Archive for November, 2011

Bald Biker :- Climate Change, Climate Sensitivity, the Unknowns.

November 30, 2011

I left the following comment at 

http://baldbiker.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/climate-change-climate-sensitivity-the-unknowns/

Another self styled religious guru no doubt, however he was unable to reply to my perfectly reasonable comment which was spammed twice.

Fortunately these sort of people appear to be getting fewer. Can it be that some of these poor people, who equate to the sheep in Orwells “Animal Farm” are gradually seeing the foolishness of the IPCC and  have actually cottoned on  to the fact that we are all being taken for a (very expensive) ride?

Why and how have we got so far from actual scientific reason?

Well we all owe it to ourselves to read this recently book which is, as you will read, somewhat critical of the IPCC, but it is well researched and documented and all facts are easy to verify.

<b>”The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert”</b>

I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.

I thoroughly recommend to all my readers that it is very worthwhile to  download.

Now here is the comment I left at this persons site:

Stop press, my reminder to bald biker did have an effect, he did eventually publish my comments and his reply id shown below.

Yes I am very familiar with the issues discussed at the link you give.

However, I have very little idea what the fuss is all about. The study in question does support the notion that the climate is changing, which is very little surprise to most of us. In fact I think everyone would be more worried if it stopped changing as climate change as I am sure you agree, is in the nature of things anyway.

What the study did NOT address, as far as I can make out, is whether this change is due to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

You are no doubt aware that there is NO proof for the assertion that Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming.

If you had the privilige of studying statistics at any tine during your life time, you would understand that correlations are never proof, only a necessary condition for proof and without any substantiating factors emerging over the many years of research, any idea of a proof upon which we should radically change our civilisation over is very meager indeed. In fact there are plenty of disproving factors which have not gone away. (I welcome you to read my blog and it’s links if you are interested in some of these.)

Thus if it cannot be shown that the climate change is anthropogenic, we should simply sit back and enjoy/adapt/endure whatever mother nature throws at us. Seeing as how we do not appear to have reached previous temperatures which have been calculated from historical events yet (and which also appear in proxy records), there seems to be very little to be concerned about.

As for CO2 being toxic, I finish by giving you a few facts about that subject, in case you haven’t explored that aspect yet.

<b>A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf

Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html

Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).

Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)

Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.

http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf

http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf

Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.

Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm</b&gt;

Oh and CO2 does become toxic at about 50,000 ppmv http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html

I do agree with your final statement absolutely though!

<b> They deserve the truth, not stories, not vested interested lies; just the truth!</b>

Cheers

Roger

 

baldbikersaid 2 days ago:

Thanks, the looney has published your comments.
There are times when people will have to agree to disagree on an issue, I have read your blog and we appear to be on different sides of this argument. I disagree and believe that it is real, man made and will have a profound effect on populations in the next fifty to hundred years.I respect your opinion and time will tell who was right.
The Loony!

I answered with this comment.

<b>”time will tell who was right”</b>

If we follow the IPCC demands of a 60% reduction in co2 emissions from present, we will die whether we are right or wrong.

We simply have to get this right else we will most certainly <b>”have a profound effect on populations in the next fifty to hundred years”</b>

Check out the economic effect in this scientific paper.

http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/emissioncuts_economics.pdf

Also note how this differs from any IPCC scientists and some reports by government officials.

I am an economist and I think this report is right on!

Read and think about it!

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com


%d bloggers like this: