Climate change another name for Weather

It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.

If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.

Winter rain and low temperatures are a normal variant, as are rising tides and drought.

These jokers on the Goremobile know as much about the climate as Wayne Swan knows about economics.

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.


gg

Click to expand...

Most dams are full? I don't think so. The Water Commission's report today was that even with all this current rain the dams which provide Brisbane's water supply still will not reach 40%.

Yes, it's suddenly very cold and miserable. Daytime temperature hasn't risen above 15 here.

Yeah, well and truly soaked down here on the Wide Bay coast too Garpal. I think over 80mm so far over about three days.

The cane harvesting season has got off to a false start again due to the rain. But then Indego Jones forcast this way back in the 50's or so... from his solar sunspot activity.

I'm not real keen on labels, but I am in favor of changing some of our poluting and unsustainable industrial practises.

If one has to put labels on things it should be a label that well represents the outcome and encourages positive action.

In this case the campaign aught to be called something like Sustainable Development. That imediately invisages an acceptable and relatively personal goal, whereas Climate Change is a bit hairy fairy for me. It seems to be more of a backward looking name calling of the past whereas something like Sustainable Development has a more personally involving and proactive ring about it to me.

Garpal Gumnut said:

It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.

If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.

Winter rain and low temperatures are a normal variant, as are rising tides and drought.

These jokers on the Goremobile know as much about the climate as Wayne Swan knows about economics.

gg

Click to expand...

Great news, 2 dams outa 100 are full...what did i tell ya's....its all Baloney.

30 years of research, and 100 years of data collection, melting glaciers, breakaway ice
shelf's, frequent once in a 100 years weather events.......its all normal.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG!.

Whiskers said:

Yeah, well and truly soaked down here on the Wide Bay coast too Garpal. I think over 80mm so far over about three days.

The cane harvesting season has got off to a false start again due to the rain. But then Indego Jones forcast this way back in the 50's or so... from his solar sunspot activity.

I'm not real keen on labels, but I am in favor of changing some of our poluting and unsustainable industrial practises.

If one has to put labels on things it should be a label that well represents the outcome and encourages positive action.

In this case the campaign aught to be called something like Sustainable Development. That imediately invisages an acceptable and relatively personal goal, whereas Climate Change is a bit hairy fairy for me. It seems to be more of a backward looking name calling of the past whereas something like Sustainable Development has a more personally involving and proactive ring about it to me.

Click to expand...

So_Cynical said:

Great news, 2 dams outa 100 are full...what did i tell ya's....its all Baloney.

30 years of research, and 100 years of data collection, melting glaciers, breakaway ice
shelf's, frequent once in a 100 years weather events.......its all normal.

Click to expand...

I have more research and data on the financial markets S_C than that and I still cannot predict what the NASDAQ, FTSE or XAO will do next week.

Climate change is as silly a label as calling Stock trading "Stock change".

Whiskers is on the money with his thoughts.

gg

Many moons ago I lived in Queensland (during one of her infamous dry spells) and was told by locals how wet it used to be... the weather has changed... blah blah.

Then something serendipitous happened. Some enterprising soul printed a bunch of birthday cards, one for each year from 1901 up to the current year. So I could pick the 1929 for my mum and so on.

Inside these birthday cards, there was various data from that year in which the birthday card referred to... population, number of cars regoed that year, etc, and weather data - rainfall, hottest day, coldest day, things like that.

This intrigued me, bearing in mind the meteorological assertions of the yocals, so I spent quite some time looking at all this weather data from 1901 on.

The thing that floored me was how much weather was constantly changing through the years. There was no typical weather pattern at all.

Conclusion - climate changes. It's normal.

And then there's this....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

skint said:

And then there's this....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

Click to expand...

"the model" LOLOL

A model is... well, a model is just a model. And their modeling has been useless in prediction.

The model is crap.

Ok, back to eating, drinking and merriment for me.

wayneL said:

"the model" LOLOL

A model is... well, a model is just a model. And their modeling has been useless in prediction.

The model is crap.

Ok, back to eating, drinking and merriment for me.

Click to expand...

It baffles me when there is a near concensus amongst scientists that some believe their lay opinion based on zilch has more cred. Are any of the ostriches here qualified in ANY way to comment? I'm not qualified. Just makes a whole lot more sense to listen to the thousands of climatologists as opposed to those with zero relevant background saying "Yeah, I just reckon it sounds iffy, you know, just because..well, just because."


I agree though, there's not much use in getting down in the dumps over climate change, or any other major issue like market meltdown etc.. Gonna happen anyway!

skint said:

It baffles me when there is a near concensus amongst scientists that some believe their lay opinion based on zilch has more cred. Are any of the ostriches here qualified in ANY way to comment? I'm not qualified. Just makes a whole lot more sense to listen to the thousands of climatologists as opposed to those with zero relevant background saying "Yeah, I just reckon it sounds iffy, you know, just because..well, just because."


I agree though, there's not much use in getting down in the dumps over climate change, or any other major issue like market meltdown etc.. Gonna happen anyway!

Click to expand...

Mate it is not scientific, it is belief.

Popper believed that if it was not disprovable it wasn't science.

Some don't agree with these scientists. And the Goremobile disciples believe it not to be disprovable.

They have the ear of Hollywood and the Media, and some governments. But the rest of us make our own minds up, on the available evidence and past WEATHER.

gg

As i have said in various other threads:

There is no doubt the climate is changing (ie weather as GG suggests). It has done so for eons, with multiple ice ages etc.

The only question is how much (if anything) is mankind contributing to the climate change?

We will never know the answer to the above, as we cannot simulate the planet without mankind. Only models do this based on PAST behaviour, which in a dynamic environment is virtually useless over a longer timeframe. Much the same as a lot of TA people would have very little chance of succesfully picking a stock price a few years in the future.

We can approximately forecast a short period based on historical data, but that is it.

Garpal Gumnut said:

But the rest of us make our own minds up, on the available evidence
gg

Click to expand...

Bingo!

I have yet to see an explanation anywhere for the predicted temp increase from the IPCC of 3 degrees (avg) from co2 doubling, why, i repeat why is the observed warming only 1.5 Degrees .....and that is if you take co2 as the only factor in warming, this does not include even one cow fart!

I wouldn't be surprised to see the big companies get together to fight this upcoming bull$hit tax.

Garpal Gumnut said:

Mate it is not scientific, it is belief.

Popper believed that if it was not disprovable it wasn't science.

Some don't agree with these scientists. And the Goremobile disciples believe it not to be disprovable.

They have the ear of Hollywood and the Media, and some governments. But the rest of us make our own minds up, on the available evidence and past WEATHER.

gg

Click to expand...

I expect Al Gore would believe the science to be theoretically disprovable but as the science is sound, would not think it is even remotely likely. Popper determined science to be necessarily theoretically disproveable. The laws of physics, for example, are theoretically disprovable but are hardly likely to be disproven any time soon. Climate change falls well within the category of theoretically disproveable science. Problem is, no-one has been able to do so. If someone did disprove it (many, many have tried) they'd make a whack of money. The overwhelming evidence for and lack of evidence against climate change is how the concensus has been arrived at. 'Tis the nature of science, although if you searched hard enough, you'd still probably find a flat earth proponent. Still haven't seen any counter evidence provided here beyond "geez, it was cold the other day."

skint said:

I expect Al Gore would believe the science to be theoretically disprovable but as the science is sound, would not think it is even remotely likely. Popper determined science to be necessarily theoretically disproveable. The laws of physics, for example, are theoretically disprovable but are hardly likely to be disproven any time soon. Climate change falls well within the category of theoretically disproveable science. Problem is, no-one has been able to do so. If someone did disprove it (many, many have tried) they'd make a whack of money. The overwhelming evidence for and lack of evidence against climate change is how the concensus has been arrived at. 'Tis the nature of science, although if you searched hard enough, you'd still probably find a flat earth proponent. Still haven't seen any counter evidence provided here beyond "geez, it was cold the other day."

Click to expand...

The reason you haven't seen evidence is that this is not a scientific forum. It is a stock forum in which members beliefs etc. can be aired. You have your belief and I have mine. We could both bombard each other with utube links and weighty research papers from both sides. I defend your right to have your belief, at least you won't be banging on my door during Sunday lunch trying to sell me a pamphlet like Greenpeace and the Godbotherers do.

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

The reason you haven't seen evidence is that this is not a scientific forum. It is a stock forum in which members beliefs etc. can be aired. You have your belief and I have mine. We could both bombard each other with utube links and weighty research papers from both sides. I defend your right to have your belief, at least you won't be banging on my door during Sunday lunch trying to sell me a pamphlet like Greenpeace and the Godbotherers do.

gg

Click to expand...

LOL The godbotherers are charging for ruining our Sundays now? My advice? Ruffle your hair, take a gob full of toothpaste and green food colouring and when you answer the door, tell them "I work for the other side" in a gutteral tone. Should work on most, but the mormons are particularly resistant.

skint said:

LOL The godbotherers are charging for ruining our Sundays now? My advice? Ruffle your hair, take a gob full of toothpaste and green food colouring and when you answer the door, tell them "I work for the other side" in a gutteral tone. Should work on most, but the mormons are particularly resistant.

Click to expand...

LOL Fair enough. Whats the best way to get rid of the Greenpeace ones, and the Warmers for that matter? I don't reckon you could get rid of Al Gore or Jane Fonda for 50c.

gg

The only thing that gore said that really worried me is that 7 times the earth has been under one mile of ice.

If only we could warm the place up so it wouldnt happen again, but in syd the last 2 months feel like the start of an ice age.

The panic bulls needed something to grab on to post the 2000 bug though didnt they.

But as usual the sky aint falling.

pepperoni said:

The only thing that gore said that really worried me is that 7 times the earth has been under one mile of ice.

If only we could warm the place up so it wouldnt happen again, but in syd the last 2 months feel like the start of an ice age.

The panic bulls needed something to grab on to post the 2000 bug though didnt they.

But as usual the sky aint falling.

Click to expand...

Agree , it is the most beautiful day here in Townsville, after the storms of the past few days, and I am off to the races to make my fortune.

I wonder what Al Gore is doing today. Probably flying in one of his gas guzzling aeroplanes.

gg

I believe QANDA this week has
Malcolm Turnbull
Penny Wong, and
Tim Flannery.

gg - assuming Turnbull and Wong balance each other - you ought to be there to balance Flannery - enlighten us with your counter-arguments m8

ps Both Turnbull and Wong have held Environment portfolio in last year, both have made almost arguments for action - and Penny Wong has succeeded in signing up the states re Murray Darling where Turnbull was denied that. IMO, Twelve months ago Turnbull made sense on this (and a lot of things) - but since he's had to play second fiddle to Nelson, his cred is going downhill fast.

PS QANDA is a top show - last week the plain-speaking Barnaby Joyce made it clear that the top job of Leadership of the Libs is Peter Costello's for the taking - all he has to do is ask.

The following quote is from the Daily Mail in London, a publication not given to overly dramatic prose or sensationalism. It is an apt comment on how the left media in the UK misrepresent a valid viewpoint from those who are not warmeners. Is it any wonder that our ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald trot after them in an effort to demonise those who disagree with their modern version of godbothering, a belief in global weather being due to human intervention. Its weather.!! Get over it.

gg



"The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

Earth: The Climate Wars, which was broadcast on BBC 2, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.

During the series, Dr Iain Stewart, a geologist, interviewed leading climate change sceptics, including Lord Monckton. But the peer complained to Ofcom that the broadcast had been unfairly edited.

‘I very much hope Ofcom will do something about this,’ he said yesterday.

‘The BBC very gravely misrepresented me and several others, as well as the science behind our argument. It is a breach of its code of conduct.

‘I was interviewed for 90 minutes and all my views were backed up by sound scientific data, but this was all omitted. They made it sound as if these were just my personal views, as if I was some potty peer. It was caddish of them.’

Ofcom confirmed it was looking into a ‘fairness complaint’ about the documentary.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘We stand by the programme.’

Lord Monckton, 56, a former journalist and Cambridge graduate, says scientific data shows the world is cooler today than in the Middle Ages.

He appeared alongside other sceptics including distinguished Florida-based meteorologist Professor Fred Singer, John Christy, a climate change expert and adviser to the U.S. government and the climatologist Dr Patrick Michaels, of the University of Virginia.

All their interviews, he claims, were heavily cut so that they appeared as personal views.

‘We do not dispute that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but we do dispute its effects’, he said. ‘The data shows that 2008 is the same temperature as 1980 and that the effects of these changes in the atmosphere are not negative but more likely to be beneficial.’

Lord Monckton played a key role in a legal challenge heard in the High Court in October 2007 in an effort to prevent Al Gore’s film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, from being shown in English schools. "