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

Climategate

Jump to new
I have had a bit of a look about and the consensus seems to be that 70m rise is attributed to Antarctica alone. Greenland is an additional 7m.

Interesting .ppt here from 2004 http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0615Oppenheimer.pdf discussing the ice sheets, sea level rise and showing little change in them at the moment. I have not followed up on the accuracy of this though he does go on to say that during the last interglacial period the ice sheets were much smaller and the temperature was 1-2 degrees warmer. Needs some follow up, but an interesting statement nonetheless.
 
Que sera sera
 

Attachments

  • mad.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 285
Dodgy data, makes for dodgy science and encourages dodgy politicians to make dodgy taxes for dodgy revenue raising for dodgy social engineering on the pretext of dodgy assumptions about the weather.

Rudd fell for it.

The University of East Anglia have come clean.

Al Gore was comprehensively discredited by a British judge for his dodgy movie.

And still the trough drinkers are off to Copenhagen.

When will it all stop.

Its a religion.

gg
 

Yep its dodgy alright. It's more evil than Thatcher's poll tax or Howard's GST IMO. Because it is a 100% tax on what you can afford. With both sides ignoring the marginal utility of people with lower wages to buy expensive environmentally friendly gadgets, toys, heaters, air-conditioners, plasmas, cars, homes etc... But the average citizen will just have to keep paying through the nose because they can only afford the basics and the basics are dirtier for the environment.

And to think half the tories were behind Turntable to get this up. WAJ
I suppose when your a multi-millionaire like most of our political leaders you can afford environmentally friendly luxuries.

Yep it has become so ridiculous it is like a religion.
 
It's certainly true that, with the possible exceptions of cars and low energy light bulbs, going "green" does require a significant up-front capital investment that is beyond the reach of many.
 
This is the point I keep trying to make. We have thousands of people in Australia already struggling to exist financially, many through no fault of their own, i.e. being retrenched after age 40, illness/disability etc.

And in order to satisfy the Coalition's demands re the amended ETS, the extra funds for business were taken from the budget which would have compensated householders.

Yep, the Labor government is really for 'working families', or 'the ordinary people'. What a joke. And the Coalition under Turnbull was no better.
It remains to be seen what will happen under Abbott's leadership.
At least it won't be boring and at least he won't be sounding like a paid up member of the Labor Party.
 
Hopefully some progress towards getting to the truth in the research can be made:

British to review data on weather after scandal

The British Meteorological Office is to undertake a three-year reanalysis of its temperature data and has asked 188 nations - including Australia - for permission to release raw weather data in the wake of the climate-change email scandal.
 
lol, this all kinda sounds like the whole debate some time ago about whether the earth is flat or not.

Even if you are undecided, i see this as one way of looking at it.

So suppose we follow the skeptic's view and they are wrong, we are ****ed! and suppose we follow the believers in climate change and they are wrong, well i guess we have wasted a bit of money, and we have cleaner air, more trees etc (Not so bad).

If we had two planets, one for skeptics and one for non-skeptics it would work out fine, but considering we only have one planet, i'm not that keen to simply wait and see if the skeptics are wrong or not.

My 2c
 
Unmitigated nonsense. Flat earth... pffffffft! Anyone using this argument from now on qualifies as a moron (Now that Gordon Brown has used it). It is not relevant and is a straw man argument.

The problem with the alarmists is that their narrow focus does not, in fact, address many environment problems we have... that would be the real ones, not the co2 ruse.

We could reduce co2 to 280ppm and still have monumental environmental problems which threaten humanity.
 

I'm all for fixing other problems, but this thread was on climate change specifically, and I'm certainly not an alarmist. Maybe you should focus on widening your own narrow focus considering you are so quick to put other people in some category inside your little head. don't be so rude... moron yourself...
 
drsmith said:
If all the ice caps melted.....

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg
Click to expand...

We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.

The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.

We haven't got the sense to act though. Too many deniers. Look at this thread for instance.
 

Same can be said for people who ignore the School of Philosophy on this thread as well. Too many herd followers disregarding the impact and means of others to cope with paying more taxes. That goes for most of the pollies in Canberra couldn't give a rats about battlers.
 
Knobby22 said:
The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this proposition.

This sounds more like horse**** or religious prediction than science to me.

gg
 
GumbyLearner said:
Same can be said for people who ignore the School of Philosophy on this thread as well. Too many herd followers disregarding the impact and means of others to cope with paying more taxes.
Click to expand...

I agree the ETS is flawed but we have to act!
 
Knobby22 said:
We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.
Click to expand...
There is no where in central Aust that you can cut a channel to fill now days, it is all well above sea level.

The inland sea that is talked about is the areas of Australia that were inundated or represent palaeo-continental shelves in our past. Two of these major periods were the Devonian (time of armoured fish - approx 400Ma ago) and the Cretaceous (time of large sea going reptiles such as plesiosaurs - approx 145-65Ma ago). Australia essentially gets younger as you head east so it common for there to exist fossil coastlines and shallow seas preserved within the continent to give the illusion of an ancient inland sea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...