wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,944
- Reactions
- 13,232
Yes they've exposed them well Mr Plod. Hopefully now we can focus on real and quantifiable environmental problems, instead of Gorist fantasies.
Yes, the sceptics and power lobbies have certainly done a good job of that.
Yes they've exposed them well Mr Plod. Hopefully now we can focus on real and quantifiable environmental problems, instead of Gorist fantasies.
Absolute childish rubbish.
The whole debate on climate change is subjective at best. However the risks of erring on any possibility may] have devastating consequences.
And in that I am referring to the discussions by ASF'ers who cannot be but slanted towards the nice fuzzy feeling of business as usual.
/stir
An interesting comment in reply to the incredibly specious Map of Organized Climate Change Denial that appeared in the NYT http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/a-map-of-organized-climate-change-denial/
Smurf1976;662936[QUOTE said:I do suspect that putting a whole lot of CO2 into the air probably isn't a good thing in itself and I think most would agree at least in principle.
But where the whole AGW movement comes unstuck is with their practice of stunts. Make some claim that it will never rain again (now changed to increasing floods by the way) etc and everyone gets excited and willing to do something. Then the inevitable happens, the claim is shown for what it really is, and so the movement responds with either a refusal to discuss the issue (witness the carbon tax "debate") or an even bigger stunt.
This is the most common argument and biggest error. Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is.
Good and honest, as laymen we can go no further.
This is the most common argument and biggest error. Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is. There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity. More rain at times in some areas and much less in others. Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.
Its become a bit like the markets, things do not seem to be right so its becoming more volatile.
On the weather, it is just the simple matter of temperature and cloud cover. More heat which makes more cloud which in turn creates greater volatility.
This is something that irks me to tears. Can science explain the ice age or any other strange weather phenomenon's of the last x amount of years? Did man cause these problems? Man is kidding himself if he thinks he is the one causing all these so called weather 'problems'. When we were in drought was Africa in drought also? Is it just not the climate these countries are subject to?
Yawn. The funniest thing of all was when it was called "Global Warming" and when things weren't exactly warming it went to "Climate Change".
Is it?
Such claims require statistical substantiation.
Lets see it.
Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is. There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity. More rain at times in some areas and much less in others. Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.
Maybe. But that does not lend any credibility whatsoever to the claims that the drought was permanent, or the very recent claims (after 3 wet winters in a row) that we'll now see a rise in flooding.
Permanent drought and now flooding. These people very clearly do not understand the subject themselves, and yet they would have us believe that they are the appropriate people to be leading public debate on the issue.
Periodic droughts and floods I can understand. But permanent? Clearly that is not the case and it is claims like that, from people like Tim Flannery and Bob Brown, combined with clearly ineffective "solutions" which have substantially destroyed credibility of the whole issue in the minds of the general public.
Stick to the science, based on proper research and that will eventually help build up credibility if there is indeed a problem. Likewise stick to actual solutions, not socialism in disguise or handing money to bankers, and that too will eventually restore public confidence if there is indeed a problem.
Hot air rises cool air falls, moisture moves with it and of course the elements of evaporation are a part of it.
Did you do chemistry, are you able to reason and think independently.
You said the weather has become more volatile. So far you have not produced a a shred of evidence that it is so.
Questioned on this, you once again resort to playing the man and not the ball... all this subsequent to you having the temerity to accuse me of childishness for asking pertinent questions.
I asked for statistical substantiation, not a grade two science class which has SFA to do with the topic at hand.
I want facts Mr Plod, not a pissing contest.
G'day Explod. This and similar threads have grown into monsters in size, but not sure if there's been much common ground or changing of minds. Lessening CO2 emissions, and boosting renewables, even the staunchest of so-called 'deniers' would not be against these things of themselves.I have given anecdotal examples. I am not a scientist.
I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.
This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue. And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.
G'day Explod. This and similar threads have grown into monsters in size, but not sure if there's been much common ground or changing of minds. Lessening CO2 emissions, and boosting renewables, even the staunchest of so-called 'deniers' would not be against these things of themselves.
Change and innovation will come, as they always have. Saw a program on the weekend about a new building in China with a built-in wind generator, solar panels over large areas, and a double skin of glass, very energy efficient. Even the elevators are used to produce power, through a link to a built-in generator.
I just think many of the so-called 'warmists' got impatient, and wanted change to happen imprudently fast (in view of the times), and in the case of a small selection of them, with political gain in mind.
I have given anecdotal examples. I am not a scientist.
I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.
This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue. And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.
You speak of anecdotes only and think I'm on the back foot for using an anagram?
Dear Lord!
As I have ably demonstrated that you have no idea what you are arguing about, my work here is done.
I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".
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?