Is it OK to jest about global warming?

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

Tackling climate change calls for global teamwork, but some countries have been less-than-perfect partners.

In order to understand why some nations fall behind in their international climate duties, MichÃ¨le BÃ¤ttig and colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, created a Climate Cooperation Index.

They plan to use it to study what drives a government to cooperate with international climate policy – for instance, if different political systems, poverty, or the expected cost of climate change adaptation make a country a better or worse team player.

They have preliminary results suggesting that countries that have experienced an increase in the variability of their climate are better at cooperating.

Team players
The index is based on five factors: how quickly each country ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto protocol, how often it paid its contributions to the UNFCCC, whether the country submitted its last emissions report in time, and how much it reduced its CO2 emissions relative to per capita GDP.

Among major climate players, the UK and Germany came out on top, while the US and Australia – notoriously reluctant to implement global warming policies – ranked low.

Overall, however, these countries appear somewhat middle-of-the-road. At the top of the 188 country list are Latvia, Micronesia and Slovakia – nations which have both cut their emissions and been diligent with their paperwork. The least cooperative countries are Iraq, Brunei, Andorra and Somalia, which have not ratified climate agreements and also flunked out other categories.

John Vogler of Keele University in the UK says BÃ¤ttig's approach is innovative and could be used in international negotiations. Most of the findings in the study confirm what experts would have guessed, he says, except for one counterintuitive finding: countries who are expected to bear the highest costs in reducing emissions were often the quickest to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

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. :2twocents

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.

The weather elsewhere. What's saddening is that people should miss what these various phenomena really have in common ”” their explicability. They show that our ideas of atmospheric physics are applicable and useful on bodies that range from the tiny (Pluto, the atmosphere of which is hardly worth mentioning) to the gigantic (Jupiter, the atmosphere of which outweighs a hundred solid Earths).

And computer models based on the ones used to study the climate on Earth provide results even when applied to the hugely different conditions on Mars. That is truly impressive.

So what these disparate observations actually tell us is that the scientific community ”” the scientific community that enjoys a firm consensus on the causes of Earthly climatic change ”” has a fairly impressive grasp of the fundamentals of how weather works elsewhere, as well. It's a rather inspiring insight. But it is not the lesson that climate sceptics want their readers to learn

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....

...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.

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 ....

"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

: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'

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.

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?

Is it OK to jest about global warming?

Is it OK to jest about global warming?

Yes

No

Other (see details)

pedro64

spooly74

Attachments

Family_Guy

Pat

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

Attachments

bassmanpete

2020hindsight

Julia

In Memoriam

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

Attachments

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Julia

In Memoriam

2020hindsight

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

Pat

Snakey

2020hindsight

Pat

Similar threads

Connect with us