"Fifteen of Australia's top climate experts explain how we know humans are altering the atmosphere and why we must act now.

Around the world, thousands of scientists have devoted their professional lives to studying the climate. Not centrally organised, they sometimes build temporary affiliations but they remain scientists throughout – that is, they are independent, constantly challenge each other and are committed to searching for truth through objective, independently verifiable evidence.

Overwhelmingly, this evidence has led to four conclusions. The first is that the world is warming. The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950. The warming varies among decades because of natural fluctuations but the overall trend has been inexorably upward.

Warming is evident in other indicators, such as rising sea levels and reduced sea-ice and snow cover. Of these, the most important measure is the extra heat in the oceans, which is steadily rising. Claims that climate change has reversed since 1998 are misrepresentations of the full data.

The second conclusion is that the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important.

This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.

Other contributors include changes in the sun’s output associated with sunspots and solar flares, and volcanic dust. However, if these were solely responsible for temperature changes since 1850, the world should have cooled over the past half-century rather than warming at an increasing rate.

The third conclusion is that warming will increase in future, if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases maintain their present paths. "Business as usual" scenarios for future emissions lead to likely global temperature increases of up to six degrees above present temperatures by 2100.

These are dramatic temperature increases, which would be accompanied by major disruptions to food supplies, river flows and water availability, significant and ongoing rises in sea level (of up to about a metre by 2100 and potentially metres over longer times), disease threats, disruptions to ecosystems including the extinction of many species, and social and geopolitical destabilisation.

The fourth conclusion is that climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries, because of the massive heat stores in the world’s oceans. Even if CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised today at their present levels, a further warming of at least 0.6 degrees would inevitably follow (on top of the 0.8 degrees observed since 1850) and sea-level rise would continue for centuries to millenniums.

These four conclusions have been known and agreed among thousands of independent climate scientists for more than a decade. However, new findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago.

The heightened concern among climate scientists arises from a growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing "climate feedbacks", which contribute to climate change and are accelerated as it occurs, thus causing climate change to feed on itself. When these feedbacks are sufficiently strong they become "climate tipping points" which can flip the climate into a new state with essentially no way to recover.

Several feedbacks are of immediate concern. Interactions between climate and the earth’s carbon cycle (the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans) will act to accelerate climate change if sinks do not keep pace with emissions (as is already happening) and/or if previously stable carbon stores are released to the atmosphere under climate change, for example by the thawing of carbon-rich frozen soils.

Accelerated polar warming will cause loss of ice and a consequent darkening of the surface, leading to more heat absorption and faster warming. Atmospheric concentrations of aerosols (tiny particulates) are likely to decrease in future as nations improve air quality, leading to accelerated warming as the cooling effect of aerosols is reduced.

Oceans are becoming more acidic as a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. When CO2 concentrations exceed levels to be reached by 2035 under business-as-usual emissions scenarios, there will be severe disruptions to marine ecosystems (including the Great Barrier Reef and ocean food chains), which will endanger fisheries and weaken the uptake of CO2 by oceans.

Temperature rises of two to three degrees (or higher) carry a high risk of irreversible decay of the Greenland ice sheet from surface warming alone, leading to a sea level rise of up to about seven metres. Destabilisation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a further few metres of sea-level rise."

Continued from above-

A climate conference in Copenhagen in March concluded that societies were highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above two degrees will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

All of these concerns are firmly grounded in science. They have led the great majority of climate scientists to conclude (paraphrasing the summary of the Copenhagen conference) that rapid, sustained and effective emissions reductions are required to avoid ‘‘dangerous climate change’’, regardless of how it is defined.

Higher future emissions increase the risk of crossing climate tipping points and they increase the likelihood that the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation will be higher.

This article was written by Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO; David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University; Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre; Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW; Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland; Roger Jones, Victoria University; David Karoly, University of Melbourne; and Tony McMichael and Will Steffen, Australian National University."

This is what Australia's climate change experts say, anyone think they know more than the EXPERTS?
.

Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ.

1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years.
2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.
3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path.
4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.

Grendel wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 10:39am:

Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ. 1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years. 2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming. 3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path. 4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.[/quote I think I'll stick to the main stream experts rather than the questionable ones who dispute the conclusions of the majority. [quote]All of these concerns are firmly grounded in science. They have led the great majority of climate scientists to conclude (paraphrasing the summary of the Copenhagen conference) that rapid, sustained and effective emissions reductions are required to avoid ‘‘dangerous climate change’’, regardless of how it is defined.

They are experts in their field as qualified or more than the persons you just quoted.

And they come from all over the world and from many different organisations.

Well Skippy, you don't really have to fret too much about denialist "experts", they have a scientific name for them also, they are called "CRANKS".

Every group of ratbag conspirinut/denialist/crackpots, always attracys it's share of disenchanted "experts" to trumpet their paranoid delusions.

We see the pattern repeated, with every wacko group, from ufo experts, to moon landing hoax, experts, to 9/11 experts, and that is why we try to not let these denialists falsely ascribe any validation to what is totally refuted bunkum, from their so called experts.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a personality type that lkes to think of itself as a group of mavericks, who alone can see the truth, that the rest of the world is too stupid to realise.
Of course this is delusional, hence we see a fair proportion who share multiple delusions, as it is in their nature to be attracted to that kind of thing.

So we cannot ever hope to convince them logically, because they do not use logic, as evidenced by the way they repeat the refuted lies over, and over, we just have to keep putting the real information out there, so that they do not suck others into their paranoid world of secret societies and cabals of scientists performing global cons.

Talk about your wackos, I bet they would even vote for extremist, ultra nationalist politicians, lol.

Quote:

They are experts in their field as qualified or more than the persons you just quoted

REALLY ::) like who? names and numbers.



Quote:

And they come from all over the world and from many different organisations.

Yes and there in lies the problem, they do come from many different organisations, most of which know sweet fa about climate change, but have ulterior motives for pushing their lies.

Why don't you google some as I've already posted them all over these topics.

It's not like I just cut and pasted an article for the SMH by some unknowns from the CSIRO.

Are you inferring they don't exist?  :D

You live in denial.

See Sorens's article for starters.
Or is that what made you start this topic.   ;D

Quote:

See Sorens's article for starters. Or is that what made you start this topic.

Quote:

Fifteen of Australia's top climate experts explain how we know humans are altering the atmosphere and why we must act now.

No, I stared this thread because 15 of Australia's top experts in the field decided it was necessary to try and explain what is occurring in plain English and to show Australians just how REAL this is.
It seems one or two people have a problem understanding plain English tho.

It shouldn't be a surprise a thread on climate change is on the environment board, at least this one has the names of the experts and shows that they are not just people with a science degree but people with expertise in this area,, unlike most of the confusionalist "experts"

Oh and the others (more than 15 BTW) with a different opinion already mentioned as in Soren's article with just as good if not better credentials should be ignored...  why?

DWMT

A chemical reaction
Thursday, 30th July 2009

When the worm finally turns, it really gets itself into a flat-out spin. More and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the rubbish being put out as the ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming. Marc Morano reports how members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have risen in revolt against the group’s editor-in-chief -- with demands for his removal -- after an editorial appeared claiming ‘the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.’

The editorial claimed the ‘consensus’ view was growing ‘increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.’ The editor now admits he is ‘startled’ by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

Poor bewildered soul. He really thought he had written what was undeniably the case. Here are some examples of that ‘negative reaction’ he produced:

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: ‘Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’

William E. Keller wrote: ‘However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.’

Morano points out that this revolt is but the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming:

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly ‘published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.’ An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – sp@m – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.’ 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009

And so on, and on.

Grendel wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 3:01pm:

Oh and the others (more than 15 BTW) with a different opinion already mentioned as in Soren's article with just as good if not better credentials should be ignored...  why? DWMT

I'm glad you brought that up and thank you for re posting it.

There are only two "scientists named in the article, as is so often the case with confusionalist propaganda they refer to "many scientists" but don't name them.


Quote:

after a group of 54 prominent physicists

The 54 faceless men.

Unlike those faceless men the climate change experts in my article name themselves.

I suggest you read the article again and maybe do some extra research too eh...  
Or maybe it's just you cant count?

You know as well as I do that many credible accredited published etc climate experts with degrees etc, disagree with your preferred opinion.

Stop lying to yourself and everyone else..

DWMT.  :D

I see they lead with the "Emeritus" Professor again, perhaps the ennui of retirement drives them into the arms of contrarians, but it certainly does not endear them to working scientists, whose real work is under continual attack from this crackpot community.

Cranks, and crackpots, extremists and headcases, these are the vangaurd of the denialist army, and if they ever do have any worthwhile contribution to make, of ANY scientific value, then I am certain the real scientists will gladly endorse their findings, after they have been reviewed by more than nutcase bloggers.

Quote:

You know as well as I do that many credible accredited published etc climate experts with degrees etc, disagree with your preferred opinion.

No I dont, what I know is that the great majority of climate experts keep telling a different story to the one you believe.

OOps, sorry, I forgot.

Real scientists are actually all part of a big global conspiracy, to trick mankind into giving up his lifestyle, as part of an ultra left wing plan to take us back to the stone age, it is such a sensible and reasonable argument I don't know how it slipped my mind.

Bunch of freakin LOONS.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 4:13pm:

OOps, sorry, I forgot. Real scientists are actually all part of a big global conspiracy, to trick mankind into giving up his lifestyle, as part of an ultra left wing plan to take us back to the stone age, it is such a sensible and reasonable argument I don't know how it slipped my mind. Bunch of freakin LOONS.

The sad thing is some people really believe that. :o

You don't?
Well stop stomping.
Take your hand off your ears.
Open your eyes.
Stop shouting out lalala...

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims  

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html

Quote:

THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions. "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian. It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.

and...


Quote:

The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.” The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said. “I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.

BTW I think it's pretty clear who the loons are... :D

Quote:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Another 700 faceless men,mmm.
Why dont they ever name these people?

As a matter of fact the confusionalist lobby would have much better cred if they did indeed name "climate change experts" who disagreed with the main stream overwhelming majority.But they don't , most articles just say" bla bla many scientists say climate change is not being worsened by human behaviour".

LOL...

SO THEY ARE FACELESS BECAUSE YOU CANT BE BOTHERED LOOKING THEM UP.   :D

oh and something else for you to deny whilst you are at it...


Quote:

India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

More useless figures, give me names,oh thats right ,you cant.
Anybody can troll through the net collecting lies and bulls hit, you do it all the time, but how bout some facts mmmmmmmmmmm, go on ,for once in your life find something that isn't written by an inbred retard who has very questionable qualifications.

More useless twaddle eh Skippeeee!

The only useless inbred retard around here is....  :D

You've got names.
i suggest you call them up and ask for other names but hey what's the use  you will either disbelieve them or not speak the language.  :D

The IPCC is tied in with the World Order. They've just thrown climate change in as a sideline to their spiel. Yes we do need to take action, but all they're doing is continuing to make western countries pay for the ravages caused by the oil and mining giants in the poorer countries. They are not holding the companies responsible for the devastation they have caused, nor are they taking any real "green" action to repair the planet. These blokes like to sound serious about changing the temperature - but what they're doing is just pretending they know what they're talking about. They know they're lying. This from their PERSPECTIVE.



Quote:

Non-climatic stresses can include poverty, unequal access to resources, food security, environmental degradation and risks from natural hazards. Climate change itself can, in some places,produce its own set of multiple stresses; total vulnerability to climate change, per se, is greater than the sum of vulnerabilities to specific impacts in these cases . Efforts to cope with the impacts of climate change and attempts to promote sustainable development share common goals and determinants including access to resources (including information and technology), equity in the distribution of resources, stocks of human and social capital, access to risk-sharing mechanisms and abilities of decision-support mechanisms to cope with uncertainty.(very high confidence). Nonetheless, some development activities exacerbate climate-related vulnerabilities. (very high confidence). It is very likely that significant synergies can be exploited in bringing climate change to the development community and critical development issues to the climate-change community. Effective communication in assessment, appraisal and action are likely to be important tools, both in participatory assessment and governance as well as in identifying productive areas for shared learning initiatives. Despite these synergies, few discussions about promoting sustainability have thus far explicitly included adapting to climate impacts, reducing hazard risks and/or promoting adaptive capacity. Climate change will result in net costs into the future, aggregated across the globe and discounted to today; these costs will grow over time (very high confidence). http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter20.pdf

Their official summary is similar. They are not about changing the climate - it's about giving greater access to the multinationals and getting those countries which can afford to - to prop up their destruction.

They use phrases ie. "very high confidence", very likely - it's a con and I can't believe we are falling for it.

Now if they offered some genuine alternatives to clean up this planet and gradually reduce oil and fossil fuel consumption - fine - we'd all be happy, but they admit themselves they aren't offering any viable alternatives apart from massive taxes.

It's all about maintaining consumption (profits) as the world population increases - of course many of us will have to tighten our belts even further, but the customer base is quickly increasing so this will make up for it.

It's all about ensuring western countries become third world countries - so we're all equal. It's about sustaining the "giants", not sustaining a healthy population into the future.

Nice quote mantra.

I think from that, their primary goal is to use the "climate" to actually "punish" the developed countries through taxation etc and "promise" to aid the less developed countries.

Nice communist/leftist/airy-fairy mentality.  But then a quick look at the makeup of the UN etc will explain that.

Yes it is about knocking us down so they can build others up.  Not that that will be the reality.  Not that climate per se is the actual problem to be solved.

Quote:

Not that climate per se is the actual problem to be solved.

You should tell that to the people living in countries that wont exist in twenty years because they'll be under water. Don't think that wont affect you, many of the climate change refugees will end up coming here as their pacific island nations flood.

Quote:

I think from that, their primary goal is to use the "climate" to actually "punish" the developed countries through taxation etc and "promise" to aid the less developed countries. Nice communist/leftist/airy-fairy mentality.  But then a quick look at the makeup of the UN etc will explain that. Yes it is about knocking us down so they can build others up.  Not that that will be the reality.  Not that climate per se is the actual problem to be solved.

-Grendel

OK, glad to see we are finally getting some specifics from Grendel.
So they are coercing tens of thousands of scientists to misrepresent data, and put forward false findings, as part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy western society????

Are you sure you want to go with that motive, I mean we would not want to misquote you grendel, or falsely portray you as a paranoid, delusional conspirinut.

So let me just check again, the UN, is controlling all the world's major scientists, governments, research institutes, and forcing them to provide false information to create a climate myth so lefties can destroy the west.

Of course, it is so obvious when pointed out by sane, rational people, that must be it.
I hear they are doing a special price on those cool jackets with the really long sleeves, down at Nuts'R'Us, you should stock up.

Mozzaok - at the last G20 (or one of those meetings) a few months ago - those attending all agreed that the free market did not have the desired affect as they had predicted a decade or so ago. They came to the conclusion that the poor, if anything, were worse off as now thanks to a world government telling nations what they should export, they were limited in what they could produce.

No-one is denying that we need to clean up the planet and look for alternative energy resources - but those involved in the World Bank, IMF, UN etc. are looking for other ways to redistribute wealth - as long as it doesn't affect them. They are using this "global warming" spiel & selectively quoting certain scientists as a way to meet another agenda.

I'm sorry Mozz... DIDN'T YOU READ THE UN IPCC QUOTE.
OR IS IT JUST THAT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.

Alarmist propaganda Skipeeeee....  get back to me in 20 years with a list of all those countries underwater due to climate change and not just because they decided to live in a flood prone area.

Grendel wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 12:24pm:

I'm sorry Mozz... DIDN'T YOU READ THE UN IPCC QUOTE. OR IS IT JUST THAT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. Alarmist propaganda Skipeeeee....  get back to me in 20 years with a list of all those countries underwater due to climate change and not just because they decided to live in a flood prone area.

Thats your best work yet, boofy thinks all these pacific islands under threat of going under water were somehow towed to their current position,and as boof puts it "they decided to live  in a flood prone area"
I'd blame their parents for having them on the island that has been their home for who knows how many years. :o ::)

Hate to tell you this Skipeeeee but sea levels change all the time and Island appear and disappear for many reasons.

I note the surface area of the planet has changed many many times and none of it was due to man made CO2 emissions.

I await your list in 20 years.
BTW I think it will be a very short one.

"All these Pacific Islands"...  got a list?

Perhaps they should contact the Dutch eh...  

Quote:

"All these Pacific Islands"...  got a list?

As a matter of fact I can show you how its already happening , here is a story from just last week.


First climate refugees start move to new island home
The Carteret Islands.

Adam Morton
July 29, 2009
IMAGINE that your home, water and a fair whack of your food are under threat. Imagine it is only going to get worse.

Imagine that you live on the Carteret Islands, seven tiny coral atolls in the Pacific that have been described as the home of the world’s first climate change refugees.

Six months ago, the 2700 islanders began what will eventually become a big evacuation to Bougainville, about 80 kilometres to the south.

The decision to relocate followed years of worsening storm surges and king tides that infected the fresh water supply and ruined the islanders’ staple banana and taro crops.

Fearing worse is to come — more frequent floods are expected to be the most visible signs of rising sea levels due to global warming — the islanders secured three blocks of coastal land. Five men moved earlier this year to build houses and plant crops, the first step in the relocation of 1700 people in the next five years.

The relocation is being headed by Ursula Rakova, an islander who quit a job with Oxfam in Bougainville three years ago to set up Tulele Peisa, an organisation that raises money and campaigns for social justice on behalf of her people. ‘‘We have a feeling of anxiety, a feeling of uncertainty because we know that we will be losing our homes. It is our identity. It is our whole culture at stake,’’ she said in Melbourne yesterday.

The move has been helped by the Catholic Church, which provided the land for relocation, but not the Bougainville Government.

Ms Rakova said the $1 million provided by the Papua New Guinea Government in Port Moresby had been swallowed by provincial bureaucrats.

The purpose of her trip to Australia this week is two-fold — to secure a market for the organic cocoa the islanders plan to grow at their new home and to call on the Australian Government, through its AusAID program, to pressure the Bougainville Government to deliver the promised money.

Just as urgently, she wants to see Western leaders take on much deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Australian Government’s most ambitious emissions proposal of stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million was not enough to give the Pacific a safe future, she said.

‘‘We are angry. Some people do not understand the science, but they know they are losing their homes and they are angry they are having to pay for what other people [in industrialised nations] have done,’’ she said.

While climate scientists warn that the future for atolls like the Carterets is bleak, the extent to which climate change is responsible for their current predicament is unclear.

Campaigners believe the impact of rising sea levels may have been amplified by the gradual sinking of an extinct volcano that supports the atolls.

One of the world’s leading sea level experts yesterday called for caution. John Hunter, from the University of Tasmania, said sea level rises would eventually cause ‘‘huge problems’’, and called for the building of sea walls to protect the islands’ culture and ‘‘buy a few more decades’’

You don't have to wait twenty years boowhofee I've already started compiling it for you.
Don't bother thanking me, it was my pleasure.

November 10, 2008 4:17 PM
Five nations under threat from climate change
"The first line of coconut trees has disappeared" - Kiribati inhabitant

While the world dithers about tackling climate change, in some parts of the world people are running out of time. In Florida sea level rises can be worked around to some extent - condos can be put on stilts and moved away from the shoreline. But on some islands you can only move back so far before you have to start worrying about the water at your back door as well as the water in front.

Here are five islands whose inhabitants are going to need a new home soon:

1. The Guardian reports today that the new president of the Maldives will be putting part of the country's profits from tourism into a very special - and unusual - fund: one that will be used to buy a new, climate-change-friendly home. With its highest point reaching only 2.4 metres, the Maldives is one of the lowest-lying nations in the world and risks being submerged by rising sea-levels.

2. Tuvalu is another small pacific island state, and after the Maldives the second-lowest nation in the world. At its highest, it is 5 metres above sea-level and could be gone by the middle of this century. In 2002, the government was said to have hired two international law firms to look into suing polluting nations for effectively evicting its citizens.
3. Kiribati is a group of 32 atols and one island that peaks at 6.5 metres above sea-level. The World Bank has been involved in assessing the nation's vulnerability to climate change. I attended a talk by one of the project leaders some years ago in Paris. She quoted a few of the changes which the islanders were noticing. The one that has always stuck with me was "the first line of coconut trees has disappeared". Salt-intrusion was killing off the trees that were closest to the water.

4. The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea may be among the first climate refugees - their home lies just 1.2 metres above the waves. The government of Papua New Guinea adopted a plan in 2005 to evacuate the locals to the neighbouring island of Bougainville. The relocation was initially scheduled for 2007, then delayed. According to this report, there was a trial earlier this year, which created some tension as relocated citizens were used as labourers in coconut plantations on Bougainville.

5. In 1995, 500,000 inhabitants on Bangladesh's Bhola Island were forced to move in when half their island was permanently flooded. Some claim they were the first climate refugees. Scientists predict that 20 million Bangladeshis could suffer the same fate by 2030

Boofeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, where are you son? I've gone and got all this info for you and you scatoodle, feeling a bit silly hey?

Wow that is some list...  you believe all this alarmist nonsense eh Skippeeeeee.

Sorry you missed me Skippeeeeeeeeee....  but if it don't show in recent when I logon I don't see it.

Adam Morton... ;D  UN lapdog.

CO2 emissions do not effect King Tides etc.  :D :D :D

LOL  "The Guardian"  LW PC rag.

Quite an obscure list your developing there.

Better watch out, Australia is an Island too you know  :D

Now let me let you in on a secret.  
The world as we know it has been used to much higher sea levels.
Oh and guess what...  it wasn't due to man-made CO2 emissions.

pssst...  no one should live in Bangladesh...  it's always been a flood plain.

how disappointing bofeee, two days and that's the best you could come up with. I suppose seeing as tho I've shown you up as being wrong grates at you, but hey, I'm used to it. ;D ;D

The ignorant are usually disappointed, when the truth is so simple.

Cant debate, cant debate... eh Skipeee..
Took me 1 minute BTW. I had to google Morton.

You do know what a river delta is don't you Skipeeeeeee?  :D
Do you know what a swamp is?

How about you post some proof about your alarmist claims and show how what is happening isn't just part of nature.

I won't be waiting for that BTW.

Grendel wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 1:45pm:

Cant debate, cant debate... eh Skipeee.. Took me 1 minute BTW. I had to google Morton. You do know what a river delta is don't you Skipeeeeeee?  :D Do you know what a swamp is? How about you post some proof about your alarmist claims and show how what is happening isn't just part of nature. I won't be waiting for that BTW.

Boofeeee boofee boofeee, you're looking silly mate, you asked me for proof pacific islands were in danger of flooding , see below-


Quote:

"All these Pacific Islands"...  got a list?

I've actually provided a list and in fact went even further and showed you an article from just last week showing that these people are already being moved to other places.
There are plenty of articles on the net about low laying islands at threat of going under because of seas rising due to ice caps melting due to the climate warming, you should try and google a few of those and get yourself better educated son.

ROTFLMAO

Quote:

you asked me for proof pacific islands were in danger of flooding

Actually no Skippeeeeeeeee
That's not what I asked you at all.  :D :D :D :D :D

This is what I actually said...


Quote:

get back to me in 20 years with a list of all those countries underwater due to climate change and not just because they decided to live in a flood prone area.

You then mentioned "Pacific Islands..."  you know little islands surrounded by water and you list atolls and low lying islands and Bangladesh...  a low lying flood prone flood plain, part delta/part swamp.

then I asked you for a list...  and even then you come up with a handful out of some 30,000 islands.  ;D

Pssst I would never live in Bangladesh.  I wouldn't even live in parts of Windsor just a few Ks from here.  It's flood prone too.

Skippeeeeeeee...  the only one who thinks you have an argument is you.

You go on believing that booofeee, the only person you're fooling is yourself. ::) ;D

::)

Grendel wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 2:57pm:

ROTFLMAO Quote: you asked me for proof pacific islands were in danger of flooding Actually no Skippeeeeeeeee That's not what I asked you at all.  :D :D :D :D :D This is what I actually said... [quote]get back to me in 20 years with a list of all those countries underwater due to climate change and not just because they decided to live in a flood prone area.

You then mentioned "Pacific Islands..."  you know little islands surrounded by water and you list atolls and low lying islands and Bangladesh...  a low lying flood prone flood plain, part delta/part swamp.

then I asked you for a list...  and even then you come up with a handful out of some 30,000 islands.  ;D

Pssst I would never live in Bangladesh.  I wouldn't even live in parts of Windsor just a few Ks from here.  It's flood prone too.

Skippeeeeeeee...  the only one who thinks you have an argument is you.[/quote]

Well you might be able to try and squirm out of what you said but dont make up lies about what I said and when. I brought up the pacific islands and their refugees a few posts before your post about getting back to you in twenty years. If ya gunna lie ol fella cover your tracks.


Quote:

many of the climate change refugees will end up coming here as their pacific island nations flood.

I was clearly discussing pacific islands, nice try.

And then you of course also said this ,didn't YOU?


Quote:

All these Pacific Islands"...  got a list?

I already provided quotes thanks Skippeeeeee  do try to address the issue and stop obsessing you bore me.

Oh and Skippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

tsk tsk tsk... lying by omission again..

here's the first part of what you said
(The bit I first commented on BTW)

Quote:

You should tell that to the people living in countries that wont exist in twenty years because they'll be under water.

I hope you're finished trying to hijack my topic with your usual bile and lies boooffeeeeeeeeee.
So fifteen of Australia's most experienced climate change experts have put it into black and white for the confusionalists yet we still get confusionalists boo hooing these experts, the question needs to be asked, why do they do this? I suspect many of them have  motives that are far from genuine, many work in the industries that will suffer when clean power is introduced so they are thinking of themselves not their children's future.
we shouldn't let these confusionalists damage our children's future with their lies and attempts to hijack the very real threat that climate warming is.

MORE ROT EH SKIPPEEEEE...
Just following your lead.
Can't let your lies, alarmist claptrap and dishonesty go un-commented on.

Grendel wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 12:41pm:

MORE ROT EH SKIPPEEEEE... Just following your lead. Can't let your lies and dishonesty go uncommented on.

Unlike you I don't need to resort to lies to explain the pending problems we are facing with climate change.
As I said a couple of days ago the effects of climate change on pacific islands is going to cost Australia.



Quote:

Australia to help Pacific island nations deal with climate change Australian Associated Press Half the populations of these island countries are lying in the path of coastal inundation. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has committed Australia to help Pacific island nations deal with the effects of climate change. Speaking at the 40th annual Pacific Islands Forum in Cairns on Wednesday, Mr Rudd said Australia needed to help its Pacific neighbours incorporate climate change into national development strategies. Flanked by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Vanuatu Prime Minister Edward Natapei, Mr Rudd said Australia needed to take practical measures to help Pacific nations adapt to rising sea levels, and voice their experiences at global forums. Mr Rudd referred to a forum document, which highlighted the dangers of climate change including "severe economic impacts" caused by reduced income from agricultural exports, fisheries and tourism. The document also warned of storm surges, flooding and erosion and exacerbation of existing problems of water purity. "Threats also to food security and on top of that changes to the distribution of disease-bearing organisms like mosquitoes," Mr Rudd said. Mr Rudd warned those living in the Pacific islands faced destruction if more was not done to address the impacts due to climate change. "Half the populations of these island countries are lying in the path of coastal inundation," he said. "It underlines afresh ... Australia's responsibility to argue as clearly and cogently as we can the interests of our friends and neighbours in the councils of the world in which we are active on climate change." Mr Rudd said the key challenge ahead of UN climate talks in Copenhagen was to come up with an action plan for both developed and developing countries to make a difference on climate change. "That's the first thing, rather than just saying it's all too hard, it's all too difficult." Mr Rudd said the security of the various Pacific communities was a concern for the entire international community. "Our first responsibility is to get a good outcome in Copenhagen because those in the front line of the impact of climate change are within our own region and we have a responsibility to act." The UN climate talks in Copenhagen are set to take place in December

So just what is your point?

You need an education of the natural forces at work in the world Skippeeee...

BTW Pacific Island migration has been going on for centuries.

Quote:

You need an education of the natural forces at work in the world Skippeeee...

Oh please enlighten me.

educate yourself...
do some real research
read an encyclopedia instead of some LW prog rubbish.

Grendel wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 2:57pm:

educate yourself... do some real research read an encyclopedia instead of some LW prog rubbish.

Oh all my info is mainstream easy to access, I, unlike you, don't need to look for conspironut stuff.You should try it some time. ;D

Typical...  just more negativistic crap...
too hard for you to educate yourself eh.
Easier just to put other people down in  order to think youre building yourself up

It wont be just pacific island nation that are affected by the rising sea levels many places in Australia, even in Sydney's northern beaches and tourist destinations like Byron could well be abandoned.


Quote:

Marian Wilkinson, Environment Editor March 23, 2009 THE top government scientist advising on how to adapt the nation to climate change warns that Australia will be forced to abandon some coastal communities in a "planned retreat" because of rising sea levels caused by global warming. Andrew Ash, who leads the CSIRO's Climate Adaptation Flagship program, told the Herald that while some vulnerable coastal places could be protected by sea walls and levees, "there are going to be areas where that is not physically possible or it's not cost-effective to introduce any engineering solution and planned retreat becomes the only option". Warning that climate change was accelerating much more quickly than predicted, Dr Ash said state and local governments needed urgently to identify coastal land unsuitable for new residential development because rising sea levels and more frequent big storms would flood them with seawater. Federal and state governments would also need to rule out putting costly new infrastructure such as airport runways and bridges in vulnerable low-lying coastal areas. "They need to be thinking now about what areas are vulnerable and what areas are likely to be unsuitable in the longer term for new residential developments because local governments are concerned about future liabilities," Dr Ash said. Scientists at Sydney University have previously identified vulnerable areas in NSW, including Narrabeen, Dee Why and Curl Curl on Sydney's northern beaches. Batemans Bay to the south and parts of Byron Bay in the north are also seen as particularly vulnerable. Dr Ash will press his warnings when he joins 500 scientists, industry figures and policy-makers, including Professor Ross Garnaut, in Perth this week for the climate change conference, Greenhouse 2009. "The planning needs to start now," Dr Ash said. "That is a real challenge for us - getting it into the psyche of people, getting an ownership of the problem and having enough capacity to start exploring solutions to the problem." Dr Ash and other senior CSIRO scientists have just returned from the global scientific congress on climate change in Copenhagen, which heard that climate change impacts are tracking at the highest case levels predicted less than two years ago by the peak United Nations scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These include projections on rising sea levels that are escalating as new scientific evidence shows the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are melting more rapidly than predicted, as are many glaciers. "Across the range of the main indicators of climate change, all are tracking at the top level of projections," Dr Ash said. "That is mirroring the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions are also tracking at the top end of the IPCC projections." Last month, the NSW Government released draft guidelines to consult with local governments, business and communities on how to prepare for sea-level rises of up to 40 centimetres by 2050 and 90 centimetres by 2100. Scientists at the Copenhagen conference said even these projections might be too low, with sea-level rise possibly going above one metre by 2100. Scientists point out that combined with storm surges, a rise in sea level of one centimetre can cause erosion effects 50 to 100 times greater in low-lying areas. The Federal Government plans to hold a national forum soon on climate change impacts on coastal communities. The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, will tell the greenhouse conference today that the Government will spend $20 million helping Pacific island countries and East Timor track the accelerating threat of climate change from sea level rise, storm damage and water shortages.

Skippeeeeeeeeeee....  we used to have a frgn INLAND SEA buddy.
We had that without man-made CO2 emissions.

There are fossils of sea-life and shells in the Blue mtns.

If nature decides it's time for a change all we can do is adapt.

Quote:

THE top government scientist advising on how to adapt the nation to climate change warns that Australia will be forced to abandon some coastal communities in a "planned retreat" because of rising sea levels caused by global warming.

So, as the experts warn many people living "on the beach" might have to move inland, sooner rather than later.
I know of houses in Byron that could well be swallowed up within the year the erosion is so bad.

Your point?
It only just started and is all our fault, nothing natural about it?

Quote:

Across the range of the main indicators of climate change, all are tracking at the top level of projections," Dr Ash said. "That is mirroring the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions are also tracking at the top end of the IPCC projections."

My point is we need to reduce gas emissions, natural causes mixed with man made emissions is destroying the planet as we know it.

lol
natural gas and natural CO2 is destroying the planet?  ;)
Hmmm... excuse me, I'll have to think about that one.
BTW, just so you know, water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

As usual  grendal thinks he knows more than the experts,what an arrogant individual you are boooooofeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

No I'm just not an ignorant alarmist like you Skippeeeee.  :D

Grendel wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 10:19am:

No I'm just not an ignorant alarmist like you Skippeeeee.  :D

How can I be an ignorant alarmist when all I post are facts released by the expert mainstream scientific community?

Are you saying the mainstream science community are ignorant alarmists now?
::)

I think he's saying that practically every government in the world and every scientific body of national or international significance are all alarmists.

It's amazing how the brainwashing has got through to the general population-  As effective as the 'smoking is good for you' campaigns of the mid to late 20th century.

There are actually people around who still believe that too:

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/

Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.

No you don't Skippeeee..   however it's now apparent you don't know what a FACT is.

Hello Bozo...  can't say you've been missed.  Starting off with a bit of irrelevant character assassination are we?  How unusual.

Grendel wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 5:01pm:

No you don't Skippeeee..   however it's now apparent you don't know what a FACT is. Hello Bozo...  can't say you've been missed.  Starting off with a bit of irrelevant character assassination are we?  How unusual.

LIAR, this very thread I started is about fifteen experts on climate change, yet you boo hoo their facts, the facts believed by the great majority of scientists and the population. Thank your fictional god that most people seem to understand the crisis a lot better than you do boooooofeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

I haven't lied about anything so far Skippeeee...
Does that upset you?

Oh dear, sinking to religious abuse now...  flame away Troll...  
You have no credibility.

denialists just can't make up their?, whatever passes for a mind behind those dull glazed eyes.

First we see them saying there is no warming, that we are in fact cooling.lol

Then they say we warming, but it is all mother natures fault, and we have nothing to do with it.

The fact that they can swing back and forth between such ridiculous positions, on an almost weekly basis, shows what cretinous goobers they really are.

In fact they will soon need to consult the kama sutra to find more bizarre positions to try.

I'm sorry...  you are talking historically and accurately about the alarmist camp.

You left out dimming though.

You are sounding awfully shrill again Mozz.
try a valium.

Quote:

This article was written by Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO; David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University; Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre; Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW; Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland; Roger Jones, Victoria University; David Karoly, University of Melbourne; and Tony McMichael and Will Steffen, Australian National University

I think you'll find these people are experts on climate change, not alarmists.
The sad thing is they put it all in simple English so even the likes of you could understand it booofeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, but alas, even that seems beyond you.

I think you'll find many people in your camp have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

Your point is ridiculous.

My reply at the beginning states my position and your irrelevance to the debate.

Flame away ratbag...  it s not worrying me.

Grendel wrote on Aug 10^th, 2009 at 1:03pm:

I think you'll find many people in your camp have been wrong before and will be wrong again. Your point is ridiculous. My reply at the beginning states my position and your irrelevance to the debate. Flame away ratbag...  it s not worrying me.

Haven't you ever considered that your small minority opinion might be wrong? . ::)
You have no point.
Give up on the " I'm a victim routine" , you don't fool anybody but yourself.

Climate change wont just wipe out islands in the pacific it will also inflict billions of dollars worth of damage to the Great Barrier Reef.


Quote:

Print August 10, 2009 Article from:  Australian Associated Press CLIMATE change will inflict more than $37 billion worth of damage to the Great Barrier Reef over the next century, a report has found. The Oxford Economics report, commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, put the economic cost of permanent coral bleaching to the reef at $37.7bn. The report placed the entire value of the reef, regarded as one of the world's greatest natural wonders, to the Australian economy at $51.4bn. It claims as many as 50 per cent of tourists who would normally visit coral sites on the reef would stay away if widespread permanent bleaching occurred. The worst affected area would be the tourism hub of Cairns where, the report claims, coral bleaching would deliver a $16.3bn blow to the local economy. Great Barrier Reef Foundation CEO Judy Stewart said the report should serve as a wake-up call on the importance of protecting the reef. "While it may alarm some people, its key message is that if we value the reef at all, we must do all in our power to preserve it as well as the neighbouring communities that benefit from it,'' Ms Stewart said. "We are at a crossroads. We need to act now. "While we acknowledge that reducing emissions globally is fundamental to the reef's future, we must also develop the solutions and adaptation strategies which will directly address the impacts of climate change impacts which are already being felt.''

I'm not a victim, but you are a rude vile creton.

Stop lying and carrying on.

You keep bringing up spurious argument.

Who cares if you quote 15 people I can quote that many and more.

You just ignore them and even when named etc you say they are "faceless"  ROTFLMAO  :D

You toss up alarmist claims about countries going underwater global devastation...  OMG  and you don't think that is alarmist  :D

You seem to think all this will happen due to man made CO2 emissions... yet there is NO definitive proof this is the case.   :D

You believe every scrap of alarmist propaganda pushed at you...  ::)
Not because you know anything, but because this is the only religion to which you belong.

Quote:

I'm not a victim, but you are a rude vile creton. Stop lying and carrying on.

.

No lies here, all my posts are from the mainstream climate change experts, you're wrong again.


Quote:

You keep bringing up spurious argument. Who cares if you quote 15 people I can quote that many and more

No spurious arguments here booofffeeeeeee, you just hate the truth, it doesn't fit your confusionalist agenda.
Those 15 people that you boo hoo are considered 15 of the top experts in climate change in Australia, but you know better than them. ::)


Quote:

You toss up alarmist claims about countries going underwater global devastation

They are ,in fact some people have already had to start leaving their homes.(see story I posted on Pacific nations flooding). ::)


Quote:

but because this is the only religion to which you belong.

Liar, I'm an atheist.i

Everything you say about me is wrong for starters Skippeeee.

I'm not wasting any more time with you.

You are clueless, you have no idea what I think or believe even though it's been posted ad nauseum on this site.

You ignore those that dissent from your eco-religious belief in global warming/cooling/dimming/warming/climate-change.  Even though they are also top people in the climate field and others.

DWMT  ::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Aug 10^th, 2009 at 4:17pm:

Everything you say about me is wrong for starters Skippeeee. I'm not wasting any more time with you. You are clueless, you have no idea what I think or believe even though it's been posted ad nauseum on this site. You ignore those that dissent from your eco-religious belief in global warming/cooling/dimming/warming/climate-change.  Even though they are also top people in the climate field and others. DWMT  ::) ::) ::)

Your problem is that you throw a little hissy fit every time someone disagrees with your crazy beliefs.
Now if you cant add anything to this debate other than trolling and name calling, DWMT. ::)

rotflmao
DWMT

So, back on topic-

The first conclusion of these experts dealt with the oceans rising and warming and the ice caps melting. This second conclusion deals with the subject of MAN MADE global warming and these experts beliefs.


Quote:

The second conclusion is that the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important. This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 8:59am:

… Oceans are becoming more acidic as a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. …

I always thought that increased level of CO2 will lead to increased vegetation hence starting process again with storing Carbon and Hydrocarbons for future use, with raised oceans level helping to burry new growth from access to oxygen.

To say it in other words, the cycle can repeat itself.

It would not be possible with mere 0.03% CO2 in the atmosphere.


(Could be wrong thou, as I did not run the computer simulation)

You'd best ask the experts Happy, I unlike some people here do not pretend to be an expert, I merely read what the mainstream experts on the subject produce and relay that information to the readers of this forum.
There are plenty of people here posting the confusionalist lines, I leave that to them.

wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 11:56am:

You'd best ask the experts Happy, I unlike some people here do not pretend to be an expert, I merely read what the mainstream experts on the subject produce and relay that information to the readers of this forum. There are plenty of people here posting the confusionalist lines, I leave that to them.

For a little red devil you bow to the mainstream in this instance with undue haste. Could it be because in this case the 'mainstream' is for complete social control that naturally appeals to your red ideology?
Just saying because as a leftoid you should be a reflexive contrarian.

Quote:

Just saying because as a leftoid you should be a reflexive contrarian

Its very hard to question something that is so obvious.

wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 12:31pm:

Quote: Just saying because as a leftoid you should be a reflexive contrarian Its very hard to question something that is so obvious.

The thing is, on past for, if leftoids believe something, it MUST be wrong.

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 9:23pm:

wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 12:31pm: Quote: Just saying because as a leftoid you should be a reflexive contrarian Its very hard to question something that is so obvious. The thing is, on past for, if leftoids believe something, it MUST be wrong.

Really? so all the mainstream climate scientists are part of a left wing conspiracy? thats your best work yet,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , you're cracking me up ha ha ha ha ha ha , all the experts are lefty plants, ha ha ha ha ha ha oh stop it, ha ha ha ha ha , I'll have to get back to you, thats the biggest retard statement I've ever heard, ha ha ha ha ha
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Happy wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 4:45pm:

wrote on Aug 1st, 2009 at 8:59am: … Oceans are becoming more acidic as a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. … I always thought that increased level of CO2 will lead to increased vegetation hence starting process again with storing Carbon and Hydrocarbons for future use, with raised oceans level helping to burry new growth from access to oxygen. To say it in other words, the cycle can repeat itself. It would not be possible with mere 0.03% CO2 in the atmosphere. (Could be wrong thou, as I did not run the computer simulation)

Let's take an analogy. A plant deprived of water will not grow any faster if you add more fertiliser. As a matter of fact, it will probably die. So there are (at least) two dimensions - actually many more, to increased growth rates - water and fertiliser.

Think about it.

wrote on Aug 17^th, 2009 at 8:40am:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 9:23pm: wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 12:31pm: Quote: Just saying because as a leftoid you should be a reflexive contrarian Its very hard to question something that is so obvious. The thing is, on past for, if leftoids believe something, it MUST be wrong. Really? so all the mainstream climate scientists are part of a left wing conspiracy? thats your best work yet,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , you're cracking me up ha ha ha ha ha ha , all the experts are lefty plants, ha ha ha ha ha ha oh stop it, ha ha ha ha ha , I'll have to get back to you, thats the biggest retard statement I've ever heard, ha ha ha ha ha ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

I knew it would be too complex for you. In a way that was my point. Whatever you suck up as true is, therefore, false.

I am not saying that scientists who believe in man made climate change are lefties.

What I am saying is that anything that so many lefties like you believe in must be, on past form, be false just on the grounds that you believe it. What this means - lemme spell it for ya - is that whatever fits into your mental scheme ofthe world is thereby false.

I know it's still going to give you a headache but never mind. The fact that you don't undertstand it makes it true.

Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2009 at 10:58pm:

wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 8:40am: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 9:23pm: wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 12:31pm: Quote: Just saying because as a leftoid you should be a reflexive contrarian Its very hard to question something that is so obvious. The thing is, on past for, if leftoids believe something, it MUST be wrong. Really? so all the mainstream climate scientists are part of a left wing conspiracy? thats your best work yet,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , you're cracking me up ha ha ha ha ha ha , all the experts are lefty plants, ha ha ha ha ha ha oh stop it, ha ha ha ha ha , I'll have to get back to you, thats the biggest retard statement I've ever heard, ha ha ha ha ha ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) I knew it would be too complex for you. In a way that was my point. Whatever you suck up as true is, therefore, false. I am not saying that scientists who believe in man made climate change are lefties. What I am saying is that anything that so many lefties like you believe in must be, on past form, be false just on the grounds that you believe it. What this means - lemme spell it for ya - is that whatever fits into your mental scheme ofthe world is thereby false. I know it's still going to give you a headache but never mind. The fact that you don't undertstand it makes it true.

bugger you're stupid , all the scientists aren't wrong but the people who believe what those scientists say are,  ::) ::) ::).
SO,  what you're saying is that Turnbull is a lefty, he believes, so does most of the Liberal party, are they all leftys?

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
oh dear...

Climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Man-made emissions causing catastrophic climate change is a at best debateable.
There is no proof that the current world climate conditions are outside the natural range of variability or that man is causing it.
The politics comes into it when people like Gore and other Progs...  ie progressive Left people use it as a method of pushing an agenda.
Gore's belief is based on the opinions of one of his old  school teachers.  :D :D :D
The Inconvenient Truth was a propaganda piece pushing his beliefs.
The UN now largely controlled by the Progs...  and other unsavoury representatives...  have an agenda that has very little to do with the environment.  This is again where the politics come into it.
The handful... sorry 10 handfuls of people on the IPCC  panel are not all climate experts some in fact in the original group that were left in disgust.

[quote author=grendel link=1249081176/75#86 date=1250725449] ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
oh dear...

Climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Man-made emissions causing catastrophic climate change is a at best debateable.
There is no proof that the current world climate conditions are outside the natural range of variability or that man is causing it.
The politics comes into it when people like Gore and other Progs...  ie progressive Left people use it as a method of pushing an agenda.
Gore's belief is based on the opinions of one of his old  school teachers.  :D :D :D
The Inconvenient Truth was a propaganda piece pushing his beliefs.
The UN now largely controlled by the Progs...  and other unsavoury representatives...  have an agenda that has very little to do with the environment.  This is again where the politics come into it.
The handful... sorry 10 handfuls of people on the IPCC  panel are not all climate experts some in fact in the original group that were left in disgust.

[/quote
LIAR, read the first post, the one written by 15 of Australia's climate change experts ,they address every denialist confusionalist point you raise and dismiss them as wrong.
Why don't you just learn to read what the experts say instead of the confusionalists? you wouldn't look so stupid then.

Actually there is not one lie there Skippeeeee...
You base your absolute belief on the opinions and conclusions drawn by certain people, yet they are not absolutes nor facts.

Grendel wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2009 at 7:15pm:

Actually there is not one lie there Skippeeeee... You base your absolute belief on the opinions and conclusions drawn by certain people, yet they are not absolutes nor facts.

;D ;D ;D That's what you do.
Like most people in the world I base my opinions on the facts presented to me by the experts.You, on the other hand prefer to base your opinions on the propaganda peddled by individuals and organisations who clearly have ulterior motives.

No..  what you've actually done is based your opinion on IFS and conclusions based on those IFS and if you read the bloody article you posted you'd have seen that.

Grendel wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2009 at 3:58pm:

No..  what you've actually done is based your opinion on IFS and conclusions based on those IFS and if you read the bloody article you posted you'd have seen that.

I've based my op on the findings of the experts, now fukc off and stop trolling me.
You on the other hand believe the confusionalist s hit you always have.

No trolling involved... at least on my part.

Once more...  the view of other well qualified experts.

Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ.

1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years.
2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.
3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path.
4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.

Grendel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2009 at 9:34am:

No trolling involved... at least on my part. Once more...  the view of other well qualified experts. Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ. 1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years. 2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming. 3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path. 4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.

That's why most of the world is laughing at them, while the real experts try to deal with this crisis those confusionalists, most of whom are in the pockets of the major polluters, are more interested in money in their pockets than they are our children's future.

LOL  :D

Yes, you would find it funny. I on the other hand think our children deserve to live in a world that has clean air and less pollution.
I vote GREEN.

::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2009 at 9:34am:

Once more...  the view of other well qualified experts. Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ. 1

Yes, but the only 'experts' who count are those who are 'experts' on the subject in question.

Experts who are employed to spread disinformation generally have very little expertise when it comes to the truth.

muso wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2009 at 10:06am:

Grendel wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:34am: Once more...  the view of other well qualified experts. Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ. 1 Yes, but the only 'experts' who count are those who are 'experts' on the subject in question. Experts who are employed to spread disinformation generally have very little expertise when it comes to the truth.

How true.
Good to see you back muso, I'm sure boofy has missed you. ;D

I'll reply here rather than off-topic on the Malcolm Turnbull thread.

The most hilarious thing I've seen so far from Climate denialists has been their latching on to the sunspot minimum story.

The flavour of the month earlier this year was "See - it's all due to the sun!'

It somehow escaped them that er sunspots are associated with greater solar activity, not less. Less sunspots should be associated with a drop in temperature, not an increase (check the Maunder Minimum)

Of course when the penny drops, there is the usual embarrassed silence, and then they start rambling on again about monthly temperature figures or something totally irrelevant again. Collectively they seem to have this short-term memory loss.

It doesn't matter how many times they have been burnt down by the flames of reason, they seem to go on rising from the ashes in a Phoenix like manner,  time and time again.  ;D