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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Wayne what Bridget actually says is

Correct, basically what I said she said


The balance of probabilities is as per the chap on the youtube above.

Look! We can invent all sorts of balance of probabilities scenarios and take all sorts of actions.

The balance of probabilities says that one day China will have economic; a.nd perhaps military and cultural hegemony over the west. We should act now, no?

Clearly, the ludicrous worst case scenarios as promulgated by Hansenites and Gorists is bunkum... scientifically dealt a death blow, with the most probable scenario not demonstrated to be negative in toto.

Meanwhile, while this sideshow persists, other things get ignored, the science surrounding such lacking in credibility because of the above clowns.
 
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)

prince philips eugenics position is quite well documented, when asked if he could be re-incarnated what would he come back as he replied "a virulent airborne strain of ebola virus to reduce the number of ppl on earth by 60%"

he is also co-founder and figurehead of the WWF who are major supporters of the AGW movement, funnily enough the royal family has big financial connections to BP and Rio tinto and other "global plunderer's"... talk about a foot in both camps!
 

1) i have read alot about holdren including watching a 'home video' of a university lecture he gave about the benefits of diseases such as ebola, plague,malaria etc in reducing human population! I couldnt believe he tried to put such a positive spin on human suffering! not a nice fellow! i bet he'd change his tune if it was his family & friends dying in agony all around him!

2) i think you need to step outside the box and realise the whole 'left Vs right' political paradigm is complete bollocks, a marxist era hoax designed to keep the people divided so 'the establishment' can carry on business as usual without concern of the citizens interfering!... labor liberal national republican green democratic ...all smoking the same pole... all with their snout in the same trough. judge them all by their actions not their words and you'll soon see they are all one in the same, all just after power & money!

2) i cut, pasted & saved that onto my PC some time ago as i didnt have time to read the whole article at the time, so no sorry i dont have a link, though i believe it was an article from UK newspaper 'the guardian' but cant be certain. sorry
 
Meanwhile, back at the Green Dude Ranch, a Second Wave of Hysteria is being brewed to feed the hoi poloi...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/23/3224009.htm

Funny about that. At the same time it seems pertinent to review how some "resisters" have reacted to the stunning announcement in the last couple of days by the UK Gum-minters that they will set up legislation to slash CO2 emmisions by 60% by 2030 regardless of what the rest of the planet does!! And we think 5% might damage OUR economy? Check this out then for a glimpse into our Maddening Future...

http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...n_british_industry_and_make_the_problem_worse

Have a luvverly day, partygoers.....
 
Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.


A poll in today's paper says otherwise;

Are humans causing global warming?
Yes
27.7% (82 votes)
No
64.86% (192 votes)
Not sure
7.43% (22 votes)
Total votes: 296

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rees-wont-cut-it/story-e6freooo-1226060787069
 
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.

just because the conservatives support it means nothing.

Robert Mugabe is a Global Warming advocate, and turned up in Copenhagen with his sick parade of flunkies and shopaholics to shout his low carbon credentials from the sewers.

From the Globe And Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/through-copenhagens-looking-glass/article1406080/


When you have an old despot and lowlife like ole Bob on side, you need to look hard for credibility. 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
 
I always believed the "GAURDIAN" used to be a pro communist rag.
 
You never fail to amaze. I think you should be the GG, replacing 'Polly Prissy Pink' at Yarralumla.

sptrawler doubtless understands your 'poeme' wasn't a shot at him. I'm fan of ole TS myself and this works for me. Ezra Pound was there first, but eclipsed I think.
 
This forum is certainly full of very special people....

The capacity to dismiss and debunk the work of climate scientists around the world with an airy wave of the hand ( "it's just politics you know ....") and a poeme on the Null Hypothesis by good ol GG has to be part of a very special set of skills.

Crafted and Honed of course by those master educators Bolt, Monchton, Carter and co

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/
 
Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.
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.
(That's from memory: if I'm slightly misquoting him, someone will correct me.)

Let's just remember that Tim Flannery is being paid by the government so of course he's going to spruik their line.

And why are so few journalists pressing for answers on the economic disadvantage that will apply to Australia if we have a carbon tax whilst the major polluters of the world do nothing?
I just can't believe that this aspect is being so little pursued.

No wonder the electorate is cynical.
 
For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.

Dare I say you should follow your own advice?
 
Dare I say you should follow your own advice?

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.

__________________________________________________________

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.

There is a good analysis of this argument at the following location. The rest of the site is also worth checking out for anyone interested in the science of this debate.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-3-christy-crock-5-opposing-solutions.html

________________________________________________________________

And just to reiterate an earlier post.



National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management

Posted on 17 May 2011 by dana1981

The USA's National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) was ordered by Congress several years ago to offer “action-oriented advice” on how the nation should be reacting to the potential consequences of climate change. America's Climate Choices, the final in a series of five reports, was recently published. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts. The press release summarizes the report's basic scientific conclusions:

"The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun."


http://www.skepticalscience.com/nas-nrc-report.html
 
Hence the stupidity of subjecting Australia to such huge economic disadvantage by acting in the absence of the world's major emitters doing likewise.
 

Excuse me?

Would you like to reconsider this post to restore the remaining vestiges of both your credibility and character please?

Basilio, evidence cuts both ways. You have to consider that which supports your hypothesis; but you also have to consider that which contradicts it. Lastly, you have to consider the nature of climate science itself (as per discussion a few posts up), along with all ancillary factors and financial/funding considerations.

This is why I say you should follow your own advice, as you are singularly unwilling to do as I suggest. Because if you did, it would be totally impossible to view climate change deterministically as you do.
 
Interestingly enough Julia the Conservative government in Britain has now decided to legislate deep cuts in carbon emissions. Someone has to start somewhere.

But the other big move in this debate is the Pentagon. There is a good analysis of their approach in the Guardian.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...y/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...