Global Warming is happening

[mik]

you hear lot of conflicting reports, and no doubt there are as many "deniers" as their are "believers" but you always hear the deniers are wack jobs, but of course the believers are the only source of valid science!
you also have to be a suspicious when the Australian fed govco pays an institution 25 million to talk up global warming co2, etc in the media.

again whether our little rock is going up or down in temperature , there are dudes out there making billions of dollars talking up the global warming thing, ...................................did i hear the IPCC mentioned????

some reading material, the first 5 paragraphs says it all.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusiv...cc-report.html

[2011G6E]

There is really only one fact that needs to be said when it comes to Australia and the "need" for us to cut back, do without, tax the populace, and restrict our industry to "stop climate change and save the planet" when no one else is doing so.

China, a country with 1.5 [i]billion[/i[] people, will, at a conservative estimate, increase its CO2 emissions each year by an amount that is larger than Australias entire output of CO2 for the same year...that's not counting India, with another billion people or so and what they're doing. Keep in mind this is just the amount they will increase their emissions, on top of the staggeringly vast amount they are pumping out now.

When it comes to Australias contribution, the term "drop in the bucket" comes to mind sharply...

Whenever there are calls for Australia to "lead the way" and that we must be able to stand on the world stage and "show the world how it's done" but no other industrialised western country is considering a nation wide carbon tax program, I am reminded of the image of a small boy surrounded by all the much bigger kids in the school yard, who are trying to convince him to eat a worm, promising that they will do so as well...as long as he does it first...*snigger*...

[Spinner77]

The statistics

To be honest, unless you have the background, the technical mathematics is probably beyond many people here.

Forgive me for saying this, but I find that comment to be patronising claptrap.

Statistical calculations are not a crystal ball, telling us the future. As I said earlier, the stats, which were believed by some Nobel Prize winners, predicted a stock market crash once in 10,000 years.

Put your money where your mouth is
If your really believe in warmism, I think it is fair to assume that you have put all your super in green, carbon-free, investments. There are a few around, including some industry funds (and, ha ha, Unisuper). You can find them by googling.

Personally, I have used these lists to ensure that I don't have any money in green, carbon-free, investments!

Now here's an interesting point. I see that Deutsche Bank has calculated that only less than 2 per cent of investment money globally is in green assets. Now I wonder why that is. If the world's temperature is going to rise 4-6 degrees, these green investments must be the best value around.

So fill your boots with green investments, warmies! You are going to make Bill Gates looks as if he is on the bones of his a***.

[karj]

Originally Posted by Spinner77

The statistics

Forgive me for saying this, but I find that comment to be patronising claptrap.

Statistical calculations are not a crystal ball, telling us the future. As I said earlier, the stats, which were believed by some Nobel Prize winners, predicted a stock market crash once in 10,000 years.

Put your money where your mouth is
If your really believe in warmism, I think it is fair to assume that you have put all your super in green, carbon-free, investments. There are a few around, including some industry funds (and, ha ha, Unisuper). You can find them by googling.

Personally, I have used these lists to ensure that I don't have any money in green, carbon-free, investments!

Now here's an interesting point. I see that Deutsche Bank has calculated that only less than 2 per cent of investment money globally is in green assets. Now I wonder why that is. If the world's temperature is going to rise 4-6 degrees, these green investments must be the best value around.

So fill your boots with green investments, warmies! You are going to make Bill Gates looks as if he is on the bones of his a***.

Wasn't trying to be patronising or condescending - I apologise for coming across that way.

I recall doing 95% CI's, upper/lower endpoints, hypothesis testing, distributions and other stats in uni (I was never that good at it and can't remember much of it to be honest).

This is the technical mathematics I was talking about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confide...istical_theory

A lot of those formulas I recognise from my uni days. Have a scroll through and I think you'll understand what I mean by the technical maths being beyond people without the background.












To say that most people aren't going to understand that is not patronising - my memory is stretched just trying to remember it! There is a lot more to statistics than a lot of people think; it's not just collating data and working out some averages.

[mik]

working stuff out is easy if you have the recipe/facts 100%, these guys are`nt even sure if gases are driving any temperature change or if it`s the other way around, yet many of the global warming fraternity say they know and any one who disputes their conclusions are deniers or nutters.

[karj]

Originally Posted by mik

working stuff out is easy if you have the recipe/facts 100%, these guys are`nt even sure if gases are driving any temperature change or if it`s the other way around, yet many of the global warming fraternity say they know and any one who disputes their conclusions are deniers or nutters.

The scientific community has reached a consensus on this. In reality, the only people who have the knowledge or ability to challenge that consensus are other scientists. At the end of the day, there is little point in lay people like you or I debating one side or the other. This is the point that I have tried to make and one that I think escapes a lot of people.

The question people need to ask themselves is this: How much do I know about science, how much do I know about mathematics, and how much do I know about climate change?

If you're like me, then the answer is probably not much.

So, how exactly are our opinions greatly relevant?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

The scientific community has reached a consensus on this. In reality, the only people who have the knowledge or ability to challenge that consensus are other scientists. At the end of the day, there is little point in lay people like you or I debating one side or the other. This is the point that I have tried to make and one that I think escapes a lot of people.

The question people need to ask themselves is this: How much do I know about science, how much do I know about mathematics, and how much do I know about climate change?

If you're like me, then the answer is probably not much.

So, how exactly are our opinions greatly relevant?

No actually it is you who is really missing the point.

There may or may not be climate change.
Human effect of this change if it exists may or may not be significant.

But in any of the above scenarios why are the ONLY solutions being offered various types of taxation with a small percentage going to those who offer the solutions and the majority going to general revenue and increasing government footprint?

Surely the first thing to do to lower "carbon" would be to move all of the public service and academia out away from the cities where they require lots of energy and into the remote areas of Australia where there is lots of space for low density naturally cooled or heated buildings with solar and wind generation.

In the 21st century where communication is instant and prolific why do people who produce nothing tangible and only communicate with each other need to be close together in high density low energy efficient enclaves?

I believe that the primary source of the cynicism is that those who push the dogma want everyone else to wear the costs and inconveniences.

[poppa smurf]

well I reckon its daylight saving........that extra bloody hour of sunlight is killing me!

[Stagg]

Whether climate change is induced by us or not, we are always burning a finite resource and something has to change to make the move to renewables inevitably.

My opinion is that climate change is a combination of earths natural cycle of heating up and cooling down, but also as we are heating up it is in fact the additional carbon now in our atmosphere the heating period is essentially on steroids because of it.

I will admit, those people who scoff that climate change is not human induced is fair enough, but seriously, do you need to leave your A/C on all day and leave all your lights on overnight??

[cheap]

Global Warming is the politics of fear and control masquerading as scientific proof. Ever outlandish Global Warming claim is WRONG.

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, was this the truth?

Scientific Consensus. In fact there is no scientific consensus, instead only those scientist who play along with Global Warming become the consensus whilst anyone who questions Global Warming is insultingly labelled a denier.

Climate Research Unit - leaked emails showing they've been manipulating data to support Global Warming - more funding needed...

Measured temperature changes do not match the predicted models - answer there must be something wrong - more funding needed...

Measured sea level rises do not match predicted models - answer there must be something wrong - more funding needed...

Tim Flannery predicted that the nation's dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs. In fact nearly all the major dams are now full. So what does Tim say to explain his dud prediction "climate change cannot be ruled out" as a factor in recent flooding rains !

Himalayan glaciers retreating - in fact fresh snow has rejuvenated the glaciers - more funding needed...

The only thing that is real is that we continue to be fed an incredibly large number of dud predictions, it is about time that the global warming alarmists admit their theory is broken!

[Barnaby]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

China, a country with 1.5billion people, will, at a conservative estimate, increase its CO2 emissions each year by an amount that is larger than Australias entire output of CO2 for the same year...that's not counting India, with another billion people or so and what they're doing. Keep in mind this is just the amount they will increase their emissions, on top of the staggeringly vast amount they are pumping out now.

The thing is that the carbon in the atmosphere (allegedly) creating the problems in the world now was created by the West since the industrial revolution. The exemptions given to the emerging economies were for this very reason.

Put yourself in China's (and India's) shoes; would you want foreign interests putting the brakes on your growth and future for the problem they created? Even if we told China to slow down they would ignore us, we cant even get them to float their currency!

And no-one is investing more in clean energy research in the world now anyway, so I believe they are doing their bit. Remember it's us who are buying their cheap goods, and the USA is still at the top of the polluter list!

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Barnaby

The thing is that the carbon in the atmosphere (allegedly) creating the problems in the world now was created by the West since the industrial revolution. The exemptions given to the emerging economies were for this very reason.

Put yourself in China's (and India's) shoes; would you want foreign interests putting the brakes on your growth and future for the problem they created? Even if we told China to slow down they would ignore us, we cant even get them to float their currency!

And no-one is investing more in clean energy research in the world now anyway, so I believe they are doing their bit. Remember it's us who are buying their cheap goods, and the USA is still at the top of the polluter list!

Sorry, in real terms of amount produced, China is far and away number one in the world, with the USA putting out just over half of what China does per year. Forget the ridiculous "per capita/per head of population" figures that skew it to make countries with tiny populations like Australia look bad...
Here's the figures by amount produced...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions_estimates

And if you do prefer the "per head of population", then once again we are being lied to blatantly when they say "Australia is the worst per capita polluter"...look at this list...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita
We're not number one...we're number eleven...behind such economic monsters such as Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba, Luxembourg, and just below the Falkland Islands...that should tell you what a toss dividing pollution by head of population is as a measurement...

China can do what it likes with renewable energy...the fact remains that they are building dozens upon dozens of brand new coal fired power stations...commissioning a new one about every week or so amazingly enough (60 this year).

If global warming is such a world wide issue, then why does anyone get off scott free like the "developing" world (and anyone who still calls China "developing" in the same breath as poor African countries is mad)?
If it truly "threatens all mankind" then doesn't everyone have to chip and and cut back...? If not, then we know it's just a wealth transfer system to tax prosperous western countries and funnel our dollars through the UN to where ever it eventually goes to...

[Madaya]

Team, I think we should put this puppy to bed, and as the originator of this thread, I feel it is a fair call.
Why? As no doubt many of the contributers would agree, it is perhaps the wrong forum.
We have put on the table a lot of facts, a few presumptions and more than a fair load of failed predictions (i.e. bulldust).
If collated in a sensible order, with a few more references thrown in, it would make a good read, but at the end of the day, we have not actually solved anything - not like posting a thread about the dull thud you can hear from the engine at idle, the nuts and bolts things that drive this Great Forum.

The positives? As always, it reveals that many Aussies are passionate about the truth. We hate not having it and hate lies even more.
In the case of Global Warming (read: Climate Change, that much I have learned ), the data, or at least the way we interperet the data, is still in its infancy.
There has been much great input, many thanks. Meanwhile, we will stay vigilant, and in the mean time, I expect, do our little bit towards sustainability, which regardless of CC, is sensible - and no, I'm not trying to start a new thread.
Stay safe.
Gary Fearon.

[Barnaby]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

China can do what it likes with renewable energy...the fact remains that they are...

Whatever.

Don't stop the developing countries developing; it will only end in tears if you look back at history. The people who created the problem should be the ones who start fixing it, the others will follow.

I sure hope you boycott buying Chinas goods with all this rhetoric your spitting out.

[chamb0]

I had a great deal to say in reply to 2011g6e but I'm happy to leave it there.

It seems this might be the first CC thread not to be locked because of hot tempers, a collective achievement in itself.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Barnaby

Whatever.

Don't stop the developing countries developing; it will only end in tears if you look back at history. The people who created the problem should be the ones who start fixing it, the others will follow.

I sure hope you boycott buying Chinas goods with all this rhetoric your spitting out.

I'm just saying that when China and India emit more pollution (and are increasing it greatly year on year) than anyone else, then restricting our economies and just letting them keep expanding as much as they like is going to lead to only one outcome: a more polluted world and putting a boot on the neck of our economies while letting theirs thrive. Just in my area a spring and suspension works is going to be hit with a doubling of their power bill because of the new way they are formulating power tariffs to discourage high power consumption...and spring works and steel production facilities sure use a lot of power.
The ones in China and India do too...but they have to be let pollute with a free reign so our governments can feel smug while artificially restricting of our economy and taxpayers...our advancement will stagnate instead of shooting ahead in leaps and bounds as it once did.

It's like having the nicest lawn in the street when all of your neighbours yards are overgrown with weeds and tall unmown grass and wind-blown rubbish...the crap from their yards will just keep blowing into your yard and weeds will keep popping up in your yard from their yards, but while you have to spend a lot of time, money, and effort keeping your yard clean you never dare ask any of your neighbours to do anything about cleaning up their yard.

[turbodewd]

The caps are melting...the sane would err on the side of caution and reduce emissions.

This is blatantly obvious to me.

A good reason to buy the EcoLPI peoples!

[mik]

Originally Posted by karj

The scientific community has reached a consensus on this. In reality, the only people who have the knowledge or ability to challenge that consensus are other scientists. At the end of the day, there is little point in lay people like you or I debating one side or the other. This is the point that I have tried to make and one that I think escapes a lot of people.

The question people need to ask themselves is this: How much do I know about science, how much do I know about mathematics, and how much do I know about climate change?

If you're like me, then the answer is probably not much.

So, how exactly are our opinions greatly relevant?

well all the scientific community has not in fact reached a consensus, and we could argue about that till the cows come home , so we will just have to agree to disagree.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by chamb0

It seems this might be the first CC thread not to be locked because of hot tempers, a collective achievement in itself.

that is known as Thread Warming

[mik]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Sorry, in real terms of amount produced, China is far and away number one in the world, with the USA putting out just over half of what China does per year. Forget the ridiculous "per capita/per head of population" figures that skew it to make countries with tiny populations like Australia look bad...
Here's the figures by amount produced...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions_estimates

And if you do prefer the "per head of population", then once again we are being lied to blatantly when they say "Australia is the worst per capita polluter"...look at this list...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita
We're not number one...we're number eleven...behind such economic monsters such as Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba, Luxembourg, and just below the Falkland Islands...that should tell you what a toss dividing pollution by head of population is as a measurement...

China can do what it likes with renewable energy...the fact remains that they are building dozens upon dozens of brand new coal fired power stations...commissioning a new one about every week or so amazingly enough (60 this year).

If global warming is such a world wide issue, then why does anyone get off scott free like the "developing" world (and anyone who still calls China "developing" in the same breath as poor African countries is mad)?
If it truly "threatens all mankind" then doesn't everyone have to chip and and cut back...? If not, then we know it's just a wealth transfer system to tax prosperous western countries and funnel our dollars through the UN to where ever it eventually goes to...

i believe in total china is intending to build 200 coal fired power stations, and i have also read the figure claiming Australia to be a huge polluter close to the top of the list to be bogus.

[ltd]

Making news today on the climate change polar bear warmening sectarian dogma;
Australia has just signed a treaty meaning taxpayers will have to stump up over 3 billion a year to countries that experience weather events.
Further, at the Doha conference, over 130 eminent prefessors who are considered by NASA and various other leading organisations have written an open letter to the UN's Ban Khi Moon asking him to address the fact that the climate change predictions, data set and model is wrong, and needs to be withdrawn. Of course in the grand scheme known as the UN sanctioned Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century), the climate and the science thereof is but a vehicle designed to stake fear into the populace of the developed world only. The green agenda is highly visible, they want fewer than 3 billion people on the planet yet they have the errant hypocrisy to do nothing about population control in the developing world where families of 15 or more are common place. As one famous greens senator once said: "Famine is natures way of controlling her population" then went on to a "Feed the World" gathering.
Sounds extreme I know, but check this Stalinist out: http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/population

[chamb0]

I believe the OP called for the thread to be closed because this is going nowhere.

[flappist]

Closed at the request of the original poster.