wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Wayne what Bridget actually says is
And guess what ? In the real world everyone with a half a brain accepts that we go on balance of probabilities, acceptable risk scenarios ect. If there is a perceived risk of a disastrous outcome well we tell people to get out of hurricance areas and so on. It is not a leap of faith just practical common sense.
And what are the best ways to reduce this risk ? That could be debated but it would be a good start to respect reality and the risks we are taking and not just heap scorn on the mountain of corroborative evidence with misdirected comments about Null hypotheses, or some fraudulent drivel as per Oz Wave Guys random quotes.
Hell, I didn't know he believed in either climate change or eugenics. You don't think his position on Eugenics may have changed over 60 years?
(maybe he did have a bigger influence on Prince Charles than I thought)
*1)Just found out the Holdren thing is a 2)right wing lie. Should have known.
*3)I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail. Be careful what you are told.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/23/3224009.htmLabor and the Greens have seized on a report from the government-appointed Climate Commission to ram home the need for [size=+1]urgent action on climate change.[/size]
In its first report, titled The Critical Decade, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is now even stronger.
It warns global warming could cause global sea levels to rise up to one metre by the end of the century, higher than previously thought.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the report underlines the need to "get on with it" and backs the Government's plans for a carbon tax.
http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...n_british_industry_and_make_the_problem_worseChris Huhne has done it again. No, I’m not talking about certain allegations, but about carbon emission targets. A few months ago, he was pushing the EU to raise their 20 percent reduction by 2020 to 30 percent.
Now he wants the UK to pledge a 60 percent cut on 1990 levels by 2030. This is madness on many levels -- not least because in trying to reduce emissions so quickly, he is likely to undermine the British-based companies, and the innovation from them, which might deliver this. Counter intuitive? You bet.
Yawn, that hysterical Murdoch press article is old.
The Conservative party have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions
Sorry. Good link follows.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions
Chief commissioner Tim Flannery said there was no doubt any more about what was happening to the globe, saying the report's findings were based on a peer review of the latest science.
"The planet's warming, that is incontrovertible," he said. "All the data points that way, that humans are causing it, again that is incontrovertible."
Are humans causing global warming?
Yes
27.7% (82 votes)
No
64.86% (192 votes)
Not sure
7.43% (22 votes)
Total votes: 296
The Conservative party have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.
When you're getting lectures on “aspiring to misrule” from despot Robert Mugabe, you may conclude you've stepped through Alice's looking glass.
The gathering at Copenhagen was huge, 34,000 by some reports. A few strange outbursts would be par for the course. But Mr. Mugabe, who more or less single-handedly has brought Zimbabwe to ruin, giving the world lectures on “misrule” and deploring “arbitrary power and governance systems” – well, this is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. Zimbabwe can lay claim for a near non-existent carbon footprint only because its geriatric dictator has despoiled his country
You never fail to amaze. I think you should be the GG, replacing 'Polly Prissy Pink' at Yarralumla...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/through-copenhagens-looking-glass/article1406080/....One can drag up the good and bad to spruik the non-science of global warming, but you can't ignore the null hypothesis.
A Poeme
by Garpal Gumnut
No null, no science.
No science, no proof
Just belief
A new religion
Rapture
Sure
gg
Why haven't journalists challenged Tim Flannery on the apparent contradiction between today his statements about utter urgency to act immediately, and his suggestion a few weeks ago that even if Australia were to act now it would make almost no difference to global temperatures for about 1000 years.Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.
For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.
For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Dare I say you should follow your own advice?
Tragedy of the Commons Once Again
Their main argument seems to be becoming a favorite amongst "skeptics": "CO2 limits will make little difference." In his radio interview, Christy applied the argument to California (which is attempting to implement a carbon cap and trade system), Australia (with the aforementioned proposed carbon tax), and in his congressional testimony, to the USA:
"We’re talking about less than a hundredth of a degree [if California cuts emissions by 26% by 2016]. It’s just so miniscule; I mean the global temperature changes by more than that from day to day. So this is what we call in Alabama “spitting in the ocean”."
"On the climate front, [Australia cutting its emissions by 5% by 2020] will be imperceptible or minuscule compared to what the rest of the world is doing."
"you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]"
Hence the stupidity of subjecting Australia to such huge economic disadvantage by acting in the absence of the world's major emitters doing likewise.__________________________________________________________
Julia, you open a discussion on the comment that Tim Flannerys suggets that Australia's contribution to reducing global warming would take hundreds of years to be apparent.
By definition any particular countries contribution to reducing total greenhouse gases is only part of the picture. You can use the same logic talking about any country and come to a similar conclusion. It doesn't change the need for a whole world approach to the problem.
Wayne et al.. you're not speaking to me when you suggest I am being totally and completely delusional. You're saying that the vast majority of scientific community has seriously stuffed this up. That the analysis of multiple measures of world temperature changes, melting of polar ice caps, increases in ocean temperatures, changes in the biology of plants and animals around the world are all delusions or systemic and systematic fakery
I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to re evaluate evidence. It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.
But I won't humour your wilful ignorance.
US military goes to war with climate sceptics
Political action on climate change may be mired in Congress, but one arm of government at least is acting: the Pentagon
....Enter what some might view as a counterintuitive counterweight: US military brass. A recent report, "A National Strategic Narrative" (pdf), written by two special assistants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, argued, "We must recognise that security means more than defence." Part of this entails pressing past "a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability)". They went on to assert climate change is "already shaping a 'new normal' in our strategic environment".
For years, in fact, high-level national security officials both inside the Pentagon and in thinktank land have been acknowledging climate change is for real and that we need to take action to preserve and enhance US national security interests. The Pentagon itself stated unequivocally in its February 2010 in its Quadrennial Defence Review Report (pdf), "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." It noted the department of defence is actively "developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions and facilities".
CNA Corporation, a nonprofit that conducts research for the Navy and Marines, echoed the Pentagon's urgency, writing, "Climate change, from the Military Advisory Board's perspective, presents significant risks to America's national security." The Army Environmental Policy Institute, the National Intelligence Council and the Centre for a New American Security have issued similar reports on the dangers of runaway climate change and what it could mean for geopolitics.
This isn't a tree-hugging festival. It's the US military and its partners making clear-eyed calculations based on the best available climate science.
So, why this quiet camaraderie between scientists and military higher-ups? The answer, most certainly, is uncertainty.
Uncertainty is an inherent element of honest science. But in the political sphere, uncertainty has been harnessed as an alibi for denial and inaction. The military, however, operates under conditions of uncertainty all the time. Like scientists, they wade through the unknown to assess varying degrees of risk. As CNA Corporation put it, military leaders "don't see the range of possibilities as justification for inaction. Risk is at the heart of their job."
Climate cranks – many of them the same people perpetually hectoring us about the perils of national security – are choosing to ignore the seriousness of climate change even when the national-security experts they champion are telling us to do just that. Talk about cherry-picking data.
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?