Climate Change

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by colinl

You can rant and attack me personally as much as you like, that doesn't change the fact that climate change is more widely supported by those that have studied it. It is a personal choice you make to accept that or not. Or you can continue basing your belief on minor factoids that you cling to to help justify your stance.

As for contributions, they will come. This was just one thread I read early on that interested me, and I thought I could make some meaningful comment on. As for Ford specific content, I just don't have that knowledge, I've only had a Ford for a few days and it is the first that I've owned. When I have had a chance to read threads and make some contributions or ask questions I will. I have made comment in other threads, and I have introduced myself.

is that you Bob Brown....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

You can rant and attack me personally as much as you like, that doesn't change the fact that climate change is more widely supported by those that have studied it. It is a personal choice you make to accept that or not. Or you can continue basing your belief on minor factoids that you cling to to help justify your stance.

As for contributions, they will come. This was just one thread I read early on that interested me, and I thought I could make some meaningful comment on. As for Ford specific content, I just don't have that knowledge, I've only had a Ford for a few days and it is the first that I've owned. When I have had a chance to read threads and make some contributions or ask questions I will. I have made comment in other threads, and I have introduced myself.

Welcome to the forum.

Don't take it personally, it is just the internet and being wrong is no reason to not post your opinion, if it were this whole forum would fit on a floppy disk

Just be aware that there have, over the last few years, been quite a number of members who have joined here purely to pick fights, troll or push some agenda and have no interest in motor vehicles or driving other than possibly banning or restricting it.

They don't last very long.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by colinl

, that doesn't change the fact that climate change is more widely supported by those that have studied it. It is a personal choice you make to accept that or not. Or you can continue basing your belief on minor factoids that you cling to to help justify your stance.

So by your reasoning, any new theory is true until proved wrong, rather than false until shown to be true?
I like that you seem to think that ALL scientists think climate change is the shizzle. Just don't mention that the proportion of scientists that specialise in climate change/global warming/climate disaster is very small compared to the pool that is all scientists. And of those scientists ALL of them are paid by providing evidence that climate change is caused by people. None of them gain by providing any hard questions, or contrary evidence. Because then they could lose the funding behind their area of science. Which puts them out of work until they return to uni to study another area of science.

Even though there is only a small portion of scientists working in this area, any good scientist, or any knowledgeable citizen can spot bad science. Which is almost any science involved in any kind of political agenda. Once politics is involved any impartiality goes out the window. The science and evidence behind showing climate change is caused by human activity is sparse at best. So until the theory is shown to be reliable and not relying on opinion I wont be buying into it. Rather than waiting for someone to comprehensively disprove it. It only takes one small piece of good evidence to disprove a theory, but it takes a mountain of evidence and study to show a theory is reliable. (To prove climate change is caused by people requires that we know exactly where and how much carbon interchanges everywhere on earth. Something that is actually a physical impossibility.)
Which I would've thought would be a reasonable stance. Apparently I am now the devil.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

is that you Bob Brown....

Don't you think its funny, that Bob Brown, someone who stands for furthering the cause of environmentalism in Australia. Has done more, single handed, than any other politician to make environmentalists look like absolute idiots?
"the floods are caused by the coal mining industry in Australia" So an industry that is responsible for 0.0001% of the human carbon emissions has caused a flood? So its not just environmental variability and random weather events then?
I wonder if this guy can even read.

[Dr Jekkyl]

Originally Posted by xy500

..... ALL of them are paid by providing evidence that climate change is caused by people. None of them gain by providing any hard questions, or contrary evidence. Because then they could lose the funding behind their area of science. Which puts them out of work until they return to uni to study another area of science.

Climate science has existed long before climate change came into the spotlight.

What you are saying is a cop-out to scientists everywhere by implying that they are driven by one thing only - money. It is hardly a gravy train. You don't exactly see students rushing to universities to become climate scientists do you?

Originally Posted by xy500

... any good scientist, or any knowledgeable citizen can spot bad science. Which is almost any science involved in any kind of political agenda. Once politics is involved any impartiality goes out the window.

Agendas, political or otherwise, are usually weeded out in the peer review process. Depending on the journal, but I assume most based on experience, authors of manuscripts are required to disclose funding sources. Conflict of interest is a major point on which any research is scrutinised.

[aussiblue]

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of any standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...#cite_note-103

Some individual scientists have a dissenting views and I work with one such person. After an evaluation of his and other views I have come to the the opinion that, while there is still an element of uncertainty, the overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence indicates that it is extremely likely that the mainstream scientific view is correct. More importantly, if we wait until that mainstream view is confirmed or otherwise, and if it is correct, we will have reached the point where the impact is catastrophic and irreversible. That is not a risk I wish to take or think the world should take and the cost to prevent it happening is much less than the cost of the extreme consequences if the worse happens.

A rational objective decision maker using a risk assessment approach would decide that the likelihood and consequences of the mainstream scientific view are both so high that immediate action needs to be taken to reduce the likelihood and mitigate the consequences should they happen.

However, I do not believe that carbon taxes or carbon trading is the answer. Similarly, I don't think that simple legislation to prevent or limit carbon emission will solve the problem. I think all such approaches through the simple impacts of the economics of supply and demand will simply push the problem from the developed countries of the world to the undeveloped and developing countries. We will simply make it too expensive to make carbon emissions in Australia and in other developed counties and push our dirty industries off shore to those poorer countries without carbon taxes or without the wealth to have the option of switching to cleaner industry. We will then import more cheap overseas products made with dirty industry.

A much more difficult and complex approach may be required. In addition to limiting industries carbon emission in Australia through effective and incorruptible legislation (near impossible perhaps) perhaps we need an import carbon emission clean certification regime where only those imports that can be certified by an independent third party auditor as being made (along the whole chain of production) through a carbon emission free (or within some minimum emission standards) can be imported. This is also not a perfect solution (doubtless even some independent auditors will be corrupted when the stakes are so high) and hopefully someone with more expertise will develop a better solution.

Unfortunately as car enthusiasts with limited funds we probably aren't the most objective group to debate this question. I love my cars but feel guilty about the likely consequences of using them. I have moved to commuting by train rather than driving to work each I would like to move to cleaner transport but cannot afford an electric car (which in WA is likely powered by a dirty coal fired power station anyway) so feel there is little I can do as an individual to solve the problem. I guess all I can do is encourage awareness of the issue an hope the message gets through to those in power to make the decisions.

[Auslandau]

This is just a discussion thread and no need to enter into any personal mudslinging. All of the previous Climate threads have been closed for this reason so please by all means discuss it but without the insults.

Originally Posted by WMD351

Is there any way to mesure the carbon footprint of this thread?

Size 12.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by flappist

Welcome to the forum.
Just be aware that there have, over the last few years, been quite a number of members who have joined here purely to pick fights, troll or push some agenda and have no interest in motor vehicles or driving other than possibly banning or restricting it.

They don't last very long.

I have only joined as it looked a good resource on Ford's, and I now have one It would be fair to say I don't have that big an interest in Ford's, although I have enjoyed the limited experience with our new BA. My main interest lies with bikes. In saying that, I do have a definite interest in motor vehicle (I've spent 35 years working in the industry). As for driving I do like a good track day and have spent time as the secretary of a motorsports club.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

I have only joined as it looked a good resource on Ford's, and I now have one It would be fair to say I don't have that big an interest in Ford's, although I have enjoyed the limited experience with our new BA. My main interest lies with bikes. In saying that, I do have a definite interest in motor vehicle (I've spent 35 years working in the industry). As for driving I do like a good track day and have spent time as the secretary of a motorsports club.

Well you and mcnews will get on well, I think he rode a motorcycle once or twice
We have a bike section as well if you wish to show off your toys.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by xy500

So by your reasoning, any new theory is true until proved wrong, rather than false until shown to be true?
.

Not at all. A theory is just a theory. I'm willing to be guided on my acceptance of a theory by the weight of peer review and challenge. In this case that consensus, over a diverse international basis is behind the veracity of climate change.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well you and mcnews will get on well, I think he rode a motorcycle once or twice
We have a bike section as well if you wish to show off your toys.

Yes, I believe he has. He also has a top news site.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of any standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...#cite_note-103

Some individual scientists have a dissenting views and I work with one such person. After an evaluation of his and other views I have come to the the opinion that, while there is still an element of uncertainty, the overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence indicates that it is extremely likely that the mainstream scientific view is correct. More importantly, if we wait until that mainstream view is confirmed or otherwise, and if it is correct, we will have reached the point where the impact is catastrophic and irreversible. That is not a risk I wish to take or think the world should take and the cost to prevent it happening is much less than the cost of the extreme consequences if the worse happens.

A rational objective decision maker using a risk assessment approach would decide that the likelihood and consequences of the mainstream scientific view are both so high that immediate action needs to be taken to reduce the likelihood and mitigate the consequences should they happen.

However, I do not believe that carbon taxes or carbon trading is the answer. Similarly, I don't think that simple legislation to prevent or limit carbon emission will solve the problem. I think all such approaches through the simple impacts of the economics of supply and demand will simply push the problem from the developed countries of the world to the undeveloped and developing countries. We will simply make it too expensive to make carbon emissions in Australia and in other developed counties and push our dirty industries off shore to those poorer countries without carbon taxes or without the wealth to have the option of switching to cleaner industry. We will then import more cheap overseas products made with dirty industry.

A much more difficult and complex approach may be required. In addition to limiting industries carbon emission in Australia through effective and incorruptible legislation (near impossible perhaps) perhaps we need an import carbon emission clean certification regime where only those imports that can be certified by an independent third party auditor as being made (along the whole chain of production) through a carbon emission free (or within some minimum emission standards) can be imported. This is also not a perfect solution (doubtless even some independent auditors will be corrupted when the stakes are so high) and hopefully someone with more expertise will develop a better solution.

Unfortunately as car enthusiasts with limited funds we probably aren't the most objective group to debate this question. I love my cars but feel guilty about the likely consequences of using them. I have moved to commuting by train rather than driving to work each I would like to move to cleaner transport but cannot afford an electric car (which in WA is likely powered by a dirty coal fired power station anyway) so feel there is little I can do as an individual to solve the problem. I guess all I can do is encourage awareness of the issue an hope the message gets through to those in power to make the decisions.

HISTORY has proven carbon theories to be correct, all we have to do is look at the diametres of the R SOULS of the great T'REX'S and the like . think of the cabon dioxide the came out of those things . based on this , we should take carbon very seriously.

but really seriously now . i agree with the article in the op's thread , 1st post . it makes more sense .

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

2 opinions are sought and they differ so we pick the one that suits. No its not like its just one scientist ..... there are many on both sides. Who do you believe? If there wasn't such a think as a tax associated with one and many many countries and invidiuals who can actually make an industry out of it .... and a damn good one at that ..... it would be easier to be a little bit less cynical?


The scientist(s) who is/are qualified in that particular area. The problem is often a 'scientist' is claimed to have said something or other, when in fact the word scientist means nothing given the area of discussion. A rocket scientist for example is a knowledgeable person, but hardly qualified to comment on say micro-organisms.

Another point to note, it is widely regarded to be about 90% of the scientific community are in "basic" agreement there is a problem. Of the remaining 10% who are opposed, often they are in the employ of, or funded by, someone with an interest in having the public ignore global warming/climate change as impacted by activities of man. There are, were, only a few petrochemical bodies who made such claims.

Third, no scientific body of national or international standing is denying climate change. None. Of the few that were, they were all in the employ of petrochemical companies and the like, vested interests.

Interesting to note you mention credibility below, but then fail to realise it applies much more heavily to the deniers, than those who say there is a problem. Not because they are less valuable, but because the source of their funding and the source of their inception as a body relies on a finding to muddy the waters.

Those who are claiming there is a problem are not for the most part, and at least were definitely not at the time when this subject was first raised, in the employ of anyone with a vested interest.


Theory is just that .... not a fact but an un proven theory. And no, not all 'experts' believe in it. Experts is about as wonderful a word as scientists. I can be an expert if someone pays me? .... and scientists are paid by who? There is a bit of vested interest in there for some and many never ever need to prove anything with facts but theories and discussion papers that are only that .... discussions. Love the term scientists .... such a random term used to describe anyone who has a paid opinion.

Scientific method. Theory, test, retest, prove or move on to new theory/revised theory. Do you honestly believe all these scientists want to waste their time with a theory they have evidence to suggest is nonsense? Seriously?


UM ..... no ...... these are clear fact. Today is 30 degrees .... same time 20 years ago was 28 degrees. Thats a fact and and how can they be minipulated by the media as a beat up? 'Scientists', to put it simply, use guess work and do not ever never ever need to produce proof. A good theory will get them another grant, especially if it suits the power brokers, something that has gone on for donkeys. Studying trends and making predictions is fine ... has been done successfully for years but to spin it to say we control climate is really just damn silly.
Youre misreading what he said. Scientists do not use daily weather data to support their claim of global warming/climate change. The media use daily weather events that way. Which leads the slightly aware to assume that is the entire scientific communities opinion. Its not.

Control climate? Who claimed its controlled? The argument is we are effecting it, accelerating it. And that is clear to anyone who isnt blind. No, Im not referring to the weather. The fact, yes, fact, that certain naturally occurring gases effect the climate. And the knowledge that certain activities of man do mathematically produce 'x' quantity of those same gases. It doesnt take a scientist to recognise the link, but it does require an open mind.

Oh, and those 'theories' of science that mean not much, are what lead to cures for diseases, development of technologies, space travel, and proving the world isnt flat. They have been extremely successful with that process thus far.

Bit naive to believe the sky is falling because the government told you .... By me giving them money to turn the climate around .... what, do they need to buy a new thermostat? If they can do this, that lot sitting up there are a damn site cleverer than anyone could ever imagine .... boarding on magical. Again you are confusing Environmental Destructions ( Simply: rivers being polluted, wind farms, etc) to man controlling climate.

The government is not the one telling us. They are very late to the game.

Hey, Ford make a Falcon. Is this the first you have heard of this news? If I then say Ford make the Commodore, is that now a representation of all Ford enthusiasts? Of course not. Not much different with the rampant misrepresentations of what is the belief of the scientific community, and individual scientists.

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Exactly, that is what I said earlier. We are responsible for the environmental vandalism that has been carried out over the last 200 odd years; animal extinction, deforestation, salinity problems etc.

Climate change has been occuring since the beginning of time, including atmospheric heating and cooling (think ice ages) long before we started burning fossil fuels. A carbon tax wouldn't have made a difference then and won't make a difference now.

A stock engine thats done 10,000 easy, well maintained kms and it develops piston slap. All engines die, its always happened so theres nothing to concern ourselves about? If I was the owner, I wouldnt be thinking that way anyway.

Arguments that base themselves on ice ages, and drought etc are just ignorant. Do you really think the scientists arent aware of the earths history? Do you really think they are all involved in some massive conspiracy and then simply overlooked the bleedingly obvious? Do you understand the prospects of pulling off such a conspiracy? Talk about tinfoil hats, it would be impossible to even get this far with such a conspiracy. The claim isnt that climate should remain static, but that we as a population of 6 billion people, are emitting gases in such quantities that it is foolish to assume there is nothing to worry about by continuing to do so, at growing rates of emission.

They can tell for a fact that certain naturally occurring gases effect the climate. They can tell for a fact that certain activities of man emit those same gases. They can measure, and calculate the amounts of those gases from those activities. They can then hypothesise and develop test procedures to validate, or dispel the hypothesis. Which is what they have done.

There is no doubt anymore. The only question is how bad will it get.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Turbo6FG

FACT: If climate change is real or not, what Australia does makes no difference.

This is absolutely true.

Not to mention that domestic use of oil and electricity accounts for 8% of its production. Even if you somehow managed to cut your own use by 50%, at great costs to individuals, there would only be an overall drop of 4%, (1/2 of 8%).

One problem I notice is the association of V8's and fast cars as being an issue for climate change, and they just arent. As I said, motorists account for 8% of oil use.

Originally Posted by ltd

Another ecotard commie rant.
Don't like the facts? Change them. "The scientist that don't believe it are very few" - BS.

Talk about unsubstantiated rantings. Its more than 90% in favour of some degree of climate change is a result of man.

In fact, you cant find one non connected scientific body of international standing that denies climate change. Do you know what Im asking? Do you understand the notion of international standing?

Even the last body to deny climate change, has revised its decision. And that body is funded by the petrochemical industry, American Association of Petroleum Geologists. I see Aussieblue has linked to the same statement.

[Keepleft]

From "global warming" to "climate change".

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Arguments that base themselves on ice ages, and drought etc are just ignorant. Do you really think the scientists arent aware of the earths history?

Wow who is the one that is ranting now??? Scientists can only look into the future the same way as anybody else, and that is through sophisticated computer generated modelling, the rest is just theory. Yes you can make very accurate assumptions but you can also get it very wrong as well, that is why they call it a theory, it gives them an out if it all turns to sheet

For the past 5 years the lower lakes in the S.A.'s S.E. have been dying. Too much water being syphoned out of the Murray from the Darling Basin mainly in N.S.W. over many decades meant that through drought, the lakes would die, and they did. Scientist and "climate change experts" said that the days of the Murray ever reaching the ocean again in the foreseeable future (what the hell does that mean. another out???) maybe over and that if by some miracle it did, it would take many decades for the lakes to heal enough for life to return. We listened to the experts and not only did we build a desal plant but we were scared so much that we actually doubled its capacity during the building phase to produce clean drinking water for Adelaide.

Well the water arrived in Sept of 10 (because there was and still is so much of it that they could not hold it back) and immediately the frogs (natures own canary in a mine gauge) went mental for about 6-8 weeks fornicating all up and down the river and lower lakes system, birds have returned in flocks, the pelicans are building nests up higher of the ground than usual in an effort to avoid the rising waters. What does nature know that we don't? Do they have a better computer model than us?

All this happened in about a month or two, not the decades that the "climate change experts predicted" What they did not factor in was that this has been happening on our great continent since time began, You claim they know all this already so if they do, they got this part very wrong then didn’t they! And it begs the question, what else have the got wrong as well???

I am pro desal anyway so this was actually a good thing for us in S.A. We will no longer have to sit back and watch greedy consortiums suck the Darling dry (nothing to do with climate change) before it reaches the Murray knowing that at least our water supply is now secure for generations to come.

I know some people mean well but also others have financial interests in decisions made by the Gov.s’ of today world wide so be careful in putting too much trust in experts and their computer climate change models, because you do not know how much they too would benefit from perpetrating a myth.

Bud Bud

[ltd]

Originally Posted by fmc351

In fact, you cant find one non connected scientific body of international standing that denies climate change. Do you know what Im asking? Do you understand the notion of international standing?

Ummm, how does the University of East Anglia stand with you? Climate Research Unit anyone?
Further, why at Copenhagen and Cancun was the "One World Government" and the redistribution of wealth the main topics of discussion?

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by ltd

why at Copenhagen and Cancun was the "One World Government" and the redistribution of wealth the main topics of discussion?

Because this is what it is really all about imho. Put enough fear in to the camp and the blind will follow en masse. This will end up being a massive tax that our kids and their kids will have to bear and all the while people will be made to feel warm and fuzzy about their contribution to saving the planet.

Bud Bud

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by ltd

Ummm, how does the University of East Anglia stand with you? Climate Research Unit anyone?
Further, why at Copenhagen and Cancun was the "One World Government" and the redistribution of wealth the main topics of discussion?

That's strange? And I thought the Copenhagen and Cancun summits were to discuss global warming/climate change (whatever it's now referred to by the 'scientists'), not wealth redistribution? How does wealth redistribution lower CO2 output I ask you?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

That's strange? And I thought the Copenhagen and Cancun summits were to discuss global warming/climate change (whatever it's now referred to by the 'scientists'), not wealth redistribution? How does wealth redistribution lower CO2 output I ask you?

It doesn't......might be part of the reason that the talks ened up going nowhere....

Why are there summits never held in places that have "been damaged by CO2" such as Antarctica or Iceland or the middile of the Strezlecki desert?

Surely the deligates and scientists should be able to make a more informed decission if they see and experience it all first hand...........

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by Dr Jekkyl

Climate science has existed long before climate change came into the spotlight.

What you are saying is a cop-out to scientists everywhere by implying that they are driven by one thing only - money. It is hardly a gravy train. You don't exactly see students rushing to universities to become climate scientists do you?



Agendas, political or otherwise, are usually weeded out in the peer review process. Depending on the journal, but I assume most based on experience, authors of manuscripts are required to disclose funding sources. Conflict of interest is a major point on which any research is scrutinised.

Not to mention the fact that the data collected and collated by climate scientists has not usually been researched specifically for them, or the purpose of climate change.

Botanists studying certain plants in different regions, for instance, will be doing their research for their own purposes. It will be conducted, results published and peer reviewed. Then another scientist from across the world will use the results in a report on the effects on climate change.

The original study had NO political agenda in regards to climate science, but the results will be used to support the climate research. If the scientifuc research from all the different fields didn't support the hypothesis of the climate scientists, then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But time and time again, it does.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

From "global warming" to "climate change".

Because the term global warming was coined at the beginning of understanding on the topic. Climate change is used because it is more appropriate, as is emcompasses the effects that warming will have. In some places the earth will cool, in others there will be warmer temperatures... it's a complete shift in weather patterns, a shift of the currents in the ocean etc.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Because the term global warming was coined at the beginning of understanding on the topic. Climate change is used because it is more appropriate, as is emcompasses the effects that warming will have. In some places the earth will cool, in others there will be warmer temperatures... it's a complete shift in weather patterns, a shift of the currents in the ocean etc.

I believe more to the point the term global warming was used because scientists were telling us the globe was warming due to CO2 emissions up until the point they started releasing data showing the globe was cooling, thus the name change...........go figure

[Turbo6FG]

I think I've peed my pants several times reading this thread.

But here's another theory:

When the earth burns up, all humans will die & new intelligent life forms will evolve from specs of melted rock in the ground. They will absorb carbon & the planet will slowly cool, sending it into another ice age (as found from carbon dating fossilized dinosaur **** from 10 million years ago).

After this monkeys will appear on the earth (it will be the Artic Monkeys cos it's cold) & they will slowly turn into intelligent humans. This will increase the amount of farting & warm the earth back to livable temperatures.

There will only be about 500 million people at this stage. There will be a lot of natural resources & zimbabwe will become ruled by people who know how to manage it. Global economies will boom & new free lands will be discovered by men in spaceships where there is no speed limit & beer flows up out of the ground from naturally occuring wells.

Nothing to worry about really.

exits scene (humming) to compose a letter to the government for a grant to study theory

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

I believe more to the point the term global warming was used because scientists were telling us the globe was warming due to CO2 emissions up until the point they started releasing data showing the globe was cooling, thus the name change...........go figure

There is no such data.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Dr Jekkyl

Climate science has existed long before climate change came into the spotlight.

What you are saying is a cop-out to scientists everywhere by implying that they are driven by one thing only - money. It is hardly a gravy train. You don't exactly see students rushing to universities to become climate scientists do you?



Agendas, political or otherwise, are usually weeded out in the peer review process. Depending on the journal, but I assume most based on experience, authors of manuscripts are required to disclose funding sources. Conflict of interest is a major point on which any research is scrutinised.

Tree hugging well meaning hippies of the green movement did not stand to make any money from the compulsory fitment of cat converters to new cars to help clean up the smog in the US in the 70's either, but they appeared to be at the fore front of this change. The only organisation that stood to make or in this case save money was the oil companies themselves! Interested read on. I read an article very similar to this back in around 1990, It is a long read but I have found it to be very informative

http://www.coffinman.co.uk/unleaded_petrol.htm

This article does not quite cover the impact that the well meaning but equally misguided greenies had in the US to make this change happen (as in the similar article I read years ago) nonetheless, and at least according to this article, the planet is now worse off because of these decisions made in an effort to "save the planet" back when as well.

Bud Bud

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by ltd

Ummm, how does the University of East Anglia stand with you? Climate Research Unit anyone?
Further, why at Copenhagen and Cancun was the "One World Government" and the redistribution of wealth the main topics of discussion?

Clearly you dont understand. The University of East Anglia are not denying climate change. At best, you've got a university that has stuffed up its responsibilities. Apparently, all they did was dispose of the raw data in the 1980's used to make calculations. That is a no no in the scientific community as it prevents thorough peer review of the conclusions. Note, 1980's.

The second part you failed to comprehend was the varying aspects of the debate. It is undeniable that climate change is happening, it is also undeniable that man is effecting it, the only question is to what extent, and how serious will that be for mankind. You still think its about whether man is involved or is it natural. Welcome to 1980, now if only you can manage to get to 2010.

Can you do basic maths? Do you understand the concepts of numbers? It is not difficult to calculate the amounts of certain gases being emitted by particular activities simply by doing the maths. Its not difficult to test the effects of additional amounts on temperature. The question remains, how much of the observed changes are natural, and how much is mankinds. More over, what would happen if nature was in its own cycle of producing high levels of particular gases, alongside our own high levels.

The summits are governments, not scientific bodies. Nothing at all to do with the science. It has been highlighted several times. the politics of the climate change debate, and the truth of climate change, are two completely different arguments. I dont entertain the notion of defending science, as if it was answerable for the ineptitude and agendas of politicians. Think speed cameras and the alleged commitment to road safety.


But you carry on with the tinfoil hat paranoia that the entire scientific world is somehow involved in the biggest conspiracy ever. Bigger than the insane conspiracy the CIA shot JFK, and bigger than the ridiculous allegations we never set foot on the moon. Bigger, by a massive degree. Common sense should tell you that such a massive conspiracy is impossible.

Two people can keep a secret, but only if one of them is dead. Wonder how hard it would be with thousands of people involved? Thousands of the most intelligent people on the planet, a community with large numbers of people who take the truth, integrity, and their reputations seriously.

The fact the University of East Anglias little secret came out should prove that such a conspiracy is not possible. While individual scientists may, and that would be rare, hide the truth or simply fail to observe proper protocols, the scientific community as a whole will not sit silent about it

[WILDTRAKPX2]

This sums it up very nicely:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=cdxaxJNs15s

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Clearly you dont understand. The University of East Anglia are not denying climate change. At best, you've got a university that has stuffed up its responsibilities. Apparently, all they did was dispose of the raw data in the 1980's used to make calculations. That is a no no in the scientific community as it prevents thorough peer review of the conclusions. Note, 1980's.

The second part you failed to comprehend was the varying aspects of the debate. It is undeniable that climate change is happening, it is also undeniable that man is effecting it, the only question is to what extent, and how serious will that be for mankind. You still think its about whether man is involved or is it natural. Welcome to 1980, now if only you can manage to get to 2010.

Can you do basic maths? Do you understand the concepts of numbers? It is not difficult to calculate the amounts of certain gases being emitted by particular activities simply by doing the maths. Its not difficult to test the effects of additional amounts on temperature. The question remains, how much of the observed changes are natural, and how much is mankinds. More over, what would happen if nature was in its own cycle of producing high levels of particular gases, alongside our own high levels.

The summits are governments, not scientific bodies. Nothing at all to do with the science. It has been highlighted several times. the politics of the climate change debate, and the truth of climate change, are two completely different arguments. I dont entertain the notion of defending science, as if it was answerable for the ineptitude and agendas of politicians. Think speed cameras and the alleged commitment to road safety.


But you carry on with the tinfoil hat paranoia that the entire scientific world is somehow involved in the biggest conspiracy ever. Bigger than the insane conspiracy the CIA shot JFK, and bigger than the ridiculous allegations we never set foot on the moon. Bigger, by a massive degree. Common sense should tell you that such a massive conspiracy is impossible.

Two people can keep a secret, but only if one of them is dead. Wonder how hard it would be with thousands of people involved? Thousands of the most intelligent people on the planet, a community with large numbers of people who take the truth, integrity, and their reputations seriously.

The fact the University of East Anglias little secret came out should prove that such a conspiracy is not possible. While individual scientists may, and that would be rare, hide the truth or simply fail to observe proper protocols, the scientific community as a whole will not sit silent about it

You are arguing with a QANTAS pilot who drives a G6ET and have previously argued with various professionals who are known personally by other members and their occupation, name, educational history, approximate location, driving and vehicle ownership history are all relatively public.

From this the credibility of their contributions is judged.

So how about you come out and tell us all about from where your seemingly limitless expertise on every subject has been gained.

There have been members on here who were just outright liars and joined purely to bully, pick fights and feed their egos by pretending to be clever. They all had one thing in common, they never let anyone know anything about themselves and never actually turned up face to face at AFF functions.

Surely you are not one of them are you?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Wow, youre not only a gossip, youre passive aggressive.



Now try calling the pot black, and suggest I report your posts. You could have saved yourself time by just linking to your previous attempt at those lines.


I take it from your comment about credibility, anyone here who drives a bus, forklift, truck etc. Or those who clean, or paint houses. Or those who work at a supermarket have no credibility?