Climate change another name for Weather

[2020hindsight]

Waste of money, could be better used to help some folks:
...
roads
education
...

:topic
could be used to help people who are hit by falling fireworks for a start.

PS (hey happy - I think they used 3T last year yes?
As I recall that was pretty good.
This year 5T.
You'd think they could draw the line somewhere yes? lol -
or next year we will have 8T maybe? )

 

[Happy]

:topic
could be used to help people who are hit by falling fireworks for a start.

You'd think they could draw the line somewhere yes? lol -
or next year we will have 8T maybe? )

They just seem to be bent on idea that every year fireworks have to be bigger and better.

Our CO2 emissions reduction could start here, but our Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore seems to go the MORE way instead of CLEVER.

 

[skint]

They just seem to be bent on idea that every year fireworks have to be bigger and better.

Our CO2 emissions reduction could start here, but our Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore seems to go the MORE way instead of CLEVER.

If you think about it, there are about 1 000 000 people watching 5 000 000 gms of fireworks. That works out at about 5gms per person. If those people were engaged elsewhere, I would have expected them to produce more greenhouse gases than 5gms per person. If you include the millions around the world watching it on the telly, it's really a very CO2 efficient form of entertainment. Lets crank it up to 100 tonnes! BTW, does anyone know what the chemicals in fireworks produce in terms of CO2? Please don't disillusion me. When it comes to fireworks, I never really grew up. See what being blooded on bungers in the neighbours letterboxes as a kid does to your personal development!

 

[rederob]

Rob,

You have zero credibility because you are beholden to a politico/religious position masquerading as science and presenting it as the inalterable gospel.

This is analogous to young earth creationists masquerading intelligent design as science.

Laughable and disturbing, in equal measure.

To date in this thread you have not been able to provide a counter to any of my assertions.
Monckton's work is a classic.
You wanted me to debunk it and I did (although I did ask if there was a particular aspect you would have preferred, rather than the whole paper).
But my views pale into insignificance compared to those of the organisation that were originally conned to publish it:

The Council of the American Physical Society quickly responded to the uproar over this disinformation by adding a new disclaimer to the Monckton article:

This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

You never debate the issues I raise, are incapable of defending the ones you raise, and keep trotting out the same tired lines which totally avoid the topic.
Choose your cut and pastes more carefully, or at least do some background checking before you again shoot yourself in the foot.
While you pander to the tabloids, and the junk science, I merrily continue to read the scientific papers.
Little wonder your position on this topic substantiated through a "suspicion".

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Melbournians felt the cold in December according ot the article.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/m...-coldest-december-in-years-20081231-77ru.html

 

[wayneL]

Rob

Your getting shrill now. The debate's over here. The challenge now is for most of the poor scared people fooled by only getting their info from politicians and the main news (propaganda) networks, to find these things out.

I'm heartened that a great proportion of the British public at least, are fully awake and aware of the ruse. Even my fellow Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust Members are aware that it's a con. So we'll go on saving critters rather than freaking about a non event.

Cheers

 

[explod]

Rob

Your getting shrill now. The debate's over here. The challenge now is for most of the poor scared people fooled by only getting their info from politicians and the main news (propaganda) networks, to find these things out.

I'm heartened that a great proportion of the British public at least, are fully awake and aware of the ruse. Even my fellow Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust Members are aware that it's a con. So we'll go on saving critters rather than freaking about a non event.

Cheers

What are you saying here. Just logged in and read your post cold and it says and contributes nothing one way or another to the debate.

Then after a read of a few recent post see that you address nothing. If you think something you need to give reasons that will stick with meaning. You do not hit the nail at all waynel and your lack of depth makes for uncertainty. You are out of your depth pal, leave it to the experts.

 

[wayneL]

What are you saying here. Just logged in and read your post cold and it says and contributes nothing one way or another to the debate.

Then after a read of a few recent post see that you address nothing. If you think something you need to give reasons that will stick with meaning. You do not hit the nail at all waynel and your lack of depth makes for uncertainty. You are out of your depth pal, leave it to the experts.

Thanks for also adding nothing to the debate. An amazing comment considering that every single one of your points have been pathetically off base and showing zero knowledge and full absorption of the propaganda.

It seems obvious that you're just having a pot shot at someone who has blown your arguments away and you don't like it... childish.

Only the Non-AGW denialists seem to claim that I've added nothing to the debate. I've posted dozens of links and pages of argument, but you lot persist in this petty agenda of playing the man and not the ball.

I suppose you are just following the example of the high priests of your religion who ignore all countering science and continuously attempt to degrade those who speak out with truth. That only works on muppets.

Intelligent people actually read both sides and come to their own logical conclusion, not those based on propaganda, psychology and fear, as you so obviously have done.

Please explod, don't embarrass yourself further with this kindergarten agenda of "my Dad is richer than your Dad" type thinking. It's all getting so tiresome and petty and I'm spending way too much space defending myself from yours and Rederobs spurious attempts to discredit all people and argument with the cheek to post the obvious truth.

 

[wayneL]

The Hypocrisy not lost on The Daily Mash

HIPPIES ANNOYING
HIPPIES were today banging on about petrol again even though we already get it and would just like to go skiing.


Stansted airport is now being used by airlines
A gang of them have occupied the runway at Stansted to raise awareness about how airports are increasingly being used for air travel.

Tom Logan, the largest hippy, said: "What happens, right, is that these planes are being filled with petrol, right, and then the pilot switches it on and all the petrol gets burnt, right, and then all the trees die and we run out of water .

"People need to understand the consequences of setting fire to petrol."

Angry travellers stuck in the airport's departure lounge said they were concerned about global warming and the expansion of low cost air travel but called for each and every one of these ****ing hippies to be strung up from a lamppost.

Stephen Malley, on route to Zermatt, said: "Petrol's bad. I get it. I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it. I - ****ING - GET - IT. OKAY?"

Wayne Hayes, an intermediate snow-boarder from Cambridge, said: "I am deeply concerned about the sort of world we will bequeath to our children and I promise you, the minute I get back from my holiday I will write a letter to my MP demanding that they do whatever it is you want them to do.

"But please, for the time being, **** off bastard hippies."

Emma Bradford, a hanger-on from Lincoln, said: "I'm a supporter of WWF and I have a Greenpeace Visa card. If I wasn't going on holiday I'd be down there with them, but I am, so I really think we should just crush them all with a bulldozer."

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Explod:

“What are you saying here. Just logged in and read your post cold and it says and contributes nothing one way or another to the debate.

Then after a read of a few recent post see that you address nothing. If you think something you need to give reasons that will stick with meaning. You do not hit the nail at all waynel and your lack of depth makes for uncertainty. You are out of your depth pal, leave it to the experts.

“Explod it sounds like you are stooping to the same lows as 2020 and Rederob with personal attacks that don’t contribute any substance to the ‘climate change’ debate either. If you had ventured back more than a couple of pages you will see that WayneL has ‘contributed’ a great deal more to the thread than most including you.

And if you think I just happen to be part of the WayneL fanclub you can take this assessment below on board….

Originally posted by Calliope:

“…The main debate has been between 2020 and Wayne. 2020 has been punching above his weight and has been clearly outpointed.

This does not worry 2020 too much. He joins threads, not to contribute anything useful, but to muddy the waters and create mischief. So in his way he has succeeded.

As for the other alarmists, if you take away their leftist bias, they have nothing useful to contribute.

Thanks GG for starting this provocative thread. It has flushed out the climate extremists, and Wayne has expertly taken them apart…”

Originally posted by Explod:

Waynel, could you detail these other times and cite your sources?

I dived the reef in the 1960s, when the coral had full colour, today the same places are a dead grey colour and you can literally see it breaking up, certainly no regeneration.

I also understand that it took millions of years of evolution to get to that stage but looks like breaking up in couple of generations.

Your post about diving the Barrier Reef and ‘your assessment’ that it looks like breaking up in a couple of generations is simply farcical. Not only has WayneL promptly replied to your concern with a media article quoting an ‘environment group’ who have no such concerns but I am at a loss as to how ‘you’ can assert that the reef will break up in a couple of generations!! On what basis can you support such a claim?

Think you’ve been to too many nightshift barbies Explod!!

 

[rederob]

“Explod it sounds like you are stooping to the same lows as 2020 and Rederob with personal attacks that don’t contribute any substance to the ‘climate change’ debate either. If you had ventured back more than a couple of pages you will see that WayneL has ‘contributed’ a great deal more to the thread than most including you.

I have contributed substantial substance to this debate, and my posts that specifically address the issues and debunk much of the skeptics nonsense prove it.
I don't advocate the tactics of 2020 - bury them in information overload - preferring instead to respond to posts that are devoid of value.
Wayne defence is that:

I've posted dozens of links and pages of argument, but you lot persist in this petty agenda of playing the man and not the ball.

How many times have I asked Wayne to respond to his "sea ice" post?
He simply refuses to address it or the underlying science.
Time and time again I ask, and I just get replies like:

Rob
Your getting shrill now. The debate's over here. The challenge now is for most of the poor scared people fooled by only getting their info from politicians and the main news (propaganda) networks, to find these things out.

Rob,
You have zero credibility because you are beholden to a politico/religious position masquerading as science and presenting it as the inalterable gospel.
This is analogous to young earth creationists masquerading intelligent design as science.
Laughable and disturbing, in equal measure.

Wayne in an earlier post asked that we "read this", being an article about Morner and destruction of evidence on sea levels. His response to my assertions was more dismissiveness.
If he wants debate, I offer it.
Wayne stoops to regular name calling and adopts the typical ploy of a person who lacks a proper understanding of a topic yet wants to give a semblance of "being on top of it".
If Wayne wants to promote Morner as credible, he can come up with some peer support for his contentions (presented an an INQUA conference session in 2003) that, "Sea levels fell between 1930 and 1950. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration".
I'll leave that challenge open to him.

Wayne reckons "the debate's over here" (post 379023).

If he thinks his contributions represent a debate then it's not difficult to understand why it's over; it never started!

 

[rederob]

The Hypocrisy not lost on The Daily Mash

Would you like to comment on how such a ridiculous article has anything to do with this thread?
A few hippies have had the brains to work out that:

airports are increasingly being used for air travel.

And that planes run on petrol!!!!
And then there's a link to trees dying and no water.
Yet another question of relevance, Wayne?
Is this your tactic to counter 2020 in 2009?

 

[Happy]

If you think about it, there are about 1 000 000 people watching 5 000 000 gms of fireworks. That works out at about 5gms per person. If those people were engaged elsewhere, I would have expected them to produce more greenhouse gases than 5gms per person. If you include the millions around the world watching it on the telly, it's really a very CO2 efficient form of entertainment. ...

1. Money could be used for something else, on longer lasting activity.
($5,000,000 could be spent on 5,000 dentures for poor people, 20 budget accomodation places - in line with Kevin 07 war on homelessness, 5,000 computers for disadvantaged adults [as kids will get computers in education revolution] or many other, better value possible longer lasting money spending activities.)

2. People could engage elsewhere in CO2 neutral/reducing activity.


But you are right, it could be much worse.
We have to thank heavens that we are so CO2 self modestly restrained, only 5 grams per person, what an achievement!

 

[2020hindsight]

But you are right, it could be much worse.

and the fireworks rockets don't explode on landing as they do in Gaza

 

[mayk]

and the fireworks rockets don't explode on landing as they do in Gaza

Now you are not suggesting to have carbon-neutral warheads, that would be classy.:

 

[Happy]

and the fireworks rockets don't explode on landing as they do in Gaza

But, every person killed contributes to CO2 emission reduction

 

[2020hindsight]

Now you are not suggesting to have carbon-neutral warheads, that would be classy.

actually the metal left over is / used to be frequently radioactive

As for the CO2 "bootprint" of the US military -

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/07/28/us-army-seeking-to-cut-its-co2-emissions/

The US Army has begun taking steps to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2015 to comply with a 2007 order by President Bush.

Reuters reports that the Army’s push to reduce its carbon “bootprint” is not just about protecting the climate. Using less fuel makes troops safer, Tad Davis, the Army’s deputy assistant secretary for environment, safety, and occupational health told the news agency

I never realised that the US military had a "deputy assistant secretary for environment"

mind the trees fellas - watch out for those native animals

 

[rederob]

Wayne in an earlier post asked that we "read this", being an article about Morner and destruction of evidence on sea levels. His response to my assertions was more dismissiveness.
If he wants debate, I offer it.

More on Wayne's junk science links:
The article linked was uplifted from an interview of Morner in the June 2007 "Executive Intelligence Review":

Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.

Unfortunately it starts with a lie: Morner had left that role 2 years earlier.
But let's go straight to the junk science:

There’s another way of checking it [ie if the sea level is rising], because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right?

Yes, he's right. But he's so dumb that he forgot about the fact that the earth is thinning at the equator due to polar ice sheets decreasing, thereby reducing the "flattening" effect on the earth (which is ellipsoid in shape - not "round"), Accordingly, this physical law actually increases the earth's rotation by 0.6milliseconds/century.
Again, if Morner was blessed with any proper knowledge of his field, he would instead have hit a winner by talking about "tidal acceleration", as it decreases the earth's rotational speed and has a scintilla of credibility.
Alas, the great unwashed are again duped by a discredited skeptic who is not even who the article claims.

Still waiting for Wayne?
Or shall I debunk some more?

 

[wayneL]

More on Wayne's junk science links:
The article linked was uplifted from an interview of Morner in the June 2007 "Executive Intelligence Review":
Unfortunately it starts with a lie: Morner had left that role 2 years earlier.
But let's go straight to the junk science:
Yes, he's right. But he's so dumb that he forgot about the fact that the earth is thinning at the equator due to polar ice sheets decreasing, thereby reducing the "flattening" effect on the earth (which is ellipsoid in shape - not "round"), Accordingly, this physical law actually increases the earth's rotation by 0.6milliseconds/century.
Again, if Morner was blessed with any proper knowledge of his field, he would instead have hit a winner by talking about "tidal acceleration", as it decreases the earth's rotational speed and has a scintilla of credibility.
Alas, the great unwashed are again duped by a discredited skeptic who is not even who the article claims.

Still waiting for Wayne?
Or shall I debunk some more?

Only to immediately hoist yourself on another one of your ineffectual petards.

Antarctic ice sheet and sea ice is INCREASING.

Try another one

 

[rederob]

Only to immediately hoist yourself on another one of your ineffectual petards.

Antarctic ice sheet and sea ice is INCREASING.

Try another one

Just because you say so...really.
How about some evidence?

By the way, I never said that Antarctic sea ice was decreasing, instead the opposite. Your comprehension skills are very poor.
And more to the point, I raised the issue of sea ice versus land ice, globally, as the topic of significance.

Last point, areal extent of ice masses is often dissimilar to volumetrics.