Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now |
|
Climate Change - Global Warming.. |
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 538> |
Author | ||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
They're "committed" to the same carbon reduction targets as Labor, Djebel. Just in a different way. Apparently. |
||
Gay3
Moderator Group Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Location: Miners Rest Status: Offline Points: 51818 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
One massive waste of $$ on one hand & a huge revenue raiser for others. Seems to be the way of the world . I'm with you hatch, fwiw
|
||
Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So Gay3, can I ask for a rationale behind your thinking. Is it from weighing up the available evidence, or is it because, like a few others on here, you just "know" better?
|
||
maccamax
Champion Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 41473 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I asked you for your evidence.??? How are you disadvantaged ?. What are your fears, especially when we have to go back 114 years to find the biggest weather related disaster In Australia. Hasn't been any changes in my lifetime . Still bluddy hot in Qld and Chit it gets cold in Thredbo. |
||
Browndog
Moderator Group Joined: 30 Oct 2009 Location: Brunswick Hds N Status: Offline Points: 35559 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
maxie, you better get on the blower and tell General Abbott to cancel Operation Direct Action.
Nothing going on here
|
||
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I posted links to the evidence on page one of this thread. It's actually quite comprehensive. And if the scientific consensus changes I'll happily change my mind.
But you, hatch and Gay3 can walk outside, lick your fingers and hold them in the air for the next decade or so and convince yourself all is AOK. Excuse me if I don't buy it. |
||
Gay3
Moderator Group Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Location: Miners Rest Status: Offline Points: 51818 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think climate change is & has always been, ever evolving, with human beings flattering themselves in believing the biproducts of our existence has had any effect (environment yes, climate no).
Money should be spent on ways to cope with the extremes of weather the world is experiencing, rather than than playing these carbon games which seem to me to just shuffle money around rather than improving farming techniques, water holding, drainage, the list's endless................. |
||
Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
And I ask again- is this from an assessment of the science or is this your own home-spun wisdom? |
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Climate change is indisputable. It has occurred from when the only thing alive on the planet were single cell organisms floating in water. That is not the point though, the point is how much of it is man made. Scientists and universities cannot always be trusted to offer independent advice that is free from personal taint. They require grants to survive, they need to show further research is required to maintain funding, they need high profile courses to attract students etc. To simple accept something because a scientist said so is naive. Equally computer modelling is flawed as it only extrapolates using the information fed in and uses the parameters the researcher dictates.
It is also human nature to look at things the way an individual wants. If you believe in mans affect on weather you will find a scientist who states what you think. If you hold the opposite view an expert will agree with your point of view. People will point to flooding and say climate change, others will say its been happening since Noah was a boy. Some will point to bush fires in September, others will say arsonists and poor urban planning should not be misconstrued as climate change. Equally people love to quote sources without actually checking the facts. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT will tell you that JudgeHoldens facts about endless consecutive months of warming are false, that there has be no warming in the 21st century. So who do we believe, JudgeHolden or Richard Lindzen? Maybe both as JudgeHolden may be quoting figures specific to a region, Lindzen to the earth in general. Of course Vikings grew grapes in Greenland for several centuries while Europe went through a cooling period pre industrial revolution. |
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Firstly, you might want to attribute quotes to people that belong to certain people. I never said anything about consecutive months of anything.
The first two sentences of your second paragraph is probably the most sense you've made here. But not in the way you think. You're cherry-picking the opinion of him why? The fact is, for every 3 Lindzens, there are 97 climate scientists who disagree with him. And even Lindzen accepts the basic facts that CO2 causes warming and that temperatures rises as a result. Which puts him a fair way away from some of the flat-earthers in here. |
||
maccamax
Champion Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 41473 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
Ask a Religious Maniac about God and in millions of years the argument will be on going.
Climate change is a belief, not a fact. The participants are divided. When they solve the God bit , I'm ready to listen to the other crazies. |
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If I incorrectly attributed a quote JudgeHolden I apologise. Equally, I would suggest that you calm down a little JudgeHolden and retread my post. I didn't make a single comment about what my opinion is on climate change, or which argument is correct. I stated undisputed facts, made a personal observation on human nature then used an example of a scientist with facts that dispute what had previously been stated here as a fact without substantiation. You are the one who is so sure of your opinion that you are deriding others without actually quoting science or scientists.
|
||
oneonesit
Champion Joined: 06 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 36892 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Funny how the mood can change so quickly on big ticket areas like this...I mean we are only talking the future of our world....left up to The Judge & Subby to defend all the cobblers....back in the old "Inconvenient Truth (whatever)" days the board would have lit up ! Just takes a bit longer to "sink in" with some with I suppose ! |
||
Refer ALP Election Promises
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Perfectly calm thanks. And if you re-read the thread here (and on other threads) I have referenced the science but no-one seems particular interested. They think they can figure it all out themselves. Or blithely dismiss current scientific enquiry as corrupt. Unless there is a dissenting opinion, of course, then they're all over it.
So if you wish to discuss the actual science, then I'm all ears.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I was discussing the science JudgeHolden. Without imparting my personal interpretation. Is making up your figures of 97-3% scientific examination or calm analysis?
iPCC have now admitted their modelling was wrong and the changes, while there, are exaggerated. Indeed if you look at Lindzens position and that of IPCC in 2007 we can actually see that the almost perfectedly, the middle ground is is the present reality. Who could have predicted that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two fanatical views?! 2084 is the year when the negatives of man made climate change will eventually kick in, ie they are presently all of a positive economic nature. This will of course change again. |
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well, we'll have to disagree about the modelling:
And your assertion for 2084, can I ask where that comes from?
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
And by the way, my 97-3 figures are hardly made up:
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I2084 comes from the IPCCs own report, leaked prior to publishin but due for release shortlyg. The almost half figure (they modelled .2 degree change but revised own to .12 in actuality) also comes direct from IPCC. As you can see, I'm dealing with science and still haven't put forward a personal opinion on actual change.
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That comes from the IPCC. Are you sure about that? Could you provide a link?
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Btw, and just to be clear, the modelling you disagree with is from IPCC. Do you disagree because it doesn't suit your argument?
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Interesting it has just reached mainstream media. Have a look at today's wall street journal for example.
|
||
Shammy Davis
Champion Joined: 14 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 8568 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
Pass the sixteen ounce sodas and popcorn.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That report is out 27th Sept
|
||
Gay3
Moderator Group Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Location: Miners Rest Status: Offline Points: 51818 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It might possibly be this one, pinched off C/horse & posted today: Wow, a rethink in climate change n/h? not sure, effects them too doesn't itTHE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007. |
||
Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Gay, that would be very similar. I was privy to the report analysis but as of yet hadn't read any articles. Info is basically the same though
|
||
Browndog
Moderator Group Joined: 30 Oct 2009 Location: Brunswick Hds N Status: Offline Points: 35559 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".
Not, doesn't exist, but lower than predicted
|
||
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Fairly sure I said that when, after naming the two extremes of opinion by an individual and organisation, I suggested the truth was somewhere in the middle. Would have thought we could take as read brown dog that therefore the report was saying there is still man made climate change.
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thats an article from a (conservative) journalist (citing other conservative news media outfits), speculating about an as yet unreleased report. So where does this 2084 assertion fit in?
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So anything that does not sit with your preconceived beliefs is instantly dismissed as poor reporting by conservative journalists? Doesn't sound like a balanced scientific approach does it? This is the IPCC report, the peak body of the 97% you earlier quoted, admitting that their modelling, while correct in basis, was overly geared to increases that have not, in reality, eventuated. I said 2084 however reading the article Gay put up its 2083, I was out by a year. Mute point, I have seen extracts from the report. It is all very fair and reasonable. It's balanced and analytical and I'm sure that in hindsight will shown to have other areas that are flawed. It is, apart from the undistutable facts like gravity, the nature of science......hypothesis is reached on available data using individuals perceptions. It is difficult to be completely accurate. This is why fanatics at either end of the argument will always be wrong as they leave no wiggle room for error.
|
||
Whale
Champion Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Location: St Kilda Beach Status: Offline Points: 38719 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
Tim Flannery Alan Jones |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 538> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |