So much for global warming

[Propertunity]

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

I'm off to buy me another beach front

 

[BayView]

I've been banging this drum since day one.

Why?

Let's leave aside all the scientific mumbo-jumbo propaganda expoused by the loony-left just for one minute and look at it with a bit of common-sense.

1. Next time they show the record temps for a region on the news (will have to wait until next summer for this) have a look at WHEN it was before the new record. In most cases, it was near the turn of last century and even into the 1800's in many instances (Black Saturday notwithstanding). Now, I might be stupid, but if records were set 100 years ago, and they are only just getting to them now, doesn't say thay the world was as hot, if not hotter, back then? And, if the temps were steadily rising, wouldn't we be seeing records broken every other year? Temps have hardly varied in my experience.

2. Go to your local beach. If the ice was disintegrating before our eyes, the water level will rise - all over the world. keep in mind we live in/on one large bucket that holds all the water. If one corner fills, the rest will too. Has the water level risen at the beach in your lifetime? NO. Keep in mind that the world is 4/5ths covered with water. That's 80%. How much impact could an ice melt have anyway? I've said it before; I've been swimming in Port Phillip Bay my whole life of 48 years. The-water-level-has-not-moved.

3. Snowfalls. I've been skiing for 30-odd years. The same amount of snow falls at the same time every year; give or take a week. Some years are boomers. This year in the USA some parts have had record dumps. Try that if the temps are up.

And finally; if you want scientifics; according to Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun (who is also a vocal GW disbeliever), he constantly goes on about WHERE the ice depths and temps are recorded in Antarctica and the Arctic.

The cores taken from the edges of the iceflows at the waters' edge are definitley shrinking and getting warmer. No surprise there; water is warmer than ice. Hello-o.

But, the cores taken from on the mainland continents themselves are getting thicker, and apparently colder. So, go figure that.

 

[Pushka]

We are actually in a global cooling cycling, but dont tell that to the people who have built an industry around the global warming rumour. Prof Plimer from Univ of Adelaide is starting to rattle people's cages now. And in the ABC series on India, 4000 years ago people had to move to different parts of India because the water supply they needed disappeared because of climate change. But we are not allowed to dispute any of it because then we are regarded as the flat earth society.

 

[LynnH]

Like Marc, I, too have been quite vocal about "Climate Change" and two of it's most prominent gurus, Nicholas Stern (a British economist) and Al Gore (a politician - enough said!) A telling fact is that neither of these men has any scientific qualifications whatsoever.

I have been collecting articles, newspaper cuttings, etc on this topic for several years. Today, another two newspaper articles espouse similar points of view to the News article quoted above:

Australia's 'top earth scientist', Professor Ian Plimer (mentioned above by Pushka), is releasing his book, 'Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science' next week in Adelaide - for those interested, today's "Australian" has an article on Plimer and his book (print version, page 17).

and

QWeekend Magazine (in the Brisbane "Courier Mail") has a three-page article, titled "The Lonely Prophet", about eminent American physicist Freeman Dyson and his views on global warming.

Gore, Stern, the scientists on the IPCC, as well as the many who have vested interests in this area, have banged on about this forever-and-a-day. IMHO, it is time that the views of the so-called 'climate change sceptics' were given much wider publicity - and credence.

Cheers
LynnH

 

[Pushka]

I am so pleased that 'the skeptics' are starting to come out of the woodwork now. Plimer said last night when asked if he was paid by a mining company, that his only payment came from the Univ of Adelaide, and the State Government. Just maybe we can get some perspective on this argument.

Oh yeah, we dont hear much about the ozone layer anymore, do we. It closed, all by itself.

 

[Sunfish]

I'm tired of the You're on the pay of big biz! argument. Most scientists who promote GW are themselves earning a living via the scam while so many sceptics (English sp.) are genuinely independent, often retired, such as Reid Bryson or Bob Carter. Both these gentlemen are worth doing a search on.

 

[Piston Broke]

I agree Bayview, but the problem is a whole generation (including gen y) went to school and got brain washed that we are going through man caused global warming.
The kids are given school projects, and are never given a choice to examine the other side.
A few years ago (7or8) I suggested to a student why dont they get the max & min temps of all capital cities over 100 years and graph them and they'll see that we aint setting many records and the hottest days were many decades ago. The reply I got:
"ohh no! The teacher won't like that"
So they were already being brain washed to write reports where the conclusion has already been given to them.

 

[LynnH]

Agree, Sunfish.

I haven't heard of Reid Bryson, but Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Townsville, has been writing articles on GW for several years now - but, alas, to date his views seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

It is incredible to think that governments are prepared to act on the recommendations of a coterie of closely-linked scientists with vested interests (IPCC) and a handfull of politicians (Gore), economists (Stern, Ross Garnaut) etc who have no scientific qualifications whatsoever!! Not only is it NOT going to do anything for the planet, but it will result in a bureaucratic behemoth of gigantic proportions to administer highly-questionable carbon trading schemes (anyone reminded of the recent Wall Street antics??) which our children and grandchildren will be funding for decades to come.

Cheers
LynnH

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Another scientist to get a balanced opinion on GW is Bjorn Lomborg.
He wrote a great book called The Sceptical Environmentalist about a decade ago.

He concedes there is some proof there is global warming but he argues the effects will be on the whole extremely beneficial for humans. i.e. consider the adverse impact of cold weather on humans - respiratory illnesses, cold exposure, reduced ability to grow food in cold climates, motor vehicle accidents caused by snow and ice, green house gases from heating homes.

edit: this is an argument map produced by Australian Paul Monk, which unmasks the unsound logic behind Obama's climate policy. Such aids are a good way to ensure issues are dealt with intelligently. For the full map, click here

 

[Sunfish]

Lynn, google Father of climatology and you will find find Reid. That sounds like a big wrap.

 

[joeExpat]

Oh yeah, we dont hear much about the ozone layer anymore, do we. It closed, all by itself.

No - there was a global ban of CFCs.

Surprising how many sceptics there are of something that has already been proven. Increased warming and sea levels are facts, you're arguing against thermometers and sea level monitors, not academics and politicians. The only questions are the extent that man is causing it, and the degree of future rises.

 

[topcropper]

I agree with Winston.

Warming is infinately better than cooling.

Over the ages the earth has been from one extreme to the other, and back and fourth. From an icebound planet, to an iceless planet. The iceless earth was teaming with life, and the icebound earth was not.

See ya's.

 

[Sunfish]

No - there was a global ban of CFCs.

I am willing to argue cause and effect. Has the ozone hole closed? If not, why not?

Surprising how many sceptics there are of something that has already been proven. Increased warming and sea levels are facts, you're arguing against thermometers and sea level monitors, not academics and politicians. The only questions are the extent that man is causing it, and the degree of future rises.

Satellite data does not confirm ground readings. Too many scientists have dismissed the "ground" readings as having been contaminated by urban encroachment for me to accept them without cross correllation which is non-existent.

Sea level readings on volcanic islands are also "dodgy". They rose from the sea and can sink into it just as easily. The king tides flooded the gutters of the suburb I grew up in sixty years ago. Guess what? Nothing has changed! not even the height. Same ole, same ole!

 

[WinstonWolfe]

The role of the sun and the moon's elliptical orbit on tides also confounds global warming theories. AFAIK, no one has a clear grasp on what is causing what at the moment.....

 

[BayView]

I'm tired of the You're on the pay of big biz! argument. Most scientists who promote GW are themselves earning a living via the scam while so many sceptics (English sp.) are genuinely independent, often retired, such as Reid Bryson or Bob Carter. Both these gentlemen are worth doing a search on.

And, conversely; rather than being paid to support it, there are an unknown number of scientists who have been threatened with job loss and worse if they don't support the movement apparently.

Of course; we don't know how big this figure is, as they aren't talking.

 

[BayView]

Surprising how many sceptics there are of something that has already been proven. Increased warming and sea levels are facts, you're arguing against thermometers and sea level monitors, not academics and politicians. The only questions are the extent that man is causing it, and the degree of future rises.

Ok, let's entertain this for a minute.

How many percent increase of either - as a world average - has there been in the last 200 years?

Don' talk 50 years, because in the scale of the age of the world, it doesn't even register on any clock.

Even 200 years is a waste of time, but as I said; let's entertain it.

As for man causing it; think about this one - part of the GW argument is the amount of CO2 being generated by humans is making the temps rise.

In actual fact, it's the other way around; the temp rises cause the rise in CO2.

Now, think about for how many hundreds of millions of years there have been massive, uncontrollable fires around the planet that without humans there to put them out would probably burn for months or maybe years on end until they ran out of fuel or the rains came..

Don't forget that were also vast areas of the planet that were previously forested that we have stripped, so the size of the fires would be more monstrous than anything we've ever seen.

Fires like Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday have been happening on a global scale for hundreds of millions of years, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Why haven't they caused the temps to rise to the point of no life left?

http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=333

We just haven't been around to see them; we've only been around for about a million years if that. Again, not even a dot on the world age clock.

Sorry, the best I'll give you is there are changes in atmospheric and environmental conditions, but as for rising temperatures and sea levels that threaten all life on earth; nope.

 

[MissMuffitt]

Here is an interesting video

I just wanted to share this video with you all about "Global Warming Inc"

Hope you find it informative!

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/453.html

 

[Pushka]

I think we humans think we are just too important in the overall scheme of things. We think we can control global warming by changing a few things; one volcano in a day spews out more carbon than the world produces in a year. And the Victorian bush fires? I wonder how that impacted on carbon emissions. We are simply not that clever, we are trying to control climate.

 

[Propertunity]

When Mt St Helens erupted in 1980, because of the ash it spewed into the upper atmosphere that blocked the sunlight, it cooled the planet by 1 deg overall for 12 months.

This and the recent bushfires and the amount of carbon they released makes what humans do insignificant IMO.

That should not give us licence to treat the planet badly and we can & should be doing green things & using renewables. But the political agenda & the carbon trading schemes have little to do with it and more to do with money making & taxes IMO.

 

[Pushka]

That should not give us licence to treat the planet badly and we can & should be doing green things & using renewables. But the political agenda & the carbon trading schemes have little to do with it and more to do with money making & taxes IMO.

Absolutely, we should do our best to minimise the harm we do to the environment.

But there are so many businesses now making money from GW, that we must push back on all their assumptions. At least with the Year 2K bug we had a finite ending; when the world didnt stop on January 1, 2000 we could all just go back to being normal. But we cant do that with this issue.