Didn't believe you then, don't believe you now.
do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article
- Thread starter bob shovel
- Start date
Didn't believe you then, don't believe you now.
So, when you have been looking out the window for the last 50 years, what have you observed (forget what you've been told).
Please explain to me just exactly what Climate Change actually refers to.
Give me some concrete examples of Climate Change.
I'm not being smart now; this is a serious question.
I hope the answers are up to it.
No worries; found it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Last edited:
The IPCC was created and funded to find evidence that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, so that's what they are going to do.
If they start producing data suggesting humans might not be the primary cause, then that's the end of their funding and the end of the IPCC.
20 years ago the IPCC said the science was settled and that they were 95% certain human CO2 emissions would cause global temperatures to keep rising.
But the science was not settled then, and it is not settled now, because temperatures are not doing what the IPCC expected them to do...
Clearly there is more to it than 'more human CO2 = more warming'.
If the science had been settled then the IPCC wouldn't be scrambling now to try and explain away the unexpected 'hiatus'.
The science is far from settled.
The idea that anyone can accurately predict the future climate within fractions of a degree in a system as complex as the planet Earth, and then attribute fractions of those fractions of a degree to be the result of a trace gas that human activity emits in miniscule quantities (compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere), is just ridiculous.
You are right, some of the details of the science aren't settled, but the broad findings are there. And there are many many places on the internet that have a rational and scientific explanation of the hiatus. Cherry picking data is ignorant at best. The long term trends are sound.
And I will tell you this for a fact, climate scientists are literally scared. What they publish is conservative. The really story frightens the crap out of them and they wish they were wrong. There are Australian climate scientists buying property in Southern Tasmania.
Also, your belief that because YOU can't explain or understand something means that it doesn't exist, is actually the ridiculous thing here.
Can you explain the particle wave duality of light? No, therefore, it doesn't exist.
Can you explain how complex proteins fold to change amino acids? Oh, it doesn't exist.
Can you mathematically explain why 1+1=2? Oh, it doesn't exist.
I'm not even going to bother responding to your misleading "science".
Rain, hail and shine. I hope that helps. Which of course it doesn't, just like your observations don't.
After all this and you were yet to look up a definition of what you were disagreeing with?
I expect wikipedia gave you enough concrete examples? There's plenty of evidence of climate change, I think what you're searching for is evidence that humans are contributing right?
I'm not sure that can really be summarised here. But that wiki site has plenty of links to reports that you can read in your own time.
The IPCC don't produce data, they assess it.
The IPCC findings are also reviewed by various scentific bodies, and submissions and corrections can be made which if found to be valid, are adopted in subsequent assessments. It's all out in the open.
Given that, if you for example, had some evidence contradicting their findings, they would be sure to review it. In fact, I think they would be very eager to see it. I'm not sure that a positive human factors outcome was the preferred result here.
Flipside of that coin, there's a lot of vested interests in a negative result... and you're sucking it down like coca-cola.
Needless to say, and somewhat irrespectively, a 100% renewables energy sector can only be a good thing.
They have been scaremongering about climate change for decades, and so far... nothing. No increase in extreme weather events, no cities drowned by rising sea levels, and no increase in temperatures for two decades. Nothing has happened, but let's all pay more taxes to fund their continued scaremongering campaign.
Because if all we pay enough extra tax, then we can stop the climate from changing, right?
It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to the climate scientists to prove that climate change, which has been occurring naturally for billions of years, has somehow stopped being caused by natural forces and is now totally driven by human activity.
It's also up to the scientists to demonstrate why it would even be beneficial for us to stop the climate from changing. Why should we try to stop the climate from doing something that it has been doing perfectly well for billions of years?
What is the 'correct' climate that we are trying to stop on here? Was the global climate 100 years ago significantly 'better' then the climate today?
The global population thrived during the Medieval Warm Period (which was at least as warm if not warmer than the present day), due to increased food yield and better living conditions. We struggled more during the Little Ice Age (which we have really just been emerging from over the past couple of hundred years - hence the warming). Warmer temperatures are better for humans than colder temperatures.
Their finding two decades ago was that global temperatures would soar uncontrollably due to human CO2 emissions.
The evidence is that global temperatures have not increased at all for two decades despite an acceleration in human CO2 emissions.
My observations are to inject some objectivity into this mania.
And it is a mania.
We are fleas' dung on a dog in the scheme of things and to think otherwise about our influence on weather patterns is - at best - misguided.
I already know what CC refers to - hence my bwahahaha mentality on the subject (see above).
I got sick of waiting to hear your explanation and description (still waiting) of Climate Change...
It has already been said a number of times by myself and others that the Climate is changing all the time, and has been since the dawn of time. Nothing to see here folks, go about your lives.
It's the insanity that it is somehow all brand new, and caused by us flea dung that gives me a crack-up.
If I was 13 years old, I might just believe some of it, but I'm not. Almost everyone I talk to of my age and older take all this with a grain of salt. Why? you work it out.
The only ones who don't are the treehugger sect and the younger ones, it seems.
I know some teenagers who are convinced the Illuminati are taking over the world...and when I cast a bit of doubt on it to them; they go into lathers...see what I mean?
I'm all for protecting our planet and so on; it's not a good idea to shidd in yer own nest so to speak, but as for us destroying the weather? Seriously.
If you guys wanna get all fanatical and emotional about something humans are guilty of; stop the planet from reproducing out of control - which it currently is - and guilty of dreaming up stupid religions that result in us killing all of ourselves off...the religion factor is more of a concern than some stupid mania over weather.
If you wanna see some real climate change; take a look at the episode on Namibia on SBS's Wildest Africa...put's your views into perspective I reckon.
(waiting for personal attack via PM from LibGS
)
Last edited:
Not down at prime waterfront real estate with views, I hope.
You can buy some pretty serious waterfront mansions for not much dough, down there.
The sea will rise and flood out their loungeroom unless they are up on the hills a bit.
If they were really scared of GW, they'd move to Invergargill, or the top of Alaska, or the top of Iceland or the The Horn down at the tip of South America....
Last edited:
No, that chart was posted to illustrate the failure of the IPCC's predictions.This graph was posted by Shadow to disprove any climate change.
I have never tried to disprove any climate change. In fact I said above that the climate has been changing for billions of years (long before humans were emitting CO2), and will continue changing for billions more years (long after human life on earth ends).
I also posted the chart below to show no statistically significant global warming for almost two decades...
My observations are to inject some objectivity into this mania.
Objectivity? Your opinion vs the scientific community and scientific method?
If I was 13 years old, I might just believe some of it, but I'm not. Almost everyone I talk to of my age and older take all this with a grain of salt. Why? you work it out.
Perhaps because you won't be around to suffer the consequences? The other observation I make is that if everyone your age and older you talk have the same opinion you must interact within a small circle of people.
The only ones who don't are the treehugger sect and the younger ones, it seems.
Statements like this further diminish your credibility. So scientists and the scientific community are all tree-huggers?
I know some teenagers who are convinced the Illuminati are taking over the world...and when I cast a bit of doubt on it to them; they go into lathers...see what I mean?
I also know some people who are convinced that the climate change issue is really a left wing agenda for world government control and higher taxes. Perhaps we can introduce them to those teenagers you know so they can engage in mutually agreeable discussions.
I'm all for protecting our planet and so on;
Yes, obviously!
If you guys wanna get all fanatical and emotional about something humans are guilty of; stop the planet from reproducing out of control - which it currently is - and guilty of dreaming up stupid religions that result in us killing all of ourselves off...the religion factor is more of a concern than some stupid mania over weather.
Agree in part about the religion and population aspects but what does that have to do with solving the climate change issue? We humans are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Objectivity? Your opinion vs the scientific community and scientific method?
If I was 13 years old, I might just believe some of it, but I'm not. Almost everyone I talk to of my age and older take all this with a grain of salt. Why? you work it out.
Perhaps because you won't be around to suffer the consequences? The other observation I make is that if everyone your age and older you talk have the same opinion you must interact within a small circle of people.
The only ones who don't are the treehugger sect and the younger ones, it seems.
Statements like this further diminish your credibility. So scientists and the scientific community are all tree-huggers?
I know some teenagers who are convinced the Illuminati are taking over the world...and when I cast a bit of doubt on it to them; they go into lathers...see what I mean?
I also know some people who are convinced that the climate change issue is really a left wing agenda for world government control and higher taxes. Perhaps we can introduce them to those teenagers you know so they can engage in mutually agreeable discussions.
I'm all for protecting our planet and so on;
Yes, obviously!
If you guys wanna get all fanatical and emotional about something humans are guilty of; stop the planet from reproducing out of control - which it currently is - and guilty of dreaming up stupid religions that result in us killing all of ourselves off...the religion factor is more of a concern than some stupid mania over weather.
Agree in part about the religion and population aspects but what does that have to do with solving the climate change issue? We humans are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Looks like this one's got a bit off topic, but oh well, my 2c...
I'm not 100% convinced humans yet have so much influence over the climate. But the body of evidence is significant and growing, so I ask myself two questions before deciding how to behave:
- what is the cost if I am right but all these silly believers will never listen?
- what is the cost if I am wrong but I never listen?
To BV and other hardline skeptics, unless you have some hefty evidence to not just counter the majority of the scientific community, but also prove your position with absolutely ZERO doubt (and sorry but 50+ years of anecdotal observation living in Victoria doesnt count as hefty) surely this makes the decision a simple one.
On the main topic, tenants v landlords will, to some people, always be one of those ideological divides of competing interests like unions vs employers which in an advanced democracy will ebb and flow around a relative middle ground.
I'm not 100% convinced humans yet have so much influence over the climate. But the body of evidence is significant and growing, so I ask myself two questions before deciding how to behave:
- what is the cost if I am right but all these silly believers will never listen?
- what is the cost if I am wrong but I never listen?
To BV and other hardline skeptics, unless you have some hefty evidence to not just counter the majority of the scientific community, but also prove your position with absolutely ZERO doubt (and sorry but 50+ years of anecdotal observation living in Victoria doesnt count as hefty) surely this makes the decision a simple one.
On the main topic, tenants v landlords will, to some people, always be one of those ideological divides of competing interests like unions vs employers which in an advanced democracy will ebb and flow around a relative middle ground.
If I was 13 years old, I might just believe some of it, but I'm not. Almost everyone I talk to of my age and older take all this with a grain of salt. Why? you work it out.
The only ones who don't are the treehugger sect and the younger ones, it seems.
(waiting for personal attack via PM from LibGS
Your assessment of who "believes" in climate change is sad.
Hows this from those US military tree huggers.
DoD Releases 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap
"Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change," said Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. "Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. By taking a proactive, flexible approach to assessment, analysis, and adaptation, the Defense Department will keep pace with a changing climate, minimize its impacts on our missions, and continue to protect our national security."
The Australian Office of National Assesments tree huggers:
"This is one of the areas where the impact of transnational forces like pandemic disease and the wilder natural disasters that are accompanying climate change have had their greatest impact."
John Hewson that tree hugger who chairs the Asset Owners Disclosure Project
"The Asset Owners Disclosure Project is an independent global not-for-profit organisation whose objective is to protect members' retirement savings from the risks posed by climate change. We aim to do this by helping funds to redress the huge imbalance in their investments between high-carbon assets (50-60% of a portfolio) and low-carbon assets (typically less than 2%) and realigning the investment chain to adopt long-term investment practices. Key elements of the initiative are..."
Insurance Council of Australia tree huggers?
Climate Change - Coastal Property Risks and Insurance
I won't be attacking you. My apologies for doing it earlier, it wasn't fair of me to attack someone who is unarmed in this particular battle of wits.
Last edited:
Bayview, for those of us not scientifically inclined, I think that this is pretty easy to understand. It is undisputed that the earth is warming up. That's a scientific fact. We know that carbon dioxide heats up the atmosphere. Who is the biggest producer of carbon dioxide? We humans are. The only rational conclusions you can draw from that is that we caused it.
If you are looking for proof, all you have is look to what the world's animals and fish are doing. When a species finds its environment warming up and too hot, it moves to a cooler place. (either higher altitude or south, in the case of Australia). If they cannot find a habitat which can sustain them, they become extinct.
https://blogs.csiro.au/climate-resp...ations-of-species-at-risk-as-climate-changes/
What caused it before humans started emitting CO2, and why has that thing stopped causing it today?
Were you aware that the sun also heats up the atmosphere?
Were you aware that there has been no warming for almost two decades, despite an acceleration in human CO2 emissions?
I guess not...
Hmmm...
I'd rather my taxes went towards useful things like schools, roads, hospitals etc., rather that being wasted in some futile attempt to prevent the climate from changing.
Where do you suggest we reduce funding, in order to pay for the fight against climate change? Education? Healthcare? Foreign aid?
The money and resources that the politicians want to spend in order to 'stop climate change' has to come from somewhere. That means we pay more taxes and the government spends less of those taxes on real things that actually help people. Instead of going towards useful infrastructure, our taxes will line the pockets of various 'alternative' businesses, climate change lobby groups, advertisers, Goldman Sachs carbon trading derivatives, or whatever else they dream up. It's all a nonsense. A huge scam designed to take more tax from the population and give it to the elite. We can't stop the climate from changing - and it wouldn't even be desirable to do so if we could, since the climate has been changing for billions of years. Why waste money trying to prevent it?
There is a lot of talk about Cliff and Randy a simple google search of them would have shown what the real science community thinks of them. And here is what you should observe about that "graph".
If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).
Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.
Thanks for your contribution Shadow. Its a perfect example of non-science.
If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).
Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.
Thanks for your contribution Shadow. Its a perfect example of non-science.
Ha ha, I've not wanted to get involved with this as it's not a climate change thread. However Libs, you've just shown me that you have no idea how to read a simple bloody chart mate! Shadows chart goes from 2500 BC to the present, the last quarter of the current warm interglacial period we are no in. Your temperature chart goes from 400,000 years ago to present and shows the last few brief interglacial periods in the current global iceage we are now in. Of course they don't look alike!
See ya's.
Similar threads
