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
Knobby22 said:
It would be nice if they chose one of the climate scientists from the Bureau of Meterology, or Nasa etc. Maybe the government thinks they haven't got the right skill set.
Click to expand...
Does it matter that much? Even the best scientists admit that the best models for climate prediction they can recreate as it stands are inaccurate.

In any case, there are private firms who are actually working on solutions to some of the worst case scenarios - one firm has discovered a possible geo-engineering solution that would cost less than US$250m - a solution developed by a team of sceptics & believers.
 
I've recently come across a website that appears to accurately account for past weather patterns and gives a dire prediction for future weather patterns up to 2028.
Not surprising that it takes into account sunspots and lunar cycles.

NO. NOT GLOBAL WARMING BUT GLOBAL COOLING.

Read the " One page weather forecast for 2010 to 2028" on this website-

http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html
 

Knobby - pulleeeeeze!

There is manipulation from both sides, but since you implore argument based on facts, it is wise to consider ALL available data.

Earlier I asked you (I think it was you) if you read Freakanomics. The reason I asked that that is that there is usually a non transparent causation behind many statistical outcomes.

AGW sceptics (...and noting that you insist on using the emotive but inaccurate "denier" tag) understand this point. They also note that climate alarmists insist on the use of emotive arguments and do not stick to "the facts".

This indicates that "the facts" are not enough to unequivocally demonstrate catastrophic AGW... with the emphasis on anthropogenisis(?).

Sooner or later, people see through politically motivated alarmism as opposed to hard fact. This is why the AGW "religion" is losing adherents hand over fist. It is largely a case of "the boy who cried wolf" as prediction after prediction proves to be laughable. eg No Himalayan glaciers by 2035 and the ludicrous blaming of recent weather events on AGW.

Argue facts?

Yes indeed, but we want all the facts, not facts selected by those with an agenda.
 
Knobby22;611012[QUOTE said:
One thing Tim does have is a scientific background. He can read graphs showing the world is warming, the artic ice cap is melting, etc.
Click to expand...

So Flannery can read graphs. Flannery (palaeontologist) and Garnaut (economist) have no more qualifications to advise governments on climate change than you or Al Gore i.e nil.

"The cobbler should stick to his last".
 
I actually agree with that Knobby. If I've been tough on Tim Flannery, it's because so many of his supporters need to read your words too.
 
Mickel said:
...Not surprising that it takes into account sunspots and lunar cycles. NO. NOT GLOBAL WARMING BUT GLOBAL COOLING.
Read the " One page weather forecast for 2010 to 2028" on this website-http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html
Click to expand...
That is a fascinating read Mickel. Kevin Long is a mechanical engineer with an interest in sun spot activity and lunar cycles. Very interesting stuff. Going to get cold and dry by his forecast.
 
OK, replying one by one.

sails- you state that disasters occurring are not caused by climate change as they always have occurred - of course they have - circuitous argument.

Of course, but is global warming occurring? How much is the effect? Not that much at this stage, and it is predicted to be not that much. I didn't hear any climate experts saying that global warming caused the Queensland events, only they would have ben less strong.

It is true that that climate disasters have risen over the last 20 years though!!!


aussiejeff - It's raining, how can there be global warming?

By the earth warming! You would More expect more rain though weather patterns will change and it will rain in different places.

wayne - skeptics doubt things - all scientists are skeptics - things often turn out different and I reckon most of the predictions of what will happen are not 100% correct.

Deniers will not have any flexibility in their views e.g. people against evolution, you can throw as many dinosaur skelatons at them that they would be buried and the still won't believe.

The facts show the earth is warming, there have been some problems like the guy with the tree rings in Russia but science gets its sources from many directions. Why would NASA be trying to pull the wool over our eyes? The evidence is plain to see. Even last year with the La Nina event which caused some cooling, still ended up being the even hottest year.

You say manipulation of data is widespread and you cannot believe the scientists and should instead believe the propagandists who have an interest in slowing change as they tried to resist the medical evidence against cigarrettes, fridges causing the hole in the ozone layer, DDT in food etc. .

You are the one being manipulated, Wayne.
 
Knobby22 said:
aussiejeff - It's raining, how can there be global warming?

By the earth warming! You would More expect more rain though weather patterns will change and it will rain in different places.
.
Click to expand...
Thanks Knobby, that explains the last 10 years of drought too. Cheers, kennas

"of droughts and flooding rains"

circa 1904.

Poets tend to have literary license of course.
 
I think many people would be far more open to the science if the whole issue hadn't been corrupted for other purposes.

The constant attempts to use climate change as justification to achieve either socialist or financialisation goals is what puts many off the whole thing. That plus the frequent extreme claims about permanent droughts in the same places that climate change is now supposedly causing floods. The public have had enough of it, and are losing interest in the whole issue as a result.

Personally, I do suspect there's a limit to how much CO2 we could put in the atmosphere without causing some sort of problem. It certainly does stand to reason. But I am absolutely opposed to using a scientific issue to justify handing yet more money to the bankers or alternatively implementing socialist policies for the sake of it.

If our so-called leaders would just stick to the issue, which is climate, rather than trying to force everyone onto trams even where that would actually increase emissions whilst creating another market for unproductive speculation at the expense of Joe Average then there would be a lot more support for action.

Greens have wrecked it with extreme claims and pushing socialism. Labor has wrecked it with a tax grab and money for bankers. Strangely, that leaves the Liberals as the only major party that might actually be able to get real public support for action on this one. Sadly, they'll almost certainly use that to justify handing taxpayer funds to the nuclear industry...
 
kennas said:
Thanks Knobby, that explains the last 10 years of drought too. Cheers, kennas

"of droughts and flooding rains"

circa 1904.

Poets tend to have literary license of course.
Click to expand...

When I saw Flannery's name on this new way to distribute Salary Sacrificing, to the elites, via a Climate Change Quango, I said to myself, wankers.

The poor bastard believes in Gaia. This is his motivation, as well as the Salary Sacrifice.

gg

gg
 

I'm afraid you've lost me. Where do "bankers" fit into this narrative.:dunno:
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The poor bastard believes in Gaia.
Click to expand...
You're not joking.

The following is from an interview with Andrew Denton in 2008;


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

The worry here is the religious overtones.
 
Calliope said:
I'm afraid you've lost me. Where do "bankers" fit into this narrative.:dunno:
Click to expand...
One word in 3. Emissions Trading Scheme.

You can be pretty sure that the vast amount of trading will be pure speculation and a burden on the real economy. Otherwise, the big investment banks wouldn't be so incredibly keen on the idea.

An entirely new market where people are effectively forced to buy. Someone is going to get damn rich out of this, and it won't be you or me. Think about it - since when were governments and big business concerned with saving the planet? If the big financial organisations are keen on it then you can be pretty sure it's got nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with them making money.

It would probably start out honestly. Then along comes some economic crisis and we respond by "printing" more carbon permits to help, thus defeating any environmental benefit and making some nice $ for those doing the "printing". Exactly what they do with money now - print more of it (at zero cost) then charge you and me to use it (interest) whilst devaluing (inflation) what we already have. It's a nice little earner for bankers and government.

Note how we've already scrapped various "green" things as soon as the floods in Qld came along, and here in Tas they're doing much the same in response to a state budget shortfall (and that's with the Greens forming part of the government). There's certainly a precedent there - we're all "green" until an economic bump comes along...

Cutting emissions is one thing. Handing government or private banks yet another license to print what amounts to money, in addition to the one they already have, is what I take issue with.
 

To see how this works just Google Al Gore and his cronies in the USA. They set up an exchange to trade carbon credits. It is claimed they are already billionaires from it as they set it up before releasing the fictional horror movie "An Inconvenient Truth"

For them it was a very convenient "Inconvenient truth"

Trust me guys, whether or not the earth is warming there is very little we can do about it here in OZ. The governments and hangers on are simply screwing the little guys as per usual.
 

Thanks Smurf. You've cleared up one mystery for me. I often wondered why Turnbull favoured an ETS. I thought is was because he was a closet Green. But they hate the banks too and all Big Business. I guess it was because he is still a banker at heart.

So Swan, Gillard and Combet are secretly in bed with the banks.
 

I read a couple of days ago some scientist stated (can't find the link for now) we are in for a mini ice age starting 2042. Did anyone else see it?
 
noco said:
I read a couple of days ago some scientist stated (can't find the link for now) we are in for a mini ice age starting 2042. Did anyone else see it?
Click to expand...

And by 2042, that would give them nearly 30 years of taxes to collect (that's if labor survive that long...) before they are proven wrong about the global warming and that it's all perfectly normal cyclic stuff.

So much more money to spend and ensure plenty for throwing around to keep buying votes. All while the taxpayer is left with little of his/her hard earned money for their own needs.

IMO, there is no way Turnbull should ever be allowed back into the leadership position.
 
sails said:
IMO, there is no way Turnbull should ever be allowed back into the leadership position.
Click to expand...
Even if he is their only hope of getting into government?
(I understand why you're saying what you are regarding his fundamental biases.)
 
Julia said:
Even if he is their only hope of getting into government?
(I understand why you're saying what you are regarding his fundamental biases.)
Click to expand...

Julia, I think Turnbull would vote with labor on their crazy policies. We have seen already that he believes in controversial climate change and was willing to side with labor for ETS.

And what's the point in the libs getting voted back in with Turnbull as leader because I think he would simply continue to follow on with labor policies. I think he is on the wrong side of politics for his personal beliefs. Much like Windsor and Oakeshott appeared to be conservative but looks like they are more labor at heart.

And I think the libs could lose more votes than they gain from the labor supporters as I feel many conservative voters would be afraid of Turnbull being a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Agree that he is definitely more of a statesman and speaks far more articulately than Abbott. But it's interesting that it is mainly labor supporters that keep calling for Turnbull to come back which makes sense as he won't oppose labor policies as Abbott would do.

Just my thoughts...
 
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
26
Views
1K
qldfrog
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...