Join me with world renowned climate realist Tony Heller as we go through the actual data on temperature and climate.
You might also like
35
replies
Comments are closed.
Pages
Malcolm’s Fight
Categories
- April 2022
- Assets
- Budget 20-21
- Climate Change
- COVID
- Digital Identity Bill
- Energy
- Events
- February 2022
- Foreign Ownership
- Hybrid Bradfield
- Industrial Relations
- Infrastructure
- March 2021
- May/June 2021
- Media
- Media Release
- Murray Darling Basin
- National
- October 2021
- October 2023
- Podcasts
- Property Rights
- Queensland
- Senate Estimates
- Senate Inquiry Public Hearings
- Speeches
- Uncategorized
- United Nations
- Water
Sorry gentlemen,
There are many scientific shortcomings in this presentation.
As follows.
Graphs showing data over varying time frames, making it impossible to truly compare the data.
Very poor resolution of the graphs making them impossible to read.
Temperature records from pre 1910 accepted without real question.
Check the implementation of Stephenson screens (ca 1910) to provide standardised conditions for temperature measurements.
Attempts to allow for variations in measurement conditions accused as data manipulation.
Annual changes in CO2 emphasised without reference to changes in total CO2 levels.
The mocking attitude of some comments are totally unscientific, the arguments either stand of fall on the data presented not on mockery.
The assumption that meteorologists and climatologists are unaware of the heat island effect of cities etc is thoroughly offensive.
Many other shortcomings reduce the overall value of this presentation but too numerous to mention due to brevity requirements.
Please Note.
There was no mention at all of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect in which CO2 is one of the important gases.
What is the overall effect of the greenhouse gasses on present average global temperatures?
Cheers,
Col
Maybe you could tell us 1. what a greenhouse gas is and 2. what the overall effect of human produced carbon dioxide has on the world’s temperatures outside natural variation.
I have asked the Government’s supposed experts on this issue and no one has been able to quantify that.
Hi Malcolm,
I am prepared to spend time discussing the matter with you if you have time.
You have my private email, so could you please provide your email for private communication purposes.
Please note, there is a lot of information to cover.
To answer your 2 immediate questions.
1) A greenhouse gas is one that allows Infra Red radiation from the Sun to pass through the atmosphere and limits the escape of Terrestrial IR through the atmosphere.(CO2 is but one of these gases)
2) Check the increasing level of fossil fuel usage (that releases CO2 on combustion) and compare with the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Analysis of the atmospheric Carbon 13 isotope clearly shows the increased CO2 is from fossil fuel use.
That is carbon dioxide sequestration that occurred naturally during the Carboniferous and Permian periods and is now being released by human activity
Please note, Atmospheric CO2 is nowhere near the level required for equilibrium conditions to be achieved with oceans and in fact atmospheric CO2 is predominantly dissolving in the oceans.
Cheers,and looking forward to a meaningful discussion.
Col
Dear Malcolm,
Continuing on with our contributions.
Please check the following URL
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/
A careful read of this site will reveal the following;
1) Climatologists and Meteorologists are well aware of the effects of the “heat island effect” and the influences of urbanisation, change in location etc on the records from weather stations.
2) Homogenisation of Australian temperature records is to a world standard in an attempt to standardise these measurements for accurate comparison purposes. This is not an adjustment process intended to deceive as commonly alleged.
3) Contrary to often repeated claims, original temperature records are not deleted but are still kept and are available to public access.
The homogenisation procedures are adopted by highly trained and experienced scientists worldwide in the interest of scientific accuracy and repeatability.
Cheers,
Col
Col you seem quite learned on the subject and I’m not been a S.A. but how do they weigh Co2. I have asked this question many times but people either don’t know or don’t bother to reply.
Mal
Hi Mal,
Check the following website, four pages in all that shows CO2 concentration measurements involve considerable caution.
In particular the last page or so gives interesting info on human response to various CO2 levels
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/how-to-measure-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=For%20most%20products%2C%20the%20CO2,per%2Dmillion%20(ppm)
Any further questions or comment welcome.
Cheers,
Col
Awesome…. Malcolm, the only thing that you could do better is get your voice out to more people who are being spoon fed the C02 scame…
Col please dont bother…
With all respect Phil I am only asking questions related to Global Warming / Climate Change.
To date I have not received any scientifically based answers to these questions.
Only references to websites that do not even remotely approach the concept of the questions.
I have even sought answers from Malcolm himself but to no avail.
Cheers,
Col
Malcolm,
Who is Steven Goddard?
Who is Tony Heller?
Are they the same person and if so why use a pseudonym?
Cheers,
Col
Hi Malcolm,
This is a great presentation and shows exactly how much of a CON climate change is.
Just more scare tactics from the dishonest side of mankind.
Dear Malcolm
Please keep up your tremendous work. Exposing the myths, calling out the globalist frauds and your relentless quest for people’s dignity. I’m so glad a man with your integrity and cognitive perception has the courage to stand up for what is right. There must be pressures on you to just follow the narrative but for decency’s sake you simply speak the truth.
It’s so reassuring to get a real perspective of what’s happening with the climate. These alarmists spruke such disaster that scare some people but also plant seeds of doubt in others, I know it’s only Chicken Little crying “the sky is falling” but a lie can become the truth perceived. The cost of defunct wind turbines is huge, how long do solar panels last? Of course there’s a place for renewable energy, I’d be interested to hear your views on that.
Thank you for the Malcolm Roberts Show, keep up your great work Senator, one fine show, under one flag 🙂 respect to you sir.
Kind regards Tadeusz Chenue.
Dear Bob and Tadeusz,
Please read the website as advised in my earlier submission before posting any further comment.
The website clearly indicates the errors in Malcolm’s and Tony’s presentation
Cheers,
Col
:
Hi Mal,
Actually CO2 with the 2 as a subscript but this type of website does not allow subscripts.
Atmospheric CO2 is probably measured spectroscopicaly in the Infra Red spectrum.
Will chase up the references, please allow some time.
Cheers,
Col
`+
Dear Bob and Tadeusz,
Please rread the website as follows before posting any further comment.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/
The website clearly indicates the errors in Malcolm’s and Tony’s comments.
Cheers,
Col
:
Dear Bob and Tadeusz,
Please read the website as advised in my earlier submission before posting any further comment.
The website clearly indicates the errors in Malcolm’s and Tony’s presentation
Cheers,
Col
:
An article I came across from a newsletter I received on climate and our role as humans in it.
Most scientists agree that changing climate conditions have nothing to do with human activity
01/25/2023 / By Ethan Huff – News Target
Most scientists agree that changing climate conditions have nothing to do with human activity.
It is often claimed that the vast majority of the scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change that human activity is a direct cause of it. The truth, however, is that most scientists do not actually believe this, despite what the “authorities” claim.
Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, wrote an article explaining that 97 percent of scientists – this is the percentage we are told believes in man-made climate change – agree that carbon dioxide concentrations appear to be increasing, and that global temperatures have gradually been rising in some places over the past 150 years. What they do not necessarily believe, though, is that humans are directly responsible for this.
While there is no way to definitively know what percentage of scientists believe in man-made global warming, it is safe to say that the figure is nowhere close to 97 percent. In fact, it is likely half that or less, meaning most rational scientists are either unsure or do not believe that humans eating meat and driving cars is warming the planet to the point of a potential collapse.
“What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2,” Wrightstone wrote. “There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the warming we’ve had since 1900 that was directly caused by us.”
“We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.”
“The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.” (Related: The U.S. government also knows that human activity doesn’t change the climate, but the Biden regime has deleted this important information from official government sources.)
The true scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is a myth.
The “97 percent” that gets thrown around as a metric of alleged support among the scientific community for the man-made climate change theory actually has its origins in a 2004 paper cited by none other than former Vice President Al Gore, who included it in his “An Inconvenient Truth” fiction book.
A professor named Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, reviewed the work cited in Gore’s book and found that only a fraction of the studies cited in the paper Gore referenced in his book endorsed the “consensus” position on man-made climate change. In fact, just 45 percent – less than half – supported this notion.
“There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients,” Schulte concluded.
The “97 percent” consensus that allegedly supports the man-made climate change theory means nothing. “Science does not advance through consensus, and the claim of consensus has no place in any rational scientific debate,” Wrightstone wrote.
The climate is always changing, and has been since the beginning of time.
This comment is especially for Col: Perhaps you might care to check this out – and all the optional side-bits. And yes! You will find quite a bit of information from your much-denigrated Tony Heller; but a lot more besides.: http://www.galileomovement,com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf. (You will also find that you may check Tony’s credentials as well; and I suspect that you might find that he is rather more academically well-qualified than you might think – as well as experienced!)
Now, I know that this will be a bit a challenge for you, and there’s lots of entertainment awaiting – but, if your attitude is so typical of many – you won’t look because REAL ‘politically-incorrect’ science is offensive; whereas dogma must be correct! (And yes! One of the optional side-pieces is about political manipulation of the ‘climate change’ fraud – and I call it out for what it is!)
But then you might surprise me and look!
P.S. Even if you remain convinced that ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ are a ‘problem’, there is good news about the technology that will ‘fix’ your [non-]problem in any event – as you will discover should you dare to look …..
Thanks Michael,
Contrary to your expectations I did have a look at the website.
Sorry, but a series of flashcards as shown is not really scientific information.
I will have a closer look at the further references at the bottom of the cards at a later time.
Perhaps, in the mean time, you might like to explain how CO2 and other greenhouse gases allow Solar Infra Red radiation to pass through our atmosphere and limit the escape of Terrestrial IR to space.
I did not see any real covering of this point in the series of flashcards.
Any imbalance will result in either heating or cooling the Earth depending which way the imbalance lies.
Awaiting your reply,
Cheers,
Col
Col,
With the greatest respect:: There is no way that you could possibly have waded your way through all the ‘flashcards (as you describe the pages) and all the ‘side bits’ in the time that you have. Please: Do us all a favour and check everything. You’ve access to my email address on every page.
And I can assure you that you will find the answer to your question! Indeed it is the very key to this FRAUD; and why so many well-meaning people – like you, I suspect – have become victims to it.
So do check. And yes, you will find lots of verifiable REAL science in the process, and much of it doesn’t “see the light of day” because it spoils the propaganda .And, as I quote several times : “Good news does not sell newspapers!”
Cheers!
And thank you for the courtesy of at least responding,
P.S. And while you’re about it, you might check the Galileo website because you could find a bit of verifiable information there too. (Hmmm…. I wonder which very well-informed person, now Australian Senator, assembled it?)
Dear Michael,
I have taken the time to print out “Save The Planet” to make for easier and more convenient reading.
I have also had a look at some (but not all) of the “side bits”.
Overall, in that period of time I have found nothing that describes the “greenhouse effect”.
As a person with a background in some of the “physical sciences” (Chemistry, Physics, Geology and Mathematics) I would appreciate your explanation of the following;
1) How Infra Red radiation from the Sun differs from Infra Red radiation from the Earth.
2) The structure of the Carbon dioxide molecule and how this affects it’s Infra Red absorption spectra.
3) How 1) and 2) affect heat balance (and hence temperatures) at the Earth’s surface.
4) Measurements show CO2 levels have been rising since the beginning of “the Industrial Age” (to the order of 45%).
5) The extraction of “fossil fuels” has been increasing in the same period.
6) Combustion of these “fossil fuels” releases CO2 to the atmosphere.
7) Global temperatures have been measured and shown to be increasing during “the Industrial Age’” (along with oceanic temperatures).
8) Oceanic pH is decreasing indicating CO2 absorbtion from the atmosphere.
These 8 points will do for a start. There are many others to follow if you wish.
Incidentally, I have an open mind and am willing to change my standpoint on Global Warming and subsequent Climate Change if significant scientific evidence can be presented.
Cheers,
Col
Col.,
Thank you for replying; but the pages that you have printed are merely the ‘icing on the cake’. Everything that I’ve assembled is basically so that viewers may check on things in detail, should they wish, or just get an overall picture.
I do suggest that you proceed on to some of the ‘side bits’ where you will – most definitely – find the answers that you seek. But the best way is to proceed to go through the ‘slides’ where you will find references that you may pursue as you wish. The reason that I’ve done it this way is that for most people, the merest hint of anything technical leads to them ‘switching off’; and so it is vital that people don’t “get their brains blown”, but rather can quietly get some REAL education.
By the way, over the years I’ve got to know a number of people who might know a little bit more about longer-term weather than most, including one who has a Ph.D. earned because of a nine-year audit of the U.N. I.P.C.C. and the unreliability of its data used to produce computer models projecting doom and gloom – he was an ‘expert reviewer’ for the U.N. I.P.C.C. 2013 Report, and also for the latest report; another is a Ph.D. geologist and engineer, with extra highly-specialised paleobotanical qualifications, who is a now-retired Principal Research Scientist with the C.S.I.R.O. and who has, as part of his career, spent some 2½ years communing with penguins and rocks in Antarctica. Another friend has a degree in Science with majors in Physics and in Chemistry, a Master’s degree with first class honours in Science Education, and a post-graduate diploma in computers and the teaching of digital electronics. He has taught HSC Physics; was the inaugural Science Adviser for the NSW Department of Education Centre for Research in Measurement and Evaluation, was a member of the NSW Science Syllabus Committee, has lectured in Science Education at university, and was a Member of the Australian Institute of Physics.
Another is someone who spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, working on, commissioning, and operating various power units in N.S.W.. His last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle.
“So, what would they know?” you might think ….. (And there are quite a few others as well.)
So you will find that I have included links to a number of excellent ‘movies’, each one providing an hour or two of entertainment whilst providing some genuine science via highly qualified people who are REAL scientists, as distinct from a number of ‘scientists’ who have succumbed to pushing an agenda that has enriched them financially and/or allowed them some political manipulation and ego-massaging.
If you follow the ‘side-bits’ then I’m quite sure that you will find the information that you seek, as well as a lot of good news that you simply do not get to see/hear/read in the normal course of events.
By all means: Give me a ‘phone call should you wish – (03) 8841 5939/0407 559 344.
And no! I’m not trying to sell you anything – just trying to provide good news that you simply do not get in many cases. (Indeed, should you dare to risk checking the ‘side-bit’ on politics you might just discover one or two home-truths there! (Perhaps you might even find that not everyone is scrupulously honest …. Surely not! I almost hear you think!)
Thanks Michael for your prompt reply.
But please note I asked 8 specific questions and not one of these questions has been answered.
I asked in the hope of saving time.
My interest lies in the answers rather than the persons giving the answers.
With my background I do not fear my brains being blown nor will I switch off.
Would any of your referees be able to answer these questions?
Thanks,
Col
Col.
Just one of the ‘side-bits’ you might check is linked from page 24 of http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf. If you don’t find more than enough information from there, then I shall be extremely disappointed. But you should find the answers to your questions.
And you might even discover the reason that I have featured the picture on page 1 – a key to your questions about ‘the science’, and one of the most fundamental facts about the FRAUD of atmospheric CO2 levels (supposedly) driving ‘global warming/climate change’ …..
Be brave: Check it all out. And then you might proceed on to learn about the technology that will ‘fix’ your perceived ‘problem’ in any event!
So, rather than waste time – please look. You WILL find lots of REAL and VERIFIABLE (as distinct from POLITICIZED) science. (And if you want to learn the FACTS about this subject – the politicization of science – then check the link from page 26. Lots of verifiable information there!)
But even if, after checking out all the REAL science that you will find, you remain convinced that ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ are causing disaster, then you should proceed on to learn about the technology that will – most certainly – “solve” this [non-]problem in any event!
Please – just look! Pleasure awaits ….
Dear Michael,
Previously I have declared I am willing to change my viewpoint on Global Warming / Climate Change if sufficient scientific evidence is provided.
Serious Question,
Are you prepared to change your viewpoint if sufficient scientific evidence is provided?
That matter aside.
The references you provide do not satisfy my request for answers to the 8 questions asked earlier.
Namely:
1) How Infra Red radiation from the Sun differs from Infra Red radiation from the Earth.
2) The structure of the Carbon dioxide molecule and how this affects it’s Infra Red absorption spectra.
3) How 1) and 2) affect heat balance (and hence temperatures) at the Earth’s surface.
4) Measurements show CO2 levels have been rising since the beginning of “the Industrial Age” (to the order of 45%).
5) The extraction of “fossil fuels” has been increasing in the same period.
6) Combustion of these “fossil fuels” releases CO2 to the atmosphere.
7) Global temperatures have been measured and shown to be increasing during “the Industrial Age’” (along with oceanic temperatures).
8) Oceanic pH is decreasing indicating CO2 absorbtion from the atmosphere.
Please Note.
Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change has become manifest over the last 250 years or so beginning with the Industrial Revolution.
Claims that climate has always changed are accurate BUT to compare changes that occurred 10,000 or more years ago with changes today is totally unscientific for the following reasons;
A) Things have changed significantly over the last 250 years.
B) How has the human population changed in that time?
C) Where are the extensive coal mines from 250 years ago?
D) How many oil fields have been commenced in that time?
E) To what extent has heavy industries increased?
F) The combustion of fossil fuels as an energy supply will always add CO2 to the atmosphere.
The references to which you direct me have very little scientific value and rely heavily on repetitive sensationalism, old and out of date information to name a few problems.
Please answer the 14 questions (1 to 8) and (A to F) if you can, otherwise pass them on to others in one nation who may be able to provide answers.
With apologies, the questions are intended to indicate your understanding of the “Greenhouse Effect” and your awareness of the differences between 10,000 or more years ago and today.
Cheers,
Col
PS The “Greenhouse Effect” presently keeps our Earth’s average temperature about 30 celcius degrees warmer than if they were absent.
Col.
It is now quite clear that like so many ‘believers’ it would seem that you simply refuse to look a,t or check, the information that is readily available via the ‘side-bits’ that I have suggested that you should check, I hope that I am wrong in that assessment, but it does seem to be characteristic of people who succumb to become members of a cult.
You keep asking the same questions, and I keep telling you to go and check the material that I am providing because in it I know that the questions that you are asking are all covered.
The first, and fundamental, point is the one perfectly-illustrated by the horse being before the cart, and that is that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have have ALWAYS FOLLOWED Earth’s temperature levels – and NOT the other way around that is the basic thrust of the ‘CO2 levels drive temperature’ propaganda. This is basic and proven physics! (End of story.)
But that’s only just one point. Another is the logarithmic decline of the effect of CO2 as a so-called ‘greenhouse’ gas as its atmospheric concentration increases to the point that present increases now have approximately an impact of that famous scientific formula of “3/5 of 5/8 of Sweet Fanny Adams” – and that is the present reality.
Unfortunately Col.: If you refuse to look, and to check the vast amount of REAL science that I have assembled, quite apart from checking on the political manipulation behind it all, to say nothing of the technology that will ‘fix’ your perceived [non-]problem in any event, then all I can suggest is that you continue to enjoy your evident alarm ….
And have a nice day.
Hi Michael,
Paragraph 1
Interesting that you have resorted to denigrating opposition to your views as a “CULT”.
I have read some of the “side bits” to which I have been directed and have not found the answers to the questions asked.
Paragraph 2
I have kept asking the same questions because I am unable to find the answers as you claim are present.
Do you know the answers?
Paragraph 3
The last horse and cart I saw was about sixty (60) years ago.
Your analogy appears rather dated in keeping with the info you provide (one reference in the “side bits” discusses a presentation to the US Govt. dated 1941, yes eighty two (82) years ago.
Incidentally, today the horse has mostly been replaced by motor driven machinery.
In some cases the motive unit is placed at the rear of the articulated vehicle, EG articulated buses for public transport, front end loaders and cranes.
Tens and even hundreds of thousand years ago global temperatures did start rising before CO2 levels, the mechanism being related to cyclic variations in the Earth’s orbit, rotational axis, precession and nutation. BUT CO2 levels then overtook to lead and drive the global temperature rises.
Explanation, the rising CO2 levels allowed the greenhouse effect to predominate.
Check the global temperature vs CO2 level records from ice cores covering the last few hundreds of thousands of years.
Incidentally, where and what was the human population at these times?
Paragraph 4
A repeat of the often quoted transmission and absorption situation BUT without a real understanding of the case.
Here the IR from the Sun passes through to the Earth’s surface while the escape of IR from the Earth is hindered by CO2.
Incidentally if you are mistakenly referring to the absorption of Solar IR then an increase in CO2 must mean an increase in atmospheric temperatures leading to Global Warming. (contrary to your views)
As to your “famous scientific formula of “3/5 of 5/8 of Sweet Fanny Adams””.
I have never seen such a formula in any science textbook.
Paragraph 5.
There is a huge difference between what you claim to be “REAL science” as per the flash cards and side bits compared to science as presented in proper academic documents.
Have you read the URL I suggested earlier in this exchange that contradicts many claims made by Tony and Malcolm?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/
While this URL is not presented as an academic paper it serves well as a comparison to your flash cards.
“Political manipulation”? Would you please provide proof.
“ to say nothing of the technology that will ‘fix’ your perceived [non-]problem”, this alleged technology has not yet been successfully demonstrated let alone put into practice.
Akin to sweeping the dust under the carpet?
If you have read this far then I hope you understand my disappointment and dismay in the lack of genuine scientific data you have provided
Col …
.
As clearly your mind is made up there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
You have not accepted the FACT that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have ALWAYS followed Earth’s temperatures – up or down (‘horse BEFORE cart’!) and not the other way around as propagandised by alarmists; it seems also that you wish to ignore the FACT that there is a logarithmic decline in CO2’s impact as a ‘greenhouse gas’ to the point where today it is virtually irrelevant – quite apart from the fact that its effect in the light spectrum is very much overlaid by the BIG ‘greenhouse gas’ – H2O!
Etc. Etc.
And it would seem that you have not begun to explore the technology that will ‘fix’ your non-problem of ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ in any event: nuclear energy – with tremendous strides having taken place in the last 50 years or so both in fission and fusion, about which most people know nothing.
And back to CO2: Clearly you haven’t checked why there is such a huge temperature difference between the heat levels on two of the planets in our solar system – one very hot, and the other very cold, but both with almost identical very high atmospheric CO2 levels.
But, if you won’t look, then i can’t help you ….
And, as for the Acorn-Sat data from our very-own BoM: Do go and check the vast amount of verifiable information you will find on the side-bit about history. Surprise! Surprise! Mysteriously, it seems that there was no weather in Australia prior to 1910; and, also, and very strangely – the records seem to have been changing to suit the narrative since then too. (I wonder why that could be?)
Still, if you refuse to look and/or to verify with so much that can be verified … (And it seems that you have not checked a little bit about the international political manipulation behind it all. Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels have been oh so proud and enthusiastic about our modern propaganda methodology!)
P.S. And we’re having an ‘unprecedented’ mid-Summer heatwave here in Melbourne. Indeed it promises to be particularly severe, with snow on the hills forecast for next Friday. Oh woe! It must be that Planet-greening ‘carbon [sic] pollution!
Dear Michael,
I think I now understand why you have not provided answers to my questions relating to the “Greenhouse Effect”.
It appears you may have deliberately chosen to ignore these questions or your understanding of the mechanism driving this effect is insufficient to provide answers. (Where lies reality?)
If the latter is the case, then you must consider your knowledge as insufficient to discuss Global Warming any further.
Your claim (para 3) in your latest submission indicates a serious lack of understanding of the principles and facts of science.
Venus and Mars may be rocky planets with gaseous atmospheres of approx 95% CO2 each.
BUT the comparison ends there concerning temperature differences.
Venus orbits approx 110 million km from the Sun whereas Mars orbits approx 240 million km away.
Consequently Venus receives approx 4 times the Solar radiation per square metre than Mars. (The Inverse Square Law).
Venus is approx 8 times the mass of Mars (0.8 Earth mass cf 0.1 for Mars)
The atmospheric pressure at Venus’ surface is approx 9300% that of the Earth compared to Mars’ 0.6% the Earths.
To use their temperature differences to argue against Global Warming due to CO2 is beyond scientific reason. (The planets are FAR TOO different for such a comparison)
In reference to your horse and cart, with all due respect Michael, the wheels have fallen off and the horse you are flogging (regardless which way it is facing) is dead.
Considering your displayed lack of scientific understanding, any further exchanges most likely will be meaningless.
Cheers,
Col
PS this is the third time I have said I am willing to change my viewpoint in the light of valid scientific evidence. To date no such evidence has been presented.
Have you made any similar offer?
Dear Michael,
Still awaiting your reply with particular reference to the relationship between Venus and Mars.
Cheers,
Col
Col.
With the greatest respect; I suspect that you will go on arguing that black is white! I’ve told you numerous times to go and check the copious information that’s available in the material that I’ve assembled. And, in any event, there’s the technology that will ‘fix’ the [non-]problem of ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ in any event – ‘modern’ nuclear energy – and a great deal of information has been assembled about that as well. All you have to do is check.
And then, you may also check the information that’s available via the Galileo website also. Again, you will find lots of FACTUAL information.
Yes! I accept what you say about the differences between Mars& Venus; but the overwhelming similarity is the level of atmospheric CO2 and the comparison with Earth. again, please go and check all the material that I’ve made available – you may ;blow you brain’ with the the extensive REAL scientific information.
Mind you – perhaps you should check the optional side-piece about politics? Perhaps that might help? http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanetPoliticalFACTS.pdf You might even discover what the ‘Save the Planet from Climate Change’ drive is REALLY all about …..
Col.
As a supplement to what I’ve said, I suggest that you should check senator Malcolm’s latest ‘One Nation’ posting today – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/malcolm-roberts-addresses-the-climate-and-energy-forum/ and then wage through the copious material that going into the record in his submission to the senate inquiry into the government’s climate change bill.
That should give you more than a little bit of entertainment.
Sorry Michael,
But to me as a university science graduate you have not provided any scientific evidence along the lines I have questioned.
(my BSc was earned in 1863,,Grad ceremony 1964, well before the alleged “brain washing” of uni students)
.You have told me to go and look at your flash cards etc but even there the factual scientific information I seek is absent.
Can you explain the Greenhouse effect?
Can you explain the mechanism that is causing Earth’s temperatures to rise as measured?
Then can you explain how increasing temperatures are causing the observed CO2 rise?
The mechanisms of Global Warming due to increasing CO2 levels is well understood.as is the increase.
in Earth’s temperatures.
Heat energy drives the weather, increased heat energy in our atmosphere will cause changes in weather patterns (Climate Change)
Finally a challenge. Present your comments re the comparative temperatures of Venus and Mars to competent astronomers and listen carefully to their answer/s
Contrary to expectations I have checked Malcolm’s latest comments.
Baseless accusations of “fraud” etc do not constitute scientific truth.
Check the following
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/02/03/climate-and-energy-forum-climate-denialists/
Cheers,
Col
OK Col.
I give up! Your reference to ‘Crikey’ says it all.
Enjoy your fantasy world! Clearly verifiable facts are to be dismissed and replaced by received propaganda. And probably the ‘solution’ to your [non-]problem of ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ from electricity generation should be ignored and replaced by our present Minister for Energy & Climate Change’s plan to litter Australia with ‘renewables’ and inter-connectors.
So good luck with that. Enjoy your blackouts, etc…
Michael,
Did you read the Crikey post?
Col
Hi Michael,
I looked for a comment on the meeting that may present an alternative view than would have been offered by the organisers.
In a Google search, Crikey just happened to offer another viewpoint.
EG the organisers claim an attendance of 600 whereas Crikey reports 200.
Why the difference?
The other reason was to identify some of the speakers.
Jeff Grimshaw. Never heard of him. Google searches reveal nothing more than a couple of Twitter comments.
A total absence of any scientific submissions to any institution. Why?
Craig Kelly, ex politician is mentioned. His science understanding is questionable after his comments re Pacific Islands in no danger of sea level rising because THEY ARE FLOATING.
No further comment necessary re his contribution to scientific enlightenment of the meeting’s attendees.
Mark Latham took a dive in my estimation after his stupid lurching to greet John Howard before an election many years ago. He descended even further when he joined One Nation.
I will refrain from any comments re Malcolm Roberts.
Back to Jeff Grimshaw.
“Goldilocks Gasses” indeed! No such gasses.
A habitable zone extends around all stars where life as we know it could evolve and exist this zone is occasionally referred to as the Goldilocks Zone.
That is, not too hot nor too cold but just right as per the three bowls of porridge in Goldilocks and the Three Bears children’s story.
The comments in his presentation for the meeting, as reported, appear to veer towards mockery rather than scientific integrity.
Mockery is a sign that the speaker knows his arguments are faulty!
Incidentally, he appears to have no understanding of the significance of CO2 or water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
In effect, the whole meeting should be treated with caution as being of any scientific value.
Cheers,
Col