The all encompassing Climate Change/AGW Thread..

[torch]

I hope this does not represent the accuracy of all the statistics you have been presenting thus far.

No, as you well know, it was intended to draw comment to people who not only are ignorant of some of the basic facts but don't even go to the trouble of reading the thread they are contributing to and post rubbish about how co2 levels were much higher in the "dinosaur past", therefore mankind will be fine, yourself a case in point:

Yes, great argument for that the planet will survive, but life in its existing form?
Do you see much Jurassic life still around?
Does the fact that co2 hasn’t been this high for 15 million years ring some alarm bells, man has only been around for about 2 million years and hasn’t lived through 7000ppm!, survived anything that approaches the change or speed that we are seeing today.[/B]

[Jesterarts]

No, as you well know, it was intended to draw comment to people who not only are ignorant of some of the basic facts but don't even go to the trouble of reading the thread they are contributing to and post rubbish about how co2 levels were much higher in the "dinosaur past", therefore mankind will be fine, yourself a case in point:

I think you'll note that in all my posts I never say "mankind" will be fine. I say the planet, and life on the planet will be fine.

Please try to read my posts more carefully.

If you are struggling to understand what I have been posting, how can you possibly claim to understand a complex topic such as climate change?

One again, I'm not as self centered as you to think man kinds existance is the most important speck of an event during the plants history nor and future.

And no, the fact CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15million years doesn't ring alarm bells, because it has been higher in the past and has come down to be lower, without a carbon tax.

[torch]

I think you'll note that in all my posts I never say "mankind" will be fine. I say the planet, and life on the planet will be fine.

Please try to read my posts more carefully.

If you are struggling to understand what I have been posting, how can you possibly claim to understand a complex topic such as climate change?

One again, I'm not as self centered as you to think man kinds existance is the most important speck of an event during the plants history nor and future.

And no, the fact CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15million years doesn't ring alarm bells, because it has been higher in the past and has come down to be lower, without a carbon tax.

Take a reality pill, life on the planet will be fine if man messes with it? no it wont be, especially man and most life will not be, but you want to paint a picture of universal utopia because you reckon their will be happier fish out there because of rising sea levels:

And I'm fairly confident the whales and dolphins will be pretty pumped it sea levels rise destroying man made areas. They will have more space to swim in and the population to build..

For man to survive, (that's what most here are about, or are you aligning yourselves with the greens who apparently only care about trees and cuddly dolphins?)but i do know that for man to survive, changing anything around us can create all sorts of consequences, some we can predict, most we cant, so Ill leave things as they are thankyou, and make noise to anyone who thinks its a good idea to put more co2 up there, cut down forests, put mercury or fission products into the atmosphere

You have really now backed yourself into a corner saying that man is causing climate change and it will destroy us, but that is good because man is not the ultimate occupant of the planet yada, yada.

[piston_broke]

I think you'll note that in all my posts I never say "mankind" will be fine. I say the planet, and life on the planet will be fine.

Please try to read my posts more carefully.

If you are struggling to understand what I have been posting, how can you possibly claim to understand a complex topic such as climate change?

One again, I'm not as self centered as you to think man kinds existance is the most important speck of an event during the plants history nor and future.

And no, the fact CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15million years doesn't ring alarm bells, because it has been higher in the past and has come down to be lower, without a carbon tax.

I think you're going to have to write a lot slower, cause he obviously doesn't read too good :-)

[Jesterarts]

Take a reality pill, life on the planet will be fine if man messes with it? no it wont be, especially man and most life will not be, but you want to paint a picture of universal utopia because you reckon their will be happier fish out there because of rising sea levels:

Never painted a picture of a utopia, the extinction of man and thousands of other species isn't exactly a utopia.

I find it ironic that you are telling me to take a reality pill. I am facing the realisity that climate change is real, there isn't much we can do about it and there will be species that are pushe to extinction because of it. Including man unless we pull something pretty impressive out our arse.

You on the other hand and hell bend of the idea that man can turn off a few lights, CO2 levels will drop to what YOU thing are "normal" levels, the climate won't go through changes and mankind will all stand around the planet holding hands with panda's singing koom ba ya.

Now really, who of us ACTUALLY needs to take a reality pill... lol.

You have really now backed yourself into a corner saying that man is causing climate change and it will destroy us, but that is good because man is not the ultimate occupant of the planet yada, yada.

At no point in time have I said man is causing climate change. Once again, maybe you should read more carefully.

I can so you are getting really confused at this point about who is saying what, here is the breakdown:

You: Man is causing climate change.
Me: Man is not causing climate change.

You may continue.

[torch]

You: Man is causing climate change.
Me: Man is not causing climate change.

You may continue.

Now we have got your obfuscation out of the way with perhaps you can put your thinking hat on and provide something that addresses what was asked of you before:

Yes, you provided some facts, but none of those facts or articles supported your conclusion that man is not responsible for climate change, you havent even attempted to link them.

Graphs, yes nice, and you have good computer skills in getting it to show. Unfortunately it is not evidence of what you want it to be:
This was pointed out to you by vr94ss: The all encompassing Climate Change/AGW Thread..

and later on by myself: The all encompassing Climate Change/AGW Thread..,

:

Show us why the earth's temperature is increasing right now, and has been for the best part of 50-100 years, its clearly not part of the cycles you tried to push on page one.

[Jesterarts]

Show us why the earth's temperature is increasing right now, and has been for the best part of 50-100 years, its clearly not part of the cycles you tried to push on page one.

But it is.

[torch]

But it is.

No those graphs dont have our current temp behaviour superimposed on them for the last 100 years. regardless of whether you claim it is part of a natural cycle, there still has to be a tangible reason it has increased, even if you believe the cause to be "natural", what do you believe to be the natural cause,,,,I say believe, because so far no reputable scientist that has spoken against agw has offered this line of reasoning.

[kuzman89]

For man to survive, (that's what most here are about, or are you aligning yourselves with the greens who apparently only care about trees and cuddly dolphins?)but i do know that for man to survive, changing anything around us can create all sorts of consequences, some we can predict, most we cant, so Ill leave things as they are thankyou, and make noise to anyone who thinks its a good idea to put more co2 up there, cut down forests, put mercury or fission products into the atmosphere

You have really now backed yourself into a corner saying that man is causing climate change and it will destroy us, but that is good because man is not the ultimate occupant of the planet yada, yada.

you keep saying 'for man to survive' we need to cut down on emissions. For man to survive I'd be much more concerned with developing technology to settle different planets, weapons technology to prevent asteroids hitting the planet etc and keeping our population rate at a constant. I'm all for lowering pollution, but its ***** stupid spending billions on reducing our C02 footprint when there is no evidence that supports the AGW alarmists point of view. We know we've been hit by asteroids, we know it will happen again but hey lets spend our budget on a fear campaign with no evidence.

[Julie]

you keep saying 'for man to survive' we need to cut down on emissions. For man to survive I'd be much more concerned with developing technology to settle different planets, weapons technology to prevent asteroids hitting the planet etc and keeping our population rate at a constant. I'm all for lowering pollution, but its ***** stupid spending billions on reducing our C02 footprint when there is no evidence that supports the AGW alarmists point of view. We know we've been hit by asteroids, we know it will happen again but hey lets spend our budget on a fear campaign with no evidence.

I sort of have this view too, there are so many other tangible threats to mans existence on this planet. I for one am far more concerned about being wiped out by a nuclear war than global warming. We really should be worried about things we know to exist rather than some government funded science geeks speculative conclusions.

[torch]

I sort of have this view too, there are so many other tangible threats to mans existence on this planet. I for one am far more concerned about being wiped out by a nuclear war than global warming. We really should be worried about things we know to exist rather than some government funded science geeks speculative conclusions.

Same views, you want us to spend billions to go an live on mars as well?

Wont you have the same problem all over again, all those science geeks telling you about the dangers/realities when they learnt their nuclear physics at those government funded universities, govco is sure to have an agenda and those nuclear scientists will say whatever govco wants.

Some truth in it, Julie Bishop got Ziggy Switkowski to chair ANSTO in 2006 to tell the public what a wonderful idea it would be to go Nuclear(and keep those mining company donations rolling in - he didnt say that),

but hangon, he wasnt then employed as a govco scientist to say whatever to keep his job, just a private individual in charge of another private monopoly.

[Jesterarts]

No those graphs dont have our current temp behaviour superimposed on them for the last 100 years. regardless of whether you claim it is part of a natural cycle, there still has to be a tangible reason it has increased, even if you believe the cause to be "natural", what do you believe to be the natural cause,,,,I say believe, because so far no reputable scientist that has spoken against agw has offered this line of reasoning.

I don't agree.

[Cheap6]

I'd rather be a denialist than an alarmist. Wasn't it the head preachers @ IPCC who made all the wild claims about rising sea levels, dissapearing glaciers, no snows etc etc. Funnily enough the projections continually change (mainly with projections blowing out further and further).

I am still trying to work out how we cannot predict weather for more than 7 days with accuracy but we are expected to beleive that climate can be predicted for the next 1000 years.

Sorry alarmist, I just cannot accept the crap, especially when so much money is being made from it all.

Cheap6, have a few questions to ask via pm if that is ok

One difficulty in making long term predictions about the climate is that there is no way of knowing what the emissions profile will be into the future. Who could have predicted the GFC, or any other previous economic downturn, and the effect on the rate of emissions, or how rapidly industrialisation would take place in, say, China 20 years ago or indeed into the future.

In addition to adding extra CO2 the latter type of activity alters the response of the climate to a given amount of it because their generally dirtier combustion has associated releases of SO2 (cooling), N2O (more warming) and particulates (both). As I pointed out above with reference to the IPCC reports, CO2 is not the only influence on climate. And, of course, the further out in terms of time you go, the less certainty there can be because the range of possible outcomes widens and the uncertainty builds on previous uncertainty. Any prediction will be (or at least should be) qualified based on the inputs.

All that can be done is to say: "If there is X done at this time, within the boundaries of uncertainty of A and B, Y will be the probable outcome at this (other) time." That is all that is attempted in the IPCC reports. When any range of emissions that, without acting to avoid them, is feasible produces bad outcomes, there is good reason to take that action to avoid them.

It's also worth considering that the IPCC reports are done within a remit that up until the report currently being prepared, has assumed that ice sheets would melt rather than fragment. As I understand it, some of the more recent research has suggeste that Arctic ice in particular could disappear more rapidly than previously assessed.

I will reply to a PM but would prefer to use the forum because then everyone gets to see the questions and answers.

[vr94ss]

Umm, where was any name calling done? Sorry didnt reply last night, fell asleep reading about milankovich? (sorry too early to be spelling these words ) dude stuff lol.

Hmm.. OK. It was not a direct but implied name calling. He basically said there are two choices, you are "naive or so so stupid" if you hold a particular view. Knowing a person holds this view and then telling them the aforementioned is obviously an insult to the person.

For eg if I said that, for arguments sake, knowing you vote Liberal that you either have a "childlike grasp on politics or are a total FN idiot" you would know that in reality I'm insulting you, not the Liberal Party's ideas. Calling the ideas wrong, stupid, naive or whatever is fine. Calling the person that is not. I believe we should try and play the ball not the man in debates where there are such polarising positions. The ideas, not the person expressing them.

I'm certainly not innocent of implied name calling and don't really have too much of a drama with it but when you categorically state "no name calling" I would expect implied name calling to match that criteria. Maybe I'm just being to pedantic

[minux]

vr, maybe you are, I didn't really see it as being an issue. Regardless a mod banned commsirac anyway lol.

Anyways, I had a laugh at this, it is no wonder alarmists struggle to get any message across. This is priceless.

IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End to Democracy to Solve Global Warming | hauntingthelibrary

[kuzman89]

Same views, you want us to spend billions to go an live on mars as well?

Wont you have the same problem all over again, all those science geeks telling you about the dangers/realities when they learnt their nuclear physics at those government funded universities, govco is sure to have an agenda and those nuclear scientists will say whatever govco wants.

Some truth in it, Julie Bishop got Ziggy Switkowski to chair ANSTO in 2006 to tell the public what a wonderful idea it would be to go Nuclear(and keep those mining company donations rolling in - he didnt say that),

but hangon, he wasnt then employed as a govco scientist to say whatever to keep his job, just a private individual in charge of another private monopoly.

I fail to see what this has to do with ANYTHING Julie and myself were discussing.

[kuzman89]

vr, maybe you are, I didn't really see it as being an issue. Regardless a mod banned commsirac anyway lol.

Anyways, I had a laugh at this, it is no wonder alarmists struggle to get any message across. This is priceless.

IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End to Democracy to Solve Global Warming | hauntingthelibrary

The wanks at my uni would be lining up in droves!

How bloody fascist does that article come across??

Chapter 9 will describe in more detail how we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times. [p. 134]

Are you for fkn real?? This guy has a secret agenda... honestly... if this ever went ahead (it won't) I wonder how many citizens would perish? 6 million?? History repeats.

[minux]

Billions of dollars sneaks out the door through UN committees « JoNova

Follow the yellow brick road with the global warming faith...did I say yellow brick road? I mean GOLD brick road.

[Reaper]

Success!!!!! Wow - I must take my hat off to Gillard and co. They said that by Australia taking a lead the would would follow, and follow they have. China have recently announced they are introducing a carbon tax! The fact that the rate for this new tax is 10 yuan per ton which equates to roughly AUS$1.53 per ton compared to our $23 is beside the point .

John Lee: China's Carbon Tax - WSJ.com

Reaper

[ari666]

at first i was a fundraiser for greenpeace

now i import silverados

...

my argument is invalid

[Rufys]

Middle of summer. Top temp in Melbourne for today is meant to be 18 degrees Celsius. If this is global warming, bring it on I say!

[Rufys]

OH WOW!!!

Melting Arctic causes snowier winters | News.com.au

So now global warming is causing cooling. LOL!!! Clutching at straws much?

When are people going to wake up and realise no matter what humans do, the planet's climate will change over time. Just like it's been doing for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS!!!

[minux]

They need a new book for kids "Wheres Flannery?"

Haven't seen him for a while, I thought by now the rains were not meant to exist, snow would be unknown and water was to have rised 6 stories!!

[monkeys437]

They need a new book for kids "Wheres Flannery?"

Haven't seen him for a while, I thought by now the rains were not meant to exist, snow would be unknown and water was to have rised 6 stories!!

Page 1 of where's Flannery could have him hiding behind his big pile of money. Nice lesson there for the kiddies

[MikeCuzzy]

Yeah when the planet's climate *stops* changing let me know, then somethings really broken. And hell, one big volcano will do more damage then we have over the last 200 years.