Church Of Climatology

[cs123]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

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.

Don't know how it works where you live but in QLD the rates are calculated thusly

This valuation is the amount the piece of land could be expected to sell for without additions such as houses, fences, piping or levelling. Proximity to roads, railways, schools and shopping centres may change your property value.

Water rates are charged independently in QLD (again don't know about where you live). There are two factors here that affect the cost
1: New water infrastructure requirements
2: Usage patterns

[mcflux]

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.

Why were only 50 of the 100 reasons countered? What an incredibly poor article with weak and/or contradictory responses! Let’s go through those 50 points…

1. Neutral response, neither confirming nor debunking the claim/fact/whatever. Also, the article linked is flawed, citing pressure/temperature differences HIGH UP in the atmosphere (regarding CO2 emissions). CO2 is a heavy gas & therefore sits at the BOTTOM of the atmosphere... in our troposphere.

2. Link refers to volcanic activity over the past 50 years emitting 0.3Gt of CO2 (out of a "natural" total of 440Gt and "human" total of 25Gt ANNUALLY). That's 300,000,000 tonnes. If the average car emits 300g CO2/km, and there are let's say 200 million cars on the road today, which on average cover 20,000kms/year... Let's spread that over 50 years (starting with 400,000 million cars in 1959 & adding 400,000 a year until today, totalling 200,000,000.) --> Cars ALONE would come to 3.06Gt over 50 years, or 10x that of volcanic activity. Is the science correct on these estimates?!?

3. Refers to CO2 as a “feedback”.

4. No references to back up claims.

5. I unfortunately cannot find the link I’m after, but it’s been linked on this forum (either this thread or the ETS defeated thread) stating that CO2 levels in the past have been lower today while temperatures remained higher, or vice versa. Also the last sentence, “the crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures”… I’m sure the failed Viking settlements on Greenland at around AD1000 would counter this. Try growing grapes in Greenland today, like you could 1000 years ago.

6. And…? If a meteorite strikes London or New York there’ll be no more London or New York.

7. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...398627#content counters the article linked in the response (claims of CO2 in atmosphere relating to temperature).

8. Links? I counter this answer with “true, as even the briefest look at the scientific literature can establish.”  prove me wrong.

9. What about all of those reports in the media about restricting peer-reviewed articles from scientists who have differing conclusions/hypotheses to that of the climategate scientists?

10. Doesn’t point #4’s response kind of counter this response?

11. Link covers NO details about past 2000 years, or past 10,000 years for that matter, it only covers future predictions on if ice melts & ends up in the sea.

12. LOL! The link in this response directly contradicts the claim made that “if we pump out more CO2 it will get even hotter”. Such article headings outlined in the link are:
• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

13. Both the original article and the 50-responses article have raised a moot point here. An MP has made some political statement that both articles have jumped on. Pfft…

14. How were the wind farms constructed? Oh that’s right, through the use of fossil fuels. Don’t they know that wind farms kill orange parrots & make Peter Garrett cry?

15. Wow, great comeback. So the professor is a geologist & not a climatologist, therefore he has no say on the matter. Does that make his statement wrong? Wait, does that mean Al Gore is wrong too? Hmm…

16. So one scientist (a sceptic) has been shown to be a hypocrite here. I refer you to the group of scientists caught up in Climategate.

17. This fact hasn’t exactly been countered by the answer…

18. States that water vapour is a feedback, & “not a cause of warming”. Wait, didn’t point #3 call CO2 a feedback that “increased warming”???

19. The Heidelberg Appeal, according to the link, advises “the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. ... The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry.”  I’m sure that fitting AGW into this (climategate, etc) would be acceptable. So 1992 was a long time ago huh? In point 1 you refer to findings from the 1800s…

20. Where exactly in the link does it say that “temperature has never changed nearly as fast”? It has predictions for the future, such as a “worst case 6.4*C change by 2100”.

21. And why believe Al Gore when he lives in a mansion & drives SUVs & has a massive electricity bill compared to most US citizens?

22. Wait… the article in point #20 questions the validity of Viking settlements (Vinland, Greenland’s fertility, etc), while this article says they’re accurate. WTF? And the article says NOTHING about how sunspot activity (& related temperature decreases) “will not outweigh the effect of rising greenhouse gases”.

23. Hold the phone… This article focuses on Mt Kilimanjaro & how its ice cover was retreating as early as the 19th century, before any known warming was occurring on the mountain… And from 1979-1997 weather balloon readings around the mountain showed that the local temperature was cooling. There are suggestions that the icecap retreat is related to the drying of the area, such as the lower water levels in Lake Victoria (sounds like a local climate phenomenon rather than GLOBAL WARMING).

24. So if one part of the planet receives warmer weather and another part receives colder, this whole “warming is warming” thing applies? Why was 1951-1980 chosen for the temperatures. Doesn’t this correlate with point #4’s claim about SO2 in the atmosphere for 30 years after WW2? Granted, the first link listed does show the entire arctic region has warmed (from 2000-2008), although the 2nd link, while raising some interesting theories, is extremely alarmist in its nature.

25. Article focuses a lot on fire, with climate change being behind the increase in fires and the subsequent changes to vegetation. I think the term “climate change” is being used in its most general form here, as it is also used for discussing human activities, and alien species (ie a European pest invading an Australian ecosystem)…

26. Many species are less than 1 million years old? Put into context with the entire species count on this planet, the less-than-1-million-year-old species would be a minute minority.

27. This claims it’ll take centuries or millennia for the ice sheets to melt. Haven’t there been others such as Tim Flannery who have claimed such things like the north pole will be ice-free within 5-7 years?

28. The article agrees with CO2 for plant growth (and won’t warmer temperatures lead to evaporation, which leads to more water in the atmosphere, which leads to more rain…). Article continues to talk about other pollution types impacting on plant growth, and then goes off-topic (with respect to the point it was trying to counter) talking about the possibilities of issues with the ocean & carbolic acid impacting on marine life (in theory).

29. So what that you think so what?

30. Refer to point 10… & point 4.

31. Point 31’s response fails to take in to account photosynthesis, which produces oxygen. However I’d concede that deforestation is impacting on the earth’s ability to produce more oxygen, moreso than our burning of fossil fuels with respect to consuming oxygen.

32. Wait, this article dismisses looking in to short timeframes with regard to temperature changes (ie past 11 years), and then uses even shorter timeframes (ie past 3 years) in its defence?

33. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...398627#content  30 million years ago the earth had 900ppm CO2 & ice sheets formed…

34. FFS… all of this feedback & cause stuff is getting old. I refer to points 3 & 18… Also the response doesn’t counter the initial claim that CO2 is NOT the most common greenhouse gas.

35. lol… climategate? The “Hockey-stick” graph?

36. Response agrees with claim in part (“there may not be more [hurricanes]”).

37. Agreed, although this response can be used for a lot of Global Warming statements…

38. So… the IPCC expects there’ll be some cooling within the whole Global Warming scheme of things? So, in another point (point #24, “warming is warming”), I take it this means that cooling = warming.

39. This point contradicts the response to point 36…

40. Wait… Didn’t the response to point #28 say CO2 would help plant growth to a degree? Which is exactly what point #40 says, yet the response to point #40 is “incorrect and contradictory”. Then later in point #40’s response, the response states “Some species will benefit”… Make up your mind!

41. Fair enough (“which researchers?”). However I refer to Viking settlements on Greenland again, the “tiny changes” there meant the difference between parts of Greenland being green (hence the name), and now being frozen. Wiki it.

42. Er, why not?

43. Yet more repetition here too… See my responses to points #40, #28…

44. Off-topic response, however I’d concede that the statement is impossible to prove or disprove.

45. Agreed, it’s a bit of a big call there.

46. The link is titled “Global Warming Will Increase World Death Rate”. The study in the link looked in to how temperature correlated to mortality in 50 US cities between 1989 and 2000. Heart attacks & cardiac arrest were found to most likely increase with more extreme temperatures. Were there any other factors in place, such as say you’d be more likely to be outdoors in the heat than in the cold? Did the casualties have a family history of heart disease? I’d take that info with a grain of salt, such as some of the “swine flu” deaths recorded here where someone was already battling cancer & aids & leprosy, but because they’d contracted swine flu it was reported that they’d died of swine flu.

47. So, what about the scientific grounding for Kyoto? Response evades point raised.

48. Do you work for Kevin Rudd with a Doctorate in Rotational Velocity?

49. Will concede on no source being given, but the response goes off on a tangent.

50. Incorrect? Maybe in Britain but here we have the option to “Go Greener” or whatever it’s called, which is basically paying an extra % of $ on your electricity bill with the supposed assurance than the extra $ goes towards green energy. A watt is a watt, as far as I’m concerned everyone actually gets the same spread of electricity, it’s bullsh*t that the household paying the “Go Greener” fee is actually getting x% of “green” electricity while I’m paying less, for 100% fossil fuel electricity. We’re all getting the 9x% of fossil fuel-sourced electricity and the y% of “green” electricity. In any case, with wind turbines they require fossil fuel to be created and probably cannot repay their initial carbon debt through the (inconsistent) energy they produce. Same goes with solar power, the cells are made from silica, which is from sand which is heated to incredible temperatures, similar to making glass. How many years will it take for a solar panel to repay its initial carbon debt? How long does a solar panel last for again? 20-30 years?

In conclusion, this article was contradictive and had some very weak/poor responses. Very misleading for those who read it and don’t question the claims made.

[MO]

A little food for thought gentlemen,heard on Aunty in the last day or two.
"If the worlds sea level rises as much as predicted where are all the displaced people going to go?"
Now the number of ppl will be in the millions for countries like Bangladesh,Pakistan etc,we are already having problems with the boat ppl.

Could this be part of the reasoning behind the gov'ts extolling we could handle 34 million ppl in Australia. We already are having big problems trying to keep the infrastructure viable for our current population. How would we even cope with such a rise in population.
Where would they be placed,the coastal regions are out of the question(rising sea level) we will have enough of a job relocating our own ppl let alone another 12million.
Even though the rise will be gradual(if it happens)panic will set in,in these worst affected regions and they will move out in their droves.By any means avaible.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by MO

Even though the rise will be gradual(if it happens)panic will set in,in these worst affected regions and they will move out in their droves.By any means avaible.

Hmm could be needing someone to translate Tuvaluan soon

Also tonight on the Abbacus in their nightly reports on COP15 (I thought it was related to the weekend Cop blitz but hey) turns out Ethiopia has a good idea, ha, who, where, what, why, oh ok, maybe, hmmm, I'll get back to you on that one WTF?? This is a coun try that is known to be among the most corrupt in the regionand they come up with a $$figure of $100,000,000,000 ahaaaa ONE HUNDRED BILLION (does anyone else see Dr Evil in his phalic space ship holding his little pinky to his mouth as he says that ) and what's even more unbelievable is the US supporting the proposal. HA

The one thing that I'm yet to hear is how, please tell me how exactly this money will be allocated, then could you also explain what assurances will be given by these countries that this money will not only find it's way into corrupt pollies pockets but also that it will go towards genuine pollution reduction projects.

Anyone??

Someone??

Surely one of you have heard or read something, somewhere of how this will be not only implemented but then also policed and if need be punished for anyone not sticking to the plan.

Doubt it, but then can anyone else see Ethiopa being used as a puppet by the US to get this through, I know I recall hearing the US propose a similar figure last week or early this week sometime. Now suddenly a thrid world nation put s adollar figure on it and the US is right there to back it.

Also some food for thought, with the way in which polluting nations are calculated can anyone else see Australia paying the biggest chunk of whatever figure they actually decide upon?? Or am I just the town nutter?? : : :



p.s. Ghia5L nice deconstruction dude, you deserve a beer for that so get down to the shop in your eco friendly H1 Hummer (I'd let you borrow mine but I'm having the whale pienus (yes I know but it edits the correct spelling) skinned seats buffed) and buy a stubby, not a slab just a stubby.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Or am I just the town nutter?? : : :

Originally Posted by XRQTR

It's good to see you can look at your self in a constructive manner and admit to your short comings :

Sorry couldn't resist :evil3:

[MO]

As for Oz paying the biggest chunk...I'd say your right....they 'll drag out the old "per capita genie".

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by max_torq

At the end of the Ordovician when 65%+ of entire taxonomic families .......... doh!

Yes I would say you know what you are talking about as there are lots of things in there that I cannot understand or even pronounce ..... and I would think of myself as fairly intelligent ..... just wondering where the hobbits fit in to the equation. (Yes I know ... thats just a story and not fact)

All I want to know by those that 'believe' ... its a simple question .... how does billions of trillions given to 'someone' make the temp goes down and the sea drop? In lay mans terms please. Who is that someone and who is overseeing the hand outs? Also how do you acuratley measure Carbon?

I think some people give man kind a little too much credit in their abilities compared to the natural abilities of Ms Nature.



| [/url] |

[MO]

+1 on that. Although you did give me a thought with your "Mrs Nature" comment. Do you think our own Mother Nature,oft referred to as MN,might be able to shed some light on this.

[Walt Kowalski]

[font=Times New Roman','serif]My high school teacher wife often talks a lot about the Dehsawniarbian Period. I think that’s how she spells it. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman','serif]Maybe someone from Canberra like max-torq can enlighten us about that period? I am sure he is an expert.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman','serif]Maybe his Canberra ilk can explain to us how giving billions of dollars to murderous despots ruling their blood soaked countries like Mugabe, Chavez, [/font][font=Times New Roman','serif]Obasanjo, Ahmed Sékou Touré and Meles Zenawi will fix “man made” climate change[/font]

[font=Times New Roman','serif]Or explain why Australia would sign to a binding agreement which commits future generations to massive taxes to be given to more despots when America, China, India and major climate polluters refuse to do so. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman','serif]If Rudd commits Australia at Copenhagen (and therefore all future Australians forever no matter how we vote) don’t plan on going to Hospital in future years or getting your kids an education. And forget roads.The normal funding will be offshore. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman','serif]Ghia5L. You need a medal. We dub thee Sir Ghia5L[/font]

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Sorry couldn't resist :evil3:

Ye I know, coz lets face it you're not really bright enough to come up with much original material. I see you lurking down the bottom all the time and yet you still need to use other peoples material, I haven't heard any further GW/CC proof or evidence from you for quite a few pages, then you pounce, likema loaded penguin, on Peach Schnapps.

Well done

[XRQTR]

The other figure I forgot to mention last night was the expected TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR industry that this will become/is forecast to become.

So even the Wall St cappies have put a figure on how much they want to make from it, nice one Efram and Jesaiah, even before it's policy you know how much you will be making/ripping from us.

[Hardtopxb]

A lot of BS here..It's great to see a lot of people giving a lot of advice on what NOT to do, and who NOT to believe.If you think Global Warming/Climate Change is fact. What is your solution? or don't you have an opinion.Come on all you Brains give us the benefit of your seemingly vast knowledge. I certainly don't have a definitive answer. Do you?.

[XRQTR]

You obviously haven't read through all the posts properly coz I know for a fact that I've thrown a few ideas up, the same ideas in fact that many "scientists" have also agreed would be better than just a tax that actually allowed countries to pollute as much as they could afford.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

A lot of BS here..It's great to see a lot of people giving a lot of advice on what NOT to do, and who NOT to believe.If you think Global Warming/Climate Change is fact. What is your solution? or don't you have an opinion.Come on all you Brains give us the benefit of your seemingly vast knowledge. I certainly don't have a definitive answer. Do you?.

Brains are like A/holes - everyone has one it is just how you choose to use what you have that makes us all different. Some like to sit and listen to so called experts/scientist without question. Lets call them sheep. Others like to question and challenge the opinions of experts/scientists so lets call them skeptics/deniers. Some even go so far as to offer valued comment on those theorys offered up. Lets call them visionarys/leaders. What category do you fall into?

[MO]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

A lot of BS here..It's great to see a lot of people giving a lot of advice on what NOT to do, and who NOT to believe.If you think Global Warming/Climate Change is fact. What is your solution? or don't you have an opinion.Come on all you Brains give us the benefit of your seemingly vast knowledge. I certainly don't have a definitive answer. Do you?.

As XRQTR & olfella said and I concur.
Now until you came along this thread has been humming along quite nicely.
Rather than come in here and try to stir up trouble why don't you add something constructive.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

A lot of BS here..It's great to see a lot of people giving a lot of advice on what NOT to do, and who NOT to believe.If you think Global Warming/Climate Change is fact. What is your solution? or don't you have an opinion.Come on all you Brains give us the benefit of your seemingly vast knowledge. I certainly don't have a definitive answer. Do you?.

There has been some suggestions. An ETS scheme isn't the answer. You read or listen to the comments made by world leaders in Copenhagen and they seem to be focussing on money and propaganda and not the actual task of reducing emissions, isnt what this is all about?

Sure, we need to change our ways of reducing emissions. Companies who don;t reduce should be fined, cars should be more cleaner, old cars should be checked more often. What about planting more trees, introducing new manufacturing solutions instead of a massive new tax, politicians being green in their workplace as well. There has been stuff all said about the actual SOLUTION by the powers that be, all they see is the $$ signs.

[Hardtopxb]

Originally Posted by olfella

Brains are like A/holes - everyone has one it is just how you choose to use what you have that makes us all different. Some like to sit and listen to so called experts/scientist without question. Lets call them sheep. Others like to question and challenge the opinions of experts/scientists so lets call them skeptics/deniers. Some even go so far as to offer valued comment on those theorys offered up. Lets call them visionarys/leaders. What category do you fall into?

Very Droll.I don't fall into any of your categories.I really can,t figure out who is right and who is wrong on this subject..

[Hardtopxb]

Originally Posted by MO

As XRQTR & olfella said and I concur.
Now until you came along this thread has been humming along quite nicely.
Rather than come in here and try to stir up trouble why don't you add something constructive.

LOL. Ok. Point taken, I really don't have the answers so can't give a constructive comment. I did not mean to 'stir up trouble' as you put it. I was trying to get some relative advice..

[Hardtopxb]

Originally Posted by rodderz

There has been some suggestions. An ETS scheme isn't the answer. You read or listen to the comments made by world leaders in Copenhagen and they seem to be focussing on money and propaganda and not the actual task of reducing emissions, isnt what this is all about?

Sure, we need to change our ways of reducing emissions. Companies who don;t reduce should be fined, cars should be more cleaner, old cars should be checked more often. What about planting more trees, introducing new manufacturing solutions instead of a massive new tax, politicians being green in their workplace as well. There has been stuff all said about the actual SOLUTION by the powers that be, all they see is the $$ signs.

I must agree re the $$ signs it all seems to come down money.All I can say is I hope for our future generations that they sort things out one way or an other..

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

I did not mean to 'stir up trouble' as you put it. I was trying to get some relative advice..

Come back tomorrow and read back over your post, or better still ask a third party to read it and then see if you don't think you were trying to "stir up trouble' maybe just the pot a bit but that's how you certainly came across.

Bud there are many ways in which climate change can be tackled, some more just noted in these last few posts since your previous one asking for possible solutions. If people actually took the time to read the posts properly they'd see that what we're opposed to is the tax and not the cause.

Why has the Labor government withdrawn the subsidies for solar heated and powered home installations??

Why haven't they extended further subsidies for improving older les energy efficient homes to be brought up to current specs, or at least improved to a higher spec than where they currently are??

Why is it that KRudd went straight into tax mode, especially since being accused of fiscal mismanagement with regard to the stimulus packages??

A tax may be necessary at some point, but without clear objectives and a proper understanding of just how this tax will benefit the environment do you really want to be giving money away to countries that currently we are trying to change leaderships due to corruption and mismanagement.

Do me a favor and check post# 213 it pretty much details what we are talking about

[gtfpv]

ooooohhh god !!!!! did i just hear right . on the news they've just announced that AUSTRALIA went againdst the majority and signed the agreement . 1 of 25 countries out of 190 that signed . 25 SIGNED 165 REJECTED.
WE'VE BEEN STUNG !!!!!

[Falcon Coupe]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...-at-copenhagen
A few important points to consider :

Also the deal is not binding.

Mr Rudd vowed to press ahead on his emissions trading scheme (ETS), which is the government's main way of reducing emissions.

But the weak Copenhagen result - and the uncertainty surrounding it - is a blow to the government's plans on climate change.

[gtfpv]

Ok Now I'm Confused . I Cant Interperate The Outcome . What Does That Mean For Australia . ?

[Falcon Coupe]

It means we made a promise with our fingers crossed, at this stage there is nothing binding.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

It means we made a promise with our fingers crossed, at this stage there is nothing binding.

Thanks for clarifying you now have a new green smiley .

[Auslandau]

In the final hours of the summit, world leaders put forward a deal aimed at limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius.

Brilliant outcome Now it might be bearable to move to Tassie! I just want to know who is responsible for playing with the thermostat? Do they really think we are stupid? Obviously.

Australia has promised a five to 25 per cent cut by 2020; Mr Rudd would not be drawn on what the final number could be.

If they can pin point 2 degrees ..... what the hell does this mean?



| [/url] |

[olfella]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

It means we made a promise with our fingers crossed, at this stage there is nothing binding.

So why bother (signing)?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by olfella

So why bother (signing)?

Because if he didn't sign something it would have looked like a waste of time .... now it looks like something was acheived .... what was acheived was that something was signed which is bound by nothing .... i beleive?

Massive, massive waste of time .....



| [/url] |

[olfella]

Just copied this from Twitter..
Copenhagen started as Hopenhagen, quickly turned into Pokerhagen and ended as Nopenhagen! #cop15

[GK]

Watch Lord Mockington run rings around a Greenpeace activist in Copenhagen. Awesome!

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

GK