Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[The Ferret]

this post sickens me ferret. Ignorance - sheer ignorance.

Clipperton Reef ... up near Mexico - pollution, plastic etc etc

Clipperton's Dirty Secret

check out the vocal at the 2m 30s mark

then try this (and it really should make you sick - assuming youhave any interest in what damage we are doing - or maybe have done a bit of scuba diving perhaps) ..

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story

Nope... doesn't sicken me. Takes more than a few dead birds to "ruffle my feathers".

What sickens me is the money we waste on this rubbish while humans (not birds) starve to death. What sickens me is corruption that denies people in third world countries the benefits of capitalism. What sickens me is the fact that people complain about an interest rate rise here or there while people are getting hacked to death with machetes O/S as part of everyday community life. The list goes on...

What sickens me even more is the utter hypocrisy of the western green left who are so keen to deny developing countries their bounty while they sit here on their PC's, in their comfy warm houses, driving nice cars and flying in planes. Also sickens me to think of the millions of people worldwide who are suffering untold hardship and starvation due to high food costs.. thanks to the brilliant idea to turn food into fuel (another great green idea).

These are but a few of the things that sicken me 2020. Dead birds? No... I guess it's all about priorities. But hey... you are allowed yours, as I am mine.

 

[doogie_goes_off]

A few dead birds has nothing to do with Global Warming does it? Unless those birds were escaping a rain of plastic bags because there is such convection in our atmosphere from the overwhelming heat? It's preety cold where I sit at my computer. (Note - also off the subject - the copper I use I would like to come from the FNT copper mine, why deny others development for an emotion?).

 

[2020hindsight]

Nope... doesn't sicken me. Takes more than a few dead birds to "ruffle my feathers"..

go watch sbs now then ( sydney time)
get an education on this matter

ferret
you are a one aren't you
you post that the plastic situation is exaggerated
I post evidence that says you are wrong
suddenly it becomes a judgement matter - suddenly you're mother teresa's long lost brother
birds less important than people etc

 

[Wysiwyg]

2020 .. it may only be 10% of the human population that ignorantly dispose of containers/wrappings etc. so most are conscientious of disposing to a designated rubbish collection point.
I`t just that 10% is about 600 million people that are un-educated,ill-informed and unconscious.Thanks for raising the awareness.

note .. numbers above are for conversation.

 

[The Ferret]

A few dead birds has nothing to do with Global Warming does it? Unless those birds were escaping a rain of plastic bags because there is such convection in our atmosphere from the overwhelming heat? It's preety cold where I sit at my computer. (Note - also off the subject - the copper I use I would like to come from the FNT copper mine, why deny others development for an emotion?).

Would you believe I was going to edit my previous post to include the FNT issue??

This is exactly what I'm talking about!! These people WANT the mine, they WANT to develop their community and improve their lives. But no.. purists here in good ol' comfy AU want to deny them because it's "special"... THIS is what sickens me!!

You can have your dead birds.... save the people for Christs sakes. Save them from the western green left hypocrisy.

 

[The Ferret]

go watch sbs now then ( sydney time)
get an education on this matter

I don't use TV as my source for "education"... anyone can can get a degree in "watching"...

 

[The Ferret]

go watch sbs now then ( sydney time)
get an education on this matter

ferret
you are a one aren't you
you post that the plastic situation is exaggerated
I post evidence that says you are wrong
suddenly it becomes a judgement matter - suddenly you're mother teresa's long lost brother
birds less important than people etc

Birds less important than people? Absolutely. Surely you would agree? No?

 

[wayneL]

You can have your dead birds.... save the people for Christs sakes.

Let's save both.

Save them from the western green left hypocrisy.

I'm a card carrying greenie, but I gotta agree with this point. Hypocrisy in the extreme.

 

[doogie_goes_off]

Saving birds is easy - don't strip their habitat, replant local species and not just the overstory. Saving humans is valid as long as we're not breeding like rabbits. Saving humans is easy too, just that everyone cares about themselves and their own kind/clan/associates etc more. So if you care you can save whatever you like, just figure out what worth caring about, it's the opinion most worth having.

 

[Smurf1976]

Slightly off topic... but somehow relevant to debate about greenies and the quoting of studies....

"....Plastic bag threat to sea life 'exaggerated'...."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23438890-2,00.html

Still very relevant though.

We are told that the plastic threat isn't so bad only AFTER politicians have committed to action.

We are hearing about increasing ice build up etc only AFTER politicians have committed to address climate change.

We were told that there were downsides to tree plantations only AFTER vast areas were planted at the greens' urging.

We heard that woodheaters and cars collectively emit far more dioxin than even the worst pulp mill only AFTER Wesley Vale was canned and many spent years out of work as a consequence.

And so on.

Spot the pattern? Exaggerate the threat or extent of damage for as long as it takes to get something banned, stopped or otherwise changed to suit the Greens. Then, and only then, admit that it wasn't so bad after all.

The wanted nuclear, then they didn't. They wanted coal, now they don't. They wanted oil, now they don't. They wanted wind, now they don't. They didn't want gas, now they do. And they hated hydro, now it's "clean and green". And yes, the greens DID at one point advocate logging the forests (true).

I'm all for protecting the environment and I'm probably more active than most in terms of actually doing something. But this constant changing of every major policy position back and forth simply to stop any form of development is beyond a joke. It's nothing more than opposing whatever is currently proposed in order to keep themselves in business and others out of business.

Basslink was a truly classic example. An idea first seriously promoted by greens. An idea subsequently revived a decade later and actively pursued by the Greens. And then they launched a major campaign against it the moment it was announced that it would actually be built...

Judge for yourself. Some say it's the environment but observation of actual events tells me it's about politics first and foremost with the environment being nothing more than a means to justify the end.

 

[2020hindsight]

Saving birds is easy - don't strip their habitat, replant local species and not just the overstory. Saving humans is valid as long as we're not breeding like rabbits. Saving humans is easy too, just that everyone cares about themselves and their own kind/clan/associates etc more. So if you care you can save whatever you like, just figure out what worth caring about, it's the opinion most worth having.

careful doogie
ferret wants to encourage rabbit-like behaviour
then again that was last week
who knows this week

 

[Smurf1976]

This is exactly what I'm talking about!! These people WANT the mine, they WANT to develop their community and improve their lives. But no.. purists here in good ol' comfy AU want to deny them because it's "special"... THIS is what sickens me!!

Now where have I come across that scenario a few times before...

 

[wayneL]

careful doogie
ferret wants to encourage rabbit-like behaviour
then again that was last week
who knows this week

I have nothing against rabbit-like behaviour, just think it's a good idea to prevent the natural result to some extent.

 

[The Ferret]

careful doogie
ferret wants to encourage rabbit-like behaviour
then again that was last week
who knows this week

Again, playing the man, not the ball. Desperate....

 

[2020hindsight]

for the record,
"encouraging rabbit like behaviour" in ferret's opinion translates as
"it 's a great idea to increase the population"

PS feel free to disagree ferret.
but that's what you said last week (paraphrased).

I'm not playing the man - I'm just trying to see how many personalities I'm dealing with here

 

[Wysiwyg]

I have nothing against rabbit-like behaviour, just think it's a good idea to prevent the natural result to some extent.

It`s human nature (loosely coined term that is) to keep people alive and we find that `preventing` people from dying of natural causes is happening more .Obviously from this 2002 table the Africans have the higher rate and `most` countries are having more births than deaths.World population will multiply rapidly in better economic times for the so called 3 rd. world countries.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500528/birth_and_death_rates_by_country_or_region.html

 

[derty]

Ummmm, A bit fast and loose with the facts there matey.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

While your linked article supports Erik misusing 'Green' I concede that my stating Greenland was never green was wrong and I agree I was a bit hasty to get my reply out especially given that my sloppy reply was to counter a sloppy point made. I was relaying a couple things I remember from a Uni lecture. The main point that I should have made more saliently was that Greenland, while inhabited, and albeit unsuccessfully in the end, was never a lush green place. There was a pull back of ice in some coastal areas that allowed limited habitation, though almost all of the island remained covered with ice. As it is today.

The ice cover is over 110,000 years old and several km thick in places:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.html.

The period Erik enticed people to Greenland was during a warmer period, the ice records show similar warm periods over the previous 1500 years (see attached image) The Norse settlement milestones correspond with following points:
3. Norse settlement of Greenland starts just before the year 1000.
4. Thule Inuit move into northern Greenland in the 12th century.
5. Late Dorset culture disappears from Greenland in the second half of the 13th century.
6. The Western Settlement disappears in mid 14th century.
7. In 1408 is the Marriage in Hvalsey, the last known written document on the Norse in Greenland.
8. The Eastern Settlement disappears in mid 15th century.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

The use of the Greenland argument neither supports or discounts AGW really. Temperatures in Greenland have been as warm as they are now, the question is will they continue to get warmer.

so you admit conflicting science. how did you choose the 'greater flares' science?

I'm sorry metric I'm not really sure what I am admitting and are not really sure what you are asking me here.

 

[2020hindsight]

It`s human nature (loosely coined term that is) to keep people alive and we find that `preventing` people from dying of natural causes is happening more .Obviously from this 2002 table the Africans have the higher rate and `most` countries are having more births than deaths.World population will multiply rapidly in better economic times for the so called 3 rd. world countries.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500528/birth_and_death_rates_by_country_or_region.html

wys
I sorted that data - birth rates descending, death rates ascending.
Africa sure features.
Urgent need for education!
and tell the Pope to butt out with his religious "opinion" on contraception - sheesh.

Here's the top of the list...

PS wouldn't it be brilliant if we all acted like Austria
equal birth and death rates . ! (9.6 and 9.7 resp)

or better still Germany ( births 9.0, deaths 10.4)

PS Australia 12.7, 7.3
NZ 14.2, 7.6 - a few sheep thrown in.

 

[metric]

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, March 24, 2008

Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.



http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1810#comment-44109

 

[Julia]

Thanks, Metric.

The writer of that article will be howled down and despised.
Anyone who doesn't attach themselves to the current fanatical obsession with man's foul emission causing behaviour is a heretic at the very least.

Ah, how we love our self-flagellation.