Resisting Climate Hysteria

[white_goodman]

I have a question Ive been getting in quite heated debates with my lefty girlfriend on the climate change issue, the only thing I dont understand is where the oil companies are placed in all of this?

are they for or against? it seems strange that the US govt/NWO brigade could institute this hysteria without support of oil companies/lobbyists?

 

[Knobby22]

I have a question Ive been getting in quite heated debates with my lefty girlfriend on the climate change issue, the only thing I dont understand is where the oil companies are placed in all of this?

are they for or against? it seems strange that the US govt/NWO brigade could institute this hysteria without support of oil companies/lobbyists?

The US oil and energy companies used to fund opposition but have withdrawn obvious support. The Replublicans through Murdoch run an agenda that still continues.

But lets argue the facts, not the politics.

 

[Smurf1976]

Now some here have said that nuclear cannot out compete coal. However, we do not know this at all, since nuclear is not legal. It is all very well to say X can't beat Y, but they have to have a match to prove it, or it is mere empty conjecture.

Nuclear power is legal and is used in many countries.

Costs of nuclear power from large scale plants in developed countries tend to be substantially higher than costs for new (or existing) coal-fired plant in Australia.

Given that an Australian nuclear industry would be relatively small scale and that proximity to uranium resources does not offer a significant cost saving (since uranium is only a small part of the total cost of nuclear anyway), it is difficult to come up with any real reason why an Australian nuclear plant would have costs lower than those overseas.

It is not proven that is true. But engineering is all about working these things out without having to actually "prove" them the hard way.

 

[wayneL]

James Hansen from 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3341039.ece

The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a clear sign that the climate is changing,

 

[white_goodman]

James Hansen from 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3341039.ece

this james hansen adds literally nothing of value, its baffling how retarded his POV is

 

[white_goodman]

The US oil and energy companies used to fund opposition but have withdrawn obvious support. The Replublicans through Murdoch run an agenda that still continues.

But lets argue the facts, not the politics.

arent the facts pretty much plain to see? im more interested on what the agenda is besides money?

 

[bellenuit]

Has Tim Flannery lost it?

I try to keep an open mind on the GW debate, but Tim Flannery has sunk to zero in credibility if this extract from his radio interview is accurate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-beautiful-gaia/story-fn72xczz-1225981252143

 

[noco]

Has Tim Flannery lost it?

I try to keep an open mind on the GW debate, but Tim Flannery has sunk to zero in credibility if this extract from his radio interview is accurate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-beautiful-gaia/story-fn72xczz-1225981252143

I think Flannery has been reading too many 'FLASH GORDON COMICS' and become a fiction writer.

What he and Wong have said over the past 3-4 years is totally out of whack to what happened in 2010.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/warmists_see_their_creibility_drowned/

 

[tothemax6]

Nuclear power is legal and is used in many countries.

Costs of nuclear power from large scale plants in developed countries tend to be substantially higher than costs for new (or existing) coal-fired plant in Australia.

Given that an Australian nuclear industry would be relatively small scale and that proximity to uranium resources does not offer a significant cost saving (since uranium is only a small part of the total cost of nuclear anyway), it is difficult to come up with any real reason why an Australian nuclear plant would have costs lower than those overseas.

It is not proven that is true. But engineering is all about working these things out without having to actually "prove" them the hard way.

'In theory practice is the same as theory, in practice it is not'.

And I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying 'it will never work, so we should ban it'? This doesn't apply to anything else at all.

'Hey Messrs Wright, I don't think that plane will fly, even if if does I won't let you commercialize it because it is dangerous, it is not economically viable, it will always be cheaper to take a boat than one of these planes, the costs of safety compliance will make it uncompetitive, its fuel costs will make it uncompetitive, it won't be able to carry as many men as ship so it won't be competitive, you will have to build special ports for them to land which will cost a fortune and make airflight uncompetitive. Brothers Wright, this is just never going to happen, and I won't let you try'.

Nuclear should be legalized, and the markets will decide.

 

[derty]

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/warmists_see_their_creibility_drowned/

The weather, 2010:

AUSTRALIA experienced its third-wettest year on record during 2010 and the La Nina conditions bringing heavy rains are likely to persist into autumn. The Bureau of Meteorology has reported that the second half of the year was the wettest on record for Australia as a 14-year “long dry” was broken by the rapid transition from El Niño to La Nina conditions.

What more does the weather need to do to prove that the warming alarmists have no credibility?

Cheers noco, a nice example of Bolt displaying his scientific illiteracy. This guy doesn't even know that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. It would be funny except that he has a sizeable gaggle that hang off his every word.

 

[noco]

Cheers noco, a nice example of Bolt displaying his scientific illiteracy. This guy doesn't even know that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. It would be funny except that he has a sizeable gaggle that hang off his every word.

derty, I can't see your reasoning in attempting to discredit Andrew Bolt as being scientifically illiterate. To my knowledge he has never made any scientific statements on Global Warming or Climate Change, which ever suits the the Alarmist of the day.

I don't recall reading any scientific comments by Bolt, only his emphasis on the inaccurate statements by Wong and Flannery, whom neither I might add, are Climate Change scientists. I would suggest to you they are the one's displaying scientific illterancy. Bolt has simply pointed out how WONG AND FLANNERY HAVE GOT IT SO WRONG.

It is a shame you cannot accept Bolt's criticism of people have made the errors.

 

[Knobby22]

Noco, The point is no one said that el Nina is no longer ever goin to occur. It will just get rarer.

The rainfall actually supports global warmng as the atmosphere is holding more moisture and therefore dumping rain harder.

Bolt is getting a bit slack on this issue, I suspect he has changed his mind but dare not let his editors know as they have been instructed by their boss to criticise global warming.

He has to keep pumping it out, even if he doesn't believe it himself. It's his job.

 

[noco]

Noco, The point is no one said that el Nina is no longer ever goin to occur. It will just get rarer.

The rainfall actually supports global warmng as the atmosphere is holding more moisture and therefore dumping rain harder.

Bolt is getting a bit slack on this issue, I suspect he has changed his mind but dare not let his editors know as they have been instructed by their boss to criticise global warming.

He has to keep pumping it out, even if he doesn't believe it himself. It's his job.

I have no doubts Bolt is a Global Warming sceptic as are more and more people who are having second thoughts about these so called scientific models. These so called experts try to make out if you don't believe in Global Warming you don't believe in Climate Change. I for one believe in Climate change, but not man made by CO2 emmissions. There is a difference.

Flannery is trying to convince people along with his followers what is going to happen in 2050 or 2100 and yet he could not even predict the El Nina two years in advance.He stated in 2007 all the capital cities would be out of water by the end of 2010. How could anyone be inspired or believe anything this idiot says.

Ask any of the old farmers out West and they will tell you 10 year droughts are always followed by floods.

 

[noco]

Water Services Association of Australia Executive Director Ross Young stated in 2007 we would have a permamently drier future. Maybe he too, took too much notice from those two windbags Wong and Flannery.

We do know the Labor Governments of Victoria, NSW and Quennsland went along with Flannery's wrong predictions and built those usless desalination plants at a cost of $billions. What a waste. What is new with Labor Governments when it comes to money waste???????

I congratulate Andrew Bolt for exposing these frauds.


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

 

[joea]

I have no doubts Bolt is a Global Warming sceptic as are more and more people who are having second thoughts about these so called scientific models. These so called experts try to make out if you don't believe in Global Warming you don't believe in Climate Change. I for one believe in Climate change, but not man made by CO2 emmissions. There is a difference.

Flannery is trying to convince people along with his followers what is going to happen in 2050 or 2100 and yet he could not even predict the El Nina two years in advance.He stated in 2007 all the capital cities would be out of water by the end of 2010. How could anyone be inspired or believe anything this idiot says.

Ask any of the old farmers out West and they will tell you 10 year droughts are always followed by floods.

Hi
If Christine Jones has it correct, 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the last 5 years.
Agriculture debt has increased from $10 billion in 1994 to close to $60 billion in 2009, so obviously the 10 year cycle is not producing the goods.
Another point is, cattle farmers have flogged the soil in the drought with over grazing. The soil is unhealthy and that is why the farmers leave.

The climate is like a stock chart, you are not sure what's further to the right.

What I am sure of, is the planet will continue doing what it does, and its going to be more years before we can work it out. However the solution will come quicker if we give the planet a little help.


Incidently she present papers to the government.

Cheers

 

[noco]

Hi
If Christine Jones has it correct, 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the last 5 years.
Agriculture debt has increased from $10 billion in 1994 to close to $60 billion in 2009, so obviously the 10 year cycle is not producing the goods.
Another point is, cattle farmers have flogged the soil in the drought with over grazing. The soil is unhealthy and that is why the farmers leave.

The climate is like a stock chart, you are not sure what's further to the right.

What I am sure of, is the planet will continue doing what it does, and its going to be more years before we can work it out. However the solution will come quicker if we give the planet a little help.


Incidently she present papers to the government.

Cheers

I don't suppose you would consider cheap imports of food products has anything to do with a drop of in farmers in Australia! The increase in the Australia dollar to the Green back has not helped our exports. Good for importers though.

I know of a farmer in Victoria who ten years ago exported 150 tonne of asparagus each year to Japan. Japan can now buy it cheaper from Vietnam.

Go to Woolworths and you buy cheap imported prawns at half the price of Australian prawns. You buy a ham with local and imported products marked on the ham; it does not quote what content. Most of the various types of nuts are now imported from Vietnam. Banana farmers have had to fight tooth and nail to stop imports from the Philippines. We poduce more bananas than we can eat so why import?

Is it any wonder our farmers are growing broke. How many farmers will be in business in 10-20 years if this Labor Government continues to allow such imports of food products? At least we won't have to worry about using too much rural water from the Murray because we won't need it.

 

[Knobby22]

Is it any wonder our farmers are growing broke. How many farmers will be in business in 10-20 years if this Labor Government continues to allow such imports of food products? At least we won't have to worry about using too much rural water from the Murray because we won't need it.

Labor haven't been elected long, most of what happened occured during the Liberal watch. What will the Liberals do that is different, in my opinion they are less likely to do anything to help. Tell me I am wrong.

 

[noco]

Labor haven't been elected long, most of what happened occured during the Liberal watch. What will the Liberals do that is different, in my opinion they are less likely to do anything to help. Tell me I am wrong.

Do you have a link to prove your claim? If you do blame the Liberals, why hasn't Labor fixed it in 3.5 years.

Knobby, if I put my head in a fire, would you follow, because that is what you are saying this Labor Government should do. Follow the Liberals.

 

[IFocus]

Cheers noco, a nice example of Bolt displaying his scientific illiteracy. This guy doesn't even know that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. It would be funny except that he has a sizeable gaggle that hang off his every word.

Sums up Bolt

In 2002, Magistrate Jelena Popovic was awarded $246,000 damages for defamation after suing Bolt and the publishers of the Herald Sun over a 13 December 2000 column in which he claimed she had "hugged two drug traffickers she let walk free". Popovic asserted she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program. The jury found that the article was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record of judicial proceedings and that it was not fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Bolt's conduct described in 2002 by the Court of Appeal as "at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless.

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

What really sets Bolt apart was speaking against Climate Change as a journalist but being paid by vested interests. He got pinged on the insiders by the other Jurno's

And this great article one of my all time favorites

It's not really surprising that someone's suing Andrew Bolt. Andrew Bolt is an offensive, myopic, aggressively ignorant buffoon whose popularity I have yet to find a decent explanation for and whose arguments, if they are worthy of the title, are usually so full of disingenuity, casuistry, strawmen remarks and simple bias as to render them useless for anything other than lining a parrot cage.

In short, Andrew Bolt is a total flogger.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30182.html

 

[wayneL]

Sums up Bolt





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

What really sets Bolt apart was speaking against Climate Change as a journalist but being paid by vested interests. He got pinged on the insiders by the other Jurno's

And this great article one of my all time favorites



http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30182.html

Probably all true, but the only thing that separates Bolt from most journos is his politics. All the red and watermelon journos are guilty of the same... you just agree with their politics.

Did someone mention bias?