Andrew did not say it, he is only the messenger.......he is just conveying the facts as they come to hand....one hot year does not make confirmation of Global Warming........Anyway, it is not Global Warming any more......The alarmist prefer to use modern term Climate Change......now why did they change from Global warming to Climate change.....well, I guess they must have had good reason.
Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?
- Thread starter 2020hindsight
- Start date
Andrew did not say it, he is only the messenger.......he is just conveying the facts as they come to hand....one hot year does not make confirmation of Global Warming........Anyway, it is not Global Warming any more......The alarmist prefer to use modern term Climate Change......now why did they change from Global warming to Climate change.....well, I guess they must have had good reason.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
ad infitum, ad nausem. ad infitum, ad nausem. ad infitum, ad nausem. ad infitum, ad nausem.
So I guess that puts the Alarmist in to a shade of grey.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
I heard that "Climate Change" was coined by the denier camp, the "skeptics".
They hired some consultant and they figured the stats just can't be denied - that the world is getting warmer - and so instead of "global warming", let's neutralize that and call it "climate change"... you know, like the weather always changing with the season - all natural.
It's bad if people hear that the world is heating up; less of a problem if wild weathers are just part of the change in the climate.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,613
- Reactions
- 6,405
Not looking good for the deniers. Skeptics are becoming more attuned to events.
Recent stories: Look up your own links
Woodside Chief slams coal as dirty fuel, bad for environment and global warming.
G8 decides to remove carbon from economies by 2100.
Satellite data shows sea level rise rate is accelerating.
Australia at increased risk of flash flooding as temperatures warm: study - shows flash flooding has increased over last 20 years.
Recent stories: Look up your own links
Woodside Chief slams coal as dirty fuel, bad for environment and global warming.
G8 decides to remove carbon from economies by 2100.
Satellite data shows sea level rise rate is accelerating.
Australia at increased risk of flash flooding as temperatures warm: study - shows flash flooding has increased over last 20 years.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
There's no global warming in Melbourne I'm freezing.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Bigger threats to humanity -
- Asteroid.
- Massive geological events, earthquakes.
- ISIS obtaining nuclear weapons.
- North Korea using nuclear weapons because Kim Jong-un got offended by a fat boy joke.
- Russia using nuclear weapons to defend their right to invade the Ukraine.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I would include the threat of a virus of some sort and also biological weaponry.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Yes that is a very real threat........a virus could potentially wipe out whole cities.
The Islamic State is working on it as we speak...It won't be long.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Also they are now almost in a position where they can buy a nuke from Pakistan....the only ones that will stop them is the US, it seems they're the only thing between us and Armageddon.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,103
- Reactions
- 16,899
That's just business since Woodside is in the business of selling oil and gas.
I doubt that Woodside would be willing to point out that the LNG they're producing is only marginally cleaner than coal once the energy required to turn raw gas into LNG is accounted for.
They'd likely be even less keen on lowering domestic gas prices to as to make gas more competitive with coal locally. That would hurt the bottom line, and businesses aren't known for voluntarily doing that.
This one is just business. It suits a gas company quite nicely to promote gas over coal so that's what they're doing.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,586
- Reactions
- 12,710
"Deniers" pfft
Losers word.
Losers word.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
+100
Seems to be used by those who have insufficient evidence to support their argument causing them to resort to undignified name calling and insults
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,613
- Reactions
- 6,405
+100
Seems to be used by those who have insufficient evidence to support their argument causing them to resort to undignified name calling and insults
Pfft
There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
Try to get your heads around it.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
And you could add Climate Alarmists, Climate clowns - should I go on...
Surely it's unnecessary to add the name calling?
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,613
- Reactions
- 6,405
Warmist
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,103
- Reactions
- 16,899
The sensible position on anything which hasn't actually happened yet is to be skeptical but open to evidence in either direction unless we're talking about a pattern which has previously occurred with 100% reliability (eg it gets light every morning and dark at night - that could be considered as 100% certain).
That concept goes for everything really. If it's in the future then it is not certain. Just because you're sitting on a plane on the ground in Sydney and expecting to fly to Adelaide doesn't mean the plane will actually take off, fly and land in Adelaide. It could stay on the ground for whatever reason. It could take off then land again in Sydney. It could take off and land somewhere completely different, say Canberra. A rational person would thus take the skeptical view - the plane will probably fly to Adelaide and land there but it's not absolutely certain.
Until we actually get to 2050, 2100 or whenever, there's no absolute certainty as to what's going to happen with the climate. We can make predictions yes, but ultimately they are just predictions (hopefully) based on the best available knowledge at the time. They may be right or they may be wrong, humans generally can't predict things with 100% accuracy. Heck, we can't even predict the stock market with certainty and yet humans collectively have absolute control over it.
So I'm a skeptic and consider that to be the sensible position to take. Based on what I know, I do think the climate has changed measurably in some locations at least over the past 40 years and I do see the argument of a link between climate and CO2 as being very plausible. But we're still learning about natural systems and as such it is not possible to say with 100% certainty exactly what the cause of any change is - although we could say that changing the composition of the atmosphere is probably having some effect.
Denier - not rational as there's insufficient evidence to prove that CO2 etc does NOT cause a change in climate.
100% certain - not rational for the same reason. We have a lot of theories, but there may well be some other reason for changes in climate that we simply aren't aware of.
Skeptical - having an open mind seems sensible on any subject where there is uncertainty. That goes for everything from climate to who will win the AFL Grand Final this year and what the RBA's next move will be. When something is in the future, the outcome is never certain until it happens.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,670
- Reactions
- 11,973
Indeed yes, but the question is a lot more important than who will win the AFL grand final.
If we wait for 50 years to see what happens in regards to climate, and the worse predictions are then validated, then it's too late to do anything about it.
Surely this must be a "prepare for the worse case" scenario, on the grounds that if we do that and nothing happens then we may have wasted our money, or we can say that our precautions have avoided disaster. The millenium bug scenario comes to mind.
If the current scientific consensus based on available data is that there is a problem, that it's serious and needs to be handled, then the prudent thing to do is to take action. The evidence is that the ozone holes have diminished since the crackdowns on CFC's, so we can make a difference to the climate if we try. Of course there will always be things like volcanoes that we can't do anything about, but they make a very small contribution to CO2 compared to human emmissions.
Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
