explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.
What are their motives?
Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.
Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.
Most of them use this tired old cliche. On the other hand you say the earth is overpopulated. Do you share the blame for this?
Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
"Beliefs about change ? ". In particular of course that the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change is caused by human produced CO2.
Why do you believe that, given that the climate was changing long before industrialization?
I accept the empirical evidence of temperature measurements around he world that our world is warming at a very rapid rate in geological terms.
The empirical evidence is that the world is not warming at a rapid rate in geological terms
In particular as John Cook noted from research papers .......
Why do you think John Cook has credibility and Bob Carter has not? John Cook is not a climate scientist.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field ...........
(The bolding is mine.)
The wording underlines once again the suggestion that the peer review process is tainted by the non-acceptance by scientific publications to accept research/opinion that doesn't align with their predefined conclusions. Julia
This was one of the half truths used by Professor Carter. He and others have picked the last 10 year period used a temperature model that doesn't include Arctic temperatures and then tried to say the world is not warming at a rapid rate. I showed the references demonstrating this when quoting Peter Cooks article.
Incidentally the last 10 years has seen escalating levels of ice melt in the Arctic and and Antarctic regions. These research around this data forms a critical part of understanding what the effects of further warming will be.
Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times..
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225700043191#ixzz0sEAJvIYS
*GOSH* ........ now I don't know who to believe?
Lead author Professor John Turner of BAS says:
“Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice. Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.”
Good oneYour policy would wipe out the human race quicker than the global warming holocaust.
Rubbish.
http://www.universetoday.com/28643/data-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838
And a carefull read of the latter which does talk about a current increase points out:
Okay lets respond to the dissection of an earlier post by Ruby.
My quote says current and forseeable climate change. Other forces do act over a longer period of time. We are talking about additional impact of mass human produced CO2
Trainspotters Law states "For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"
Very similar to Newtons Law
And what would that do? Australia's natural birth rate is below the replacement level. Let me explain what this means: given that there is approx 1 woman for each man, when a woman dies she must have given birth to two people, plus an additional amount to make up for women who die prior to doing the same, to maintain a stable (non expanding) population. This 'replacement level' is claimed to be about 2.1 in the West, for example.Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times.
And I, for one, have made it clear that I don't find this convincing.I have already posted a reference to show how the vast majority of current cliamte scientists support AGW.
What about the risk management situation for our economy and vital, well established industries? You seem to completely fail to take into account the very obvious downside of your desire to see a tax introduced to make greenies feel good.Life is risk management. We often act on uncertain knowledge using the best information we have at present.
Perhaps with very good reason. Just today Bob Brown said, in an interview where he was asked about the Greens' aspirations now that they are about to hold the balance of power in the Senate, he wanted to see a global government.If we choose to accept the collective research and cross checking of 97% of climate scientists we take immediate decisive action. But of course you have to actually respect the skills and integrity of these scientists and it's clear in this forum that few people will argue with the research directly but prefer to invoke dishonesty, incompetence, a huge one world conspiracy idea
And exactly how would you know what sort of protocols have gone into any research which disagreed with what you want to believe?Julia scientists live and breathe to make original ground breaking research. But a scientific paper can't just be an opinion piece with a set of made up or cherry picked data.
Ah yes, in an ideal world. But in the real world, where a predetermined agenda has been established, any research which disagrees with that agenda may simply not be accepted.The point of peer review and subsequent analysis and questioning is that other scientists want to make sure the story is logical and the data robust.
Really? How exactly do you know this? What way would you have of knowing everything that has been submitted to all scientific journals?And it's because of the lack of a logical thesis and good data that there is almost no peer reviewed published papers discrediting AGW.
And that would be game, set and match. Thank you linesmen and ballboys. Now back to you in central missionary position.:
For example, in 2003 the reputable journal Climate Research published a paleoclimatological analysis that concluded, in flat contradiction to virtually all existing research, that the 20th century was probably not the warmest of the last millennium. This paper, partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute, attracted considerable public and political attention because it seemingly offered relief from the need to address climate change.
The paper also engendered some highly unusual fall-out.
First, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over its publication, including the incoming editor-in-chief who charged that “…some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”
This highly unusual mass resignation was followed by an even more unusual public statement from the publisher that acknowledged flaws in the journal’s editorial process.
Three editorial resignations and a publisher’s acknowledgement of editorial flaws are not standard scientific practice and call for further examination of the authors and the accepting editor.
The first author of this paper, Dr Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist by training. In U.S. congressional testimony, he identified his “training” in paleoclimatology as attendance at workshops, conferences, and summer schools. (The people who teach such summer schools, actual climate scientists, published a scathing rebuttal of Soon’s paper.)
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?