Gator

Yes, and the following video in particular, uploaded just two weeks ago, shows NASA and NOAA for the fraudsters they are and the hysteria over nothing. Have a listen @hardtack

It's not as simple as that. The claim is that man's contribution is not easily absorbed and has upset the "natural balance". So even though it's relatively small it's very significant. About 40% of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed into the ocean and vegetation and approx. 60% remains in the atmosphere. Due to man's contribution CO2 levels (ppmv) are at their highest levels for 15-20 million years, or so the claim goes (and I'm not disputing it). Unfortunately for the zealots their models have been wrong and the planet hasn't been warming as they predicted even with these higher carbon levels. So what to do ? Tamper with the data and try and show that it has been. There's nothing earth shattering about the 150 years claim. It simply coincides with increased human activity with coal burning and deforestation. 150 years ago CO2 was 280 ppm and now it's 400 ppm. One of the questions is could the increase in CO2 be natural or is it all the fault of we bad humans. Some scientists argue one way, some another. What nature gives to the biosphere nature takes out. So humans piling on has a deleterious effect, because we don't take it back. Nature emits, nature absorbs. Humans emit... The general consensus is that humans contribute about 3% of CO2, but this site says 5%. http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp William Whitesell's book says 3%, which is the figure usually mentioned. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sktLX1gSSOYC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=atmospheric+CO2+is+97%+natural&source=bl&ots=OP9U7d54lY&sig=pUlQ1CZpSb7nkz0P9L2PaGPW2ms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBsuuoganXAhVLU7wKHe4UC5cQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=atmospheric CO2 is 97% natural&f=false You can buy the book here: https://www.booktopia.com.au/climate-policy-foundations-william-c-whitesell/prod9781107002289.html Probably the best proof of human contribution is a chart from this site: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels/

What does this comment even mean ? I'm just citing commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution. If you're genuinely interested do your own frigging research and come back and share your discovery.

If you have an open mind re the climate I encourage you to listen to the talk given by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) linked below. Heller was a global warming enthusiast from 1980-2003. In this talk he irrefutably proves that NASA and NOAA fudge their data to suit the narrative they want to portray. He shows graphs, articles, and emails. It's very informative for even someone like yourself, who seemingly believes man is dangerously warming the planet and billions being spent to combat it is somehow a good thing. After you've had time to view it let me know what you think. EDIT: for some reason the video starts at 8 minutes 50. Just scroll back to the beginning.

I have no idea. I've never studied or investigated anything to do with the fossil fuel industry. In my spare time I've looked into the merits of specifically climate change.

To show a warming that isn't there. To continue a narrative that the planet is warming dangerously. They do this to support a view they genuinely believe, but can't always prove and to also receive the funding they've been accustomed to receiving. It's not hard. And even if you astonishingly still don't understand the question you can still answer it. Do you think NASA and NOAA have altered historical data sets to show a warming that didn't exist to make it now appear that it did ? Hint: there are 4 possible answers. Yes, no, maybe, or don't know.

Their "own ends" means fraudulently manipulating historical data to make previous data sets look different. i.e. making cooler periods now warmer than they were. A simple yes or no will suffice.

A question to the climate worshippers. Do you think NASA and NOAA manipulate data to suit their own ends ?

I think they mean 3% now from annual measuring of atmospheric carbon having grown since the industrial revolution some 150 years ago. There's no doubt we're producing more carbon today than 50 years ago, so that percentage should keep increasing.

Sloane is most definitely an A-grader and a better footballer than Nathan Jones.

There are anomalies with other clubs like Carlton and St Kilda, that are unfathomable on the surface of it, but I'm in the camp that says a basket case of a club that has been out of the finals for 11 years doesn't have much to complain about. We've got a terrific opportunity to get lots of wins on the board early on, which should set up the season.

I think Oscar's no.1 trait as a 196cm tall is that he's a competitor. As he physically matures, gains more experience and in turn becomes more confident he'll be that steady last line defender you can rely on. There's no elite trait, but he'll be dependable and do most things required by a defender really well.

'Old Melbourne' would draft this guy. That's because we had a rubbish list and would take anyone who smiled nicely at us. We've moved past guys like this. We'll play a high brand of pressure again next year and with talls in Hogan/McDonald and excellent marking mid-talls in Petracca, Hannan, Balic and vandenBerg we don't need this guy. Harmes marks pretty well too. Two talls and high pressure smalls and mid-talls is the go. Let North take him.

The landscape has changed in that it's now possible for a good ordinary side to pinch a flag. The competition has never been more even. But I'd rather note history in the main and not an aberration or two. Develop some genuine stars of the competition with quality support crew and you'll invariably stand upon the dais late in September. If our players develop into their potential (yeah, that word) we really could see multiple opportunities to secure flags. Put simply, the cream of our youth is the envy of the competition.

Quigley never does a phantom draft. He never attempts to guess which club will take who. He just rates them on ability. And obviously in the case you mentioned he got it wrong. I wouldn't let that dissuade you from his ability to observe.

Yours is the easy argument and hard to argue against. Full credit to Richmond, after years of failing and losing in the first week of finals their senior players finally stepped up and there was total buy in to the game-plan from the rest of the group. They had virtually no injuries and the second easiest draw in the competition. But they still had to get it done and they did. Four years in finals out of the last 5 years showed they'd been there abouts. Martin, Rance, Cotchin, and Riewoldt are stars. They weren't always stars, but they're now the best collection of 4 players in the one team in the competition. Petracca, Lever, Oliver, and Hogan are not stars. Nor is Viney. And it may take them the same amount of time it's taken the Richmond players. Or not. Or they may never get there at all. So for me it rests on whether we develop stars. It always has. You give me a collection of stars and I'll show you a premiership.

Defence isn't a waste. Never be vulnerable to those that wish us harm and we have to have the capacity to do our bit when needed. It's reciprocal. The submarines are an utter joke. Turnbull and Pyne are a disgrace. Talk about wasted billions over SA politics. Border protection protects your children. We should know everything about those who want to walk freely amongst us and not lure those wishing a better life to a death at sea. And nor should we encourage the scourge of people smuggling. i'd like politicians to be better paid. To get the best you have to provide an incentive. Why would those with clever minds want to be on a politicians wage ? And I don't like career politicians. Once upon a time professionals thought they could make a difference after they'd succeeded in business, the law, or industry. They'd make a contribution (or otherwise) and get out. Now it's a gravy train forever. Politics shouldn't be a "career".

Your first answer isn't the question. But at least you can stop referencing your care to future generations, as it's no different to mine. There's no moral superiority. As for Australia and "our donations". You know, the wasted billions ? It's taxpayer money. It's not the government's to waste. Where do you think this money comes from ?

Hi Martin. You were certain more would happen in trade week. What happened ?

Supporters carry on when average players are traded. Supporters carry on when a 2016 AA player is recontracted. FMD

Yeah, I've read their convenient guesses. IF CO2 really drove temperatures you wouldn't have 4000 ppmv in an ice age. I agree though with their reference to the sun. Solar energy drives temperatures, not CO2. See link. http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl Have a read of this. Some light reading for the weekend. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html Btw, answer my question. Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ? And comment on the following. Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years. As for NASA ? They're a waste of space. They fraudulently manipulate data. I'm exceptionally happy to admit I only quote them when it suits me. Reason being ? Zealots love NASA and the IPCC.

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ? Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years. So your moral superiority, or should I say virtue signalling, is greatly misplaced. If CO2 drives temperatures why was the planet in an ice age when CO2 was 800 percent higher ?

The word "denier" is offensive, as it's intentionally linked to the holocaust. I'm a skeptic. Spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist, and even if it did you can't influence anyway, is about as stupid as mankind has reached. Especially when some people can't afford to keep warm or turn the lights on due to the cost of energy through mad green schemes or policies. And the best you can do is call someone cheap ? If the mad Greens or gutless major parties really thought we were damaging the planet they'd go nuclear. I know you're not a stupid guy, but your brains vacate when you think of "climate change".

It is laughable. Just more dud predictions. Why don't you comment on the NASA report on Antarctic ice sheets ? Why don't you comment on 20,000 years of sea level rises, but much slower rises since humankind ? Why don't you comment on the IPCC report that says confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low ? Why don't you comment on the fact we're spending billions of dollars on climate schemes when we contribute 0.045% of atmospheric CO2, i.e. we don't heat the planet and nor can we affect the climate by any reductions in emissions ? 97% of CO2 is natural and 3% man made. Of the man made we contribute 1.5%. CO2 does not drive temperatures. You're just another zealot addicted to climate porn.

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years. Interestingly, rises have been less in a coal driven world. I have a graph I'll upload later. In the meantime...