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
ok – let’s put it another way ...

a) the industrial revolution started us down a road where the world has never been before – do you think that the earth can sustain an endless buildup in the number of coal powered generators and the like? – no ok
b) do you think it’s a good idea that we stop burning so much fossil fuel? (for whatever reason – not least is that it’s gonna run out if we keep this rate up) – you do – great
c) do you think that we should be encouraged to invent ? to grasp opportunities? i.e. things like cleaner energy options? where solar has become several times more efficient over the last 10 years or so.
d) how do you feel about encouraging everyone, including third world countries to leave their forests standing? – you think it’s a good idea – great
e) when it comes to pollution, do you think it’s a good idea that we work towards global cooperation, with all countries on board? – it’s a good idea – great
f) is this counter to man’s normal tendency to pursue “old-fashioned dirty development” at the cost of all else , including the environment we hand on to the next generation? (and maybe encourage them to have a smaller next generation)
g) how hard is it to get the public motivated to think differently to this ingrained mindset? – pretty hard ? yep
h) have you ever seen the level of international discussion and agreement on this matter before? nope, nor have I
i) should we encourage this trend or not - ? or should we argue that we agree with all the positive outcomes, but disagree with the reason for doing it?

This from wikipedia :-
Remember that both parties in the recent US election wanted to become more conscious and proactive on this one. EVEN the US!! Why stand in the way of the anti - pollution message ?? - I just don't understand why anyone who would do that.
 

Attachments

  • GW poll wiki.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 49

Attachments

  • GGWS-ABC1.jpg
    10.1 KB · Views: 124
  • GGWS-ABC2.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 130
2020,

All very alarming if the science was unequivocal as portrayed by that lieing gang of shysters, the IPCC. The problem is that the collation of the available science is shYte. It is a cherry picked fraud... UNEQUIVOCAL.

You keep labouring under the same logical fallacies. You also continue with your totally disgraceful straw man argument by misrepresenting my position. Are you intellectually challenged? It seems so. Either that or totally disingenuous and politically partisan....or both. No surprises there.

How else can you support someone so intellectually and morally compromised as that vested interest hypocrite Al Bore?

It's all politics. The sooner the the mainstream wakes up to that fact, we can concentrate on things that matter. To repeat for the millionth time, co2 is just a sideshow, the main game is other forms of pollution the effects of which are real and measured.

eg the North Pacific swirling rubbish tip as per the youtube I posted, and that is just one example. Another is the disappearance of bees, nothing to do with climate change, everything to do with real anthropogenic impacts such as pesticide use, and without them, we all starve long before sea levels don't rise.
 
Carter vs Karoly ... judge for yourself ...
(Carter comes on about 9m10s mark)
... Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9
 
I'm interested in good science, not a good debate.

GW science is largely junk, the hockey stick entirely discredited, the IPCC exposed as being on the take. Sorry 2020, you and your ilk are no better than a religious proselyte, converting people with fear rather than fact.

That's the truth of the matter.

Over and out.
 
It's a challenge Wayne. The reality of global warming is that within our lifetime our world will become far hotter, far wilder and far less pleasant to live in. In fact in many areas uninhabitable.

You take the view that this is just not going to happen. That somehow 20-30 years of research, examination and finally physical evidence of warming cannot be compared to a relative handful of people who dispute the evidence.

If you wanted to consider a valid comparison think about the public debates on cigarette smoking and asbestos related disease.

Doctors in London 1939 established that cigarette smoking was causing a huge increase in lung cancer. And yet the tobacco industry continued its promotion, development, advertising and misinformation on the facts.

During the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's the industry just lied and lied to protect profits.

Asbestos was similarly identified as a killer in the 30's. Same story of deliberate lies and malfeasance. In both cases it seemed amazing that in the face of repeated proof that their products were killers, spurious arguments of "individual right to smoke" "freedom of thought" deliberately twisted research, national bribery, and so on allowed both industries to continue making awesome profits while killing millions of people.

Does any of this sound familiar Wayne?

It might because apart from many similarities in the arguments it so happens that the same immoral, lying bastards who kept the tobacco industry going are the ones who developed a similar patter on global warming in the 90's and to this day.

We've been stooged Wayne et al. When we finally realised in the 80's that we were on the wrong track as far as the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere we had some sort of rough chance of turning things around. Twenty years later that opportunity is thin... and that's being wildly optimistic.

I have attached a story which outlines with dates, names and evidence the process that used the tobacco lobbyists skills for Global Warming deniers.


The denial industry
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2


For anyone interested in how we might reverse global warming George Monbiots book Heat (mentioned above) is an excellent source. I have attached a summary of the book as a start. (Cheers Smurf)

Review of George Monbiot's "Heat"
by Dave Pollard

Other recent books like The Weather Makers explain what we're doing to cause global warming and the catastrophes it will soon cause. George Monbiot's book Heat is devoted entirely to answering the question What Do We Do To Stop It. This is the first in a series of articles summarizing his action plan.

From the outset, Monbiot makes clear that he's not looking for a subsistence solution: He doesn't believe any such solution can be 'sold' to the majority of the people in affluent nations, so he doesn't propose to try. We need to retain, he says, our creature comforts, our political and economic freedoms, our right to health care and education and security and freedom from fear.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/22176
 
Wayne can you please elaborate on your "politics" argument. What is it the GW'ers are trying to gain?

I personally don't see any negative outcome to the GW/CC debate. Apart from a little sacrifice... mainly money.
So far the modern world is more aware of our effect on the environment, and the changes our foot prints can make. As a result, we are trying to cater to the new breed of enviro friendly people- hybrid cars, super efficient diesel engines, LED's, subsidised solar panels and such and such. All these little advances in human evolution help a tiny bit, lots of tiny bits over time is what we need, and I'm happy with the progress we've (humans) made so far. We can't change the dirty past but we can try to have a cleaner future.

I agree that we can do so much more, our big massive TV's, our big heated houses, but any change will happen very slowly, and so, arguing over weather GW is wrong or right, or true, is unimportant and the benefits of the debate should be the topic of discussion.

The green revolution is here and maybe we need to be scared into "sustained green advancement". And if this is true, so what?
 
As a point of interest, here is the cover of GMs other book:



As such, Monbiot blows whatsoever any credibility on the subject of GW. Critical thinkers and investigators will know why. GW religionistas will fall for his argument.

Monbiot is well known as a left wing radical in this country, in favour of silencing criticism. The fact that he writes for the Gaurdian will speak volumes for those who know of it's agenda.
 
basilio,

To help you understand how wrong your post is, Isuggest you look uo the meanings of these word.

  • fact
  • theory
  • hypothesis

I see you are confused about these.

DYOR

Over and out
 

Thanks for your astute observations Wayne And actually George has written more than one book as well as few hundred newspaper articles, lectures ect. But let's not let any effort at actually reading his material and checking his sources get in the way here..

Did anyone else have any comments after reading the extract from George Monbioits book detailing the role of ex-tobacco lobbyists in destroying scientific debate on global warming?
 
Return of the Bible Plagues
Tuesday, December 2, 8.30pm
Channel: SBS
Duration: 60 minutes Documentary
To punish the Egyptian Pharaoh for enslaving the Israelites and refusing to let them leave, God sent down 10 plagues on Egypt. The first was turning the Nile into a river of blood.

compares this with current trends with GW etc.
 
2020hindsight said:
Return of the Bible Plagues
... God sent down 10 plagues on Egypt. The first was turning the Nile into a river of blood. compares this with current trends with GW etc.
Click to expand...
In those days they had algal blooms in the Nile - these days they are having them in the lakes of Austria
 
I see the argument is still extremely polarized and dogmatic (with a couple of exceptions).
I don't know what is happening, but I'm pretty sure the truth is not at the extremes.
Sound familiar?
 
see gg

last night I had a few beers with a fellow who used to be an auditor in Zimbabwe.
a) coroners/ doctors are prohibited from saying that people died from AIDS - they have to say something else (like pneumonia etc) - at risk of death..
b) you say anything against Mugabe at risk of death
c) the anti-Mugabe people are the first to have clean water cut off etc - they are being killed by cholera etc disproportionally. etc

Please don't compare you recent holiday in Sth Africa as any relevance to what is happening in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe or anywhere else for that matter
 

You warmeners seek to debase the arguments of anyone who opposes your cant and godbotherlike predictions.

As Shakespeare said:

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

And don't get me started on auditors.

gg
 
So gg, what's your opinion of the Pope (head godbotherer yes?) telling these people that condoms are the "route to hell"?

At the risk of combining pathos and "humour (sic - literally)" in the one post ...
like the African Peasant who thought that the "Alternative Route" was the sister in law

PS promiscuity and adultery are rife in African third world countries as well
 
billhill said:
I always thought the term was chosen by governments because it sounded less serious then global warming.
Click to expand...
It was known as "the greenhouse effect" for many years. Most Australians would have heard that term somewhere in the late 1980's.

Then it became "global warming" during the 1990's. My understanding is that this was supposedly to convey a more serious message, since "greenhouse effect" seemed a somewhat humorous term to some and didn't convey the message of a serious scientific issue.

This decade it has become "Climate Change", a terms which effectively allows any change in climate, or simply a variation in weather, to be attributed to the CO2 issue. This seems more a political action than a scientific one.

In regard to the population issue that some have mentioned, it will correct itself sooner than most are expecting. There are 2 big and 3 medium pillars that enable the present population level to be sustained. Without either of the two big pillars, or without the collective contribution of the medium ones, it simply isn't practical to sustain the present population.

Major pillars: Oil, Natural Gas

Medium pillars: Coal, Nuclear energy, Hydro-electricity

Take out the energy and the whole lot comes crashing down rather fast. That means, in short, food production collapses without oil and gas whilst food processing, preservation and distribution falls in a heap without those plus coal, nuclear and hydro.

Rather alarming I'd think that BOTH of the major pillars are seriously limited resources and that only one of the medium pillars is actually sustainable in the long term. So it's either a technological revolution, we find a heap more oil and gas, or population is headed down in a big way at some point.
 
Emphasis mine.

Politics. Primary outcome I can see is an accelerated shift of economic wealth to non-Kyoto countries and a consequent increase in their domestic consumption and hence environmental impact. That is the ultimate outcome of all measures to deal with the problem that I've heard or seen promoted.

Energy conservation and efficiency. When you have the present monetary system with its inherent requirement for constant growth, energy efficiency and conservation are totally ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions. Whilst one individual may emit less, across the whole economy that is offset. For example, you spend less on petrol because you use less of it. So you spend more on something else - and that something else pollutes more than you'd probably like to admit whilst we have an energy system almost totally based on fossil fuels. The only thing that actually works is to change that energy system to something else - renewables or nuclear.

Big heated houses. The big thing I can agree with the argument there. But as for the heating, no way am I going back to the practice of being stingy with the heating. Just too many colds, flu etc and there's a link with cardiovascular disease as well if you do a bit of research. My heater will be on tonight as it will be on any night the thermostat chooses to switch it on. I'm not about to shiver in the dark whilst we've got clean energy alternatives that could be used if only enviornmentalists would stop opposing practically all of them.
 
Try a woollen jumper m8
It's December for cyrysake
 
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...