Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Weatsop]

Actually now I come to think of it, there were no Greens in the State Governments OF QLD, NSW AND VIC at the time.

Nah, they were protesting the desal plants. Can't do that if you're in government, since we and the media expect all members of government to stick to the same lies.


They're also *not* against burn-offs.

Local green groups who don't know their arses from their elbows give the Greens party a bad name, which isn't fair. Or necessary. They're perfectly capable of giving themselves a bad name.

 

[noco]

If someone points out flaws in your argument, try and counter with some research instead of insults.

If you don't understand things that you link to, at least confess your ignorance beforehand.

You have been called out a number of times for posting links to extreme material which have proven to be hoaxes (the Bill Cosby one comes to mind). People are getting the idea that a lot of what you post is not worth a response. For your own credibility's sake, please take a bit more care.

Rumpy, I don't need a lecture from you or anyone else on what I post, what I agree or disagree upon.

You made a statement with reference to insults...I have been back through my posts on this thread and I do not see where I have insulted you or anyone else.....I do make every effort to back up my beliefs and statements with links which is not always to the liking of the poster.

It is always the case with some members on this forum if they don't like what one purports on a thread, they set out to humiliate, belittle and discredit ones character and you my friend are not very far behind.....These are typical tactics used by the ABC and the Labor Party.

I am sure if I have stepped out of line, Joe would be the first to let me know.

 

[Smurf1976]

On the other hand they oppose nuclear power, despite Australia being about the safest place on earth to use the stuff.

"Safest" doesn't mean "safe" and it certainly doesn't mean "economic".

If you look at the situation with nuclear power generally, well it's just not a cheap means of generating electricity. It's big $ even without considering the security etc issues associated with it.

The UK is doing some new nuclear power, but it's known right from the start that it will never be profitable.

Meanwhile the French have realised that a move away from nuclear in favour of renewables makes sense. A lot of their nuclear plants are getting old, and the cost of replacement is just too high it seems.

 

[Weatsop]

"Safest" doesn't mean "safe" and it certainly doesn't mean "economic".

If you look at the situation with nuclear power generally, well it's just not a cheap means of generating electricity. It's big $ even without considering the security etc issues associated with it.

The UK is doing some new nuclear power, but it's known right from the start that it will never be profitable.

Meanwhile the French have realised that a move away from nuclear in favour of renewables makes sense. A lot of their nuclear plants are getting old, and the cost of replacement is just too high it seems.

Yeah, fair enough. I mean, politically it's not really worth talking about, because no-one would let them leave the waste anywhere near them.

Just we could dig it up here, process it here, and store the waste here. We're the perfect spot for every stage - we're about the least geologically active slab of crust there is. If any country could just put down some nice deep shafts to store the gunk, we could.

...and seems like a decent way for a government to subsidise effective action to reduce carbon emissions, seeing as we're too gutless to have an ETS and let the free-market and capitalism handle it.

Always hilarious to see the Libs promoting command economy 5-year-plan stuff, while the Labs and Greens are the free-marketeers. The Labs nicked the Libs' policy, the Libs' picked a new one, and none of their supporters seemed to mind. The Libs supporters HAAAAAATE the ETS - but you can guarantee that most would have loved it if their party had kept it, and called their CURRENT policy a bunch of lefty commie bull**** if the Labs had proposed it.

Humans suck.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yeah, fair enough. I mean, politically it's not really worth talking about, because no-one would let them leave the waste anywhere near them.

Just we could dig it up here, process it here, and store the waste here. We're the perfect spot for every stage - we're about the least geologically active slab of crust there is. If any country could just put down some nice deep shafts to store the gunk, we could.

...and seems like a decent way for a government to subsidise effective action to reduce carbon emissions, seeing as we're too gutless to have an ETS and let the free-market and capitalism handle it.

Always hilarious to see the Libs promoting command economy 5-year-plan stuff, while the Labs and Greens are the free-marketeers. The Labs nicked the Libs' policy, the Libs' picked a new one, and none of their supporters seemed to mind. The Libs supporters HAAAAAATE the ETS - but you can guarantee that most would have loved it if their party had kept it, and called their CURRENT policy a bunch of lefty commie bull**** if the Labs had proposed it.

Humans suck.

We could store the stuff here safely, but it has to be transported here first, from the other side of the world in ships that be hijacked or wrecked on reefs. All that highly radioactive waste on the high seas is not a pleasant prospect when you think about what can go wrong.

 

[Weatsop]

We could store the stuff here safely, but it has to be transported here first, from the other side of the world in ships that be hijacked or wrecked on reefs. All that highly radioactive waste on the high seas is not a pleasant prospect when you think about what can go wrong.

Why? We're perfectly capable of processing it here. I mean, we *don't*, but we certainly could.

---
Hey, whatever happened to Silex?

*checks chart*

....oh. Ouch.

Hahaha, and:

The share slump came just days after “stock pickers” in Fairfax and News Ltd business pages rated Silex as the “best speculative stock” on the ASX.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Still though, that sounds just the sort of thing the Libs should, uh, "nationalise". Hahahaha.

---
Yeah ok. Fine. You talked me out of nukes. The more I read, the more bleh they are.

Hell, it's not like we're short on sun and wind. How are those energy storage efforts going? Heard some cool trickiness with semi-permeable membrane-based batteries. Who's developing those? MUST BUY WILDLY SPECULATIVE STOCK! (Then base all my political beliefs on whichever policies will best impact my portfolio).

 

[Smurf1976]

Just we could dig it up here, process it here, and store the waste here. We're the perfect spot for every stage - we're about the least geologically active slab of crust there is. If any country could just put down some nice deep shafts to store the gunk, we could.

No problem with that, indeed the primary advantage of nuclear power over other sources is that transport distance from mine to power station is virtually irrelevant and a very minor cost.

It's the small physical volume that makes it so. You have a great big tanker load of oil or LNG, or a huge ship carrying coal, or a van carrying some uranium. They all do the same job, but uranium is a lot easier to transport.

Hence the best place for nuclear power, is places that don't have local production of coal or gas. It would be outright crazy to, for example, ship coal from Australia to wherever and then use nuclear power here. Doing the opposite is the rational approach - to the extent we're going to use coal, burn it near where it's mined. Much the same with gas. Let the fuel-poor countries go nuclear.

Personally, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of mining uranium, enriching it and storing the waste in Australia. It's the concept of having reactors here that I'm not keen on. Firstly because they're uneconomic in the Australian context. Secondly because we're not even slightly close to being able to properly manage such an industry in a crisis situation. Leave the reactors to the big boys, we'll just sell them the fuel and, if they pay enough, take back the waste.

 

[SirRumpole]

No problem with that, indeed the primary advantage of nuclear power over other sources is that transport distance from mine to power station is virtually irrelevant and a very minor cost.

It's the small physical volume that makes it so. You have a great big tanker load of oil or LNG, or a huge ship carrying coal, or a van carrying some uranium. They all do the same job, but uranium is a lot easier to transport.

Hence the best place for nuclear power, is places that don't have local production of coal or gas. It would be outright crazy to, for example, ship coal from Australia to wherever and then use nuclear power here. Doing the opposite is the rational approach - to the extent we're going to use coal, burn it near where it's mined. Much the same with gas. Let the fuel-poor countries go nuclear.

Personally, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of mining uranium, enriching it and storing the waste in Australia. It's the concept of having reactors here that I'm not keen on. Firstly because they're uneconomic in the Australian context. Secondly because we're not even slightly close to being able to properly manage such an industry in a crisis situation. Leave the reactors to the big boys, we'll just sell them the fuel and, if they pay enough, take back the waste.

Maybe this will make all that unnecessary

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

 

[Smurf1976]

Fusion - certainly an interesting concept and a real "game changer" certainly.

But fusion has been "just around the corner" for decades now so I'll believe it when I see it actually working in a real world application in a manner that is reliable and economical. I'm not convinced I'll live long enough to see that.....

 

[noco]

And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.

Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...It is a pity the Green/Labor party had not taken some notice of the real scientists......But of course the majority of us know there are not too many smart ones in the Green/Labor alliance.....that is one thing they do know is how to waste tax payers money.

Global warming alarmists panicked gullible Labor governments into building desalination plants with scares like Tim Flannery’s:


So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…

I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis…

Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply…

I’m personally more worried about Sydney than Perth… Where does Sydney go for more water?

No one in the ABC or Fairfax newspapers questioned Flannery’s alarmism, and no political leader dared to:

In 2008, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” ...

In 2007, Flannery predicted ... “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

One premier, Queensland’s Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on a desalination plant, saying “it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate”.

Here is a bit more to digest about Tim Flannery and his so called predictions.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1413593839571

 

[Weatsop]

<quotes Bolt, because... he's an expert or something>

Was feeling so neglected to opted to quote YOURSELF?

...ok...

First, IN THIS THREAD, and you replied so I know you read it, we discussed how one person on a planet of several BILLION saying dopey things is not meaningful in terms of the science. If Flannery says a million things, and you find a hundred that are stupid, this proves absolutely nothing about anything. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove by doing a thing that we already said is meaningless. Are you saying it's not? Care to present an argument? Or are you just ignoring us and talking to yourself?

I'm not really defending Flannery - he says dopey stuff. But seriously, look hard at whether a list of "damning" quotes really is damning:

So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…

Isn't CURRENTLY filling the dams, and won't IF tends continue. "Currently" ended some years ago, and "if trends continue" is yet to be seen. He was right for "currently" - that's exactly what was happening. And we don't know what's going to happen "if trends continue" - but the science does, in fact, tend to back him up on that one.

Keep up!

I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis…

It's the most isolated, and one of the driest cities of its size, on the planet of earth. I'd say that's not an unreasonable prediction.

In any case, we have another 80+ years to find out, so I'm not sure if your quote is self-evidently kickass and I'm just too dumb to understand...?

...you know the 21st century is the one we just started, right?

Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply…

It is. Climate works on (at least) 30 year timeframes. Predictions go out to about 100. Yes, Perth is in some trouble.

We had several cities on extreme water-saving measures (because of course all the quotes you were using came from the drought). What happens if we get a drought much longer? What if it rains even less? These are LIKELY outcomes for SOME areas in Australia.

It doesn't help you that it's raining MORE somewhere else in Australia, if the location of your farm or your city's dams are in one of the parts where it rains LESS.

See how this isn't really a lefty pinko issue? See how we're considering costs to businesses?

I’m personally more worried about Sydney than Perth… Where does Sydney go for more water?

Uh, where DOES it go? It's collecting a massive proportion of the entire runoff for the basin. Where does it go for more water if we don't get enough rain - if the rain moves north, or south, for example? Hint: we let the country town and farms go dry. And if that's not enough, we put in a ton of desalination plants and pay the cost.

No one in the ABC or Fairfax newspapers questioned Flannery’s alarmism, and no political leader dared to:

...does it ever occur to you guys that maybe you're wrong?

You know what people say: if you think everyone ELSE is crazy...

The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009

Quote, from Bolt: "Flannery made this comment in a very brief interview in the March 2008 of Jetstar magazine."

A very brief interview, hmmm? I wonder if it was taken out of context. I mean Jetstar magazine IS very prestigious, and a brief interview IS the best kind, so I guess there's nothing more to know about it. God knows, *I* wouldn't actually doubt Bolt's insinuations and go and READ the article.

Would you?

In 2007, Flannery predicted ... “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

POSSIBLY in AS LITTLE as 18 months. SO DEFINITELY not now, at the very earliest in 18 months.

The drought broke in 2007. "Possibly as little as" is the absolute shortest amount of time it might have been needed. Since the drought broke, obviously we're not looking at the shortest possible amount of time, are we? So can you tell me that, had the drought continued for another 18 months, that some cities didn't need desalination plants to be online within 18 months?

Please show your figures.

...saying “it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate”.

Lower than average rainfalls COULD eventuate. In fact, statistically, lower than average rainfalls ****MUST*** eventuate. For a government, state, and city with an ever increasing population, having an option to cover future shortfalls of rainfall - ***even ignoring climate change altogether**** - seems a pretty prudent alternative to "everyone just stops bathing".


---
You don't need to believe me, but I know a guy who has been on Bolt's show several times. Bolt thinks it's all a big game. He doesn't believe what he's saying - he only knows what gets his audience in a lather. He has no morals, he has no guilt for the negative impact he's had. He just loves the attention, and is paid well for fooling the gullible. He's winning the game, knows it, and loves it.

He is playing you like a fish. He is, most of the time, NOT EVEN SAYING ANYTHING. He just links to an article, give a single line of bait, and watches the feeding frenzy.

And laughs his **** off.

Bolt quoted:

"So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…"

And the VERY NEXT line in Flannery's interview was:

"If that trend continues..."

You can't tell me he didn't know! Hell! At the end of that sentence, after "bush" it was supposed to be a full stop. He put is those coy little dot-dot-dots, because I reckon he loves watching his audience switch their brains off and just woof at his command...

 

[Smurf1976]

First, IN THIS THREAD, and you replied so I know you read it, we discussed how one person on a planet of several BILLION saying dopey things is not meaningful in terms of the science.

There's a difference between some random person making a comment versus someone who is in the public spotlight making a comment.

If you or I make a comment to the effect that the ASX is going to crash within the next 12 months then that's one thing. But if someone from the RBA or even one of the major banks were to make the same comment, well that's very different. A reasonable person would take my comment as just the opinion of an individual, but if it came from the RBA or someone like Westpac then the average person with limited knowledge of the subject will expect that the RBA or a major bank will know what they're on about when it comes to financial matters, have a sound basis for making the statement, and thus take it far more seriously.

Same concept with anything really. Tim Flannery was in a position of public trust and influence on the issue, his comments were thus taken fare more seriously than if some random person had said it.

Lower than average rainfalls COULD eventuate. In fact, statistically, lower than average rainfalls ****MUST*** eventuate. For a government, state, and city with an ever increasing population, having an option to cover future shortfalls of rainfall - ***even ignoring climate change altogether**** - seems a pretty prudent alternative to "everyone just stops bathing".

Agreed although desal certainly isn't the only way of doing that. There's huge amounts of water flowing out to sea in northern Australia and also Tasmania so a long distance pipeline is one possibility.

Looking ahead, and I'm not claiming this to be based on science, but it does seem as though we're heading toward another drought in parts of the country. We've got that "rain is forecast a week ahead but disappears but the time it's supposed to fall" pattern back again in some areas. That plus higher than average temperatures mean that the soil is nowhere near saturated - so if it does rain then it doesn't run off to any real extent.

 

[noco]

Was feeling so neglected to opted to quote YOURSELF?

...ok...

First, IN THIS THREAD, and you replied so I know you read it, we discussed how one person on a planet of several BILLION saying dopey things is not meaningful in terms of the science. If Flannery says a million things, and you find a hundred that are stupid, this proves absolutely nothing about anything. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove by doing a thing that we already said is meaningless. Are you saying it's not? Care to present an argument? Or are you just ignoring us and talking to yourself?

I'm not really defending Flannery - he says dopey stuff. But seriously, look hard at whether a list of "damning" quotes really is damning:



Isn't CURRENTLY filling the dams, and won't IF tends continue. "Currently" ended some years ago, and "if trends continue" is yet to be seen. He was right for "currently" - that's exactly what was happening. And we don't know what's going to happen "if trends continue" - but the science does, in fact, tend to back him up on that one.

Keep up!



It's the most isolated, and one of the driest cities of its size, on the planet of earth. I'd say that's not an unreasonable prediction.

In any case, we have another 80+ years to find out, so I'm not sure if your quote is self-evidently kickass and I'm just too dumb to understand...?

...you know the 21st century is the one we just started, right?



It is. Climate works on (at least) 30 year timeframes. Predictions go out to about 100. Yes, Perth is in some trouble.

We had several cities on extreme water-saving measures (because of course all the quotes you were using came from the drought). What happens if we get a drought much longer? What if it rains even less? These are LIKELY outcomes for SOME areas in Australia.

It doesn't help you that it's raining MORE somewhere else in Australia, if the location of your farm or your city's dams are in one of the parts where it rains LESS.

See how this isn't really a lefty pinko issue? See how we're considering costs to businesses?



Uh, where DOES it go? It's collecting a massive proportion of the entire runoff for the basin. Where does it go for more water if we don't get enough rain - if the rain moves north, or south, for example? Hint: we let the country town and farms go dry. And if that's not enough, we put in a ton of desalination plants and pay the cost.




...does it ever occur to you guys that maybe you're wrong?

You know what people say: if you think everyone ELSE is crazy...



Quote, from Bolt: "Flannery made this comment in a very brief interview in the March 2008 of Jetstar magazine."

A very brief interview, hmmm? I wonder if it was taken out of context. I mean Jetstar magazine IS very prestigious, and a brief interview IS the best kind, so I guess there's nothing more to know about it. God knows, *I* wouldn't actually doubt Bolt's insinuations and go and READ the article.

Would you?



POSSIBLY in AS LITTLE as 18 months. SO DEFINITELY not now, at the very earliest in 18 months.

The drought broke in 2007. "Possibly as little as" is the absolute shortest amount of time it might have been needed. Since the drought broke, obviously we're not looking at the shortest possible amount of time, are we? So can you tell me that, had the drought continued for another 18 months, that some cities didn't need desalination plants to be online within 18 months?

Please show your figures.



Lower than average rainfalls COULD eventuate. In fact, statistically, lower than average rainfalls ****MUST*** eventuate. For a government, state, and city with an ever increasing population, having an option to cover future shortfalls of rainfall - ***even ignoring climate change altogether**** - seems a pretty prudent alternative to "everyone just stops bathing".


---
You don't need to believe me, but I know a guy who has been on Bolt's show several times. Bolt thinks it's all a big game. He doesn't believe what he's saying - he only knows what gets his audience in a lather. He has no morals, he has no guilt for the negative impact he's had. He just loves the attention, and is paid well for fooling the gullible. He's winning the game, knows it, and loves it.

He is playing you like a fish. He is, most of the time, NOT EVEN SAYING ANYTHING. He just links to an article, give a single line of bait, and watches the feeding frenzy.

And laughs his **** off.

Bolt quoted:

"So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…"

And the VERY NEXT line in Flannery's interview was:

"If that trend continues..."

You can't tell me he didn't know! Hell! At the end of that sentence, after "bush" it was supposed to be a full stop. He put is those coy little dot-dot-dots, because I reckon he loves watching his audience switch their brains off and just woof at his command...

My dear friend, I have read through your post three times to try to get the gist of your argument, but it is appears to be a meaningless lot of rhetoric without substance, links or references and you are entitled to your opinion.

My theme is Flannery made a lot of incorrect predictions which lead to the three Labor Eastern states at the time being gullible enough to believe this clown without deeper investigations as to whether desalinization plants were necessary.....It would have been far better to have built 3 dams instead of wasting billions of dollars on equipment which are now in moth balls.......But of course we all know once we start talking about dams the Greens step in and do all in their power to prevent them being constructed........they would invariably find some reason to prevent it happening.......you can't build a dam there because it will extinguish the hairy red nosed wombat, or those special green frogs or the lung fish in the Mary river.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...ho-gets-it-wrong/story-fni0ffxg-1226838538089

Whist I don't profess to be an expert on Earth science, I nevertheless took science and physics as a subject in my high days during WW11.......We were taught the basics of how the Earth traversed around the Sun and at certain times the Earth is further from the Sun than other times.......we were taught the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun varies from time to time .......the Suns massive explosions that take place equivalent to thousands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs ...they are called Sun spots which have a strong radiation effect on Earth......We all know the influence of the moon on Earth and how it affects our tides.......so it has always been called climate change which is a natural phenomenon that takes place over thousands of years.......it is only in recent times that certain alarmists lead by Al Gore have tried to imply Global Warming is man made with carbon dioxide emissions.......Al Gore set up a massive corporation throughout the world to trade carbon emissions and planned to make a mint out of it and yes he had a lot of followers including the UN Secretary General, Bank-ki-moon who is devoted Greenie.

In my life time I have witnessed lots of climate change......In my working days in South Western Queensland I experienced , drought, fires and floods and nothing has changed today....there are so called scientist out there trying to make us believe and there are scientist who whole hardheartedly disagree.......We also learned a poem by Dorothy MacKellar.

“I Love A Sunburnt Country”

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of drought and flooding rains,
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me.

So there you have it ....you can take it or leave...we can agree to disagree.

 

[explod]

Noco, I give you credit for your efforts in trying to come to terms with climate change in the way that you wish.

However in spite of that, the normal that you describe is changing. The general science community who do understand are warning us. The apparent errors (more perceptions of convienient understanding) come a great deal from the earths absorption, such as ocean heat sink which is giving a faulse sence of lead time.

A frightening turning point for me wss when the perma ice from the polar regions began to thaw below and allow the escape of methane gas. This is many times worse than even the coal burning. In the"Fifth Extinction " a book I read some years back, there is an outline of deep core sampling done which proved that the perma frost under Antartca had been intact for millions if years. So these sudden changes are just not normal cycles, we have a problem.

So the desal plants unfortunately, with many other aids will be needed in due course. A lot of California is turning into desert as we speak and the frequency and severity of storms across the planet increases as warmer air stirs the cold air, more cloud in some places against the,clear dry areas causes greater up drafts and wind to fill the vacuum's caused.

And one can go on.

 

[Logique]

Forum Administrator

Joe,

isn't it time to mothball this thread? After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming? And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings.

It's all over for the warmists.

Perth isn't a ghost city. Sydney dams are 88% full. Billion dollar desalination plants have been mothballed in several states. Tim Flannery lives waterside on the Hawkesbury.

Polar bears are reclining on banana lounges, scoffing seal meat sandwiches, they mustn't have got the memo.

 

[noco]

Forum Administrator

Joe,

isn't it time to mothball this thread? After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming? And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings.

It's all over for the warmists.

Perth isn't a ghost city. Sydney dams are 88% full. Billion dollar desalination plants have been mothballed in several states. Tim Flannery lives waterside on the Hawkesbury.

Polar bears are reclining on banana lounges, scoffing seal meat sandwiches, they mustn't have got the memo.

Logique, I like the way you think......Yes, this whole Global Warming thing is a farce......these alarmist keep getting caught out time and time again and yet they still persist with this crap.

 

[Joe Blow]

Joe,

isn't it time to mothball this thread? After 287 pages, still no consensus.

I'm always reluctant to close a thread unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and generally prefer that threads die a natural death if at all possible.

Although there is still no consensus, and I presume that there won't be any for the foreseeable future, I think that the best option is to leave the thread open just in case there is any news, updates, or continued debate.

 

[bellenuit]

I'm always reluctant to close a thread unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and generally prefer that threads die a natural death if at all possible.

Although there is still no consensus, and I presume that there won't be any for the foreseeable future, I think that the best option is to leave the thread open just in case there is any news, updates, or continued debate.

If you were to close this thread because no consensus has been reached, then all the religious and political threads would have to go too. I agree, let topics die a natural death.

 

[Craton]

FWIW, closing this thread won't stop another being created with a similar title.

Originally Posted by Logique

Joe,

isn't it time to mothball this thread? After 287 pages, still no consensus.

 

[So_Cynical]

isn't it time to mothball this thread? After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming? And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings.

It's all over for the warmists.

No warming? really! polar ice caps not in historic retreat? Atmospheric C02 levels not at an all time 'modern' high and trending upwards for the last half century...global carbon and H20 cycles not functioning?

The denial of reality demonstrated by some people is amazing...must drive the Noalition CC deniers crazy that 1 vote Tony is spending 2.5 billion on a reduction target.
~
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
`