- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
THE federal government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has celebrated his last day in the job with a stinging rebuke of the Australian media and a swipe at the most recent Liberal government.
Well sussed out Wayne. I was certain you're eagle eye wouldn't miss the Greenpeace Big Oil connection
Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.
"This is a reform where the costs all come early and the benefits all come later - huge benefits, necessary benefits, if we care about the future generations of Australians."
Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.
A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.
Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06
What's this?
"Follow the money" as exhorted by AGW alarmists?
I'm hearing stories of big oil funding of Greenpeace and other green organizations.
DYOR.
I would agree that ice reduction in Greenland is due to ice melting under increasing temperatures, but whether that is due to "global warming" is a bit harder to swallow.
The ice in Greenland has been to-ing and fro-ing for millenia, that is why it is called The Green Land, it was much warmer in the past.
gg
A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.
Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06
And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.
And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?
I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.
Ghoti
A clear majority of Australian electors (67%) are aware that Australia is responsible for about 1% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions and a majority (64%) believes that Australia’s proposed carbon tax will make no difference to the world’s climate. However, 52% of ALP supporters and 67% of Greens supporters believe a carbon tax will make a difference to the world’s climate compared to only 15% of L-NP supporters.
I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.
Ghoti
I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.
Ghoti
And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?
The Soon-Baliunas article claimed that the twentieth century was not the warmest century in the past 1,000 years and that the climate has not changed significantly during this time. This sham science kicked off a heavy focus by deniers on the “hockey stick” study first done by Michael Mann, later proven sound by numerous other studies, but viciously attacked by deniers regardless.
Mann himself, in an interview, said of the Soon-Baliunas 2003 paper:
"It really was one of the poorest pieces of scholarship that any of us in the climate research community had ever seen… it was clear that there was an effort by some on the editorial board to compromise the PR (peer review) process and allow through this deeply, deeply flawed paper in the professional literature where it was immediately held up by those in Washington opposed to taking action against climate change… as somehow being the dagger in the heart of the case for global warming, when in fact it was just an extremely bad study that never should have published…"
After the Soon-Baliunas article was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch. Von Storch declared the article seriously flawed because "the conclusions [were] not supported by the evidence presented in the paper." In addition to the resignations, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas had misinterpreted their work.
Well blow me down Proof at last! Now we just need to find how CO2 has pulled earth out of the previous ice ages
Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.
I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.
So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?
lol, you spend all this time regurgitating the anti-AGW meme's. Discount out of hand any rational explanation presented to you. All while displaying that you have no real understanding of any of the basic history, cycles and processes of the Earth. No wonder all this stuff you post up seems rational to you.
Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these cold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.
These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.
The Milankovitch Cycles
You can probably expect a curt PM from Basilio as he sent me when he refused to answer my persistent question as to how much Australia can actually in reduce global emissions when we emit a tiny 1.3%...
Some questions of ours are simply not convenient...
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?