will not continue to increase its effect
proportionally.
- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period is
just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite evidence to
the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and nothing to
worry about. (false conclusion)

Why is this one not normal to you! What an idiotic statement.
About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow that
of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be because of
CO2. (false,) This is a strawman argument, climate scientists do not
say that these graphs must follow on to the other, they say that the
system is more complex than that but nevertheless anthropogenic CO2 is
forcing that system.


- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in temperature
seen recently because the graph of one follows the other (false) See
http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.


And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
Character assasination when all else fails. Your are pathetic.
You dont know his credentials do you. He's also a scientist. READ IT ALL
before you post YOUR stupid theories.
Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead. They keep
pulling the wool over your eyes.
Only sheep can have that done. They certainly worked on you!

David
Why should I be critical? Youre doing a great job...