This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Happy said:
Waste of money, could be better used to help some folks:
...
roads
education
...
Click to expand...
: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? )
 
2020hindsight said:
: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? )
Click to expand...


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.
 
Happy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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:

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".
 
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.
 

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.
 
The Hypocrisy not lost on The Daily Mash

 

“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….



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!!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
wayneL said:
The Hypocrisy not lost on The Daily Mash
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 

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!
 
mayk said:
Now you are not suggesting to have carbon-neutral warheads, that would be classy.
Click to expand...
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/


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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
wayneL said:
Only to immediately hoist yourself on another one of your ineffectual petards.

Antarctic ice sheet and sea ice is INCREASING.

Try another one
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...