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:
enjoy the WEATHER Secong
|
|
By:
looks official now - 2014 hottest year on record
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30852588 2014 was the warmest year on record, with global temperatures 0.68C (1.24F) above the long-term average, US government scientists have said. The results mean that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since the turn of the century. |
|
By:
with global temperatures 0.68C (1.24F) above the long-term average
 and about ... in total ... an amazing 0.68c hotter than ... some fifty years ago or 100 year ago long term average lucky we now have measuring devices than can split a degree .. into one tenths of a degree  makes me feel hot just thinking about it  so must we ... stop building those air-con'd shopping malls ... and stop increasing the numbers of citizens on earth who have access to driving heat expelling cars & trucks and then restrict the amount of extra methane released from all the rice paddies to feed hungry billions  and ... short of shutting the world expansion down completely ... how can we do this ?  |
|
By:
deniers will say it was written by a pro climate changer..
im over people who b1tch about leaving future generations with 'crippling debt' but seem to have no problem leaving them with a ruined planet. big bizness mining millionares,govts just dont give a fats rats clacker.. all get fkd imo |
|
By:
global population expansion 1950 to 2010
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=global+population+1950+to+2010&biw=1344&bih=725&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=YyO7VO-tBpD38QXs9YKQCw&ved=0CDsQsAQ what an interesting graph 2½ billion people worldwide up to 7 billion worldwide enormous technological advances and all for 0.68c increase in global warmth the world has done pretty good imo only an alarmist would be "hot under their collar" 0.68c hotter |
|
By:
It is so pathetic to be ridiculing the rise in temp. Only deniers of the highest order like Abbott and the
Liebrals would do so. He parrot's the Murdoch Mafia line.... he must have an iron in the fire to be so blind. |
|
By:
the planet is a tad older than the record of 150 years or whatever it is.....
you telling me over all time the planet has never been hotter ?? lol womble and the planet does not require a constant temperature as do humans what a brain dead comparison, please don't get into the AL G type alarmism , I thought you were better than that ffs |
|
By:
and still the warmists walk around with cane in hand whilst looking for reductions in Oz's piddling in comparison emissions turn that blind eye to china and india going ballistic for free....
|
|
By:
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’. The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much. As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PDWUe24u |
|
By:
they just don't get it secong i have given up on them honestly
they acknowledge a problem yet fanticise a left wing solution is the only answer  and then think that requests for sovereign wealth ... from the likes of Al G and his ilk ... are the panancea ffs money redistribution instead of action ... BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
lol secong interesting read .. who knows anymore with these stats and those stats ffs
and whether its the surface or the atmosphere very little transparency when alarism raises its ugly head but i reckon it's possible that its a 38% chance that the globe is 0.68c hotter than 100 hundred years ago cause we've gone from 2½ billion people inhabiting the earth in the 1950's ... to some 7 billion now makes me hot just thinking about all the extra bodies  |
|
By:
Melbourne, Adelaide are having an average to below average summer so far,can any one comment on the others states?
|
|
By:
where is my body temperature post??? deniers must be running the forum ffs
 it's all about the delicate balance the planet operates under and if Joe is right and people are going to start living to 150 the problems will only get worse medical science might well get us there - the planet could be unlivable though and massively over populated + more than likely with a massive war before than as well, not a nice place to be imo - poor buggers |
|
By:
no knowledge here of that
I'm 38% sure it maybe because of the alarmism contained within it and then more alarmism in the last post, might start calling you AL!? Thebas 100% accurate here they acknowledge a problem yet fanticise a left wing solution is the only answer and then think that requests for sovereign wealth ... from the likes of Al G and his ilk ... are the panacea ffs  money redistribution instead of action ... BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
It will cost more if we do nothing imo
Heard a good analogy yesterday, the situation is a bit like walking a dog up the beach. You walk straight while the dog zig zags it's way along. You are like the climate, slow steady increase while the dog is like the weather, up and down 38% or not, we need to do more |
|
By:
wombleoz
we need to do more ... agree womble ... but the world is ON HOLD for the next 15 years ... thx to the 2 biggest burners (one doing it & the other congratulating them )... yes me either ... re your body temp thing ... nothing demanding a removal in ANY post you have ever made that i can remember |
|
By:
Seriously, people need to get their head out of their ass.
Whether it is hotter or isn't, doesn't mean a fcuking thing. The climate has gone up and down since the dawn of fcuking time. To somehow conclude we must be the problem is borderling fcuking mental. Get your heads out of the newspapers, and start using your fcuking brains to do some thinking. If any of it were true, we would be all under water by now ffs. The best thing the world could do, was put a limit on the breeding capabilities of those with an IQ under 110, because all you stupid fcuks make the world so much harder for the rest of us with your gullible bullsiht. You are the reason people get rorted. |
|
By:
Do they let you out without a note?
|
|
By:
Every Science Agency in the world has agreed to the human influence in Climate Change and global warming
but a couple of drop kicks on a blog Know better than the people that study the field. Please link me to a peer reviewed paper that supports your denial Einstein. |
|
By:
From a neutral standpoint, thebas is leading the Lib haters on a merry dance here, belting them all over the park. 185 not out thus far, a flawless knock, supreme batting on display.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
And why aren't we all under water now like was predicted over 10 years ago?
|
|
By:
You know that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Colgate toothpaste?
|
|
By:
Please link me to a peer reviewed paper by a Climate Scientist from 10 years ago that says that.
|
|
By:
ok i found one for you
Climate Myth... IPCC is alarmist "Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer) What the science says.. Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response. Climate scientist Roy Spencer made this statement. He starts by suggesting something highly questionable isn’t open to being questioned. What he seeks to do is suggest, by inference, that the IPCC has an agenda, and this distorts the reports they produce. In other words, Spencer (and others) suggest that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It is perfectly legitimate to question this assertion, since Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it. Some critics go further, suggesting that the IPCC actively suppresses science that doesn’t support the theory that climate change is being caused by human activities. It is notable this ‘other science’ is rarely produced to support the accusation. Does the IPCC accurately report the findings of science? The IPCC was formed to report on a broad range of scientific enquiries into the climate, and our effects on it, and to summarise the science for laypeople. The science they summarise is published so it is simple to compare the primary science with the IPCC reports, and compare both to what actually took place. There are numerous instances where the IPCC reports, which are summaries of published climate change science, have understated the case - hardly suggesting exaggeration in pursuit of an agenda. Here are some examples: CO2 output from fossil fuels: observed emissions are close to the worst-case projections made by the IPCC, despite them offering a range of potential emission scenarios. (In fact, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years). Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted. Actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. By 2100 sea-level rise was predicted by the IPCC to be in the range of 18-59 cm. It is now believed that figure may be far too low, because estimates of contributions from Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps were excluded from AR4 because the data was not considered reliable. (This omission hardly supports the notion that the IPCC seeks to exaggerate global warming trends). Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating. The body of scientific literature has consistently shown that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more global surface warming than has been observed over the past half century, whereas the IPCC only says that greenhouse gases are responsible for "most" observed warming over this timeframe. In many similar cases, the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious. In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported. A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. They found that "...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media". Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case. Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne ..................................................................... Consider yourself rebutted. I hope you learnt something other than your conspiracy B/S |
|
By:
We have been over this all before and you are not going to change your mind because you refuse to accept
evidence that disputes you conspiracy beliefs. |
|
By:
GPWayne being a ummmm, climate scientist?
|
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDxw1B3RrY
Not that you will watch this, but: It is Patrick Michaels at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in 2010. For those that don't know, Patrick Michaels bio goes something like this: Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. |
|
By:
and yet AFL says nothing and china and india burning all they like...mind boggling
|
|
By:
*about
|
|
By:
Maybe he is still working up the courage to watch the past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and his view on the whole subject.......
|
|
By:
The only thread he has stopped filling with rubbish....
Hmmmmm |
|
By:
Plenty of censoring going on here - not that I necessarily mind slabs of information from other sources not being allowed - I'd much rather read people's own thoughts
Had a bit of a read about your man Patrick J Michaels BJ - interesting he seems to agree the planet is warming at about the same rate as most but is contesting the impact of that. Reasonable I'd suggest, I don't necessarily agree with those that say the planet will be totally destroyed by climate change in the next few years either. In saying that, I'd still go with the majority scientific view that it's much more likely to have negative rather than positive outcomes for the planet No surprise he is funded, at least in part, by the fossil fuel industry |
|
By:
^^I'm not sure this is relevant womble^^
the fossil fuel industry or anyone with an opinion has every right to be heard, rather than being told by scientists working for greedy govt's world wide that their word is gospel as always there are 2 sides to every story AFL refuses to accept any differing opinion and tips the bucket with child like name calling on anyone who even remotely agrees with them. AFL refuses to acknowledge the China & India plus USA burn all you like philosophy until 2030 , india haven't even committed to that, meanwhile is happy for the rape and pillage of Australian sovereign wealth (not peanuts! - billions!) therefore subsidising them to carry on business as usual, the amount of saving achieved would not make a fly sheet of difference at all as those nations burn burn burn I do however have no problem with alternatives and once up and running would be happy to pay for them, not some foreign aid scheme masquerading as environmentalism biggest joke of all was that clown from the guardian saying TA could fix all this problem up by buying billions of carbon credits |
|
By:
well said Secong
|
|
By:
Libertarian ideology is the natural enemy of science
Whether the issue is climate change, healthcare or gun control, libertarians are on a permanent collision course with evidence David Robert Grimes 29 August 2014 The observation that science and politics make uneasy and often treacherous bedfellows is hardly revelatory. In science, all hypotheses must withstand the trial-by-fire of experiment; its methodology is self-correcting and objective, unconcerned with petty prejudices or personal conviction. Politics, by contrast, is deeply entangled with ideology – it is not bound to respect reality as science is, and thinks nothing of substituting convincing evidence for emotive rhetoric. And yet, when science and politics clash, it is all too often science that loses. This is clearly seen in clashes between scientific evidence and economic liberalism, which is defined by the belief that economies should be founded along individualist lines, with minimal governmental regulation. Strong support for the free market and private property rights are identifying features. This latter axiom of faith states that those who have obtained property are free to exploit it as they desire, with no obligation to others. This right is considered absolute, and anything that would interfere with the property without consent – often even taxation – is considered an infringement. With some variation, these principles form the basis of the political philosophy of many organisations, think tanks and even political parties, such as the Libertarian Party and Tea Party in the United States and Australia’s ruling Liberal Party. Yet often, these fiercely individualist and regulation-adverse philosophies clash with science, with hugely detrimental consequences. Climate change illustrates this well, because despite overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic influence, there is a tendency for those with pronounced free-market views to reject the reality of global warming. The reason underpinning this is transparent – if one accepts human-mediated climate change, then supporting mitigating action should follow. But the demon of regulation is a bridge too far for many libertarians. Given that climate change affects everyone whether they consent to it or not, then unregulated use of natural resources infringes the property rights of others and is ideologically equivalent to trespass, so the tenuous property rights house of cards comes crashing down. When faced with this ideological dilemma, free-market advocates often resolve the cognitive dissonance by simply rejecting the reality of climate change, rather than acknowledging that their axiom is fundamentally flawed. I explored ideologically driven reasoning in a previous blog. Rejection of science seriously impedes climate action and denial is endemic in American economic-liberal sets, with the Tea Party being the worst offenders. Last year, when it snowed in Alaska in May, Sarah Palin exclaimed “Global warming my gluteus maximus!”, despite the fact that paradoxical cold snaps are predicted by climate-change models and do not contradict the finding that average global temperature continues to soar. Libertarian politician Ron Paul dismisses climate change as a hoax. Of course the assertion that climate change is a myth is not a solely American phenomenon: Tony Abbot decried climate-change as “absolute crap”. Earlier this year he struck down the already limited carbon tax introduced to mitigate the damage, despite clear evidence that Australian average temperatures continue to rocket skyward. The individualist anti-regulation stance of free-market advocates also has serious consequences for healthcare. As economist Paul Krugman explains in a recent column, disciples of Milton Friedman remain deeply opposed to the very concept of the US Federal Drug Administration, viewing it as needless intrusion by government. In Friedman’s opinion, without the FDA corporations would be kept from hurting people by fear of lawsuits and thus self-regulate. The truth is that without external evaluation, it is difficult to work out the efficacy or side-effects of any drug. Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Pharma illustrates with copious detail that when pharmaceutical companies are obliged to do clinical trials, they are often reported in statistically devious, cherry-picked and wholly dishonest ways to overstate their treatments’ effectiveness. This is unsurprising, given the incentive of a private company is to maximise profit, with scientific integrity coming a distant second. The expectation that private companies can be trusted to innovate health care is also misguided. While antibiotic resistance has been steadily increasing, for example, practically no new antibiotics have been developed in decades. A major reason for this is that despite the massive impact of antibiotics on mortality rates in the past century, they remain a low-profit product, typically used by a patient for only a short time. It is far more profitable to develop long-term medication for chronic conditions, and unsurprisingly this is what drug companies prefer to do. This is the logical outcome of entrusting health research to private companies. It also means they can charge extortionate amounts for life-saving medicines. Free-market defenders may try to pin the blame on costly and needless regulation for driving up prices, but this argument is somewhat superficial, given that they are generally opposed to increased taxation and public spending on medical research, which could circumvent this vicious cycle. It also ignores the fact that drugs companies spend multiples of their research budget on marketing. Another example is gun control. Many American libertarians decry any suggestion that regulations should be tightened, insisting people have the right to arm themselves to make themselves safer. But the statistics show this argument to be nonsensical: those who carry firearms, even for protection, are much more likely to be shot and increase the risk of death for those around them. These trends have been confirmed time and again in serious epidemiological studies, yet despite the very act of carrying risking the safety of others, the ideological position of individual rights trumps the facts for a sizeable contingent of the US population. All of these problems stem from a clash between ideology and evidence. The ruthlessly individualist philosophy fetishised by the modern disciplines of Ayn Rand conveniently ignores the fact that humans do not exist in a vacuum, and that individual actions often have consequences for all. The mantra that profit is a panacea for everything and that personal rights trump collective good is frequently misguided and potentially disastrous. This is not to dismiss the entire political philosophy as bunk, nor to imply all economic liberals exist in a state of abject denial, but we must be wary of allowing any political ideology to blind us to objective reality. Our individual rights must be balanced against the rights of others, which requires a pragmatic interpretation of political philosophies, and some softening of extremist outlooks. While we may hold incredibly strong personal convictions, reality doesn’t care one iota for what we believe. If we persist in choosing ideology over evidence, this endangers us all. |
|
By:
SC you continue to say that i have no response to the US and China in regards to varying responsibilities
around emissions. I posted this article soon after Obama made his historic commitment that puts Abbott's Indirect Inaction to shame. To view the article with all the tables and lists shapingtomorrowsworld.org It has often been claimed that Australian annual CO2 emissions are such a tiny fraction of the world’s total, around 1.5%, that there is no need for us to take action. If we are only responsible for such a small proportion, why should we bother with a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme? To provide context, we must first remember that there are about 200 countries in the world. If they shared emissions equally, no single country would emit more than ½ a percent of the total. So without going any further, our 1.5% is already three times more than would be expected if we had an equal share in the world’s total—clearly we do not. There is an additional context we must consider in the case of CO2 emissions: We must recognize the importance of the sum total of emissions across the last two or three centuries. Why? Because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and hence what matters to a country’s responsibility for climate change are its historical emissions—in the same way that if 5 housemates run up a debt, each person’s responsibility extends to their entire expenditures, not just last week’s excessive bar tab. Unfortunately, people’s cognitive apparatus is not well equipped to deal with quantities that accumulate, and so it is worth expanding on this point. Historical emissions data are provided by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which we link to from this website. These data go back as far as 1750 (for some countries) and they are the best available record of global annual emissions over time. (These particular data extend to 2007 and they are from burning of fossil fuels.) When emissions are summed across the available record, the top 25 all-time emitters are as follows: (*For this analysis, the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic inherited all the emissions of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, respectively. This should be apportioned differently, e.g., based on the share of historical emissions by that part of the former, bigger, country. For simplicity I omitted that step here because it makes little difference for present purposes.) You will note that Australia is 14th—out of 200—in terms of cumulative emissions. This should clarify how misleading it is to talk about “only 1.5% of emissions are ours”. In fact, over history, we are responsible for a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. This can be clarified further by plotting the (logarithm of) historical emissions of all countries against the rank position of each country (in other words, we order the countries from most-emitting on the left to least- emitting on the right). This is shown in the figure below: The figure clarifies that Australia has more historical responsibility for CO2 in the atmosphere than 228 other countries. In other words, we are more responsible for climate change than about 94% of all countries in the world. To provide full context, let’s examine what happens when we convert total historical emissions to per capita emissions. How much of a responsibility does each one of us in Australia have for the carbon emitted during the last 100-200 years? Like it or not, Australians have emitted 3,638,504,000 tons of carbon to date, and as you can see in the table below, each and every one of us carries a share of this historical burden that’s equivalent to roughly 172 tons. Let’s place that burden into further context: (Countries with a population below 2 million were omitted from this analysis because their per capita emissions often fluctuate considerably across time, suggesting that those estimates may not be terribly stable. For example, Luxembourg’s population is less than ½ million but their per capita emissions are very high. At least in part, this turns out to be due to the fact that German and French drivers fill up their cars in Luxembourg because petrol is less heavily taxed there, and the emissions then count towards Luxembourg’s. This is one of the reasons why per- capita statistics from small countries are easily distorted. *The Czech Republic and Russian Federation are again inheriting all historical emissions of their former countries for simplicity.) We are within the top 10 emitters if we account for the size of our relatively small population relative to that of some other countries—for example China, which is in position 61 on this list. In other words, the country that is the favourite bugaboo of those who want to forestall climate action in Australia, is way down the list when it comes to the historical responsibility of each of its citizens. Australians, by contrast are among the top 10. There is no shirking that responsibility. |
|
By:
that's not an answer just some left wing carp about cumulative emissions which mean zip, we were not to know way back when that emitting co2 would be highly problematic (and still don't) so you just cant use that argument
the Q is do you agree with china/india pumping all they like (in effect negating all or any of OZ reductions) ?? YES OR NO? my bet says you wont answer this with a simple yes or no...odds $1.01 AS ALWAYS |
|
By:
the goose that wrote that seems to be in favour of increased emissions elsewhere that 100% completely obliterate any saving we make - even if we became carbon neutral!....how good is that for the planet?
|
|
By:
if you read what you just posted AFL you would understand how much absolute nonsene that respone (not reply) was
lets read it again To provide context, we must first remember that there are about 200 countries in the world. If they shared emissions equally, no single country would emit more than ½ a percent of the total. So without going any further, our 1.5% is already three times more than would be expected if we had an equal share in the world’s total—clearly we do not. ... this is some drivel suggesting that China & India who are resposible for nearly hal of the world's greenhouse emmissions are now somehow quite a resposible gorup .. and that little old australia who emit hardly a "drop in the ocean" compared to the big burners (and lets not forget #2 usa also) .. are now repsosbible for 3 times whatever output we make ffs lol it is that kind of pretend maths that makes your political/alarmist agenda out of touch with the reality of the global greenhouse situation lies, damn lies and .. political agenda statistics |