The Climate Change ULTRA MEGA AWESOME Thread

Yep!!

Maybe there are two classes of scientists:

1) Cash for comment.

2) Cash for research, and therefore self-advancement.

All I can say is, "Thank God for global warming". Otherwise the last couple of winters would have been colder than just the coldest for the last 64 years or so.

 

lol we have always had droughts worse then this just under 100 years ago its just because the population has boomed since then not enough 2 go around rain falls are still normal but were just consuming more. the world is a living organisim/object/who knows what it is--- it will repair itself just like platelattes heal a wound in the human body its unpredictable and who knows what will happen and how it works but humans are wiping out everything more then global warming but it will be interesting in 1000 yrs what it will look like if its still here

lol i always wondered this when i was younger some one might answer me------every time we have a leap year one more day is added yes does this push winter one more day into summer and summer one more day into autum? always wondered it hahah

 

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but we have to protect the gullible from the devious or perhaps equally gullible that roll out trash like ^.

Yes folks, there is probably 31000 names on the list/petition from the Oregon Institute of science(remember them, the cash for comments/findings organistaion funded by exxon, mobil etc) unfortunately a lot of the names are fictitious, many are even dead!

Have a look at local warming: 31,000 Scientists don't believe in global warming? or indeed do a proper search for yourselves.

 

at the end of the day u can have the whole world sign a piece of paper but who knows what the world has instore for us we ccould all die 2morrow

 

Even scientists (and I use that term loosely) that are pro global warming caused by humans are still basically cash for comment. All research has to be funded. Which ever lobby groups put forward the best arguments get the cash. The ones giving the cash are gullible enough to believe what is being said. No one is paying me to say it is a crock of shit.

 

But unfortunately that is just opinion backed up with nothing, or do you have some scientific credentials that have allowed you to prove the world's leading climate scientists wrong(Did you even do maths and chemistry/physics to yr 12 level?)
, or are you going to just stupidly quote a retired cash for comment scientist again .

 

I don't need "credentials" to have an opinion. You on the other hand don't even have an opinion, all you seem to do is post up links.

 

lol everyones in a frisky mood 2night go chuck down a few beers and realx boys

 

You are right in both cases. Im out of my depth in terms of knowledge and resources in being able to give an opinion that is worth anything credible on this issue. That's why I rely on the integrity of the scientific method, just as I might rely on a doctor to diagnose any medical problems I may have. In like terms, many skeptics have just found the dodgy doctor that tells them what they want to hear.

 

Sounds like opinion backed up by common sense to me.

There is your problem. It's good that you acknowledge that you are out of your depth. You also need to acknowledge that scientists need to eat like everybody else and they mostly rely on government funding to do that. One needs to keep this in mind within the context of scientific reports.

One side of science is collecting the data. In one sense this is the easy bit however methods of collection are also open to fierce debate. Another side is interpreting that data. That is no more than offering an opinion, theory or story as to what it all means. The problem is many scientists have a theory that satisfies some of the data but flies against other sets. We also have to consider the validity of the data - Take a census of fudge packers around Sydney during mardi-gra week and it would indicate that 40% of the population is gay. Take the same census in the Melbourne suburbs and you will find a very different result.

Anyhoo - my point is that people need to take into account what motivates all scientists - not just the ones you don't agree with. I'm not saying that they are all corrupt but external influences may exaggerate some of their findings.

Reaper

 

Very well said.

 

Really, what logic or common sense has NAAF used to come up with his opinion. Common sense, just another way of describing logic that appeals to the more simple minded in the community. The issue is complex(some would say not), but not something that can be analysed and rejected by the average person who found maths and science too hard at school.

 

You really dont understand the scientific process do you. While individual scientists can be corrupted in the short term, the process as a whole can not and individuals who falsify/mislead get found out soon enough and lose whatever position they had.

Its not about finding things that governments will like, its about finding out the truth. Its about publishing those findings, if they are wrong, other scientists will be all over it in a rash. Which governments in the world really wanted to know about global warming?(perhaps the ones that are sinking into the pacific?) Ours certainly didnt(we are talking the Howard years).
Did the people in our CSIRO keep quiet in fear that their pay would be cut? maybe it was, but certainly there was no break away group that were looking for financial security in fuelling Mr Howard's wish that it wasn't a significant problem.

 

The main issue I have with all this world going south stuff is that Mr Aussie of the year (Tim Flanery) has made bold predictions in the past regarding dam levels. if his prediction were true then Sydney would have no water now. So how are we to trust what

The other thing is that there will be companies making so much money through the carbon trading system. If we really needed to save the planet then shouldn't we do it for the good of earth, not for profit?

The last thing is that the government seem to be o.k. with raising the price of everything so we use less. A household will use a certain amount of resources (elec, water ect) regardless of how much is charged. Why not make the charges based on how many people are in the house as well as reward those with price reductions if they are efficient?

 

How many scientists do you know? I know many and it just doesn't work in the way in which you are suggesting.

What Garnaut is suggesting for Australia is not another tax, but a system that raises the cost of releasing greenhouse gases and redistributes that money back to areas contributing to a reduction in releasing those gases.

The net cost isn't zero, because the alternatives may cost more or result in early write downs of existing investment. (A friend of mine who is involved in making investment decisions for a large financial organisation observed that companies involved in 'ethical' investment tend to perform well because their managers are switched on to the realities of the way the world is headed, and therefore not investing in greenhouse gas intensive industries).

Trading in 'Carbon' credits is no more immoral than the operation of a stock exchange; those doing it are simply collecting a 'management fee'.

This should be interesting:

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/ProfessorRossGarnaut-NPCAddress-5September2008/$File/Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut%20-%20NPC%20Address%20-%205%20September%202008.pdf

 

The Gregorian Calender and Global Warming.

The Earth takes 365.242374 days to orbit the sun. There are only 365 days in a normal year so we need to do something with the extra 0.242374 days in order to stop the drift of the seasons throughout the calender. Basically we add 1 day every four years.

Unfortunately this also has a problem as every 4 years there is only about 0.96 days needed. So in 100 years we have an extra day that we don't need. So every 100 years we miss a leap year.

This leaves us with another problem. Over a 400 year period the calender works out that we have are 1 day short again. So every 400 years we need to miss the missing of the leap year to catch up.

So we end up with the following rule that a year is a leap year if:

It divisible by the number 4,
Except if it is also divisible by the number 100,
But still remains a leap year if it is also divisible by the number 400.

This accounts for almost all of the extra 0.242374 it takes for the Earth to go around the sun each year and it keeps the Earth in pretty much the same position in its orbit for any given date of the year.

Over a very long period, around 8,000 years we will be out of sync again. The problem here however, is that the orbit of the Earth, along with its slow down in rotation on its own axis, due to tidal braking with the moon and other bodies in the solar system, can not be predicted accurately enough 8,000 years hence.

We will probably add or delete a day as needed when we get closer to that time and the calculations can be made. This has happened before. For example back in the 16th century when this sort of error was first noticed as changing the dates on which equinoxes and solstices fell, and hence the drift of the seasons, Pope Gregory decreed that the 5 October 1582 to 14 October 1582 inclusive would be deleted from the Calender. This was in order to bring us back into line with the actual position of the Earth around the Sun. It is also the reason that we follow the 'Gregorian' calender today which has the error correcting leap years built in.

Anyhow.... Now that I've warmed up.... Anyone for a bit of debate on Global Warming?

 

commsirac if ur so concerned about global warming give me your vx and start ****ing walking its hypocrites like u that **** me off that act like they know **** but despite knowing it they go and do what there not meant to now im a tad drunk but im sober enough to know ur an idiot.

People give their opinion based on the fact that its ****ing cold outside and i dont seem to be feeling this "warming" effect but u can argue that global warming is in fact around us and its causing excessive evaporation causing moisture in the air causing humidity causing it to be a tad cooler but i could argue ur **** sticks and mine doesnt.

I dont need a scientist to tell me if i eat right i wont get fat just like i dont need a scientist to tell me that if i drive a v8 with a ciggy hanging out the window farting up my baked beans is gonna cause a minute amount of global warming.

Also the roads u drive on require a large amount of heavy machinery which runs on petrol which is made using fossil fuels and the emissions cause Co2 to go into the ozone layer which is making the hole/s bigger but once again u drive because its convenient u flick on the light switch coz its convenient u use your computer coz its convenient.

In the long run everything we do can **** someone or something over in some way shape or form so deal with it.

Thats my 2cents worth

 

lol when u think bout it, its true

 

A logical approach.

I like the fact that Reaper points out that you need to take into account what motivates "scientists". I think this is only part of the issue. In truth most of the greater population need to ask more fundamental questions. "What is true science", "How does true science work", "What is a scientist", and "Am I able to distinguish practitioners of true science from those of pseudo-science"

True science as a whole is a misunderstood enterprise when it comes to the general public. The reasons for this are simple.

1. There are a very large number of pseudo-scientists and self proclaimed experts around trying to make a quick buck, and the general public as a whole are not equipped to tell the difference.

2. The main interface between true scientists and the general public is the media. The media and the general population tend to think of true science as fairly boring. It is much more profitable for the media outlets to publish controversial crap rather than actual scientific findings.

Before we enter into a debate about the validity of findings that either prove or disprove, man made global warming. I think we need some basic ground rules on what is truly scientific and what is not.

Furthermore, before any serious debate be had, people need to clearly define what it is we are talking about. There are after all two sides to this particular coin.

1. It is widely acknowledged even by those who oppose the validity of 'climate change' that the Earth has dozens of naturally driven cycles of warming and cooling. We need to define these and agree on whether on not each is valid. I personally think it would also be helpful to lay them out at the beginning. It may help avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary debate later on.

2. We need to define the global warming question clearly and precisely. As I see it, it should be something along the lines of: "Has modern society, or any of its precursor civilizations, significantly altered the average temperature of the Earth on a global scale?"

If we can at least agree on these two points as a society, or even a group of forum users, then I think it will much easier to cut through all the crap and reveal the truth.

I would like to see how many people here would be willing to try this approach to the subject. If there are enough I think we should give it a try.

L8r