Opinion Climate change

[El_Scorcho]

Maybe they don't want climate change skeptics writing in their paper because they want to report news and not crazed ramblings from the mentally ill.

 

[Portia]

BUUUUUUUUURN

 

[El_Scorcho]

what can I say i'm a cool guy

 

[StrappingTape]

Maybe they don't want climate change skeptics writing in their paper because they want to report news and not crazed ramblings from the mentally ill.

I would think reporting the facts about the climate and informing readers about developments and arguments from both sides would be what people want like newsltd does. If you consistently publish articles based on outcomes from climate models as fact to your readers and then the real world data turns out doing the opposite people stop reading and buying your paper. Oh andtthats the main issue the mentally ill write for Fairfax and don't report the news.

 

[El_Scorcho]

So so off topic now but strapping tape, denying climate change at this point is like denying evolution. Or gravity. The only people that do it either have a vested interest or are being tricked by someone with a vested interest.

 

[StrappingTape]

So so off topic now but strapping tape, denying climate change at this point is like denying evolution. Or gravity. The only people that do it either have a vested interest or are being tricked by someone with a vested interest.

Hey the climate changes, it always has and it always will no one denies that. The science behind climate change collapsed before Copenhagen and really started going downhill with the Hockey Stick debacle. If you want to believe in it that's fine but your position is based on the output from computer models that have been proven to be majorly wrong. Where's your sea level rises? Where's your temperature rises? What always puzzles me is what it would take for someone who is a rusted on believer like yourself to maybe take a step back and realise what you are so scared of happening isn't in fact happening.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Hey the climate changes, it always has and it always will no one denies that. The science behind climate change collapsed before Copenhagen and really started going downhill with the Hockey Stick debacle. If you want to believe in it that's fine but your position is based on the output from computer models that have been proven to be majorly wrong. Where's your sea level rises? Where's your temperature rises? What always puzzles me is what it would take for someone who is a rusted on believer like yourself to maybe take a step back and realise what you are so scared of happening isn't in fact happening.

Scientific concensus that man made climate change isn't occuring, or at least anything other than a small minority of scientists claiming so.

 

[Zahara]

Climate change is occurring. It's a completely natural thing, and there's no two ways about it. The earth goes through 'weather cycles' where at times the Earth will be warm for long periods of time, and at other times it will be cold for long periods of time. Sort of like a team's fortunes in AFL... However, that being said, human induced global warming, and the enhanced greenhouse effect, the rate of which they are occurring, the causes of it, and the impact it may have are what's being debated and dividing opinion. Not many credible scientists would outright say that it's not occurring.

 

[Forzaport]

Human activities are changing the climate

The evidence is only increasing now, there'll always be sceptics, but the bulk of the data is pointing to human activity as a major contributor to climate change. I'll happily accept that climate change "isn't the result of human activity" if the evidence supported that conclusion, which it currently doesn't.

 

[StrappingTape]

So you take in the now political CSIRO's state of the climate as gospel but ignore that they've got all their predictions completely wrong at the same time? The evidence (not that there's ever been any for co2 besides models) is being shown up more now than ever. Remember we have now come far enough to measure the disaster predictions against the actual observations, there's a reason the ass feel out of the climate change pants around 2007.

 

[Forzaport]

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by "got all their predictions completely wrong". A predictive model(s) being wrong does not mean human activities are not a major contributor to climate change. Far from it. In any case, an unexpected result is still data that can be added to future predictive models. And more data usually means better modelling.

If this is "being shown up more now than ever" maybe you can provide some evidence, such as peer-reviewed research articles or a meta-analysis that critically reviews the available data. I'd be very keen to read it.

I thought the CSIRO website would be a simple yet effective explanation of human activity linking to climate change. If you feel that's too much of a political hot cake, maybe Nature would be better reading for you (Nature: Climate Change)

 

[StrappingTape]

So no matter how wrong they got it, it doesn't matter because humans are still causing this climate change because we simply know it couldn't possibly be natural? A predictive model isn't worth a thing if it can't get anything right. You can keep tuning your model all you want but at the end of the day if the assumptions used in it are completely wrong then it's pointless. As we know with these climate models, they are creating them with the outcome that everything is getting warmer, sea levels are rising and it's all because of co2 yet in the real world there's still 0 proof of any co2 footprint after hundreds of billions of dollars in research.

Hansens original estimate's that if we were to do nothing and let co2 releases go wild and at the worst end we'd be something like 2 degrees hotter by now and that's with 1.5% increase in co2 from humans. We've had since then 2.5% increase in co2 emissions and hardly any temperature rise. The whole basis of this at the start is off by such a magnitude it's ridiculous.

We've had temperature records adjusted multiple times, we've blamed droughts on AGW, we've blamed Earthquakes (haha), we've spent several hundred billion dollars looking for the AGW footprint and nothing. What we do have is model after model who'se output is then studied, reviewed, published and then written about as fact of what's happening. We had the 'ol hockey stick schmozzle, the reefs are dieing schmozzle, the artic ice schmozzle, the 97% of climate scientists agree shmozzle and temperature changes doing nothing unusual than natural variance and still people are pushing this theory. If it were any other scientific theory with this many holes in it it would have been scrapped by now but this one's gone too far with the money train attached to it (just look at the Rio20+ summit - do as we say not as we do) and too many vested interested. Look how stupid we are in Australia with the carbon dioxide tax which won't change the worlds temperature's but it's the fact that people think we can control the worlds temperature's in the first place that shows how stupid it is.

Our CSIRO reminds me of the path the UK's MET office went down, every year they were telling us that it's going to be a long hot summer with record temperatures etc and mild winters. Kept getting it wrong and kept adjusting their data set's (magically always making AGW look worse each time) until they'd ****ed their dataset so much they had to admit it was screwed and rebuild it from scratch.

What I love the most about this stuff is even if there is a irrefutable theory about the sun causing earth temperature changes that comes out with irrefutable evidence to back it up (like an apple dropping from a tree) that no matter what, people will still blame co2. Climate changes, temperatures change, there's no correct or right temperature and I do worry there's kids now going through school thinking there is.

 

[StrappingTape]

Nature Magazine well this respondent sums up my thoughts on the IPCC and that magazine (pretty sure it was the one that did a completely alarmist incorrect and never retracted Poley's/Artic cover in 2009).

1. 2011-07-27 08:17 AM
   Report this comment #25428
   Vincent Gray said:
   I have been an expert reviewer to the IPCC from the beginning (1990). I submitted 1898 comments to the last Report (16% of the total), most of which were rejected out of hand.. There is simply no evidence that increases in carbon dioxide have an adverse effect on the climate. There are only "projections" (they never make "forecasts") from completely implausible climate models "evaluated" (never "validated") by persons with a conflict of interest, since they are paid to produce models. Original observations are rare as also is identification of the observers, the instruments or the variability of the observations. Instead we have "data", the averaged and manipulated results of usually statistically unrepresentative observations. I have been a reader of "Nature": for 71 years and this is the first opportunity I have had to complain about your treatment of climate science. You used to publish my papers but I despair even of this comment.

 

[Forzaport]

So no matter how wrong they got it, it doesn't matter because humans are still causing this climate change because we simply know it couldn't possibly be natural?

That's not at all what I typed above.

A predictive model isn't worth a thing if it can't get anything right. You can keep tuning your model all you want but at the end of the day if the assumptions used in it are completely wrong then it's pointless. As we know with these climate models, they are creating them with the outcome that everything is getting warmer, sea levels are rising and it's all because of co2 yet in the real world there's still 0 proof of any co2 footprint after hundreds of billions of dollars in research.

Sure a predictive model isn't worth squat if the inputs are cactus. Surely though it stands to reason that the modelling is improving and the reliability is getting better. As far as proof goes, I would think that acidification of the oceans is now well established as being highly likely to be caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Hansens original estimate's that if we were to do nothing and let co2 releases go wild and at the worst end we'd be something like 2 degrees hotter by now and that's with 1.5% increase in co2 from humans. We've had since then 2.5% increase in co2 emissions and hardly any temperature rise. The whole basis of this at the start is off by such a magnitude it's ridiculous.

Yeah a lot of things have been said that turned out to be way off the mark, so what? It doesn't mean that all climate science should be disregarded.

We've had temperature records adjusted multiple times, we've blamed droughts on AGW, we've blamed Earthquakes (haha), we've spent several hundred billion dollars looking for the AGW footprint and nothing. What we do have is model after model who'se output is then studied, reviewed, published and then written about as fact of what's happening. We had the 'ol hockey stick schmozzle, the reefs are dieing schmozzle, the artic ice schmozzle, the 97% of climate scientists agree shmozzle and temperature changes doing nothing unusual than natural variance and still people are pushing this theory. If it were any other scientific theory with this many holes in it it would have been scrapped by now but this one's gone too far with the money train attached to it (just look at the Rio20+ summit - do as we say not as we do) and too many vested interested. Look how stupid we are in Australia with the carbon dioxide tax which won't change the worlds temperature's but it's the fact that people think we can control the worlds temperature's in the first place that shows how stupid it is.

If there are so many holes in the theory, there would be several essays, reviews, etc refuting it and it would be based on the available evidence instead of simply rejecting the evidence presented by climate scientists.

And money train? Isn't there more money in just burning more coal? That would make things much easier and cheaper for us. The carbon tax is a shocker but that's another argument altogether.

Our CSIRO reminds me of the path the UK's MET office went down, every year they were telling us that it's going to be a long hot summer with record temperatures etc and mild winters. Kept getting it wrong and kept adjusting their data set's (magically always making AGW look worse each time) until they'd ****** their dataset so much they had to admit it was screwed and rebuild it from scratch.

That's actually a good thing. Admit their mistake and move forward and present something based on good science.

What I love the most about this stuff is even if there is a irrefutable theory about the sun causing earth temperature changes that comes out with irrefutable evidence to back it up (like an apple dropping from a tree) that no matter what, people will still blame co2. Climate changes, temperatures change, there's no correct or right temperature and I do worry there's kids now going through school thinking there is.

I'd hope that if it turned out to be the sun warming the planet, the world's climate scientists would be professional enough to admit as much.

 

[PortBrillance]

climate change is ****ing bullshit. It's not true, just hippies wanting to get some attention. YOU AINT LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD YOU VEGETARIAN DICKHEADS

 

[Andre]

climate change is ******* bullshit. It's not true, just hippies wanting to get some attention. YOU AINT LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD YOU VEGETARIAN DICKHEADS

Haha. Vegetarian's are invariably for stopping climate change, yet one of the offenders is methane from cows. So should we kill them all and save the environment or let them live and damn it?

The problem with the climate change debate is too many people take a black or white position. Is man contributing to climate change? Almost certainly. Are there likely naturally occurring fluctuations also happening? Again almost certainly, always have and always will. The latter makes predicting the effect of the former harder. And even if you could remove them given how much trouble it is to predict the weather a week in advance, models predicting climate decades into the future have to be taken with a grain of salt, not as gospel written in stone.

My biggest gripe with most of the climate change believers (and I believe in climate change and think we need to do something about it), is being so strongly against the one technology that can provide base load power 24 hours a day, rain, hail, wind or no wind below - nuclear. IMO anyone saying they worry about climate change and is against nuclear really just wants to feel good.

Although admittedly nuclear isn't perfect it's the best there is for now. However if I was opposition leader my climate change policy would be simple. Take all money out of renewables and invest $5 - 10 billion in making thorium reactors work at a commercial scale. Unlike a carbon tax it won't just be exporting polluting industries offshore, it'll reduce our emissions and more importantly once nailed reduce the worlds. And if Australia gets their first it'd make back that $5 - 10 billion investment many times over. Not to mention Australia has the most reserves of it.

 

[StrappingTape]

http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ

 

[Dobie G]

Climate change is real and the main cause is not man made, it's the sun.

At school we were taught an ice age was probable which is contrary to the popular global warming theories and now the scientists are saying there is about a 20% chance of an ice-age within 40 years; so rug up and support the Australian wool industry.

Source

"I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," says Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
He shows me recent footage captured by spacecraft that have their sights trained on our star. The Sun is revealed in exquisite detail, but its face is strangely featureless.
"If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he says.
This solar lull is baffling scientists, because right now the Sun should be awash with activity.
"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."
The era of solar inactivity in the 17th Century coincided with a period of bitterly cold winters in Europe.
Londoners enjoyed frost fairs on the Thames after it froze over, snow cover across the continent increased, the Baltic Sea iced over - the conditions were so harsh, some describe it as a mini-Ice Age.
And Prof Lockwood believes that this regional effect could have been in part driven by the dearth of activity on the Sun, and may happen again if our star continues to wane.
"It's a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low," he says.
He believes this local effect happens because the amount of ultraviolet light radiating from the Sun dips when solar activity is low.
This means that less UV radiation hits the stratosphere - the layer of air that sits high above the Earth. And this in turn feeds into the jet stream - the fast-flowing air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather.
The results of this are dominantly felt above Europe, says Prof Lockwood.​

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
More

 

[I Dont Care]

It's all those damn rockets they send up, now we are buggering up the sun

 

[Relativity]

But "the science is settled". We're going to fry. 98% of climate scientists know so. If we get an ice-age it will be because of all the cold air from the melting polar ice caps.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Apparently Qld LNP senator Ian McDonald thinks climate change is a minor matter recycled to denigrate the government.

The Age

Senator Macdonald - who last year slammed Mr Abbott office for excessive control - said many people said to him that the ABC had a ''clear left-Green agenda''.
He said that the ABC went ''on and on about minor matters that are derogatory'', nominating the issue of climate change.

The Age

 

[StrappingTape]

it is

 

[Andre]

Apparently Qld LNP senator Ian McDonald thinks climate change is a minor matter recycled to denigrate the government.

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.

 

[FishingRick04]

Can we just fix global over population also.....

 

[Andre]

Can we just fix global over population also.....

If you fixed it so every country had a birth rate of 2.1 (replacement) than it'd help global warming