Are you happy to see Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) get voted down? (53)
bubblesron: Agreed, but keep in mind that there were catastrophic climatic and geographic events long before there were humans, another factor is the loss of species. That was occurring long before the existance of homosapiens. Perhaps we make some contribution, be remember that we are also part of nature, put here by nature (or God if you insist) and therefore have a right to exist in the way we have evolved or developed over the life of the species. The earth will cope, it existed long before humans and will probably exist long after we have followed the myriad of species lost since the dawn of this planet.
Well said Bubbles I could not have stated it anywhere as good as you.Australia would not make a scrap of difference yet cost us Billions for nothing.Now if Rudd wants so badly to give OUR money away as usual I can tell him where to spend it and it would make a difference.
simplestuff: I think the science of global warming is complicated... and the layperson has little chance of 'seeing all the arguments' let alone understanding them.
There are some seriously brainy guys out there who dedicate decades of their lives to understanding the science. When the overwhelming majority of a scientific profession says global warming is happening and we're causing it, we sensibly should take their word for it - as the governments of the world are doing.
There are some seriously brainy guys out there who dedicate decades of their lives to understanding the science. When the overwhelming majority of a scientific profession says global warming is happening and we're causing it, we sensibly should take their word for it - as the governments of the world are doing.
These "brainy guys" are brainy... they manipulate the data to come up with the outcome which will get them the largest research grants... which is what they live off.
Have you heard of Phil Jones?... he's the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit... well, he was until recently. Some hacker got into the University computer and extracted hundreds of his emails and posted them online. He was forced to stand down pending an enquiry.
It would appear from these leaked emails that Jones and his colleagues manipulated data, denied critics access to data and blocked research they disagreed with from being included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report.
Yep... scientists really understand the science (of making money).
bourbon: These "brainy guys" are brainy... they manipulate the data to come up with the outcome which will get them the largest research grants... which is what they live off.
Oh, right.. the top scientists decided to make up irreversible destabilisation of our climate so they could employ one or two more junior researchers... Of course that's why they put their huge brains toward science in the first place rather than becoming investment bankers. It was all for the money and the thrill of scaring everyone into thinking their children are going to suffer!
Science is competitive stuff and a lot of time is spent hacking down other scientists... there is no global conspiracy.
And though it's in many wealthy people's interests to hype it up, one or two emails doesn't bring down decades of scientific consensus.
bourbon: These "brainy guys" are brainy... they manipulate the data to come up with the outcome which will get them the largest research grants... which is what they live off.
Have you heard of Phil Jones?... he's the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit... well, he was until recently. Some hacker got into the University computer and extracted hundreds of his emails and posted them online. He was forced to stand down pending an enquiry.
It would appear from these leaked emails that Jones and his colleagues manipulated data, denied critics access to data and blocked research they disagreed with from being included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report.
Yep... scientists really understand the science (of making money).
Have you heard of Phil Jones?... he's the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit... well, he was until recently. Some hacker got into the University computer and extracted hundreds of his emails and posted them online. He was forced to stand down pending an enquiry.
It would appear from these leaked emails that Jones and his colleagues manipulated data, denied critics access to data and blocked research they disagreed with from being included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report.
Yep... scientists really understand the science (of making money).
Great stuff Bourbs will remember this. I always read Andrew Bolts Articles in the Herald Sun the voice of sanity in the wilderness a straight talking journalist very rare and very Anti CPRS.
Oh thats where I was born in East Anglia a country market town called DISS.
simplestuff: Oh, right.. the top scientists decided to make up irreversible destabilisation of our climate so they could employ one or two more junior researchers... Of course that's why they put their huge brains toward science in the first place rather than becoming investment bankers. It was all for the money and the thrill of scaring everyone into thinking their children are going to suffer!
Science is competitive stuff and a lot of time is spent hacking down other scientists... there is no global conspiracy.
And though it's in many wealthy people's interests to hype it up, one or two emails doesn't bring down decades of scientific consensus.
Science is competitive stuff and a lot of time is spent hacking down other scientists... there is no global conspiracy.
And though it's in many wealthy people's interests to hype it up, one or two emails doesn't bring down decades of scientific consensus.
People who are non believers are not really thinking about the situation or they just do not care about the environmental issues .It is happening and will continue and action is needed .
To say the believers and non believers makes it sound Biblical and its not.And until the super powers come on board what ever Aus does wont make one iota of difference either way.
In reality also not one of them gives a stuff what Australia does...As at the end of the day they will look after number one.
But nature always wins in the end.
No one can be that arrogant to say who is right or wrong, as always its just a matter of taking sides that is our nature.
In reality also not one of them gives a stuff what Australia does...As at the end of the day they will look after number one.
But nature always wins in the end.
No one can be that arrogant to say who is right or wrong, as always its just a matter of taking sides that is our nature.
To say the believers and non believers makes it sound Biblical and its not.And until the super powers come on board what ever Aus does wont make one iota of difference either way.
In reality also not one of them gives a stuff what Australia does...As at the end of the day they will look after number one.
But nature always wins in the end.
No one can be that arrogant to say who is right or wrong, as always its just a matter of taking sides that is our nature.
In reality also not one of them gives a stuff what Australia does...As at the end of the day they will look after number one.
But nature always wins in the end.
No one can be that arrogant to say who is right or wrong, as always its just a matter of taking sides that is our nature.
OOPS SORRY
simplestuff: Oh, right.. the top scientists decided to make up irreversible destabilisation of our climate so they could employ one or two more junior researchers... Of course that's why they put their huge brains toward science in the first place rather than becoming investment bankers. It was all for the money and the thrill of scaring everyone into thinking their children are going to suffer!
Science is competitive stuff and a lot of time is spent hacking down other scientists... there is no global conspiracy.
And though it's in many wealthy people's interests to hype it up, one or two emails doesn't bring down decades of scientific consensus.
Science is competitive stuff and a lot of time is spent hacking down other scientists... there is no global conspiracy.
And though it's in many wealthy people's interests to hype it up, one or two emails doesn't bring down decades of scientific consensus.
Decades of scientific consensus you say.
Exactly how may decades are we talking here?
This is from the Archives of the New York Times....
In response to:
SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change
January 30, 1961, Monday
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.
SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change
January 30, 1961, Monday
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.
Seems that in 1961 the "scientific consensus" was that the world was cooling.
It's more than likely that in a few years the scientific consensus will change its view again.
bourbon: Decades of scientific consensus you say.
....
Seems that in 1961 the "scientific consensus" was that the world was cooling.
....
Seems that in 1961 the "scientific consensus" was that the world was cooling.
Dude... 1961?!
In case you didn't notice, there are "decades of scientific consensus" on global warming between 1961 and now...
bourbon:
It's more than likely that in a few years the scientific consensus will change its view again.
It's more than likely that in a few years the scientific consensus will change its view again.
No, it's really not... science progresses. Scientists have spend those decades learning things. Now that we know the earth's round, we're not about to start calling it flat again. (Though the coal lobby and Andrew Bolt would give it a good crack if profits depended on it.)
How refreshing to have a good debate here on the forums
Look no doubt about it Global Warming is here and now but the question is if China and Russia don't come to the party then anything we do won't make one bit of difference this CPRS is important but until the WHOLE WORLD is on board all it will do for Australia is make things way more expensive it as it stands is a giant TAX grab plain and simple !!!!!!
allwayshappy4u: Look no doubt about it Global Warming is here and now but the question is if China and Russia don't come to the party then anything we do won't make one bit of difference this CPRS is important but until the WHOLE WORLD is on board all it will do for Australia is make things way more expensive it as it stands is a giant TAX grab plain and simple !!!!!!
Not disputing the fact that the globe may be warming, just question why and what (if anything) will make a difference.
I suppose we could look at what measures may have saved the dinosaurs?
one article
A possible link between the geomagnetic field and catastrophic climate at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
1. Youn Soo Lee1 and
2. Kazuto Kodama2
+ Author Affiliations
1.
1Geological Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Daejeon 305-350, Korea
2.
2Kochi Core Center, Kochi University, Kochi 783-8502, Japan
Abstract
We report high-precision records of a magnetic reversal event at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), a cataclysmic global warming event initiated at 55.0 Ma. This event is confirmed by both an antipodal shift in direction and a reduction in magnetic intensity during the lower and upper transitions, and it is seen at additional sites, indicating that the characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM) was primarily acquired by Earth's magnetic field during sedimentation. This major fluctuation of Earth's magnetic field intensity is interpreted to have been linked to the PETM and to have eventually facilitated the reversal. This Paleocene-Eocene magnetic reversal (PEMR) lasted for ~53 ka, from 54.964 to 54.911 Ma, but finally recovered to an original polarity. This suggests a possible coupling between Earth's core magnetofluid dynamo sphere and the atmosphere-hydrosphere during an abrupt catastrophic climate event.
Another article
The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
July 24, 2008
"A cataclysmic event in the history of science"
"At the same time political control was being established over science and research. In Britain it took the form of outright nationalisation of the universities, begun under Thatcher and completed under Blair. In America it was the founding of new public institutions, richly endowed with taxpayers’ money, such as Nixon’s EPA. They had the resources and therefore the patronage. A new self-sustaining political class had formed, insulated from the laws of science and economics, yet demanding sovereignty over both. Science was no longer a democracy of scholars seeking after truth; it was now an instrument of political power and control.
The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion.
“Peer review” developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list.
As global warming alarmism stumbles inevitably towards the later stages of Langmuir’s Laws, its defenders have become increasingly shrill. The pressure on science, both from external politicians and internal quislings, has become intense.
The question of whether science can ever recover its innocence is moot. After life as a harlot on the mean streets of political imperative, a return to the sanctity of the cloister looks out of the question. If so, humanity has forever lost a bright jewel in its culture." "On refereeing"
Posted by jblethen at 7/24/2008
Labels: bias - propaganda - indoctrination, economy - freedom - democracy, EPA, UN - IPCC
0 comments:
The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
July 24, 2008
"A cataclysmic event in the history of science"
"At the same time political control was being established over science and research. In Britain it took the form of outright nationalisation of the universities, begun under Thatcher and completed under Blair. In America it was the founding of new public institutions, richly endowed with taxpayers’ money, such as Nixon’s EPA. They had the resources and therefore the patronage. A new self-sustaining political class had formed, insulated from the laws of science and economics, yet demanding sovereignty over both. Science was no longer a democracy of scholars seeking after truth; it was now an instrument of political power and control.
The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion.
“Peer review” developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list.
As global warming alarmism stumbles inevitably towards the later stages of Langmuir’s Laws, its defenders have become increasingly shrill. The pressure on science, both from external politicians and internal quislings, has become intense.
The question of whether science can ever recover its innocence is moot. After life as a harlot on the mean streets of political imperative, a return to the sanctity of the cloister looks out of the question. If so, humanity has forever lost a bright jewel in its culture." "On refereeing"
Posted by jblethen at 7/24/2008
Labels: bias - propaganda - indoctrination, economy - freedom - democracy, EPA, UN - IPCC
0 comments:
Article here too long for forum
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4314734
Abstract
Changes in the size of glaciers, in the altitude of the alpine tree-limit, and variation in the width of tree-rings during the Holocene clearly indicate that the average Scandinavian summer temperature has fluctuated. During warm periods it has been about 2°C warmer than at present; during cold periods it has been almost as cold as it was during the coldest decades of the previous centuries. Superimposed on these long-term variations, which have lasted from 100 to 200 years, are short fluctuations in temperature. The Scandinavian chronology, which is based on glacier and alpine tree-limit fluctuations as well as on dendrochronology, is well correlated with the changes in climate, which studies of ice cores from central Greenland have revealed. It is therefore believed that the Scandinavian climate chronology depicts conditions typical of a large area. The Scandinavian record is compared with data concerning solar irradiation variations estimated as 14 C anomalies obtained from tree-rings. A correlation between major changes in climate and variations in solar irradiation points to a solar forcing of the climate. This means that there is no evidence of a human influence on climate so far.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4314734
Abstract
Changes in the size of glaciers, in the altitude of the alpine tree-limit, and variation in the width of tree-rings during the Holocene clearly indicate that the average Scandinavian summer temperature has fluctuated. During warm periods it has been about 2°C warmer than at present; during cold periods it has been almost as cold as it was during the coldest decades of the previous centuries. Superimposed on these long-term variations, which have lasted from 100 to 200 years, are short fluctuations in temperature. The Scandinavian chronology, which is based on glacier and alpine tree-limit fluctuations as well as on dendrochronology, is well correlated with the changes in climate, which studies of ice cores from central Greenland have revealed. It is therefore believed that the Scandinavian climate chronology depicts conditions typical of a large area. The Scandinavian record is compared with data concerning solar irradiation variations estimated as 14 C anomalies obtained from tree-rings. A correlation between major changes in climate and variations in solar irradiation points to a solar forcing of the climate. This means that there is no evidence of a human influence on climate so far.
Abstract
From 1900 to 1993, latewood frost rings occurred in 1903, 1912, 1941, 1961, and 1965 in 10 to 21% of the sampled bristlecone pines at Almagre Mountain, Colorado. In early to mid September in each of those years, a severe outbreak of unseasonably cold air from higher latitudes produced a memorable or historic late-summer snowstorm in the western United States. Record subfreezing temperatures during these snowstorms probably caused the latewood frost rings, shortened (by about 1 mo in 1912) already colder than normal growing seasons, and caused crop damage in parts of the Western United States. Latewood frost rings recorded in relatively high percentages of the sampled trees (such as the 1805 event in 61% of sampled trees) were probably caused by multiple severe outbreaks of unseasonably cold air from higher latitudes that occurred from early September (possibly as early as mid- or late August) to mid-September. Analyses of 1900-1992 temperature data for two widely separated Colorado stations, Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, show that average summer (June-September) temperatures during latewood frost-ring years in this century were 1.5 and 2.0°C cooler than normal, respectively. Mountain snowpack probably persisted through these cool summers and was subsequently buried by the earlier than normal snowfall in September. Latewood frost-ring, ring-width, historical, and other data suggest that severe to cataclysmic volcanic eruptions from 1812 to 1835 triggered (1) an extended period of climatic cooling from as early as 1816 or 1817 through the early 1850s in the Southern Rocky Mountains, (2) catastrophic winters in Colorado and Wyoming in 1842-43 and 1844-45, and in the Great Salt Lake Basin in 1836-37, that caused large-scale destruction of bison and other large plains animals, and (3) Little Ice Age alpine glacial advances in about 1850-60 in the western United States.
and one more for now
Not trying to flood, just passing on some research I have done, I googlrd climatic change and cataclysmic climate events.
Not trying to flood, just passing on some research I have done, I googlrd climatic change and cataclysmic climate events.
Gee Ron.. way to dump rubbish all over the forum.
There will always be some contrarians, crackpots and unscrupulous parasites looking to gain fame and fortune over such an important and inherently complex issue.
Should I now dump the abstracts of twice the number of papers written by reputable scientists and scientific organisations, confirming man-made global warming below?
If you're going to 'do your own research' you should be careful about your sources... I find this quote from co2science.org particularly laughable:
'"Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them.'
If you think that's reasonable I have any number of bridges for sale with your name on them...
The little that is known about co2science's funding points to Exxon:
It's obvious that they "never discuss their funding" because they're a blatant front group for the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure you can trust Exxon to 'tell it straight' on global warming.
If you do have a lot of time to spare and want to learn some basics about the science, and how easily the layperson can be mislead by unscrupulous, well funded groups, I recommend
and the climate denial crock of the week series at
Look to organisations who aren't in corporate pockets like the UK metoffice or the royal society:
There will always be some contrarians, crackpots and unscrupulous parasites looking to gain fame and fortune over such an important and inherently complex issue.
Should I now dump the abstracts of twice the number of papers written by reputable scientists and scientific organisations, confirming man-made global warming below?
If you're going to 'do your own research' you should be careful about your sources... I find this quote from co2science.org particularly laughable:
'"Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them.'
If you think that's reasonable I have any number of bridges for sale with your name on them...
The little that is known about co2science's funding points to Exxon:
It's obvious that they "never discuss their funding" because they're a blatant front group for the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure you can trust Exxon to 'tell it straight' on global warming.
If you do have a lot of time to spare and want to learn some basics about the science, and how easily the layperson can be mislead by unscrupulous, well funded groups, I recommend
and the climate denial crock of the week series at
Look to organisations who aren't in corporate pockets like the UK metoffice or the royal society:
allwayshappy4u: Look no doubt about it Global Warming is here and now but the question is if China and Russia don't come to the party then anything we do won't make one bit of difference this CPRS is important but until the WHOLE WORLD is on board all it will do for Australia is make things way more expensive it as it stands is a giant TAX grab plain and simple !!!!!!
I kind of discussed this a little in a previous post... We do need to work as a team internationally, and I don't have a problem with Aus pegging its emissions reductions on commitments from other similar countries. (As long as it's not a stupid 'you first!' sort of scenario.)
However, Australia isn't doing its bit on international scene, the CPRS would have set a pitiful upper limit on the amount we were willing to reduce emissions, regardless of the actions of others.
We are in there holding hands with Russia and other rich countries of the 'umbrella group' at Copenhagen, doing our best to drag standards down and keep fossil fuel profits high for just a few more years. Nobody is close to starving here in Aus, we have no excuse at all not to at least do our part internationally.
will certainly read those links you have posted and will happily read more, like to read as much as possible while i keep an open mind lol
More Threads
The Best of the GOP
the way you look
other can see but not you
The weird and the random facts around the world
Ladies
your personality
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Feel Good Music
Unions support Democrats!
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
And the one of few spieces that actually preys upon itself. Now that is sad!