Climate change another name for Weather

[rederob]

i agree

one moment with fielding and answering the one question on how the carbon dioxide is increasing, yet the temperature is not, remains unanswered

not that al gore knows the answer, he only follows the same well rehearsed script.

i love the term "inconvenient truth".. its one thing these fantasist environmentalists speak. the truth is inconvenient so its left out..

the truth is the earth has always been in a global warming phase..

the mini ice age we are just leaving is one that was always going to happen.

You continue to miss the point.

There are no scientists that argue that the earth will not warm more or cool more substantially in thousands of years time.

The global warming debate is focussed on significant climate change now occurring in our lifetimes.

Some here suggest the science in not proven. In fact it is, and scientists in the anti-warming camp acknowledge the scientific basis of global warming. What they argue over is the extent that man's contribution to warming is greater than mother nature would otherwise thrust on us.

This is a clever argument.

Without a replica "control" earth to test any hypothesis on, pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings until we have passed a tipping point, and become locked in to a significantly warmer earth for centuries to come. Thus, to "win" this argument everyone has to lose.

The central issue should be about what constitutes "reliable" evidence that the earth's warming is being significantly impacted by man. To date it appears that we have nothing in particular, but a lot altogether. The common enemy seems to be CO2, although other "greenhouse gases" are being pointed at by the anti-warming camp when it is convenient.

The agreed science shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect the earth's temperature. And increasing CO2 levels are known to have historically proven higher temperatures.

The anti-warming camp will not focus on the science because it is an inconvenient truth. The science is also boring and difficult to relate to, so they instead go for matters of common appeal that, with the right spin, make sense.

For example, if pro-warmers suggest Polar Bear populations are being decimated, and anti-warmers can "prove" they are not, there is magically evidence that the earth is not warming. This is a classic sucker punch. In essence all we have is proof that there are now more Polar Bears - nothing less, nothing more.

More recently we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding suggesting that because the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years, then global warming is a furphy. Fielding has been briefed well by the anti-warming camp, and spouts their mantra at every opportunity. Fielding is typical of the gullibility that anti-warmers can tap; he has no clue about climate issues per se, but thinks he's on winner because there is a scintilla of "real facts" that prove he is right. If Fielding did have a clue, he could have used a moving 15-year average over the last 100 years, and got a very different answer.

 

[basilio]

Nice call Red Rob. But as we are well aware by now, the main protagonists on this forum have absolutely no desire to see any part of the picture, either scientific theory or factual evidence, that conflicts with their desire to deny human produced global warming.

End of story...

I see it a bit like people who insist that falling out of a plane at 10,000 metres without a parachute will not kill you. Their proof ? There will certainly be a few examples of people who have landed in haystacks, soft snow whatever and survived. That's enough evidence in this type of debate to shout down the theories of gravity and the thousands of people who have come to a sticky end falling from great heights.

 

[Gamblor]

You continue to miss the point.


More recently we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding suggesting that because the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years, then global warming is a furphy. Fielding has been briefed well by the anti-warming camp, and spouts their mantra at every opportunity. Fielding is typical of the gullibility that anti-warmers can tap; he has no clue about climate issues per se, but thinks he's on winner because there is a scintilla of "real facts" that prove he is right. If Fielding did have a clue, he could have used a moving 15-year average over the last 100 years, and got a very different answer.

Don't get me started on Fielding. The guy thinks the earth is around 10,000 years old - how can anyone take a word he says seriously? He's just another conservative nut job pushing the same old agenda.

 

[Calliope]

I'm afraid all the mantra of several thousand politically correct, pro-warming scientists can't control CO2 levels.


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25782735-5013678,00.html

Carbon coup really means game is over

KEVIN Rudd's carbon 'coup' is actually a damning if unintended admission that the 'climate change game' is over. Game, set and match to carbon - and more specifically, carbon dioxide emissions.

Three things came out of last week's G8 summit and the so-called 17-member Major Economies Forum in Italy.

These meetings were supposed to deliver irresistible momentum to binding cuts to global greenhouse gas emissions at the ''all-important Copenhagen summit'' in December, to quote one of the acolytes, the Age's environment reporter Adam Morton.

Instead they've delivered all the acceleration grunt of a Toyota Prius.

One outcome was utterly fatuous. ''An historic agreement...that global warming should be limited to 2 degrees,'' as the same Morton breathlessly described it.

Well, somebody named Canute tried something similar a few hundred years ago - ordering the tide not to come in. With one big difference, he knew it couldn't be stopped.

Which is more depressing: that Presidents Obama and Sarkozy, Prime Minister Brown, Chancellor Merkel et al don't know how silly their ''agreement'' is? Or they do?

 

[Timmy]

Don't get me started on Fielding. The guy thinks the earth is around 10,000 years old - how can anyone take a word he says seriously? He's just another conservative nut job pushing the same old agenda.

Isn't the belief 6,000 years? Sorry to nit pick, but I think the Creationists, or Cretinists or whatever they are called, argue the Earth is 6,000 years old. Bizarre.

 

[brty]

Good grief,

pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings until we have passed a tipping point, and become locked in to a significantly warmer earth for centuries to come.

Is this another GW "fact"?? even though I thought it only theory. Please PROVE the theory.

we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding

He was so dumb that he was able to get himself elected despite being in a two bit minor party, yet nearly every other candidate that has stood separately from the major 3 parties misses out, time after time.

Here is something for the religious zealots, (GW'ers),

You better pray that there is no GW because the pollies collectively are going to do buggerall about it, no matter how much "proof", until it is wayyyy too late.
If anything, we should be, sorry, you should be screaming at the pollies for ways to live with GW, before it's too late.

brty

 

[Calliope]

Don't get me started on Fielding. The guy thinks the earth is around 10,000 years old - how can anyone take a word he says seriously? He's just another conservative nut job pushing the same old agenda.

Yes, it's a shame he and Gore didn't get together, but I suppose it wouldn't be politically correct to put two "intellectually challenged" people in a bun fight.

 

[rederob]

Fielding was not the first loon to be elected to the Senate, and he won't be the last.
When Hanson learned about global warming she replaced her light bulbs with fluoros.:iamwithst

 

[Calliope]

Fielding was not the first loon to be elected to the Senate, and he won't be the last.

Yeah, don't forget Bob Brown and his Green loonies.

 

[Buddy]

Aarrhh, you're all wrong, bassa, red, 2020 and the rest of you. Didn't you read my post about paleochannels, yada, yada.

Well ma frens ah hav seen the light, the truth, the gospel, the word of the lord. And it's your lucky day, I just found it in my surf wanderings. Here it is, in Chapter 15 (especially, Page 2).

http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapter15.pdf

You will heed the word of the lord, watch out for the ides of Nibiru, and especially the orbit!

Actually, I hope this guy is wrong and global warming is a consequence of human activity..... a tad easier to deal with.

P.S. I wonder if Pat sleeps at night.

 

[Gamblor]

Yes, it's a shame he and Gore didn't get together, but I suppose it wouldn't be politically correct to put two "intellectually challenged" people in a bun fight.

fail

 

[noco]

You continue to miss the point.

There are no scientists that argue that the earth will not warm more or cool more substantially in thousands of years time.

The global warming debate is focussed on significant climate change now occurring in our lifetimes.

Some here suggest the science in not proven. In fact it is, and scientists in the anti-warming camp acknowledge the scientific basis of global warming. What they argue over is the extent that man's contribution to warming is greater than mother nature would otherwise thrust on us.

This is a clever argument.

Without a replica "control" earth to test any hypothesis on, pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings until we have passed a tipping point, and become locked in to a significantly warmer earth for centuries to come. Thus, to "win" this argument everyone has to lose.

The central issue should be about what constitutes "reliable" evidence that the earth's warming is being significantly impacted by man. To date it appears that we have nothing in particular, but a lot altogether. The common enemy seems to be CO2, although other "greenhouse gases" are being pointed at by the anti-warming camp when it is convenient.

The agreed science shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect the earth's temperature. And increasing CO2 levels are known to have historically proven higher temperatures.

The anti-warming camp will not focus on the science because it is an inconvenient truth. The science is also boring and difficult to relate to, so they instead go for matters of common appeal that, with the right spin, make sense.

For example, if pro-warmers suggest Polar Bear populations are being decimated, and anti-warmers can "prove" they are not, there is magically evidence that the earth is not warming. This is a classic sucker punch. In essence all we have is proof that there are now more Polar Bears - nothing less, nothing more.

More recently we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding suggesting that because the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years, then global warming is a furphy. Fielding has been briefed well by the anti-warming camp, and spouts their mantra at every opportunity. Fielding is typical of the gullibility that anti-warmers can tap; he has no clue about climate issues per se, but thinks he's on winner because there is a scintilla of "real facts" that prove he is right. If Fielding did have a clue, he could have used a moving 15-year average over the last 100 years, and got a very different answer.

30,000 + scientists around the world have thrown cold water on the "ALARMIST" theories. Doesn't that say something?

They all can't be wrong. Co2 emmissions represent some .055% of the atmosphere. How can that have such an affect as the alarmist are purpoting.It doesn't make sense.

iT was reported Earth had a 100 year drought 4000BC and massive floods 7000BC.

I live in NQ and drilled for water in my back yard and pulled up periwinkle shells 25 feet below the surface. How do reckon they git there?

 

[bugmenot]

They all can't be wrong. Co2 emmissions represent some .055% of the atmosphere. How can that have such an affect as the alarmist are purpoting.It doesn't make sense.

In the same way that in only takes an alcohol level of .05% in your blood to destroy your life in a car accident, it only takes 0.05% Co2 in our atmosphere to cause potentially grave and irepairable damage.

 

[rederob]

30,000 + scientists around the world have thrown cold water on the "ALARMIST" theories. Doesn't that say something?

They all can't be wrong. Co2 emmissions represent some .055% of the atmosphere. How can that have such an affect as the alarmist are purpoting.It doesn't make sense.

iT was reported Earth had a 100 year drought 4000BC and massive floods 7000BC.

I live in NQ and drilled for water in my back yard and pulled up periwinkle shells 25 feet below the surface. How do reckon they git there?

Each of your points suggest to me that you are as gullible as Senator Fielding.

Given that you have answered the wrong the questions, how do you arrive at an understanding of the issues?

 

[wayneL]

Some here suggest the science in not proven. In fact it is,

==

Without a replica "control" earth to test any hypothesis on, pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings

Can anyone spot a fault here?

Folks, go to http://climatesci.org for better, more balanced science.

 

[wayneL]

In the same way that in only takes an alcohol level of .05% in your blood to destroy your life in a car accident, it only takes 0.05% Co2 in our atmosphere to cause potentially grave and irepairable damage.

Bad analogy.

Alchohol isn't a natural and essential component of blood like co2 is to the atmosphere. No Co2 and the world croaks (it's an impossibility really).

Alcohol is a toxin, CO2 is not.

Creatures have lived on this planet with much higher levels of CO2 before.

And if it only takes 0.05%, then we're already stuffed. Jeez we started at .25% or something.

If we must use analogies, let's at least make them applicable and accurate.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Nice call Red Rob. But as we are well aware by now, the main protagonists on this forum have absolutely no desire to see any part of the picture, either scientific theory or factual evidence, that conflicts with their desire to deny human produced global warming.

End of story...

I see it a bit like people who insist that falling out of a plane at 10,000 metres without a parachute will not kill you. Their proof ? There will certainly be a few examples of people who have landed in haystacks, soft snow whatever and survived. That's enough evidence in this type of debate to shout down the theories of gravity and the thousands of people who have come to a sticky end falling from great heights.

basilio, mate, a better analogy would be a very rich man who owns a plane, a very big plane, that is a huge part of his ego, that has been previously bruised. He wishes to keep it flying.

He convinces some , many fellow travellers to fly with him, burning up valuable AV gas that the rest of us feel we could use in smaller planes. He (Al is his name as it happens) convinces all these experts to jump out of the plane at 30,000 feet with parachutes, to prove to the rest of us that it is dangerous to do so.

The rest of us chug around in our Cessnas and never come to a sticky end. And we can access AV gas, at any small airfield, any time we want to.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Actually, I hope this guy is wrong and global warming is a consequence of human activity..... a tad easier to deal with.

Buddy,

I would actually prefer the quick solution to the one that Rederob and his gullible converts have mapped out for us. The burning hell which they are hoping for, would take decades and they probably won't live long enough to know if their dreams have come true

But that's all right. It's the constant nagging that it is all our fault and that we should do something about it, that is annoying, and all this is accompanied by their supercilious attitude. Although I guess that even chief sneerer Red must get embarrassed at the ignorance of some of his acolytes

What these naggers lack is a little commonsense. Even if their hopes, that carbon emissions were raising temperatures, had some basis, only a gullible fool could believe that man could control global climate change.
,

 

[wayneL]

Whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not, whether it is, but not much to worry about, or, whether it is and we are all about to be engulfed by violent boiling oceans, there is a massive... no, a monumental hypocrisy at the heart of the warmanista movement.

It is - "Do as I say not as I do"

eg http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25777671-5000117,00.html

The likes of Al Gore lined up to inspire thousands of young people to discover their inner Captain Planets and solve the climate crisis.

The sentiment was noble but the focus unclear. Young people don't need to be persuaded of the climate crisis. Poll any group of people, young or old, and a majority will talk of their passion to live in a greener world.

But ask that same group how much they drive, or fly, or how many children they intend to have and you'll be amazed.

It simply doesn't add up.

The reality is that there is a dangerous and underlying tension between hopes and reality when it comes to young people and climate change.

Left unchanged it will bring our urgent campaigns for salvation crashing down in a pile of double standards and hypocrisy. A little-known report released last year by London company TNS Global Market Research Specialists highlighted this dichotomy.

Eight thousand young people from 27 countries took part in the survey. While an overwhelming majority thought changes to the environment were a result of human behaviour, economic ambitions remained unchecked and most were not willing to make the hard sacrifices necessary to avert dangerous changes to our climate.

The report shows it is almost as if young people advocate change but really want to hang on to the status quo.

T O escape the guilt, we hide behind flowery statements and campaigns like Earth Hour, seemingly doing "our bit" for the environment by turning our lights off once a year, or carrying around chic recyclable bags. Gosh, can't you see how "green" we are?

This obnoxious duplicity is not only apparent in the youth, it is glaringly unambiguous in those respectable middle aged alarmists who live vey comfortable, sometimes opulent energy hungry lifestyles. Nowhere is this more obvious than with our proselityzing and bogus eco-preacher, Al Bore.

I'd like to know what those who preach at us from on high in this thread are actually doing. I suspect they lead normal, fossil fuel consumptive lifestyles to rival any "denier". I don't know how many times I've been preached at my multi-childed, Range Rover Driving, Large centrally heated home living, disgracefully hypocritical AGW acolytes.

They don't like it when I point out the gross and disgusting hypocrisy.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Each of your points suggest to me that you are as gullible as Senator Fielding.

Given that you have answered the wrong the questions, how do you arrive at an understanding of the issues?

rederob, I think you have underestimated Steve Fielding.

I think like you that he is a godbotherer.

But he has political nous.

And he has a track record of working for communities and the silent majority of small people without access to a strong voice like Al Gore has.

He will make his own mind up and has my admiration. I've got a lot of time for this godbotherer

He certainly scared the **** out of Al Gore.

Poor ole Al didn't have the bottle to meet with Steve.

gg