Posts by David Robinson 2

Of all the people that have written on this subject I have seen no-one that has challenged the facts about Co2 in the atmosphere. I have taken samples for over ten years and found a consistent 311 ppm. Now dont bother to tell me I dont know what I am doing a I have more years experience of Co2 analysis than most of the contributors here have lived. There is nothing difficult about this procedure. The equipment is similar to that used in nuclear submarines and for the same purpose, to see how much of the gas is in the atmosphere. If you are so convinced that Co2 is high the go buy yourself some equipment (not all that dear) and test for youself,...if you are not afraid of finding something that you don't like. So put up or shut up.

Dave

I have taken a number of air analyses over the last few years and find that there has been no change with the figure at 311 ppm. The figures used by the climatologists tend to come from NASA in Hawaii, from a site on top of an extinct volcano with Co2 continously seeping out of the porous ground and surrounded by active volcanos. Nasa figures reflect the increase in local volcanic activity, not the overall figure.

In the last year researchers have reported (almost invisibly!) that,far from Co2 staying aloft in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and accumulating, it doesn't even stay up for hundreds of weeks. Between a few months and just over a year is the real time. This is hardly surprising since Co2 is one of the heavyist molecules in the earth and always sinks down to earth when undisturbed and will even collect in low places without disturbances.

Dave

I have seen endless chat about theoretical causes for a theoretical GW. I have seen no-one come up with evidence that they have experienced. Over the last few years I have taken a number of air samples. I have seen no evidence of change with a figure of around 311 ppm. Of course, my figures have been taken near the ground north of London, not on top of an extinct volcano in Hawaii where Co2 is seeping out of the ground continually and is surrounded by active volcanos as where NASA gets it's figures. The rise in Co2 from NASA mirrors not the rise (and fall) of general temperatures but the increase in the last thirty years of volcanic activity in Hawaii.

Dave.

Sorry, I am David Robinson 1&2 due to probable cock-ups on my part

Coincidence???

No-one has mentioned the report in the newspaper this morning that a certain professor Steven Rose ? has said that the BBC would not be broadcasting anything that did not go along with the AGW theory. That is as if they hadn't been doing that all along! This at the same time as the announcement about cosmic rays..

Conspiracy? Hiding the facts? Of course not. It's just that we cannot be trusted with anything but the official line.

Dave.

What is wrong with Co2?

Sadly, the global warmers have turned Co2 into a deadly poison. Are they so stupid that they don't realise that it is life to all green growing stuff and that without it all greenstuff would die and we should all follow it?

Yes, I do know that if we breathe C02 in vast excess we too will die and in a similar fashion greenstuff would die without it.

One point that I have not seen mentioned is that heat travels only toward cold. The rate of travel is proportonate to the temperature differential. Therefore heat loss to space will increase with increased temperatures compared to the near absolute zero surrounding us. The AGW supporters would have us believe that there is an outermost layer of the atmosphere that is between 600 and 1500Cdeg. which traps heat intoward the earth. They need these temperatures because Co2 only becomes activated by high infra-red and without this the whole theory falls apart. The fact that it would be impossible to sustain these temperatures rubbing shoulders with near absolute zero is probably why, fairly, recently a leading climatologist ( one could hardly say scientist) claimed that the laws of thermodynamics ( a part of science more completely proved than any other) must be wrong because it did not tie in with the AGW theory.

The sooner we stop wasting truckloads of money chasing this particular will-o'-the-wisp and making people like Al Gore billionaires the better for everyone.

Dave

Where are they?

I can only join in the congratulations on a magnificent effort. Did anyone else notice something missing? Where was the red/gold glow of all these Co2 molecules that are supposed to be up there heating up the earth? The camera shots were great ...but no glow.

This was not altogether surprising as a balloon camera expert got none either recently, although many of the shots should have shewn them up.

Cant wait for the next expedition.

Dave

Science?

A leading climatologist was recently quoted as stating that if the laws of thermodynamics do not support the Co2=climate change then they must be wrong and need changing. This shows a dramatic arrogance and ignorance.

Dave.

Can one believe anyone?

If you were to ask most people how big a proportion of the countries Co2 is produced by cars they would probably put the figure at around 20-25% as put about by the various politicians. They are careful not to say 25% of what but are give the impression that it is 25% of total Co2 production. They say when questioned that further breakdown of figures is not available. However, a few years back an independant firm was commissioned to break the figures down. The result was that cars produce a mere 0.5% of Britain's total Co2 production. The report was for the Friends of the Earth, I believe and naturally nothing further from it has been heard.

Again, Co2 figures are taken by NASA on top of an extinct volcano, surrounded by active volcanos, in an increasingly active area (Hawaii). The Co2 trend line, while not fitting ( in spite of the fiddles) the earth temperature trend line does in fact mirror the increase in volcanic activity around Hawaii. Any surprises anyone?

Oh and has anyone noticed that the latest report on atmospheric Co2 shows that it stays in the atmosphere weeks and months, not lots of years as claimed.

Dave.

Gas

One thing that has been forgotten is that in the last days of B.G. they had forseen the day that N.G. ran out and they had designed (invented?) a method of using coal again but to produce a gas that was similar in characteristics to natural gas and would thus avoid all the cost and disruption that was involved in the move from town gas to natural gas. As it becomes more and more obvious that AGW is wrong then we could return to self-sufficiency.

Dave.

no surprise!

Don't you all understand that this is just a part of the government's campaign to get you off the road and into the RMT and others 'public' transport. The unions and the greens want value for the money they give the labour party. Most of the rubbish we have had to put up with in the last 12 years comes from the team lead by Professor Begg who has offices coyrtesy of the RMT.

Dave.

Scientific truth?

We keep hearing of all the fiddles and tricks that seem to be all that some people need to 'prove' AGW, but why do people that do real science get ignored? What about those Danish scientists who have investigated the role of cosmic rays in driving the earth's temperatures? Any reasonable person would see that they have amassed vastly more evidence for their theory, without all the deceit that GW climatologists require and who cannot yet give any proofs or open their 'evidence' for other scientists to review and work on.

dave

Numbers

The old story of how' 2,300 leading scientists can't be wrong misses two points. It doesn't matter how many 'scientists' believe, it is a case of the scientific method. AGW is a theory and only a theory. To have any credence it must be proved with evidence that any competant scientist can replicate. So far all we have are stories of doubtful credence, all unproved, with 'scientists' hiding or using faulty evidence.

If numbers were important then why is it not equally publisised that 32,000 scientists, including some of the most eminent, have signed a petition that states that there is no AGW.

Interestingly, James Hanson's boss, who has just retired and is thus free to speak, does not believe it either.

Dave