Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
rederob][QUOTE=wayneL said:
A fantastic article in today's telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
Click to expand...
Yet again you link to an article that just proves weather patterns are dynamic and variable across the globe.
Tiresome, tedious, tripe.
No science.
No understanding (let alone mention) of the underlying concepts.
No idea.
Conviction and beliefs conceived in ignorance.
Keep up the excellent work.[/QUOTE]
You seem to believe yourself as the sole proprietor and adjudicator of all climate knowledge.

I submit that that is ridiculous and you prove yourself tediously biased (tedious being word of the day).

The article, whether or not it has merit, is interesting because of the responses from the public. They're having none of this BS and will eventually vote down any government that goes too far down this path.

A sa matter of fact, Obama will be marked as a failure largely because of his predilection with the AGW hoax, if he carries through with his rhetoric.
 
2020hindsight View Post
hey Spooly ,
I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider.
Click to expand...


Please try to understand the purpose of LHC. A main aspect of that work might even solve the mystery of climate change over centuries. Considering your habit of researching, I leave it to you to present the context of the problem to ASF viewers.

Hint: Sun, Galaxies and cloud formation.
 
wayneL said:
You seem to believe yourself as the sole proprietor and adjudicator of all climate knowledge.
Click to expand...
I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove the science has no merit.
 
rederob said:
I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove the science has no merit.
Click to expand...

Rob, it everywhere! It's smacking you in the face!

You just refuse to see it.
 
mayk said:
Please try to understand the purpose of LHC. A main aspect of that work might even solve the mystery of climate change over centuries. Considering your habit of researching, I leave it to you to present the context of the problem to ASF viewers.

Hint: Sun, Galaxies and cloud formation.
Click to expand...
You've got me at a disadvantage may
I wasn't aware that "a main aspect of that work might solve the mystery of climate change".

hint : how about a link to that effect :2twocents

PS I'm not against pioneering research like LHC btw - just that I was trying to get spooly to agree that the model for the earth's climate is something that needs all the support and funding it can get - not be the the subject of scorn.
 
wayneL said:
Rob, it everywhere! It's smacking you in the face!

You just refuse to see it.
Click to expand...
I think you have turned "denial" into an art form.

I ask for proof.
You say it's everywhere.

What is everywhere is a position contrary to yours. Every time you turn on a switch. Every time you jump in a car. Every time you fart.
Yes, climate change is literally coming out of your @rse.
 
basilio said:
The dispute about global warming whether conducted here or anywhere else on the earth has very little interest in reality.

When I look around and look to history one can see how completely opposite points of view can be vehemently asserted as "right". In most cases proponents of each view have a special interest in making sure their argument wins, or is accepted or stays as the existing paradigm. Consider for example arguments abut the morality of slavery versus the rights of property owners and free enterprise.

So its no surprise that with one of the most critical issues that faces us and one that will require the most profound changes in behavior and consequences the desire to "win" is fierce. If we truly understand and accept that global warming is happening and in particular happening far quicker than we thought even a few years ago then the changes that need to be made are massive.


The trouble with vehement denials of global warming, ridicule of scientists, comments about other agendas of "global warmeners" is that they cannot change a physical reality that is taking place largely as a result of our actions.
Click to expand...

Basilio want to inject more of his evangelism into the debate. He thinks the warmers and the dissenters should unite to save the world, To do this of course the dissenters have to admit they are wrong and and accept that the world is otherwise doomed unless we follow their script or the science as Rederob calls it.

He is justified in feeling so self-righteous. The leaders of the Western world now accept the science as a GIVEN along the lines of Mr Rudd's statement back in September.

We must prepare for a low carbon economy, to delay any longer, to stay in denial as the climate change skeptics... would have us do is reckless and irresponsible...for our generation, our kids and future generations we must act now.
Click to expand...

I doubt if any of the Western leaders have any dissenting voices on their climate advisory panels They are all guided by the science. Basilio seeks to look at history to justify the warmers crusade.

To don't have to go back too far in history to find cases of where the dismissal of the dissenters arguments lead to tragedy.

The Vietnam war where a string of Presidents believed in the domino theory

The Iraq war where those opposing the weapons of mass destruction theory were ignored.

And the worlds greatest tragedy where millions of well-meaning people all over the world in the 1930s saw Soviet Russia as the Promised Land.

Now that the warmers have have won politically why are they still trying to justify the science?

It took Bush eight years to admit he listened the the wrong advisors.
 
2020hindsight said:
You've got me at a disadvantage may
I wasn't aware that "a main aspect of that work might solve the mystery of climate change".

hint : how about a link to that effect :2twocents

PS I'm not against pioneering research like LHC btw - just that I was trying to get spooly to agree that the model for the earth's climate is something that needs all the support and funding it can get - not be the the subject of scorn.
Click to expand...

http://ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2007/10/solar_force_1.html

Solar force, in essence, is a film about how natural variations in the sun’s magnetic fields affects our climate. Although this film isn’t about Global warming per se – it does cross over with aspects of it, making scientists a little nervous about speaking on the subject. Global warming is such a political ‘hot potato’ no one wants to burn their fingers, so to speak, if they can possibly help it.
This was particularly true of the Danish team that we interviewed, who believe that cosmic rays may be a possible driving force behind global climate change; they had direct, and painful, experience of putting their heads above the scientific parapet and being shot at by most of the science community for their controversial views.

One scientist on a previous film I made about the Loch Ness monster, said how, after he had appeared in a previous film about the elusive creature, he had been pelted with breads rolls at the next scientific conference he attended – and his area of expertise was nematode worms!
Click to expand...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v15494829Z7WqqaJ4
(You might have to install their media player to watch the full version.)
 
rederob said:
I think you have turned "denial" into an art form.

I ask for proof.
You say it's everywhere.

What is everywhere is a position contrary to yours. Every time you turn on a switch. Every time you jump in a car. Every time you fart.
Yes, climate change is literally coming out of your @rse.
Click to expand...

Rob,

You've managed to turn this into a dick measuring contest again :sleeping:

I don't really want to put mine anywhere near yours, so ah'm oot.

Ciao
 
wayneL said:
Rob,

You've managed to turn this into a dick measuring contest again :sleeping:

I don't really want to put mine anywhere near yours, so ah'm oot.

Ciao
Click to expand...
No problem.
It's been a simple request.
Shame you again haven't the capacity to respond with anything meaningful.
And that's after again debunking the nonsense that comes from Monckton. Better that next time he submits his work to peer review rather than shoot himself in the foot with more failings of maths and logic.
I'll wait for Garpal to provide the weather report in Townsville for something meatier than you have put up.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
I do like the UK Telegraph, its such a sensible publication.
Click to expand...

Here is the myth of IPCC,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.



The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is €œsettled.”
Click to expand...
 
mayk said:
Have you watched the Docu? It explains it in layman's term mate.
Click to expand...

No I haven't .
I did check the first link , and noted it was nothing to do with the LHC.
So why would I go to the next link?

But in any case, what's your point?

My point is that funding into modelling climate is (at least) equally as important as the funding for the LHC. :2twocents
 
2020hindsight said:
No I haven't .
I did check the first link , and noted it was nothing to do with the LHC.
So why would I go to the next link?

But in any case, what's your point?

My point is that funding into modelling climate is (at least) equally as important as the funding for the LHC. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Watch it mate, It spends about 10-15 minutes explaining LHC and what they want to achieve from it.

I agree with your point of spending money on CG research, but not by fixing the conclusion first. A free spirited research is needed not bounded and controlled by dodge political-scientific organizations. Spend money on alternatives, like studying the impact of Sun, as shown in this documentary.


P.S. veoh player is safe to install, don't be afraid.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

I do like the UK Telegraph, its such a sensible publication.


Happy New Year.


gg
Click to expand...

An article big on rhetoric and very short on factual substance. Statements prefaced with the word "may"

America has not adopted anything costly to combat global warming, in fact it has adopted nothing.

Large drops in temperature at times has been predicted. Tracts of heat cause extra moisture to rise increasing cloud cover and the intensities of hot and cold air together inceases storms.

The arctic has in fact cleared so much that as recently as a few months ago it is being considered as a new passage for freight tankers.

The only scientists able to get thier grants to publish are those that play the game to big Government. Say what big business wants or no grants pal.
]
The article rounds off by appealing to the hip pocket. The global warming idea is going to send us broke. What is sending us broke are freeway carparks, over indulgence in borrowed money and baby bonuses for unwanted children.

GG, you have to look closer at the content before posting stuff. That was just a load of crap from someone who probably produces oil.
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”



Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.



“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.



“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.


“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.


“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.


“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.


“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.



“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.



“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake rom this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)
Click to expand...


Are all of these scientists "crap" rederob?
 
mayk said:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376



Are all of these scientists "crap" rederob?
Click to expand...

For him I will say yep. Anything out of the UN is suspect for a start, controlled by the US. Japan, again maintains the oil status quo with the US. Some of the statements are segments that are taken out of context.

The is doubt over the whole question, therefore we should be skeptical and err on the side of being prepared for global warming. Alternative measures provide new and exciting opportunities for business. Big change also brings about new and exciting business revolutions. And lets face it fossil fuels are running out or getting too expensive to reach.

Why the fanatical opposition. How about a reasonable approach to new technologies.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

I do like the UK Telegraph, its such a sensible publication.


Happy New Year.


gg
Click to expand...

mayk said:
Here is the myth of IPCC,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376
Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:
No I haven't .
I did check the first link , and noted it was nothing to do with the LHC.
So why would I go to the next link?

But in any case, what's your point?

My point is that funding into modelling climate is (at least) equally as important as the funding for the LHC. :2twocents
Click to expand...

mayk said:
Watch it mate, It spends about 10-15 minutes explaining LHC and what they want to achieve from it.

I agree with your point of spending money on CG research, but not by fixing the conclusion first. A free spirited research is needed not bounded and controlled by dodge political-scientific organizations. Spend money on alternatives, like studying the impact of Sun, as shown in this documentary.


P.S. veoh player is safe to install, don't be afraid.
Click to expand...

mayk said:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376



Are all of these scientists "crap" rederob?
Click to expand...

There is so much publication bias out there that I wouldn't have the time to sift through it all.

Reason is the first filter I use.

I then discount all normal curves and graphs. They are crap, not enough info.

Mandelbrot and Taleb I listen to.

This guy in the UK Daily Telegraph is as believable as anything else I've seen.

My lighting up a Cohiba in my Monaro is less danger to the earth than these jokers with their particle colliders in Switzerland.

gg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top