Climate change?

[Aaron Sice]

clmate changes.....who'd a thunk it.

steamy jurassic jungles, sahara used to be a sea bed, mediterranean used to be a valley floor, the ice age.....

winter, summer, autumn, spring.....

but a tax will fix that.

 

[weg]

Oh I think that they realise but they want power at all costs. Of course the cost seems to be total political annihilation but at least Gillard was PM right?

True, BUT they keep on doing the dumbest things (in what they're do and tell us, and expect us to believe), which time and time again keeps backfiring - obvious to everyone but them it seems .

 

[HiEquity]

For anyone genuinely interested in the subject matter at hand in an Australian context, here is a good place to start. And here of course.

Choose the area you want to know more about, click on the "in detail" tab and follow the references. A quick way to get to the main studies involved in each area. Follow the references in those studies to get across the various forms of source data from other research studies. Or if you like to sit down and read a book you can download this. And follow the references again to the source data and research of whichever detailed element interests you. There are certainly plenty of them.

You can go as deep or as shallow as you like on each topic by going through the references. Contact information is also there for anyone with specific questions you want to ask but you will need to have specific questions on data sets etc - general questions will of course just earn you a hyperlink back to the website.

Have fun!

 

[Belbo]

This will be the central issue of the next election, and this will drown the Govt back to the backblocks of politics for years to come.

...but fear not, they've got plenty more in their socialist back pocket, any excuse to distribute the wealth will do.

Haven't you noticed? This is where the whole Abbott-Hockey show is really beginning to pong like a rotten fish.

The Coalition has endorsed virtually all of the Government's wealth distribution measures, with the only thing that it has opposed being means-testing any of it! And, Abbott's got a bunch more to add too!

The Abbott-Hockey show is leading the way in 'socialist' spending proposals: It's trying to put the entire country on welfare!

It worked very well for Howard, we know, so why shouldn't it work for Abbott? (Ummm? Historically low tax receipts! )

 

[joeExpat]

For anyone genuinely interested in the subject matter at hand in an Australian context, here is a good place to start. And here of course.

Choose the area you want to know more about, click on the "in detail" tab and follow the references. A quick way to get to the main studies involved in each area. Follow the references in those studies to get across the various forms of source data from other research studies. Or if you like to sit down and read a book you can download this. And follow the references again to the source data and research of whichever detailed element interests you. There are certainly plenty of them.

You're wasting your time pointing out the facts on this thread... people would rather trust conspiracy theories, shock-jocks and last months rainfall in Oodnadatta.

 

[Sunfish]

You're wasting your time pointing out the facts on this thread... people would rather trust conspiracy theories, shock-jocks and last months rainfall in Oodnadatta.

While the true believers trust Flannery and Gore.

What arrogance on your behalf to think that nobody here is capable of logical thought, that they believe any junk they are fed. Well we don't believe Julia.

 

[Dazz]

clmate changes.....who'd a thunk it.

steamy jurassic jungles, sahara used to be a sea bed, mediterranean used to be a valley floor, the ice age.....

winter, summer, autumn, spring.....

but a tax will fix that.

Rubbish !! You have no evidence. That's not in the climate change models, it can't be correct.

I'm going to tell on you. Christine Milne will be along any minute.

 

[Aaron_C]

You're wasting your time pointing out the facts on this thread... people would rather trust conspiracy theories, shock-jocks and last months rainfall in Oodnadatta.

People have seen the facts and have made up their own minds. The problem with those pushing the Climate Change agenda like Al Gore et al is that they tell people that 'the science is settled' and that there is a 'scientific consensus', when science is done by facts, not by consensus. Telling people that they are stupid and should believe you over me is just childish and achieves nothing.

 

[Macca]

That link takes me to the CSIRO, that is the same organisation that wouldn't allow a researcher to publish a report that disagreed with the IPCC report. The same organisation that states in its own reports that the southern hemisphere is already producing less CO2 than previously and the increase in readings at its Tasmanian station is because of Northern hemisphere CO2 drifting down here, therefore we must have a new tax on life in Australia.

It has lost all of its autonomy and has become a propaganda machine for the Govt where the climate is concerned, What is the point of reading there web site ?

For anyone genuinely interested in the subject matter at hand in an Australian context, here is a good place to start. And here of course.

Choose the area you want to know more about, click on the "in detail" tab and follow the references. A quick way to get to the main studies involved in each area. Follow the references in those studies to get across the various forms of source data from other research studies. Or if you like to sit down and read a book you can download this. And follow the references again to the source data and research of whichever detailed element interests you. There are certainly plenty of them.

You can go as deep or as shallow as you like on each topic by going through the references. Contact information is also there for anyone with specific questions you want to ask but you will need to have specific questions on data sets etc - general questions will of course just earn you a hyperlink back to the website.

Have fun!

 

[Macca]

I am back living in area that I lived in 50 years ago and could take anyone interested to houses that used to have saltwater under them every Christmas high tide. They filled it so that it was the same height as the adjoining shore, it used to get extremely damp but not wet after that, 53 years later it is still the same, comes up to the same height and stops.

I know a road that has always had salt water running from the high side to the low side every king tide, maybe 6 times a year, still the same but now every one uses that as an example of sea level increase, Bollocks !

Like most generations this generation thinks it is the first generation to be intelligent Like most generations it is trying hard to ignore the experiences of the previous, which is why mankind keeps making the same mistakes.

Macca, It might have been 1952 we moved to "the South Side". A wharf-side, water-side suburb. There was a concrete gutter outside and the "spring" tides would enter that gutter and must have wet our back yard because Dad filled that with cinders from the local power station.

If Flannery were right, 60 years later that suburb would be uninhabitable you'd think. It's OK, a little water over some patches of road at the same time each year. But life goes on.

I'm curious about the politics of this though. Abbott has not had the fortitude to say directly that he believes AGW to be a hoax but if you look, the AGW case is suffering almost daily setbacks.

If our next election is next year as scheduled, the weight of opinion may give him the strength needed to "come out".

Note: Tea's on. No time to proof read. Any glaring errors will have to wait.

 

[Dazz]

Like most generations this generation thinks it is the first generation to be intelligent Like most generations it is trying hard to ignore the experiences of the previous, which is why mankind keeps making the same mistakes.

Agreed Macca...


http://gawker.com/5566022/jon-stewa...nts-paying-lip-service-to-energy-independence

 

[Aaron Sice]

That link takes me to the CSIRO, that is the same organisation that wouldn't allow a researcher to publish a report that disagreed with the IPCC report. The same organisation that states in its own reports that the southern hemisphere is already producing less CO2 than previously and the increase in readings at its Tasmanian station is because of Northern hemisphere CO2 drifting down here, therefore we must have a new tax on life in Australia.

It has lost all of its autonomy and has become a propaganda machine for the Govt where the climate is concerned, What is the point of reading there web site ?

sssshhh - i said this but was shouted down as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

 

[Aaron_C]

sssshhh - i said this but was shouted down as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

At least you stop Prof X from reading your mind

 

[HiEquity]

The CSIRO has been consistent on this for the 20 something years I've been following the debate. They've just updated the information with data as it has become available.

The reason I linked their website is because they just stick to the facts and haven't indulged in the type of scaremongering we see from the likes of Flannery and Gore. I've said it before but both extremes of this debate have a lot to answer for. But the data doesn't lie and it clearly supports the middle ground.

As to the supposed inconsistencies pointed out in this thread, the only thing that is clear to me is that people aren't taking the trouble to read the actual studies and data at hand.

 

[Macca]

The CSIRO has been consistent on this for the 20 something years I've been following the debate. They've just updated the information with data as it has become available.

The reason I linked their website is because they just stick to the facts and haven't indulged in the type of scaremongering we see from the likes of Flannery and Gore. I've said it before but both extremes of this debate have a lot to answer for. But the data doesn't lie and it clearly supports the middle ground.

As to the supposed inconsistencies pointed out in this thread, the only thing that is clear to me is that people aren't taking the trouble to read the actual studies and data at hand.

Hi Hi E,

The sad thing to me is the terror campaign being waged upon our children, I can accept your argument that we should all read the data and act accordingly but when the Dept Of Education consistently lies to my granchildren causing them to have nightmares of everyone drowning I get a bit steamed up.

Further, finding unadulterated data is getting rather hit and miss, when you have Govt departments and researchers altering data to suit their funding supply just who can one believe?

One thing that is likely to happen in time is that all the outrageous claims will continue to be proven wrong and the whole thing will be ridiculed and exposed for what it is.

Unfortunately, the real problem continues to be ignored and deteriorate and by the time the pollution problem is acknowledged and addressed we will have created a population that is blase about the whole environment thing.

We then face another decade of trying to get people to try to limit pollution rather than flushing it down a river and the money currently being wasted will have to be repaid before we can address the elephant

 

[NedKelly]

IMHO many Australian's didn't mind spending money on reducing pollution when house prices were rising and their economic prospects looked rosy. In tougher economic times people tend to think short term. Bugger the future ramifications of not pricing carbon. If we get it wrong future generations can deal with it.

I hope you are not suggesting that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

 

[Aaron Sice]

I hope you are not suggesting that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

those poor trees - having to breathe pollutants ever since god created them.

 

[The Fence]

Its so obvious aint it...but so obvious that the do gooders and greeny nazis can simply ignore the facts surrounding carbon dioxide and try and force their lies on society.

Whatever happened to the facts about how much any active and then erupting volcano has effect on the Earths climate....?

Oh noooooo, cant talk about that......must keep the sheeple scared with disaster pics and forecasts of flooding and seas rising and droughts.

Oh goodness me....right there is an anomally...droughts and floods...!!

What is it to be?
Droughts or floods?

This is what has happened for millienium and will ever be.

The little time we have been collecting data is nothing more than a **** in the ocean...and is only relevant to a tiny spec of nothing in the history of the Earth and creation. To think man has buggered all this in a few short years is nothing short of brain washing.

The many claims (Tim Flannery Warragamba dam never full again) Opera House sinking etc etc. over the decades have all been flamed into obscurity and turned out as "novel" for the amusement of gullthungerahs.

Humans indeed are a part of the influencing factors that affect climate change...but not the be all and end all. A part of.... but not all... there is a world of nature out there...are we not natural...?

You will not fix something that is not broke.

Most folks these days are eco concious are they not..? We all want to make a difference and are in fact doing just that. But the big hurry up is out of line and sensationalist IMHO.

Bigger things than us still on this Earth and it's not like we are not evolving along at all is it...??

 

[Crabnet]

I hope you are not suggesting that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

That would depend on your definition of pollution. In the context of Greenhouse Emissions then releasing previously bound CO² molecules into the atmosphere by human endeavors could be considered pollution by some if the effect is adverse to the environment.
Some use the terms Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and carbon pollution permits.

 

[NedKelly]

That would depend on your definition of pollution. In the context of Greenhouse Emissions then releasing previously bound CO² molecules into the atmosphere by human endeavors could be considered pollution by some if the effect is adverse to the environment.
Some eco loons use the terms Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and carbon pollution permits.

Question, where do these "previously bound CO² molecules come from"?

You will notice that for clarity, I have corrected your last sentence.