Opinion Climate change

[I Dont Care]

Can't stop 'climate change' it's been happening since the year dot. Over population, now thats a different kettle of fish

 

[StrappingTape]

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

We can start by neutering crows fans

 

[Ford Fairlane]

NASA mapped six decades of global warming in this graphic.



Discussion of the topic is here:

NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend

 

[StrappingTape]

lol That graphic and article is more politic's then science but hey if it floats your boat.

 

[raman]

lol That graphic and article is more politic's then science but hey if it floats your boat.

I'm sure you can inform us all on the science, then.

 

[StrappingTape]

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.

 

[I Dont Care]

Imagine if they had this technology back in the last mini ice age, or the middle ages global warming period. People would have been jumping out of castle windows. Of course it was the wood fires and horse shit that was to blame back then

 

[Jim Dixon]

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.

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'.

 

[Alberton Proud]

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

 

[I Dont Care]

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

cat 1....cat 2 is gusts over 125 km/h

 

[Peck]

People believe climate change is real, unfortunately people also believe that mining taxes, and carbon taxes somehow hurt the general public.

Personally I was reasonably skeptical after awareness raising videos, and particularly a guest lecturer who was essentially an idiot. However, I still think it sounds plausable, and I do understand that I have done **** all research into the thing, and even if I had I wouldn't have near the same idea as dedicated researchers.

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.

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 ****ing 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 shit 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.

 

[Peck]

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.

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.

 

[Relativity]

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 shit 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.

Aside from your wildly false assertion that 99% of climate scientists are arguing "that climate change is real and we should stop it...." most sceptics accept that climate is changing. Their scepticism is based around the unproven assertion that this change is predominately caused by anthropogenic means, that it is "catastrophic" as claimed and that we have the ability to stop it. Most of the rest of your post is a political ad hominem and not relevant to the thread topic.

 

[StrappingTape]

Lurk3r, the nicest way I could put a reply to that is that you are way out of your depth and show little understanding of the arguments and what I wrote. I suggest doing some reading up on things to do with climate change and especially the 97% consensus and how that little piece of info came about. Here's something recent to start you off:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/motherlode-part-iii/

 

[StrappingTape]

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'.

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.

 

[Peck]

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.

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.

Also I didn't read anything you said (apart from the post I quoted) as I don't need to. I know what the consensus is, and I don't care enough to out-research the experts or even out-research your fine self. Quite frankly I don't find reading evidence of climate change and its correlation with carbon gas emmisions to be an worthwhile venture.

I'll give you another hint, if you look hard enough and in only the "right" places you can find evidence for pretty much anything without a response to debunk it - Aliens, ghosts, 9/11 conspiracies, flouride in our water to mind-control us - and obviously less ridiculous notions such as your own. The fact that your source is a freaking blog - rather than a peer-reviewed journal - who posts absolute garbage like this: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/fundamental-scientific-fraud/ might help you see that you are reading the "wrong" websites.

Regardless, if it is all bullshit - we aren't really affecting the earth's climate - what have we lost by using renewable energy, and generally cleaning up the world. If it is true, and we continue to **** the atmosphere and increase global temperatures, then I believe we have lose a lot more. Voting against climate change action is the height of a negative freeroll AFIAC.

 

[noffle]

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.

IIRC one of the outcomes of the latest IPCC report was that scientists are now as sure that humans are changing the climate as they are that smoking causes cancer.

 

[Jakko]

Which recent survey was it that showed how low climate change ranked among the concerns of ordinary Australians?

 

[StrappingTape]

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.

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.

 

[Peck]

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 shit 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.

 

[StrappingTape]

"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 shit 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.

I'm now 90% convinced you are a gag account. No I called you a certified moron because you made a smartarse remark and got it completely wrong. If you are not 15 years old you are doing a great job of arguing like one, you just need to add in world peace somewhere and you'll be on the money. Sure there's corrolations everywhere so it must be true, wowsers. For starters the onus of proof is on the side that is pushing the theory, I don't need to go out of my way to prove anything wrong, there's so much evidence now and so many dire predictions that came no where near fruition that it's a pretty sound conclusion to come to. I could be like you but it seems no deal of reality would convince you otherwise that we are all warming to hell, hey you even want to tax carbon dioxide because you want the temperature to drop but then you don't even know what the temperature should be but we should do it anyway. You realise none of those scares you've put in your last sentence are actually coming true yeah?

 

[Peck]

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 ****ed 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.

 

[StrappingTape]

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.

Yes, fires are a natural event or lit by a firebug and nothing to do with climate change, of course temperatures have increased no one says they haven't as the temperature is never a steady 21 degrees for example.

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.

I'm pretty sure you are not dealing in facts here. In your world correlation does = causation but even then the amount of co2 no longer correlates to the pause in warming.

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.

I guess the earths still flat even though someone sailed around it, no one will ever prove to you that it's not flat!!!1!

I wonder what you think Tony Abbott has to do with all of this.[/quote]

 

[Dobie G]

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.

 

[StrappingTape]

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.

Yeah, it's one thing that irks me about the climate change stuff, imagine if all that money spent on worry about something was spent on actual environmental issues.