Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
nulla nulla said:
You keep cutting down trees and there is no photosynthesis going on so the oxygen carbon dioxide ratios are stuffed. We are slowly poisoning ourselves.

One of the biggest contributors to the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which you hear very little about, is those big ol jet airliners carting everyone off on their holiday or that big important business trip.

And they dump their pollution at 30,000 feet above sea level. Go figure.
Click to expand...
That environmentalists have consistently promoted tourism and the service economy as the answer to all things economic is precisely the problem that I have with them.

It may well have stopped an assortment of local pollution and other environmental harm, only to transfer it to China etc, but it's directly adding vast amounts of CO2 via travel, especially aviaition. Then they tell us to catch the bus to work, as though that is somehow going to offset the extra emissions from increased tourism and the service economy / globalisation.

I call BS on this one big time. If anyone is serious about cutting CO2 then start supporting things which actually fix the problem or at least reduce it. That means relocalisation of manufacturing and the development of large scale non-fossil energy sources that can actually be built and used as an alternative to fossil fuels. And with present technology that means, in practice, nuclear and hydro supplemented with wind and a bit of biomass, all of which are totally or substantially opposed by mainstream environmentalists. In the not too distant future, geothermal may be added to that list but it's viable only in a small number of locations at present where wet geothermal fields are suitable.

And stop supporting things that make it worse, tourism and the service economy being the most obvious to head the list. Shipping materials and goods around the world whilst turning the Third World into wealthy consumers might suit some socialist ideal, but it sure won't do anything to CO2 emissions other than ramp them up, up and up again.

There's not much hope when even so-called environmentalists oppose the solutions and support those things which can only make the situation worse. That's a big part of the reason I just can't see anything being done. Anyone who tries, gets whacked over the head by the greens who always seem to find some problem with any proposal big enough to actually make a difference. Truly amazing just how common some of these endangered species are and how just about every forest / river / hilltop or scenic landscape is apparently the last one left. Protect the lot and we're stuck with fossil fuels... :2twocents
 
MrBurns said:
Science is about the race to get funding, hence false test results and so on.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately true.

I have a friend who's a bit of a big knob (can a woman be a big knob? :cautious:) in the field of gene technology research. She says exactly the same thing.
 
spooly74 said:
How do you know the test results are false, did somebody falsify them ;)
Click to expand...

Well you see it's like this, research in it's purest form reports all results good or bad, but research that actually gets results attracts more funding so.. human nature being what it is means that sometimes in order to look as if the research is progressing, some results are shall we say..enhanced.
 
MrBurns said:
Well you see it's like this, research in it's purest form reports all results good or bad, but research that actually gets results attracts more funding so.. human nature being what it is means that sometimes in order to look as if the research is progressing, some results are shall we say..enhanced.
Click to expand...
Thus, if research showed climate change was a myth it would get significant funding.
That's because "warmers" have put trillion dollar price tags on mitigation. So spending some billions on research to conclusively prove the myth would be money well spent.
 
rederob said:
Thus, if research showed climate change was a myth it would get significant funding.
That's because "warmers" have put trillion dollar price tags on mitigation. So spending some billions on research to conclusively prove the myth would be money well spent.
Click to expand...

Climate change is now a huge industry producing income for thousands of people , so if you find it's BS you get funding if you find it's true you also get funding, thats capitalism.
 
rederob said:
Thus, if research showed climate change was a myth it would get significant funding.
That's because "warmers" have put trillion dollar price tags on mitigation. So spending some billions on research to conclusively prove the myth would be money well spent.
Click to expand...

Which is like saying that it is ok to spend billions on a belief, even if its not proven to be valid, and may not benefit the earth, ever.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Which is like saying that it is ok to spend billions on a belief, even if its not proven to be valid, and may not benefit the earth, ever.
gg
Click to expand...
gg
This was a "fake" post.
Please re-read my second sentence and you will understand why.
 
MrBurns said:
Climate change is now a huge industry producing income for thousands of people , so if you find it's BS you get funding if you find it's true you also get funding, thats capitalism.
Click to expand...
Scientists are not paid by people doing research for the sake of it. They are, in general, funded by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome.

Those funded by anyone whose existence or profits depend on there being a link between CO2 and climate change have a pretty strong incentive to reach conclusions that there is indeed a link. Nobody's going to fund someone to speak out against their own interests.

Likewise with those funded by organisations with a vested interest in there not being a link between CO2 and climate change. Those paying are likely to reconsider real quick if those scientists start saying there's a problem with CO2.

Sadly, this topic is so absolutely political and financial that any prospect of proper research is now remote. Anyone studying it, is almost certainly funded by someone with an interest in the outcome one way or the other. To say otherwise is simply naive.
 
Scientists are not paid by people doing research for the sake of it. They are, in general, funded by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome.

Those funded by anyone whose existence or profits depend on there being a link between CO2 and climate change have a pretty strong incentive to reach conclusions that there is indeed a link. Nobody's going to fund someone to speak out against their own interests.

Likewise with those funded by organisations with a vested interest in there not being a link between CO2 and climate change. Those paying are likely to reconsider real quick if those scientists start saying there's a problem with CO2.

Sadly, this topic is so absolutely political and financial that any prospect of proper research is now remote. Anyone studying it, is almost certainly funded by someone with an interest in the outcome one way or the other. To say otherwise is simply naive.
Click to expand...

I find it bizarre that a range of probably quite capable people seem to believe that the huge body of research and evidence developed in the past 30 years by climate scientists is somehow basically wrong and driven by a desire for ongoing funding.

On a fundamental level the role of CO2 as key factor in determining the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere has been proven repeatedly.
There is a really excellent essay which summarizes the history of the scientific theory and research on the effect of CO2. And I find it far more complete than the self serving stories from people who either have little scientific training in this field or who are paid to muddy the waters.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It may somehow be reassuring to not believe the world is rapidly warming: it may be comforting (even if it warming is happening) to believe mankind has an insignificant effect.

But these beliefs are not what is actually happening in the real, measurable world. Lets deal with reality before reality deals with us please
 
Scientists are not paid by people doing research for the sake of it. They are, in general, funded by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome.

Those funded by anyone whose existence or profits depend on there being a link between CO2 and climate change have a pretty strong incentive to reach conclusions that there is indeed a link. Nobody's going to fund someone to speak out against their own interests.

Likewise with those funded by organisations with a vested interest in there not being a link between CO2 and climate change. Those paying are likely to reconsider real quick if those scientists start saying there's a problem with CO2.

Sadly, this topic is so absolutely political and financial that any prospect of proper research is now remote. Anyone studying it, is almost certainly funded by someone with an interest in the outcome one way or the other. To say otherwise is simply naive.
Click to expand...

I find it bizarre that a range of probably quite capable people seem to believe that the huge body of research and evidence developed in the past 30 years by climate scientists is somehow basically wrong and driven by a desire for ongoing funding.

On a fundamental level the role of CO2 as key factor in determining the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere has been proven repeatedly.
There is a really excellent essay which summarizes the history of the scientific theory and research on the effect of CO2. And I find it far more complete than the self serving stories from people who either have little scientific training in this field or who are paid to muddy the waters.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It may somehow be reassuring to not believe the world is rapidly warming: it may be comforting (even if it warming is happening) to believe mankind has an insignificant effect.

But these beliefs are not what is actually happening in the real, measurable world. Lets deal with reality before reality deals with us please

PS So who is the scientist who pulled together the theories and research data on CO2. His name is Spencer Weart. I have posted the start of his biography below.

SPENCER R. WEART (), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he contineus to be affiliated with the Center.

Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1942, he received a B.A. in Physics at Cornell University in 1963 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1968. He then worked for three years at the California Institute of Technology, supported as a Fellow of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. At Caltech he taught physics, did research on the sun's atmosphere and on ground-based and space-based telescope instrumentation, and published papers in leading scientific journals.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm
 
basilio said:
It may somehow be reassuring to not believe the world is rapidly warming: it may be comforting (even if it warming is happening) to believe mankind has an insignificant effect.

But these beliefs are not what is actually happening in the real, measurable world. Lets deal with reality before reality deals with us please
Click to expand...

Please define what you mean by rapidly warming. Choose your own timescale if you wish.

Current hypothesis gives a range from 2.5C - 4C per doubling of CO2.
Total CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
Total CO2 in the atmosphere today ~ 380ppm
Log2(380/280) x 3C = 1.32C
We've seen about half that in the 'real, measurable world'. Thoughts? :dunno:

I've missed your links to the Guardian. :rolleyes:

In the mean time, perhaps you could give us your opinion on the following:

Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change
 
I'm not informed on this topic, but the trader in me - one that recognises probability, variance and human nature - is quite skeptical. I do not consider it possible that any of this is certain, and since many scientists suggest that it is then all I can conclude is that they're not being objective. Many certainly have an agenda, and many are always willing to 'believe'.

I find it bizarre that a range of probably quite capable people seem to believe that the huge body of research and evidence developed in the past 30 years by climate scientists is somehow basically wrong and driven by a desire for ongoing funding.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many believe they are right, but that does not mean they have the evidence to back it up. Religions have believed they are right and received finding for thousands of years, despite not having the evidence to back it up. There are also the people who have an agenda or for egotistical reasons would like to prove their belief to be correct. I think that is the problem here - belief versus evidence.
 
wayneL said:
Here's a great way to arrive at total agreement about global warming, just exclude anybody who doesn't agree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Click to expand...

Another quote from Dr.Taylor in the Telegraph UK's article.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
Click to expand...

gg
 
And now Jupiter is warming.

Polar bears are increasing.

And Crusties/Warmeners are being paid $250,000 a year to count CO2 and charge for it.

The end is nigh.

Take out your dead.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
And now Jupiter is warming.

The end is nigh.

Take out your dead.

gg
Click to expand...

It is closer then you think. You skeptics can try to make fun of climate change but after reading the article in the Australian below, you may also start believing in the fast approaching horrors of climate change.

Climate change is shrinking sheep
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25727435-11949,00.html

I think there may be also some of the missing science there for Professor Ian Plimer. I hope he reads it and stops reprinting his book.


Sam :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top