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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Hi
On www.climatedepot.com a report from 2007 has been updated.
"More than 1000 International Scientists Disent over man-made Global Warming Claims.
They challenge the UN IPCC & Gore.
The report was dated December 8th 2010.

In discussions I have had with an orginisation on soil carbon and agriculture, they have stated that Gillard may have a tax on Carbon by Nov. 2011.
But they also commented that the money involved will not flow through to where it is supposed to go. It will be absorbed by big business and Government. i.e. no result .

The current floods will be moving trace elements down stream to agriculture areas.
Thats how the planet works, and it will continue to do so after we are gone.
Man will (in the next couple of years) be introducing new farming principles to food supply. ... currently in place....
WA has the most damaged landscape in Australia. Municipal Solid Waste in the form of compost is being applied to lots of farming.
Trials since 2004 show excellent results.
These trials were initiated by SRMC & OFS. and supported by WA government.

New farming techniques are being introduced to Cane, Cattle, orchids etc. as we speak.
These improvements will accelerate in the coming years.
A farming business in Mackay HAS REDUCED poisons by 90% and fertilisers by 70% and
are more productive AND economically more viable.
All is not lost, but badly dented.
We have resources eveywhere that are called waste. In the future humans will continue to explore (a better way)
Our ways have erroded into a "throw away society.

manufacting has initiated this. The "penny has dropped". The thought process is in place.
Australia badly needs a government to prevent waste. "in all forms". It will be the way to reduce the costs of living.
Cheers
 
Julia said:
Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!
Click to expand...
No it's just proof that we have an exceptionally strong la Nina in place. Of similar strength to that which occurred in 1974 - hence a lot of the comparisons of this event to then.
 
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Top..._should_dump_carbon_pricing_plans_557484.html
Govt should dump carbon pricing plans
Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The government must admit its carbon pricing plans are unworkable, the opposition says.
The federal government must admit its carbon pricing plans are unworkable following a decision by Japan to shelve its emissions trading scheme, the opposition says.

Japan on Tuesday postponed the creation of its scheme by a year until April 2014 in the face of strong resistance from the nation's business lobby.
Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to impose a price on carbon are looking 'increasingly isolated on the world stage'.

'Japan's decision is a stunning rebuke to Labor's plans to impose a massive hike in power prices on Australian families and businesses,' Mr Hunt said in a statement on Wednesday.
'Surely now Julia Gillard must admit that her plans are in tatters.'

Japan's decision comes after the United States and Canada dumped the same electricity tax Ms Gillard wants to enforce in Australia, Mr Hunt said.................
 
Slowly but surely, the willingness to cut CO2 is diminishing. As this happens, the cost to any country that does go ahead with such a plan increases in terms of lost industry, trade etc. If the US, Canada and Japan are not on side then that effectively makes any Australian policy prohibitively expensive. Even worse if China is not also bound by the same rules, including the same rates of tax per tonne of CO2 emitted.

I'm not arguing about the science. But it has long (about a decade) been my view that emissions will not actually be cut, indeed they will continue to rise until we either run out of things to burn or come up with a cheaper alternative such that we don't want to use coal etc anyway. I stopped worrying about the science for that reason - interesting maybe, but nothing is likely to be done no matter what the science says.

I say that as someone who, whilst I have an open mind to the science, doesn't think it particularly wise to be messing about with nature on such a massive scale. But we're not going to stop...
 
Tim Flannery gives a very good overall view and commentary of what's going on in the climate change world...what really happened at COP15 (Copenhagen) and the way forward...the deniers wont like his straight talking and common sense.

This video is a great insight into the issues and although Tim is clearly a believer, he's also too smart to totally dismiss or ignore...at the end of the presentation he even tips a bucket on the Greens, and rightly so.

http://fora.tv/2010/05/12/Tim_Flannery_Now_or_Never#fullprogram
 
Watched the whole video start to finish. I fail to see how you think this video was in any way poignant, it was simply the same rhetoric I always here from climate change people. His 'straight talking an common sense' included placing a ban on new coal stations. He failed to address the following, important issues, which weigh against his position:
Australia's minuscule contribution to CO2 output in relation to the world
The effects of taxing carbon on energy outputs, and thus, GDP and quality of life.

He also did not mention 'nuclear', despite how pivotal and important it is to the debate.

His position, if applied to Australia, would exchange a massive downturn in quality of life, for nothing more than a nice bit of moral posturing.
 

Here is a comment by Alikar.

Tim Flannery is a member of the "Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists" which has partnered with the WWF not exactly a sane organisation. He was also chairman of the "Copenhagen Climate Council", which as evryone knows failed to produce a single useful document. Why? (read the rest of his comments on the Tim Flannery link).

Also his predictions on climate change is highlighted on Andrew Blot's blog. Tim Flannery does not inspire me one bit. He has made an absolute fool of himself and should give up.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...i_dont_think_the_warmists_models_are_working/
 

Is this Tim "let's fill the atmosphere with NO2" Flannery?

Credibilty MIA
 
wayneL said:
Is this Tim "let's fill the atmosphere with NO2" Flannery?

Credibilty MIA
Click to expand...

According to wiki...Tim Flannery is/has/was
  • Australian of the Year in 2007
  • Palaeontologist
  • Mammalogist
  • Professor at Macquarie University
  • Professor at the University of Adelaide
  • Contributed to over 90 scientific papers
  • Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council
  • Director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide
  • Principal Research Scientist at the Australian Museum
  • Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard University
  • The National Geographic Society’s representative in Australasia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Yep this guy is a complete nobody and without a scintilla of scientific credibility.
 
OK so let's pump the atmosphere with NO2 then.

We'll not mention scientific objectivity re "climate disruption" eh?

BTW, John Farnham was Aussie of the year too....

Good singer, but - pfffft
 

And how much money has he made out of his scientific "QUACKERY"?

After all his failed predictions, he should have the Australian of the year stripped from him. Yep, he is a complete "nobody' alright and without any credibility as has been proven.
 
wayneL said:
Is this Tim "let's fill the atmosphere with NO2" Flannery?

Credibilty MIA
Click to expand...
I see you have mentioned this a few times when Flannery is mentioned and I have had a google to try and find any reference to Flannery and NO2 but didn't have any luck. Do you have a link to his proposed plan. I am curious as to what he was on about.
 
There's politics in science, Tim Flannery is living proof. He is ideologically approved by the science establishment.

Sceptics, approach the CSIRO with a project brief: '..Global warming is so much flim-flam, and please could CSIRO provide funds for a project to prove it..' Good luck, you'll need it. Sorry it's called 'climate change' now isn't it. So inconvenient these floods and all this snow.

Dragons were scientific fact, as recently as the 17th century.
http://www.dragnix.net/Basic/
In the world of fantastic animals, the dragon is unique. No other creature has appeared in such a rich variety of forms. It is as though there was once a whole family of different dragon species that really existed, before they mysteriously became extinct. Indeed, as recently as the seventeenth century, scholars wrote of dragons as though they were scientific facts, their anatomy and natural history being recorded in painstaking detail.

The naturalist Edward Topsell, for instance, writing in 1608, considered them to be reptilian and closely related to serpents: "There are divers sorts of dragons, distinguished partly by countries, partly by their quantity and magnitude, and partly by the different form of their external parts."
 

For the record, I played beach volleyball against him once, and he was no good at that neither, and that was before all the beaches disappeared with the rising of the oceans.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
For the record, I played beach volleyball against him once, and he was no good at that neither, and that was before all the beaches disappeared with the rising of the oceans.

gg
Click to expand...

GG, so good to see you back in action again. I get a hellava kick out of your dry humour.
 

As far as I know Tim Flannery has no specific qualifications regarding climate change.
The climate change enthusiasts are quick to make this point when accusing someone on the other side of irrelevance.

Somehow Mr Flannery has attained a political status which confers on him the mantle of 'expert in climate change'. He is personable and articulate, the perfect interviewee of the proponents of climate change politics, and thus his reputation has cleverly been mutated to that of a climate change expert.

I'd say his relevance is fast becoming that of global warming in general, i.e. irrelevant.
 
So_Cynical said:
So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.
Click to expand...
Theoretically not impossible.

Replace petrol engines with electric cars, using coal to generate the electricity.

Replace existing coal-fired power stations with new ultra supercritical (more efficient) coal-fired plants. Note that this process is proven both technically and, in the context where a new plant is being built anyway, economically.
 
So_Cynical said:
So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.
Click to expand...


Theoretically possible to get the world to agree to change over to electric cars they wont even agree to a lousy (binding) 5% cut in GHG emissions, but yeh of course its theoretically possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...