Stop distorting what I've said and stop trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you've said (so much for freedom of speech). You're behaving like a ten year old or Tony Abbott for that matter (I know I am but what are you? ) No surprises really.

I exercise my right to take no further notice of your ridiculous prevarications.

taken its sweet time DJD

ProDee... can you please provide some links for these odd little bits of info you keep throwing on here... I have tried using image search and nothing comes up... or do you doctor your own images?

Do the research and let me know.

I have.

Answer: no.

I have.

Answer: no.

Great.

Where did I go wrong ?

They were being lost in cold years.

Edited November 21, 20159 yr by ProDee

Great.

Where did I go wrong ?

Right there.

Part of Wrecker and ProDee's contention is that increased CO2 doesn't actually contribute to global warming. That's not my understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's part of their argument.

A graph showing increased CO2 is unlikely to hold any weight for either one of them.

ProDee's graph is interesting. It pretty clearly shows an upward trend in global average temperatures. I thought the globe wasn't warming?

It’s amazing isn’t it ? 400 ppm or 400 parts per million. It’s an infinitesimal amount – 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere. But yes, it has a significant impact, as it makes all life on Earth possible. Eliminate CO2 and plants die. Human and animal life wouldn’t be far behind. Little wonder CO2 is called by some the “gas of life”. If CO2 falls to 220 ppm plants begin to get sick. There is empirical evidence that many crops and plant foods flourish at much higher CO2 levels than 400 ppm.

Our planet began to emerge from the Little Ice Age around 1800 when CO2 was 280 ppm. In that time average global temperatures have increased a whopping 0.8°Celsius. If I walked downstairs into another room I’d experience that change in my own house. It’s worth noting that temperatures in the past have been higher with less CO2 ppm.

The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008). In the medieval warm period 900-1250 temperatures were 2°C higher than now. The point is that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. The factors include solar activity, volcanic activity, water vapour and ocean circulation.

I have a question for you, Hardtack. What’s your ideal global temperature ? There are arguments that a warmer client would be more beneficial than what we have now. And what’s the likelihood at any one time that the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old, will be in a “perfect” climate zone ?

^^^ Manufacturing purses from sows' ears comes to mind Pro Dee. I'm really not sure what worries you more... having to prove your point or having to protect your hip pocket.

^^^ Manufacturing purses from sows' ears comes to mind Pro Dee. I'm really not sure what worries you more... having to prove your point or having to protect your hip pocket.

Reasoned response. Thanks.

Btw, there were a couple of questions in the last paragraph for you - in case you missed them.

Reasoned response. Thanks.

Btw, there were a couple of questions in the last paragraph for you - in case you missed them.

Like you, I am not qualified judge such things based on data we know nothing about (no doubt one can find enough data to argue either side of the case if one looks hard enough), but unlike you, I am not obsessed with trying to prove my point one way or the other, especially on a General forum on a footy oriented website. And like you, I am good at missing questions (I think you may have overlooked a couple of mine regarding links?).

Like you, I am not qualified judge such things based on data we know nothing about (no doubt one can find enough data to argue either side of the case if one looks hard enough), but unlike you, I am not obsessed with trying to prove my point one way or the other, especially on a General forum on a footy oriented website. And like you, I am good at missing questions (I think you may have overlooked a couple of mine regarding links?).

I'm not "obsessed" with anything, I'm sharing information on a thread about climate change.

But yes, I do think it's a hoax that is costing billions and unnecessarily increasing the hardship of millions.

And no graphs I post are mine. Most are on the net, but some might be hard to find.

I accept that none will stop the alarmists who want to believe in this faith.

Hey comrades

For those of you who are worried about global warming (or who just want to recapture the youthful vigour of your university days) big protest march this Friday - 5 30 at the State library - try to put a little pressure on the poisoners ahead of Paris

Cheers

Hey comrades

For those of you who are worried about global warming (or who just want to recapture the youthful vigour of your university days) big protest march this Friday - 5 30 at the State library - try to put a little pressure on the poisoners ahead of Paris

Cheers

CO2 isn't a poison. What do they teach in universities these days ? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

Good protest though. CO2 is far more dangerous than Islamism.

CO2 isn't a poison. What do they teach in universities these days ? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

Good protest though. CO2 is far more dangerous than Islamism.

anything can be poisonous/toxic/dangerous to life, if it way too extensive, or out of natures balance.

too much humidity, too much dryness, too much co-2, too much oxygen, too much helium, too much H2o,

its the balance that's suitable for mammalian life thats being tinkered with. it may be fine for reptiles prodee ?

I'm not "obsessed" with anything, I'm sharing information on a thread about climate change.

But yes, I do think it's a hoax that is costing billions and unnecessarily increasing the hardship of millions.

And no graphs I post are mine. Most are on the net, but some might be hard to find.

I accept that none will stop the alarmists who want to believe in this faith.

LOL. And you've got the gall to call ordinary working climate scientists 'alarmists'.

CO2 isn't a poison. What do they teach in universities these days ? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

Good protest though. CO2 is far more dangerous than Islamism.

Rhetorical questions are supposed to make enough sense to answer themselves, though.

Jara didn't mention CO2. That you seem to have discovered it in his post is probably just another sign of that obsession that you don't have. It's probably a good thing that all those hoaxing scientists are expected to have a few more powers of observation than you.

Never mind, you can just add something evasive or sarcastic or condescending since I assume that, like the difference between Marx and Lenin or the current conditions of inquiry into global warming, you wouldn't know irony if it kicked you in the cobblers.

Rhetorical questions are supposed to make enough sense to answer themselves, though.

Jara didn't mention CO2. That you seem to have discovered it in his post is probably just another sign of that obsession that you don't have. It's probably a good thing that all those hoaxing scientists are expected to have a few more powers of observation than you.

Never mind, you can just add something evasive or sarcastic or condescending since I assume that, like the difference between Marx and Lenin or the current conditions of inquiry into global warming, you wouldn't know irony if it kicked you in the cobblers.

What "poison" do you think he was referencing ?

I've noticed you don't ever seem to add to the discussion, just snipe from the sidelines.

Come on, join the game, argue the facts and contradict at least one of the posts I've made re CO2 ?

Edited November 23, 20159 yr by ProDee

What "poison" do you think he was referencing ?

I've noticed you don't ever seem to add to the discussion, just snipe from the sidelines.

Come on, join the game, argue the facts and contradict at least one of the posts I've made re CO2 ?

(i) I don't jump to conclusions;

(ii) you can call it sniping if you want. I've just commented on some of the stupider things recorded in this thread (well, that's not entirely true, I've more or less ignored most of the really stupid comments, but couldn't help stopping by a bit more frequently after Wrecker's disgraceful attempt to exploit the deaths in Paris). In a broader context, sniping is exactly what most of the denialists (especially those haunting the internet) do; so I feel no particular embarrassment at the term;

(iii) I trained as a scientist (geology) even though I chose not to continue with it. I have too much respect for scientific methodology and its processes and constraints to trivialise them by substituting them with rhetoric, point-scoring, cherry- and nit-picking, ridiculous syllogisms (of the 'if x's prediction about b was wrong, y's prediction about c will be wrong') and so on. The one thing you won't catch me trying to argue about are processes that continue to be worked through. But that won't stop me making observations from time to time about the bizarre nature of those arguments when their bizarrerie strikes me;

(iv) and I did mention evasion didn't I?

(i) I don't jump to conclusions;

(ii) you can call it sniping if you want. I've just commented on some of the stupider things recorded in this thread (well, that's not entirely true, I've more or less ignored most of the really stupid comments, but couldn't help stopping by a bit more frequently after Wrecker's disgraceful attempt to exploit the deaths in Paris). In a broader context, sniping is exactly what most of the denialists (especially those haunting the internet) do; so I feel no particular embarrassment at the term;

(iii) I trained as a scientist (geology) even though I chose not to continue with it. I have too much respect for scientific methodology and its processes and constraints to trivialise them by substituting them with rhetoric, point-scoring, cherry- and nit-picking, ridiculous syllogisms (of the 'if x's prediction about b was wrong, y's prediction about c will be wrong') and so on. The one thing you won't catch me trying to argue about are processes that continue to be worked through. But that won't stop me making observations from time to time about the bizarre nature of those arguments when their bizarrerie strikes me;

(iv) and I did mention evasion didn't I?

Thanks. It explains why you've been sniping from the sidelines, but haven't repudiated one of my posts - except the bit about millions having to pay more than necessary for their energy, which I stand by.

This melting happened with CO2 at less than 310 parts per million.

It was Nasa's coldest years on record.

The same scaremongering from alarmists happened 75 years ago. Naturally, the scientists needed money to study it.

ProDee... you're talking about a period of just 92 years (1923 to 2015)... just how many thousands of years had those glaciers survived up to your first sited report of 1923? You don't think that melting ice affects the warmer currents (cooling them down) and that in turn can create colder than normal weather in parts that are usually affected by warm currents? You think that a glacier losing up to one third of its ice in the space of 18 years after surviving for thousands of years, is normal? Ok.