Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
the arms of fanbois will never get tired of waving, as it is the only thing the makes them feel relevant, contributing and feeling good.
Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III
- Thread starter Dan26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
the arms of fanbois will never get tired of waving, as it is the only thing the makes them feel relevant, contributing and feeling good.
Jo Nova:
Good news. The Australian government is cutting out the enviro-middlemen, saying “No” to one $11 billion Green Blob.
Australia stands as the only wealthy country to have ruled out a contribution to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. As of last week, the fund had received pledges from 22 countries totalling $US9.6 billion ($A11.2 billion) against an initial funding target of $US10 billion.
The UN money making scheme was never about the poor or the environment. If it was they wouldn’t be wasting “aid” on so-called clean energy subsidies, which won’t change the weather:
The fund is a new financing mechanism to help developing countries protect themselves from the impacts of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will invest in clean energy generation and distribution, energy-efficient buildings and transport, forest conservation and management, and the “climate-proofing” of infrastructure and agriculture against storms, floods and higher temperatures.
Apparently the Australian government can see that funding these UN agencies is hand-feeding sharks. By paying for environmental aid direct, our tax funds might achieve something useful, and it exposes the hypocritical self-interest of the Green Gravy train. Which environmental groups will praise Abbott and Bishop? All the ones that put the environment and the poor ahead of the Blobby.
Instead, the so-called greenies will talk about Australia committing unforgivable social crimes like “falling out of step”, “failing to match international action” and being “mean”.
Good news. The Australian government is cutting out the enviro-middlemen, saying “No” to one $11 billion Green Blob.
Australia stands as the only wealthy country to have ruled out a contribution to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. As of last week, the fund had received pledges from 22 countries totalling $US9.6 billion ($A11.2 billion) against an initial funding target of $US10 billion.
The UN money making scheme was never about the poor or the environment. If it was they wouldn’t be wasting “aid” on so-called clean energy subsidies, which won’t change the weather:
The fund is a new financing mechanism to help developing countries protect themselves from the impacts of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will invest in clean energy generation and distribution, energy-efficient buildings and transport, forest conservation and management, and the “climate-proofing” of infrastructure and agriculture against storms, floods and higher temperatures.
Apparently the Australian government can see that funding these UN agencies is hand-feeding sharks. By paying for environmental aid direct, our tax funds might achieve something useful, and it exposes the hypocritical self-interest of the Green Gravy train. Which environmental groups will praise Abbott and Bishop? All the ones that put the environment and the poor ahead of the Blobby.
Instead, the so-called greenies will talk about Australia committing unforgivable social crimes like “falling out of step”, “failing to match international action” and being “mean”.
telsor
Hall of Famer
$10 Billion.....and people keep saying it's the money from the oil lobby that influences the decision making and 'science'.
I think this thread has turned into campaigning and politics enough that political connections and personal interests should be disclosed.
Exactly, every year is an increase on the 20th century average. Zoomed out version shows things better.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013
They're not exactly hard to work out.
I'd just like an extra sentence to be added to the "I'm not a scientist but..." phrase. Something along the lines of:
"I'm not a scientist but, it's totally uninformed opinion. I don't understand climate science - except the bits I'm told to believe - and if you criticise me you're attacking my freedom of speech".
Whereas of course on Planet Earth, you're entitled to say whatever you want. You are not entitled to have it taken seriously.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I think we all agree the politics, the media and promotion of any outcome by scientists both positive or negative is the disconnect. It is super hyped one way or the other.
Out of these groups the scientists are the only ones who are properly peer reviewed and risk their future in their field by making stuff up or exaggerating it. You hear of scientists making stuff up for fame occasionally and getting caught for scientific fraud, but they are one offs and are usually scientists who are already viewed as nuts by the scientific community. This is what makes the conspiracy theories about scientists making stuff up for funding and getting away with it so ridiculous. Climate change science is one of the most overpublicised and globally scrutinised areas of science ever.
The actual comments by scientists are usually qualified more than the black and white you see from the media or the heavily edited stuff that is put out by governments to suit their causes and avoid damage to markets, but they still draw the same conclusion which is that there is a serious problem to address and it is caused by the increase in carbon gases in the atmosphere due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, etc. releasing extra carbon that was previously locked away.
Some unqualified person mentioning a number on a graph that they don't understand does nothing to damage years of scientific research. The idea that say Bob who knows near nothing about a topic proves everyone who has studied it for years wrong is a thing of myth and maybe some form of inflated self importance on Bob's behalf, not to mention frustrating for the people whose work Bob blindly campaigns against.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
and that doesn't change how political groups and the media have grabbed hold of this issue.
More left wing nonsense
Coming from a government institution in a country whos democrats saw our liberals under howard as socialists.... :rollseyes:
- Moderator
- #3,766
Todman
You can repost your link I deleted mate, just formatted properly according to the sites rules. No more than a paragraph or two of info, clearly cited, and links.
We don't want slabs of text from an outside source clogging up the joint.
Same for everyone else too. We're all getting a bit sloppy lately.
You can repost your link I deleted mate, just formatted properly according to the sites rules. No more than a paragraph or two of info, clearly cited, and links.
We don't want slabs of text from an outside source clogging up the joint.
Same for everyone else too. We're all getting a bit sloppy lately.
Oh dear, toddy what a hopeless fail from propaganda HQ (jonova) this is. You rightly make the point that a study asking only 9 questions offers limited insight. But you fail to recognise that, since it offers limited insight a statement like "Study shows, skeptics know more about climate science than believers" does not really follow. You also spend a whole lot of time writing about an article that hasn't even been published yet so go figure?
Oh, and even if it did it does not inform us at all about the veracity of the consensus findings of climate science: that CO2 causes long term global warming and that the additional CO2 put into the atmosphere by us is likely to cause very significant detrimental environmental consequences for future generations, with some observable consequences happening even now that are making life less predictable if not, necessarily, less pleasant.
In all my posts on this thread I am happy to accept the label "climate change alarmist" but I do not admit to any knowledge of climate science. What I admit to is that I understand clever people (scientists) who have studied such matters claim without there being any significant dispute such things as:
(a) atmospheric CO2 captures heat that would otherwise radiate into space;
(b) tiny parts per million increases in atmospheric CO2 (as small as 100) can make a big difference to the Earth's retained heat equation that can alter the balance of frozen water, dramatically increasing sea levels (spoken of in terms of 10s of metres over sufficient human time-scales), alter the climate permanently in many parts of the global including increasing average temperatures and reducing rainfall in SE Australia - over very long time scales of over 1000 years;
(c) man-made CO2 is having those very effects to our detriment observable even now in Antarctica, and even more so long term.
With people who claim to be "climate skeptics" (such as your good self) I do not ask them for their opinion. I rather imagine their opinion is as lacking in any real knowledge as my own about the actual science. Rather, I ask them for the source of their opinion. It often turns out the source of their opinion are science nuff nuffs like Lord Monkey or Jonova (the journalist). I have yet to have a climate skeptic refer me to a published scientific article that in any serious way refutes points (a) to (c) above. This is a pity because if only the climate skeptic could refer me to a real piece of science I could begin to take their so-called skepticism seriously.
Wow. Stop the press. "Believers" will believe and skeptics won't. What does this really mean for the science? As I am informed increased heat increases clouds which, presumably, would decrease UV rays hitting me on the ground so I can imagine (without knowing) that global warming might actually reduce the risk of skin cancer. But as I know nothing about what actually happens to UV rays that hit clouds or skin cancer I am just guessing. (Oh, and anyone who thinks real scientists "believe" anything as opposed to postulate best theory fits to the available evidence is doing it wrong, so I don't like the question much).
Maybe "believers" thought when answering the question that if the North Pole icecap melts then, you know, cause and effect thingy, this might suggest that the Earth had warmed quite a bit and,you know, the warmth of the water globally would have expanded also such that, since global sea levels apparently are rising and the North Pole ice cap is melting, such that the answer to the question, taking everything into consideration, is that yes sea levels will rise even though the density of ice is less than the density of water (ice floats I know!).
Where here talking about "climate change". Try telling us what is so unscientific about IPCC 5 that you cannot accept its fundamental propositions - you old lefty you. Please refer to the scientific paper that supports your supposed "science", if that is not to much to ask.
Kahan is guilty of a category error. Global warming "believers" do not have to know "the science" any more than TV "believers" have to know how a TV works to bring us vision of live football matches in our own lounge room. Global warming "believers" and TV "believers simply accept what consensus science concludes (but TV viewers have the added advantage of "seeing" as well, whereas GW believers can only "feel").
It is therefore ridiculous for Kahan to require GW believers to explain the science. What those who accept the science should do is simply ask those who do not accept the scientific consensus to explain the source of their so-called scientific opinion. Go for it Toddy. As you would say "It's just good manners really" to explain the source of your unusual scientific opinion if you want to be taken seriously.
- Banned
- #3,768
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
Leading Climate-Denier Harvard Scientist Caught Accepting Bribes from Fossil-Fuel Corporations as well Koch bros.
New York Times
Leading Climate-Denier Harvard Scientist Caught Accepting Bribes from Fossil-Fuel Corporations as well Koch bros.
New York Times
Last edited:
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I think you are completely missing the point
- Banned
- #3,771
not that i been followin it
but apparently the scientist taking brides
was the climate change deniers 'go to' guy ?
but apparently the scientist taking brides
was the climate change deniers 'go to' guy ?
More allegations against NASA. Its not like they don't have form. Amusing that some actually believe what governments tell them re AGW.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-22/republicans-investigate-nasa-over-climate-data-tampering
California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher exclaimed "expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise."
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-22/republicans-investigate-nasa-over-climate-data-tampering
California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher exclaimed "expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise."
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
But a scientist paid by a government with a massive interest in a new tax stream is under no pressure to deliver the correct version of the truth?
Yeah, sure. How much funding would climate change scientists get if there was no AGW scare?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
so you are saying there is not an entire industry built up with a vested interest in AGW?
