Church Of Climatology - Page 11

Bent8 · 17-12-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK

+1.

Walt, got any links to this class action against Gore? That would be great reading!

GK

This is the only video I could find on the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Romulus · 17-12-2009, 03:00 AM

It says alot when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the IMF is stating his opinion on how a carbon trading system should be adopted by the world, and those countries who do not support a carbon credit trading system should have their goods subject to tarrifs i.e. a carbon tax. No mention at all of CO2 reduction interestingly enough though.....

This whole climate change debate looks more and more like the build up to the War on Terror, where proof of WMD is comparable to the climate change science evidence. We all know where the WMD's were don't we?!

It's a scam. Who'd have thought the air we breath could be taxed.

rodderz · 17-12-2009, 08:34 AM

Yes I saw that on Lateline. It's hardly surprising when the big wigs involved in all this are all bankers and experts on investments. All the major organisations/groups have been said to involve the questionable people, groups such as the IMF, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, World Bank, Fed Exchange etc.

The bankers do the money stuff and use the paid off scientists to come up with the side reason to push their reason through

XA-Coupe · 17-12-2009, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

Who'd have thought the air we breath could be taxed.

Finally the FBT shows it's true colours !! Federal Breathing Tax !!
It was once a running joke.....

XRQTR · 17-12-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

Finally the FBT shows it's true colours !! Federal Breathing Tax !!
It was once a running joke.....

Looking more like it was a preminition now.

trippytaka · 17-12-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodderz

Yes I saw that on Lateline. It's hardly surprising when the big wigs involved in all this are all bankers and experts on investments. All the major organisations/groups have been said to involve the questionable people, groups such as the IMF, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, World Bank, Fed Exchange etc.

The bankers do the money stuff and use the paid off scientists to come up with the side reason to push their reason through

ARTICLE, with scientific references. Must read.

I was a sceptic too in '96 when I did the HSC... 3 unit geography and got in he 90-100 bracket, including an essay I wrote on the reasons why global warming could be wrong. I used to argue with everyone I met about it, until one day in about 2001, when a mate of mine, who is an environmental scientist, sat down and answered every one of the questions.

Stuff like Volcanoes producing more CO2... not true, he showed me the reports on it. He went through and showed all the science behind this. Please read through all of this article, all the FACTS.

Yes I know some have trust issues with science, but really... if you went to 13 doctors complaining of chest pains and all of them told you you needed a heart transplant, would you keep doubting it and calling heart burn?

Walt Kowalski · 17-12-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

ARTICLE, with scientific references. Must read.

Yes I know some have trust issues with science, but really... if you went to 13 doctors complaining of chest pains and all of them told you you needed a heart transplant, would you keep doubting it and calling heart burn?

I would not care what the doctors said.

I would listen to the specialist

trippytaka · 17-12-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt Kowalski

I would not care what the doctors said.

I would listen to the specialist

Wouldn't the specialist in this case be actual climate scientists?

Badcooky · 17-12-2009, 12:08 PM

There could very well be the old NWO deal attached to this issue but biosphere one is a closed system if i remember rightly.

max_torq · 17-12-2009, 12:13 PM

It is indisputable that the world was on average cooler in the recent past than it is now, and it is also indisputable that in the more distant past it has considerably warmer. In fact, during the majority of the phanerozoic (since the start of multicellular life) the Earth has been mostly warmer. During the Cretaceous CO2 was much higher than now, temperatures higher, and the sea level was around 150m higher; great swathes of the continents were covered in shallow inland seas. This is also a time of great productivity, huge forest with huge trees, populated by huge creatures. The cold periods were associated with formation of supercontinents, and warm periods as they dispersed, as they have been doing since the eocene. So we may be inevitablely heading to a new equilibrium. The problem is one, we are evolved along with our agriculture and companion species for cooler climates, and two, the rate of change is so fast evolution can't track it, so species are going extinct. It would seem to be highly likely that the fact that we have burn't a good percentage the accumulated hydrocarbons of 500myr of biotic history, in a hundred years or so, could just be a contributing factor, to accelerating the rate of change. It is not life on earth that is in danger at all... it is life as we know it... now personally, I don't care with they way we are take the environment for granted... so let's bring it on... time for a successor species.

Fev · 17-12-2009, 12:56 PM

Mutant re=tard monkey fish frogs? They could be our sucessor. They'd probably do a better job running the planet too.

XRQTR · 17-12-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by max_torq

... so let's bring it on... time for a successor species.

And this is my biggest problem with the "science", all of these scientists, ok most, would be strong believers in evolution, yet when there is profit to be made Darwins theory is thrown out the window.

Who's to say that this isn't simply the pre cursor to the next evolutionary stage, how can they preach it yet not include it??

trippytaka · 17-12-2009, 01:16 PM

Yep, has risen and fallen in temp in the past, coinciding with carbon levels. If you want a really good, simple explanation of all this, watch Crude: The amazing journey of oil. It goes through the life cycle of oil... from how it was formed in the stagnating oceans.

Amazing really because the twist is that we're creating the same conditions that oil was formed in... ocean currents slow down as the water heats up because there isn't as big a difference in the temps at the top (from the ice). Oxygen stops being replenished in the oceans (cold water holds the most oxygen) and the seas stagnate, killing off life. Algal blooms survive in this tough environment, use up the last of the oxygen, then kill off everything, including itself. Falls to the bottom of the ocean and creates oil over millions of years.

Watch it here at this link, or rent it on DVD. Pretty damn amazing! CRUDE: The amzing journey of oil

trippytaka · 17-12-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

And this is my biggest problem with the "science", all of these scientists, ok most, would be strong believers in evolution, yet when there is profit to be made Darwins theory is thrown out the window.

Who's to say that this isn't simply the pre cursor to the next evolutionary stage, how can they preach it yet not include it??

No one is throwing out Darwin's theory at all! This is looking like a pre-cursor to a new evolutionary stage... it's just that WE are the cause this time, not nature.

XRQTR · 17-12-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

No one is throwing out Darwin's theory at all! This is looking like a pre-cursor to a new evolutionary stage... it's just that WE are the cause this time, not nature.

Ummm most changes come about because they are brought about by the species (or other predator species), not as a consequence of nature, nature has influence of course but the species usually put themselves into the position. Whether that be by over use of resources or poor maintanance of their surroundings, so if you look at it that way then we are doing what we are supposed to do, forcing the change.

Badcooky · 17-12-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Ummm most changes come about because they are brought about by the species (or other predator species), not as a consequence of nature, nature has influence of course but the species usually put themselves into the position. Whether that be by over use of resources or poor maintanance of their surroundings, so if you look at it that way then we are doing what we are supposed to do, forcing the change.

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't self imposed.
Most other changes are geographical and/or meteorological causing divergences of species over time.
But i digress ,yes this one is on us..

Auslandau · 17-12-2009, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Amazing really because the twist is that we're creating the same conditions that oil was formed in... ocean currents slow down as the water heats up because there isn't as big a difference in the temps at the top (from the ice). Oxygen stops being replenished in the oceans (cold water holds the most oxygen) and the seas stagnate, killing off life. Algal blooms survive in this tough environment, use up the last of the oxygen, then kill off everything, including itself. Falls to the bottom of the ocean and creates oil over millions of years.

When this happened all those years ago ...... what industrial revolution was the cause? If I can remember 'way back then' people weren't invented yet? No one really doubts the fact that things change including the climate. Its who is responsible for one and two, if any action done by anyone in the world, there is no proof this would make any difference at all. Everyone wants clean air and a nicer place to live in ....... but lets be reasonable about it and not run around like headless chooks in C'hagen!

| [/url] |

trippytaka · 17-12-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auslandau

When this happened all those years ago ...... what industrial revolution was the cause? If I can remember 'way back then' people weren't invented yet? No one really doubts the fact that things change including the climate. Its who is responsible for one and two, if any action done by anyone in the world, there is no proof this would make any difference at all. Everyone wants clean air and a nicer place to live in ....... but lets be reasonable about it and not run around like headless chooks in C'hagen!

The Earth was still growing (geologically) at an astronomical rate due to massive volcanic activity. This, to my understanding is what caused the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere back then. But, this happened over a long period of time - thousands and thousands and thousands of years! We have cause the same effect in just a couple of hundred years.

Again, for a simple explanation, watch Crude: The amazing journey of oil.

max_torq · 17-12-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auslandau

When this happened all those years ago ...... what industrial revolution was the cause? If I can remember 'way back then' people weren't invented yet? No one really doubts the fact that things change including the climate. Its who is responsible ...

At the end of the Ordovician when 65%+ of entire taxonomic families (eg; like all mammals) went extinct it was the breakup of Gondwana. At the end of the Permian, when all creatures larger than 20kg died, it was the eruption of the Siberian Traps (most likely). At the end of the Cretaceous (and the dinosaurs) it was an impact plus the 'Deccan Traps' eruption. The last put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change temperature by a whole two degrees. But each time life rebuilt, and with vast productivity bursts absorbed the carbon, and then died, got buried (sequestered) and turned into coal, or oil.

Well, we've dug it all back up and in a geological instant burn't it, returning it to the atmosphere... and surprise, surprise... my god its actually had an impact... and we never guessed oh well... doh!

xtremerus · 17-12-2009, 07:10 PM

One scientific theory is that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, are just an indicator and not the cause, of temperature rise, some time after 'Mother Nature', or the Sun has affected an increase. Correllation of different sourced historical data from ice cores/tree rings/etc, seem to indicate CO2 concentrations increased AFTER a temperature rise. We may have a situation where too many people think that 'the tail wags the dog'

rodderz · 17-12-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

ARTICLE, with scientific references. Must read.

I was a sceptic too in '96 when I did the HSC... 3 unit geography and got in he 90-100 bracket, including an essay I wrote on the reasons why global warming could be wrong. I used to argue with everyone I met about it, until one day in about 2001, when a mate of mine, who is an environmental scientist, sat down and answered every one of the questions.

Stuff like Volcanoes producing more CO2... not true, he showed me the reports on it. He went through and showed all the science behind this. Please read through all of this article, all the FACTS.

Yes I know some have trust issues with science, but really... if you went to 13 doctors complaining of chest pains and all of them told you you needed a heart transplant, would you keep doubting it and calling heart burn?

I would think that the amount of Co2 produced by volcanoes depends on the amount of eruptions or the activity. How could one possibly measure the amount of all the worlds volcano's carbon output, let alone from humans. It would have to be a guess at best.

Doctors and the scientists in question are a completely different circumstance, that reference has no merit. Docs are their in their job doing it every day and getting paid from each patient, some scientists on the other hand have known to be inefficient in their work due to releasing certain information in order to gain $$ for a grant or to provide the right information to a group for a price. The anglia emails is proof of part of that.

XRQTR · 17-12-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by max_torq

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH But each time life rebuilt, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH............doh!

Woops, what was that you said??

It seems that many of you forget that "life does rebuild", habitation does re occur, if this is our doom then so be it.

I really think that the movie "Ice Age" was made by a "skeptic" after all while everyone is running around like it's their last day you have a hand full that are resigned to the fact that, well put quite simply "shyte happens".

XRQTR · 17-12-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badcooky

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't self imposed.
Most other changes are geographical and/or meteorological causing divergences of species over time.
But i digress ,yes this one is on us..

I don't call a meteor hitting the planet and throwing dust into the air so high, kind of like 1000 nuclear bombs going off at once and covering the planet so that temperatures dropped to a level that could not sustain the majority of life and covered much vegetation so that even those that could starved until finally many of the species of that time were extinct or close to it, a natural occurance.

It could be seen as a freak meteorological occurance, but certainly not natural, the fact that we just happened to be in the wrong/right spot at the wrong/right time as it was going through our solar system, well that's just a coincidink.

gtfpv · 17-12-2009, 09:21 PM

I'M NOT FULLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER , AS I'M NOT A SCIENTIST and sadly i'm not too trusting of anything these days as i've lived long enough to see scams in almost everything .wether it's true or not .
aside from human causing harm to the planet though , on the news a few days ago there was talk of a large volcano in the phillipines expected to errupt soon as it is becoming overly active recently , aside from that the ring of fire is also becoming more active . if this large volcano errupts it is said to make KRACKATOA look like a baby firework. if thats the case the sun would be what they call a " blue moon " creating a quick mass climate change .
another point ( this one is fact ) AUSTRALIAN SKY AND TELESCOPE MAG, published the 10 top stories of 2009 our sun came in at no#6.

STATEING : "
A QUIET SUN"
: The sun continues to go through a quiet cycle not seen in almost a century. Sunspots are rare, and indeed it's one of the deepest solar minima on record, frustrating solar observers. The quietness has also been revealed in a drop in the solar wind's speed and density - that shrinks the heliosphere and allows more cosmic rays into the solar system .

: WHY THE HELL ISN'T THAT MENTIONED ON THE NEWS ??????

olfella · 17-12-2009, 09:27 PM

Only BAD news sells...

bluestreak · 17-12-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

The Earth was still growing (geologically) at an astronomical rate due to massive volcanic activity. This, to my understanding is what caused the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere back then. But, this happened over a long period of time - thousands and thousands and thousands of years! We have cause the same effect in just a couple of hundred years.

I have a serious problem with this.

There's a lot of people who don't seem to understand most of the science of this issue. Fair enough -there's a lot to get your head around.

This has been posted in another thread, but it's informative and relevant so I'll repost it here. This is part one of four. With reference to AGW, if you are a denier, a skeptic or a fencesitter (I'm a skeptic) I recommend watching all four parts. Eco zealots shouldn't watch it as it heresy of the worst kind (contains real science) and may make you cry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Cheers

:

gtfpv · 17-12-2009, 10:20 PM

[QUOTE=bluestreak]I have a serious problem with this.

There's a lot of people who don't seem to understand most of the science of this issue. Fair enough -there's a lot to get your head around.

This has been posted in another thread, but it's informative and relevant so I'll repost it here. This is part one of four. With reference to AGW, if you are a denier, a skeptic or a fencesitter (I'm a skeptic) I recommend watching all four parts. Eco zealots shouldn't watch it as it heresy of the worst kind (contains real science) and may make you cry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Cheers

ok . based on this post i'm going to watch it right now.

qwiksix · 18-12-2009, 12:02 AM

I'm gonna have a little read of the IPCC report over the weekend. I am pretty sure that like most other reports, the politicians will have exaggerated or bent it to whatever suited them.

Out of interest, how many here have read this?
qs

GK · 18-12-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestreak

I have a serious problem with this.

There's a lot of people who don't seem to understand most of the science of this issue. Fair enough -there's a lot to get your head around.

This has been posted in another thread, but it's informative and relevant so I'll repost it here. This is part one of four. With reference to AGW, if you are a denier, a skeptic or a fencesitter (I'm a skeptic) I recommend watching all four parts. Eco zealots shouldn't watch it as it heresy of the worst kind (contains real science) and may make you cry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Cheers

:

Watching it now. Looks good, especially his emphasis on needing to see the data in historical context.

Cheers,

GK

XRQTR · 18-12-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

STATEING : "
A QUIET SUN"
: The sun continues to go through a quiet cycle not seen in almost a century. Sunspots are rare, and indeed it's one of the deepest solar minima on record, frustrating solar observers. The quietness has also been revealed in a drop in the solar wind's speed and density - that shrinks the heliosphere and allows more cosmic rays into the solar system .

: WHY THE HELL ISN'T THAT MENTIONED ON THE NEWS ??????

Because they are still figuring out how to tax the sun, although with the push for home based solar energy they probably aren't too far off

Gov - "How many panels do you have??"
Res - "10 why??"
Gov - "That will be $100 annually per panel in Sun tax" he says with a smile while rubbing his hands and wondering "what color should I get my tax payer funded Lamborghini??"

Kind of like how now that so many have water tanks the rates are starting to creep up, they add value to your home therefore the government must make money off your back yet again.

If they could get past the moral issues on drugs they'd legalise them yesterday and start collecting the tax from that as well.