We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5455 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,455
|
By:
awesome morning up here today ..........a little nip in the air...beautiful AND PERFECTLY NORMAL .....as usual
 |
|
By:
context is an important thing Thebas
you are surely smart enough to know the difference between weather and climate Secong |
|
By:
context is important yes i agree womble ..
shame the UN/IPCC/AlG and all their alarmist buddy's DON'T agree with us as they completely miss the context of their own scientists--- |
|
By:
but back to the IPCC .. and their stated claim that 97% of climate scientists state that global warming is human induced through the burning of coal and emitting co2
would the IPCC fudge this figure well read on http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. John Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have causedsome global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso asexplicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.” |
|
By:
and it wasn't even the trick 97% as a percentage of the total documents reviewed
 --- To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. [b]When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist. --- ffs  |
|
By:
either way it's more than 50% - that's enough for me
|
|
By:
The Dirty Dozen: Australia’s biggest climate foes,
Clive Hamilton Apr 15, 2014 Who are the 12 people doing the most to block action on climate change in Australia? With a new government in place, and Australia’s emissions stubbornly high, we name and shame a fresh Dirty Dozen … Who has been most responsible in recent times for preventing progress in the reduction of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions? The Dirty Dozen?—?which I originally named in 2006 and updated in 2009 ?—? are the people who have most effectively denied the science of climate change, lied about its implications, lobbied to water down laws, or provided cover for weak policy. They are doing most to help turn Australia from a reluctant leader into a proud laggard in responding to the most dire threat to the world’s future. Some are well-known?—?even if their links and tactics are not?—?while others do their dirty work behind the scenes. Here is my Dirty Dozen for 2014, in no particular order … Chris Mitchell Where to start with The Australian’s editor-in-chief? How about here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here or, if you can’t be bothered clicking on all of those, look here or here. Just as his reporters repeatedly misrepresent the science of climate change and blacken the names of eminent scientists, so Mitchell’s opinion editors are always willing to turn over their pages to whatever disinformation is being peddled by the likes of Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Bjorn Lomborg, plus blowhards like Maurice Newman and George Pell. Even the loopy Lord Christopher Monckton gets space. Otherwise-good journalists at The Australian allow themselves to be sucked into Mitchell’s vortex of paranoia about all things green. At the heart of his relentless campaign of anti-science and debunking of measures to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions is a visceral hatred of environmentalism, especially the Australian Greens, whom he wants to ”destroy”. In 2009 the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, the oil and gas lobby group, awarded Mitchell the JN Pierce Award for Media Excellence “for leading the newspaper’s coverage of climate change policy”, which proves that the greenhouse mafia does have a sense of humour. As a sign of his endurance, Mitchell’s is the only name to appear in all three Dirty Dozens. Tony Abbott What to say that everyone does not already know? Environmentalism was not around when his spiritual mentor was wielding his influence, but Bob Santamaria would have feared and hated it. His spirit lives on in the magazine he ran, News Weekly, which now reports on ”how the globalist powers are using environmental scares to achieve the same ends that the older socialists could not quite pull off”. This is Abbott’s real opinion. He has never changed from the ex-seminarian who turned up at the University of Sydney as Santa’s bully boy, but if he ever wavered, his two closest mentors?—?George Pell (“the Greens are sweet camouflaged poison”) and John Howard (the “agnostic” who launched Ian Plimer’s latest piece of anti-science)?—?would soon return him to the straight and narrow. Ian McNamara For too long the presenter of ABC Radio’s Sunday morning program Australia All Over has flown under the radar. When not chatting about the weather in Nuriootpa, Macca’s huge cohort of two million listeners (enough to make other shock jocks weep) is prone to debunking climate science and ridiculing renewable energy. He draws in his salt-of-the-earth listeners with a kind of folksy bush wisdom that has little time for eggheads with PhDs in atmospheric physics. Periodically, listeners complain to the ABC about McNamara’s “pot shots“ at global warming and his penchant for inviting on his right-wing mates. If ABC management wants the definitive response to conservative politicians who complain that its coverage of climate change is biased (because it reports real science), it should point to Australia All Over. Macca beats Amanda Vanstone hands down as the ABC’s “right-wing Phillip Adams”. But shouldn’t McNamara’s place among the Dirty Dozen be taken by Andrew Blot? Compared with McNamara’s numerous and impressionable listeners, Bolt’s 300,000 readers are beyond persuasion because they have already drunk the denier’s Kool-Aid. It’s true that Bolt’s impact has been multiplied by the activities of the keyboard militia of aggro deniers who fire off volleys of abuse to the “warmists” he rails against. However, most warmists now understand that the militia makes a lot of unpleasant noises but only fires blanks. The influence of Bolt on the landscape of climate denial has been exhausted. Gina Rinehart Climate science deniers arrange themselves on a spectrum of respectability. Those who don’t want to be seen to be swivel-eyed lunatics associate with Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation and critics like Roger Pielke Jr. (which is why Pielke hated being named by Foreign Policy as a top “skeptic”). At the other end are those like Gina Rinehart, who think Christopher Monckton is a man to be listened to. So she pays for the loopy Lord to come to Australia and thrusts him onto Notre Dame University to deliver the Lang Hancock Memorial Lecture. Rinehart is every inch her father’s daughter. An implacable red-hater, Lang Hancock wrote ”capitalism means life?—?environmentalism means death”. To counter their lies one should “aim at their jugular vein”, which is presumably what Rinehart likes in Monckton when he put a quote from respected economist Ross Garnaut next to a giant swastika and said “Heil Hitler”. Rinehart is a major funder of the Institute of Public Affairs, the primary conduit of denier talking points in Australia. The IPA’s 70th birthday party last year was a love-in for the nation’s most powerful climate deniers; Murdoch, Pell, Bolt, Rinehart, Abbott, all co-ordinated by IPA executive director (and former Rio Tinto employee) John Roskam. Innes Willox If the Minerals Council decided to replace a hard man (Mitch Hooke) with a persuader (Brendan Pearson), the Australian Industry Group has gone the other way, replacing Heather Ridout with Innes Willox. Willox has made himself into the enforcer of the greenhouse mafia, pushing the hardest line against measures to limit emissions. He is said to draw out the worst in other industry lobbyists, who breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves the room. Willox was a well-liked journo and chief of staff at The Age who worked his way, via a PR job with Singapore Airlines, into being Alexander Downer’s chief of staff, leaving his former colleagues mystified. In last year’s election campaign he mimicked Tony Abbott’s “scrap the tax“ crusade. Ian Plimer Plimer is the chief ideologist of climate denial in Australia. The geologist is too busy to have his ideas on climate science published in refereed journals, but his 2009 book Heaven & Earth sold 40,000 copies, a publishing success for right-wing Catholic boutique publisher Connor Court and a sign of the appetite for anti-science. Described as ”largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere”, the tome sits on a scarily large number of bookshelves in Parliament House. Plimer is closely linked to the IPA and to the thoroughly nasty Heartland Institute and is close to Gina Rinehart, who has put him on the boards of some of her companies, including Roy Hill Holdings. Plimer’s 2011 book?—? How to Get Expelled From School (launched by John Howard and mailed by the IPA to hundreds of schools)?—?listed 101 questions for sceptical students to ask their “warmist” teachers, i.e. those who respect science. The federal Department of Climate Change (abolished by Abbott) prepared a response that thoroughly debunked his claims in words a child can understand. How long before Environment Minister Greg Hunt is instructed to have this demolition of Plimer taken down? Martin Ferguson The former Australian Council of Trade Unions president now says Prime Minister Tony Abbott is not going far enough in cracking down on unions. But if “the working class can kiss my arse”, he retains his old workerist loathing of environmentalism. As minister for resources and energy in the Rudd and Gillard governments he was dirty industry’s best friend in cabinet, fighting tooth and nail to protect the interests of “his” industries and carving out massive subsidies for the big polluters. And after lobbying from coal companies, Ferguson was responsible for intensifying police and ASIO spying on environmental groups. In 2009, blogger Andrew Bolt urged Ferguson to come out of the climate sceptic “closet”. Post-parliament he is out and proud. He chairs an advisory board for APPEA, representing gas and oil companies, in which role he almost qualifies as a member of the greenhouse mafia. But as an anti-climate policy lobbyist perhaps Ferguson’s new role as executive in charge of natural resources at Kerry Stokes’ Seven Group Holdings matters more. Stokes now makes much more money from mining than from TV, principally through ownership of Caterpillar dealerships in Australia and China, supplying mining trucks to Rio Tinto, BHP and pretty much every other mining company in Australia and northern China. Seven Group Holdings’ CEO is Don Voelte, who was head-hunted last year from Woodside Petroleum, from which position he was a member of the previous Dirty Dozen. Greg Hunt “I don’t know about Tony Abbott, but that Mr Hunt seems like a nice man. He says the government believes in climate change and the Direct Action plan will work. That’s good enough for me.” Hunt built his political career arguing the need to tackle climate change. Hell, he even won a prize for a thesis advocating emissions trading. Now he serves as the baby-faced apologist for the Abbott government’s attack on climate policy. Hunt is the man who gave the go-ahead for a huge new coal export facility at Abbot Point in Queensland. And he defends climate deniers. Last year he denied the influence of climate change on increased bushfire intensity by quoting Wikipedia. He got all indignant on BBC radio defending his Prime Minister’s record on climate change. When asked if he agreed with Abbott that climate science is “absolute crap”, he rebuked the interviewer for swearing at him. In the Howard government Philip Ruddock, the small-l Liberal who served as immigration minister, prosecuted a policy of systematic cruelty towards asylum seekers. He turned into a guilt-wracked ghost before our eyes. His own daughter strongly rebuked him. Watch Greg’s face over the next three years. Be more worried if it doesn’t change. Mitch Hooke The Minerals Council of Australia is by far the largest fossil fuel lobby group, with $35 million to spend each year on keeping the government friendly or scared. Although Hooke has recently stepped down as chief executive of the MCA, in his 12 years at the helm he leaves such a trail of devastation through climate policy in Australia that his influence will live on. For the mining companies that paid his salary he was worth every cent. Hooke likes to tell people he is a scientist (although if you cut through the bombast he comes across as a bit thick). It’s not his scientific training, however, that turned him into the big polluters’ most effective lobbyist, but his bullying style (though like most bullies, he goes to water when shirt-fronted). He was the perfect front man when the mining industry wanted to spend big destroying Labor’s mining tax and win massive concessions from the carbon price scheme. He was at home telling denialist shock jocks that scientific reports on climate change were “wholemeal sandal-wearing religious stuff”. The thing about Hooke is that, as a paid lobbyist, he doesn’t really believe any of it. Before he got the gig at the Minerals Council he used his talents to promote the interests of big food and agribusiness. Expect him to pop up as some kind of environmentalist next. Danny Price When Coalition ministers are asked to name an economist who believes their Direct Action plan to be better than a carbon price, the only one they can come up with is “Danny Price”. A “baseline-and-credit guy” who wants to replicate Bob Carr’s Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the director of consulting firm Frontier Economics doesn’t like emissions trading. So it’s no surprise Hunt has appointed him to chair the committee tasked with making Direct Action work. Price seems to be serious about effective policy (for example, he would like to see the Renewable Energy Target expanded), but to date his role has been to provide cover for the Coalition. If he doesn’t get his way in a committee stacked with greenhouse mafia types, what would he do? Price also provides cover for Nick Xenophon. In 2009, keen to differentiate himself from Labor and the Greens, Xenophon teamed up with the Coalition to commission Price to come up with an alternative to the emissions trading scheme. For Xenophon, populism always trumps good policy, and now he is on a belligerent anti-wind farm crusade. Price too criticises wind farms; the pair get plaudits from shadowy anti-wind front groups. Maurice Newman The former stockbroker and ABC chair now oversees the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. He has recently (courtesy of Chris Mitchell) described the mass of evidence for human-induced climate change as “scientific delusion”. The scientific establishment is engaged in “mass psychology” because it is “intent on exploiting the masses and extracting more money”. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “resorts to dishonesty and deceit” and promotes “the religion behind the climate crusade”. Phew! Newman insists there are “credible” scientists who say the earth is cooling rather than warming. He declares that unless someone soon puts a stop to this “climate change madness”, most of us will “descend to serfdom”. He is one the few to have the ear of the PM’s gatekeeper, Peta Credlin. Get ready for Ian Plimer, on Newman’s advice, to be appointed Australia’s next chief scientist. Sam Walsh As the president of Scouts Australia (Western Australian branch) we might expect Sam Walsh to apply its motto “Be Prepared” to a world entering a new climate. But the CEO of mining giant Rio Tinto blithely pushes ahead with huge new coal mines. Walsh has been working hard at stopping Australia cutting its emissions for a long time. As the chief of Rio’s iron ore division he was there taking notes in 2004 at the secret meeting of big polluters called by John Howard to work out ways of screwing the renewables industry (page 140). The PM told the select group he was looking for their advice on how to squash renewables while still making out the government was taking climate change seriously. Rio Tinto has a long and unrepentant history of environmental destruction, human rights violations, exploitation of workers and tax dodging (as I have written elsewhere). In 2008, Norway’s government decided to divest itself of around $1 billion of shares in Rio citing concern over severe environmental damages from its Grasberg mine in West Papua. The Norwegian finance minister accused the company of “grossly unethical conduct”. While projecting a public image of a caring mining company Rio pays industry lobby groups to do the dirty work. Sam Walsh does not say much in public about global warming. He lets the company’s head of energy, Harry Kenyon-Slaney, put the company view — it’s time to forget “idealist discussions” about climate change, he said recently, because coal is here to stay. So there they are — a Dirty Dozen for 2014. I’ve never been a fan of the great man view of history, but neither is it credible to focus solely on depersonalised institutions while ignoring the influence of powerful individuals. Some of those mentioned in my Dirty Dozen are ciphers who represent their employers’ stance (such as Willox, Hooke and Walsh). Others have a defining influence on their institution’s positions — Tony Abbott on the federal Liberal Party, Chris Mitchell on The Australian, and Gina Rinehart who cannot be separated from her companies. These people have a special culpability. In 50 years’ time, as the world swelters, crops fail, bushfires rage and extreme weather causes devastation around the globe, the Dirty Dozen are the people who should be remembered for their role in allowing it to happen. Perhaps primary schools could bury this list in time capsules to be excavated in 2100, just so future generations will not forget what they did. *Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra and author of Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change |
|
By:
DENIALISM FROM FORBES Courtesy of Heartland hack James Taylor
It’s fascinating when you catch the start of a new bogus claim enter the denialsphere, bounce from site to site, and echo about without any evidence of critical analysis or intelligence on the part of the denialists. A good example of this was an article by Heartland Institute’s contributor to Forbes, James Taylor, falsely claiming only a minority of scientists endorse the IPCC position on the causes of global warming. This new nonsense meme gets repeated by crank extraordinaire Steve Milloy, bounces the next day to Morano’s denialist aggregation site, and before long I’m sure we’ll be seeing it on Watt’s site, Fox news, and in a couple more weeks, in an argument with our conservative uncles. The claim is, of course, a deception (or possibly total incompetence) on the part of Heartland’s “senior fellow for environment policy” (I wonder if there is significance to the use of “environment” as opposed to “environmental”). Linking this paper in the journal Organization studies, Taylor makes a false claim that a mere 36% of scientists, when surveyed, hold the consensus view. Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands. In the study authors’ words: To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory. This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking and and is one of the most common deceptive practices of denialists like Taylor. By suggesting a survey of industry geoscientists can be generalized to scientists as whole, Taylor has demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty inherent in denialist argumentation. You might as well make claims about the consensus that tobacco causes lung cancer by surveying scientists in the Altria corporation headquarters. The paper is actually quite interesting, and I’m glad I read it, as it is consistent with our thesis that ideological conflicts result in refusal to accept science that contradicts one’s overvalued ideas or personal interests. The authors surveyed a professional association of geoscientists in Alberta Canada (APEGGA), most of whom are working for the petroleum industry, and then performed a detailed analysis of their free-text responses on why they accept or reject climate science. What they found was there are 5 general “frames” used by respondents that their answers conformed to. The most common response was that global warming is real, and we need to act with regulation to address the problem (at 36%, the number quoted by Taylor to suggest there is no consensus), another 5% expressed doubt at the cause but agreed green house gases needed to be regulated. The second most common responses were “it’s nature” or “it’s a eco-regulatory conspiracy” and these responses showed a great deal of hostility in language towards environmentalism, proponents of global warming, liberalism etc. These came in at about 34% of responses and were more common from older white males in the higher tiers of the oil industry corporate structure. The most common remaining frame was a “fatalist” frame (17%) which could take or leave the science because hey, we’re screwed no matter what we do. The authors weren’t attempting to validate the consensus with this study, but rather were trying to understand how scientists working in industry justify their position on global warming, as they often reject the consensus view of climate science. When a true cross-section of climate scientists is sampled, agreement with consensus is found among about 90% of scientists and 97% of those publishing in the field. A more appropriate summary of what these authors showed was that oil industry geoscientists and engineers most frequently express a view consistent with the consensus IPCC view and a need for regulation of green house gases. A similar but slightly smaller number express hostility to the consensus view and about half as many as that think we’re screwed no matter what we do. It all would have been short-circuited if Forbes had exercised any kind of appropriate editorial control over this crank James Taylor. Or, if the echo chamber had read some of the comments on the initial post before rebroadcasting a false claim far and wide, but then, that would require intellectual honesty and a desire to promote factual information. Does Forbes have any interest that one of their bloggers is misrepresenting the literature in this way? Is this acceptable practice among their contributors? Is this the kind of publication they wish to be? Finally, I see the authors of the paper (who I alerted to the Forbes article’s presence – they clearly were not contacted by Taylor for comment) have response. From their comment: First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again. In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions. [b]Incompetence or deception by Taylor? You tell me. Either way, this is the kind of shoddy, non-academic discourse we get from bogus ideological think tanks like Heartland. They should be embarrassed.[b] Article Cited: Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change Organization Studies November 2012 33: 1477-1506, doi:10.1177/017084061246331 |
|
By:
James Taylor....Heartland Institute.......
|
|
By:
the IPCC
when a stat is only a stat ... if they have deceived you |
|
By:
really AFL? Clive Hamilton??
the same Clive Hamilton that stated 'There I also explain why I do not presume to engage in arguments about climate science because I do not have the expertise to do so without making a fool of myself'  and this pearler Very few people, even among environmentalists, have truly faced up to what the science is telling us. This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes what a gem he is.....suspension of democratic process (you do what you are told!! typical red behaviour)from a FAILED GREEN CANDIDATE more alarmisn A sudden awakening in a decade by governments and the people to the dangers of climate change will be too late; the global climate system will have shifted course and the future will have been taken out of our hands. In such times we have moral obligations other than obedience to the law. more gobbledegook So I think where we’re going is to begin to see a Gaian earth in its ecological, cybernetic way, infused with some notion of mind or soul or chi, which will transform our attitudes to it away from an instrumentalist one, towards an attitude of greater reverence. I mean, the truth is, unless we do that, I mean we seriously are in trouble, because we know that Gaia is revolting against the impact of human beings on it. wow that's some some serious Persians you on there Clive like all the watermelons he wants us to lower out living standards and live in a cave with no democratic rights.....nice one Clive |
|
By:
and this from your love child crikey.com.au
talking about the great Clive Hamilton in 2009 The Greens have chosen a pro-net censorship, hysterical purveyor of moral panics and all round crypto-communist to stand in the Liberal heartland seat of Higgins. A seat where the ALP isn’t running, where the Greens actually stood a chance to take the seat with a really good candidate – but where, instead of showing some political smarts and pre-selecting a blue-Green, have opted to alienate half the electorate straight way and chosen a red-Green in the form of Clive Hamilton . Absolutely baffling. |
|
By:
only 2 months to repeal the rort
|
|
By:
definately the Biggest Rort Ever secong ... algae and his c02 cronies have been well exposed though
amazing how the weather (oops climate) is lovely at the moment the alarmist press & news is holidaying apparently (maybe for the onset of winter) the biggest issues with the weather always seem to be ... around summer ... you know .. when the SUN is out  |
|
By:
surely has to be one of the lead issues at the G20 when it meets here in November - one of the biggest economic issues we're facing
|
|
By:
and we might finally hear some sense instead of just the money manipulation on a rampant global scale as devised by Algae (Al G) and his rorting buddies
--- Scientists say cities can exacerbate extreme heat by four to seven degrees Celsius, especially overnight, triggering unnecessary deaths. In some small urban spaces or microclimates, temperatures can jump more dramatically, says Professor Nigel Tapper, an urban climate specialist from Monash University. "If we're in an urban canyon where the forecast air temperature is 35 degrees and the sun is beating down onto hard, dark surfaces, then surface temperatures might be up to 70 degrees," he said. "That means the temperature you feel walking around is more like 45 or 50 degrees." Black roads and roofs dominate many new housing developments and can be 30 degrees hotter on the surface than forecast air temperatures. Professor Liz Hanna says this does not make sense in Australia's climate. However, almost all of these impacts, including deaths, are preventable with deliberate planning to cool cities. The right kind of design could enable cities to offset up to four degrees Celsius - which is one of the upper projections for global warming. Cr Wood says Melbourne City Council plans to cool the city centre by four degrees in 20 years by using a variety of strategies including more trees and vegetation. He says trees are natural air conditioners and just one can make a radical difference to temperature. But for cities like Melbourne to stay green it means a big shift in the use of water. During the last prolonged drought in south-eastern Australia, parks and gardens were allowed to dry out. This time there are plans to capture and recycle stormwater. "Five hundred billion litres of water falls on this city every year and we capture just 1 per cent," Cr Wood said. ------ smarter thinking will be the answer ... not just showing your cl@cker like that Gillard creature did and offering billions and billions of Australia's hard earned sovereign wealth to global institutions like the UN & the Bankers |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
[ This image is no longer available. ]
---- ... we could ask gillard about her solution ... but i understand she is avoiding public scrutiny at present easy to spend money i guess jules ... spesh when it aint your own |
|
By:
What will Abbott say to the leader of the greatest country in world..yeah /nah climate change is bullsh!t or if you need cash just slug punters an extra 3c excise on the fuel..everyone's a winner
 |
|
By:
take your rubbish politics to the silly thread ... ffs Ted
i look in on it every time i see secong has posted .. otherwise its the left bleating to the left ... right this is for the climate discussion at last they have properly stated that cities are hotter at the surface .. and it is ALL man made and they can cool cities ... up to 4 deg C ... with sensible city planning ... who would have thought the atmosphere hasn't changed temperature in about 13 years now but the surface is hotter with all the malls and cars and air-con vents .... AND ... have a guess where they put thermometers well the ones that aren't located at the airports LOLOLOL |
|
By:
At least Abbott will have the pm of Canadia to talk too when the others are discussing CC..
|
|
By:
fair enough Tedbut imagine what the world could do ... re the environment ... if the bankers and the UN had their sticky hands out of the money pie |
|
By:
lol great photos , love the ss inconvenient truth with the polar bears!!
ted , hard to argue with reasoned comment from thebas and it makes sense. read the link at post #1 where they put thermometers...fudges the numbers BIGGEST RORT EVER  |
|
By:
and ted 3cpl excise (after 4yrs lol chase coles and woollies and you find more than that in rorts)...would be sfa in comparison to what fuel would be if Julia was serious about the con
|
|
By:
cities are hotter Thebas, no issue there
man is impacting the planet, less pollution is a good thing - easiest way to reduce pollution is to put a price on it - price triggers work sad to hear Clive will back the repeal of the carbon tax, was always going to happen but still not good. how much will it cost us to re-install a price on carbon when the world goes that way in a few years??? |
|
By:
easiest way to reduce pollution is to put a price on it - price triggers work
crikey womble .. you nearly snuck that old chestnut past me europe have been going at this ETS "lets put a price on it" trick for OVER A DECADE but the truth sadly presents a quite different picture than that which the algae's (Al G) of this world would have us believe (and that gillard was prepared to cough up $10 billion each year for the UN and global bankers ffs) --- There is evidence that the ETS has simply put a price on business as usual. Europe's rate of decarbonization is essentially identical before and after the ETS was introduced. If the program has effects, decarbonization has not been detectable beyond historical business-as-usual rates. as Secong so eloquently puts it ... BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
|
|
By:
the scheme in Europe needs some work but would be much more effective if the economies weren't as bad as they are - it'll come good
|
|
By:
the scheme in Europe needs some work
the scheme is europe needs to be abandoned & changed to something realistic and not just money grubbing for the 'big players' |
|
By:
unlikely - they know a price trigger is the way to go
Paris 2015 will be fascinating - with China and the US starting to get serious will we stand in the way of global progress on this issue??? |
|
By:
wombleoz
they know a price trigger is the way to go ffs ... it doesn't work lol and considering it has FAILED globally for over a decade to halt coal fired use ... then only the money grubbers are served by the ... BIGGEST RORT EVER (probably why algae turned up at Kyoto and told the Europeans to reduce their planned target of emmissions from 12½% back to 5% burn more coal with a 5% reduction than a 12½% reduction ... and increase the BOOTY for the ETS trading companies hang on .. just BEFORE Kyoto Al G opened up a trading exchange with the Gold Freaks who would have thought ) |
|
By:
are you sure???
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-biggest-in-24-years-20140613-zs7be.html |
|
By:
ao why are the doomsdayers still moaning if its going down
|
|
By:
because you're mob is taking away one of the reasons they are falling
|
|
By:
surely with all the money they could have built alternatives and given the people a chance (make it cheaper!) to change to it , not ram down their throats cut consumption when already at bare bones
|
|
By:
womble you do realise we are talking about a pittance on a world scale with these reductions, ie makes not one iota of difference
|
|
By:
Secong
and this was buried in your own article womble Slumping electricity demand, in part because of closures of aluminium smelters and other manufacturing, has contributed to the emissions drop. ---- electricity demand will fluctuate with the rquirements of 24 hour a day business activity ... mom and pop not turning on a heater in winter between 7pm and 11pm when they go to bed is small fish in the big picture europe has had the biggest carbon price test pattern so far .... 14 years i think result = failure  |
|
By:
that's the saddest thing Secong - it pays for things like this which re doing just that, opening up alternatives
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ricky-muirs-vote-to-keep-energy-agency-alive-20140619-3ah35.html Ricky to the rescue  yes we need global action but everyone has to do their bit imo i know people at work that changed how they used power because the price went up - a good thing i think speaking of work, gotta get going - have a great day guys |
|
By:
morning Thebas...womble doesn't care much for accuracy lol
but we do because we are highlighting the biggest fraud ever known to man BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
good on ricky and his 0.4% of the vote NOT.....that's a rort in itself
|