Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climategate

Jump to new
:D:D:D from http://wattsupwiththat.com/

091206beelertoon_c.jpg
 
Aussiejeff said:
If I hear ONE MORE TIME the media broadcasting that friggin' **SCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!** by that kiddy starring in the global Warming Horror Movie Advertisement (ostensibly created to SHOCK and AWE the participants of this gobfest - and the Rest Of The Known World to boot) - I'll go mental :banghead: :silly:

Talk about gratuitous scare tactics.....

:angry:
Click to expand...

Remember the Grim Reaper ads?

Also had screeching, screaming kiddies being *bowled over*.

Maybe KRudd should develop an appropriate *screech* to scare us some more... :eek:
 
the rains keep coming

and i gather the drought (caused by carbon no doubt) will continue

lol
 

Attachments

  • weather.png
    weather.png
    84.7 KB · Views: 63
wayneL said:
Ahem...

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
Click to expand...

Very interesting research, thanks for discovering it and I am glad some creatures such as crabs and lobsters have a defense for higher CO2 levels. But you cherrypicked the report to suit your beliefs. What about these quotes?

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.

and the conclusion:

“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems," he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
 
wayneL said:
Ocean Acidification and Corals

Edit to add>> Here is a comment from the above blog which is spot on and furthers my consistent point that co2 is a red herring... meanwhile, there are more important things being ignored:
Click to expand...

To say one evil shouldn't be corrected because of another evil is illogical.

In any case they are two sides of the same coin. Much of the pollution is formed by burning fossil fuels whether the photochemical smog is made from cars or cold burning power stations.

And of course I agree fertilizers and lets face it human bodily waste entering pristine waters should not occur and is slowly being fixed worldwide however that doesn't mean you shouldn't act on related problems.

Sometimes they are linked. The destruction of forests in Brneo is destroying the habitat for many precious creatures such as Orangutangs. It is also adding massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and polluting the waters as waste washes into the sea and farming takes place. Part of Australia's plans to reduce this is to pay Indonesia to lock up the forests and take a carbon credit for our country for that.

Everything is linked and maybe you don't agree with the emphasis but you cannot argue we should ignore the problems.
 
Agentm said:
the rains keep coming

and i gather the drought (caused by carbon no doubt) will continue

lol
Click to expand...

Better not use Australian weather as your argument. New heat record for Melbourne occurred, our second heat record for the year.
 
Knobby22 said:
Very interesting research, thanks for discovering it and I am glad some creatures such as crabs and lobsters have a defense for higher CO2 levels. But you cherrypicked the report to suit your beliefs. What about these quotes?

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.

and the conclusion:

“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems," he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Click to expand...
Cherrypicking?

Me?

Only alarmists cherrypick! :D:D:D:D

But as a point of order, the conclusion does not follow from the data presented. As such, it is a gratuitous hat tip to the powerful warming lobby. It made me laugh. :)
 
Knobby22 said:
To say one evil shouldn't be corrected because of another evil is illogical.

In any case they are two sides of the same coin. Much of the pollution is formed by burning fossil fuels whether the photochemical smog is made from cars or cold burning power stations.

And of course I agree fertilizers and lets face it human bodily waste entering pristine waters should not occur and is slowly being fixed worldwide however that doesn't mean you shouldn't act on related problems.

Sometimes they are linked. The destruction of forests in Brneo is destroying the habitat for many precious creatures such as Orangutangs. It is also adding massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and polluting the waters as waste washes into the sea and farming takes place. Part of Australia's plans to reduce this is to pay Indonesia to lock up the forests and take a carbon credit for our country for that.

Everything is linked and maybe you don't agree with the emphasis but you cannot argue we should ignore the problems.
Click to expand...

It may seem that way at face value.

However attacking co2 levels may not reduce pollution... may even increase it.

Attacking general pollution, including that caused directly and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, but not specifically co2 which isn't a pollutant in the strict sense, plus addressing land and resource use, may bring down or stabilize co2 as a by product.

I know which way I want to approach it.
 
Knobby22 said:
Better not use Australian weather as your argument. New heat record for Melbourne occurred, our second heat record for the year.
Click to expand...

No, we can. It was 14 degrees today, with a whole lot of rain as well :) What a scorching hot summer we're having in Melbourne.
 
wayneL said:
It may seem that way at face value.

However attacking co2 levels may not reduce pollution... may even increase it.

Attacking general pollution, including that caused directly and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, but not specifically co2 which isn't a pollutant in the strict sense, plus addressing land and resource use, may bring down or stabilize co2 as a by product.

I know which way I want to approach it.
Click to expand...

I am in partial agreement with you on this. I worry that setting up a giant beauracracy of carbon credits is a messy, wasteful and ultimately fruitless way to do it as mankind has a way of evading laws like this. I am hoping for a visionary to come out of Copenhagen but I don't fancy my chances.:karaoke:
 
Knobby22 said:
So the hottest November ever dosn't mean anything???:D:D
Click to expand...

Sigh, it wasn't the hottest November. The hottest November was back in 1890-something. Wow, over a 100 years ago - how's that for Climate Change?

Edit: Apparently it was broken :p: - but again, doesn't the fact that heat waves existed back then indicate that cycles are just a natural order?
 
Nyden said:
Sigh, it wasn't the hottest November. The hottest November was back in 1890-something. Wow, over a 100 years ago - how's that for Climate Change?

Edit: Apparently it was broken :p: - but again, doesn't the fact that heat waves existed back then indicate that cycles are just a natural order?
Click to expand...

This graph is plotted for mean maximum temperature from 1861-1890. Along side it is the 2009 plot to this year October 2009. Looks very normal if on the slightly high side by 1 or 2 °C .
 

Attachments

  • climateStatGraph.pl.png
    climateStatGraph.pl.png
    10.2 KB · Views: 166
Knobby22 said:
Better not use Australian weather as your argument. New heat record for Melbourne occurred, our second heat record for the year.
Click to expand...

And you better not use Australian weather as your argument either... :rolleyes:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-email-mess-hits-australia-20091204-kb39.html

"In another case, 30 years of data is attributed to a site at Cobar Airport but the frustrated programmer writes: "Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened ... COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar co-ordinates."
 
Deny science at your peril, or rather your grandkids' peril. Global warming has taken off at an unprecedented rate since the 1980s and only a fool or an ideologue like Tony Abbott could deny it. Check out the graph below and others like it from NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

NASA is a reputable organisation last time I looked but, hey, I'm sure there are deniers who claim all science is a commie plot. And if humans aren't causing global warming, what is? Sunspots? Alien ray guns?
 

Attachments

  • Fig_A2_lrg.gif
    Fig_A2_lrg.gif
    16.6 KB · Views: 145
Trade wind said:
Deny science at your peril, or rather your grandkids' peril. Global warming has taken off at an unprecedented rate since the 1980s and only a fool or an ideologue like Tony Abbott could deny it. Check out the graph below and others like it from NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

NASA is a reputable organisation last time I looked but, hey, I'm sure there are deniers who claim all science is a commie plot. And if humans aren't causing global warming, what is? Sunspots? Alien ray guns?
Click to expand...

:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Science..... :rolleyes:

The science has been comprehensively discredited. The hockey stick smashed to pieces, the IPCC models rendered to a quirky little curve fitted curiosity that have utterly failed to predict anything except that more reputations are going in the tank.

The data used to construct that graph is totally degraded into farce. It cannot be relied upon.

The Church of Al Bore of Latter Day Alarmists have taken to the Goebbelsian tactic of repetition. It will fool many, maybe enough to fulfil their agenda, whatever it is. But it won't fool everyone maybe enough to foil their stinking idea of... whatever it is.

Meanwhile, genuine environmental issues continue unabated and irrepairable damage done to the credibility (by association with the Klimate Klaxons) of fair dinkum environmental activists.
 
FYI Via Wattsupwiththat.

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol...

..."It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
Click to expand...

Also Copenhagen conference in 'disarray'

Also a good read on weather stations shenanigans:

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Oh Dear, the wheel are falling off the bandwagon. They will have to resurrect Goebbels himself to get out of this one.
 
Top