I correlate it to spreading lies , misinformation and propaganda with an alliance with business to achieve aims not related to the good of the ordinary people.
+1. With thanks, Knobby, for supplying such an excellent definition.I agree. That AGW alarmism in a nutshell.
.The End of the Hothouse
Posted on 16 December 2011 by John Mason
A new study links major atmospheric CO2 drop to the onset of Antarctic glaciation, 33.7 million years ago
Forty million years ago, Antarctica had a pleasantly mild climate, its mountains and shores flanked by swathes of woodland in which a diverse mammalian fauna flourished. Today, it is one of the most inhospitable places on Earth. Throughout this time, the continent has remained in pretty much the same place, straddling the South Pole. It follows that a drastic climatic change must have occurred, but how?
That has been the subject of much research over the years and a good picture has gradually emerged. Now, a new paper in the journal Science has clarified the role of rapidly-declining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the temperature-plunge that saw the rapid onset of Antarctic glaciation, 33.7 million years ago. The fall in CO2 concentration was from 1000-1200 ppm down to 600-700ppm, at which point it was cool enough to allow glaciers to start to form. That our current emissions path takes us beyond the latter levels by 2100 means that we are heading straight towards a planet that may no longer sustain polar ice-caps, resulting in a steady melt and relentless sea-level rise that will duly threaten every coastal city in the world. We'll see what the research found out in a moment, but first let's take a quick look at the Cenozoic Era, the geological timespan during which the glaciation of Antarctica began
Just reading a review on Skeptical Science website of a recent paper that examines how the Antarctic went from a mild climate with woodlands and animals to its current status as a frozen wasteland. Quite fascinating
.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/end-of-the-hothouse.html
I suppose what is really interesting is the lengths these damn scientists go to justify their alarmists views. And there are hundreds of these damn studies. Persistent pests arn't they !
No warm weather to be enjoyed here in SE Qld. No wonder they changed the title from Global Warming. Unbelievably cold for December.Well basillio, read post 243, unless we go nuclear there is sod all can be done about global warming.
Get over it, pay your tax and enjoy the warm weather.
Nice work Derty. Thanx
You might see things more clearly if you could get your rolling eyes under control Wayne.Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:
All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.
None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.
You might see things more clearly if you could get your rolling eyes under control Wayne.
LEADING Russian scientists have rejected claims by their counterparts in the US that the polar bear is endangered by climate change.
The Russians have accused the Americans of skewing data to support claims that polar bears are drowning because of melting ice, and of treating bears cruelly during research.
The polar bear has emerged as a powerful symbol during the debate on global warming, with environmentalists warning that reduced Arctic ice due to climate change threatens the survival of the world's largest land predator.
Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:
All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.
None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.
Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:
All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.
None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.
Anyone wish to place a wager on none of the next 5 years being the highest on record?
And when people are stuck with their head in the sand thinking that Australia can do something about this without the major polluters, they are in even worse denial than they think of those with more common sense.
Australia emits 1.3% of global co2 emissions. Our target (at great expense) is 5% of our tiny 1.3% slice of the pie - that's 0.65%.
Below is a pie chart based on wiki info. See the little orange slither? That is Australia's 1.3%. And imagine that divided further by 20 to give 5% - that is our 2020 target at huge expense to this country. Futile? I think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.
What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.
Russian scientists (who basilio says are liars) say that polar bears are not endangered, but are thriving.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...olar-bear-trauma/story-e6frgcjx-1226224432321
So, what do we see on Wrangel Island? What conclusions can be drawn from observations there?
Ice conditions in the vicinity of the island began to change drastically in 1990. Melting ice floes deprive polar bears of an optimal habitat. Consequently, polar bears have to spend several months ashore each year. They come ashore during the last stages of an ice floe’s disintegration. The animals reach land in the coastal areas nearest to their respective ice floes, on which they have hunted during that period. Most polar bears in the north-eastern Russian Arctic come ashore on Wrangel Island. The rest wade onto the Chukotka coast and north-western Alaska. Some bears remain on the edge of pack ice drifting towards circumpolar areas. Consequently, the polar bear population is divided into four seasonally isolated populations each year. The proportion of animals going ashore in various areas depends on the ice movement during the ice disintegration process.
The increased number of polar bears in coastal areas does not mean their population is growing. Rather the opposite, they are facing a critical situation – they have lost their primary areas of habitat and the opportunity to hunt seals in the sea ice. This is a difficult period for the polar bear population. As soon as the sea freezes in winter, the bears promptly leave land and start hunting in the ice – they only stay on the mainland as long as there is no ice. When threatened, during the absence of ice, they literally swim off into the open sea. They are forced to swim long distances before they can find suitable ice floes. This saps their strength and considerably reduces the chances for survival.[/B]
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?