Climate Change

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Scott

You've lost me in your last post and can't seem to comprehend that there is simply not enough data to be making absolute calls on the history of our planets weather patterns for close to 7 billion years. Only guesses and assumptions.

If you take the time to read my earliest posts, you will see that I very plainly stated that recent temperatures show an upward trend of higher highs.... higher than the other highs in the tiny snapshot. I don't know why you're choosing to forget that bit but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

If you'd be good enough to post up anything, a simple chart will do, that supports your theory then I'll be happy to demonstrate how and why it is absolutely fallible in producing a reliable result.

I've been generous enough to share the reasoning and facts behind my position, it would be nice if you would do the same.... something other than "99% of all Doctors agree"...

Which brings me back to your last post.... I suppose all the Doctors and the AMA that so publicly endorsed the tobacco industry were on the up and up too? That was small fry compared to this.

You hang on to your ideals, I'll hang on to mine.

Oh man, where do I start

Whether or not human induced climate change is real or not is a debate I have no intention of entering, and never did within this thread as a more careful read of my previous posts would reveal. All I've been saying is that we need to at least consider it as a possibility, exercise some caution, and move towards cutting emissions.

After going over your earlier posts again, you have made some good points as to why you dont believe in human induced climate change. Go over my posts again, never at any stage have I tried to convince you otherwise. All I've been saying is that nothing is certain - like you said your self we know too little to be making absolute calls, yet you appear to be doing exactly that.

Yes, I do belive in human induced climate change. Yes, I belive we have to take immediate steps to cut emissions - but I've come to this conclusion more based on my research on resource depletion. I haven't read much about climate change specifically, but I have about resource depletion. The answers to each problem are basically the same.

And as for your tobacco industry example, I think its strange that you've used it to support your own view when if anything, it contradicts it.

Back then we had a group of doctors saying - relax, its all good, smoking is perfectly fine, no need to change, everything is good as it is. While others were saying - Wait, what we've believed to be the case for hundreds of years is not correct, we need to change our views and habits.

Now we have exactly the same situation - one group of scientists saying all is good, no need for change, everything is good as it is, carry on business as usual. While another says, we need to make some changes that we dont necissarily want to make but need to for the greater good.

Originally Posted by Scott

Save the forests, stop polluting our waterways, farm smarter, look to renewable energy and stick to good, wholesome, tangible and common sense ideas.

See you make comments like this, so our opinions aren't completely at odds. I just think you're buying into the whole "human induced climate change is a cash grab/conspiracy theory" train of thought too deeply. I totally understand how the fanaticism of many within this movement can be annoying, to say the least. But its a mistake to react by actively advocating the pollution of our environment. Not saying you do yourself, but many on this forum actually boast of a large carbon footprint, which is the absolute height of brain numbing selfishness and stupidity.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by CAT600

When we burn fossil fuels, arent we just re-releasing co2 that was at one time in the atmosphere anyway?.... my understanding is that in a high co2 environment, plant life flourishes and traps the co2. Then when it dies the co2 in the tree's remains trapped and over time buried where is is then turned into oil and gas under huge pressure.... of course the earth would naturally cool due to less greenhouse gases keeping less heat inside the atmosphere.

But what I dont get (and i'm trying not to be faceitious or ignorant), can someone explain how re-releasing a naturally occuring molecule is actually "killing" the planet? (extinction of species as a separate issue please.. I do agree that this is a problem).

Daniel

Semantics: But yes, you're right - climate change will not kill off the planet. That is not what is happening.

It will kill off a vast number of species, but as the Earth does, it will rebuild... it'll be a process of milions of years, but hey, humans are but a fraction of a heartbeat in the life of Earth.

[ltd]

From the Australian today;

WE did it. For once, we acted collectively, as humans, huddled together on a fragile planet, rather than as selfish individuals. And we did it: we beat global warming.

So now let's move on.

According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australia's coldest year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet can't be getting hotter and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.

This victory happened because individuals pulled together, within nations, and then the nations of the world themselves pulled together. Meetings were held in places such Kyoto. Rousing speeches were made by world leaders. People clapped and felt good about themselves. Documents were signed.

Clearly, with each meeting, each speech, each inked treaty, global warming was pushed back.

Here in Australia, we also did our bit, big time. We declared global warming the great moral challenge of our generation. We talked confidently about doing something or other. (OK, I can't remember what it was, and we never actually did it, but then we talked about doing something different . . . though maybe not straight away.)

Anyway, it worked, because last year was the coldest year since 2001.

Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others published books and made films. Clearly they deserve a slice of this massive victory over global warming. To them we say: "Thank you, gentlemen, you may now return to private life."

But now that we know what we can do by dint of collective effort, we should turn to new challenges.

For example, free trade between nations is demonstrably the greatest force there has ever been for the alleviation of poverty, and the equalisation of living standards between nations.

The development of genetically modified crops promises to turn back the tide of hunger and disease in poor countries.

Now that global warming is finished, due attention can be given to these issues.

But before all of that, I think we've earned a moment's pause, just to give ourselves a pat on the back.

We did it. We acted together. We killed global warming.

And now we will never have to hear anything about it, ever again.

Suffer in your jocks ecotards.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by fitzwa

Codswallop huh ?

Google, "permafrost melting"

Ohhh, it's on the net eh?.... MUST be gospel then!

Google, "end of the world is nigh".... And guarantee there'll also be 200,000 "scientists" that profess that we're as good as dead and buried!

This "climate change" (ex "global warming") sham is purely and simply about the big boys bending us over to extract more of our hard earned moolah through scare tactics!...
Bring in a carbon tax and we'll certainly ALL find out the meaning of catastrophe pretty quickly!

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by ltd

From the Australian today;



Suffer in your jocks ecotards.

And 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, globally.


The Australian Article

LAST year tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for global surface temperature, US government scientists said yesterday. The Earth experienced temperatures higher than the 20th-century average for the 34th year in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington said. Overall, 2010 and 2005 were 0.62C degrees above the 20th-century average, it said. Those two years were also the highest in temperature since record-keeping began in 1880. "If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. AFP

Nice to see that those stats were ignored. What kind of moron writes an editorial proclaiming global warming dead, based on Australia's average temperature? And in the same publication the stats for the GLOBAL temperatures support global warming?

[colinl]

Originally Posted by ltd

From the Australian today;



Suffer in your jocks ecotards.

Unqualified journalistic comment designed to sell newspapers. So here is another unqualified comment from a newspaper.

2010 ties for warmest year on record


Related Content
http://www.ocregister.com/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13)
BY PAT BRENNAN

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

The year 2010 tied with 2005 as the planet's warmest on record, and 2010 was also the wettest year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Nine of the past 10 years also rank among the 10 warmest on record, reinforcing the idea the planet is heating up, the warming driven by emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The warming trend was apparent in surface-temperature data despite two unusually cold winters in a row in the eastern United States, said David Easterling, chief of the scientific services division at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"Does this disprove climate change, climate warming?" Easterling said in a telephone press conference Wednesday. "The answer is, unequivocally, 'No.'"
The climate agency's year-end summary (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13) totals up surface temperature, rainfall and other data for the year, then compares them with global records going back to 1880.
The year 2010 was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average, the summary says, with combined land and sea-surface temperatures 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit above the average.
But while the average temperature in the contiguous United States alone was above average, this was only its 23rd warmest year on record.
The year was notable for a number of "extreme events," Easterling said, including "the Russian heat wave, and, related to that, flooding and heavy rains in Pakistan; also record warm temperatures in the summer."
High precipitation levels included record rainfall in Southern California. From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 2010, John Wayne Airport saw 22.57 inches of rain, nearly 7 inches above normal.
The rains came despite a transition to La Nina conditions later in the year, a periodic cooling of the eastern Pacific that typically means a dry rainy season for Southern California.
In fact, because La Nina tends to lower global temperatures, 2010 might have been even hotter without it.
"December was actually not nearly as warm as the months in the middle of the year," said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring branch chief at the Climatic Data Center. "So we did see that La Nina signal kick in towards the end of the year."
Wet weather dampened the risk of wildfire, as well as drought for the nation as a whole. In July, the drought footprint covered less than eight percent of the country.
Some other highlights from the report:
- Global land surface temperatures alone were the warmest on record at 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average.
- Global ocean surface temperatures alone tied with 2005 as the third warmest at 0.88 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average.
- The Pacific ocean saw the fewest hurricanes on record since the mid 1960s, with three hurricanes and seven named storms.
- The Atlantic, however, tied for third place in 2010 with 19 named storms, and second place with 12 hurricanes.
- The Arctic saw its third smallest minimum in sea-ice extent, behind 2007 and 2008.
- But while Antarctic sea ice hit its eighth smallest yearly maximum in March, it grew quickly to its third largest extent on record in September.
While the "hottest year" numbers generate much interest among scientists and the public, they say little about long-term climate trends.
But the data over decades is far more revealing.
"The climate is continuing to show the influence of increasing greenhouse gases, showing evidence of warming," Easterling said. "There has been some notion that people put forth that the climate stopped warming in about 2005. I think this year's results show that notion lacks credibility."
He said he is asked frequently whether weather events, such as heat waves, can be tied to long-term climate trends.
"We get questions about these sorts of events," he said. "'Is this a harbinger of things to come? Is this climate change?' Although you cannot attribute any individual event, such as the Russian heat wave, to climate change, it's always important to keep in mind that the probability of seeing these kinds of events does increase as the climate warms."


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/1...#ixzz1BRoC0uCa

[71cop]

Climate change, global warming = B/S. Thats my opinion.

[My32Doors]

Perhaps we need to stop drinking beer. All those CO2 burps are poisoning the atmosphere!

[colinl]

Originally Posted by 71cop

Climate change, global warming = B/S. Thats my opinion.

Everyone entitled to an opinion. Just one question though. Is it based on belief or is there process of thoughts and ideas behind your opinion.

[terri tx]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Look, this thread is out of control with completely unfounded claims. I've tried to sit back and just watch, but I can't.

Form what ever opinion you want about climate change, but come to that opinion based on REAL evidence, not things you have heard on forums, or heard your mates say at the pub! Do some research before posting and stop misconceptions, like the idea that volcanoes pump out more CO2 than humans, from being spread.

The facts: Humans pump out far more C02 than volcanoes!



ABC report on volcano CO2

I dont think the abc is a unbias source, u really need to be objective

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Semantics: But yes, you're right - climate change will not kill off the planet. That is not what is happening.

It will kill off a vast number of species, but as the Earth does, it will rebuild... it'll be a process of milions of years, but hey, humans are but a fraction of a heartbeat in the life of Earth.

If we are just a fraction of a heartbeat and we are not causing permanent damage to the earth BUT the only realistic way for our civilization to survive and advance in its current form is to burn fossil fuels, then burn on I say.

In my opinion, if all the (vain) effort that is being put into this "Global Warming" crusade was actually being used to advance the technology to supercede reliance on fossil fuels, then wouldnt it be a better result without affecting current lifestyle standards and our precarious global economy?

I liken it to pulling a bandaid.... you can go slow but it hurts for longer, and really your just delaying the inevitable.

Daniel

[terri tx]

Originally Posted by colinl

Everyone entitled to an opinion. Just one question though. Is it based on belief or is there process of thoughts and ideas behind your opinion.

I just read this whole topic and really youve been here 2 days and the only topics youve done is climate change. Are you really bob brown in disguise?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by colinl

Everyone entitled to an opinion. Just one question though. Is it based on belief or is there process of thoughts and ideas behind your opinion.

couldnt really give a rats bum if the world ended tomorrow......

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by colinl

cooling of the eastern Pacific that typically means a dry rainy season for Southern California.

dry rain eh? GW must be getting really bad...

oh, and local evidence of GW, the residents of Bombala used to ice skate on the river (per photo and article in paper in 1921). Our winters for the last 10 years haven't got cold enough to snow. i couldn't imagine it being cold enough to ice the river, let alone freeze hard enough to walk on.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fitzwa

Codswallop huh ?

Then enlighten me with the knowledge of your numerous science degrees.

Google, "permafrost melting" and i'd guess that out of the 200,000 hits someone has more of an idea than you.

And while you are at it google "Moon landing consptracy", "falcon will be FWD", "one world government", "911 pentagon conspiracy", "alien abductions"........

I am old enough to remember when the opinion of the Surgeon General of the USA was that smoking cigarettes was not unhealthy....

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by terri tx

I dont think the abc is a unbias source, u really need to be objective

OK, you need to clarify that comment. Was it a joke?

The news report is stating RESEARCH FACTS, not opinon. Simply stating them. That is the definition of objective reporting. And while we are here... seriously? You have a problem with the ABC having bias? Jesus H Christ! Did you hear Bill O'reilly say that on Fox News or something?

[Flaming Mo]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Not saying you do yourself, but many on this forum actually boast of a large carbon footprint, which is the absolute height of brain numbing selfishness and stupidity.

Good point. But you can understand how cynicism and doubt festers when some of the most prominent global warming campaigners ignore the hypocrisy of their own excessive carbon footprints;

- Al Gore is said to have a carbon footprint 20 times that of the average person.
- John Travolta (5 x personal jets)
- Bono – 7 x jumbo jets and 56 odd road trains for the U2 world tour for the primary purpose of making him millions

There are many more examples.
But of course, they buy carbon offsets, a scheme that allows wealthy activists to maintain their carbon belching lifestyles without guilt.

[flappist]

Every ecotard who drives a non electric car is as credible as a social worker who holidays in a red light district in Thailand....

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

Good point. But you can understand how cynicism and doubt festers when some of the most prominent global warming campaigners ignore the hypocrisy of their own excessive carbon footprints;

- Al Gore is said to have a carbon footprint 20 times that of the average person.
- John Travolta (5 x personal jets)
- Bono – 7 x jumbo jets and 56 odd road trains for the U2 world tour for the primary purpose of making him millions

There are many more examples.
But of course, they buy carbon offsets, a scheme that allows wealthy activists to maintain their carbon belching lifestyles without guilt.

Pfft dont get me started on carbon offsets. Whoever came up with that idea is a marketing genuis. All they do is lull people into a false sense of security about their polluting ways, therefore doing more harm for the environment than good.

And yes, I completely agree with you, these celebrity eco warriors are nothing but hypocrites.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by WMD351

Money money money, the cult of global warming has often been described as a religion.
It reminds me of what a great man once said, "if you want to get rich, you start a religion"

Oh wait, he wasn't a great man, he was a total nutter who spent his days cruising the world on a boat manned by a squad of teenage boys.

edit: I'd like to rescind the above post.

Last edited by WMD351 : Yesterday at 05:41 PM. Reason: Church of scientoligy just issued me a writ of libel.

Are you serious???

[GT 160]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Ohhh, it's on the net eh?.... MUST be gospel then!

Google, "end of the world is nigh".... And guarantee there'll also be 200,000 "scientists" that profess that we're as good as dead and buried!

This "climate change" (ex "global warming") sham is purely and simply about the big boys bending us over to extract more of our hard earned moolah through scare tactics!...
Bring in a carbon tax and we'll certainly ALL find out the meaning of catastrophe pretty quickly!

Well that will do me. My 2yr old daughter has better grasp of reality.

By that rationale you could use your logic on the internet to contradict anything.

I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination but i'm open minded enough to consider that the human race is doing irreparable damage to the planet even more so in the last 50 years.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Are you serious???

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Are you serious???

Nah not in the space of ten minutes. I'm expecting to hear from them around lunch time tomorrow.

Originally Posted by trippytaka

What kind of moron writes an editorial proclaiming global warming dead, based on Australia's average temperature? And in the same publication the stats for the GLOBAL temperatures support global warming?

Just the typical garden variety run of the mill moron who usually ends up being employed by one of those bastions of integrity the ABC or The Australian.

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Pfft dont get me started on carbon offsets. Whoever came up with that idea is a marketing genuis.

I'm pretty sure they're Al Gores deal. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232

As far as I'm concerned this planet is doomed the second all its resources are used up. The only thing the climate agenda is going to achieve is to ensure that our remaining time here is spent living with an inferior quality of life.
Nuclear power sounds like a nice fix but I'm under the impression we'd end up paying six times the cost of coal power to turn on a light! My electricity bill's already kicking me pretty hard. Wait I think I can hear all investment and industry getting on a plane to India/China where it's cheaper to do business, yeah Australia's going to be a great place
Manbearpig is real.

[Ben73]

You want proof that it's all a load of crap? You don't even have to look at statistic, graphs or anything like that.
Look at all the environmentalist, governments and media.

Firstly they say we are all doomed from "Global Warming" because of CO2.
Then some scientists came out and said it's not true and the earths temperature is always changing...
So then what does the governments, media and greenies do??? They just change the word Global Warming to Climate change then say CO2 is going to kill us due to climate change.

People who believe in climate change should go research some info against it. watch videos, look at stats. Comparing the 2 I think it's a load of crap.

I used to believe in Global Warming, because at school they would drum it into you. And you would fail classes if you went against it.
I remember one guy in the class would always go against the teacher when he talked about it, everyone thought this kid was an idiot. But now I think he was the best person in the class to stand up against it because he had seen evidence that it was not true.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by flappist

I am old enough to remember when the opinion of the Surgeon General of the USA was that smoking cigarettes was not unhealthy....

Do you mean for the 30+ years that smoking was proven to be bad for you but the biggest advertisers in any medical journals were tobacco companies?

Or the Doctors that were paid for endorsements, or just the blokes that were upfront and on the take?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

And as for your tobacco industry example, I think its strange that you've used it to support your own view when if anything, it contradicts it.

Back then we had a group of doctors saying - relax, its all good, smoking is perfectly fine, no need to change, everything is good as it is. While others were saying - Wait, what we've believed to be the case for hundreds of years is not correct, we need to change our views and habits.

Now we have exactly the same situation - one group of scientists saying all is good, no need for change, everything is good as it is, carry on business as usual. While another says, we need to make some changes that we dont necissarily want to make but need to for the greater good.

Wow, you really missed the boat on that one big time - it was demonstrating that even the most powerful, influential and respected bodies in a field can be bought to suit an agenda. They knew for a very long time that smoking had been directly linked to lung cancer and premature death but they danced to the tune of the tobacco company money. More than 30 years of paid opinions....

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I just think you're buying into the whole "human induced climate change is a cash grab/conspiracy theory" train of thought too deeply.

Did you get a great night sleep or something?

[colinl]

Originally Posted by terri tx

I just read this whole topic and really youve been here 2 days and the only topics youve done is climate change. Are you really bob brown in disguise?

No, but I do enjoy a robust discussion. I'm not totally committed to the concept of climate change and I'm certainly willing to look at arguments against it. But as yet we haven't had anything offered other than personal beliefs, conspiracy theories, and finger pointing at minor sections of a vast array of studies.

No doubt I'll become involved in other threads, especially those regarding engineering, though most of my strengths are in the motorcycle and marine fields, not cars.

[buggerlugs]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225990501249

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by fitzwa

Well that will do me. My 2yr old daughter has better grasp of reality.

By that rationale you could use your logic on the internet to contradict anything.

I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination but i'm open minded enough to consider that the human race is doing irreparable damage to the planet even more so in the last 50 years.

Well mate.. maybe I should get your 2yr old daughter to run my engineering business then?
Because, damn sure it's going to take someone a lot smarter than me if we see the likes of a carbon tax bestowed upon us!
Have you ANY idea of the ramifications that this extra tax will have on already fragile industrial business in Australia?
Maybe NOT a huge burden personally, BUT some of my largest customers.. The petro-chems, the wool scourers & wool processors, the poultry and meat processors, the plastics and car industry... They'll pay through the nose... Tell me where and how this massive burden will be passed on?..
OR will they just up tents and away camels to China/India etc, like SO many have already, leaving us as the world's biggest warehouse???

Mate, you like your Google?... Have a search for exactly WHAT % our esteemed scholars reckon Australia emits in CO2's?.. Is it 0.1 something%? Whatever it is, it's a **** in the bloody ocean compared to the Chinas, Indias, Russias, Americas etc!
Yet we just have to be seen as the world leaders / 1st off the blocks with carbon taxes and CO2 reductions?... WHY?

I'll tell you WHY.... It's because we have way too many rainbow chasing, brain-washed, tree-hugging do-gooders who couldn't give a rat's bum about the fairdinkum roots of this country and what's kept it ticking along so good for so long!

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

I'll tell you WHY.... It's because we have way too many rainbow chasing, brain-washed, tree-hugging do-gooders who couldn't give a rat's bum about the fairdinkum roots of this country and what's kept it ticking along so good for so long!

And so, in the twilight of the day, a brand new sig was born.