I'm sure this will be ignored so here goes an experiment:
Man on video said...
Carbon Dioxide is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and our output a fraction of that. It doesn't make any sense that it can have such a huge effect on global warming.
I don't understand it, and neither do you, so it must be wrong!
From the video, proportion of total molecules in atmosphere to CO2 in atmosphere:
85,800 : 33 CO2
85,800 : 1 (man made CO2)
I hate to use analogies, so here is an interesting one.
"A single dose of LSD may be between 100 and 500 micrograms-an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand."Assuming an 80Kg person
80,000 gm : 0.000001 gm, or
80,000,000,000 : 1
I'm not sure how many football fields that is, but if you were to stack atmospheres on top of each other until you came to the same ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere as LSD in the body you'd have.... (this is kinda fun), and I'm stopping at the top of the Stratosphere, you'd have an atmosphere that stretched ~50,000,000 Km up. That is 1/3 of the way to the sun! (yeah, I'm assuming a 1-dimensional atmosphere, you get my drift)
My point being: small amounts can have enormous effect.
A less artistic comparison would be the amount of
ozone in the atmosphere, and I take it nobody is saying the ozone layer is a conspiracy are they? Is it because you can feel the burn as you travel south?
CO2: 0.04%
O3: 0.000007% (max)
So why isn't anybody calling bull**** on ozone? Perhaps because it isn't an inconvenience like CO2 is.
log man said...grist.org/series/skeptics/ Topics. Flysurfer, how many times are you going to bring up dodgy arguments about GW then just go on to the next bit of dodgy science when someone points out answers to these fake vids. FFS man!
This.
It happens everywhere, but mainly in the US and Australia. You can answer every question, correct every misunderstanding, debunk every myth, again and again and again, and it's like the skeptics just put their hands over their ears and shout "bull****, bull****, bull****". It's very dark ages and if you told people 10 years ago that science in 2012 would be looked upon with mistrust and, irony of ironies, scepticism they'd think ...I don't know what they'd think.
I think that rather than continue down the bullet point argument path, that always ends with people flat-out ignoring the responses because they don't match their own pre-conclusions, we start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodOnce you
understand the Scientific Method, which is the mother of all scepticism, you may become more receptive to the results of the data and hypotheses collected and formed from our collective observations of Nature.
The most important thing to remember is we are observing nature. That is exactly what science is. Nothing more. If you don't like the observations take it up with nature, not science.
The US National Academy of Sciences said...
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Note the humility. There is no 100% guarantee. "vanishingly small", "very likely". It's never completely settled and it can't be. It's all probability. Ranges (which is why warmists say one thing
and another). The Heisenburg principle on a macro scale.
The "sceptics" are absolutely sure, however slim their possibilities. I don't get it.
, found the rest of it interesting though. J
....as Panda pointed out, the innovation grants should provide Australian bright sparks with start up cash to really generate some inventive minds. I reckon it's a great solution to a serious problem 
