Global Warming

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

I think it was covered on the second page of this, where someone introduced just the 1st page to the thread:,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html
Im sure you could research the opposition to the idea that yourself, or do you need me to do it for you? The idea that increasing solar radiation is responsible for the 11 of the last 13 years being the highest temperatures on record has been discredited by reputable scientists, Im sure you will be able to find the info without me finding links for you

A writer to today's age says it nicely:

Sceptics say we shouldnt act until we are sure. He agrees, we shouldnt interfere with the earth's delicate climate balance until we are sure adding increasing amounts of CO2 will have no effect.

Im sure that's what you would like drug companies to do when they talk about introducing new pills to the market, rather than "only when we see people dropping dead we will revise our product"

Fair enough, I haven't read all the literature and honestly don't have the time to right now.

Whilst the journalist has a point, (s)he is ignoring the economic implications of major tax reform to control emissions.

As far as I have read, there is no technology (aside from nuclear) which has the ability to provide sustainable baseload power. Wind/solar is too unreliable until storage technology improves dramatically, geothermal is still in its infancy, clean coal is still a dream, hydro power isn't enough.

So there are no commercially viable options (again, aside from nuclear) right now aside from fossil fuels for baseload electricity generation. The solution? To implement a tax system that will only increase the cost of electricity, for how much saving? We are still burning fossil fuels, and will simply pay more for it.

Yes, it could put more dollars into research for cleaner technologies. Don't count on every dollar from the carbon tax though, its a government tax and it will wind up in another department somewhere. And it won't be available tomorrow, or next year.

So until commercially viable, large scale alternatives to fossil fuels for energy production come along (which are still decades away), the dominant source of energy will be fossil fuels, ever increasingly due to China and India. And the government is willing to risk what is left of our industry, for essentially no impact on global emissions. And still whilst there is enough doubt and debate to be worthwhile.

Too many agendas!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

That was the thrust of the great global warming swindle doco, which I assume is where you got this info, perhaps do some research as to why the "swindle" was rejected on every level.

Haven't seen it so don't assume. It was only rejected by those in academia and others pushing this cultish idea of global warming. Perhaps you should desist being so adamant in your ideas, perhaps you should add credence to your claim that it was rejected on every level by providing a reference.

[ltd]

Mclovin, show me where I said we could thrive in Jurassic period conditions. As for your source, it is by far one of the most socialistic based websites on the internet, and you want me to believe their propaganda from 2 years ago, when the science was in its infancy and people were flocking to sign the socialist IPCC report? Try again. Further, have a look at those whom signed the IPCC report, how many have defected from the model and how many of these scientists have spoken out about its fundamental flaws, including many labelling the whole report a political agenda in disguise.

[McLovin']

Ldt, New Scientist is a widely distributed international publication that has been around since the 1950's. You lose all credibility with me by calling it socialist propaganda.

[anto]

torbirdie asked

So you have done some research and have come to your own conclusions? which differ from all the scientific experts that study our atmosphere and weather for a living? and your particular area of expertise is?

again I ask you, what are yours ? and it is not all !!

The number of scientists that are part of proper scientific institutions that disagree about the causes and effects of global warming, you can count on one hand. Perhaps you might list just one here?

LIE !!! I provided a list of 700 plus scientists with an opposing view. They are listed on a credible US govt source not a left wing blog like you provided.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....f1-fc38ed4f85e3

typical denialist, you dont care whether its got credibility or not

is nasa not credible enough for you ? Is it not happening on Mars ?

Please provide some alternate credible theories, before you bother, actually research what real scientists have to say about them.....then you wont need to actually waste everyone's time.

once again dont counter the point , mate you are a laughing stock and you are wasting my time !!! . You are clearly a left wing zealot with a one track mind as demonstrated by your so called "sources".
Like OhioXB I think its a pointless excersize trying to be rational with someone so narrow minded.
There are others who share your passion on this thread but do so in a sensible thoughtful way, and all credit to them. You on the other hand... :
and Im heartened that there are a lot of people asking questions. Again I am open minded on the matter and Im not against a clean environment.But when I see comrade kRudd standing in front of a dry murray saying " ...and you need proof of global warming?..." I have questions..

hope you enjoy the high taxes and collapsing economy. unless of course you have a "green" job.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

again I ask you, what are yours ?
.

Anto, I am not the one stating that my own research has found leading climate scientists are wrong, I am not challenging what they say, my qualifications are not the issue here.
You on the other hand claim your own analysis of the issue says they are all wrong, so it would be interesting to know what qualifications you have that enable you to see things that they cant.

Originally Posted by anto

LIE !!! I provided a list of 700 plus scientists with an opposing view. They are listed on a credible US govt source not a left wing blog like you provided.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....f1-fc38ed4f85e3
.

And a reference/blog call it what you like outlines a problem with the senator that organised the compilation of that list and also spells out exactly what the names on the list stand for, here is a similar one:http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07...-not-credible/

Originally Posted by anto

But when I see comrade kRudd standing in front of a dry murray saying " ...and you need proof of global warming?..." I have questions..
.

I think he makes a fair point, of course its not conclusive, but what are your questions?
Most people on the land in this country are resigned to the fact that climate change has arrived, and they were the same ones who would have declared it as bs years ago. We have suburban sports grounds which are too dangerous to play on because they have become too hard. Perhaps have a look at snow depth over the last 30 years and levels to which it has fallen on our mountains, not just our mountains either, worldwide all ski resorts are getting less snow.

Originally Posted by anto

hope you enjoy the high taxes and collapsing economy. unless of course you have a "green" job.

Have you thought about where all the taxes you will be paying on those carbon based goods will be going? The labor party will get it all? have a think about it.

Green job? Mate, I will be jumping through hoops if I wake up one morning and it is declared that the planet will not be warming and we can continue "business" as usual, I have nothing to gain personally other than trying to save the planet and the landscape we still have in this country.

Im guessing that yes you and others like ohio have already made it your mission to try and disprove the notion of carbon dioxide induced climate change and will just continue to drag up evidence you think supports your cause. Do consider that by the time you find it, it has already been seriously taken on board, look up the reviews from the scientists that say what they put forward is bunk(it will stop you looking foolish), you will never find counter claims from these people, the purpose is just to generate the doubt.

Distractions like Ian Pilmer and their unsupported ideas come and go, but it gives the denalists hope against the encroaching reality.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by ltd

Perhaps you should desist being so adamant in your ideas, .

Adamant in my ideas? you give me far too much credit. What ideas have I come up with exactly.

Originally Posted by ltd

perhaps you should add credence to your claim that it was rejected on every level by providing a reference.

Im assuming everyone here is connected to the same www as I am.

ffs, if you can find the denialist stuff, you can find the stuff where it is rejected....do I have to find everything for everyone here?

using a search engine: type "great global warming swindle" farce, deception, disproved etc, also try Co2 lags temperature or similar.
Hopefully that will get you on the "same page"

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Im assuming everyone here is connected to the same www as I am.

ffs, if you can find the denialist stuff, you can find the stuff where it is rejected....do I have to find everything for everyone here?

type "great global warming swindle" farce, deception, disproved etc, also try Co2 lags temperature or similar.
Hopefully that will get you on the "same page"

In other words you got nothing.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by vztrt

In other words you got nothing.

Why dont you try for yourself before making stupid comments,

but I suppose it is indicative of denialist behaviour, if you dont look for something you wont have to deal with it.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Why dont you try for yourself before making stupid comments,

but I suppose it is indicative of denialist behaviour, if you dont look for something you wont have to deal with it.

Seems more like your trolling and trying to get a rise out of people. You have obviously not learned from previously doing this nor have you provided any info on the subject. Go find it yourself is pointless when there's meant to be a discussion on a public forum (which your obviously inept in participating in), what's the point then in actually posting on here.

Seems your like the regular zealot that will go the person with a different point of view because it doesn't agree with your own. Your seriously not worth the time. I was hoping that this thread would bring more then the pointless drivel you have delivered and actually give a nice balance for and against discussion. But as like others I have read it doesn't.

I'm done with it...oh congratulations your the first to go on my ignore list I didn't think I could find someone but I was wrong.

[RG]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Why dont you try for yourself before making stupid comments,

but I suppose it is indicative of denialist behaviour, if you dont look for something you wont have to deal with it.

You good sir truly are a clown. Your attitude towards others is a sign that you are a person who should be shown little respect and whose opinion should be held with little regard.

Grow up and cease attacking people for the simple fact that their opinion differs to yours. You can also get back under your bridge.

[MO]

Ok I'm in,now to go back and read from the start.
This should be interesting.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

ffs, if you can find the denialist stuff, you can find the stuff where it is rejected....do I have to find everything for everyone here?

Hullo Cocky:-

Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators. (WALL STREET JOURNAL).
In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125011380094927137.html

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Why dont you try for yourself before making stupid comments,

but I suppose it is indicative of denialist behaviour, if you dont look for something you wont have to deal with it.

There's a big difference between a denialist and someone who isn't convinced.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by RG

Your attitude towards others is a sign that you are a person who should be shown little respect and whose opinion should be held with little regard.

Grow up and cease attacking people for the simple fact that their opinion differs to yours. You can also get back under your bridge.

Sorry its hard to have respect for someone that provides comments such as this:

Originally Posted by vztrt

In other words you got nothing.

You feel he was attacked? I hardly think so and my response to such rudeness was entirely appropriate.

I would love gw to be declared bunk as much as anyone here, but unfortunately the science is not showing us that and that is what I go with, that makes me different to most here.

Personally I havent got the energy left to try and convince anyone here of anything, yeh, its a hard ask trying to do it on a motoring forum.

: enjoy

[RG]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Sorry its hard to have respect for someone that provides comments such as this:
You feel he was attacked? I hardly think so and my response to such rudeness was entirely appropriate.

I would love gw to be declared bunk as much as anyone here, but unfortunately the science is not showing us that and that is what I go with, that makes me different to most here.

Personally I havent got the energy left to try and convince anyone here of anything, yeh, its a hard ask trying to do it on a motoring forum.

: enjoy

I think you'll find that the reason you get such little respect here is the same reason your reputation is the lowest of the fifty thousand odd members on this board.

You are seen as nothing more than a common troll.

[Laminge]

Enough Gentlemen, I have a close line to put together, the angst of reading the banter here is slight amusement to settings the poles to wide apart too hang the bugger.