Climate Change
- Thread starter Bigblu
- Start date
Oh, so I was right all along. So why the mock outrage? No strawman, not even close. A primary school kid would recognise that. It was just a simple question on your position against diesel excise exemptions to farmers.
Here is another question for you; Is the term Strawman the most incorrectly used term on the internet after "ironic"? I think so.
Another "interesting" partial analysis. Lets see what Rajendra Pachauri actually says:
IPCC chairman dismisses climate report spoiler campaign
"There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change."
When a scientist talks about questioning science, s/he means having an intelligent rational discussion. Unfortunately, deniers don't posses rationality in the discussion about man made climate change.
Geoff could you expand on that statement,as you seem to know a lot more about this,, simple people like myself who search for something you think is right,then one finds something you didn't know was there..
LibGS, I think the point of the post was primarily about the explicit acknowledgment of the warming pause. Something which Esel disagrees with the head of the IPCC and the Met about. It's "ironic" that you would divert the discussion away from the point of the post
I think I've quoted before from the Liberal Party policy which they took to the electorate.
I've quoted earlier in the thread from a paper given by Greg Hunt on the issue.
LibGS, I think the point of the post was primarily about the explicit acknowledgment of the warming pause. Something which Esel disagrees with the head of the IPCC and the Met about. It's "ironic" that you would divert the discussion away from the point of the post
True true. Got me there!
Thanks ,,I will have a read,people still wonder about when Darwin and Wallace first put their paper across the table at the Linnean Society and the President of that society about natural selection and evolution saw nothing that would over time revolutionize modern science,how wrong he was..
http://www.linnean.org/fellows/become_a_fellow
Earthquakes;
http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
One sunspot or solar flare can be several hundred thousand times bigger than earth;
Or this;
http://weather.ninemsn.com.au/stormtracker.jsp
One day, in one Country.... add to that how many bushfires are caused by just some of these storms through a few lightning strikes, spewing out god knows how much nasty stuff (and even the evil CO2), all over the world, every day, for hundreds of millions of years (probably except for the ice-age 10,000 years ago).
http://webflash.ess.washington.edu/
Let's not forget Typhoons and Hurricanes, Tornadoes.
And, we have already had some of the most severe cold snaps/snow storms etc on record in the Northern Hemisphere in recent months.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/10
We've been here for 5 mins, and you reckon we are affecting the weather.
So why don't you answer a simple question. An excise exemption is not a subsidy. It would appear you would prefer to burn huge amounts of fuel shipping food from half way across the globe grown with cheap and inefficient methods where the farmers are subsidized. How much coal do we have to dig up to pay for it or do we just go hungry? One example now SPC has closed, how much carbon is produced shipping canned fruit to Australia, that probably used more carbon to produce in the first place.
This is what I said. Noticed I used paragraphs to seperate my two points. I learnt to use paragraphs to seperate ideas at primary school.
LibGS, I did look up agricultural grants. most of them are to promote carbon capture or reduction, and the ones that don't hardly any-body can qualify and the funds haven't been used. Even the one for fuel is to encourage oil recycling. http://grantslink.gov.au/grants/gra...x:"Agriculture"&link-search=true&start_rank=1
We've been here for 5 mins, and you reckon we are affecting the weather.
This handy timeline equivalent puts the Earth into perspective. Unfortunately it's got a whole bunch of righteous lefty nonsense tacked on the end, but the first 2 or 3 minutes are good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ra9lwKn75s
Once you see this, it makes you laugh when someone says "I can remember 40 years ago when it used to be like".....as if that moment in time is supposed to be some sort of universal benchmark.
Geological time and events are far too vast for humans to relate to, both in scale and time.
Our puny little 100 years or thereabouts are less than half a second in the Earth's timeline.
LibGS, I think the point of the post was primarily about the explicit acknowledgment of the warming pause. Something which Esel disagrees with the head of the IPCC and the Met about. It's "ironic" that you would divert the discussion away from the point of the post
I think you are being disingenuous and cherry picking here. The IPCC and the Met office (and NASA and BOM and everyone else for that matter) are clear that the earth is warming.
You are using data that only refers to surface air temps which only account for 2% of overall warming. You have left out the fact that upper ocean, deep ocean and ice temps have risen and continue to rise dramatically. So when combined, land, air and ocean temps show a continued rise in temps. Also, places like the arctic have experienced strong surface air temp increases.
The graph below demonstrates.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...1976927298/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Box-3.1-Fig-1_450.jpg
The IPCC attributes the recent slowing of surface temperatures to a combination of external and internal climate factors. For example, solar activity has been relatively low and volcanic activity has been relatively high, causing less solar energy to reach the Earth's surface. At the same time, we're in the midst of cool ocean cycle phases, for example with a preponderance of La Ni?a events since 1999. A number of recent studies have suggested that most of the recent slowing of surface warming is due to these ocean cycles which are transferring heat from the land to the oceans.
No Esel, this is what you said: "The experts recon we are in deep poo if global temps rise by an average of 4 degrees (but this is the upper end of predictions). One of the problems would be an increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters like bush fires and tropical storms. Heat contributes to both of them. The more hot spells the more bush fires and cyclones.
Another big problem would be if land based ice melts because it will disrupt people's water supply (no snow melt = no rivers) and because if the land based ice in the arctic melts it will raise sea levels, flooding millions in coastal settlements.
These are lots of other examples out there but I think these two are particularly relevant for Australians."
I see your paragraphs, but for some reason you atempted to misinform by not including your final paragraph. Just like a good student you put a concluding paragraph in to wrap up the ideas you spoke of.
Stop dancing around and trying to pretend it isn't so. I ask again, how many Australian rivers are sourced by snow melt? Of all the examples of things you said you could put out there of the catastophic effects of CC, this is one of those that you decided to tells us about (and you even included some clarifying text for us simpletons in parenthesis to help us out). Must be super important I guess for Australia.
Nope, didn't use any data at all. Just relied on what the IPCC boss said. Are you saying I can't rely on his public comments?
I would ask that the mods ask this person to modify his language. The deniers on here are getting away with far to much in terms of their obnoxious and derogatory name calling.
It's a multi billion dollar industry, probably employing tens, if not hundreds of thousands world wide. It needs to be a problem, and the bigger the problem, the more the industry will grow and everyone involved in it will be better off.
There can't be seen to be any good come out of it. It all needs to be bad. So despite increasing rainfall globally, longer growing seasons, and increased atmospheric CO2 levels, We need to say global warming is going to be catastrophic to the worlds food supply. Yet on we go producing an extra 40 million tonnes of food each and every year? I wonder why?
If there was no warming happening, and if it was not going to be a problem, what the hell would a climate scientist have to do? The job probably wouldn't even exist!
There's heaps of reasons. I thought they'd be obvious?
See ya's.
I use about $150,000 worth of diesel a year. I pay all the tax I'm supposed to. If I didn't get the rebate back, I'd be subsidising the road system tens of thousands of dollars per year. A road system that my farm machinery is not using. It's also why mining gets the rebate too.
See ya's.
How exactly is he cherry picking? You not acknowledging warming has stopped says to me you're either trying to peddle a lie or you have lilttle idea what the scientists are reporting?
The 17 year warming pause is documented in one of the IPPC reports. This has not been denied by the IPPC although they now appear to be downplaying it's significance.
The Met office also clearly reports this as a fact.
Have it out with them!
