LeeToRainesToRoach said:
That upward trending graph of yours would suggest quite the opposite.
-
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
That upward trending graph of yours would suggest quite the opposite.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Fact: Global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees since the industrial revolution, the graph you have shown only tells half the story but it is clearly an upward trend. If the GAT was a stock, brokers would be all over it like a rash. Also note the 1998 outlier, this is the year sceptics like Andrew Bolt use as their start point, obviously in some half arsed attempt to convey a stable climate. Being a man of stats LTRTR, you surprise me with such flippant disregard for numbers which show no sign of dipping. As for your ice age claims, the fact that solar activity has declined and the temperatures keep rising should be reason for concern. When the solar cycle ups the ante, the effects could be even more pronounced. It seems to me that no evidence will change the minds of some, we can experience the hottest year on record and endure the longest heatwave in 109 years, yet still the naysayers cling to their conspiracy theories.
Giardiasis said:
Herein lies your problem, you can't seperate science from partisan politics. You are therefore prime fodder for lobby groups like the Heartland Institute.
Posting on a purely theoretical level,
Isn't the rate of global warming only exceeded by the rate of population growth.
Maybe the solution is to begin culling humans, instead of kangaroos, sharks and dolphins.
Of course, this suggestion is utter nonsense.
Except for those on the Theology thread that may suggest that the culling may come, figuratively, from above.
Isn't the rate of global warming only exceeded by the rate of population growth.
Maybe the solution is to begin culling humans, instead of kangaroos, sharks and dolphins.
Of course, this suggestion is utter nonsense.
Except for those on the Theology thread that may suggest that the culling may come, figuratively, from above.
bullus_hit said:
Spot on. Would have thought that 'long-range' forecast shows a very clear upward trend.
Phantom said:
That's like saying men invented "gravity" or "chemistry".
Electricity is a physical phenomena. Humans didn't "invent" electricity, they discovered its behaviour and found ways to exploit it. The electron existed before we knew about it.
The mini-Ice-Age had nothing to do with the discovery and exploitation of electromagnetism, by the way.
bullus_hit said:
Not disregard exactly, I'm just looking at the information the graph conveys. Over the last decade, global temperatures have shown only a very slight increase which has confounded the alarmist models (hence 'global warming' morphed into 'climate change').
Temperatures were two full degrees hotter when the Jews were leaving Egypt in 1100 BC. Yes, temperatures have risen in recent decades, but I'm not as sure as many others that man is as influential as he thinks. A major volcanic eruption on the other hand...
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Here is something I prepared earlier, I don't think it does any good to play around the edges of such complex issues and try to extrapolate a logical finding from limited data and limited expertise:
KnightersRevenge said:
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I think you're looking for reasons to refute climate change, fancy taking the third hottest year on record and comparing everything else against that, not to mention we've just endured the hottest year on record. It sounds to me like you have an emotional investment in denialism, I'm not sure why but perhaps you are one of the many who can't separate the science from the politics. If we do endure a 4 degree rise like the modelling suggests, Australia will be on the receiving end of some particularly vicious heat, not to mention fierce storms and prolonged periods of drought. To simply dismiss this as inconsequential is willful negligence.
bullus_hit said:
I don't pretend to understand the complexities. Yes, there is plenty of zealotry (on both sides) and alarmist propaganda in particular gets on my nerves. I just don't think this branch of science is mature enough for anyone to be able to claim the incontrovertible high ground. If temperatures rise four degrees you'll have the right to mock my inconsequential fence-sitting!
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Has there ever been another branch of science which has undergone the same level of scrutiny as climate science?
If one dismisses the vast tracts of information gathered over the past few decades, then they are effectively condemning science to the realms of witchcraft. 97% of climate scientists are united on the issue, surely that's about as close to consensus as you're likely to get. If instead you choose to buy the lines of the lobbyists, then I can only guess this is an emotional decision, and one which is grounded in politics as opposed to science.
bullus_hit said:
It's getting warmer. That's all I know for sure.
Labor spent $6 billion to reduce greenhouse emissions by 0.1%. That makes me a little bit emotional.
Palm trees once grew in Alaska and crocodiles swam inside the Arctic circle, without assistance from man. Is it a tragedy if it happens again? Depends where you apportion the blame.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
So you're suggesting we sit on our hands and hope for the best? If we do enter a phase of runaway climate change, money will become largely irrelevant, it will instead become survival of the fittest. The Pacific Islands are already grappling with rising sea levels and those on Kiribati are already planning for relocation. If people think there's a refugee crisis now, just wait for the inevitable tsunami of human traffic. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, unleashing all the methane trapped in the poles will be the proverbial genie in the bottle, a process which once initiated, will be impossible to contain. This is precisely why we need to contain temperatures as much as is humanly possible. If we don't, there will be rapid fire climate change and we will be ill-equipped to deal with the consequences.
bullus_hit said:
I'm suggesting governments don't pay overs for green votes. And yes, I'm prepared to wait and see. Not much choice, really.
Brodders17 said:
No idea. Utility bill increases would be part of it. The Libs put the figure at $8b.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
This issue should transcend the typical green versus conservative head butting. Any money spent today will be money well spent, and to criticise the last government for addressing a very pressing issue is wiping one's hands clean of any responsibility. But I can gather from your reluctance to do any heavy lifting, you would prefer that Australia remains fixated on burning fossil fuels. This to me is both economically & morally intolerable, it's also assuming we are somehow insulated from the effects of a changing climate.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
any major reform has high start up costs, they don't get any more major than this. From where I stand, considering the ecological, environmental and economic benefits, its a bargain.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
You don't think? good one. You love this word 'alarmist', love it. All this so-called alarmism is is predictions, in a range from best to worst, based on best knowledge we have at the time. Shooting the messenger is what it is, pure and simple.
bullus_hit said:
It was a high price to salve a few consciences. Commendable and almost noble in its idealism, but unviable. In the end it went the same way as hippiedom.
I'll have $50 on 'climate change' becoming passé within a decade.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
So you're betting the temperature will drop over the next decade? If so, name your price.
