regardless of people's opinion on global warming...
if a megacorporation like exxon stop funding groups whose sole purpose is to deny climate change, that pretty much signals the end of the road for the anti global warming brigade.
there are extents. You on Exxon's side?similarly if vote-buying politicians cease funding 'scientific organisations' whose sole purpose is to promote AGW, the AGW brigade will die as quickly as they appeared.
to suggest one side is completely honest and transparent while the other is not is sheer hypocrisy.
.there are extents. You on Exxon's side?
I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)
You bet I did, and thanks for the link Doris. Bludy brilliant.Did you see Four Corners's program Tipping Point last night?
"A voyage into the Arctic to witness the vanishing of the vast sea ice... Can it be halted - or is it past tipping point?"
Dr Ted Scambos: less reflective ice -> warming oceans & permafrost -> release of CO2 & methane -> more GW
Dr Robie Macdonald: Arctic a sentinel & export of change -> global weather & ecosystems
The video of the whole show and extended interviews:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm
wayneL said:North Sea ice IS smaller than it was in 1979, but not anywhere even remotely close to what the AGW alarmists would have people believe. I have demonstrated that... not that it isn't less, but that it's a lot less "less" than AGW hypocrites represent.
POLAR BEARS AREN'T DROWNING as the Al Bore imbecile foisted on a gullible and concerned public.
You bet I did, and thanks for the link Doris. Bludy brilliant.
I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING" (the capitals were his)... well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list
Bore Corners
I heard today (can't find a link) - something about a Victorian Court has required that some seaside property must disclaim it is vulnerable to rising sealevel (I imagine something like floodprone land)
Gee that is gonna be a major laugh for the current owners innit?
Ahh found it , post #1072
Wayne, do yourself a favour and watch Bore Corners.
lol:sleeping:
I deal in facts, not sensationalist propaganda.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/
^^^Good site BTW
Back to my hedonism.
lol
It happens to be an icebreaker,
people who know what they're talking about
you might learn somepin
The trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.there are extents. You on Exxon's side?
I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)
Don't panic, Polar Bear's doing fine. He's soundly sleeping in front of the fire right now, having had a nice meal of fish and a bikkie.I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING" (the capitals were his)... well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list
Author Dr Ian Allison (Co-chairman IPY)
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 11:40:17pm
Subject >>Re: mass balance in arctic and antarctic
You are wrong. Greenland has almost certainly been contributing to sea level rise over the last few years at up to 0.5 mm/yr. If all the Greenland ice were to melt it would add over 7 m to sea level.
Don't know where the 11 cm comes from certainly not the IPCC report. But if all the small mid latitude glaciers were to melt they would add between 15 and 37 cm to sea level. There is a large range in this estimate because there are so many glaciers, mostly in inaccessible regions.
Author phoenix
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 11:43:19pm
Subject >>>Re: mass balance in arctic and antarctic
And presumably, if the experts maths are right, a 7m sea level rise equals approximately a 700m retreat of the shoreline. Puts most of Australia's coastline well under water - including the Sydney CBD. I guess they'll just move Circular Quay up to Town Hall and increase the fares.
Author Professor Amanda Lynch (Polar Climate Research)
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 9:42:22pm
Subject >>Re: tipping point
Hi HK - the sea ice minimum in 2007 was caused by a combination of melt and winds. What is happening with the atmosphere is that the vortex is "spinning up" - that is, we are getting wind patterns that are redistributing the ice in unusual ways and enhancing the ice retreat. Son Nghiem is not the only person who has published on this - I have too, as has John Walsh, James Maslanik and many others.
The point you miss, though, is that the wind shifts are *also* associated with human-caused climate change.
So there is a double whammy.
Author Dr Ian Allison (Co-chairman IPY)
Date/Time 04 Aug 2008 9:38:43pm
Subject >Re: if the arctic is is shrinking what of the antactic
Over the last 30 years, antarctic sea ice has been constant in extent within statistical variability. On the short term of a few years it varies up and down naturally. Around the Antarctic Peninsula however (the bit that sticks up to S. America) temperatures have been warming rapidly and sea ice has decreased.
Did you see Four Corners's program Tipping Point last night?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm
Current Arctic sea ice vs 1 year ago.
Draw your own conclusions as the IPCC won't be talking about this:
... "rotting ice" as the ice-spotting lady in the chopper called it (who gives forward-scouting-intelligence to the icebreaker captain)If u watched the program u would know that that ice (this northern winters ice) is
1 year old sea ice and not proper old ice like there used to be there.
I can't think of a company would profit from advertising GW? (except the advertising companiesThe trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.
You don't work for Holden and then come out saying that Ford cars are the best.
You don't work for Exxon and come out saying that climate change is about to wipe out life as we know it.
You don't work for the IPCC and say climate change isn't a serious and imminent threat.
There might be the odd scientist somewhere who is truly independent on the issue and doing worthwhile research. Trouble is, they'd likely be retired and aren't likely to say too much about whatever they find.
Absolutely.You would think the crazy scientists who live in Greenland/Antartica, would search only for the truth. To me it is illogical to go to some extent only to fudge, fake, exaggerate results, just for more funding... funding a lie?
Yeah, but the wrong change. Climate change on the macro scale has very little to do with anthropogenic factors. Environmental degradation does and while the focus is on CO2, all else is ignored.What 'bad' has come from this GW debate? The push to change?
I'm gonna give the scientists the benefit of the doubt. The doubt being the corporate's out there are worse than the scientists (bigger $$$ signs in their eyes).Absolutely.
There are large sums involved here and scientists are humans and self-interested. Anyone that has been around any sort of research community AND is not jerking themselves off, knows this.
Yeah, but the wrong change. Climate change on the macro scale has very little to do with anthropogenic factors. Environmental degradation does and while the focus is on CO2, all else is ignored.
About the only REAL change I see are "green taxes". These are supposed to be revenue neutral, but of course they ain't, and fund various pork barreling exercises.
Let's be honest shall we? Of all those squealing about AGW and other environmental malaise, how many have changed their lifestyle substantially?
None? Thought so.
:sleeping:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The state of Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Monday, seeking to reverse his decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?