-
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
Now this is the sort of tripe that seems to be occurring more and more, and which does NOT help convince people that are skeptical about man-made global warming, that it is an imminent threat.
Emotive carp and moral grandstanding. Go after the children, classy..
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm
Add this to the exaggerations of Flannery, eg, his predictions that have turned out be plain incorrect eg. Perth our first ghost town, Perth and Adelaide no water by last year etc etc. Polar Bears gone, 100 meter sea rise - yes 100m, by the turn of the century, (where is the accountability? there is none),....
Soemtimes they even mention Tsunamis...not to mention the actual stability in Hurrican activity..
.....the unaccountable alarmism of Hockey Stick Mann, and Gore and Karoly (who I watched debate ex head of Climate Science in Aus, Bill Kininmonth.)
The opening video at CarbonHagen - what a farce.
If the science is so strong, and the debate over, why the alarmism, the exaggerations, ridiculous predictions and the deceit?
Why, if it turns out Co2 is not a pollutant and that man is not warming the planet, will these people actually be happy about it...?? I doubt it very much, yet they should be.
Hang on, that will mean their purpose, and their religion, has gone up in smoke (or is that co2?), not to mention their funding, lol.
Let's keep the dream alive, at all costs. Nasty, evil man..
All research courtesy of Crikey.com
Emotive carp and moral grandstanding. Go after the children, classy..
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm
Add this to the exaggerations of Flannery, eg, his predictions that have turned out be plain incorrect eg. Perth our first ghost town, Perth and Adelaide no water by last year etc etc. Polar Bears gone, 100 meter sea rise - yes 100m, by the turn of the century, (where is the accountability? there is none),....
Soemtimes they even mention Tsunamis...not to mention the actual stability in Hurrican activity..
.....the unaccountable alarmism of Hockey Stick Mann, and Gore and Karoly (who I watched debate ex head of Climate Science in Aus, Bill Kininmonth.)
The opening video at CarbonHagen - what a farce.
If the science is so strong, and the debate over, why the alarmism, the exaggerations, ridiculous predictions and the deceit?
Why, if it turns out Co2 is not a pollutant and that man is not warming the planet, will these people actually be happy about it...?? I doubt it very much, yet they should be.
Hang on, that will mean their purpose, and their religion, has gone up in smoke (or is that co2?), not to mention their funding, lol.
Let's keep the dream alive, at all costs. Nasty, evil man..
All research courtesy of Crikey.com
Merveille said:
Interesting interview, cheers.
So you agree with his views on the ETS, but disagree with his views on the science? Do you agree with his alternative to the ETS, ie. a carbon tax?
Panthera tigris FC said:
I agree with his views on the ETS, because i am very skeptical of his and others' views re the global warming science.
This is the question he should have been asked, but such questions never are..
"T.J. Dr Hansen, in 1988 you gave an iconic testimony to the US congress where you made some predictions of future global temperatures based on data gathered by your very own Goddard Institute. It’s been 20yrs since that testimony and your predictions seem to be wildly off, they don’t even come close. Also, around that time 20yrs ago, you gave an interview to author Rob Reiss in your office. Rob Reiss recorded that interview on Salon.com. In that interview, you look out on Broadway from your office window and say “The West Side Highway will be under water within 20 or 30yrs, and there will be tape across the windows because of the high winds, there will be more police cars, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up, and restaurants will have signs saying water by request only.
Skeptics will say you were wildly wrong with your predictions then, why should we believe your predictions now. How do you respond to that Dr Hansen?"
JH err ummm errr yada yada lie lie yada yada
Why would any sane person be skeptical when there are emails like this around? From WWF rep to a University of East Anglia climate scientist, asking him to help 'beef up' the message.
Admittedly this was 10 years ago, but that was directly after THE year, 1998, and they were still feeling the need to beef things up? No wonder there are 10 years of emails since, as temps have stalled and dropped since 1998 levels regardless of increased co2 levels.
And there are many, many of these around, so i can show you some sent by the scientist (read: trustworthy person lol) as well if you like.
From: Adam Markham
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: [email protected]
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press). One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is: “The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999, p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
Admittedly this was 10 years ago, but that was directly after THE year, 1998, and they were still feeling the need to beef things up? No wonder there are 10 years of emails since, as temps have stalled and dropped since 1998 levels regardless of increased co2 levels.
And there are many, many of these around, so i can show you some sent by the scientist (read: trustworthy person lol) as well if you like.
From: Adam Markham
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: [email protected]
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press). One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is: “The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999, p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
Merveille said:
You don't agree with his views on the ETS! He doesn't think the ETS will do enough to solve the problem. You don't acknowledge the problem that the ETS has been proposed to solve.
It must be a conspiracy :
Merveille said:
You can continue to throw up these emails, but all they do is demonstrate the dodginess surrounding the politics with this issue. I would like to see you tackle the science itself and the obvious evidence of increasing temperature that can be observed right now (ie increases in average temperatures, melting polar ice, increasing sea levels, increases in atmospheric CO2 etc etc).
What time frame do you give for these statistics? Also how do these statistics relate the CO2 as the primary cause of any global warming?Panthera tigris FC said:
Merveille said:
The fact that CO2 is a pollutant is not the problem. Higher levels of CO2 increase atmospheric temperatures because CO2 absorbs infrared or radiant heat from the earth, meaning less heat escapes into space and is trapped in the atmosphere. It's not the sunlight coming in that's the problem - it's the fact that CO2 absorbs heat from the hot earth and prevents it from escaping. This is scientific fact, and is not open to debate.
Climate change sceptics are right to say that man-made CO2 is only a small part of the carbon that goes into the atmosphere - however, they miss the point that with this small amount of additional CO2, the natural carbon sinks (forests and plants through photosynthesis, oceans) are not absorbing enough. So, over the last couple of centuries, we've seen a gradual rise in overall CO2 levels and so overall average temperatures are rising. This is scientific fact, and not open to debate.
This issue is compounded by deforestation and land degradation which means that the total capacity of our natural carbon sinks is declining. Again, scientific fact and not open to debate.
Apart from that, your posts make perfect sense Merveille. NOT.
Yet the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is not directly proportional, it is logarithmic so adding more CO2 will have a lesser and lesser effect on global temperatures. What is open to debate is whether the increase in CO2 will increase temperatures to dangerous levels. Not a good idea to try and shut out debate like that you sound like a religious zealot.antman said:
Well no actually it isn't scientific fact that CO2 caused the increase in temperatures since the industrial revolution. It is a theory not proven with experimental data after all. In fact the experimental data available disproves the theory. You only need a black swan to wander past to prove that not all swans are white. Global mean temperatures did rise by 0.7 deg C since the industrial revolution, a rise not outside of normal variation.antman said:
antman said:
'Not open to debate' - you do yourself no favours.
The claim that a "level of certainty" exists with climate science. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is why the IPCC distorted data showing discrepancies with their AGW theory, why the medieval warming period was mysteriously erased, and why a small group of IPCC-approved scientists swapped peer reviews to skew the authenticity of their "research". If indeed there is certainty, why then are there tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions?
Merveille said:
Could you provide sources for these assertions? Not being smart, but I would be interested to know the basis of these claims.
