Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?
Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?
What I am not sure is clear though is that the important element for myself is not that we disagree, it is how we disagree.
I don't remember exactly. I was just curious as all - I didn't think there was that many people in SEQ interested in flouride.No... what do the say?
I don't remember exactly. I was just curious as all - I didn't think there was that many people in SEQ interested in flouride.
Yes, it's important that you understand that I know you have a genuine interest here.
I think it's unfortunate that we didn't share that understanding earlier.
Do you know why it didn't get a higher priority in your memory?
Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.
So the part where you said:
...
Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to? Was there anything in that study that asserts any kind of contradiction or doubt about of global warming? i.e. The seemingly confounding point can't sustain anybody categorising climate change science as hysteria?
As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.
Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?
What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?
Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?
Miles of charts here: <snip>
Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.
So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.
...
Choose a point for discussion, cite the source and research, and we will discuss.
Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying.
I wouldn't say that I know but I have an opinion about it.
...
But the fundamental root cause of the issue for me is not what comments we made about the other, it is the inability to establish a common framework for discussion.
For me the theory and science is all very important, but what is most important is the application of that theory and science in the real world. Theory is all in our mind and on paper... it has no material effect on the world.
Do you mind if we deal with this issue before moving on to any potential or contested implications etc. ?
Whether that effect is potentially very destructive as atomic weapons were, or beneficial as GPS has been, both emerging from e = mc ^2, is up to us.
Ok... I generally agree with your gravity analogy, but doesn't [my highlight]
...
depend on someone taking action based on that science and theory?
That is, that an atomic weapon or GPS was created, is the effect, the stated 'objective'... whether it is perceived as destructive or benificial is an individual 'subjective' opinion one can have about the theory and science whether the weapon or GPS was actually created (effect) or not.
Take the earlier and simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation... it was sufficient to calculate the rotational behaviour of the solar system accurately enough to effect a number of purposes including orbital satellites and space travel successfully, while Einsteins more encompassing theory was still being fully understood. The fact that they effected orbital satellites and space travel is their stated objective, whether it is good or bad is our subjective opinion.
They didn't and still don't fully understand the nature of gravity, but they were able to demonstrate they knew enough to achieve certain theorised 'effects' using gravity such as the first orbiting satelite and space travel. Basically, the whole process from theory to application and resultant effect was consistent with their stated science and policy.
If the best recognised theory was e = mc ^2, and they claimed to be using e = mc ^2 in their 'application', but they actually used e ≈ mc ^2, the resultant effect could be radically different couldn't it?
We are in a similar situation with climate change, we don't fully understand it, but if we are going to use the science and theory to achieve something based on climate change, shouldn't the application and result be consistent with the stated goal and not a mistaken formula or in the guise for something else?
Ok... staying with the "atomic" analogy, the chernobyl disaster is an example of a mistaken formula. The Russians objective was to use their current knowledge to build a safe nuclear power plant. They made mistakes in the ' application' of the theory and science in building it, hence it overheated and blew up contaminating the community it was meant to help.
If the stated objective was to apply our current scientific knowledge to build a nuclear powerhouse (say like the conflict with Iran) but they were actually designing and building a nuclear weapon, then they are using the theory and science in the guise for something else.
Similarly, if the gov stated policy and goal was to protect the enviornment and reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming by switching to lower emission energy sources like natural gas, but they didn't apply at least the same standard of knowledge and theory of the science about enviornmental impacts that they normally apply to oil, gas and mining in the developmental approval process, is this not open to question whether they made a mistaken formula or deliberately portrayed the project in the guise for something else (greenhouse/climate change policy) but actually intending the project for say more tax/royalty revenue from industry and short term jobs growth?
For the sake of the rhetorical landscape, let's grant your premise that the government is not being consistent in it's application. How is that relevant to what the science indicates is a problem? In other words, you can disagree with how a government is applying the knowledge, but that doesn't change what the science says. Using your Chernobyl example, the science says that mismanaging nuclear power can lead to various consequences, for which the results were amply demonstrated. If the science is indicating that mismanaging the climate, emissions, etc. will lead to consequences (even approximated ones), that the government may (rhetorical) be mismanaging the application has no bearing on veracity of the science that indicates a problem requiring addressing exists.
Firstly, do you accept the Kyoto Protocol is the international gauge of the acceptance of climate science policy at the governmental level?
Climate science as the Kyoto Protocol standard is not unamiously accepted by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because Aus is one of a few (including part of Europe), that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Many major countries have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol with binding targets or have withdrawn.
If governments such as Aus adopt the Kyoto Protocol as policy, but don't act in strict accordance with that protocol doesn't it not only bring their integrity into question, but reflect badly on the Kyoto Protocol, the science and theory as best we know it claimed by a minority of gov's and whether the gov action is a guise for something else?
Short version: If we, generally speaking, not just you or I, can't even agree on the science, what hope is there when you add politics to the equation?
As for integrity, I do not think that what the current government is doing is the best thing.
But I also think that people who believe the science is "crap", and say something else in public (integrity?), will present an even larger problem.
I wouldn't say we totally dissagree on the science. We both agree the planet is in a warming phase. I'm just not convinced it's gaining momentum as a result of industrialisation to a point where it's out of control. I believe to a large extent as someone mentioned earlier, nature has an extraordinary ability to balance itself with or without our participation.
The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.
Which brings me back to my point... given that Aus Labor says it believes in the climate science of 'human induced out of control climate change', and is a very enthusiastic supporter of and has declared how it will deal with it via the Kyoto Protocol, if the gov doesn't practice what they preach, to reduce carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), isn't that a major blow to the integrity of the climate science that argues 'human induced out of control climate change.'
In other words, if the governments who claim to believe and support the climate scientists who advocate 'human induced out of control climate change' don't do what they say in public and treat new projects (behind closed doors) with less enviornmental oversight than normal, isn't this the biggest problem of all?
I know you are trying to draw a line between the pure science and government, but at the end of the day, gov controlls the outcome of science to a large extent, particularly when it comes to the global scale and enviornmental policies and practice, so they are inextricably connected as far as what anyone can do about it.
The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.
How the burning of fossil fuels was linked to a warming world in 1938
This month marks the 75th anniversary of Guy Callendar's landmark scientific paper on anthropogenic climate change
Seventy-five years ago this month an amateur weather-watcher from West Sussex published a landmark paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society directly linking the burning of fossil fuels to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
Guy Callendar was a successful steam engineer by trade, but in his spare time he was a keen meteorologist. In April 1938, his paper, "The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature" (pdf), which built on the earlier work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, was published with little fanfare or impact. It was only in the proceeding decades that the true significance of his conclusions would be heralded.
To mark the anniversary, two modern-day climatologists have published a co-authored paper (pdf) in the same journal celebrating not just his legacy, but also illustrating with modern techniques and data just how accurate Callendar's calculations proved to be.
Summer of record heat extends into May
Date
May 1, 2013 - 10:02AM
1741 reading now
Australia's run of exceptionally warm weather has extended into May, giving the country its second-hottest start to the year on record.
Big dry threatens crops
Perth posts record April heat
The first four months of 2013 have seen average national daily maximum temperatures reach about 1.33 degrees above the average for 1961-1990, shy only of the blisteringly hot start to 2005, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
Compounding the warmer-than-usual conditions, much of the grain belts of NSW, Victoria and Western Australia posted below or very-much-below-average rainfall last month.
“The failure of the autumn [rain] break – this is what really worries the cereal croppers,” Karl Braganza, manager of climate modelling at the bureau, said.
Australia posted its hottest summer in more than a century of records over the December-February period, even without a dominant El Niño weather pattern over the Pacific – the conditions which typically produce exceptionally warm temperatures over much of the country.
In fact, a slew of other records have tumbled in 2013, including the hottest day and hottest month. The 11 months from June to the end of April were also the country's hottest for maximum temperatures, underscoring the persistence of unusually high mercury readings.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ds-into-may-20130501-2irue.html#ixzz2RzyT25On
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?