Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.



Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity ?
Click to expand...

Rumpy, nobody is denying there is lots of pollution in the world including me.....I have traveled many parts of the Globe and have seen it for my self and more so in third world countries....The Western world is relatively free of pollution in comparison to the likes of Bangkok, Manila, Davao City and some Chinese cities......You go to the likes of Singapore and pollution is almost zero....Hong Kong has improved over the years since my first visit in 1981....

We are most fortunate to be living in Australia where over the years our authorities have given high priority to clean air, clean water and the reduction of green house gases in order for a healthy life style....I was in the industry of town water supply and sewage for many years and I know from first hand how important these things are to a healthy life style...MY industry was associated with a foundry in a remote area in NQ and they were forced by state government authorities back in the 1980's to install anti pollution equipment to their cupolars at a cost of some $3 million....So yes, I hope I have made my point that there is plenty of facilities which have been applied and still being included for a safe and better life style....I also know in NQ there is strict control of run off from cane farms....something you are probably not aware of because it is rarely publicized and if it is not publicized the public think nothing is being done.

While all these things are great and important it has little affect on Climate change as has been proven with recent links..,,,,But I know you will keep on pedaling your propaganda as I have pointed out on my previous post...Say it often enough and some will believe it.
 
SirRumpole said:
Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.



Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity ?
Click to expand...

Rumpy, nobody is denying there is lots of pollution in the world including me.....I have traveled many parts of the Globe and have seen it fisrt hand and more so in third world countries....The Western world is relatively free of pollution in comparison to the likes of Bangkok, Manila, Davao City and some Chinese cities......You go to the likes of Singapore and pollution is almost zero....Hong Kong has improved over the years since my first visit in 1981....My visits to many European countries, North America and Canada are relatively clean in comparison to third world countries...It is the third world countries where the Green UN should be concentrating their assistance...I have not been to India where I believe pollution is so it is almost unlivable in some places.

We are most fortunate to be living in Australia where over the years our authorities have given high priority to clean air, clean water and the reduction of green house gases in order for a healthy life style....I was in the industry of town water supply and sewage for many years and I know from first hand how important these things are to a healthy life style...MY industry was associated with a foundry in a remote area in NQ and they were forced by state government authorities back in the 1980's to install anti pollution equipment to their cupolars at a cost of some $2 million....So yes, I hope I have made my point that there is plenty of facilities which have been applied and still being included for a safe and better life style....I also know in NQ there is strict control of run off from cane farms....something you are probably not aware of because it is rarely publicized and if it is not publicized the public think nothing is being done...Water testing in carried out on a regular basis in creeks and water ways...A classic example is the finding of leached ammonia and other chemicals in one of the local creeks from Clive Palmer's nickel refinery which he has been asked address but we all know QNI is to be wound up leaving the state government to carry the can.

While all these things are great and important it has little affect on Climate change as has been proven with recent links..,,,,But I know you will keep on pedaling your propaganda as I have pointed out on my previous post...Say it often enough and some will believe it.
 
SirRumpole said:
The majority view of those expert in the field.
Click to expand...
So when the science experts in the field differ, you side with the majority? Is that your sole basis for dismissal of the other experts in the field? Or did you examine the opinions of the minority before dismissing them from consideration and if so what was your basis for doing so?

Given that you presumably understand the importance of CO2 (one of the purported greenhouse gases);an essential gas, catering to the survival needs of many species of flora and fauna on this planet, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is okay to side with the opinion of those scientists arguing for its reduction?
 
cynic said:
So when the science experts in the field differ, you side with the majority? Is that your sole basis for dismissal of the other experts in the field? Or did you examine the opinions of the minority before dismissing them from consideration and if so what was your basis for doing so?
Click to expand...

The evidence of global temperature maps and the record hot years in the last 20 years have been presented numerous times in this thread. If you don't wish to consider that evidence then that is up to you, but I consider that they are important indicators of trend that can't be ignored.

Given that you presumably understand the importance of CO2 (one of the purported greenhouse gases);an essential gas, catering to the survival needs of many species of flora and fauna on this planet, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is okay to side with the opinion of those scientists arguing for its reduction?
Click to expand...

You are welcome to stick your head in a bag of CO2 and see how long you survive. The fact is that deforestation is occurring at great pace on the planet, and therefore the ability of flora to absorb co2 is being reduced.

Human activity due to land clearing and emissions of co2 is upsetting the plant/animal balance, the climate is reacting and this needs to be redressed.
 
As expected the Greens on this forum will not give up..

I am repeating my post #7072 and if I repeat if every day more and more people will begin to understand what CO2 is all about.


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%!

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2.

Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?"

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all.
The answer is no as the temperature has dropped (other than in the virtual worlds of computer models) and even if it had not dropped, the climate system is far too complex and too little understood to give anything but a negative answer.

Terry McCrann writes:

Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term "carbon pollution", a competent journalist would ask questions like:
Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don't you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?

UPDATE:
Gavin Atkins from Hybrid News Ltd writes:
Gillard’s brand new carbon tax lie

On ABC’s 7.30 program last night, Julia Gillard was asked why Australia should put a price on carbon dioxide when the United States does not and she responded with this:

JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.

Atkins then, using IPCC figures, shows Australia uses less! He also reminds us of Kevin Rudd's oft-told lie that Australia is the hottest and driest continent on Earth and concludes:

So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information?




UPDATE:
Bob Carter has a new opinion piece in Quadrant-on-line.
Global warming: 10 little facts
by Bob Carter March 14, 2011
He starts off with 10 lies, including the above.

UPDATE: More Gillard lies.....
 
noco said:
As expected the Greens on this forum will not give up..

I am repeating my post #7072 and if I repeat if every day more and more people will begin to understand what CO2 is all about.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant. It's the PROPORTION of CO2 in the atmosphere that is the problem, not the fact that it exists.

Same goes for nitrogen a constituent (78%) of air, but if nitrogen was 90% of the atmosphere we would die.

Please take some science lessons before spouting this tripe.

Read this, it may educate you.

http://www.livescience.com/28726-nitrogen.html
 
cynic said:
I can see fron your post that you have much in common with those that have accepted a given ideology and trusted that those promoting it had done their homework.

However, before aligning with a campaign to put an end to something or other, it would be wise to first make a sincere attempt to understand what it actually is. Actions taken based upon misinformation tend to cause more problems than they actually solve.
Click to expand...

What campaign?

The campaign of researchers and all national scientific bodies all over the world to scare non-believers with their research?

Skepticism is good. Just it's a bit stupid when the overwhelming number of experts tell you one thing you decided not to believe them because... because you haven't studied it yourself so you can't decide.

So anyone who believe the Climate Scientists will now have to spend decades studying and reviewing all the literatures... if they can't or don't have time to do that, then they're just sheep following some "elite"?

Mind. Blown.

-------

Anyway, here's the link to NASA (yea, the group of idiots that somehow managed to send Man to the Moon, study the Solar System and stuff):

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)


1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

-------

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. ..

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.


---
same paper:
1. Introduction
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned...

Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent"
 
luutzu said:
What campaign?

The campaign of researchers and all national scientific bodies all over the world to scare non-believers with their research?

Skepticism is good. Just it's a bit stupid when the overwhelming number of experts tell you one thing you decided not to believe them because... because you haven't studied it yourself so you can't decide.

So anyone who believe the Climate Scientists will now have to spend decades studying and reviewing all the literatures... if they can't or don't have time to do that, then they're just sheep following some "elite"?

Mind. Blown.

-------

Anyway, here's the link to NASA (yea, the group of idiots that somehow managed to send Man to the Moon, study the Solar System and stuff):

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)


View attachment 66581

-------

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. ..

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.


---
same paper:
1. Introduction
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned...

Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent"
Click to expand...

Here we go again....back on the same old MERRY-G0- ROUND.

97% of what consensus?...Even the IPCC have doubts.

Are we really getting any wear with this discussion?..I think not but if one does not counter attack on the subject then the Greens will get the upper hand.

As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....

Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.

Read the link below and the many comments that follow.

It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/

If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?

Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.

The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.

Wait — why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?

New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.

Are the drafts kept secret?

They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] — over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.

Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?

Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.

Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”

zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago

"Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
Thumbnail
 
lol

https://twitter.com/search?q=Antarctic&src=tren


What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year

---------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Climate Skeptic ‏@Carbongate

What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA http://shr.gs/SVq5yQZ

---------------------------------------------------------------

John Pratt ‏@Jackthelad1947 16m16 minutes ago Perth, Western Australia

Antarctic loss could double sea level rise by 2100, scientists say http://wapo.st/231PA2g?tid=ss_tw-bottom … #Auspol Demand #ClimateAction #VoteGreenin2016

--------------------------------------------------------------

:hammer: it home :D
 
Joules MM1 said:
lol

https://twitter.com/search?q=Antarctic&src=tren


What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year

---------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Climate Skeptic ‏@Carbongate

What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA http://shr.gs/SVq5yQZ

---------------------------------------------------------------

John Pratt ‏@Jackthelad1947 16m16 minutes ago Perth, Western Australia

Antarctic loss could double sea level rise by 2100, scientists say http://wapo.st/231PA2g?tid=ss_tw-bottom … #Auspol Demand #ClimateAction #VoteGreenin2016

--------------------------------------------------------------

:hammer: it home :D
Click to expand...

Joules, your link is so true but the Green Alarmists will hit back at you in a very short time with more manipulated data as to the reasons why there is more ice.....Just watch what comes up.....it will be the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing Global warming which in effect is creating more ice or it is only sheet ice which does not count.

They will not let you rest my friend.
 
noco said:
Here we go again....back on the same old MERRY-G0- ROUND.

97% of what consensus?...Even the IPCC have doubts.

Are we really getting any wear with this discussion?..I think not but if one does not counter attack on the subject then the Greens will get the upper hand.

As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....

Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.

Read the link below and the many comments that follow.

It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/

If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?

Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.

The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.

Wait ”” why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?

New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.

Are the drafts kept secret?

They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] ”” over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.

Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?

Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.

Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”

zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago

"Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
Thumbnail
Click to expand...

Bloody :banghead:
 

Similar threads

ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ducati916
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
basilio
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
basilio
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Top