Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

hmmmm....who to believe...Nickbat or NASA.......tricky one that, my problem is how dare NASA be so arrogant as to dream that they know more on the subject than Nickbat, with his unwavering eye for the truth and access to every website on the net 

you're wasting your time NASA - he'll never buy your lies 

Dr Bindschadler (NASA) has been asked to provide the source for his claim that anthropogenic emissions outstrip natural sources by 7:1. He has indicated that he got his figures from a graph, but has now admitted that the graph doesn't support the claim he made in the Horizon programme.

Nice to see Nurse spot the error before it was broadcast.

Nickbat or NASA? Try me! 

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/3/emissions.html

[cem_devecioglu]

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"



these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"



these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

A good find Cem!  Agree with your comments as well!

We will all learn the truth either way very soon now no matter how long we debate it!!

On the question of Dr. Robert ("Bob") Bindschadler. , ok Nick he may have made one simple mistake as we all do at work and play. In fact what you do not mention is it has been stated:
"Dr Bindschadler suggests that the 7:1 figure is actually not that far out from the correct figure for net anthropogenic:natural carbon dioxide emissions, so the effect of the mistake is limited."

But anyway have a look at this great Presentation on PDF that he has compiled.  An expert in his field amongst a great number who knows what he believes, and believes it well!:

http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/Arctic/Bindschadler_Presentation.pdf

Take note of his clear statement on one of his PP slides:

Global Warming and Sea Level

Global warming
– is a fact and is observed
– is not a “theory” or a “belief”
– is caused by human burning of fossil fuels
• CO well beyond natural variation
2 • Sea level
– will continue to increase and accelerate
– 1 m by 2100 is likely
– Just the beginning
• eventual level dependent on future CO2 emissions

His background and main study area:

http://www.windows2universe.org/people/postcards/pineisland/bob_bindschadler_bio.html

 

[Banjax]

thing is.......even if there was any doubt whatsoever,  why not just err on the side of caution? thats what i dont understand with the sceptics? i've made this point before but say you moved to a village with a drinking well and 99% of the locals told you not to drink from the well as its polluted and dangerous - why would you drink? you believe the one guy? well 99% of science is saying its real, its a problem and we need to deal with it.

scepticism and questioning of science is laudable and necessary but eventually, when every claim the denier brigade come up with is refuted, when they cherry-pick data, misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) the mounting evidence theres comes a point when the debates finished and we need to look at solutions 

[Nickbat]

On the question of Dr. Robert ("Bob") Bindschadler. , ok Nick he may have made one simple mistake as we all do at work and play. In fact what you do not mention is it has been stated:
"Dr Bindschadler suggests that the 7:1 figure is actually not that far out from the correct figure for net anthropogenic:natural carbon dioxide emissions, so the effect of the mistake is limited."

One simple mistake??!! It was a major gaffe! 

"what you do not mention is it has been stated"

Nor do you, Lizzie! Read on a bit.

"what Prof Nurse and Dr Bindschadler were actually talking about in the Horizon show, gross emissions, the 7:1 ratio for anthropogenic to natural becomes, by my reckoning 1:27 (i.e. with natural emissions completely dwarfing anthropogenic)"

Pointed out by Professor Aynsley Kellow, if you like appeals to authority.

[Nickbat]

thing is.......even if there was any doubt whatsoever,  why not just err on the side of caution? thats what i dont understand with the sceptics? i've made this point before but say you moved to a village with a drinking well and 99% of the locals told you not to drink from the well as its polluted and dangerous - why would you drink? you believe the one guy? well 99% of science is saying its real, its a problem and we need to deal with it.

scepticism and questioning of science is laudable and necessary but eventually, when every claim the denier brigade come up with is refuted, when they cherry-pick data, misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) the mounting evidence theres comes a point when the debates finished and we need to look at solutions 
 

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Everyone knows that there are many contrary scientific arguments that have not been, and cannot be, refuted.

And where does the figure of 99% come from?

Plucked from thin air as usual, I expect.   

 

[Nickbat]

2 • Sea level[/i]
– will continue to increase and accelerate
– 1 m by 2100 is likely
– Just the beginning
• eventual level dependent on future CO2 emissions

Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era.  Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/#more-31866

Think I may give "Bob"'s PDF a miss. 

[aaronjb]

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"



these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..

If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.

[Mysteryman]

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"



these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..
If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.

What is obvious is the amount of money this generates for certain, unscrupulous organisations.

[Banjax]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

[Mysteryman]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

It's people like you and Nick that stop the rest of us giving a sh!t.

[Banjax]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

It's people like you and Nick that stop the rest of us giving a sh!t.

i've resigned from my care in the community programme - i no longer have to pander to the bewildered 

[Dishevelled Den]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

How do you know you are right BJ?

Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mysteryman]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

How do you know you are right BJ?
Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Surely there's no debate about that one, Z?

[Banjax]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

How do you know you are right BJ?

Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

sorry Zulu - the whole "its a big conspiracy involving every government on the planet" schtick doesnt wash with me - its science not belief