Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Al Bore's houseboat:

rrrrrr.jpg
 
2020hindsight said:
Bought the dog a new reel-in extendable lead for Xmas - couple of walks (not that I saw sunrise) - works like a treat!

It's called a RUNNING DOG lead. I'm guessing it was made in China. :cool:

Apart from that, I was reminded of this thought ...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107013
Click to expand...


a beautiful poem mate, good thoughts, you are higher in my esteem ( which was high )than ever before despite our differences

gg

A TOAST TO ABSENT FRIENDS

Suppose I'm feeling down depressed, the world's about to sink,
Or find myself a frowning mess, I only have to think
Of good men, better men than I, where I have outlived them,
I hear my thoughts first question why - then I seize this daily gem.

They left this world at fifty praps, suppose I'm fifty-five,
That represents five bonus laps that I have been alive,
I've had the chance these sixty moons, these eighteen hundred days,
To toast the sunrise, toast the noon, and toast the sunset rays.

And toast my friends alive and gone, and toast life's wondrous ways.
2020hindsight is online now Report Post Reply With Quote


Now to where do I send that cartoon of beer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

gg
 
Maybe give it to charity m8 ;)
Like poem #990 on poetry thread...

IF HENRY LAWSON POSTED POEMS ON THE INTERNET

I’m not into big noting this poetic passing phase,
words I've stuck into a stanza in a pisspoor passing phrase,
if you score these poems as parity with ones that make half sense,
then just flick a buck to charity – I’ll score when they dispense
 
2020hindsight said:
Maybe give it to charity m8 ;)
Like poem #990 on poetry thread...

IF HENRY LAWSON POSTED POEMS ON THE INTERNET

I’m not into big noting this poetic passing phase,
words I've stuck into a stanza in a pisspoor passing phrase,
if you score these poems as parity with ones that make half sense,
then just flick a buck to charity – I’ll score when they dispense
Click to expand...

Ok mate I'll drop off a carton to some parkies downtown tomorrow.

If you don't mind I'll print out above poem and leave a card "from 2020"

gg
 
IPCC scamster Stephen Schneider said:
“to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”
Click to expand...

E R Beadle said:
“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.”
Click to expand...

Good article here in a site warmers love to dis:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116
 
explod said:
pp.114 and 115 Turner C, The Geography of Hope, 2007

A downright lie you say. A head for good business adds up all the costs of a product. If the availalbe tecnology recieved the assistance of petrol and petrol guzzlers we would find the alternatives not only cheaper but cleaner and offerring more jobs. Just look at what the internet has done and who would have concieved of that 20 years ago. Some did, they are prolly some of your nut cases, oh thats right Climatologists.
Click to expand...
The internet created an entire new kind of economic activity whilst also increasing the productivity of just about every existing business from smelters to nightclubs.

But what we're conteplating with energy is making just about every human activity less economically productive whilst creating no new kind of economic activity to offset that.

The whole reason we use coal, oil and gas in the first place is due to the leverage of human labour they provide. Without that we wouldn't be using them and the economic system we have today couldn't function. Trouble is, apart from hydro, well designed and run nuclear plants and in limited situations biomass, the non-fossil energy sources don't offer the same leverage. That's a rather massive problem given that we can't simply ramp up the labour input to offset it easily.

Most of the work "man" does in Australia is done by fossil fuels, not humans. Actual human labour is trivial - all we really do is come up with the means of leveraging some other energy source.

Now, if we halve (for example) the productivity of energy due to using some other source then that's a rather large problem unless we've got some way to offset that.

It's like saying you are using 50% borrowed money to invest. Then you decide to repay that loan in full. Now how, exactly, are you going to maintain the same level of investment performance and activity with the leverage removed? In short, you're not going to do it and that's the problem. :2twocents
 
2020hindsight said:
yep
ignorance is bliss :2twocents
Click to expand...
So long as it isn't of the globe's natural climate cycle? So long as it is not being aware of it coming out of one of the most stable climate periods the earth has experienced throughout time? So long as it isn't being aware of us being due an another ice age in a few thousand years?

The earth is a self correcting environment. The earth warming cannot be separated from us being at the end of a warm cycle, nor can it be separated from the events that would happen prior to another ice age.
 
Weather is wondrous, too much a wonder for science.

Robert Browning encapsulates it all

The year's at the spring,
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn;
God's in his Heaven -
All's right with the world!

And that was my Christmas.

I'm off to bed and will leave it to godbotherers and the Church Of Climatology to grapple with the remaining vreses.


But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,
Toll the world to thy chantry;
Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
Full complines with gallantry:
Then, owls and bats, cowls and twats,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!


gg
 
excellent video Wayne. Im glad we are having the climate change debate. It simply proves the global warming debate has been lost by the church of climetology. They have moved into their last line of defence.... "climate change" which they hope can't be debunked as easily, as after all, the climate is always changing.

Soon it will be proven that it's not changing because of us. And that carbon dioxide is essential and the basis of life.

No more non-solutions to non-problems please
 
slim pickins said:
excellent video Wayne. Im glad we are having the climate change debate. It simply proves the global warming debate has been lost by the church of climetology. They have moved into their last line of defence.... "climate change" which they hope can't be debunked as easily, as after all, the climate is always changing.

Soon it will be proven that it's not changing because of us. And that carbon dioxide is essential and the basis of life.

No more non-solutions to non-problems please
Click to expand...

I'm also glad it mentioned the role of Dihydrogen Oxide gas (H20) being more important than CO2
 
wayneL said:
I'm also glad it mentioned the role of Dihydrogen Oxide gas (H20) being more important than CO2
Click to expand...

The series of videos is almost laughable, and just confirms that a sucker is born every minute.
Let's just take one example; Beck's reworking of CO2:
The fluxes necessary to produce his vaunted CO2 variations are unbelievably huge. We measure modern fossil fuel emissions at about 7.5GT (giga tons) carbon per year (which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year - noting that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s proposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside any absorption issues).

I tried hard to find something new. Alas, the same junk science dressed in occasionally different guises.

The clincher is always the how water vapour is promoted as the real cause of increasing temperatures, and not CO2. And this is where the real science, which remains without an accepted peer rebuttal to this day, provides the answer.
Yes, it's the difference between "forcing" and "feedback".
 
so water's another GHG. So what .
We are artificially taking CO2 to levels that haven't been exceeded for eons.

and rather than admit that
and do something about it
..
we change the subject and talk about water - which is not directly anthropogenic. :rolleyes: (until we use hydrogen cell cars I guess. - or other causes, trivial in the scheme of things)

PS Furthermore , one good downpour of rain sorts out a few tonnes of water vapour. (or giga tonnes in some parts of the world)
But CO2 just sticks around for ages. :2twocents
 
slim pickins said:
1. "climate change" ... which they hope can't be debunked as easily ...
2. after all, the climate is always changing.
Click to expand...

1. so global warming's debunked, and hence the scientists change the topic. (?) Try cause (GW) and effect (CC).

2. "climates always changing". But are those changes heading down unhappy directions for the world? That's when you pause and think. (And spend a motza on trying to predict where this is going - not as much as they could mind you, given the consequences of failure / getting this wrong). :2twocents
 
... and if we clean up our act here, we will directly help a stack of other polluting trends man is responsible for. (plus deforestation, removal of habitat etc)
 

Attachments

  • man and nature1.jpg
    man and nature1.jpg
    32 KB · Views: 44
So we have Al Bore's nonsense, and you guys say this video is nonsense.

Where do we go from here?

My suggestion, as has been all along, is to address general pollution, rather than the purely political concept of CO2 caused CC, which is in deep dispute, no matter how much yoiu guys want to delude yourself that it isn't. 2020 ha sthe right idea, but the wrong way 'round; but carbon based "solutions" can only be totalitarian control and trashed economies with no real beneficial result excepting to the Alarmist Czars who are milking alarmism for personal gain. My solution would result in a more stable and sustainable economy with real environmental benefits.

Re water vapour: To assign H2O the roll of merely feedback, is in itself preposterous... laughable.
 
from poetry #814 :-

THE IRISH PUB DISCUSSION ON GLOBAL WARMING

Some arguments are seconds long
and some a bloody hour
some power on for generations
(generating power)
It’s rare I guess to change direction,
then again, - perhaps
if “uniformed” or isle marooned, we’d be
ill inform-ed chaps.

Let English have their arguments
where “for” can argue white
“against” can argue ebony black
and maybe they’ll find “right”
but whether truth is grey or blue
or colours yet unseen
They’ll come on board to Irish ways
and future’s that are “green”.

Then there’s “Bloody Murphy” pubscenes
that are more like muddy blurr,
telescopic stellar topics
that are bigger than Ben Hur-
where we charge along in chariots
and we splash mud at each other
though we share the same road, same direction,
and same fate , my brother.
 
wayneL said:
So we have Al Bore's nonsense, and you guys say this video is nonsense.
Where do we go from here?
Click to expand...
You could always try the science, and not the debunked nonsense that is recycled so often that it sticks like mud to the great unwashed.
"Warming" is about the additional radiative influence ascribed to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nobody is disputing that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. And,
it can be argued that it has "forcing" properties. However, with a lifespan of less than 2 weeks in the atmosphere it would be impractical to "model" warming on the basis it was the preeminent factor. Little wonder the skeptics don't model climate; their reputations would be in tatters.
 
rederob said:
Little wonder the skeptics don't model climate; their reputations would be in tatters.
Click to expand...
Like the warmer's reputation is?

C'mon Red, they haven't got anything right with their model and ignore and cherry-pick to an extent that disqualifies it as science altogether, never mind junk science.

The video, scores some major punches in highlighting the true role of IPCC as a political lobby group, the ultimate agenda for which is not fully known, but can only be sinister.

I remain fully satisfied, without a skerick of doubt, that the IPCC model is utter nonsense and anthropogenic factors in macro climate change completely overblown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top