Can't stop 'climate change' it's been happening since the year dot. Over population, now thats a different kettle of fish
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can we just fix global over population also.....
lol That graphic and article is more politic's then science but hey if it floats your boat.
well sure, their method to get to their result seemed based on some real sturdy work and I'm sure it's just a co-incidence that a government funded entity that has history in pushing the AGW meme suddenly releases their 'study' the day after Obama's state of the union address. The first thing that stuck out to me was the time range that was used for comparisons, it pretty much invalidates the whole thing straight away that's before we even go into the GISS temperature adjustments but hey if you think it's scientifically sound fine by me I just wouldn't bring it up to discuss with anyone face to face to save embarassment.
Not a great believer in Climate Change despite my engineering / science background but I can tell you it was f#cking windy down at Aldinga Beach last night and this morning
We have lost several large branches and there's more leaves than water in the pool
Gusted up over 100 km/h at Sellicks this morning - that's the same as a Category 2 Cyclone
well sure, their method to get to their result seemed based on some real sturdy work and I'm sure it's just a co-incidence that a government funded entity that has history in pushing the AGW meme suddenly releases their 'study' the day after Obama's state of the union address. The first thing that stuck out to me was the time range that was used for comparisons, it pretty much invalidates the whole thing straight away that's before we even go into the GISS temperature adjustments but hey if you think it's scientifically sound fine by me I just wouldn't bring it up to discuss with anyone face to face to save embarassment.
The thing about politics is that you can never, ever get the best solution through. All you can do is get some shitty half solution that the other side (who don't see a problem at all) are willing to accept.Yes and no. It's not a minor matter, but anything Australia does, short of massively upping the export of Uranium to take Coal stations offline or getting Thorium reactors going, is going to do 2/5th's of bugger all to world emissions. A carbon tax effects manufacturing that can go offshore and would likely relocate to countries with dirtier coal power plants. So yeah, Australia's emissions may go down slightly, but world one's up. That's not a win in anyone, but the ALP / Greens books.
People don't want to stop using / having all the conveniences and gadgets of modern life, despite how much the Greens wish otherwise, so if any politician wants to get serious, get out there promoting nuclear or carbon capture at coal stations. Otherwise keep selling those band-aids as good for treating multiple gun shot wounds.
Most things in life have simple answers. The simple answer to 99% of climate scientists arguing that climate change is real and we should stop it, is that 99% of scientists believe that. The simple answer to the 1% being unable to convince the rest that they are "wrong" is that the 1% have no conclusive evidence to prove so. I understand you will be amongst the last to accept changes in human thinking such as these "liberal ideas" StrappingTape, but one day you will have to accept climate change unless something dramatic happens.
After all, changing something is a lot ******* harder than leaving it as it is. The world has been a fine place for the last 50 years, so why change it right?
I know I sound like a massive hater StrappingTape, but I honestly think we need conservative people, as you need to consider things before changing them. With that said though, the current government's approach to "liberal issues" is quite disgusting, and I believe Tony Abbot's appointment as prime minister is a like a torch that reveals the heaping pile of s**t that the people in politics really are. He is a man who won the politics of politics, rose above all the liberal/labour hacks, and became the prime minister. Then promptly showed that he had no vision for Australia other than getting to the top of its political system. It honestly makes me sick thinking about it.
Anyway all I wanted to point out here is that if people who spend a lot of time researching this stuff suggest that we lower carbon emissions, I don't really see the harm its going to cause by following their advice.
Are you some qualified scientist? Or some guy on the internet?
Climate change deniers remind me of people who go to their doctors, get told to quit smoking, and they scoff and say 'there's more old smokers then old doctors'.
Climate and temperature aren't the same thing But I'm sure a certified climate change specialist as yourself knows the difference between weather and climate.So I'll take that as I'm right. No one denies climate change, it always has and it always will, please tell me what the temperature the earth should be running at all the time?
Your example doesn't really work for the climate change argument. If I went to the doctor and the only evidence he had to give me that smoking was going to kill me was from studies based on the output of smoking models that had no connect to the real world I'd scoff. AGW is no longer scientific, it's an industry and a cult all in one.
If I went to the doctor and the only evidence he had to give me that smoking was going to kill me was from studies based on the output of smoking models that had no connect to the real world I'd scoff.
Climate and temperature aren't the same thing But I'm sure a certified climate change specialist as yourself knows the difference between weather and climate.
"Certified moron" - Someone who disagrees with StrappingTape's opinion? If I was some 15 year old reading the internet and I read your views on climate change, and your sources then I might actually believe you. I'm not, and I don't though.A certified moron like yourself might also realise that when you are arguing about limiting carbon emissions being released into the climate to reduce the worlds temperature it's a fair question to be asked what temperature you think the world is meant to be running at.
Judging by the rest of your stuff and your previous post, you are probably about 15 so I'm going to put it down to immaturity.
"Certified moron" - Someone who disagrees with StrappingTape's opinion? If I was some 15 year old reading the internet and I read your views on climate change, and your sources then I might actually believe you. I'm not, and I don't though.
As for your question, the answer is we have no idea what temperature the world is supposed to be "running at" at any given moment. Weather predictive models aren't near as accurate as say, motion predictive models. However, a question that has been anwered is as carbon dioxide levels increase, so does the average yearly temperature, and I can guarentee this has been proven. I was trying to be "tolerant" of your views, but honestly you are at the absolute best misinformed if you are skeptical about the the correlation between carbon emmisions and global average temperatures. The reality isn that you are not simply "misinformed", you have actually gone out of your way to try and prove yourself right, but you failed so hard at researching a scientifically researched issue that you though that a blog post could discredit an entire research body.
Finally if your whole "point" is that it doesn't matter if the temperature increases, as we humans do not get to decide the temperature, I believe scientists have shown the kind of s**t that could go down if the temperature increases much more. Polar ice caps melting -> ocean currents changing dramatically -> weather changing dramatically in a way we cannot predict.
So you are saying the polar ice caps aren't melting? That we haven't had more fires in recent history than in a long long time? That global temperatures haven't increased? You are actually just ignoring reality to suit your own theory.
As I said, weather predictive models are trash. Anyone who says "this part of the world will reach this temperature by this date" is not who I am defending. The only facts that are proven are that as carbon dioxide levels increase, then so does the temperature. What exactly will happen as temperature increases is not proven, I have never said it is. It seems very logical to assume the ice caps will melt as average temperature rises, I'm unsure if there is any proof of it happening of course.
To end this, and I won't respond anymore as there is no way I am going to find 2000 sources to prove you wrong, as I don't think it would work regardless. We could allow temperatures to rise to whatever they want and just trust that nothing will go wrong, or we could try and avoid a situation that we humans simply cannot predict. Honestly I believe the climate will get ****** up at some point regardless, maybe in a hundered years, maybe in 10,000. If carbon dioxide emmisions are likely speed it up, then I'd rather they stop. Even if I don't know for sure what will could go wrong.
Always thought CO2 was good for plants. If the deforestation slowed down and more trees got going most would of us would be better off. Not a greenie at all as
trees need to removed if they are dangerous and in bushfire areas, but where they're having one of the biggest droughts on record in western QLD and inland northern NSW, there are hardly any trees as far as you can see. It also happened in the USA between the wars, where the farmers cleared off everything, there was nothing but dust left.