Is it OK to jest about global warming?

wayneL · 28 July 2009

explod said:
Strewth, you closed the polling fast, thread only began on the 11th instant. Spose you just got a few of like minds to get into it quick before the desenters could catch on, you's voted then closed it all up cosy.

So much for your free speech.

Eh? Who are you taking to?

BTW, look again at the OP date.

explod · 28 July 2009

wayneL said:
Eh? Who are you taking to?

BTW, look again at the OP date.

Yep, apologies, I'll go back to deep sleep. ____________________

2020hindsight · 28 July 2009

explod said:
Strewth, you closed the polling fast, thread only began on the 11th instant. Spose you just got a few of like minds to get into it quick before the desenters could catch on, you's voted then closed it all up cosy.

So much for your free speech.

It's an old thread explod (PS sometimes these polls are an interesting "snapshot" for attitudes at that point in time - helps plot trends in such matters etc - just imo of course)

From before the days of the unprecedented Vic Bushfire hazards for instance

btw, I wouldn't joke about it to those firefighters either

noco · 28 July 2009

Pat said:
LOL! They know the oceans are rising and the ice is melting, the melting ice aint sea ice, so if the melting continues, and feedback mechanisms take hold. We may see another few feet added to the sea level in decade or so.
It will become urgent when the rich who live on the beach start losing there houses to the sea. Already happening on the NSW Central Coast.

Your statement is ludicrous to the point of being comical.
I lived in Brisbane for half of my life and our family would spend our two weeks annual holidays and some long weekends at Palm Beach before and after World War 11.

Palm Beach then used to be 100 yards wide, with only a hand full of house built on the sand junes. The main road was scattered with houses along both sides with dense bush west. There was one grocery store and one hotel and no other shops.

My father was offered a block of land on the sand junes for 40 pounds ( A$80.00) which he refused because even in those days we experienced cyclonic type weather where the sand junes would disappear into the sea and bingo, no beach. When the weather abated the the sea would settle down and the south easterly winds would blow the dry sand back up and restore the sand junes to their original state and once again we would see a 100 yard wide beach and quite often sand on the main road.

However, along came greedy developers and naive councillers and buyers who allowed houses to be built on the sand junes. Along came the bad weather once again and those house were threatened of being undermined, resulting in costly rock walls being constructed to save their houses. At that time the owner was responsible for the cost of the rock wall.

The solution at the time should have been a 100 yard wide buffer zone to have allowed nature to take it's course. This is what should have been gazetted on the central and northern NSW coast and at Noosa. Fingal, Ballina and beaches down to Port Macquarie were all affected.

wayneL · 28 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
It's an old thread explod

From before the days of the unprecedented Vic Bushfire hazards for instance

btw, I wouldn't joke about it to those firefighters either

BTW GW propagandists better start wearing helmets too. I hate being lied to.

Where's the proof? Not models, not assumptions, not selective inclusion of data... PROOF.

See http://climatesci.org for balance

2020hindsight · 28 July 2009

wayneL said:
That is counter to the evidence.

Show me proof of:

Accelerating sea level rises

More severe storms

hek
give me the evidence it isn't/ they aren't

wayneL · 28 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
hek
give me the evidence it isn't/ they aren't

Ahaha....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Case closed then.

2020hindsight · 28 July 2009

wayneL said:
BTW GW propagandists better start wearing helmets too. I hate being lied to.

Where's the proof? Not models, not assumptions, not selective inclusion of data... PROOF.

See http://climatesci.org for balance

you obviously weren't here in January wayne.
Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
beyond their worst nightmares !!!!

wayneL · 28 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
you obviously weren't here in January wayne.
Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
beyond their worst nightmares !!!!

That's proof January was hot and dry in Australia, and that somebody started fires. That's it.

Ever? Do I really have to float the concept of standard deviation to an engineer?

noco · 28 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
hek
give me the evidence it isn't/ they aren't

2020hindsight said:
you obviously weren't here in January wayne.
Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
beyond their worst nightmares !!!!

2020 firstly, storms are no worse now than they were back in the 30's and 40's. From persoanl experience when living in Brisbane it was nothing to see hail stones as big as cricket balls and to have hail still laying in the yard untill mid next morning. Strong winds associated with those storms would ripe off iron roofs like a can opener. Being a plumber in the mid 40's I repaired many a damaged roof.

My deceased mother often told me of her experience in 1911 when a cyclone hit Port Douglas and she, her mother and three sisters crouched under the large and strong wooden kitchen table while the house literally collapsed on them. The table saved their lives.

Secondly, bush fires have beem raging in Victoria for as long as I can remember and is something that happens almost every year when hit with a heat wave and high winds.

Did you know, that the Victorian bush fires combined with the cold winds sweeping down from the Himilayas via Indonesia creates the monsoon weather in the northern part of Australia. Without this combination we would not receive the heavy rains in North Queensland.

2020 I could tell you a lot more true stories on the weather but it fill this page and quite easily make a mockery of all this Global Warming BS, sorry the ALARMIST are now calling it CLIMATE CHANGE because they are being proven wrong; the climate is cooling but they won't admit it.

spooly74 · 28 July 2009

wayneL said:
See http://climatesci.org for balance

Smart family.

Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change

2020 said:
beyond their worst nightmares !!!!

From 2003
http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/committee/bushfires/inquiry/subs/sub290.pdf

Julia · 28 July 2009

I've asked this question before and haven't seen an answer.

For the whole climate change issue to have been so resolutely determined (purely by modelling as I understand it) to be anthropogenic, and therefore for the new religion of the urgent need for an ETS to be so strongly driven by some politicians and a large proportion of scientists, I'd like to know who will be the financial beneficiaries of this scheme?

I keep hearing about the research being driven by vested interests, that the funding for the research will stop if the required results are not produced etc, but what do e.g. the providers of the funding stand to gain by an ETS?

Perhaps there is going to be a market on which the carbon credits (or whatever the units will be called) are traded, but that hardly seems sufficient to back up this messianic zeal for an ETS.

Is the government going to rake in taxes on this, and if so, will they be in excess of all the compensation that has to be paid?

Or is it as simple as Mr Rudd's urgent desire to swan about at Copenhagen proudly declaring that Australia is leading the world in dealing with climate change?

I feel as though I'm supposed to know the answers to these questions, but I don't, and am puzzled (as well as being irritated by the whole damn thing.)

queenslander55 · 28 July 2009

Of course it is!

But...I don't think anyone here would disagree that at some time in the future, if the tonnage....that's right...the sheer ever increasing weight of pollutants clogging the biosphere will choke us. This surely can't be a healthy long term goal for mankind's sustainable future? Can it?

overit · 28 July 2009

2020hindsight said:
Blatantly the worst fire hazard ever!!!!!
beyond their worst nightmares !!!!

Buckeroo · 28 July 2009

Julia said:
Is the government going to rake in taxes on this, and if so, will they be in excess of all the compensation that has to be paid?

From KRudds point of view, this would be one of the driving factors. What better way to pay for his excesses in spending than to have a new tax by stealth. And I don't believe for a second, the Government won't be a major benefactor from the very start.

And all this increase in taxes won't be KRudds fault - he will no doubt as always, show a bucket load of sympathy for everyone, but underneath will be rubbing his hands gleefully.

Cheers

wayneL · 29 July 2009

queenslander55 said:
But...I don't think anyone here would disagree that at some time in the future, if the tonnage....that's right...the sheer ever increasing weight of pollutants clogging the biosphere will choke us. This surely can't be a healthy long term goal for mankind's sustainable future? Can it?

This is where the issue gets totally confused. You are dead right about pollutants. This is a point I have consistently raised on these CC threads. But pollution <> AGW.

While the world is distracted by the nonsense of co2 based AGW, the real, immediate, measurable and proven detrimental effects of other general polliutions get a very minor billing and is virtually ignored.

It's Snake Pliskin · 29 July 2009

wayneL said:
This is where the issue gets totally confused. You are dead right about pollutants. This is a point I have consistently raised on these CC threads. But pollution <> AGW.

While the world is distracted by the nonsense of co2 based AGW, the real, immediate, measurable and proven detrimental effects of other general polliutions get a very minor billing and is virtually ignored.

Yes Wayne it is important to clean up the pollution such as that which contaminates the soil, oceans, and sky. The convenience of Co2 is that it is easily used for brainwashing due to the natural greenhouse effect that the Earth has. Yes the Earth is a greenhouse and I love that fact. It helps me live in comfort.

queenslander55 · 29 July 2009

Very interesting figures from twelve years ago re estimated weight of pollution output C02 et al.

http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/JGRPennise.pdf

jbocker · 29 July 2009

I see that this subject does raise some passionate responses. I cannot say if it is global warming or cooling that is currently occurring. However, I would not at all be surprised that we are accelerating a change.
The Earth has gone through many hundreds (more likely thousands) of sea level rises and falls. What I have been told by a paleontologist that I have worked with for many years’ surprises me and I can hardly believe what he tells me. For those who know Perth, as little as 6000 (six thousand) years ago the shoreline was at the foothills of the Darling ranges! The current lake systems that we have today (Mongers, Gwelup, Goolelal, Joondalup etc) are remnants lakes that at some point would have been similar to say the current Peel region. The limestone areas like Reabold hill, Kings Park and Edgewater were reef systems.
Further to that about 17000 years ago you could walk to Rottnest Island.

From my understanding we are currently in a relative highstand with respect to sea levels

6000 and 17000 years ago…not a long time, when you compare that Dinosaurs were probably last on Earth about 65 000 000 years ago.

Love it when the media show Ice caps melting, been doing that every year since day dot, they don’t show the freeze over in winter (never as dramatic). But a good account of the freeze can be read about if you follow Shakletons incredible account.

2020hindsight · 29 July 2009

wayneL said:
Ahaha....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Case closed then.

all as posted before on this website ...
and discussed in detail etc etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due partly to human-induced global warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods[6][7]. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century. Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important,[8] and are more difficult to predict and quantify.[8] Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm.

Is it OK to jest about global warming?