60 Minutes - Climate Change Debate Part II

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - The IPCC is entirely political, it is a political organization setup by the UN to find out if climate change exsist, its entirley political, the UN has admitted that the dramitcs shown in al gors video would not be that dramatic as stated. Also i do believe i have wattched watched that and there is no proof of Co2 being a major contributor to GW or CC infact Co2 makes up only 4% of all Co2 gases in the atmosphere, so im being told that 4% of all co2 gases are causing catastrophic events.

StunnedByStupidity Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - 'The IPCC is entirely political' NO Exxon claims it is prove this assertion! If they get it wrong it is OVERWHELMINGLY because they are being too cautious NOT that they are exaggeration. Since you have proof tell me which section YOU read that is wrong... Look you sound like a fruit cake when you mention Al Gore... Al Gore has NOTHING to do with the reality of global warming. CO2 makes up ~0.004% of the atmosphere. The quantity of something is not proportional to is effect.

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - actually i was asking you not to push your so called beliefs down other peoples throats if you had not already noticed, as for exxon.. mate i dont work for anyone. it is my beliefe that the antics you pulled earlier actually show the opisite, peer reviews are just peaces of paper they can be writen by anyone in a peer position. does not make it right or true or valid or anything else for that matter.

StunnedByStupidity Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - As an indication Ozone is far less abundant but you would get skin cancer without it. Or try taking a thimble full of Ebola virus a quantity vanishingly small in comparison to your body size and see what happens...

StunnedByStupidity Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - These are facts and unless they are shared there will be a collapse of the biosphere! Peer review is the highest endorsement of scientific proof, it isn't perfect but it is very very significant! READ ABOUT SCIENCE! And BTW it is you that have dodged EVERY post I have posted - we both know why. Show me your SCIENTIFIC proof...

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - who is worried about exxon? i am not, when i get my car i plan to convert it to water via the use of electrolysis. it helps the enviroment in any and all ways. quanity means the more Co2 there is the hotter it gets, please tell me how 0.004% if it stays the same can change anything if co2 messures dont change with it? its effect at that level is unrealistic to say the least.

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - Fact is, people have the right to know both sides of the story so why should i stop putting facts across? just so you can blindly lead the blind? Al gor also has alot do with the GW theory, dont you know he made a movie about it? dont you know he also is involved with nuclear power industry? everyone knows this.

StunnedByStupidity Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - Look I'm hoping you are a teen ager and that would explain everything you have posted (I was arguing in an adult manner (forcefully) because you have 37 as your age on your details). Electrolysis requires energy to split water and that is more than is received from the combustion of hydrogen - you should first find out what science has to say THEN venture into conspiracy theory land! I don't understand the last bit... The level has risen from 280 ppm to 385 ppm! And because you don't

StunnedByStupidity Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - understand something doesn't make it wrong. The Earth would be 30oC lower without greenhouse gases - as witnessed by the Moon!

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - look go watch those movies i mentioned earlier you can youtube them too. stop trying to make everyone else out to be nut cases whe nyou have so vigously and outragously desputted things that cant be proven beyond the doubt that we are going to have catastrophic events happening.

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - Fact is, you can go any where in the world and find evidence to support the GW/CC theory, it does not make it true or mean that Co2 is the cause of it all, specially when the co2 is the smallest of all other co2 gases and everything i presented to you are facts. Oh good one. trying to turn the tide and put the emphasis back onto me lmfao. well we will let the people go back and read all this and decide. if you have read i provided you with some proof by looking up documentaries on the subject

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - so now your saying the world will freeze over again? wtnessed by the moon? you are joking right? the moon has nothing to do with global warming or greenhouse gases that i know of. its in a different position to the earth & no one lives on it.. so what relevance does it have other than hovering around the earths atmosphere?.. thank you. people can come to their own conclusions after that comment.. lol cheers and have a good day/night

c0mpute Says:

Oct 15, 2008 - I just go by what other scientist have stated and put forward in the climatology field.. cya

c0mpute Says:

Oct 16, 2008 - one thing you dont seem to understand, science in all its glory is NOT abolute never has been and never will be. it is also man made, there for if man is not perfect in the eyes of any creator then who can science be any better? and no i aint a teen and there is no conspiracy theory at work, its all factual. you seem to be a little out of touch yourself with technology

c02lies Says:

Oct 23, 2008 - c0mpute, "The IPCC is entirely political, it is a political organization setup by the UN to find out if climate change exsist" The sole mission of the IPCC is to find evidence of and prove anthropogenic warming. It has already admitted that its objectives are political NOT scientific. The ONLY evidence the IPCC are interested in is evidence that supports AGW. THEY IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE. They're evidence is non existent and they now rely solely on models - NOT SCIENCE and NOT EVIDENCE.

c0mpute Says:

Oct 23, 2008 - Which you are saying the same thing as i said just in a different way, or more formal way.. so.. and the IPCC did use science to try proove the theory and still use the discredited hockey stick curve which it has been reported to still be in use today. Why do they say the top 2500 scientists round the world all agree? when they dont? also why have some scientist threatened legal action against the IPCC for not taking them off the list of top scietist?

germanicelt Says:

Nov 10, 2008 - So Kevin Rudd thinks that getting the facts completely wrong is just "argy bargy". What a dickhead. I can't believe so many people are so blind to that man. He was elected off the back of this fear campaign and now he has to deliver on what his bosses (who helped him into power) want from him, or else they will cut him loose like they did Howard. Like the way he used "the children" at the end there. This is a tactic of politicians when they want to pull your emotional strings.

germanicelt Says:

Nov 10, 2008 - What she said @9:37 is what is being used by those pushing this dogma, and was the same saying used by Blair to justify the Iraq war. "The risk of doing nothing is greater then the risks in acting". It's because the architects of man made global warming and the war on terror are the same, the global elite. And the purpose is the same - to make the people the enemy of the state, so they can control the people even more.

germanicelt Says:

Nov 10, 2008 - So global temperatures have decreased in the past seven years, and yet this is when China was let into the WTO in 2001. Ofcourse that is why carbon emissions have gone up 5% in that time, but did any leaders warn about the carbon China would emit if their industry grew from the WTO. NO! Now Australia has to change when we only emit 1.5% of the worlds CO2? It is so obvious to me that this will do nothing to world temperatures and is only being pushed on us for political motives and tax dollars.

kiriakufromcyprus Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - Oh no... She bought up the fake Medieval Warming Period... This is one of the "skeptics" favorite. During the phenomenon was the result of changes in the stratosphere which changed circulation in the troposhere (the lowest section of the atmosphere), and caused patchy heating and cooling across the world. Antartic ice cores have shown that overall the Earth was slightly cooler during this time. There was no Medieval warming period.

kiriakufromcyprus Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - And as for the costs of mitigating climate change, she was endorsing the scare tactics used by the coal and oil industry. Lets bring some estimates and numbers into the argument... According to the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resources, the costs of acting on climate change would be a reduction in economic growth f 3 % of what it would have been otherwise in 2050. In other words Australia will have to wait until 2051 rather than 2050 to triple its GDP.

kiriakufromcyprus Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - Other estimate range from 2.5 to 6 % reduction of economic growth of what it otherwise would have been in 2050. None of these reductions have major economic repercussions. Now what are the costs of inaction? According to the UK's Stern Report, the costs could result in a reduction of the world's GDP by 1 % per year, there are other lower estimates, and overall the cost could be anywhere between a 4 % to 16% reduction in the world's GDP by 2050.

kiriakufromcyprus Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - And this by the way, is not taking into account any accelerations in the rate of change, which would be caused by Positive Feedback Loops. Positive Feedback Loops is when warming triggers a natural process that accelerates the warming. In the event of these scenarios the world's GDP would fall by 20 % by 2050. There are still wide estimates, but all of them point out that the cost of inaction are far higher than the costs of action.

madman195 Says:

Nov 21, 2008 - I am not disputing Climate change but what I am disputing is the false claims that increased CO2 causes a destabilization of the climate, and the these false claims are an integral part of getting the "Carbon pollution reduction scheme" passed. It is just that to a scheme with absolutely no proven evidence to support its merits.

kiriakufromcyprus Says:

Nov 21, 2008 - No Proven evidence? What about the Keeling Curve? What about every atmospheric test since the fifties? What about all the recent discoveries about the effects of aerosols and how they interact with CO2. The sun isn't the cause, if it was satellites would detect it, and the satellites have not detected any increased radiation from the sun significant enough to increase the average temperature on Earth. Why do you mean no proof?