Global Warming

[tigergollywog]

(Apology for cross posting)

I think Tom Waterhouse should shoot a new ad, here is the script

Tom (walking amongst flood and famine post apocalyptic landscape littered with abandoned hummers): I dont know how they stuff up an entire planet, but with 3 generations of betting in my blood, I know what punters want, so bet on the climate change future with me today.

when you click on the odds, it would look like this

Climate change futures

Tuvalu under the sea $1.03
Tuvalu above the sea $7.45

any bozo can read those odds and act accordingly.

 

[tigergollywog]

The debate over the science is done and dusted.

You can debate whatever you want snake

Heres an example:

I dont reckon mammals lactate, i just reckon a bit of white liquid oozes out their tits when a youngun happens by. If you look at the graph, there is a mammal that couldnt lactate. check it out here www.crazyfreakshowinalabama.com. Noone has EVER shown ME a mammal lacatating and PROVEN unequivocally that it is a lactate-like product OR that it actually comes out of the mammal. There was a cleaner at Burnie TAFE who once saw a quoll brush past a plant that had milky sap and some of the sap stuck on its chest. you can see the graph showing instance of pseudo-lactation here www.thatsnotmilk.com. I cant believe people fall for this lactation stuff.

 

[Liverpool]

The debate over the science is done and dusted.

If it is done and dusted, why are Tim Flannery and other "scientists" on that side of the fence so wrong with their predictions and prophecies???

 

[Brodders17]

There is zero point engaging with any barfly, blogster, footy forum deniers on the internet on it.

you forgot to add Liberal/National pollie to that list.

 

[Giardiasis]

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.

The point I'm making is that you are so convinced of a theory that you can't even seem to articulate properly. Perhaps you might want to take a step back, no?

 

[tigergollywog]

If it is done and dusted, why are Tim Flannery and other "scientists" on that side of the fence so wrong with their predictions and prophecies???

I "think" this post, in particularly, warrants closer inspection Livsy.

1. Tim Flannery is a scientist. "" are gramatically and academically incorrect.
2. The blokes on the IPCC are scientists. If they put "science" degree on their CV, they wouldnt get on the IPCC.
3. Predictions are a scientists stock in trade. Prophesies are a "scientists" stock in trade.
4. Most of Tim's and other scientist predictions are for the next 100 years. so rumours of their incorrectness are greatly exaggerated and somewhat premature
5. I would like to see you try use less out-of-context quotation marks. perhaps a little tutorial is in order. Heres some examples. "yeah nah, the boys put in a red 100% tonight and it was good for the boys to get the 4 points"; Tony Abbott claims that climate change is "*smile*"; "Lord" Monkton. You get it Livs? Now you have a try.

 

[bullus_hit]

The point I'm making is that you are so convinced of a theory that you can't even seem to articulate properly. Perhaps you might want to take a step back, no?

Gia, you can't even answer the most basic of questions, you have articulated diddly squat about your own AGW theory and have offered little aside from the occasional sniping comment about left-wing conspiracies.

Once again, what is AGW in your esteemed opinion? Do you even have a theory or is this just a Bullus vs Forrest Gump debate?

 

[bullus_hit]

Most of the denialists shun the science, or at least cherry pick their information to serve their own agenda. I cannot think of an issue that has been researched as thoroughly as climate change, yet still we have to deal with the same idiotic conclusions delivered by the likes of Rinehart, Bolt, Pilmer, Jones, McCrann and all the other commentators being bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry.

I'm still amazed that people today pretend we're not making any impact on the general climate. Deforestation is robbing the earth of it's natural air-conditioning system, atmospheric CO2 levels are at dangerously high levels based on the ice samples taken from the Artic and Antarctic, the seas surface temperatures are heating up and the glaciers are rapidly retreating.

To merely suggest that the earth's temeperatures naturally fluctuate is a moot point, man's impact is like an overlay on existing systems, and one which could rapidly accelerate changes which would otherwise occur over a much more prolonged period.

Ultimately, I doubt there's much we can do aside from watch and wait for the carnage. When the globe's population hits 10 billion, there will be little we can do to stem the bleeding from environmental degradation and the collapse of ecosytems. Humans are much like rabbits, driven to consume and breed until entire populations begin to collapse.

Even the most starry-eyed idealist would concede that we have given little consideration to an economic paradigm which is clearly unsustainable. Unfortunately, the only way to change the system is to allow the system to implode upon itself. Perhaps not the solution by which the high and mighty economists would dare voice, but a brutal reality nevertheless.

And for your benefit Gia, here's a post I made about AGW sometime ago.

Feel free to explain your own theory and at the very least, provide a yes or no to the question I posed regarding the greenhouse effect. Failure to do so indicates to me that you are little more than a philistinic idealogue who thinks climate science is just a smokescreen for the left wing loonies to take over the world.

Getting warmer?

 

[Liverpool]

I "think" this post, in particularly, warrants closer inspection Livsy.

1. Tim Flannery is a scientist. "" are gramatically and academically incorrect.
2. The blokes on the IPCC are scientists. If they put "science" degree on their CV, they wouldnt get on the IPCC.
3. Predictions are a scientists stock in trade. Prophesies are a "scientists" stock in trade.
4. Most of Tim's and other scientist predictions are for the next 100 years. so rumours of their incorrectness are greatly exaggerated and somewhat premature
5. I would like to see you try use less out-of-context quotation marks. perhaps a little tutorial is in order. Heres some examples. "yeah nah, the boys put in a red 100% tonight and it was good for the boys to get the 4 points"; Tony Abbott claims that climate change is "*smile*"; "Lord" Monkton. You get it Livs? Now you have a try.

Nice deflection :clap

Tim Flannery's predictions were not for the next 100 years at all:

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"

[Not 100 years, he said 18 months from 2007 which would be mid-2009 at the latest. As of today, Sydney's catchments are at 93%, Adelaide's at 41%, and Brisbane's at 99%]


In 2008:
The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009

[Not 100 years here either, he clearly says 2009 and Adelaide's dam levels as of today are at 41%. Nowhere near running out of water]


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.

[Could be 100 years. Could be 1000 years. Might never happen. Scare tactics and no real prediction whatsoever.]


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."

[Maybe in 1000 years?. Annual population growth in WA has been growing at above the long-term average of 2.0% since mid 2006. Population growth of 3.0% in the year to June 2009 was the strongest recorded growth since 1982.]


Again, if the science that Flannery and others on the Global Warming bandwagon are spruiking is so accurate that its "done and dusted" and we should therefore just accept it as fact, why do I read so many predictions that are so far from reality? Are they wrong? Or are they simply using scare tactics to try and force the Governments to fund their ideas and theories to justify their existence??

Instead of deflecting, maybe yourself, Tigersnake, Antman, and others on here who have been so adamant of the quality of the scientists backing Global Warming and the associated theories they are preaching, can explain to me how someone like Flannery can be so wrong???

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

.....and you base this on? I'll take the empirical evidence over arguments from incredulity.

The numerous failed climate models. The weather forecast for our cricket Grand Final changed 6 times in 7 days. I'm not sure an infant science, daring to look decades ahead on a global scale, has much more credibility than urgers at a racetrack.

Observation = facts, forecasts = guesswork.

 

[bullus_hit]

The numerous failed climate models. The weather forecast for our cricket Grand Final changed 6 times in 7 days. I'm not sure an infant science, daring to look decades ahead on a global scale, has much more credibility than urgers at a racetrack.

Observation = facts, forecasts = guesswork.

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things, most of the forecasts are based on historical data taken from ice samples dating back thousands of years. As for guesswork, sure there is an element of uncertainty, nobody's pretending to be Nostradamus, but that shouldn't eliminate the need to plan for a worst case scenario. Presuming you subscribe to the greenhouse theory, there will be a positive correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gases and rising temperature. The question then beckons, at what point should we call a halt to burning fossil fuels and plundering forests. I'd argue we've already reached that point and that it now becomes a question of damage control. Scientists are already talking about 'limiting' increases to 2 degrees while others have cited increases of 4 degrees being a potential catalyst for runaway climate change.

What does it all translate to? Probably rising sea levels, increased acidity and decreased salinity in the oceans, more extreme weather events, a net loss of biodiversity and a complete halt of oceanic currents. Is this good for humanity? I doubt that very much, and I doubt there will be too many winners in the wash-up.

 

[Freezer]

...most of the forecasts are based on historical data taken from ice samples dating back thousands of years.

But what good is that if the climate is changing at such a rapid rate, unlike we've ever seen before (apparently)? Seems like guesswork to me.

 

[tigersnake]

But what good is that if the climate is changing at such a rapid rate, unlike we've ever seen before (apparently)? Seems like guesswork to me.

Yep its all guesswork mr Freeze. I cannot believe we actually pay scientists and take their finding seriously, when its all guesswork. Its ridiculous.

 

[bullus_hit]

But what good is that if the climate is changing at such a rapid rate, unlike we've ever seen before (apparently)? Seems like guesswork to me.

It's pretty clear that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere can't be a good thing. We're at levels not seen for 800,000 years, possibly 20 million if some of the carbon dating techniques are to be relied upon. Are we prepared for the consequences? I doubt it, and I doubt we'll even be able to ween ourselves of fossil fuels anytime soon. But in saying that, if we're not considering all possibilities, then we're staring down the path of an oncoming train. Nature is often violent and abrupt, the weather is no different, systems could collapse and we could be caught sitting on our hands. If the do nothing approach is our chosen path, then I would at least expect some sort of plan for adaptation.

 

[tigergollywog]

Nice deflection :clap

Tim Flannery's predictions were not for the next 100 years at all:

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"

[Not 100 years, he said 18 months from 2007 which would be mid-2009 at the latest. As of today, Sydney's catchments are at 93%, Adelaide's at 41%, and Brisbane's at 99%]


In 2008:
The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009

[Not 100 years here either, he clearly says 2009 and Adelaide's dam levels as of today are at 41%. Nowhere near running out of water]


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.

[Could be 100 years. Could be 1000 years. Might never happen. Scare tactics and no real prediction whatsoever.]


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."

[Maybe in 1000 years?. Annual population growth in WA has been growing at above the long-term average of 2.0% since mid 2006. Population growth of 3.0% in the year to June 2009 was the strongest recorded growth since 1982.]


Again, if the science that Flannery and others on the Global Warming bandwagon are spruiking is so accurate that its "done and dusted" and we should therefore just accept it as fact, why do I read so many predictions that are so far from reality? Are they wrong? Or are they simply using scare tactics to try and force the Governments to fund their ideas and theories to justify their existence??

Instead of deflecting, maybe yourself, Tigersnake, Antman, and others on here who have been so adamant of the quality of the scientists backing Global Warming and the associated theories they are preaching, can explain to me how someone like Flannery can be so wrong???

oh livs, what are we gonna do with you?

Wasnt a deflection at all. The central tenent of the ostriches is that the IPCC are a bunch of amateurs. This was highlighted by you saying tim flannery and other "scientist". Thats like saying Trent Cotchin is the "captain" of richmond. Its wrong, dumb and only serves to make you look like miranda devine.

So my post wasnt a deflection at all, it was striking at the heart of the flimsiness of your position. It is, however, not unusual for people with flimsy arguments to come up with rhetorical side steps whenever they come up against an articulate position that is pretty cut and dried.

back to Tim. Point 1: the 2007 stuff about adelaide running out of water need some context. It was the middle of a drought and the murray darling irrigation debate. Then it pissed rain. Planners all over the country were planning desal and other measures through this drought. Where they wrong? well, yeah I suppose thankfully they were for now. But a 5 year cycle isnt what this debate is about. Climate change isnt when its sunny in the morning and rainy in the arvo.

Point 2: to your specific question, can I explain why someone like flannery can be so wrong? well firstly he is one scientist. Note the absence of quotation marks. In isolation, of course he can be wrong, just like Luke Mcguane can kick it to the opposition, the plumber can connect your storm water into your sewage or a surgeon can amputate the wrong leg. Thats why the IPCC has 500 (five hundred) of the most accomplished scientists on the planet crunching many different sets of numbers to come up with climate change predictions.

Now I have a question for you. If you have a big mole thats black and scaly and growing an inch a day, do you go and see the doctor? If so, I wonder why, it was just some bunch of "scientists" conjured up that melanoma theory. : : : : : :

 

[AngryAnt]

See, your Livers, L2R2R and Mervielle's will seize on some crappy article as evidence against AGW, if you post something more sophisticated that actually explains the effect scientifically they'll just ignore it and move onto the next piece of tripe.

Hence you get L2R2R questioning why as a carbon sink the Southern Ocean doesn't heat up - d'uh. And yet he's quite happy to accuse science of not adequately explaining complex systems when he doesn't even understand the most basic aspects of how CO2 works as a temperature forcer when it's in the atmosphere but not when it's dissolved in sea water. Or people throwing round the "Antarctic sea ice is growing" so therefore AGW is a crock. Supply them with an actual plausible scientific explanation, never hear anything about it except "science is dumb ok".

 

[Liverpool]

back to Tim. Point 1: the 2007 stuff about adelaide running out of water need some context. It was the middle of a drought and the murray darling irrigation debate. Then it p!ssed rain. Planners all over the country were planning desal and other measures through this drought. Where they wrong? well, yeah I suppose thankfully they were for now. But a 5 year cycle isnt what this debate is about. Climate change isnt when its sunny in the morning and rainy in the arvo.

We don't need context.
Flannery is making predictions based on the science that many on here are saying is unquestionable fact.
A science that we should be basing Government policy, taxpayers money, and our lives on.

Flannery isn't using broad terms as 'in the future...' or 'in the next 100 years'....he is being very specific with his dates '...by 2009'....or 'within 18 months'.

And Antman, I am not seizing on a crappy article...these are quotes from Flannery in various journals, articles, and press conferences over the last 10 years.

Point 2: to your specific question, can I explain why someone like flannery can be so wrong? well firstly he is one scientist.

So you admit he is wrong?

And if he is wrong, then that makes his science wrong too, as thats what he would be basing his predictions from, wouldn't it?

Now, you are correct....Flannery is only one scientist, but if his science is wrong, then maybe some of the other 500 scientists at the IPCC could be wrong also...wouldn't that be a fair and logical statement?

So the science behind Global Warming really isn't unquestionable then, is it?

 

[tigergollywog]

lets look at it another way. Just say we had a global meat pie crisis, whereby you just couldnt get a decent pie. We scour the globe and assemble a team of 500 of the finest pastry chefs to brainstorm some ideas to get a decent pie. Theres blokes from buckingham palace and blokes from the Hilton in paris and blokes from pies 'R us on the pacific highway. Theres 500 of 'em with 10000 years of collective pie making expertise and they come up with the solution. It easy, they say, "use a decent bit of beef and cook it long and slow". Then one 3rd year apprentice from 4 'n 20 goes 'nah, a bit of fatty horse topside on the grill for 10 minutes and bung it in' WHOSE pie recipe do we use to solve the pie crisis?

Now this analogy is slightly off, because if it was pies, i wouldnt give a stuff if Livs and his mates were scorching their chins with molten horse while we were all eating some angus rump cooked in a red wine jus and wrapped in a delicate choux pastry. But with the planet, the steaks (sic) are a bit higher, and if they keep peddling this cfrap, we all get cooked.

 

[Liverpool]

lets look at it another way. Just say we had a global meat pie crisis, whereby you just couldnt get a decent pie. We scour the globe and assemble a team of 500 of the finest pastry chefs to brainstorm some ideas to get a decent pie. Theres blokes from buckingham palace and blokes from the Hilton in paris and blokes from pies 'R us on the pacific highway. Theres 500 of 'em with 10000 years of collective pie making expertise and they come up with the solution. It easy, they say, "use a decent bit of beef and cook it long and slow". Then one 3rd year apprentice from 4 'n 20 goes 'nah, a bit of fatty horse topside on the grill for 10 minutes and bung it in' WHOSE pie recipe do we use to solve the pie crisis?

The science isn't unquestionable then, is it?
It isn't done and dusted...it can be debated, questioned, ridiculed, and put under the microscope.

Unfortunately, your ridiculous pie analogy doesn't come down to science where there is a right or a wrong....as a decent pie is in the eye of the beholder and everyone will have an opinion on what is decent and what is not.

What Global Warming advocates are spruiking supposedly isn't up for debate or opinion...."the science is in" people keep saying on here. Its final. Its non-negotiable. Its not up for debate any longer.

Well, if that is the case then mate, then I don't want to read Flannery's rubbish predictions, I want to see some facts...but that is hard to do if the science itself isn't as infallable as some are making out, is it?
Maybe the global-warming/climate-change scientists should have a crack at baking pies instead as they may find themselves better at that than making doomsday predictions about cities being without water and turning into a ghost-metropolis

 

[tigersnake]

and if they keep peddling this cfrap, we all get cooked.

Irresponsible alarmism!!