# Is it OK to jest about global warming?



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

given the consequences of failure, is it ok to jest about it?


----------



## sam76 (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> given the consequences of failure, is it ok to jest about it?




What? Like saying it's a "hot" topic?

LOL


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

lol
I should have asked

Do you agree with wayne's hero - David Suzuki - that politicians who don't act responsibly on CO2 reduction should be held legally responsible ...

and that goes for posters on chatrooms as well


----------



## springhill (11 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> What? Like saying it's a "hot" topic?
> 
> LOL




sam76 please do not "pollute" this thread with corny jokes, this is a very very serious topic haha


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> given the consequences of failure, is it ok to jest about it?




Most definitely. Its a joke. Poor science, poor lacklustre proponents and now poor old kev07 will bore us all the more about it. 

gg


----------



## professor_frink (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> given the consequences of failure, is it ok to jest about it?




of course it is!

I'd hate to live in a world where people can't make fun of a theory about the ultimate destruction of the world as we know it.

Nice work Sam. Keep the cheesy one liners coming


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

Considering it has about as much validity at the flying spagetti monster, it would be wrong to not make fun of it.

On the other hand, taking it seriously is resulting in psychosis, as detailed on the other thread.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

new poll out today that 5% of aussies believe we should ignore GW - 
sad reflection of the intelligence and/or concern for the planet around here that so many agree with the 5% (serious) minority


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> new poll out today that 5% of aussies believe we should ignore GW -
> sad reflection of the intelligence and/or concern for the planet around here that so many agree with the 5% (serious) minority



There is only one sad reflection around here... the single person who voted no.

Reflect on that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> There is only one sad reflection around here... the single person who voted no.
> 
> Reflect on that.



who was that ? lol - I havn't voted 

Hey 
here's a funny joke  
reflect on that 



> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2300597.htm
> 
> *Fears Murray-Darling is about to die	*
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

just to jog your memory on that one wayne,,,
 here's what I predicted 2 years ago ..  on your "Global Cooling" thread 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=69768&highlight=naive#post69768


PS the poster I really enjoyed reading was MIT...  all from around that time as well 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by mit
> If we believe the mainstream science, the worse case is the best case and we have wasted some money cutting back on emissions.  MIT







> Quote:
> Originally Posted by mit
> Weather Forecasters get it wrong due to the "butterfly effect" (chaos theory) not due to errors in their theory. The greenhouse effect is real and the vast majority of scientists believe it to be so....... And the popular press loves controversy and giving a "balanced" view........The people who push Greenhouse gas denial....know this and have been successful in casting doubt on work by people who spend their lives studying the science.....I currently have a simple test. Find out what the majority of scientists believe in a subject and trust that this is what best fits the current data.






> Quote
> Sorry, I only put down half a thought down. Most of the mainstream modelling agrees that there will be further global warming and the effects wont be pleasant, all of the positive and negative feedback effects are NOT 100% known so how bad it is going to get is unknown. It's a bit like Pascal's wager. We can do nothing because of a couple of lone voices we read in the newspaper it is not going to happen or we can believe the mainstream science and try and get something done.
> 
> If we believe the lone voices and they are wrong and the worse case happens then we are f**ked well and truly. If we believe the mainstream science, the worse case is the best case and we have wasted some money cutting back on emissions.
> mit


----------



## professor_frink (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> who was that ? lol - I havn't voted
> 
> Hey
> here's a funny joke
> reflect on that




that's not very funny 2020. I like rivers. Why laugh at one being destroyed? I thought you wanted to save the planet, not laugh at it's destruction

Now here's some good global warming humour. Look out for this in the next lefty scare campaign


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2300597.htm
> 
> Fears Murray-Darling is about to die
> 
> ...




Does this not illustrate my enduring point? GW is the wrong target. general environmental malaise is what we need to be targeting.

Reduced rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin could be due to any number of factors, but it is the taxing of the Murray via irrigation etc which is endangering it.

Once again, selective use of facts exposes intellectual fraud and moral bankruptcy of the AGW agenda.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

here's another joke ;_

on your deathbeds gentlemen ,  please reflect on the fact that you were not prepared to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. 



> Kurt Vonnegut :-  When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

As for pretending you're a greenie, and still protesting against action on GW

now there's the best joke I've heard all year


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> As for pretending you're a greenie, and still protesting against action on GW
> 
> now there's the best joke I've heard all year



Hahaha! I am impervious to your puerile barbs. I sleep well at night having done my bit. 

You on the other hand, have not the courage of your incorrect convictions and live a lie; shoving AGW propaganda down people's throats while stomping all over the earth with an enormous carbon footprint with your profession. 

I believe it is called cognitive dissonance and the reason your sense of humour is both inappropriate and conflicted.

Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2008)

The environmental movement argues that we should challenge and question practically everything.

Except them.

This sort of thinking is dangerous. VERY dangerous if history is any guide.

Worth noting too that the whole "only authority above god" thing was what gave birth to the environmental movement as a mainstream political force in the first place. Now they're doing _exactly_ what they once opposed - arguing for blind acceptance on the grounds that "this must not fail". All those words sound very familiar...


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> As for pretending you're a greenie, and still protesting against action on GW
> 
> now there's the best joke I've heard all year



Don't confuse environmentalist / sustainability with greenie / conservationist. The two are very different - even prominent conservationist David Bellamy publicly argues that climate change isn't happening in line with the theories.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> and now poor old kev07 will bore us all the more about it.



Sigh.  Ah, yes, and he isn't even in full flight yet.   
All sense of reason and perspective seems to have been lost.  Everything is Garnaut.   Even Brendan Nelson is making relative sense.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

here's another great joke ...

lost opportunities - thanks Johnny 

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2301635.htm


> Andrew Blakers is the director of Sustainable Energy Systems at the Australian National University and says Australia is lagging behind.
> 
> He says the previous government had an appalling track record for renewable energy,


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> here's another great joke ...
> 
> lost opportunities - thanks Johnny
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2301635.htm




Well here is the cost of taking "opportunities" vis a vis sustainability.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiodevastationHunger.php


----------



## doctorj (12 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> given the consequences of failure, is it ok to jest about it?



Not if it offends a 'pilgrim'


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2008)

well I've voted other ..  comes down to this I guess...

"TELLING A JOKE TO YOUR SICK MUM
versus TREATING HER SICKNESS AS A JOKE"

I expand on the theory on the poetry thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=313810


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2008)

Well here's a real climate change joke - and it's from Greenpeace themselves. So it seems that jokes about it are fine.

Greenpeace have once again broken into a coal-fired power station and climbed the stack in order to conduct a protest.

"We'd like to hear the Prime Minister commit to have this station closed down before the next election..." they say.

What's the problem? It's just another Greenpeace power station stunt. The plant is very near the end of its life anyway so will be closed whether Greenpeace protest about it or not. The whole thing is just a sad case of campaigning for something that's going to happen anyway in order to convince their supporters that they're actually making a difference when in this case they clearly aren't.

And it's not the first time either. They once broke into a plant in Victoria and "shut it down". And indeed it was shut down - more than a decade earlier.

In political terms, these fools make Labor and Liberal seem incredibly honest in comparison. Fair enough if you want to protest, but make it something genuine rather than this cheap nonsense that does nothing apart from fooling your own supporters thus keeping the donations rolling in. 

Come on Greenpeace and others, tell the truth. The power industry has never denied that it emits CO2, builds transmission lines and wind farms, tried to build dams in the wilderness or whatever. An impact maybe, but you can't possibly argue that the industry hasn't been open and honest about what it was doing and why. If we're going to do something about the environment then we need honesty, not cheap stunts like this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/12/2301870.htm?section=australia


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2008)

Well, trees transform CO2 into O2 by day, but when night comes, their evil CO2 producing task, begins.  So the moral of the story? - make sure you cut down trees at night.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> What? Like saying it's a "hot" topic?
> 
> LOL




hey sam - If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one, I'd be a millionaire


----------



## Pat (12 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Well, trees transform CO2 into O2 by day, but when night comes, their evil CO2 producing task, begins.  So the moral of the story? - make sure you cut down trees at night.



Thats a good one 2020. I like it .



So many conflicting studies, aguments, hard data.

We only change for profit.


----------



## pedro64 (12 July 2008)

Global warming? Hasn't that term been deprecated, in favour of the more vague and ominous "Climate change".

I am undecided on the issue, but my concern with the climate change debate is that it is based on FEAR. I want to head about the POSITIVES.

Bleh. FEAR is the currency of the 21st centuary ;-)


----------



## Surly (12 July 2008)

I quite enjoyed reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" on this subject.

It threw enought doubt into my mind to look beyond the rhetoric.

On the topic of jokes his point that where ever we have tried to manipulate the environment we have failed miserably come to mind.

cheers
Surly


----------



## wayneL (12 July 2008)

pedro64 said:


> Global warming? Hasn't that term been deprecated, in favour of the more vague and ominous "Climate change".
> 
> I am undecided on the issue, but my concern with the climate change debate is that it is based on FEAR. I want to head about the POSITIVES.
> 
> Bleh. FEAR is the currency of the 21st centuary ;-)



Exactly.

There is an agenda beyond climate.


----------



## wayneL (12 July 2008)

The greatest joke of all is the absolute mind boggling hypocrisy of AGW protagonists.

On the one hand they froth at the mouth about how we all have to live like cave men and women to stop our planet turning into a boiling watery broth of floating corpses, deserts and ruined infrastructure continuously blown about the globe by massive hurricanes that will encompass entire hemispheres.

On the other hand, their own "carbon footprints" outsize the most strident hedonist.

* Our own klaxon, 2020, refuses to alter his hugely carbon emitting and carbon emission facilitating profession of building infrastructure for those paragon-ly polluters, the large mining companies.

* Fear monger and profiteer in chief, Al Bore, still lives in a huge energy gluttonous mansion, travels by jet and limousine motorcade and has profited nicely from the gullible masses. In the making of "An Inconvenient Truth" indulged in the most disgusting intellectual dishonesty and trickery (eg Polar Bear fiasco) and the most disgraceful junk and downright dodgy science imaginable in order to achieve the maximum fear possible.

* The IPCC, in the most appalling effrontery, conducts their meetings at luxury South Pacific resorts, the resorts themselves are hugely energy gluttonous and are only accessible only by jet travel, for which each and every member must travel vast distances by polluting and carbon belching jumbo jets. They promulgate a vast number of falsehoods and manipulations of data to continue the lucrative gravy train they are all on.

* Politicians perpetuate the dishonesty to promote so called "green taxes" which are nothing more than revenue grabs and have shown to be so.

If there was any true concern, a change of behaviour would be evident from those who are allegedly most concerned about it. Yet these people refuse to lead on the very issue they lecture us about and continue with lavish lifestyles. It is no wonder the plebeians are catching on to this disgusting fraud.

Yes it is a joke as the protagonists laughingly roll about in pools of public money and cynically manipulate the public for all it is worth. But the joke is wearing thin and the joke is nearly up.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2008)

Here's a good one
but - make sure you watch it to the end if you want to get his real message  

"plastic !!"  

 George Carlin - Saving the Planet


----------



## wildkactus (13 July 2008)

In the 70's it was global cooling,
now its global warming / climate change
So what will it be in another thirty years. we need to pollute more!!!

This is just one big con / joke being pulled by the scientific community.

Also what happen to the Ozone layer that was going to destroy the world.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

wildkactus said:


> Also what happen to the Ozone layer that was going to destroy the world.



we acted


----------



## wildkactus (13 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> we acted




did we or did the money run out from the companies promoting the replacement to CFC's


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

wildkactus said:


> did we or did the money run out from the companies promoting the replacement to CFC's




we legislated against wasteful use thereof - did the trick. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer


> Regulation
> On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.
> 
> On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs.[4] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

> The only rules comedy can tolerate are those of taste, and the only limitations those of libel.
> James Thurber




Incidentally, the title of this thread is pretty close to what I found on another internet forum.  



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> On the other hand, their own "carbon footprints" outsize the most strident hedonist.
> 
> * Our own klaxon, 2020, refuses to alter his hugely carbon emitting and carbon emission facilitating profession of building infrastructure for those paragon-ly polluters, the large mining companies.




wow wayne ! - that's mean !

PS I've addressed this on the poetry thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=314125

And of course on other threads ...  (prior to Tim Flannery's suggested artificial volcanoes)



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> prof fink, If you're saying Wayne's comment was a hypothetical, then so was mine I guess:-
> Wayne :- If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style
> Julia :- I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents .. much of the population.
> Wayne:- It was only partly facetious.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

apologies, herewith the link to quote mentioned in previous post - my reply to prof frink. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=237973


----------



## explod (13 July 2008)

I think that this is an absolutely disgusting thread.

Global warming is happenning, yes it has happened before, it may be wrong and overstated, but if it is right then the egg on the face is insignificant to the sufferring of your Grandchildren.  Should we perhaps not err on the side of caution and do everything we can to do those things that will go away from the use of those things that MIGHT cause global warming.

I think the real problem is overpopulation.   The real joke was Peter Costello setting up a scheme to entice people to increase the number of children.  Such concepts made people believe that the whole issue is a joke.  A bit like the smirk on his face, probably had a lot do do with the loss of face in that government.

I think it is time to look seriously at alternatives


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

explod said:


> I think the real problem is overpopulation.   The real joke was Peter Costello setting up a scheme to entice people to increase the number of children.  Such concepts made people believe that the whole issue is a joke.  A bit like the smirk on his face, probably had a lot do do with the loss of face in that government.
> 
> I think it is time to look seriously at alternatives



It's a hard sell that the alternatives are contraception and abortion when most are expecting a few panels on the roof to be sufficient.


----------



## pedro64 (13 July 2008)

explod said:


> Should we perhaps not err on the side of caution and do everything we can to do those things that will go away from the use of those things that MIGHT cause global warming.




"Doing everything we can" entails significant policy measures such as:
* Building nuclear reactors.
* Increase coal export tariffs.
* Reduce food production/exports.

If climate change is an important challenge, why aren't the government, or the opposition parties, promoting similar policy?


----------



## spooly74 (14 July 2008)

:nono:


----------



## Family_Guy (14 July 2008)

I heard that Mars warmed more than we did over the last 10 years......and they dont have anyone there.

The same people who think there is mass global warming and the sea levels will rise so much that nearly every seaside city will disappear in the next 100 years, are the same stupid fools who thought David Hicks was innocent and should have been bought home, and the Shappelle (sp?) Corby was an innocent person and Y2k.......they are all the same people and in my opinion most of them have arts degrees and like to protest.

IMO, David Hicks should have been shot on site, Shappelle should have hung and arts degrees should be double the price.


----------



## Pat (14 July 2008)

Family_Guy said:


> IMO, David Hicks should have been shot on site, Shappelle should have hung and arts degrees should be double the price.



LOL!!!
GW is real, It's wether we're causing it or not, thats the great debate from what I can see. Temperetures will fluctuate, just like the market and my better halves mood


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

Family_Guy said:


> I heard that Mars warmed more than we did over the last 10 years......and they dont have anyone there.



Yeah but.... we've been sending up those rovers; effectively little cars. That's obviously the reason Mars is warming. WE'RE CAUSING IT:


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2008)

Let's face it fellas, we are lousy team players .

I guess I can force myself to smile at that particular joke - damned if I can laugh though.

As for posters who claim it's not getting hotter,   that's plain :screwy:

like this post for instance :-


wayneL said:


> Considering it has about as much validity at the flying spagetti monster, it would be wrong to not make fun of it.
> 
> On the other hand, taking it seriously is resulting in psychosis, as detailed on the other thread.




http://environment.newscientist.com...ies-would-you-pick-for-your-climate-team.html



> *Which countries would you pick for your climate team?*
> 17:30 02 July 2008
> NewScientist.com news service
> Daniele Fanelli
> ...


----------



## bassmanpete (14 July 2008)

Some people think life's a joke, but if that's the case, I don't think much of the punch line 

Anyway, I live on a hill. If global warming can make my place a beach front property, then the sooner the better


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2008)

Family_Guy said:


> I heard that Mars warmed more than we did over the last 10 years......and they dont have anyone there.




more old chestnuts. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=143652&highlight=mars#post143652

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/news070402-7.html



> On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day (see 'Mars hots up'). No change in sunshine required.
> 
> To take this disparate hodge-podge of phenomena and try to construct a theory of solar influence from it is the sort of foolishness people get driven to when desperate to support a failed theory, or just for a chance to muddy the waters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (14 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> As for posters who claim it's not getting hotter,   that's plain :screwy:




So you would claim our climate is getting hotter?  Could you supply some verification of this?   The last two summers in Qld have been much cooler than usual.  Ditto the New Zealand weather.
And I note we are no longer being subjected to diatribes from the zealots about "global warming".  Oh, no.  Now to cover all bases, it's called "climate change".  Just so they don't have to justify what they are saying.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

Julia said:


> So you would claim our climate is getting hotter?  Could you supply some verification of this?   The last two summers in Qld have been much cooler than usual.  Ditto the New Zealand weather.
> And I note we are no longer being subjected to diatribes from the zealots about "global warming".  Oh, no.  Now to cover all bases, it's called "climate change".  Just so they don't have to justify what they are saying.




Julia

Some dissent in the scientific community below:

A great article that should be read in its entirety, but note the part of the excerpt that I have bolded. I have consistently encountered this attitude in the scientific community in each and every instance I have had dealings with them; from equine exercise physiology, to archeology, to astronomy, to zoology, to climate "science".

Any dissent from the "popular" dogma, gets shut down in a number of ways... as has always been the case, from Galileo on... and before.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece



> An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
> Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
> 
> When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases....
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2008)

Julia said:


> So you would claim our climate is getting hotter?  Could you supply some verification of this?   The last two summers in Qld have been much cooler than usual.  Ditto the New Zealand weather.
> And I note we are no longer being subjected to diatribes from the zealots about "global warming".  Oh, no.  Now to cover all bases, it's called "climate change".  Just so they don't have to justify what they are saying.




Julia
try reading some of the evidence - eg NASA website - and their graph posted here :-  (not as if we haven't been through this 20 times) 

Also NASA's graph (below) - the right hand one - compared to what a dishonest doco (The Great Global Warming Swindle) can do with the evidence - YET  CLAIMING TO COPY NASA GRAPH! lol   I mean , they couldn't lie straight in bed !

ABC's Tony Jones riped that doc to shreds if you recall.  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=234864&highlight=nasa#post234864

as for whether every year must show an increase - no that's not the way it works - it's the trend that's the worry.   And the global average, not just Qld.  We are currently in a lul in the solar cycle - and when it peaks around 2011, 2012, 2013 whatever as I've said before, I'm betting it will be globally hotter. 

As for "global warming" vs "climate change" ?- whatever - interchangeable in my books - as long as we understand that one is the cause and the other the symptom.

(as for claims of urban sinks etc - the oceans are getting hotter - incontrovertible)


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> (as for claims of urban sinks etc - the oceans are getting hotter - *incontrovertible*)




This is how you make an utter fool of yourself. The Argo Project shows no warming in the oceans at all. And only doesn't show cooling because of "recalibration" (uhuh!) of the data.

Either way, the sample size is statistically insignificant and no claims can viably made either way.

Yet another example of climate change idiocracy.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2008)

> ...Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.



Thanks, Wayne.   I have read plenty in similar vein.  The same attitude is played out verbally as well.  When Michael Costa (NSW Minister) quite vociferously expressed his distrust of the apocalyptic tone of Garnaut's report, he was derided and ridiculed as a "climate change denier".  The tone of voice from Garnaut and his supporters here is similar to that which one would use in describing a pest such as a cane toad.

I think this is another reason I dislike that whole bunch so much:  they are so patronisingly superior in their zealotry, so intolerant of anyone whose opinion should be equally considered.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2008)

thought for the day .... 

Sir David Attenborough ..
admitting that , in making his documentaries, he contributed to the problem ....

"what happens next is up to us"
"man himself is now a destructive force"
"we are fortunately flexible, and can change our ways - and must change our ways" etc 
 Attenborough convinced about global warming


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> thought for the day ....
> 
> Sir David Attenborough ..
> admitting that , in making his documentaries, he contributed to the problem ....
> ...



:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Same ol' same ol'

I'll bet you Attenborough lives in a big ol' house, drives a big ol' car and is a carbon "big foot"... just like Al Bore and the rest of the IPCC gravy train.

Sir Dave is a nice old guy and does great docos, but knows nothing about climate science... and at worst is a monumental hypocrite just like BHP bridge Engineers, Al Bore, & et al.

No substantive addition to the debate here... just regurgitated junk science.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> .. hypocrite just like BHP bridge Engineers, Al Bore, & et al..



not to mention that idiot David Suzuki 

but Wayne - you aren't a hypocrite, because you do your best to reduce your carbon footprint yes? 

Then , the question becomes ...

Why do you bother?


----------



## Pat (15 July 2008)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/06/table-of-contents

A great article, with some pretty pics for all those backseat scientists out there.
Has anyone here actually seen/studied the 'said' effects of this warming?


----------



## Snakey (15 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:
> 
> Same ol' same ol'
> 
> ...



 Sometime you got to spend something to save something. How many people went out and bought energy saving light bulbs after watching "Al bores" movie?


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> No substantive addition to the debate here... just regurgitated junk science.




In your opinion wayne, in your opinion.

By the way, I just thought that the politeness of a gentleman like David Attenborough, admitting the error in his globe trotting ways , and admitting he came at this topic as a sceptic, but left convinced, after which he gave a reasoned argument  -  made an interesting juxtaposition with Julia's post ..  viz



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> " they are so patronisingly superior in their zealotry, so intolerant of anyone whose opinion should be equally considered."




PS I really like Suzuki's proposal (btw) to hold politicians legally liable if they ignore global warming and its effects  - laughable and paranoid as you claim it all to be. 

I should ask the simple question,   Are either you or Julia the least bit concerned that the arctic ice is melting (and quickly), and that the antartic icesheets are breaking up?  

obviously not.


----------



## Pat (15 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I should ask the simple question,   Are either you or Julia the least bit concerned that the arctic ice is melting (and quickly), and that the antartic icesheets are breaking up?



2020 this is the most alarming by far. To think that this 'melting' can occur in super short periods of time.

And to add to that, a mate of mine is studing geology ATM, there leaning this GW stuff and its effects at uni now. 

My above article shows some historical images of massive amount of ice, the difference today is amazing.....


Also,

I'm very confused by the debate, no, argument here.
Are there people on the forum who are not convinced by climate change?
Initially I thought the discussion was revolving around who's at fault, us or mother nature.

Are some people upset that the human race may bear the blame? Some evidence seems to point that way. In the end, we shall never ever know.

Perhaps beliveing it is the humans who inhabit Earth, will instigate a cleaner future???
Or is this thinking too positive or ideal?


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2008)

Snakey said:


> Sometime you got to spend something to save something. How many people went out and bought energy saving light bulbs after watching "Al bores" movie?



I had energy efficient lights before most had even heard of Al.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2008)

Pat said:


> I'm very confused by the debate, no, argument here.
> Are there people on the forum who are not convinced by climate change?



For me it's really a question of politics. Some say climate change is a massive, urgent threat. Those same people tend to be the ones who most strongly oppose the actions needed to reduce emissions. 

Make your mind up. Either it's critically urgent and we have to do whatever is possible to address it (in which case it's nuclear, wind and more dams) or it's not so urgent and requires action in a few decades time or not at all (in which case we likely won't need nuclear).

As it stands today, most who are making a big fuss about the issue are, in practice, members of the anti-everything brigade. I'll change that opinion when I hear environmentalists start talking about building actual solutions rather than calling for trivial projects that do nothing beyond the feel good factor.


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> not to mention that idiot David Suzuki
> 
> but Wayne - you aren't a hypocrite, because you do your best to reduce your carbon footprint yes?
> 
> ...



Further evidence that you don't actually listen.

The reason is that my overriding concern is pollution. I've said this at least a hundred times already. Humans are are having a far greater impact on the planet than by squirting a bit of CO2 in the air.

With the harmless CO2 comes a number of noxious substances, but also my focus is on non-co2 related pollutants.

The reason I agin the AGW nonsense is because everyone focuses strictly on CO2 emissions, and merrily pollutes the world with all manner of other crap.

Missus and I work a bit with wildlife and we see the result. 

That my narrow-minded friend, once again, is why.

An that is why I still have respect for that idiot David Suzuki. He's wrong on anthropogenic CC, absolutely dead wrong on the politics of CC, but right on a so many other things. And at least he somewhat walks the talk, unlike the IPCC gravy train-ers.

I prefer to think of my total footprint.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2008)

:headshake:headshake







Smurf1976 said:


> F
> As it stands today, most who are making a big fuss about the issue are, in practice, members of the anti-everything brigade. I'll change that opinion when I hear environmentalists start talking about building actual solutions rather than calling for trivial projects that do nothing beyond the feel good factor.




Now, ain't that the truth!.  I have long maintained that there's a section of our population which is simply basically angry.  They find it pretty hard to legitimately disperse this anger.  And then along comes A CAUSE!!!
Well, whoop de do!  Just what we need, brothers!   Let's get in there and whip this one up.   Eventually some sort of compromise will be reached with carbon trading, and the issue (a bit like GST to really oversimplify it) will ease its way into our acceptance.  

So then the anti-everything brigade will be on the loose again, desperately seeking something to rage about.


----------



## Family_Guy (15 July 2008)

Julia said:


> :headshake:headshake
> 
> Now, ain't that the truth!.  I have long maintained that there's a section of our population which is simply basically angry.  They find it pretty hard to legitimately disperse this anger.  And then along comes A CAUSE!!!
> Well, whoop de do!  Just what we need, brothers!   Let's get in there and whip this one up.   Eventually some sort of compromise will be reached with carbon trading, and the issue (a bit like GST to really oversimplify it) will ease its way into our acceptance.
> ...



Which is basically what i said earlier in the thread. Only course of action against the anti's is to double the arts degrees fees.


----------



## Pat (15 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Make your mind up. Either it's critically urgent and we have to do whatever is possible to address it (in which case it's nuclear, wind and more dams) or it's not so urgent and requires action in a few decades time or not at all (in which case we likely won't need nuclear)..



Urgent? 
I never thought of it like that. Nothing is urgent, unless we make more money from the change it'll take a war or something. 
IMO GW its something we can't stop, climate change is natural, we just might be enhancing its speed, but so what? It's still coming. 
What I do see is an opportunity for education. It's facinating to see our world change before our eyes, and sad at the same time.

I'm sure theres worse out there then pesky fanatical scientist enviro nerds trying to "save the world".


----------



## Pat (16 July 2008)

Pat said:


> Urgent?



 After thinking about it for a little longer... It's not urgent. But we need to change sooner or later. I would say its "cheaper" to make more of a change now than in the future.

Is there a poll yet about its urgency?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2008)

Pat said:


> After thinking about it for a little longer... It's not urgent. But we need to change sooner or later. I would say its "cheaper" to make more of a change now than in the future.
> 
> Is there a poll yet about its urgency?




 there are two m8 - well aproximating to your topic of "urgency" - 
Heck one is closed - feel free to open another.
Whether or not a few here are bored by the topic - 
it is still the hottest of topics - a sam said. (no smiley) - and the mst important.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9468&highlight=IPCC

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9058

PS Those universities teaching that GW /CC is real - what would they know ? 

Personally I'm confident there will be a lot of red faces amongst the deniers here in the short term  future, let alone the medium term (let's start with the easy ones - polar melting as you say) etc


----------



## Pat (16 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Those universities teaching that GW /CC is real - what would they know ?
> 
> Personally I'm confident there will be a lot of red faces amongst the deniers here in the short term  future, let alone the medium term (let's start with the easy ones - polar melting as you say) etc



LOL! They know the oceans are rising and the ice is melting, the melting ice aint sea ice, so if the melting continues, and feedback mechanisms take hold. We may see another few feet added to the sea level in decade or so.
It will become urgent when the rich who live on the beach start losing there houses to the sea. Already happening on the NSW Central Coast.


----------



## BillyIdol (8 February 2009)

Yes, like Jeremy Clarkson did on his recent tour.

On freezing British weather: "There are too many green people in the world and they're not buying enough Range Rovers to warm it up.''

On Top Gear's climate concerns: "We don't have a carbon footprint. That's because we drive everywhere.''

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25010789-5012980,00.html

When (if) a carbon trading scheme hits, I can imagine the various financial groups greedily eyeing off the rights to trading conduits produced therefrom.  Ticket clipping, if you will.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2009)

BillyIdol said:


> Yes, like Jeremy Clarkson did on his recent tour.
> 
> On freezing British weather: "There are too many green people in the world and they're not buying enough Range Rovers to warm it up.''
> 
> ...




I think the average aussie punter could'nt give a flying about trading credits?
The question is and will be for all of your days

Do you want to eat?


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

I heard the PM of Tuvalu on the radio today ...
To be honest he'd gone beyond the recent hype about going 100% renewable ... and was warning that we (Aus and NZ) could expect to see them knocking on the door soon as "environmental refugees"

(Can't find the link to the ABC interview however.) 

I can tell you, he's not joking about global warming 

(Having worked in the nearby islands, I know how delicately balanced the fresh water reserves are - bores usually located dead centre in the island etc...
and now, as they go saline ,  it's just a matter of time apparently before everything dies. (coconut trees already dying etc).  

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/20/2630727.htm


> Tuvalu has set a goal of a 100% shift to renewable energy by 2020, hoping to set an example to industrialised nations to cut greenhouse gases it blames for rising sea levels




http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm


> "We live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us."
> 
> -Saufatu Sopoanga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003
> 
> Tuvalu is one of the places on earth that is most vulnerable to the affects of global warming. The threat of sea level rise may bring complete disaster to the 10,000 Tuvaluans residing on nine extremely low-lying coral atolls.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I really like Suzuki's proposal (btw) to hold politicians legally liable if they ignore global warming and its effects






> may bring complete disaster to the 10,000 Tuvaluans residing on nine extremely low-lying coral atolls



I think we are looking at a twist in the tale of Johnny Howard's "Pacific Solution".   

Might be about to go into reverse for instance.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> As for pretending you're a greenie, and still protesting against action on GW
> 
> now there's the best joke I've heard all year



A good portion of mainstream environmentalists would easily fall into that category. Uranium, LNG, dams, wind turbines and so on - it's "environmentalists" who stand in the way of clean energy.


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I heard the PM of Tuvalu on the radio today ...
> To be honest he'd gone beyond the recent hype about going 100% renewable ... and was warning that we (Aus and NZ) could expect to see them knocking on the door soon as "environmental refugees"
> 
> (Can't find the link to the ABC interview however.)
> ...



He has been mislead about Tuvalu's problems. Slight sea level rise observable is at the same rate since the little ice age. It has not accelerated.

Tuvalu's main problems have been from natural subsidence and soil compaction due to farming practices. That is the inconvenient truth.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 July 2009)

The way I see it, the original question is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Should those who disagree or wish to mock a scientific theory be allowed to do so?

That's a very dangerous question to even be raising in my view. Without dissenters from mainstream thought, man would have achieved very little over the past few centuries.

For the record, I don't recall the other side attempting to prevent free speech on the issue. They have put thier case forward, as they have a right to do so, but they haven't tried to stop others expressing their views.

With the exception of unofficial groups of individuals, that has basically always been the case in the environmental debate. The loggers, miners, dam builders and so on put their case as they had a right to do. But apart from issues of removing tresspassers on their property, they didn't even attempt to silence opposing views expressed in a peaceful manner. It's not as though those who wrote letters to newspapers, lobbied politicians or held protest marches in city streets were prevented from doing so by those who disagreed.

The very question marks a new low in the integrity of green politics in my view. A direct attack on freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't support one particular view. A very, very dangerous path for Australia or any other democracy to even contemplate.


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The way I see it, the original question is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Should those who disagree or wish to mock a scientific theory be allowed to do so?
> 
> That's a very dangerous question to even be raising in my view. Without dissenters from mainstream thought, man would have achieved very little over the past few centuries.
> 
> ...




Great post Smurf! 10/10 from me.

2020 FYI

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927



> Since instrumentation was installed in 1993 on Tuvalu's main island Funafuti, sea level has shown no discernible trend. There is some inundation evident on islands in Tuvalu, but global warming is not the cause.
> 
> It is the result of erosion, sand mining and construction projects causing an inflow of sea water.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

actually wayne, it's a mixture of a couple of things  ....

rising ( in fact accelerating) oceans (now 3mm per year more or less)
and more severe storms (that accompany hotter oceans) 
waves (storm surgee)  cross the atolls , and the land goes saline - and they don;t have enough fresh water to flush the salt out.

But hey - like I say - If you're so sure that they're wrong - go tell them that! 
 But were I you, I'd wear some sort of a helmet.


----------



## explod (28 July 2009)

Strewth, you closed the polling fast, thread only began on the 11th instant.  Spose you just got a few of like minds to get into it quick before the desenters could catch on, you's voted then closed it all up cosy.

So much for your free speech.


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> actually wayne, it's a mixture of a couple of things  ....
> 
> rising ( in fact accelerating) oceans (now 3mm per year more or less)
> and more severe storms (that accompany hotter oceans)
> ...



That is counter to the evidence.

Show me proof of:


Accelerating sea level rises
More severe storms


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

explod said:


> Strewth, you closed the polling fast, thread only began on the 11th instant.  Spose you just got a few of like minds to get into it quick before the desenters could catch on, you's voted then closed it all up cosy.
> 
> So much for your free speech.




Eh? Who are you taking to?

BTW, look again at the OP date.


----------



## explod (28 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Eh? Who are you taking to?
> 
> BTW, look again at the OP date.




Yep, apologies, I'll go back to deep sleep.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ____________________


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

explod said:


> Strewth, you closed the polling fast, thread only began on the 11th instant.  Spose you just got a few of like minds to get into it quick before the desenters could catch on, you's voted then closed it all up cosy.
> 
> So much for your free speech.




It's an old thread explod (PS sometimes these polls are an interesting "snapshot" for attitudes at that point in time - helps plot trends in such matters etc - just imo of course)

From before the days of the unprecedented Vic Bushfire hazards for instance

btw, I wouldn't joke about it to those firefighters either


----------



## noco (28 July 2009)

Pat said:


> LOL! They know the oceans are rising and the ice is melting, the melting ice aint sea ice, so if the melting continues, and feedback mechanisms take hold. We may see another few feet added to the sea level in decade or so.
> It will become urgent when the rich who live on the beach start losing there houses to the sea. Already happening on the NSW Central Coast.




Your statement is ludicrous to the point of being comical.
I lived in Brisbane for half of my life and our family would spend our two weeks annual holidays and some long weekends at Palm Beach before and after World War 11. 

Palm Beach then used to be 100 yards wide, with only a hand full of house built on the sand junes. The main road was scattered with houses along both sides with dense bush west. There was one grocery store and one hotel and no other shops.

My father was offered a block of land on the sand junes for 40 pounds          ( A$80.00) which he refused because even in those days we experienced cyclonic type weather where the sand junes would disappear into the sea and bingo, no beach. When the weather abated the the sea would settle  down and the south easterly winds would blow the dry sand back up and restore the sand junes to their original state and  once again we would see a 100 yard wide beach and quite often sand on the main road.

However, along came greedy developers and naive councillers  and buyers who allowed houses to be built on the sand junes. Along came the bad weather once again and those house were threatened of being undermined, resulting in costly rock walls being constructed to save their houses. At that  time the owner was responsible for the cost of the rock wall.

The solution at the time should have been a 100 yard  wide buffer zone to have allowed nature to take it's course. This is what should have been gazetted on the central and northern NSW coast and at Noosa. Fingal, Ballina and beaches down to Port Macquarie were all affected.


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> It's an old thread explod
> 
> From before the days of the unprecedented Vic Bushfire hazards for instance
> 
> btw, I wouldn't joke about it to those firefighters either




BTW GW propagandists better start wearing helmets too. I hate being lied to.

Where's the proof? Not models, not assumptions, not selective inclusion of data... PROOF. 

See http://climatesci.org for balance


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> That is counter to the evidence.
> 
> Show me proof of:
> 
> ...




hek
give me the evidence it isn't/ they aren't


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> hek
> give me the evidence it isn't/ they aren't




Ahaha....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Case closed then.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> BTW GW propagandists better start wearing helmets too. I hate being lied to.
> 
> Where's the proof? Not models, not assumptions, not selective inclusion of data... PROOF.
> 
> See http://climatesci.org for balance



you obviously weren't here in January wayne. 
Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
beyond their worst nightmares !!!!


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> you obviously weren't here in January wayne.
> Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
> beyond their worst nightmares !!!!




That's proof January was hot and dry in Australia, and that somebody started fires. That's it.

Ever? Do I really have to float the concept of standard deviation to an engineer?


----------



## noco (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> hek
> give me the evidence it isn't/ they aren't






2020hindsight said:


> you obviously weren't here in January wayne.
> Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
> beyond their worst nightmares !!!!




2020 firstly, storms are no worse now than they were back in the 30's and   40's. From persoanl experience when living in Brisbane it was nothing to  see hail stones as big as cricket balls and to have hail still laying in the yard untill mid next morning. Strong winds associated with those storms would ripe off iron roofs like a can opener. Being a plumber in the mid 40's I repaired many a damaged roof.

My deceased mother often told me of her experience in 1911 when a cyclone hit Port Douglas and she, her mother and three sisters crouched under the large and strong  wooden kitchen table while the house literally collapsed on them. The table saved their lives.

Secondly, bush fires have beem raging in Victoria for as long as I can remember and is something that happens almost every year when hit with a heat wave and high winds.

Did you know, that the Victorian bush fires combined with the cold winds sweeping down from the Himilayas via Indonesia creates the monsoon weather in the northern part of Australia. Without this combination we  would not receive the heavy rains in North Queensland.  

2020 I could tell you a lot more true stories on the weather but it fill this page and quite easily make a mockery of all this Global Warming BS, sorry the ALARMIST are now calling it CLIMATE CHANGE because they are being proven wrong; the climate is cooling but they won't admit it.


----------



## spooly74 (28 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> See http://climatesci.org for balance




Smart family.

Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> beyond their worst nightmares !!!!




From 2003
http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/committee/bushfires/inquiry/subs/sub290.pdf


----------



## Julia (28 July 2009)

I've asked this question before and haven't seen an answer.

For the whole climate change issue to have been so resolutely determined (purely by modelling as I understand it) to be anthropogenic, and therefore for the new religion of the urgent need for an ETS to be so strongly driven by some politicians and a large proportion of scientists, I'd like to know who will be the financial beneficiaries of this scheme?

I keep hearing about the research being driven by vested interests, that the funding for the research will stop if the required results are not produced etc, but what do e.g. the providers of the funding stand to gain by an ETS?

Perhaps there is going to be a market on which the carbon credits (or whatever the units will be called) are traded, but that hardly seems sufficient to back up this messianic zeal for an ETS.

Is the government going to rake in taxes  on this, and if so, will they be in excess of all the compensation that has to be paid?

Or is it as simple as Mr Rudd's urgent desire to swan about at Copenhagen proudly declaring that Australia is leading the world in dealing with climate change?

I feel as though I'm supposed to know the answers to these questions, but I don't, and am puzzled (as well as being irritated by the whole damn thing.)


----------



## queenslander55 (28 July 2009)

Of course it is!

But...I don't think anyone here would disagree that at some time in the future, if the tonnage....that's right...the sheer ever increasing weight of pollutants clogging the biosphere will choke us.  This surely can't be a healthy long term goal for mankind's sustainable future?  Can it?


----------



## overit (28 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
> beyond their worst nightmares !!!!


----------



## Buckeroo (28 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Is the government going to rake in taxes  on this, and if so, will they be in excess of all the compensation that has to be paid?




From KRudds point of view, this would be one of the driving factors. What better way to pay for his excesses in spending than to have a new tax by stealth. And I don't believe for a second, the Government won't be a major benefactor from the very start.

And all this increase in taxes won't be KRudds fault - he will no doubt as always, show a bucket load of sympathy for everyone, but underneath will be rubbing his hands gleefully.

Cheers


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2009)

queenslander55 said:


> But...I don't think anyone here would disagree that at some time in the future, if the tonnage....that's right...the sheer ever increasing weight of pollutants clogging the biosphere will choke us.  This surely can't be a healthy long term goal for mankind's sustainable future?  Can it?




This is where the issue gets totally confused. You are dead right about pollutants. This is a point I have consistently raised on these CC threads. But pollution <> AGW.

While the world is distracted by the nonsense of co2 based AGW, the real, immediate, measurable and proven detrimental effects of other general polliutions get a very minor billing and is virtually ignored.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> This is where the issue gets totally confused. You are dead right about pollutants. This is a point I have consistently raised on these CC threads. But pollution <> AGW.
> 
> While the world is distracted by the nonsense of co2 based AGW, the real, immediate, measurable and proven detrimental effects of other general polliutions get a very minor billing and is virtually ignored.




Yes Wayne it is important to clean up the pollution such as that which contaminates the soil, oceans, and sky. The convenience of Co2 is that it is easily used for brainwashing due to the natural greenhouse effect that the Earth has. Yes the Earth is a greenhouse and I love that fact. It helps me live in comfort.


----------



## queenslander55 (29 July 2009)

Very interesting figures from twelve years ago re estimated weight of pollution output C02 et al.

http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/JGRPennise.pdf


----------



## jbocker (29 July 2009)

I see that this subject does raise some passionate responses. I cannot say if it is global warming or cooling that is currently occurring. However, I would not at all be surprised that we are accelerating a change. 
The Earth has gone through many hundreds (more likely thousands) of sea level rises and falls. What I have been told by a paleontologist that I have worked with for many years’ surprises me and I can hardly believe what he tells me. For those who know Perth, as little as 6000 (six thousand) years ago the shoreline was at the foothills of the Darling ranges! The current lake systems that we have today (Mongers, Gwelup, Goolelal, Joondalup etc) are remnants lakes that at some point would have been similar to say the current Peel region. The limestone areas like Reabold hill, Kings Park and Edgewater were reef systems. 
Further to that about 17000 years ago you could walk to Rottnest Island.

From my understanding we are currently in a relative highstand with respect to sea levels

6000 and 17000 years ago…not a long time, when you compare that Dinosaurs were probably last on Earth about 65 000 000 years ago.

Love it when the media show Ice caps melting, been doing that every year since day dot, they don’t show the freeze over in winter (never as dramatic). But a good account of the freeze can be read about if you follow Shakletons incredible account.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Ahaha....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Case closed then.



all as posted before on this website ...
and discussed in detail  etc etc 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


> Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8  ± 0.4[3] to 3.1  ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due partly to human-induced global warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods[6][7]. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century. Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important,[8] and are more difficult to predict and quantify.[8] Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/11/2513003.htm
Sea level rise underestimated: scientists
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 Gelu Sulugiuc
Reuters



> The UN's climate change panel may have severely underestimated the sea level rise caused by global warming, say a group of climate scientists.
> 
> "The sea level rise may well exceed 1 metre by 2100 if we continue on our path of increasing emissions," says Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, speaking at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen.
> 
> ...



and the future is probably worse than the previous post suggested. 
,,,
as they say ... the future is history


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2009)

Wikipedia... pffffft.

Read ==>> http://climatesci.org/2009/07/05/real-climate-permits-the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

IPCC ... pfffft
just a lot of clowns who fluked a Nobel prize


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> IPCC ... pfffft
> just a lot of clowns who fluked a Nobel prize




Finally, you have seen the light.

IPCC, Nobel committee = Politics

That Al Bore, a proven liar/exaggerator,  is an NL is comical and epitomises the depths to which the Nobel committee has sold out to money and politics.

A Nobel prize confers no credibility at all.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

as for the storms and their frequency , the Tuvalu PM on the ABC's "world today" yesterday (I think that's right) - explained that the frequency of storms is much much higher than it used to be.   He quoted typical bad years from last century, when they were inundated, and went on to say that "now we have them almost every year" (paraphrased).

Whether he's judging them by their power, or by their effect , I don't know.
But hey - I'm not about to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm not about to point him to some website financed by Mobil Exxon to put his mind at rest etc etc etc ...

PS Tell you what - I'm not about to laugh at his predicament either - nor that of the Vic Bushfire victims.

http://www.moyak.com/papers/tuvalu-climate-change.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> That is counter to *the evidence*.
> 
> Show me proof of:
> 
> ...



Wayne
I'm interested in why you exclude IPCC from "the [available] evidence"


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm not about to point him to some website financed by Mobil Exxon to put his mind at rest etc etc etc ...




climatesci.org is not financed by Oil money. It is not a site that positions itself at the diametric opposite of those foolish pro IPCC sites.

It deals in real science, in fact it is pro ACC, but rightly debunks the influence ascribed to co2 by the IPCC.



> Wayne
> I'm interested in why you exclude IPCC from "the [available] evidence"




It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they only consider one outcome and model towards that. The fact that, as proven by science I have posted before, there are not enough available fossil fuel reserves to fulfil their modelling assumptions. The fact that they have spectacularly failed to move their hypothesis into a bona-fide theory. The fact that they have an association with the Gore charlatan and fail to correct his exaggerated propaganda and outright lies. The fact that they are happy to allow him to represent his fiction as an "agreed" reality.

I prefer honest brokers like Pielke and Watts.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

well FWIW, my post #101 also disagrees with the IPCC.
It concludes that they've underestimated the problem. 
(sorry sea level ... I should say "one of the miriad of problems")



> "The sea level rise may well exceed 1 metre by 2100 if we continue on our path of increasing emissions," says Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, speaking at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

... ahhh found that interview finally
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2638573.htm
including the increased frequency of cyclones / storms. :2cents - or maybe you'll only accept :1cent for that one wayne. 



> PETER CAVE: The aid agency Oxfam says Australia and New Zealand need to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.
> 
> It estimates that climate change could result in *75 million refugees in the Asia-Pacific region over the next 40 years*.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ... ahhh found that interview finally
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2638573.htm
> including the increased frequency of cyclones / storms. :2cents - or maybe you'll only accept :1cent for that one wayne.




I don't see much science in that interview, in fact, none at all.

Heresay ==>> useless.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

and equally, like I say, just don't jest with the man 
 unless you're wearing a helmet.


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> and equally, like I say, just don't jest with the man
> unless you're wearing a helmet.




So.... AGW is a reality because someone is a violent man?

We have truly entered the twilight zone.


----------



## queenslander55 (29 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> So.... AGW is a reality because someone is a violent man?
> 
> We have truly entered the twilight zone.




I really think that at this juncture in the debate it is probably appropriate that we all:






...and sit back and enjoy our bourbon and cokes!


----------



## noco (29 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> as for the storms and their frequency , the Tuvalu PM on the ABC's "world today" yesterday (I think that's right) - explained that the frequency of storms is much much higher than it used to be.   He quoted typical bad years from last century, when they were inundated, and went on to say that "now we have them almost every year" (paraphrased).
> 
> Whether he's judging them by their power, or by their effect , I don't know.
> But hey - I'm not about to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> ...




20/20 is the sea rising at Tavulu or is the island sinking?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

noco said:


> 20/20 is the sea rising at Tavulu or is the island sinking?




or is it both.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2009)

Any proper attempt to link sea levels to CO2 would need to take into account water released from aquifers, brown coal etc plus all things dumped into or floated upon the ocean which has directly increased sea levels simply due to the addition of volume. And then it would need to take into account water removed from the oceans and stored in dams. Collectively these are rather huge volumes of water.

I very much doubt those pointing to sea level changes have even thought about the above. If they have, then let's see the numbers...


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

more evidence of that recent trend of 3mm per year again ...
this time the source of info is the CSIRO.   
Having known a couple of CSIRO blokes, both of whom wore sandals lol , I'm guessing it's kosher 

Looks like 50mm in 16 years to me.  (1993 to 2008 incl)
Near enough to 3mm per year. 
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

So Smurf, how would a few containers floating around compare with a thermal increase in volume of the oceans?


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2009)

This from PNG last December (New Ireland) - again storm surge. 

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2445383.htm



> MARK COLVIN: The Papua New Guinea province of New Ireland is still reeling from the huge seas that destroyed coastal homes and villages earlier this week.
> 
> PNG disaster officials estimate that the flooding has affected up to 50,000 people on the New Ireland mainland and the surrounding low lying islands.






> Australian Scientist, John Hunter, happens to be researching sea level rise on a neighbouring island. I called him on his satellite phone.
> 
> *He said while the impact of global warming on the sea level can only be measured in millimetres, an event like this, which happens once every 30 years will only become more regular, such as every 2-3 years by the year 2050. And Australia will not be immune*.




btw, that CSIRO graph shows 2 inches rise 16 years = 3.2mm per year (compared to average of 1.7 mm/yr last century) 

but 3mm per year - I'm guessing that's about the average rate of growth of a person to the age of 50 years.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> 3mm per year - I'm guessing that's about the average rate of growth of a person to the age of 50 years.



 oops - out by a factor of 10 there - apologies. 
Try "averaged to the age of 500",  lol. 

Still next time your 15 year old son lies on the beach near the water's edge - ask him to imagine that, by the time he reaches 75 yrs rolleyes = 60 yrs x 3mm = 180mm) , the water will pretty much have covered his body - just using the current rate!

Of course this could take much less than 60 years considering positive feedback loops and other reasons for acceleration and exponential growth in this rate of sea rise.


----------

