For Like minded people who like to see-
My apologies if this has already been raised and I missed it. BUT, it is the proof that the IPCC man's "fingerprint" of CO2 emissions effecting global CO2 levels is actually TOTALLY NATURAL VARIATION.
Salby has PROVEN man has had NO effect upon global atmospheric CO2 levels.
This means it is PROVEN that carbon taxes, all carbon taxes, any form of carbon control of human emissions whatsoever is UNJUSTIFIED.
All done by an Aussy too...
Is it any wonder at the end of the presentation that Salby looks and sounds a little reticent....He is not JUST being a good scientist.
He knows, if he is correct, how BIG this is.
Apologies, this is a little rushed, I will try to find a pdf or pp of this presentation and add it to this post, unless someone beats me to it of cou
Lil' Ol' me posted the link to Murry Salby's Sydney Institute lecture and question time about 24 hrs. ago. On "No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics even."
30 minutes is Dr Salby's slides and talk, with the balance of the hour being Q & A.
It's good stuff, and it also appears to have lost some of the audience's understanding.
This is not an open link, and was not designed to embed.
Thanks for the replies, and info. All totally new to me.
I have to agree with "it also appears to have lost some of the audience's understanding."
Salby seemed to realise "they do not understand the significance of this".
Seeing as how it all appears to be unravelling, I thought it time to go public about Robert Napier.
Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Originally it was a thread in a private area, but now is probably the time when some people might take notice of it. AND, I assume there is an Aussy version of Napier, or one of his cohorts. How many realise their pension is in the hands of the IIGCC???
Also, given sites like Jo Nova do not really tolerate me, then I thought it time to put down my overview of the present climate science debates.
We all know shooting the messenger is wrong.
Hmmm, If they will not answer the challenge, why will they not issue the same challenge in reverse?
That would be the sporting thing to do, would it not?
I think they would have to restrict offering the prize to the first several million entries only though... LOL.
Geoff Brown said:
Even before Murry Salby, Just Ground's own Peter Laux, on the world wide web, proved beyond doubt that there is no "conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmosp...”
Peter's challenge has been out there since Nov 10 for the "alarmist scientists;" for the corrupt CRU; for the Nasty Guys from Nasa:Giss.
Derek, what more proof do you need than that?
They can walk away with an easy $10,000 (Augrabbed thestralian - worth more than o/s currency since Peter issued the challenge) with a simple matter of imperical data.
Why haven't James Hansen, Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Will Steffen, NASA;Giss, Hadley CRU; any of these genii grabbed the $grand?
Because they can't!
Challenge to you -Will! Tim! and all you false prophets...
Spot on, and WAY TO GO.
However regarding courts and law, may be a word of warning or to the wise, that I am sure you are aware of.
Courts DO NOT judge science, they defer to the highest authority, as happened with the Greenpeace vandals at the coal powerplant in the UK. Hansen came across "in his own time" and then gave evidence to state what they were protesting about was correct, scientifically speaking, so the court had to go with Hansen's "evidence", or rather his higher authority statement of beliefs. Greenpeace protesters got off because of Hansen.
Let us take Salby C13 argument, in court all that would be needed was for one of the "team" to state Salby was wrong, and that would be the end of the case.......
All I am trying to say is that a court case might not be as easy or as definitive as it may first appear to be, because they are courts of law, NOT courts of science. Science is never proven in a court, "science" is always gotten from the highest available authority to the court.....THAT is a different "thing" altogether, and should be borne in mind.
Geoff Brown said:
Stuart Greig said:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a 'fires of hell' doomsday fear campaign designed to herd humans into increased governance and progress the development of world government.
A class-action launched to seek compensation for loss due to this fraud would get more attention in the media than scientific debate.
Thank you Alan.
I now see things, may be somewhat cynically, as a bigger picture of politics controls everything.
THAT is THE issue.
We have beauocracies to enforce the politics,
we have laws to enforce the politics,
we have science to enforce the politics.
There are no effective safeguards in place to protect any of the above from politics.
In the end all of the present politics is based upon greenhouse effect "theory",
hence I posted the Do not shoot the messenger pdf earlier on this thread.
In note 1 of that, beyond reasonable doubt it is plainly shown there is no GH effect,
it is all thermodynamics. Not the BS physics and radiative physics we have at present.
I hope the Q&A session you mention on "Aunty" has questions raised from a thermodynamics point of view,
then the illogical fallacies of present "climate science" can be exposed and understood by all.