$990 to find out if your children will have a World worth living in!

CO2 is not pollution.

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

"CO2 is not pollution."

It is a greenhouse gas however. Great link... puts peer reviewed science to shame... not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ

Climate sceptic scientists are bought and sold, along with corporate time-serving serfs like Anonymous #6.

Greenpeace are retarded when it comes to "climate change"

They post words of wisdom from the likes of James Hansen who in the 70's was pushign the Ice Age fear mongering.

Wake up greenies, Greenhouse gases are a nturally occurring reality & in no way do they threaten our existance.

The only thing we will get out of taking measures to reduce CO2 is a reduction in the growth potential of our country & a decrease of efforts to minimize other real pollutants.

Wake up ya monkeys. FFS

It must be Dan Roberts, I think he is a bit paronoid.

James Hansen is a U.S. government official who was promoting the ice age fear mongering in the 70's.

...On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time...

So go ahead greenies, listen to Greenpeace who support the likes of Hansen, even list him as a credible source.

Time will tell that the joke is on you.

Because finite resources are inevitably outgrown, leading to death.

A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in debate on global warming in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

► The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
► CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
► Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
► The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
► The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
► “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
► Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
► The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
► It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
► Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
► In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

lol... in arguing your case you refer to wikipedia, a blog article & a guardian.co.uk article...

The critique offered up by the altenergy.org site is far from scientific... more like a play on the language used... these type of sites are a dime a dozen, all desperately trying to argue the case for AGW alarmism, using articles from NY Times etc to state their case.

When you can refute the math model arguments by Christopher Monckton let us know... until then, keep believing the IPCC spin, knock yourself out.

More people are twigging onto the fact that this global warming is all hype. It's politically driven, not scientifically driven & hence is a load of bull.

Auckland is not overpopulated geographically... it's too spread out & the infrastructure is not up to the job, that's all. It's a chicken or the egg scenario, without the population, we can't afford to expand the infrastructure.

Poor families are not a reason to limit growth.

"So you want to limit the growth of New Zealand while places like India continue to thrive?"

maybe you should fuck off to India then

So what's Al Gore's scientific background smart guy?