But but but, they said the science was settled.

[jpblue1000]

for such a massive and complex issue there is no doubt going to be alternate views held by many people. We are swayed by argument that suits our world view, this is not brainwashing for every claim of people being conned, can be countered by another of being lied to, being manipulated and denial no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

I don't need a scientist to tell me there are problems in our social, economic, political and environmental systems. I can see this for myself.

I believe in the 'environmentalist movement' and it comes down to my fundamental belief. If we are wrong about climate change and the knock on effects or its a hoax, all we might have achieved is protection of endangered animals and environments, garnered energy independance, cost savings to all through sustainability measures, livable cities, equality, renewables, no pollution clean water and air, equality and peace.

If we are right and nothing is done everything dies. See how easy a decision it is. For me money is not important, life is important for the trillion of lives big and small, grand and meak on this planet

JP

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

If you don't follow the current governments line/policy on your research what do you think will happen to next years application?

It's normal and appropriate for governments to fund scientific research. The alternative is for special interest groups to do so. In Australia we have government funding allocated through independant statutory bodies, set up to free political interference from the scientific process as much as possible, such as the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. These have a traditional independence in the rigorous assessment of grant applications and are widely considered independant arbiters of research excellence. The researchers are not paid paid to prove climate change is occuring, they're paid to investigate it. These Councils fund research endeavours into all sorts of scientific disciplines using tax payer dollars but for some reason climate science is singled out?

To give some perspective: less than 4% of awarded grants from the ARC during 2002-2013 addressed the topic of climate change. The high point was 2010 with 7.4% of grants having a climate change focus. It's dropped to just 2.9% in the latest round. It's a universal complaint among scientists from every discipline that they feel they don't get a fair share of ARC funding. That probably indicates it's more or less a fair system.

Funnily enough looking at the track record of governments around the world, including Australia, they have mostly done their best to ignore research advice on climate change for as long as they can get away with, instead responding with political obfuscation and doing the absolute minimum possible when they're eventually forced to act, or too afraid to act for fear of offending vested interests. It's why we are now left with an increasingly limited window of opportunity to respond effectively to this problem, the unfortunate result being that the longer we leave it the more expensive it becomes. And it's us who are already, and will increasingly be, carrying the burden of damage, a grossly unfair result of people who should have known better refusing to take steps in our national interest.

Originally Posted by mik

I don't know who said the science was settled, more people are speaking out about alternative scenarios every day, and the ipcc over the years has made it self look like a turkey and retracted some of its statements.

this is one of many sites with a lot about weather/solar/planetary stuff ......... very enlightening............( solar .....enlightening .... get it )
http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/cliemate/
many more links and articles provided on this site, well worth looking at imo.

Have you heard the saying that the internet is about as reliable as a dribbling drunk guy down at the pub standing in his own vomit scribbling on a dunny wall in black texta? There's good reasons why there's an established method to conduct scientific discussion through peer-reviewed technical journals and conferences where scientists submit themselves to scrutiny and accountability, rather than via anonymous online posts (and this is the way every famous scientist who turned the establishment upside down operated). Science is actually really hard, and writing scientific papers and submitting them to journals is tough work, because peer reviewers know rubbish when they see it. For some reason "sceptics" prefer blog posts and trying to get coverage in the media where they employ the good old gish-gallop approach. If they really knew what they were talking about they would have the confidence to use the process of engaging other scientists in journals and at conferences. That they use the internet instead is telling.

Originally Posted by mik

For years all we heard was global warming we will warm up by X by 2xxx we will all fry or drown.......quick .......show dodgy hockey stick graph again !
now it is being called climate change ................... "climate change" you say ! really ?

Both terms ('global warming' and 'climate change') are used because they refer to two different phenomena. GW specifically refers to the long term trend of rising global surface temperatures, while CC is a broader term referring to clear sustained changes in the components of climate (i.e. rainfall, atmospheric pressure, winds, and including temperature changes). Both terms have been used for a long time. I think I've explained this on here previously and I'm pretty sure you read it?

Originally Posted by mik

This little rock we call home has been subject to changing climate since day dot long before we ever got here with far more extremes of temp and weather, this is proven by geologic history.

The difference is, this time we caused it (rather than natural processes), and the pace of change is far greater, over decades rather than tens/hundreds of thousands of years. The relatively rapid rate of change means that it poses a threat to those natural and human systems which cannot adapt anywhere near quickly enough, including our agricultural systems.

Originally Posted by mik

here is another thought for those listening to the doomsday agency, why do they only allow man made global warming/climate change scenarios and nothing else?
you have to ask yourself is there an agenda here, the only conclusion I can come to is yes.

Yes there is an agenda here - it is to investigate climate system science and figure out why things happen and where we are headed. Given that climate changes presents an unacceptable risk to our well-being and prosperity, especially here in Australia, I think it's only prudent to study it. As for a supposed singleminded pursuit of only man made effects, climate scientists investigate thousands of different questions every year, including both natural and human effects, to gain further understanding of the system as a whole. Looking over the journals makes this pretty clear!

[Sox]

Originally Posted by chamb0

It's why we are now left with an increasingly limited window of opportunity to respond effectively to this problem.

What problem?
You write as if it's a given, a done deal, an open and shut case, yet even the IPCC reports aren't 100% certain of AGW.

Have you heard the saying that the internet is about as reliable as a dribbling drunk guy down at the pub standing in his own vomit scribbling on a dunny wall in black texta?

And here we are...

There's good reasons why there's an established method to conduct scientific discussion through peer-reviewed technical journals and conferences where scientists submit themselves to scrutiny and accountability, rather than via anonymous online posts (and this is the way every famous scientist who turned the establishment upside down operated). Science is actually really hard, and writing scientific papers and submitting them to journals is tough work, because peer reviewers know rubbish when they see it.

You can't be serious? The peer-review process is not without it's flaws.

and the pace of change is far greater, over decades rather than tens/hundreds of thousands of years.

This is nothing new, short term and long term temperature spikes have been occurring for a gazzillion years.

The relatively rapid rate of change means that it poses a threat to those natural and human systems which cannot adapt anywhere near quickly enough, including our agricultural systems.

Yep, it's happened before and it will happen again.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Sox

What problem?
You write as if it's a given, a done deal, an open and shut case, yet even the IPCC reports aren't 100% certain of AGW. .

If they are wrong? see my earlier post. If they are right, see my earlier post

Originally Posted by Sox

You can't be serious? The peer-review process is not without it's flaws..

Sure, But it is a lot better than not having one and relying on the illinformed and shock jocks with undiscosed agendas to dictate public opinion

Originally Posted by Sox

This is nothing new, short term and long term temperature spikes have been occurring for a gazzillion years. .

True, but humans have only really just got here an in a few decades we might have contributed to pushing it over the threshold. On the balance of facts we will wipe life of the face of the planet in a very short time, considering how long its taken life to get here today.

Originally Posted by Sox

Yep, it's happened before and it will happen again.

And this time its our fault, the accelerated rate may prevent flora and fauna from adapting. Instead of 10,000 year process we may see a 100 year decline. The future doesnt yet exist so we don't have to worry about it eh.
But what if your children or their children have to face the possible realities we have been warned about, what it it was to 'happen' tomorrow how would we feel then.

JP

[cheap]

If CO2/Methane/Water Vapor and so on are a significant cause of the "warming". Therefore isn't it reasonable to conclude that by controlling these items we can control the temperature.

So what temperature should the world be set at?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

If CO2/Methane/Water Vapor and so on are a significant cause of the "warming". Therefore isn't it reasonable to conclude that by controlling these items we can control the temperature.

So what temperature should the world be set at?

Ah youve outdone yourself this time Cheap!.

Well done.

JP

[Sox]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Sure, But it is a lot better than not having one and relying on the illinformed and shock jocks with undiscosed agendas to dictate public opinion

Is it?

True, but humans have only really just got here an in a few decades we might have contributed to pushing it over the threshold.

Might have being the operative words.

And this time its our fault,

You think...

the accelerated rate may prevent flora and fauna from adapting.

May, if it continues.

Instead of 10,000 year process we may see a 100 year decline. The future doesnt yet exist so we don't have to worry about it eh.

Pretty much. There's nothing we can do anyhow.

But what if your children or their children have to face the possible realities we have been warned about, what it it was to 'happen' tomorrow how would we feel then.

There's a lot of what ifs in there, and that be the problem...

As already mentioned the IPCC isn't even in it 100%, and real evidence to support AGW will become weaker in time.

[cs123]

This GW is far to complex for me to understand, This really sums up my attitude to what should be done.

I have 2 kids, who I suspect will have kids of their own. I don't want to leave them a screwed planet.

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

If we are wrong about climate change and the knock on effects or its a hoax, all we might have achieved is protection of endangered animals and environments, garnered energy independance, cost savings to all through sustainability measures, livable cities, equality, renewables, no pollution clean water and air, equality and peace.

If we are right and nothing is done everything dies. See how easy a decision it is. For me money is not important, life is important for the trillion of lives big and small, grand and meak on this planet

JP

[xxx000]

In Australia we used to universally respect the CSIRO, its scientists and their findings

Sadly in the quest to win elections by swaying public opinion, some politicians and shock jocks have begun to question and even ridicule that same work.

I'll still take the CSIRO over people with clear political agendas and selfish short term goals

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by xxx000

In Australia we used to universally respect the CSIRO, its scientists and their findings

Sadly in the quest to win elections by swaying public opinion, some politicians and shock jocks have begun to question and even ridicule that same work.

I'll still take the CSIRO over people with clear political agendas and selfish short term goals

Unfortunately the CSIRO is turning into that very thing...they have a clear political and social agenda, and have sacked people who don't go along with "the party line", such as expressing public doubt about human[caused global warming....

[nuthin' fancy]

I'm liking the way these threads are allowed to run a little these days.

No harm will come of us stepping a little more lightly on the planet.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Sox

Is it?

Originally Posted by Sox

Might have being the operative words.
You think...May, if it continues.
Pretty much. There's nothing we can do anyhow.
There's a lot of what ifs in there, and that be the problem...
As already mentioned the IPCC isn't even in it 100%, and real evidence to support AGW will become weaker in time.

your right lots of what if's, maybes and perhapses but what is the alternate course.
Follow the same path we are currently on believing there is no issues that need addressing?
My eyes are open and I cannot and therefore will not continue, Refer to my earlier post.
The 'damage' done by my actions addressing the 'perceived' doom is a positive contribution to the globe. The damage done by toeing the line is still socially and economically catastrophic. (ignoring the alleged environmental issues)
But if the environment and life isn't under threat from Global warming, climate change and humans contribution to them I still believe pouring arsenic into our waterways, deforestation of old growth forests, factory farms, monocultural planting, pumping carcinogenic into the atmosphere, hunting elephants and tigers for ivory and abuse of fellow humans for profit is worth fighting against.
I know I wont sway your opinion, that’s fine with me, but I'll die knowing I did my bit to avert the slowly impending social, economic and environmental disaster.
(And before I am criticized for being a first world resident I live a substantially sustainable life, with an aim to do better than I currently am)
JP

[Sox]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

your right lots of what if's, maybes and perhapses but what is the alternate course.

Wait for 100% concrete evidence (Before we are forced to do certain things, at least).

Follow the same path we are currently on believing there is no issues that need addressing?

I'm not suggesting that at all.

My eyes are open and I cannot and therefore will not continue, Refer to my earlier post.

I believe my eyes are open too, we're obviously seeing different things though.
I've been following this mumbo jumbo for a very long time.

The 'damage' done by my actions addressing the 'perceived' doom is a positive contribution to the globe.

Maybe, maybe not.

The damage done by toeing the line is still socially and economically catastrophic. (ignoring the alleged environmental issues)
But if the environment and life isn't under threat from Global warming, climate change and humans contribution to them I still believe pouring arsenic into our waterways, deforestation of old growth forests, factory farms, monocultural planting, pumping carcinogenic into the atmosphere, hunting elephants and tigers for ivory and abuse of fellow humans for profit is worth fighting against.

If you're happy to fight for it, knock yourself out.

I don't do or condone any of the above either, but I don't try to dictate to the guy next me what he should do.

I know I wont sway your opinion, that’s fine with me, but I'll die knowing I did my bit to avert the slowly impending social, economic and environmental disaster.

I always do my bit too, it's just smart.
The difference is it isn't driven by a fantasy known as AGW.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by Sox

What problem?
You write as if it's a given, a done deal, an open and shut case, yet even the IPCC reports aren't 100% certain of AGW.

There's virtually nothing that can be expressed with a confidence level of 100%. Not even gravity. Absolute proof really only exists in mathematics - everything else has a level of uncertainty due to measurement error. Quantifying that uncertainty is a key part of science because it tells us how much we know, and just as importantly, how much we don't know (allowing us to use the data in a more powerful way). Scientists will always openly report it. Unfortunately we’ll never hear people like Patrick Moore or Andrew Bolt quantify the uncertainty of their claims.

So we now know that scientists are currently 95% certain that humans are the main cause of rising temperatures. This is the result of multiple lines of evidence from many different diciplines such as chemistry, meteorology, physics, paleogeology etc all supporting the same conclusion. To compare for perspective on this:

- scientists have around 95% confidence in the decades of evidence that demonstrate cigarettes are deadly.
- physicists are around 95% confident that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
- Through the use of isotopes, geoscientists are 99% certain that much of the atmospheric carbon has human fingerprints on it.
- Through basic physics, scientists are 99% certain that carbon dioxide traps heat in the greenhouse effect.

Originally Posted by Sox

This is nothing new, short term and long term temperature spikes have been occurring for a gazzillion years.

Yep, it's happened before and it will happen again.

What hasn’t happened before is humans being the dominant drivers of global scale climate change. Humans have never experienced a global climate changing at this pace. The systems of civilisation that we rely on (agriculture, water etc) have been developed during a stable climate and so our way of life as we know it is vulnerable to the changes which we have started to bring upon ourselves. We need to know how to adapt and what to adapt to, and an approach which fatalistically dismisses it as just another natural event that we have no power over will ultimately let us down. Our defence and emergency service agencies are clearly already recognising the importance of obtaining the crucial information to plan and resource ahead for this.

It’s looking more and more unlikely that we’ll avoid even a 2 degree increase in average surface temperatures. While not sounding like much a 2 degree increase will see, among other things, a doubling in total fire ban days in Australia and a commensurate increase in the economic and social costs from the associated heat spikes, fire damage and lost productivity. The ADF has recognised they need to plan for a future where the agricultural and water systems of other countries in our region (especially the tropics) come under greater pressure, driving security problems and shifts in population movements . This is still entirely preventable should we feel it’s important enough to act effectively upon.

[Charliewool]

Great debut by the Volvos eh?
Dicky's team on song too!
Looks like Nissans found some HP?
Oh wait..... Shut em all down guys, the planet's warming again!
It's a new year I spose... V8's are back, footy's back (almost) and we have an all new bloody climate change thread back.

It's a no-win argument guys.. There's the believers, the sceptics and the fence sitters.
And it's like supporting your footy side... You'll NEVER change sides..

[Sox]

Originally Posted by chamb0

There's virtually nothing that can be expressed with a confidence level of 100%.

Of course there is, the earth is round, the sun is bright and the moon is only out at night...

You're missing the point, even considering the IPCC is claiming 95% certainty, there's still far too many uncertainties to be confident.
There is no where near enough data to come even close to knowing whether we are really responsible for GW. The goal posts are constantly being shifted.

What hasn’t happened before is humans being the dominant drivers of global scale climate change.

And it still hasn't happened as far as we know.

Humans have never experienced a global climate changing at this pace.

That we're aware of.

In any case, we have only been around a blink of an eye in the scheme of things.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

It's a no-win argument guys.. There's the believers, the sceptics and the fence sitters.
And it's like supporting your footy side... You'll NEVER change sides..

Not true, I changed sides many years ago, many scientists are too.

[2011G6E]

Humans have indeed experienced dramatic changes before.
After the Toba Event a bit over 70,000 years ago, humans were reduced to approximately less than 10,000 individuals worldwide. This is why we are so genetically similar all over the planet.
Then, amongst other events, quite recently there was a "melt water pulse event" where sea levels rose by about 120 meters over a short period of time. This was only 14,000 years ago and amongst other worldwide changes, is what flooded the low lying coastal planes of what is now Queensland and allowed the Barrier Reef to develop (that's right, it's not "millions of years old", the Barrier Reef is only 14,000 years old).
I could go on.

The basic fact is that our entire civilisation has arisen during one brief 10,000 year unseasonably temperate period of Earths history. The planet is normally much hotter or colder than we have seen over that short time span. The climate will change, one way or the other, hotter or colder, and there's literally nothing we can do to stop it. Our best bet is to adapt if things change too much, as we have done before.

The other annoying fact is that Australia doesn't matter, despite what we're told that we're "the worst" emitters of pollution. We're not...we're way down the list at something like 17th. We could literally shut down every business, close all factories, shut down all power stations, and scrap all cars, and it would not make one bit of difference to the world. China and India to our north comprise nearly three billion people. China is increasing it's CO2 emissions each year by more than Australia's entire annual output. Another interesting fact is that Chinas population grows each year by a larger number than Australias population in total.

The entire global warming industry is just that...an industry. Massive government funds are freely available to any group who claims to be doing something for the "climate change mitigation" industry. Huge amounts of taxpayers dollars get poured into black holes to subsidise things we just don't need, and which just don't work.

SO yes, try and reduce pollution, but don't believe for a second that the planet is somehow this finely tuned instrument set at one particular unchanging point, which will never get hotter or colder, and is specially set just to suit humans. It isn't...we're just another animal, but we have a big brain and can change our environment to suit us, and if any "changes" need to be made to the planet, it is in modifying things to suit for when the climate, inevitably, changes again. That's life.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by cheap

Who would have thought that this would come from a Greenpeace dude.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/gr...#ixzz2uODargFK

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.

In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.

Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.

It's the same thing with autism and mercury poisining, they thought that was settled.

Your perception doesn't actually make sense though and is how a lot of people look at science and as a result fail to understand it. To put it in one sentence it's not one or the other it is both together. The earth has it's own natural climatic cycle there was far more carbon than there is today million years ago that doesn't mean it's not dangerous for us to throw additional man made carbon into the mix, the calculated effects over the next 100 years are grim, a 2 degree median shift in climate is all that's required for another mass extinction. The main issue is back then climate change is gradual, don't quote me on this figure but the last global warming period had 50% more carbon than it does today but we couldn't survive in those conditions ourselves,the difference is it took hundreds of thousands of years and those species had evolved to the conditions. 100 years is not enough time to adapt to environmental change. Rapid shifts in environment are the sole cause of mass extinctions.

You could make a logical graph correlating the decrease of pirates to the increase of global warming over the last 300 years. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's science. Saying there is no scientific evidence that human activity is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read. There's probably more evidence for that than anything else in science, it's not debatable that human activity warms the earth lol it's fact. Do you think evolution and a 4.5 billion old earth are debatable as well lol? If so then there's no point me trying to convince you.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Sox

Of course there is, the earth is round, .

Well you are 100% wrong on that one mate....

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Well you are 100% wrong on that one mate....

Guys there's a time and a place for this and it's here

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum...php?board=10.0

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Guys there's a time and a place for this and it's here

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum...php?board=10.0

I could have bet 10k someone would have replied with that, so predictable, but while it's a fact it's not flat, it's also a fact it's not round......

[Sox]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Well you are 100% wrong on that one mate....

I'm surprised it took this long, but you still missed my other intentional mistake.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Sox

I'm surprised it took this long, but you still missed my other intentional mistake.

I didn't miss it but was hoping some budding astronomer would leap in with guns blazing......

[CoupeKing]

Luckily for some out planet is gradually, albeit miniscule, warming up.

Taking bets on how long Vegans and Vegetarians would last in another Ice Age.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Sox

I'm surprised it took this long, but you still missed my other intentional mistake.

I was going to point it out, but it's not polite to Moon people

[Sox]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I was going to point it out, but it's not polite to Moon people

[StealthAu]

Wow, I didn't realise how greatly educated so many are by the bible bashers and industry capitalists with wealth driven motives to their desired outcome.

[MITCHAY]

I think you will find scientists are not in it to keep a job and are definitely not swayed by politics of all things.

It is most often the case that any sort of result however significant is after investing a lot of time and money.

Why do all this research only to go against your findings to get another research grant as some people say.

What useful purpose does that serve and how fulfilling could that possibly be?

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Unfortunately the CSIRO is turning into that very thing...they have a clear political and social agenda, and have sacked people who don't go along with "the party line", such as expressing public doubt about human[caused global warming....

Prove it.