But but but, they said the science was settled.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

dont bother karj people fail to realize that governments act on scientific advice that sometimes isnt 100 percent certain and rather then paying 20 dollars a month in there electricity bills for a nasty carbon tax theyd rather just pay 20 dollars a month extra for electricity companys pockets.

Taxing something is an unusual way of controlling climate to say the least

So how many degrees reduction has $23/tonne achieve?
Why not increase the tax to $50/tonne and double the reduction.

It is like a high priest commanding more human sacrifices until the gods are happy. We live in the 21st century, you'd think people could see through the tax fraud.

[cheap]

This is an example of how stupid AGW & climate change has become.

I'm sure the advocates of warming would have no problem with this story... Sadly there are people who will run with this story - sadder still is there are people who will believe it.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...ge-murder-rape

Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099
Controversial new research predicts that over the coming century, rising temperatures will result in more violent crime.

Global warming isn't just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it's also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other.

That's the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes.

"Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime," says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with the policy consulting firm Abt Associates. "We think that is likely to continue in the future."

Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will "cause" an additional "22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft" in the United States.

Ranson acknowledges that those results represent a relatively small jump in the overall level of crime—a 2.2 percent increase in murder and a 3.1 percent increase in rape, for instance. Still, says John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center, those numbers add up to "a lot of victims" over the course of the century.

The study's results don't mean that defendants should be able to argue that they were driven to a life of crime by the weather. "The decision to commit a crime is a matter of personal responsibility," Ranson explained in an email. "Neither higher outdoor temperatures nor reduced police enforcement are valid excuses for individuals to commit criminal acts. Yet, from a statistical perspective, both cause crime to increase."
"To the extent that climate change causes people to be out and interacting more, there will be more crime," explains John Roman of the Urban Institute.

So why would higher temperatures increase the crime rate? According to Ranson, the answer might vary depending on the type of crime. As shown in the charts below, property crimes, especially burglary and larceny, initially tend to increase as the weather warms but then level off once temperatures reach about 50 degrees. This suggests that cold weather may create obstacles to committing these types of crimes—Ranson cites closed windows, for example—obstacles that disappear when it's warmer outside.

By contrast, the relationship between violent crime and temperature appears to be highly linear—as temperatures keep rising, so does the number of crimes. According to Ranson, this pattern supports the idea that "warmer temperatures increase the frequency of social interactions, some small percentage of which result in violence." In other words, you're more likely to mug someone if it's warm enough to leave your house. But there's another factor that Ranson suggests may also be playing a role: Past research indicates that as temperatures increase, people tend to become more aggressive.

Not every expert buys Ranson's findings. Andrew Holland, a senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project, says that the study seems "tailor-made for a headline" but that "on further analysis, I don't know what it tells us."

Holland sees climate change as a "threat multiplier" that could, in combination with other factors, exacerbate international instability and contribute to armed conflict. But he cautions against attributing individual events—be they armed robberies or civil wars—directly to climate change.

"Just like any war has many reasons for starting, any crime has many factors that go into it," says Holland. "You can't convince me that any one rape was solely because of the temperature." Although attempting to separate out the various factors that contribute to a crime taking place can be "an interesting mathematical exercise," Holland contends that it isn't very "useful or helpful."

But the Urban Institute's Roman argues that the overall conclusion of Ranson's study makes sense. Police have long operated with the understanding that "the summer is more dangerous than the winter," explains Roman. "To the extent that climate change causes people to be out and interacting more, there will be more crime."

Roman says the study can help policymakers begin to think about how to adapt their law enforcement practices to a warming world. "There will be more studies in the future that find these effects," he says. "The concept fits with classic crime theory so neatly that we need to start thinking about how to get ahead of this and respond."

Ranson has already thought about what that response might look like. One option is for communities to spend substantial amounts of money increasing the size of their police forces. Another possibility is that people will simply change their behavior in an attempt to avoid becoming the victims of crime—leaving their homes less frequently in nice weather or locking their windows.

Of course, there's a third alternative—reining in the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming in the first place.

[Lotte]

Credible proof of this cheap?

[Maka]

Originally Posted by Lotte

Credible proof of this cheap?

Cheap is just displaying his sense of humour, he's quoting from a left wing site now!

Anything from the centre cheap?

cheers, Maka

[cheap]

Take your pick from many bizarre news articles which have a theme of predicting something happening as a result of AGW/Climate change.

You couldn't make these stories up, let alone not have your inbuilt bullshit detector register. But you never read about a warmie saying that these stories are crap (which they clearly are).

These are just some of AGW/Climate Change issues facing us (it seems we're doomed)

Afghan poppies destroyed
Afghan poppies more potent
Africa devastated
Africa in conflict
aggressive weeds
Air France crash
air pockets
airport malaria
Alaskan towns slowly destroyed
Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped
allergy increase
allergy season longer
alligators in the Thames
Alps melting
Amazon a desert
amphibians breeding earlier (or not)
ancient forests dramatically changed
animals head for the hills
animals shrink
Antarctic grass flourishes
Antarctic ice grows
Antarctic ice shrinks
Antarctic sea life at risk
anxiety treatment
algal blooms
archaeological sites threatened
Arctic bogs melt
Arctic in bloom
Arctic ice free
Arctic ice melt faster
Arctic lakes disappear
Arctic tundra lost
Arctic warming (not)
asteroid strike risk
asthma
Atlantic less salty
Atlantic more salty
atmospheric circulation modified
attack of the killer jellyfish
avalanches reduced
avalanches increased

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[Lotte]

Given I'm an advocate for the case of climate change and global warming, and hate the incorrect propoganda that comes out from the extremists, you're wrong about "warmies" saying half the stories are bs. *strokes chin*

[UberKnee]

Originally Posted by karj

Armchair experts **** me.

If you were diagnosed with cancer and told you have 6 months to live unless you undergo treatment, you would probably seek additional independent opinions from qualified medical professionals. If the 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion indicated the same thing, you would recognise a consensus exists amongst the highly qualified professionals and you would undergo treatment. You wouldn't say this: "I don't feel dead now, so I'll just wait for a bit more evidence to back up the diagnosis" or this: "It's a conspiracy amongst surgeons to make money through unneccessary surgery and suck on the teat of taxpayer funded Medicare."

When you or a loved one is next diagnosed with cancer, you wouldn't counsel them (against medical opinion) into waiting for symptoms to worsen to confirm the diagnosis. Yet this is the bizarre logic that some people apply to climate change and the scientists involved in that area of research.

I couldn't put it any more simply than this: There is a consensus in the scientific community about climate change and human impact. It is settled to the extent that the consensus is based on the best information available at this point in time. It is the responsibility of policy makers to respond to that with "evidence based policy." If additional information comes to light in the future and a scientific consensus is built that contradicts the original consensus, then policy makers have to respond to that change.

Actually, on second thought... you guys make perfect sense... Why bother with evidence based policy when we can just formulate policy on the back of unqualified opinion?

But the scientists have generally stated that its not all mankinds fault, but we're told its all mankinds fault. Its like if you were diagnosed with cancer, the doctor thinks its treatable but then the nurse tells you you're dead. Misinformation on a serious topic.

And when its comes to science, we still refer to evolution as a theory. Despite all the evidence we have proving it, its still just a theory and open for some debate. But for some reason when it comes to global warming people decide nope theres no debate, its 100% accurate,no chance of anything else, despite even the biggest global warming supporting scientists saying its only a 95% surity, they leave themselves that window for if they find contradicting evidence.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Lotte

Given I'm an advocate for the case of climate change and global warming, and hate the incorrect propoganda that comes out from the extremists, you're wrong about "warmies" saying half the stories are bs. *strokes chin*

So what's your view on Air France 447 crashing because of global warming?

http://rt.com/news/did-global-warmin...ce-flight-447/

It is exactly these wild claims which discredits the warming advocates, yet they don't seem interested in correcting the obvious nonsense. Why is that?

Instead warm advocates concentrate their efforts on anyone who has a different view or points out the nonsense. These people are deniers, plain wrong and pariahs against the sacred truth of global warming. Read back through this thread, this is exactly what's been happening.

[BHDOGS]

Governments enact policy's based on the information they have available to combat whatever situation arises or they just ignore it and dont do anything. its all relative in the end and if people wanna complain about government policy your gonna lose your voice before you get enough people to care to make a difference.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what's your view on Air France 447 crashing because of global warming?

Originally Posted by cheap

http://rt.com/news/did-global-warming-help-bring-down-air-france-flight-447/
.

Wild claims?
The 4 year old article states the weather in a very meteorologically active area may have had something to do with the disappearance.
You can not deny that over the last century and a bit weather has been a contributing factor in many air disasters. And when flying through such a meteorologically active zone such as the ITCZ weather quite often affects airlines journeys.
As per the official report AF447 crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements—likely due to the aircraft's pilot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals—caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover.

So it has been proven subsequently that weather had something to do with the disaster.
Now I hope you wont try and deny that global surface temperatures, irrespective of how they occur, cause changes in the weather patterns, in many instances a change in one hemisphere may have a significant impact in another. this is a perfectly natural phenomena has happened forever and will continue to happen, but frequency and extremes increase in a hotter climate.

The article continues that some increase in risk may be attributed to the fact that the globe is warming up, the likelihood of more extreme weather, through climate change (natural or man effected) will impact more people. A meteorologist made a claim, that in their opinion, climate change was to blame. Perhaps if the globe was not heating up the storm may not have happened or been as extreme and all 228 people aboard AF447 may have made it to Paris that day.

We won’t know, because there is no going back. But the story you put so little faith in makes a reasonable supposition, citing experts opinion but with an air of sensationalism.
I think the messenger should have been shot a long time ago, always demanding not to shoot them has given journalism a lack of credibility in my mind. So much of it is sensationalist storytelling on both sides it muddies the water and holds the debate hostage.

And so does the eternal name calling. deniers, pariahs, brainwashed and hopeless. all non-descript terms that can and are thrown by both sides at each other. For every insult one way there is the same back the other. This is not how a serious discussion should be held. And it should be serious. If you believe mankind is having an impact convincing the others is in your best interest, if you believe it is not an issue you have an interest in the debate to save, maintain your way of life or whatever your goal may be. Simply resorting to name calling and insults does your argument harm.

Now I’m not going to read all of those links that were provided but as an intelligent enough, educated individual I can see the cause and effect alluded to in that article ans assume in many of them, not all that similar cause and effect can be maintained.
A far from perfect article but it wasn’t purporting to be a scientific paper. Merely a journalists attempt at reporting an incident and putting a spin on it for entertainment and circulation, perhaps even to raise debate.

JP

[cheap]

Localised weather does not equate to Global Warming / Climate Change.

There is a huge difference, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you just want to throw in a red herring to prove a non point.

BTW, 447 crashed because the crew became disorientated. To prove the point every single day somewhere a plane is flying through storm.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Localised weather does not equate to Global Warming / Climate Change.

.

No, a localised one off weather event does not point to climate change. However a trend of increasing frequency and extremity over time does, much as was described in the article, a warning on increasing strength and occurrence of weather patterns, which could affect aviation.
But your subterfuge attempts to ignore my point.
The article you quoted as a 'wild claim' describes a situation which is completely feasible even without the hype, politics and rhetoric of the environmental debate.
Based on high school science anyone should be able to see a correlation bwteen surface temperatures, storm frequency and strength and the airline industry.
The author of the story stopped short of stating Global warming will destroy all aircraft and life on earth therefore hardly a wild claim.

JP

[cheap]

Again storms and frequency of storms are localised weather conditions and are not Global warming.

Drawing long bows, I suppose a butterfly flapping its wings could produce a cyclone... I read that somewhere

BTW there have been fewer cyclones and hurricanes over the years.

Maybe you should read this

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[BHDOGS]

Roy spencer? Who also believes in god and creationism yeeeehhhh good reference

[cheap]

duplicate

[cheap]

So we're back to the name calling...

[BHDOGS]

Lmao so u got a paid lobbyist and a creationist believer anybody else

[GasoLane]

Play nice kiddies, or it gets closed.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

BTW, 447 crashed because the crew became disorientated. .

Nope
check out the official BEA report.
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/reports.php
A loss of sensor information due to weather conditions, while traversing a turbulent environment caused the autopilot to turn off. The ensuing attempts to correct the flight, by flight crew, relying on faulty speed data, misinterpretation of buffeting as over speed rather than the actual stall and poor co-pilot training led to incorrect flight inputs resulting in the crash.
Any 'disorientation' occurred moments from impact when, as the report describes the complete failure of cooperation between the flight crew.
As with any airline crash a litany events and of failures contribute.
Had they diverted more than the initial 12 degree route change around the storm this may not have happened.
The fact is a weather phenomenon started the event, with more extreme events predicted, for whatever reason, the chances of increased fatalities is present.
JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Again storms and frequency of storms are localised weather conditions and are not Global warming.



BTW there have been fewer cyclones and hurricanes over the years.

Possibly in a vain attempt to demonstrate global effects Heat energy carried by ocean currents has a strong influence on climate around the world, the oceans currents cross many a hemisphere, the deep Atlantic conveyor is an example, warm water heated at the tropics moves northward towards Europe and in particular helps maintain more mild temperatures in the UK than should be expected at their latitude, which is similar to Moscow which has significantly more drastic weather. as the warm water cools due to its proximity to the pole it heads south effectively bringing arctic chills to Greenland which is significantly covered in ice, yet has a similar latitude to both London and Moscow. many European and North American storms emanate from this region as a result of the mixing of warm and cold, proving changes at the equator will have effects at or near the poles.

Weather is Global but follows patterns.

This is not new knowledge or any more controversial than tectonic plate movement...do we need to go there too?
JP

[cheap]

Weather is global, and follows in patterns.

You may be onto something, weather occurs on planet Earth and there are 4 seasons which kind of follow a pattern, unless of course you live in Melbourne with its 4 seasons in one day phenomena

So lets get back to basics, localised weather is different to Global warming. This is accepted by both sides of the discussion.

[pottery beige]

you guys are funny

i wish the world would blow up

i dont feel like paying my telstra bill

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

you guys are funny

i wish the world would blow up

i dont feel like paying my telstra bill

lol the most informative , educational post in this thread .
Factual too .

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by karj

Armchair experts **** me.

If you were diagnosed with cancer and told you have 6 months to live unless you undergo treatment, you would probably seek additional independent opinions from qualified medical professionals. If the 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion indicated the same thing, you would recognise a consensus exists amongst the highly qualified professionals and you would undergo treatment. You wouldn't say this: "I don't feel dead now, so I'll just wait for a bit more evidence to back up the diagnosis" or this: "It's a conspiracy amongst surgeons to make money through unneccessary surgery and suck on the teat of taxpayer funded Medicare."

When you or a loved one is next diagnosed with cancer, you wouldn't counsel them (against medical opinion) into waiting for symptoms to worsen to confirm the diagnosis. Yet this is the bizarre logic that some people apply to climate change and the scientists involved in that area of research.

I couldn't put it any more simply than this: There is a consensus in the scientific community about climate change and human impact. It is settled to the extent that the consensus is based on the best information available at this point in time. It is the responsibility of policy makers to respond to that with "evidence based policy." If additional information comes to light in the future and a scientific consensus is built that contradicts the original consensus, then policy makers have to respond to that change.

Actually, on second thought... you guys make perfect sense... Why bother with evidence based policy when we can just formulate policy on the back of unqualified opinion?

Perfect analogy , comparing cancer that has been able to be physically studied in a lab after being scanned growing inside a living object and cures still not guaranteed .
There is a world of difference between them , and just like climate change experts , if you listened to the first , second and sometimes even the third professional diagnosis and went under the knife based on only that well good luck to you . I would certainly hope you had all the facts before you "counsel " someone . Just because they are a qualified urologist or similar does not mean they know your history or your loved one .
You have to ask questions and then more questions about the quality of life after the procedure . If we let the first gungho specialist loose on my mum she would now be on dialyse for whatever time she had left if she survived the table at all . After being told about her history ( all on record at the SAME hospital ) it took the cardiac surgeon to pull them up .
So in reality your using an example that backs up the sceptics , no one can pin down exclusively what causes cancer and while there are cures available none are guaranteed to work , just like global warming when you think about it !
I know where my money would be better spent though cancer research over carbon tax any day .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

so lets get back to basics, localised weather is different to global warming. This is accepted by both sides of the discussion.

so what are you trying to say then. Local weather is different to global warming and in turn climate change?
So, how does that add to the discussion.
black is not white, red is not green nor blue.
Global warming leads to climate change which affects weather across the globe. the mechanisms of global heat movement are understood, the predictions of what may occur due to global temperature rises are feasible, irrespective of the source of the rise in temperatures.
With an increasing global temperature we can expect a greater array of weather, for better and for worse, and this change will vary across the globe to the point if runaway global warming occurs life will struggle to adapt and evolve. As has happened before and probably will again. This could happen quite quickly, it might take some time but what quantum those are is unknown.
And it seems many are prepared to take that gamble. And I can guess money is the prime motivator. hey Cheap, what motivates you? Who are you? what do you do? why do you do it?

JP

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Roy spencer? Who also believes in god and creationism yeeeehhhh good reference

What is wrong with that?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

so what are you trying to say then. Local weather is different to global warming and in turn climate change?
So, how does that add to the discussion.
black is not white, red is not green nor blue.
Global warming leads to climate change which affects weather across the globe. the mechanisms of global heat movement are understood, the predictions of what may occur due to global temperature rises are feasible, irrespective of the source of the rise in temperatures.
With an increasing global temperature we can expect a greater array of weather, for better and for worse, and this change will vary across the globe to the point if runaway global warming occurs life will struggle to adapt and evolve. As has happened before and probably will again. This could happen quite quickly, it might take some time but what quantum those are is unknown.
And it seems many are prepared to take that gamble. And I can guess money is the prime motivator. hey Cheap, what motivates you? Who are you? what do you do? why do you do it?

JP

Global warming is clearly defined, as is weather as is temperature. You can either accept these definitions or invent your own in which case there isn't going to be much of a discussion.

It is pointless talking about how hot it is in Cairo, when there is snow in Moscow and the very next day the weather could be anything anywhere. That is why there is a very specific definition for global warming.

As for climate change again don't get confused with localised weather. We had rain in Brisbane yesterday but over the weekend it was sunny what climate does Brisbane have?

Now here is the kicker, climate does change, for example the phenomena known as Milankovitch Cycles is a generally accepted climate change process. No one disputes climate change but the AGW advocates now deliberately use climate change to further their cause.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Global warming is clearly defined, as is weather as is temperature.

Thinking back I may have failed high school. Please elucidate on definitions for the above, it's obvious I need educating.

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Thinking back I may have failed high school. Please elucidate on definitions for the above, it's obvious I need educating.

JP

You have a computer - go for it...

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

You have a computer - go for it...

But the answers I come up are different to yours. So I was hoping you could explain...as your definition forms the backbone of your point!