Remove this Banner Ad

Climate Change Arguing

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

HurleyHepsHird said:
No, actual peer reviewed papers published in a reputable journal, where findings are replicable and experiments/meta-analysis or data collection and modelling is performed by experts in the field.

Science isn't just some walnut brained partisan jerkoff, consisting of blogs, hack op-eds and boomer memes.
Click to expand...

Can you point to models peer reviewed in the 1980s and 1990s which have proven to be correct? Note that it requires the increase in CO2 matching the increase in temperatures.

How much peer review still goes on? The other day I was reading a complaint by an Australian scientist who was saying that there is only ever research money for new research. There is no research money for peer reviews anymore, so fewer scientists bother. Instead we get an ever increasing amount of new research which is not being properly tested.

This was across all fields of science, not just climate.
 
Did everyone catch the Democratic Debate last night. Supposedly we now have to fix global warming to save the universe.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

More here: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry


A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.
Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.
According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.
 
The Coalition and state and territory energy ministers
Click to expand...
are facing calls to boost gas supplies in Australia to supplement renewables and build capacity.
University of Queensland Centre for Coal Seam Gas director Andrew Garnett has lobbied federal MPs in Canberra, warning a political debate which pits gas against renewable energy sources is bad for Australian jobs and the environment.

"What we've got now is a narrative that sets up competing interests and doesn't do anyone any good, and then you end up chasing targets that ultimately can raise costs and not benefit emissions," he told The Australian Financial Review.
"Whichever global energy future you look at, if you want to drive down emissions and you want to bring people up the wealth curve, you need gas.
"Gas volumes have to increase to back up renewables."

Professor Garnett, who works as part of several international bodies including the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, has held briefings at Parliament House with the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association to discuss the role of natural gas in Australia's transition to renewable energy and the benefits of carbon capture and storage technology.

A former Shell executive, he is part of a three-year project designed to assist climate change mitigation efforts, and to better inform public debate on carbon capture in Queensland.
APPEA, industry peak body for the natural gas sector, says its members have invested more than $300 billion in new projects in Australia over the past decade and employs about 80,000 people directly and indirectly.
Energy Minister Angus Taylor this month described Australia’s liquefied natural gas exports as helping lower global emissions equal to over a quarter of the country’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
Professor Garnett said new development opportunities were needed in Australia, as well as a consistent approach between members of the Council of Australian Governments energy council members.

"If we get this right, there's a market for our resources out beyond 2040. If countries overseas don't use our resources, they'll probably use someone else's like the US," he said.
"We have to take measures now to stimulate supply, while things are going well. We've done some phenomenal things in the past few years but now we have to take these measures."
"It's not so much that we need these things for economic reasons or revenue, it's also necessary to drive down emissions because of the substitution effect of gas and its back-up effect."
APPEA last week welcomed confirmation by the Northern Territory government that changes to the regulatory framework for the onshore gas industry had been completed, along with a nearly two-year moratorium and subsequent 18-month implementation process.

The Greens moved a motion in the Senate last week calling for a royalty on oil and gas projects around Australia to pay for the government's future drought fund.
Professor Garnett said delays from international and domestic inquiries were slowing down progress.
"What I am trying to do is make sure this discussion doesn't become a competition between competing energy sources. In every way forward, increasing gas supply is critical for Australia and the region," he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/more-gas-critical-to-environment-jobs-20190725-p52arx
 
Yeah sensational - fraccing the ponzi scheme of oil and gas

That without fail f%*#’s off and leaves taxpayers holding the bag when they are finished.

They are about to start fraccing in the midwest where i live - in a region that only has groundwater - no dams no other source of drinking water. I will give you one guess where they want to fracc.

If you guessed where the whole regions underground water source is - 10 points to griffindor.

Now even completely leaving the contamination of water sources argument alone we live in a semi arid area with limited water - what does fraccing require?

Absolute f}#%cktonnes of water.

This region has one of the highest polling levels against fraccing in australia - around 97% but hey - f#%^ democracy right?

We are in the process of building a multiple 100000 l rainwater tank solution for our house - as we have both room and funds to do so.
 

Warm Weather Brings Major Melting to Greenland

Melting was provoked by a bubble of warm air that moved over Greenland after delivering unseasonably warm temperatures to Europe.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov

..........tick, tock.........tick, tock.............tick, tock...............

 
www.politico.com

'It feels like something out of a bad sci-fi movie'

A top climate scientist quit USDA, following others who say Trump has politicized science.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

One of the nation’s leading climate change scientists is quitting the Agriculture Department in protest over the Trump administration’s efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice is losing nutrients because of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Etc
 
kranky al said:
Its winter.

Meanwhile in the northern hemisphere

www.scientificamerican.com

July Was the Hottest Month in Recorded History

After a record-breaking heat wave in Europe and the Arctic, last month edged out July 2016
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
Click to expand...

I have no faith in these so called records. They're always fiddling with the data, changing thermometers when they don't get the reading they want, even changing the site of the official temperature station when it suits. Here in Perth they changed the official site and that led to a few 'records'. Even that didn't bring the sort of results our local BOM AGW fanatics were after so they changed the type of thermometer the site uses and almost immediately we started getting 'record temperatures' again.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

sdfc said:
The data's been fiddled with is such a lazy argument.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'd say that denying it has is the lazy argument. I can still remember the Climategate e-mail revelations.

10 years ago when I discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective with several warmongers I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.

Impacts of human-caused land changes on climate are at least as important, and possibly even more important, than those of carbon dioxide," says Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. His group voted in 2002 to issue a statement almost unanimously concurring that climate changes are more complex than CO2 changes and include land use.
Click to expand...

You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;

Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.

723496
(ORLAND, CA)





723495 725543
(MARYSVILLE, CA)

Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"
 
Last edited:
So your argument revolves around one temperature station and a paper you happen to agree with. That's the problem with confirmation bias.

AGW lines up with what I learnt in high school about how the planet heats. Has that been overturned?
 
sdfc said:
So your argument revolves around one temperature station and a paper you happen to agree with. That's the problem with confirmation bias.

AGW lines up with what I learnt in high school about how the planet heats. Has that been overturned?
Click to expand...

Mate there's plenty more compromised stations but it wouldn't matter if I went through 100 of them. You would be unmoved. That's your iceberg-like unmovable bias.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Remove this Banner Ad

Climate Change Arguing

Similar threads

MC Bad Genius
  • Poll
Which failed PM campaign would you be most interested in seeing history changed for?
Replies
18
Views
808
SBD Gonzalez
SBD Gonzalez

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top