This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.

Phew... can't afford to eat 10 a day anyway, something to do with the drought in QLD driving up banana prices; can't have mangoes either - they goes for $50 a box couple weeks ago.

Saw headline today saying climate change, or changes in the weather pattern , will dislocate 100 million people within next decade or two... they can't farm or live where they used to due to rising salt water and unpredictable weather patterns.




Don't know about anti-matter, or matter for that matter; but yes, agree with you that Man is polluting the planet and we should try to solve it beyond the fortnightly cycling... But as they have it at the local AA, the first step is to admit you got a problem right?

When we pump all the inorganic pollution into the air or into the ocean, it will affect and kill something or someone who's not used to having pollution ingested with each breathe or each sip; When you frack for gas then due to the drought find it cheaper to refill the cracks with barely cooked sewage (they're actually doing this in some states in the US), it cant be good to some unknown water sources that might be connected to somewhere by one of those cracks..



I'm sure the air is fresh where you live, not so fresh for the other Aussies whose house line the freeways and main streets man. And forget about the India or China of the world.

Air pollution from burning of fossil fuel alone ought to make us think that maybe, in the best case scenario where the climate change freight train won't be coming straight at our grandkids and no sea level will rise more than normal... that maybe we ought to seriously incentivise and encourage alternatives so that the couple of million families along major roads won't breathe smog everyday, and billions around the world can see blue skies once a while... and along that road we'd make a few bucks from the innovations... and if that also help the environment and abate the non-existent potential of CC, then that's a bonus.

Who knows, maybe with the cash and clearer lungs and savings from medical conditions from smog... we could then also afford to clean up the ocean and provide enough margin in case Indonesia burns again.
 
IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect. TS

TS did you mean that the IPCC had made a fraudulent claim regrading projections or that another party was making a fraudulent claim against the IPCC. ie accusing them of something they wern't actually doing ?
 

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sful-climate-deal-in-paris-says-top-scientist

Strip away the arguments about climate change and it just makes complete sense to go 100% renewable ASAP.
 
Quote Originally Posted by trainspotter View Post
E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...

Can you expand on this?

You really need to go to the url TS offered. This is indeed another quite different view of the world of quantum physics. I'm not going there...
 
TS did you mean that the IPCC had made a fraudulent claim regrading projections or that another party was making a fraudulent claim against the IPCC. ie accusing them of something they wern't actually doing ?

The party of the third part is what I was meaning. Both sides make ridiculous claims basilio. IPCC glacier melt by 2035 and sea levels rising 25 metres is another. On the flip side are morons claiming Co2 is better for the climate as the plants will have more to photosynthesise and storm severity has become infrequent.

A few coal fired power stations and millions of cars running around is not my concern. Try these on for size ...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...uld-become-worst-on-record-nasa-warns/6824460

See what the media has done here? Out of control forest fire is a "pollutant" and no mention of Co2


See what the media has done here? How is it a reduction if the Co2 emissions are going to triple


https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

What Barack Obama says and what the USA does are poles apart ...

EIA estimates that emissions of CO2 grew by 1.0% in 2014. Emissions are projected to fall by 0.7% in 2015 and then increase by 0.2% in 2016. These forecasts are sensitive to assumptions about weather and economic growth.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm

Meanwhile back in the real world ...


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...utting-emissions-will-become-more-costly.html

So they are shutting down ageing nuclear power plants that provide 20% of the USA electricity right? Where do you think they will get the electricity to make up for the demand in the grid lost by the closure of the nuclear plants? Burn more guzzaline and fire up the coal stations

A reduction my eye !! It will be a 7 - 10 % increase at least
 

You do realise that India, China and the USA are the 3 largest polluters globally right? And you want me to forget about them because a family lives near a freeway?

Errrmmmm the smog from the Indonesian fires has shut down parts of Singapore !!!


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nesia-as-hazardous-haze-shuts-schools/6805322

Health risks?? Ya gotta be kidding me right??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get it TS. Ok so you say you were not suggesting the IPCC was the bodgy party in the climate projections but rather the groups that created the misleading graphs.

I'm still surprised that you even reference these sources because the they are almost always misleading at the best or just dishonest otherwise.

With regard to the other huge problems we face - smog, smoke from Indonesian forest fires (deliberately lit)

Totally agree and in fact they are another key element of the reasons we need to move to a renewable energy economy ASAP. The smog in India and China is largely coal driven. They know it . They recognise the issue. Both countries are moving quickly to renewable energy.

But the way to make this happen with serious intent is to put a tax on carbon and switch any energy subsidies to renewable.


Having countries like Australia attempting to sell more coal under the guise of humanity is just rubbish. There is an excellent article that outlines just how disingenuous this line is.

With regard to outlandlish claims re CC.

Do not attempt to compare the mistaken claim that the glaciers will melt in the Himalayas in 35 years with projections of serious sea level rises as the world warms. The first comment was an acknowledged mistake. When you produce thousands of pages of report as the IPCC does there will be mistakes. End of story.

The projections of large sea level rises caused by melting icecaps if global temperatures continue to rise is at the very high levels of confidence in scientific research. How high and how quickly is still to be decided. The scary part about the research is that there is evidence of some very swift sea level rises in the past as ice sheets became rapidly unstable.

The science is evolving. 10-15 years glaciologists thought that the icecaps would melt from the top down. No probs there they said. This would take thousands of years.

Then they discovered that melt water was running through cracks in the glaciers , pooling at the bottom and lubricating the movement of glaciers to the sea at an ever increasing rate.

And then they discovered that warm sea water was undercutting the glaciers and further increasing the instability of what were previously believed to be very solid ice features!

These are the recent research studies that underpin the concern glaciologists have about the stability of West Antarctica. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing/

There is a precedent for this sudden collapse of ice sheets and rapid sea level rises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
 
The graphs were not bodgy. IPCC make predictions and they rarely are accurate. Get over it.

Can you comprehend what has been written or are you always this bent out of shape? I am eluding to the FACT that both sides make redonkolous claims about warming/weather/ice melts/cooling/sea rising/whatever but you seem to be able to misconstrue this to your slant or opines.

I am over it basilio ... you live in a Utopian world that is totally UNREALISTIC as to what is actually occurring in the real world. You dismiss rational debate as it was a furphy like how I EVIDENCED how the media manipulates the truth. India for example ..

This reduction means that its carbon dioxide emissions would still triple by 2030.

Yep they are moving to renewables but will treble the amount of Co2 output

As to what is actually misleading and dishonest you might want to have a look in your own back yard before sprouting HYSTERIA !!

End of story

Yep let's tax the **** out of Carbon and see where we end up eh?


http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/equity/greenhouse/carbontax.html

Still waiting for your Mount Pinatubo response.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510
 
TS. A few observations

1) Your statement about the IPCCs predictions re climate temperatures is a distinction without a difference. The science and the evidence is telling us we are cooking our planet and us with it. The rate at which we are doing it is "not quite exactly predictable".. But it's bloody frightening and deadly serious.

Meanwhile your trying to trash them for not being exactly right according to the dodged up figures of a bunch of lying charlatans. Would you like to see just how accurate the predictions of the various contrarian scientists has been with regard to their predictions of the future temperatures ? It's so far off it doesn't matter.

2) India and it's efforts to go renewable - but still increasing it's Co2 emissions. India is still a HUGELY underpowered society. It doesn't have a fraction of the energy infrastructure we take for granted as our sovereign right.
India and the rest of the developing world is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy When the world is talking about reductions in CO2 emissions part of the equation in negotiations is acknowledging that developing countries need to increase their energy supply just to meet the realistic needs of their people. On that basis cuts in energy use will fall more heavily on developed countries that have a capacity to be more efficient and a further capacity to retire fossil fuel energy sources and replace them with renewables.

The conversation with India is trying to support as much new renewable energy as possible and discourage as much fossil fuel energy as possible.

3) The effects of a carbon tax Wow !! you take a 20 year old reference and excise a a few paragraphs from it (most from Industry sources) and want to use that to damn a Carbon Tax as an economic tool?

That is so thin if you turned the argument sideways you couldn't see it TS.

Some form of price on carbon is the simplest, most effective free market way to reduce fossil fuel use and encourage the production of clean energy. It is the language of the market. This now costs more. Use less. This is now more competitive. Let's go to it.

Clearly if a carbon tax is bought in governments need to try and have protections of some sort for people for poorer people who may be hurt. That was the point of the Labour Governments actions.

But the result on carbon use is immediate and effective. It works.

4) The Mt Pinatarbo volcano and it's effect on the world's temperature.
Yep. A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year.
And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newsletter/htm_format_articles/climate_corner/yearwithoutsummer_lf.htm

And your point is exactly... what ?

Volcanoes are a source of dust and sulphates which in extreme circumstances will have a significant effect on the climate. for a short time. So obviously when the dust settles and the SO2 is washed out of the atmosphere the climate returns to normal.

In our current case "normal" is humanity pumping an extra 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere which largely accumulates and holds more and more energy increasing the world heat load to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.

You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate in both heating and cooling effects but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)
 

Jeez I'm over this thread basilio, our economy and lifestyle is going down the drain and you are still harping on.

In W.A we have shut down the second biggest coal fired power station, electricity costs have doubled.

I'm sure the remaining coal fired stations will close in the foreseeable future, then electricity cost will double again.

The problem is, it will not change the global temperature one iota, but it will make some happy, lots more unhappy.

Hopefully it will just bring foreward the adoption of nuclear energy in Australia.

There is no other viable reasonably priced energy source, other than gas, which will run out pretty quickly.

We are pushing Australia into a nuclear future, which will probably include waste storage. Just my opinion, for what it is worth.lol (it's free)
 
basilio
And your point is exactly... what ?

https://youtu.be/VGD2w33PWV0

About 3.10 it gets interesting .. Hey lady get back here ... where is my money ? .. where is the RED?

Yet you produce the Co2 man made diatribe over and over again. One decent volcanic eruption and game over? Your thoughts? The globe is evolving ... subsidence, weather, sink holes, erosion and you want to call it one specific thing?? Really??
 
You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate in both heating and cooling effects but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)

Your observations "rich tapestry ring a bell?" Takes one volcanic reaction and your whole thesis is stuffed. Now you are clutching at models pre industrial revolution, hard work ...... no?

India and the rest of the developing world is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy

And yet they pollute the most and you are fine with that? For the greater good and all that !!
 
Your right TS. One super volcanic eruption and we are toast. And in fact there is one brewing at Yellowstone Park if you want to be specific.

But we can't do anything about that can we ? It is out of our hands.

Allowing the continual production of GG is in our control.
 
The research from glaciologists on the condition of Greenlands glaciers continues to evolve. This report is particularly troubling when you read it to the end.


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ng-sea-levels-scientists-20151112-gkxy8c.html
 
The world wide temperature figures are also showing just how much hotter 2015 is than any previous year.


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...tures-are-off-the-charts-20151021-gkf8b0.html
 
....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...