bullus_hit said:
It's become fashionable and politically expedient to be "earth friendly". The real issue for the planet is over-population, yet the government constantly encourages people to breed - go figure.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
It's become fashionable and politically expedient to be "earth friendly". The real issue for the planet is over-population, yet the government constantly encourages people to breed - go figure.
Giardiasis said:
If the hypothesis was 'the climate of the entire planet is warming at all times', yes, but its not. Never has been.
Thats the old 'I saw a black cat therefore all cats are black' logic
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
well i guess that in in itself is plausible. To explore it a little further, one side are a team full of the biggest IQ's on the planet (the reality is, you just dont get a gig at oxford or harvard without having a head chocas full of reductionist grunt), the other side are a motley crew of college-of-advanced-education lightweights and arbitarily titled googly eyed freakazoids.
Then you could look at the likely motivation for disinforming or propaganda'ing. The heavy hitters could be motivated by; (1) a desire to save the planet; (2) a vested interest in the alternative tech industry (see (1)) or; (3) just be a bunch of 500 liars, who happen to have giant brains. (3) is pretty unlikely I reckon.
The CAE/googly eyes could be motivated to misinform or peddle propaganda by (1) a desire to take a punt on cooking the planet and make it uninhabitable; (2) a vested interest in the OIL industry (see (1)); or (3) The old drunkard 4th rate ecology lecturerer handing out printed notes from 30 years ago in ECOPSYC101 might not have bestowed an ability to rigourous crunch numbers and this lot are in fact guilty of (3.1) not being very smart and (3.2) frustrated at being stuck in a lightless laboratory as a research officer at South Dubbo College of Advanced Education. They feel they should be Professor Emeritus at Yale and so they harness their (3.1 + 3.2) and they conjure up some rubbery controversial numbers and fax them through to the Daily Telegraph.
Giardiasis said:
It's a starting point Gia, but nice attempt at deflection, I love the answer a question with a question tactic. A simple yes or no would be sufficient.
And if you can muster the courage to answer my first question, maybe you could then explain to the masses what you think AGM is all about (and more importantly, who is behind this grand 40 year old conspiracy?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Yes, hard to deny that and the growth at all costs mantra, but that doesn't mean we should just brush the climate change issue aside and continue burning fossil fuels. At some point they'll run out anyway, so I just can't fathom why people are so resistant to changing the way we source energy, particularly when the stakes are so high.
You have such a strong opinion that the theory is valid, I thought at the very least you would understand what the theory actually is?bullus_hit said:
Giardiasis said:
For your benefit, I'll pose the question again -
Do atmospheric greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat or not?
A simple yes or no question, what is it?
Or are you too scared to answer a question which may lead to some scientific discussion?
bullus_hit said:
I'm not opposed to energy innovation, I just doubt we're as powerful as is being claimed when it comes to influencing the weather.
Giardiasis said:
Why the dodging and weaving? If it's such an inconsequential question then why not answer the question? Do you even know the answer?
And contrary to your dismissive replies, it is fundamental to the science of AGW. It's certainly not the only factor, but it's relevant nevertheless.
What's your theory? You seem to think I've been misinformed so educate me, I'm waiting here patiently for your pearls of wisdom.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
So are you suggesting we should continue pumping all the coal and methane reserves into the atmosphere unabated?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
.....and you base this on? I'll take the empirical evidence over arguments from incredulity.
Giardiasis said:
Yes, the properties of greenhouse gases are inconsequential to AGW theories.
Really?
As bullus has asked....please do give us the definitive explanation of AGW.
antman said:
Yeah, we all should just blindly believe Global Warming advocates and their "facts"....here are some from Tim Flannery:
In 2007
"Desalination plants can provide insurance against drought. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months. Of course, these plants should be supplied by zero-carbon power sources"
In 2008:
The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009
In 2007:
Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
In 2004:
"I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century's first ghost metropolis," Dr Flannery said. "It's whole primary production is in dire straits and the eastern states are only 30 years behind."
Of course, when the floods hit Brisbane over the last 3 years or so, what got the blame for this flooding?
Oh, thats right, Global Warming/Climate Change! :spin
The worriesome thing is that Governments (Beattie and Brumby, come to mind with their desalination plants) are basing policies and making decisions using OUR money on such contradictory and made-up "facts".
People should question the validity of Global Warming and should demand unequivocal proof...but all I see are scare tactics and useless/expensive policies (carbon tax, desal plants, etc) based on false prophecies.
The debate over the science is done and dusted. There is zero point engaging with any barfly, blogster, footy forum deniers on the internet on it. Waste of time and the main game has already been decided. Its now like engaging with a Carlton supporter saying 'I was behind the goals Yarrans kick went through Carlton really won the game'. Pointless.
The dabate now, very real and crucial, is what do about it nationally and internationally.
The dabate now, very real and crucial, is what do about it nationally and internationally.
