Climate change another name for Weather

Smurf1976 · 16 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
lol
It was the only thing that tempted me to vote for Johnny Howard last time - that he was in favour of nuclear.

some confused theories being aired around here

If the timeframe is 10 years then the only option is a crash program of nuclear construction plus whatever wind, hydro and solar hot water we can manage in that timeframe. No planning process, no objections - just build it as though we were at war.

If the timeframe is 20 years then we could build the reactors to the best standards, choose only the best wind sites and so on.

If the timeframe is 50 years then it's unlikely we'd need nuclear power in this country at all. Geothermal, wind, wave, solar, hydro, biomass etc will do the job nicely if given enough time.

Ever wondered why there's so much talk about very short timeframes? Follow the money and you'll find the answer... As is pretty well understood in the energy industry, it's now or never for nuclear in Australia because we're not far from showing how geothermal leaves it for dead economically and environmentally. Hence the massive push for short timeframes and nuclear power - now or never and there's a lot of money riding on it.

wayneL · 16 July 2009

Smurf1976 said:
Ever wondered why there's so much talk about very short timeframes? Follow the money and you'll find the answer... As is pretty well understood in the energy industry, it's now or never for nuclear in Australia because we're not far from showing how geothermal leaves it for dead economically and environmentally. Hence the massive push for short timeframes and nuclear power - now or never and there's a lot of money riding on it.

Quoted for emphasis.

Spot on Smurf.

Smurf1976 · 16 July 2009

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

Much as I strongly disagree with him on anything even remotely connected to energy, to be fair I'd argue that Bob does have some good points.

noco · 16 July 2009

wayneL said:
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.

Thanks for the support wayneL. Looks like we are roughing up Bugmenot and Rederob's feathers when they come up with such stupid anaolgies.

rederob · 16 July 2009

Garpal
Hanson had political nous in that she appealed to a section of society in a particular way. She formed a Party that won seats at State level, such was her sway at the time.
But remember this thread is about climate change, which you would rather say is just another way of talking about the weather. In that regard Fielding is as knowledgeable about weather as the next politician, but his capacity to argue the toss on climate issues is possibly as well founded as a failed 5th grader.

Moving on to the other "deniers'" points, there is a propensity to dwell on the catastrophic and extreme in order to invoke the sense that "warmers" have lost their marbles and want us to believe the worst case scenario is around the next corner.
Nice try, but it really does not wash.
If we get a 2 degree climate change over the next century most people won't notice it on a day to day basis because a process of adaptation will be well and truly underway... as it goes.
The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate. And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.
Weather events will have changed markedly, but as the process of change is decadal, successive generations will simply get used to playing the deck of cards they are dealt.

MrBurns · 16 July 2009

Climate change is an industry now and a haven for bludgers and bull**** artists much the same as the palm reading industry or the Labor party.

Probably not a bad idea to develop alterative sources of energy anyway instead of being at the mercy of the towel heads forever and the emmissions are a bit dirty.

Would be great if we could develop a tosser and bull**** converter into a usable form of energy, we could just plug it into KRudd and sell to the world.

wayneL · 16 July 2009

rederob said:
The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate.

see http://climatesci.org/index.php?s=sea+level+rise&submit=Search

And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.
Weather events will have changed markedly, but as the process of change is decadal, successive generations will simply get used to playing the deck of cards they are dealt.

This is likely to happen in my opinion, but the culprit will not be greenhouse gases, rather, land use changes. This is a far more potent factor in regional climate change.

http://climatesci.org/index.php?s=land+use&submit=Search

Garpal Gumnut · 16 July 2009

rederob said:
Garpal
Hanson had political nous in that she appealed to a section of society in a particular way. She formed a Party that won seats at State level, such was her sway at the time.
But remember this thread is about climate change, which you would rather say is just another way of talking about the weather. In that regard Fielding is as knowledgeable about weather as the next politician, but his capacity to argue the toss on climate issues is possibly as well founded as a failed 5th grader.

Moving on to the other "deniers'" points, there is a propensity to dwell on the catastrophic and extreme in order to invoke the sense that "warmers" have lost their marbles and want us to believe the worst case scenario is around the next corner.
Nice try, but it really does not wash.
If we get a 2 degree climate change over the next century most people won't notice it on a day to day basis because a process of adaptation will be well and truly underway... as it goes.
The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate. And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.
Weather events will have changed markedly, but as the process of change is decadal, successive generations will simply get used to playing the deck of cards they are dealt.

As wayneL would say mate "ad hominem"

I have a few hominem mates and I don't understand how he argues this, as I'm a simple sole (sic) but from my reading of arguments this is an ad hominem argument.

Steve is as different from the fish and chips lady as Al Gore is from Peter Uranium Garrett,

Oh ****, I've shot me hominemes down.

gg

noco · 16 July 2009

rederob said:
Garpal
Hanson had political nous in that she appealed to a section of society in a particular way. She formed a Party that won seats at State level, such was her sway at the time.
But remember this thread is about climate change, which you would rather say is just another way of talking about the weather. In that regard Fielding is as knowledgeable about weather as the next politician, but his capacity to argue the toss on climate issues is possibly as well founded as a failed 5th grader.

Moving on to the other "deniers'" points, there is a propensity to dwell on the catastrophic and extreme in order to invoke the sense that "warmers" have lost their marbles and want us to believe the worst case scenario is around the next corner.
Nice try, but it really does not wash.
If we get a 2 degree climate change over the next century most people won't notice it on a day to day basis because a process of adaptation will be well and truly underway... as it goes.
The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate. And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.
Weather events will have changed markedly, but as the process of change is decadal, successive generations will simply get used to playing the deck of cards they are dealt.

You use the big word "IF" WE get a 2 degree rise, obviously you are now throwing dubious doubt on your own belief.
What are you basing this 2 degrees on, something the AL Gore's LEFTIES are harping to the sceptics?

Calliope · 16 July 2009

rederob said:
The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate. And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.

And you care. Like Stalin cared when the Kulaks lost their land.

2020hindsight · 16 July 2009

noco said:
You use the big word "IF" WE get a 2 degree rise, obviously you are now throwing dubious doubt on your own belief.
What are you basing this 2 degrees on, something the AL Gore's LEFTIES are harping to the sceptics?

It will be a bludy miracle if it's limited to 2 deg.

On the subject of lefties and righties, and I notice Calliope has had to change tack 180 degrees from his accusations of Labor leading us to nuclear - when Howard was miles ahead there ...

but here's what Lord Anthony Gibbens said on ABC last week ( see Copenhagen thread #7 if you're interested)...

ANTHONY GIDDENS: Well, I think part of it is because the climate change sceptics, as I say, being locked into a wider confrontation of political parties, do tend to get quite a lot of attention. They represent, as it were, a kind of Rightist critique of climate-change policy. Plus the fact that it is something quite different from orthodox political issues anyway. So, we're all struggling to sort of cope with the immensity of the issue and you're bound to get a lot of continuing controversy. And I think insofar as I said before, scepticism is based on looking rationally at scientific findings - there is obviously a justification for that. The problem is when it shades over into a sort of illiterate demagoguery of its own.

Maybe there are two religions here.
Now to decide which has done the more research.
Try reading some of this bloke ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

btw noco et al , what do you think of Richard Lovelock anyway? I'd be interested in your opinion.

Hint. Don't forget to consider his contribution to warning us about the (potential for) damage to the ozone layer. Ignoring the taunts from big business that he was an alarmist etc, making the instruments himself to monitor the problem because he couldn't get funding. Rederob has mentioned him also.

If such predictions were coming from anyone else, you would laugh them off as the ravings of an old man projecting his own impending death onto the world around him. But Lovelock is not so easily dismissed. As an inventor, he created a device that helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer and jump-start the environmental movement in the 1970s. And as a scientist, he introduced the revolutionary theory known as Gaia -- the idea that our entire planet is a kind of superorganism that is, in a sense, "alive."

Once dismissed as New Age quackery, Lovelock's vision of a self-regulating Earth now underlies virtually all climate science. Lynn Margulis, a pioneering biologist at the University of Massachusetts, calls him "one of the most innovative and mischievous scientific minds of our time."

Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur, credits Lovelock with inspiring him to pledge billions of dollars to fight global warming. "Jim is a brilliant scientist who has been right about many things in the past," Branson says. "If he's feeling gloomy about the future, it's important for mankind to pay attention."

Mind you, you have to smile to yourself when you hear Branson and Lovelock mentioned in the same sentence.

btw, he actually initially abandoned his initial results - thinking that the concentrations were insignificant. But he was heading in eaxactly the right direction.

PS And It is indeed exactly like alcohol in the bloodstream - in that a small amount makes a big difference - but co2 takes a long time to reach full effect ( hundreds of years). We are in for one hellova hangover pepol!

Julia · 16 July 2009

brty said:
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.

brty

Garpal Gumnut said:
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

I agree. It takes at the very least strength of character to withstand the ridicule and entreaties to join the Labor Party's line on this.
You can throw off at Senator Fielding's IQ all you like.

There are plenty of politicians with quite high intelligence, but without either personal integrity or courage.

Smurf1976 said:
Much as I strongly disagree with him on anything even remotely connected to energy, to be fair I'd argue that Bob does have some good points.

Yes, he does. I would never vote Green in my wildest nightmares, but I can't think of a single Green politician whom I'd regard as a hypocrite.
That's decidedly more than I can say for both the main parties.

rederob · 16 July 2009

noco said:
You use the big word "IF" WE get a 2 degree rise, obviously you are now throwing dubious doubt on your own belief.
What are you basing this 2 degrees on, something the AL Gore's LEFTIES are harping to the sceptics?

Perhaps you could read the IPCC summaries and quickly get up to speed.
Then you could read back in this thread to see that I hold Gore in no regard whatsoever.
Take care not to steal Calliope's thunder: Then again, the more clowns the merrier

Calliope · 16 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
On the subject of lefties and righties, and I notice Calliope has had to change tack 180 degrees from his accusations of Labor leading us to nuclear - when Howard was miles ahead there ...

There you go again with your silly lies. You really are a bottom feeder. All your posts are are boring repetitious drivel. At least Rederob puts up a good argument and he has the integrity to recognise Gore as an imposter. Are you prepared to come out of the closet too?

Calliope · 16 July 2009

rederob said:
Take care not to steal Calliope's thunder: Then again, the more clowns the merrier

Yes I agree. With you as the court jester and 2020 as your imitator you certainly give me a lot of amusement. But I have the feeling that 2020 is as big an embarrassment to you as Al Gore. He is such an easy beat.

trainspotter · 16 July 2009

Good too see so many responses by rederob that go for the "Chickenwing" and not the throat ! His tactic of jugular proportions that leave the true argument alone is amazing. I beleive they call this "Strawman" theory. When one cannot produce the evidence that will convict the lowly perpetrator, one simply must go for the carotid arteroid. By perceiving this, one simply repeats oneself over and over. A bit like a Labot Party HACK really.

It's Snake Pliskin · 17 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
PS And It is indeed exactly like alcohol in the bloodstream - in that a small amount makes a big difference - but co2 takes a long time to reach full effect ( hundreds of years). We are in for one hellova hangover pepol!

The one key point you have failed to acknowledge is that carbon, co2 is natural in the environment.

Alcohol in the blood is not. It is an external substance.

Let's save the propagandist rhetoric.

Garpal Gumnut · 17 July 2009

May I just say say that even though I do not agree with 2020 , his posts are well researched and villification and disrespect of his views should not be countenanced.

Let us argue on science and politics about which this great debate will be won or lost.

And I must repeat 2020 this is not nice to you. I do not countenance bodgey science which disadvantages my dna, kids, grandkids etc, by cruel bodgey taxes and carbon credits..

I insist on being fair and respectful of your views with which I totally disagree so far.

gg

2020hindsight · 17 July 2009

Thanks for the qualified encouragement gg,...

"Fight to the death my right to say it " sorta stuff ?

:topic gotta feeling that Fielding is keen on internet censorship. Now there's another topic altogether. Certainly gotta be dealt with by people of intelligence, and I don;t believe Fielding is the man.

Also he (+Libs) singlehandedly (first round) stopped alcopops when it was gonna allocate a stack on warnings, counselling, education and other initiatives, cultural and sporting sponsorship, etc. - all thoser things you'd expect Family First to stand up for. weird dude.
http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/alcopops-tax-right-decision-greens

2020hindsight · 17 July 2009

It's Snake Pliskin said:
The one key point you have failed to acknowledge is that carbon, co2 is natural in the environment.

Alcohol in the blood is not. It is an external substance.

Let's save the propagandist rhetoric.

there were times in the past when CO2 was higher than now. then again, the solar radiation was half what is now as well. THe entire thing appears to be in a balance, where the temperature of the earth was more of less the same - to the point where James Lovelock espoused his Gaia theory. But I'm guessing you've never read any Lovelock. - it's worth a read. "The revenge of Gaia" etc

alcohol in the blood. - so you hang your case on the fact that alcohol is exterrnal. Sound like the JW's who refuse blood transfusions - and about as relevant.

Climate change another name for Weather

Smurf1976

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Smurf1976

noco

rederob

MrBurns

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

noco

Calliope

2020hindsight

Julia

In Memoriam

rederob

Calliope

Calliope

trainspotter

It's Snake Pliskin

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Climate change another name for Weather

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Ross Island Hotel

In Memoriam

Ross Island Hotel

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency