This rhetoric sounds like a tail wagging the dog.
Youre not very convincing at all!
There is HCL in the atmosphere and H2SO4 and many other things, as well
as modern aircraft which are spreading aerosols all over the stratosphere.
These are much worse, and of course a more immediate problem.
Theyre not mentioned. CO2 is, and its not even in the race.
You keep popping up. Well, time will tell. Youre wrong,
How many scientists does it take to convince David Hare Scott?
None, he only listens to the ones which will boost his shares.

End of rant....
I'm taking a break from you....


On 16/01/2010 11:44 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
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.

No you have that backwards. First we must acknowledge that it is
happening and understand why and how it is happening. Then we are in
a position to decide on appropriate action. Why would you take action
about something that wasn't happening? I find this point of yours
quite baffling.

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.

You repeatedly give us pre-prepared cases made by other people that
you have accepted uncritically and it seems without understanding.
You don't do your own study. This is not independent thinking.

Are you also employed by these people.....????

No

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.

Around the world right wing demagogues are claiming that climate
change is all a left wing plot to institute world government by
stealth. This is just an appeal to the fears of some and it seems to
work well for them, it has worked on you. But you say I am naive for
not swallowing such mad conspiracy theories.

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.

If there is any hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere where you are you
are living in a very polluted area. It is in your gut, a component of
your digestive juices. I should have used a better example.

How can you keep repeating this mantra that CO2 is only in small
quantities therefore it is not doing any harm? You keep stating this
without any evidence at all.

Let me try another example. The gas radon is only present in
exceedingly small quantities in the air (less that 1 quadrillionth of
the amount of CO2) yet it is directly responsible for harm to humans.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

Do you see the point? By your argument radon couldn't possibly do any
harm for there is so liitle in the air - one part in
1000000000000000000000. It is the *effect* of that tiny amount that is
important.

It is not that CO2 is only 300 ppm (or whatever the figure) it is the
*effect* of that concentration that is important. It is the *effect*
of changing that value over a short period (in geological terms) that
is significant.


- 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.

But what is your point? Are you now saying that the graph of
temperature over time should not follow that of CO2 because the cause
and effect is not a direct relationship? I am glad you have come
around on that one.

- 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.

It is not normal in the sense of being part of the natural cycle of
long term temperature changes because there is considerable evidence
of the fact that it is caused by emissions of GHG. Assuming it is
"normal" is just ignoring the evidence. That is all Coleman does he
assumes it. You will find this one debunked on realclimate too.


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.


I notice that you skipped these two point. Does that mean you accept
them?

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.

But Coleman says scientists are corrupt, they lie about climate
change and take money from vested interests for their own personal
gain. It said so in the video. How does this make being a scientist
a credible witness?

BTW I was going on the credentials that the man himself gave in the
video. Now that you draw my attention to it he seems to have a degree
in journalism. Please tell us about his scientific credentials
because I cannot find any.


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!

No Jonno. I did not accept any of this uncritically. I did much
reading and thinking before coming to my current position. You on the
other hand show no interest in doing that instead just regurgitating
propaganda that supports gut feeling.


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

Eveybody should be critical. That is what I am asking you and the
lurkers to do. You are so emotionally wedded to your position that
quite frankly I see no chance of me convincing you otherwise. I make
these responses because I think others need to know that your position
has been often refuted.


David

--