Quote:

BLIZZARDS threaten to bury parts of Britain under 12 INCHES of snow today. Chaos looms as 60mph winds whip up massive 6ft drifts. Experts fear the worst blizzards in nearly a CENTURY as up to a foot of snow is dumped across SCOTLAND and north and west ENGLAND from this morning. The SOUTH could also be hit. Commuters will face road and rail closures and many schools are expected to close. Poor visibility and ice will make driving hazardous. The snow could be the worst since 1927 when a 12-hour blizzard on Christmas Day left 20ft drifts across the South. The Met Office yesterday issued nationwide extreme weather warnings - particularly in Scotland and the North. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3278719/Blizzards-will-bury-UK-in-12in-snow.html

Quote:

Alarmist Predictions From: The Independent, 20 March 2000 Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past By Charles Onians However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said. http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/14/

I read that the current snowfalls in the UK are the heaviest since 1890.

Should the high priests of global warming get new tarot cards? And one last question: who can explain the willingness of many learned people to indulge in masturbation?

salad in wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:01am:

I read that the current snowfalls in the UK are the heaviest since 1890. Should the high priests of global warming get new tarot cards? And one last question: who can explain the willingness of many learned people to indulge in masturbation?

Looks more like global cooling than anything.
And always wondered what the environmentalists did at their conferences, but that's too much information. But maybe that is the cause of the snowfalls.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:10am:

salad in wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:01am: I read that the current snowfalls in the UK are the heaviest since 1890. Should the high priests of global warming get new tarot cards? And one last question: who can explain the willingness of many learned people to indulge in masturbation? Looks more like global cooling than anything. And always wondered what the environmentalists did at their conferences, but that's too much information. But maybe that is the cause of the snowfalls.

Cunning right whingers have co-opted the concerns over 'Climate Change' and called it 'Global Warming' - which gives them a convenient excuse to denounce climate change theorists every time there is a cold snap somewhere in the world...

Notice how they avoid the media day in and day out during record heat waves and firestorms...

And still the lefties cannot provide any proof on global warming, oops man -made global warming or climate change, oops man-made climate change.

Very cheap scam by the lefties, which was all exposed at Cancun last year.

Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds
Jan. 22, 2010

A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm



Australia bakes through warmest decade on record
Jan 5, 2010

The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change.

The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average.

Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one.

And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average.

"There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said.

"Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example.

"But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm

Climate change brings increased variability and extremes in regional weather patterns and associated devastation: in the same year, some parts of the world will experience record cold snaps whilst other regions will suffer record heat waves...

It is foolish, to ignore the record heat waves and focus more on occasional record cold snaps than on longer-term global temperature increases...

Over the past 200-odd years, materialistic humanity has wantonly made unprecedented and ever-accelerating destructive changes to the global landscape and seascape - and it is ridiculous to suggest that the planet's natural systems will not be tipped into chaos as a result...

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:41am:

Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm

Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????

1. Snow does not equal cold.

You'd have to live in a cold climate to appreciate this, but the expression "warm enough for snow" is quite common in colder climates, usually followed by a knowing nod.  

Increased snow just means that more moisture is dropping from the atmosphere. It doesn't mean that the winter is colder.  (increased precipitation is an expected outcome. If it happens to be cold enough , that precipitation will fall as snow)

OK, I'm glad we've got that one out of the way.

Secondly, ever hear the expression, "one swallow does not a summer make?"

The climate is not warming evenly from year to year. There are natural cycles superimposed in the short term.

Capiche?

3. It's not warming the same amount in every single part of the globe. Some parts might not warm much at all, whereas other regions will warm much more (for example closer to the poles)

Is that sufficient for a pwn? (to use the blogosphere lingo)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 8:46am:

Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????

Come back to Environment , young Skywalker. Ready you are not.

Explain, I will  :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 8:46am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????

   



Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability

In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere

Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ?

Why take the risk ?

On EITHER count

It`s funny how they denigrate other religions for a lack of scientific verification, while demanding a "childlike leap of faith" of everyone for their own.

If you accept it as proof, you can measure the boiling point of water at ambient pressure and say that it's 100 degrees C plus or minus a fraction of a degree.

1. If you accept it as proof, you can determine the linear molar absorption coefficient of  carbon dioxide  at 1214 ± 78 L · cm –1/mol for the absorption band at 2349 cm –1.

Both the above are pretty close to indisputable facts.

2.If you accept that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the world would be a much colder place, then you can accept that increasing the carbon dioxide will increase the temperature.

3.If you accept that we're burning coal and oil at such a rate (verifiable from bean-counters' receipts) that we are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 1-2ppm per year, then that comes pretty close to clinching the point too. That's the man-made part.

Now which branch of atmospheric Physics do you have an issue with? Let me know so that I can clarify it further.

Ah, Global climatology in under 500 words.  All we need now is a huge leap of faith.

Beam me up Scotty!

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:16am:

Ah, Global climatology in under 500 words.  All we need now is a huge leap of faith. Beam me up Scotty!

I'm happy to explain it to you step by step in a non-judgemental way, but those are the first things that you should consider. If you can't refute those points, we can move on and build on those facts.

Some people feel that they need to confuse the issue as much as possible.  It's actually very subtle - much more subtle than I just indicated, but it's also pretty well established.

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:22am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:16am: Ah, Global climatology in under 500 words.  All we need now is a huge leap of faith. Beam me up Scotty! I'm happy to explain it to you step by step in a non-judgemental way, but those are the first things that you should consider. If you can't refute those points, we can move on and build on those facts. Some people feel that they need to confuse the issue as much as possible.  It's actually very subtle - much more subtle than I just indicated, but it's also pretty well established.

Muso, I`d like to discuss this further, but ATM, I have to go.  Have a good one mate.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:25am:

muso wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:22am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:16am: Ah, Global climatology in under 500 words.  All we need now is a huge leap of faith. Beam me up Scotty! I'm happy to explain it to you step by step in a non-judgemental way, but those are the first things that you should consider. If you can't refute those points, we can move on and build on those facts. Some people feel that they need to confuse the issue as much as possible.  It's actually very subtle - much more subtle than I just indicated, but it's also pretty well established. Muso, I`d like to discuss this further, but ATM, I have to go.  Have a good one mate.

You too. This doesn't have to be a mud-slinging match, and it has nothing to do with politics.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:06am:

It`s funny how they denigrate other religions for a lack of scientific verification, while demanding a "childlike leap of faith" of everyone for their own.

Yes very true aussie.
And we all laughed when one greenie tried to prove it by saying that something entirely irrelevant exists so therefore climate change must also exist.

Having worked Palliative. When someone is near death - their vital signs become 'erratic' and/or 'extreme'.

...I can see why there are people out there worried.

As I said, I'm happy to explain it to anyone with enough nouse to follow a basic scientific explanation.

Extreme damage to 'our/my/your' Planet
deserves
extreme attitudes and behaviour by those who seek to protect/save and repair the planet.

...I can't wait for the Militaries of the world to jilt Politics in favour of protecting the lesser beings known as animals. Nothing like watching a Botswanan Ranger hunt down and kill a Poacher ! Now thats action! :)

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:46am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????     Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ? Why take the risk ? On EITHER count

And the 'other' tie in is the INCREASED average temperatures EVERY decade, coinciding with the end of an interglacial cool period and a return to the temperatures that existed before the cool period..


See that fits the facts just as well, doesn't it....

When disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming may be likened to disproving the theory of God.

It's a matter of personal belief, I for one don't believe in the 'said' popular scientific consensus, partly because it's not as popular as some suggest.

In my opinion, it's cyclic.

Just my opinion of course.

:)

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:26pm:

my opinion, it's cyclic. Just my opinion of course. :)

Yea we know.

That's where the problem is Skippy....

There is no way to say that the current climate change isn't natural, except some 'simulations'....

There's nothing happening NOW that hasn't happened in the past, long before man developed industry or fire, (or worked out what causes babies for that matter)....other than some people saying it's 'faster' this time....which they can't prove, because there aren't any records of how fast or slow the increases were the last time....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 11:59am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:56am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:46am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????     Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ? Why take the risk ? On EITHER count And the 'other' tie in is the INCREASED average temperatures EVERY decade, coinciding with the end of an interglacial cool period and a return to the temperatures that existed before the cool period.. See that fits the facts just as well, doesn't it....

So, I'll give you 50/50 - as a hypothetical


Do we sit back and do NOTHING - just in case it isn't a problem ...

Or do we ACT, in case it is ?

You don't need 'science' to work the obvious out.
When a person pumps themselves full of cigarette, dope, cigar smoke.
Does chemical drugs, drinks heaps of alcohol, pumps down coffees, eats junk processed foods, drinks sodas, eats food cooked on teflon, doesn't exercise or chucks sickies from work, etc, etc, blah, blah ::)

...COMMON SENSE can tell you whats gonna happen ;)

"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling"

"But ah chicken little" eagerly enthused Rudd the duck-egg "The Globe is in-fact warming"

"Sky falling, globe warming, isn't it all the same?" gaggled Goosey Loosey.

"Depends on whether you can convincingly place a carbon price on it" snorted Rudd the Duck-egg.

8-)

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:26pm:

When disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming may be likened to disproving the theory of God. It's a matter of personal belief, I for one don't believe in the 'said' popular scientific consensus, partly because it's not as popular as some suggest. In my opinion, it's cyclic. Just my opinion of course. :)

You'd be right too.

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 5:35pm:

"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling" "But ah chicken little" eagerly enthused Rudd the duck-egg "The Globe is in-fact warming" "Sky falling, globe warming, isn't it all the same?" gaggled Goosey Loosey. "Depends on whether you can convincingly place a carbon price on it" snored Rudd the Duck-egg. 8-)

LOL
The champagne socialist wants to interfere into something that doesn't need intereferring with.
Remember the old adage, if it aint broke, then leave it alone.
The world is going along just fine, no need to create a problem or cause a problem with man made intereferrence.

salad in wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:01am:

Quote: BLIZZARDS threaten to bury parts of Britain under 12 INCHES of snow today. Chaos looms as 60mph winds whip up massive 6ft drifts. Experts fear the worst blizzards in nearly a CENTURY as up to a foot of snow is dumped across SCOTLAND and north and west ENGLAND from this morning. The SOUTH could also be hit. Commuters will face road and rail closures and many schools are expected to close. Poor visibility and ice will make driving hazardous. The snow could be the worst since 1927 when a 12-hour blizzard on Christmas Day left 20ft drifts across the South. The Met Office yesterday issued nationwide extreme weather warnings - particularly in Scotland and the North. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3278719/Blizzards-will-bury-UK-in-12in-snow.html [quote] Alarmist Predictions From: The Independent, 20 March 2000 Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past By Charles Onians However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said. http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/14/

I read that the current snowfalls in the UK are the heaviest since 1890.

Should the high priests of global warming get new tarot cards? And one last question: who can explain the willingness of many learned people to indulge in masturbation?
[/quote]

Actually, you don't get snow from really cold weather. It has to be 'just the right' temperature. This may seem like a technicality from here at this time of year, but it is a big difference. For Great Britain to get record falls now, it would have to be warmer than normal.

BTW, as for global warming, your argument is nor more sensibly than claiming the hot day we had today is proof of the theory.

The funny old thing about opinion in this country is whilst politicians are allowed to have theirs, this and feel justified imposing their views and associated taxes on others, (by others they define as being the general consensus) we the drones are then expected to roll-up our sleeves, grind the axe and tax-fund their 'opinion' as though it were gospel truth, based on their mere say so...even in the face of undeniable fact which challenges their own scientific authorities current theory.

I predict that in another 10 years not a single academic will utter the acronym, AGW, much less put their name to it.

As time passes, in the wake of the Wiki-leaked Climategate email scandal.... whereby the UN's own chief scientific advisor's ( the CRU) questioned then mockingly set out to falsify it's own research findings between colleagues so the figures would add up, scientific support for an 'alleged' consensus is declining rapidly.

Funny that.

And such excellent timing too. Smack bang on Copenhagen when Rudd was to deliver his environmental-sermon to the UN and it's suck-holes in a timely fashion.

No wonder our government want Julian Assange erased from the pages of history, as he delivers what they would rather have kept to themselves.

The truth.

:)

Yes, the warmists can't prove that climate change exists, and wikileaks has highlighted that at Copenhagen the scientists were manipulating/falsifying/creating their own data in order to scam the world into believing that climate change was occurring.
Therefore the next step is to try and discredit wikileaks - somehow, anyway possible.
The warmists first attempt at Julian Assange has easily failed.

salad in wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:01am:

[quote] BLIZZARDS threaten to bury parts of Britain under 12 INCHES of snow today.

How incredibly predictable is this OP. It happens every time there is a cold day somewhere in the world. Of course these people are confusing "weather" with "climate".

With many people you can explain the science behind man made global warming until you are blue in the face. They refuse to listen because they have no idea about the science and they have a political agenda.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 8:19am:

salad in wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:01am: [quote] BLIZZARDS threaten to bury parts of Britain under 12 INCHES of snow today. How incredibly predictable is this OP. It happens every time there is a cold day somewhere in the world. Of course these people are confusing "weather" with "climate". With many people you can explain the science behind man made global warming until you are blue in the face. They refuse to listen because they have no idea about the science and they have a political agenda.

And then there are the people who do have an understanding of science, who've looked at the evidence from both sides and wonder why, since the climate has changed many times in the past and temperatures have increased/decreased as many times .....LONG before man had any industry, they wonder WHY is it called 'man made' this time, when it was called 'natural' ALL the other times???

Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures.

Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming
is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age?

Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming!

Do prudent individuals insure against various risks?

Do decent businesses, insure the business against various risks?

Are the risks the risks often low probability, but high impact?

The answer is that most people & businesses insure, even though they feel there is a low low probability of claims, but they do so because it is prudent to share high impact events with others, just in case.

Climate Change, according to the best scientists on the planet, is much more than a low risk, unyet all we do is bicker, which means nothing is done to mitigate the risks!

We are indeed, a weird bunch!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

And then there are the people who do have an understanding of science, who've looked at the evidence from both sides and wonder why, since the climate has changed many times in the past and temperatures have increased/decreased as many times .....LONG before man had any industry, they wonder WHY is it called 'man made' this time, when it was called 'natural' ALL the other times???

Dentists have an understanding of science. Would they count?

Past climates were different to todays, but the argument you make is not logical.

Your argument is "There has been warming in the past, therefore, the current warming is no different"

You say that without discussing the causal factors in any way.

To illustrate that, let's say we had a really major flu pandemic. Your argument would be like saying "There have been deaths in the past. People die all the time, so why is this flu any different?"

The devil is in the detail.

I really don't think you want to look at the detail, because you know that the science speaks for itself.

(I answered your points over on the environment thread. )

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 8:19am: salad in wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:01am: [quote] BLIZZARDS threaten to bury parts of Britain under 12 INCHES of snow today. How incredibly predictable is this OP. It happens every time there is a cold day somewhere in the world. Of course these people are confusing "weather" with "climate". With many people you can explain the science behind man made global warming until you are blue in the face. They refuse to listen because they have no idea about the science and they have a political agenda. And then there are the people who do have an understanding of science, who've looked at the evidence from both sides and wonder why, since the climate has changed many times in the past and temperatures have increased/decreased as many times .....LONG before man had any industry, they wonder WHY is it called 'man made' this time, when it was called 'natural' ALL the other times???

Yet despite the genuine scientific interest, all we see in the debates is 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming'.

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:07am:

Do prudent individuals insure against various risks? Do decent business, insure the business against various risks? Are the risks the risks often low probability, but high impact? The answer is that most people & businesses insure, even though they feel there is a low low probability of claims, but they do so because it is prudent to share high impact events with others, just in case. Climate Change, according to the best scientists on the planet, is much more than a low risk, unyet all we do is bicker, which means nothing is done to mitigate the risks! We are indeed, a weird bunch!!!

You obviously haven`t considered the cost (not risk) of the "cure".

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

since the climate has changed many times in the past and temperatures have increased/decreased as many times .....LONG before man had any industry, they wonder WHY is it called 'man made' this time, when it was called 'natural' ALL the other times???

Because humans are the driver of the change this time. There are 6 billion of us spewing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. It has been proven that levels of these gasses are increasing in the atmosphere. It has been proven that the planet is warming. It's not difficult to see the connection.

If global warming hadn't become such a political football there would be no debate that the science is accurate.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:42am:

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 9:07am: Do prudent individuals insure against various risks? Do decent business, insure the business against various risks? Are the risks the risks often low probability, but high impact? The answer is that most people & businesses insure, even though they feel there is a low low probability of claims, but they do so because it is prudent to share high impact events with others, just in case. Climate Change, according to the best scientists on the planet, is much more than a low risk, unyet all we do is bicker, which means nothing is done to mitigate the risks! We are indeed, a weird bunch!!! You obviously haven`t considered the cost (not risk) of the "cure".

You mean like the Stern report?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 8:51am: since the climate has changed many times in the past and temperatures have increased/decreased as many times .....LONG before man had any industry, they wonder WHY is it called 'man made' this time, when it was called 'natural' ALL the other times??? Because humans are the driver of the change this time. There are 6 billion of us spewing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. It has been proven that levels of these gasses are increasing in the atmosphere. It has been proven that the planet is warming. It's not difficult to see the connection. If global warming hadn't become such a political football there would be no debate that the science is accurate.

Are humans in the driver's seat? Can you show what they have caused then?

And with all of us exhaling CO2 what would you suggest we humans do to stop exhaling that gas.



And it hasn't been proven that the level of tehse gases has increased nor that the planet is warming.
So how can you prove a connection when the dots don't exist?
Or are we just meant to assume that these dots exist?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:42am:

You obviously haven`t considered the cost (not risk) of the "cure".

What has been done was effectively a cost-benefit analysis. The costs have been considered, and there are also costs associated with the effects of the climate disruption. That's where the 2 degree ceiling comes into it.

What also comes into it is the fact that we'll never get a no "harm situation". The best scenario is a compromise between the costs of transitioning to low emission technology and the damage to the economy caused by the effects of the climate disruption.

(lol at Mellie's display of ignorance in post 41)

Quote:

And it hasn't been proven that the level of tehse gases has increased nor that the planet is warming

LOL yes muso.
Even the militant confusionalists like Akerman acknowledge climate change is real mellie, they just don't acknowledge its man made.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

Are humans in the driver's seat? Can you show what they have caused then? And with all of us exhaling CO2 what would you suggest we humans do to stop exhaling that gas. And it hasn't been proven that the level of tehse gases has increased nor that the planet is warming. So how can you prove a connection when the dots don't exist? Or are we just meant to assume that these dots exist?

I've explained all this before so I suspect I'm wasting my time but here goes.

It has been proven that CO2 is increasing by measurements taken at Mauna Lao.

It has been proven that the earth is warming by measurements taken by NASA and the photographic evidence of glaciers retreating.

Humans exhaling CO2, volcanoes, termite mounds etc are all part of the natural carbon cycle which keeps the earth at a livable temperature. It is unnatural emissions of CO2 such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation which causes an increase in temperature

Quote:

I suspect I'm wasting my time but here goes.

You should have stopped there, she's as think as two planks of wood.

skippy. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:56am:

Quote: I suspect I'm wasting my time but here goes. You should have stopped there, she's as think as two planks of wood.

LOL DIPPY

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 9:42am: perceptions_now wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 9:07am: Do prudent individuals insure against various risks? Do decent business, insure the business against various risks? Are the risks the risks often low probability, but high impact? The answer is that most people & businesses insure, even though they feel there is a low low probability of claims, but they do so because it is prudent to share high impact events with others, just in case. Climate Change, according to the best scientists on the planet, is much more than a low risk, unyet all we do is bicker, which means nothing is done to mitigate the risks! We are indeed, a weird bunch!!! You obviously haven`t considered the cost (not risk) of the "cure". You mean like the Stern report?

STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change

The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.

The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible
impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.

Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world - access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.

The damages from climate change will accelerate as the world gets warmer.

The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed - the poorest
countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the
damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.

Integrated assessment models provide a tool for estimating the total impact on the economy; our estimates suggest that this is likely to be higher than previously suggested.

Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth.

Achieving these deep cuts in emissions will have a cost. The Review estimates the annual costs of stabilisation at 500-550ppm CO2e to be around 1% of GDP by 2050 - a level that is significant but manageable.

Policy to reduce emissions should be based on three essential elements: carbon pricing, technology policy, and removal of barriers to behavioural change.

Establishing a carbon price, through tax, trading or regulation, is an essential foundation for climate-change policy.

Policies are required to support the development of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency technologies on an urgent timescale.

An effective response to climate change will depend on creating the conditions for international collective action.

Greater international co-operation to accelerate technological innovation and diffusion will reduce the costs of mitigation.

Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Building and sustaining collective action is now an urgent challenge.

There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now.

Link -
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf
==============
As usual there are some areas of the Stern report where I would agree & some not, but the overall direction towards mitigation of risks and doing so earlier rather than later, is certainly the way to go!

To Aussie & others, I recommend a read of the Stern Report, for another perspective, if nothing else.

Has anyone read what I wrote?

Bobby.

Quote:

Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming!

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming!

Yes.
I've read about it before too.

skippy. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 11:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:20am: Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming! Yes. I've read about it before too.

Yes, I have seen reports regarding a 2010 and also a previous event in 2004.

http://forces.si.edu/arctic/images/02_02_04_a.gif

Thanks guys.
I think the earth will fight back & plunge Europe into an ice age.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 8:51am: since the climate has changed many times in the past and temperatures have increased/decreased as many times .....LONG before man had any industry, they wonder WHY is it called 'man made' this time, when it was called 'natural' ALL the other times??? Because humans are the driver of the change this time. There are 6 billion of us spewing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. It has been proven that levels of these gasses are increasing in the atmosphere. It has been proven that the planet is warming. It's not difficult to see the connection. If global warming hadn't become such a political football there would be no debate that the science is accurate.

What, so if humans hadn't gone through the Industrial Revolution, then the temperatures NOW would be exactly as they were between the early 1300's (Great Famine 1315-1322) and the mid 1800's??
So we could still be enjoying the River Thames Frost Fairs when people ice-skated on the River Thames and people in New York could walk across the harbour from Manhatten to Staten Island on the ice??

Is that what you're saying???

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 11:49am:

Thanks guys. I think the earth will fight back & plunge Europe into an ice age.

Which is exactly what was predicted BY SCIENTISTS, in the 60's and 70's....
Pollution caused Global Cooling...not warming..

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:56pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 11:59am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:56am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:46am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????     Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ? Why take the risk ? On EITHER count And the 'other' tie in is the INCREASED average temperatures EVERY decade, coinciding with the end of an interglacial cool period and a return to the temperatures that existed before the cool period.. See that fits the facts just as well, doesn't it.... So, I'll give you 50/50 - as a hypothetical Do we sit back and do NOTHING - just in case it isn't a problem ... Or do we ACT, in case it is ?

How about giving me 10/80???? 10% man, 80% natural...

And it depends on HOW we act......
Replace fossil fuels with other power sources ( solar, wind etc, backed up by nuclear for reliabilty)...Fine by me

Tax the sh1t out of everyone and spend NONE of the money on R&D....NO

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming!

Thanks Bobby. If the earth is heating how is a cold snap produced without cold air? Remember, hot air is replacing cold air.

Wouldn't your theory be the same as going bush walking in Tasmania and being confronted by signs every 5 kilometres that read: BEWARE! Tasmanian Tigers in this area.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:49am: Thanks guys. I think the earth will fight back & plunge Europe into an ice age. Which is exactly what was predicted BY SCIENTISTS, in the 60's and 70's.... Pollution caused Global Cooling...not warming..

Meh!  Cooling, warming, whatever...let`s have a big new tax anyway.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 1:13pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:56pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 11:59am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:56am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:46am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????     Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ? Why take the risk ? On EITHER count And the 'other' tie in is the INCREASED average temperatures EVERY decade, coinciding with the end of an interglacial cool period and a return to the temperatures that existed before the cool period.. See that fits the facts just as well, doesn't it.... So, I'll give you 50/50 - as a hypothetical Do we sit back and do NOTHING - just in case it isn't a problem ... Or do we ACT, in case it is ? How about giving me 10/80???? 10% man, 80% natural... And it depends on HOW we act...... Replace fossil fuels with other power sources ( solar, wind etc, backed up by nuclear for reliabilty)...Fine by me Tax the sh1t out of everyone and spend NONE of the money on R&D....NO

Gizmo, in order to deal with this problem effectively, one must understand both the economics and the science. Denying the effectiveness of price signals in altering consumer behaviour is no less silly than proclaiming 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming'.

Your apporach would be worse for both the environment and the economy. You are right that it does matter how we act, then you get it all wrong.

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 2:41pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 1:13pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:56pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 11:59am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:56am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:46am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????     Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ? Why take the risk ? On EITHER count And the 'other' tie in is the INCREASED average temperatures EVERY decade, coinciding with the end of an interglacial cool period and a return to the temperatures that existed before the cool period.. See that fits the facts just as well, doesn't it.... So, I'll give you 50/50 - as a hypothetical Do we sit back and do NOTHING - just in case it isn't a problem ... Or do we ACT, in case it is ? How about giving me 10/80???? 10% man, 80% natural... And it depends on HOW we act...... Replace fossil fuels with other power sources ( solar, wind etc, backed up by nuclear for reliabilty)...Fine by me Tax the sh1t out of everyone and spend NONE of the money on R&D....NO Gizmo, in order to deal with this problem effectively, one must understand both the economics and the science. Denying the effectiveness of price signals in altering consumer behaviour is no less silly than proclaiming 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming'. Your apporach would be worse for both the environment and the economy. You are right that it does matter how we act, then you get it all wrong.

FD, do you seriously believe that a 'tax grab', which will increase the prices of consumer goods and services, and sending the money raised overseas to 3rd world countries will have anything more than a microscopic effect on the environment??

If the Government(s) simply add  $X amount  (call it $20) to the production cost of a megawatt of electricity, do you think that will 'cause' the power company to do anything other than pass that $20 along to their customers???

Where is the incentive for them to spend $100 million dollars to research, design and build a new, 'green' generator station??

Tax breaks, or co-funding would work far better

Remember the 'Flys and Honey' analogy...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:49am: Thanks guys. I think the earth will fight back & plunge Europe into an ice age. Which is exactly what was predicted BY SCIENTISTS, in the 60's and 70's.... Pollution caused Global Cooling...not warming..

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
16 May 2007

Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage

One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.

Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run

The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense - and sometimes ferocious - scrutiny

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html






Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s
February 22, 2008

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 2:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 1:13pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:56pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 11:59am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:56am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:46am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 7:41am: Last Decade Was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years, NASA Research Finds Jan. 22, 2010 A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record. "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm Australia bakes through warmest decade on record Jan 5, 2010 The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change. The Bureau's annual report has found the average temperature over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above average. Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average. "There's no doubt about global warming, the planet's been warming now for most of the last century," he said. "Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example. "But we're getting these increasingly warm temperatures - not just for Australia but globally - and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm Yes, and the proof that man is responsible is??????     Science RARELY offers conclusive "proof" on ANYTHING - but more on liklihood and probability In THIS case - the tie in with INCREASED average tempratures EVERY decade, coinciding with the industrial revolution and increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere Did we wait for conclusive "proof" of the connection between lung cancer and smoking before medical experts discouraged it ? Why take the risk ? On EITHER count And the 'other' tie in is the INCREASED average temperatures EVERY decade, coinciding with the end of an interglacial cool period and a return to the temperatures that existed before the cool period.. See that fits the facts just as well, doesn't it.... So, I'll give you 50/50 - as a hypothetical Do we sit back and do NOTHING - just in case it isn't a problem ... Or do we ACT, in case it is ? How about giving me 10/80???? 10% man, 80% natural... And it depends on HOW we act...... Replace fossil fuels with other power sources ( solar, wind etc, backed up by nuclear for reliabilty)...Fine by me Tax the sh1t out of everyone and spend NONE of the money on R&D....NO Gizmo, in order to deal with this problem effectively, one must understand both the economics and the science. Denying the effectiveness of price signals in altering consumer behaviour is no less silly than proclaiming 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming'. Your apporach would be worse for both the environment and the economy. You are right that it does matter how we act, then you get it all wrong. FD, do you seriously believe that a 'tax grab', which will increase the prices of consumer goods and services, and sending the money raised overseas to 3rd world countries will have anything more than a microscopic effect on the environment?? If the Government(s) simply add  $X amount  (call it $20) to the production cost of a megawatt of electricity, do you think that will 'cause' the power company to do anything other than pass that $20 along to their customers??? Where is the incentive for them to spend $100 million dollars to research, design and build a new, 'green' generator station?? Tax breaks, or co-funding would work far better Remember the 'Flys and Honey' analogy...

I would go with legislated annual GHG cuts, with Tax Carrots & Loadings!

Yes PN, that's what I'm saying.

To get companies to change to 'clean' energy....GIVE them something, instead of punishing them...it works far better..and is only a problem if you have your heart set on cashing in...

For example, for every 50 Gigawatts a power company produces with 'clean' power, you reduce their company tax rate by 2% for that year...up to say 40%...

Or for every 50 tonnes of Co2 they 'save', you do the same thing..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 3:36pm:

Yes PN, that's what I'm saying. To get companies to change to 'clean' energy....GIVE them something, instead of punishing them...it works far better..and is only a problem if you have your heart set on cashing in...

Legislated annual GHG cuts, with Tax Carrots & Loadings has been my position since an ETS was first mooted.

The ETS is much like a government tax on Petrol, governments say it is to change public habits, but the real purpose is to collect tax, it has had no substantial effect to lower our Petrol consumption!

That said, change must start!!!

We have had these discussions before, but in essence we (humans) are impacting the Environment (Climate) and that doesn't mean 80% or 50% etc, all it takes is a minor push, particularly over time, to invoke substantial tipping points, much like the "butterfly effect".

Also, as previous mentioned, we take insurance against low probability, high impact risks and whilst Climat Change is much more than a low risk, all we do is bicker, which means nothing is done to mitigate the risks!

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 3:36pm: Yes PN, that's what I'm saying. To get companies to change to 'clean' energy....GIVE them something, instead of punishing them...it works far better..and is only a problem if you have your heart set on cashing in... Legislated annual GHG cuts, with Tax Carrots & Loadings has been my position since an ETS was first mooted. The ETS is much like a government tax on Petrol, governments say it is to change public habits, but the real purpose is to collect tax, it has had no substantial effect to lower our Petrol consumption! That said, change must start!!! We have had these discussions before, but in essence we (humans) are impacting the Environment (Climate) and that doesn't mean 80% or 50% etc, all it takes is a minor push, particularly over time, to invoke substantial tipping points, much like the "butterfly effect". Also, as previous mentioned, we take insurance against low probability, high impact risks and whilst Climat Change is much more than a low risk, all we do is bicker, which means nothing is done to mitigate the risks!

Of course there is the REC scheme that currently does exactly  that. I'd be in favour of expanding that scheme.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming!

Well, it could be. We have to be very careful about saying things like that, because it's a short term phenomenon, and secondly, it's not actually a cold snap. The extra snow is evidence of warmer winter temperatures. If it's too cold, you don't get snow.

As far as the Gulf Stream mechanism, it's too early to state that with any degree of certainty, but in principle, it the kind of effect that can happen.

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:20am: Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming! Well, it could be. We have to be very careful about saying things like that, because it's a short term phenomenon, and secondly, it's not actually a cold snap. The extra snow is evidence of warmer winter temperatures. If it's too cold, you don't get snow. As far as the Gulf Stream mechanism, it's too early to state that with any degree of certainty, but in principle, it the kind of effect that can happen.

That applies HERE in Australia, I'm not sure what the 'normal' winter temps are in Europe.

In the Australian High Country, temperatures below -5c or -6c are too cold to snow,but Australia is somewhat drier the Europe...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:55pm:

muso wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 4:46pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:20am: Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming! Well, it could be. We have to be very careful about saying things like that, because it's a short term phenomenon, and secondly, it's not actually a cold snap. The extra snow is evidence of warmer winter temperatures. If it's too cold, you don't get snow. As far as the Gulf Stream mechanism, it's too early to state that with any degree of certainty, but in principle, it the kind of effect that can happen. That applies HERE in Australia, I'm not sure what the 'normal' winter temps are in Europe. In the Australian High Country, temperatures below -5c or -6c are too cold to snow,but Australia is somewhat drier the Europe...

It applies everywhere, Gizmo. I have spent a fair bit of time in Europe and the States. I have relatives in the UK.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:36am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:00am: Are humans in the driver's seat? Can you show what they have caused then? And with all of us exhaling CO2 what would you suggest we humans do to stop exhaling that gas. And it hasn't been proven that the level of tehse gases has increased nor that the planet is warming. So how can you prove a connection when the dots don't exist? Or are we just meant to assume that these dots exist? I've explained all this before so I suspect I'm wasting my time but here goes. It has been proven that CO2 is increasing by measurements taken at Mauna Lao. It has been proven that the earth is warming by measurements taken by NASA and the photographic evidence of glaciers retreating. Humans exhaling CO2, volcanoes, termite mounds etc are all part of the natural carbon cycle which keeps the earth at a livable temperature. It is unnatural emissions of CO2 such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation which causes an increase in temperature

No, you haven't proved anything at all.
All you've posted is your belief.
Well not everyone believes in Scientology either.

However if you can prove global warming rather than just 'please believe me'pleas then you may get somewhere.
Oh and yes humans exhale CO2 so guess we have to all stop exhaling else that CO2 is causing your global warming, that's if you can prove it.
Otherwise prove that the human exhalation of CO2 isn't then!

I want to know if the Gulf Stream has stopped due to global warming.
If so -  Europe will be heading towards a mini ice age.

The Gulf stream may be a form of negative feedback which controls the
average temperature of the earth ie - the temperature goes up so
the gulf stream switches off & cools the northern hemisphere -
thus moderating the average temperature.

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 4:55pm: muso wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 4:46pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:20am: Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming! Well, it could be. We have to be very careful about saying things like that, because it's a short term phenomenon, and secondly, it's not actually a cold snap. The extra snow is evidence of warmer winter temperatures. If it's too cold, you don't get snow. As far as the Gulf Stream mechanism, it's too early to state that with any degree of certainty, but in principle, it the kind of effect that can happen. That applies HERE in Australia, I'm not sure what the 'normal' winter temps are in Europe. In the Australian High Country, temperatures below -5c or -6c are too cold to snow,but Australia is somewhat drier the Europe... It applies everywhere, Gizmo. I have spent a fair bit of time in Europe and the States. I have relatives in the UK.

Yeah, but what is the 'normal' winter temps for Europe???
Up near Mt Selwyn for example, it doesn't snow at -10 but it does at -6...

So in Europe, does the same apply?, if it's -6c, it snows, but if it's -9 it doesn't? and what is the normal, pre-agw temps in winter???

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:09pm:

I want to know if the Gulf Stream has stopped due to global warming. If so -  Europe will be heading towards a mini ice age. The Gulf stream may be a form of negative feedback which controls the average temperature of the earth ie - the temperature goes up so the gulf stream switches off & cools the northern hemisphere - thus moderating the average temperature.

So does everybody, but it's too short a period to say for sure. This has been the third year of severe winters in Europe.

Here is a link to the most current research. Nothing conclusive as yet:

http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/metadata_abstracts.php?format=All&id=30&letter=R&limit=10&q=&s=0&sorder=First_Author&stype=phrase&table=Abstracts&tag=All&type=

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:15pm:

Yeah, but what is the 'normal' winter temps for Europe??? Up near Mt Selwyn for example, it doesn't snow at -10 but it does at -6... So in Europe, does the same apply?, if it's -6c, it snows, but if it's -9 it doesn't? and what is the normal, pre-agw temps in winter???

It depends where you are in Europe. As I've said time and time again, we can't say anything conclusive about the severe winters in Europe yet. Anybody who does so, stands to get major omelette on his face.

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 5:15pm: Yeah, but what is the 'normal' winter temps for Europe??? Up near Mt Selwyn for example, it doesn't snow at -10 but it does at -6... So in Europe, does the same apply?, if it's -6c, it snows, but if it's -9 it doesn't? and what is the normal, pre-agw temps in winter??? It depends where you are in Europe. As I've said time and time again, we can't say anything conclusive about the severe winters in Europe yet. Anybody who does so, stands to get major omelette on his face.

So , anyone who says that ACC is causing the current winters in Europe will get a "major omelette on his face"??

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 5:09pm: I want to know if the Gulf Stream has stopped due to global warming. If so -  Europe will be heading towards a mini ice age. The Gulf stream may be a form of negative feedback which controls the average temperature of the earth ie - the temperature goes up so the gulf stream switches off & cools the northern hemisphere - thus moderating the average temperature. So does everybody, but it's too short a period to say for sure. This has been the third year of severe winters in Europe. Here is a link to the most current research. Nothing conclusive as yet: http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/metadata_abstracts.php?format=All&id=30&letter=R&limit=10&q=&s=0&sorder=First_Author&stype=phrase&table=Abstracts&tag=All&type=

Thanks Muso.
I thought just a few measurements of temperature in the sea (in the right place)
would confirm it?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

So , anyone who says that ACC is causing the current winters in Europe will get a "major omelette on his face"??

IMHO - yes. It's too early to say that.

What gets me is that the Gulf Stream is never mentioned in the weather reports.

I watch the Aussie news & the French news every day - not a word -
yet we had doco after doco about it on TV.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 6:17pm:

What gets me is that the Gulf Stream is never mentioned in the weather reports. I watch the Aussie news & the French news every day - not a word - yet we had doco after doco about it on TV.

Is that similar to El Nino?

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 6:17pm: What gets me is that the Gulf Stream is never mentioned in the weather reports. I watch the Aussie news & the French news every day - not a word - yet we had doco after doco about it on TV. Is that similar to El Nino?

No.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 2:55pm:

FD, do you seriously believe that a 'tax grab', which will increase the prices of consumer goods and services, and sending the money raised overseas to 3rd world countries will have anything more than a microscopic effect on the environment??

Depending on the tax, it can reduce emissions anywhere between 0% and 100%.


Quote:

If the Government(s) simply add  $X amount  (call it $20) to the production cost of a megawatt of electricity, do you think that will 'cause' the power company to do anything other than pass that $20 along to their customers???

That's how it works.


Quote:

Where is the incentive for them to spend $100 million dollars to research, design and build a new, 'green' generator station??

It's called competition. There probably would not be any incentive unless the tax was higher, which is a good thing. We should take advantage of the cheaper options first.


Quote:

Tax breaks, or co-funding would work far better

NO it wouldn't.


Quote:

Remember the 'Flys and Honey' analogy...

Fortunately economists have a better grasp of the situtation than what little insight can be gained from old sayings.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:15pm:

muso wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 5:01pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 4:55pm: muso wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 4:46pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 11:20am: Has anyone read what I wrote? Bobby. Quote: Yes - it's very cold in Europe right now - record low temperatures. Has anyone heard that one of the consequences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream would stop & plunge Europe into an ice age? Sounds like the cold snap is further evidence of global warming! Well, it could be. We have to be very careful about saying things like that, because it's a short term phenomenon, and secondly, it's not actually a cold snap. The extra snow is evidence of warmer winter temperatures. If it's too cold, you don't get snow. As far as the Gulf Stream mechanism, it's too early to state that with any degree of certainty, but in principle, it the kind of effect that can happen. That applies HERE in Australia, I'm not sure what the 'normal' winter temps are in Europe. In the Australian High Country, temperatures below -5c or -6c are too cold to snow,but Australia is somewhat drier the Europe... It applies everywhere, Gizmo. I have spent a fair bit of time in Europe and the States. I have relatives in the UK. Yeah, but what is the 'normal' winter temps for Europe??? Up near Mt Selwyn for example, it doesn't snow at -10 but it does at -6... So in Europe, does the same apply?, if it's -6c, it snows, but if it's -9 it doesn't? and what is the normal, pre-agw temps in winter???

Pretty much. Equating unusual snow with unusual cold is an understandable mistake for an Australian to make. Especially for the "frost this morning, therefor no global warming" crowd, who like to think they have disproved global warming every time they hear a weather report.

Hi Freediver - your thoughts on the gulf stream?

Has it stopped? - or -
has it partially stopped - slowed down?

I doubt it has slowed or stopped yet. I get the impression it would take a long time.

You don't hear about it in the weather reports because it is not fickle like el nino. It is always there, so there is nothing new to report.

Has anyone got an image or two of the planet around 1900 in regards to forestation and the planet now in regards to forestation. I'm of the opinion that even from the first satellite pictures of earth from space, there has been a marked decrease in forestation (you know - the very green areas on the planet) ...all in just 100 years or one generation.

Now if you increase the Carbon-dioxide levels by an increase of 6 billion people breathing it out on top of a decrease in forestation
....well, have you every stood in a small room packed with people, the door shut and just a few indoor plants ----> it gets hot and stuffy don't it. ::)
Throw in the pollution factor like everyone smoking in the room and the tap water being nothing more than warm dehydrating Vomit Beer (VB) ...kinda see why a lot of people a pissed off with other people trashing the planet.

Personally, I think this planet is FUBAR and there is nothing anyone can do about it - Greenies, Pollies, NO-ONE. Because even the HUMAN world is stuffed up too. How can we save a world, if we can't even save ourselves.
Oh well, stuff yas!

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:47pm:

I doubt it has slowed or stopped yet. I get the impression it would take a long time. You don't hear about it in the weather reports because it is not fickle like el nino. It is always there, so there is nothing new to report.

My impression from the documentaries was that it could stop suddenly.

Jas.

Quote:

Personally, I think this planet is FUBAR and there is nothing anyone can do about it - Greenies, Pollies, NO-ONE. Because even the HUMAN world is stuffed up too. How can we save a world, if we can't even save ourselves. Oh well, stuff yas!

The earth will survive no matter what we do.
It can recover given millions of years.
The question is - will we still be here?

Nope.

We are the civilisation or species that 'stuffs up' and leaves a wise reminder to a following species a million years from now that digs up the remains of our period on this planet.
Sadly for that Species, that has the foresight of our mistakes, the planet is at the end of its tether and thus they too are rooted.

What a joke ::)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:

Nope. We are the civilisation or species that 'stuffs up' and leaves a wise reminder to a following species a million years from now that digs up the remains of our period on this planet. Sadly for that Species, that has the foresight of our mistakes, the planet is at the end of its tether and thus they too are rooted. What a joke ::)

The question is then -
how long have we got?

I would say about 1000 years left.

Yeah - probably about that, if not a bit less.

Death comes to you, me and all of us sooner or later.
Even if Humanity survives a bullet via a Holocaust
or cancer via Pollution, etc.
Old Age will get us in the end when all upon this planet is spent.
As we rush from nothing, to nought at the end.
We will die.
We will die.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:

Nope. We are the civilisation or species that 'stuffs up' and leaves a wise reminder to a following species a million years from now that digs up the remains of our period on this planet. Sadly for that Species, that has the foresight of our mistakes, the planet is at the end of its tether and thus they too are rooted. What a joke ::)

And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Grouped around the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death
No tears to cry no feelings left
This species has amused itself to death

- Roger Waters

More like a moments silence
for a planet that had a lot of potential
but didn't make the 'final cut',
Then they blow the crap out of this planetoid to make way for
a new Hyperspace Bypass.

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 9:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 2:55pm: FD, do you seriously believe that a 'tax grab', which will increase the prices of consumer goods and services, and sending the money raised overseas to 3rd world countries will have anything more than a microscopic effect on the environment?? Depending on the tax, it can reduce emissions anywhere between 0% and 100%. Quote: If the Government(s) simply add  $X amount  (call it $20) to the production cost of a megawatt of electricity, do you think that will 'cause' the power company to do anything other than pass that $20 along to their customers??? That's how it works. [quote] Where is the incentive for them to spend $100 million dollars to research, design and build a new, 'green' generator station??

It's called competition. There probably would not be any incentive unless the tax was higher, which is a good thing. We should take advantage of the cheaper options first.


Quote:

Tax breaks, or co-funding would work far better

NO it wouldn't.


Quote:

Remember the 'Flys and Honey' analogy...

Fortunately economists have a better grasp of the situtation than what little insight can be gained from old sayings.[/quote]


Is that how Oil/Petrol Consumption was reduced, because of the Petrol excise?

It's more like, more -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

Let me re-phrase that, it's CRAP!

The Petrol Excise didn't reduce Petrol consumption and a Carbon tax would achieve the same result, which is ZERO.

In any event, whatever happens here (in OZ) is irrelevant, it's what happens in China, the USA, India and the other major consumers, where the real battlelines are.

You (FD) & everyone else, you need to ask one question -
If a large Global reduction in GHG emissions is required, to mitigate the risk of a massive Climate Change disaster, HOW COULD A VERY SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN GHG EMISSIONS BE ACHIEVED, given the guaranteed objections from many with vested interests?

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:28pm:

Now if you increase the Carbon-dioxide levels by an increase of 6 billion people breathing it out on top of a decrease in forestation ....well, have you every stood in a small room packed with people, the door shut and just a few indoor plants ----> it gets hot and stuffy don't it. ::)

Mate, the CO2 produced by people breathing is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to burning oil and gas.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 10:48pm:

The question is then - how long have we got? I would say about 1000 years left.

I don't think we'll die out, but the next 300 years or so will be a major test.  

I'd like to think that we'll start colonizing the galaxy.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 6:26am:

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:28pm: Now if you increase the Carbon-dioxide levels by an increase of 6 billion people breathing it out on top of a decrease in forestation ....well, have you every stood in a small room packed with people, the door shut and just a few indoor plants ----> it gets hot and stuffy don't it. ::) Mate, the CO2 produced by people breathing is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to burning oil and gas.

And the CO2 produced by Australia is a drop in the ocean when you compare it to the rest of the world.

It's getting warmer all right, in the ALP parliamentary rooms as more wasted money is being flushed down the gurgler. This time $47 million from the Federal govt and $100 million from the Qld state govt.
Needless to say that this is typical of the ALP, and no one will be surprised by yet another waste of taxpayers money.
And as typical of the ALP, despite all warnings not to proceed Bligh did and wastefully spent more than $100million, before realising the white elephant she was facing.


Is Anna Bligh trying to show Australia that Julia Gillard's wasted spending isn't that bad?

Or is the ALP really getting controlled by the greens everywhere?


'QUEENSLAND'S ambitious plan to become a world leader in clean coal is in disarray.

The Bligh Government has abandoned its controversial ZeroGen project after taxpayers pumped $150 million into the initiative.

In a major blow to the state's carbon reduction strategy, the Government will give away the state-owned company ZeroGen and scrap its planned $4.3 billion clean coal power station in central Queensland.

As thousands of new jobs at the proposed plant go up in smoke, ownership of ZeroGen will be handed to an industry body, the Australian Coal Association, with state taxpayers' investment written off as a loss of almost $100 million.

The Federal Government yesterday attacked the decision after confirming it had also invested $47.5 million towards a pre-feasibility study for the now-aborted plant.

About $40 million of the state's $102.5 million investment in ZeroGen was spent after the Government was advised to withdraw from the project by a review which described the venture as "speculative".'


Read more...http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/queenslands-coal-project-turns-to-dust/story-e6frf7l6-1225973323935

Well it's no real surprise to anyone about Anna Bligh's backflip over the ZeroGen, as it was green inspired wasn't it so it was always going to be a waste of money. It was just a matter of time before the figures finally hit home.

So what do we learn from this -if it's green then run a mile, don't even look at it as we know it will be a waste of money and a white elephant! All being sold under the pretence of 'its green', so its the cool, hip & a trendy way to go.
Wasting money on white elephants is never cool hip or trendy.

'If it's green, it will cost more than they say, deliver less, and be riddled with rorts to boot. Think of the Rudd Government's pink batts fiasco, sold as a green fix, only to become a honey pot for every scammer from Karachi to Bondi.

Think of the Green Loans scheme or the solar hot water rebates - both scrapped, too, after being rorted until we bled.

Think of wind farms, producing less green power than advertised. Or think of Victoria's desalination plant, sold as the green alternative to a dam, yet costing taxpayers not the first-advertised $3.1 billion but since-admitted $5.7 billion - four times the price of a dam for just a third of the water.

Or take the collapse of the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, drained of millions by carpetbaggers who pushed boxes of free low-energy light bulbs and low-flow shower nozzles on to customers to cash in on the fistfuls of over-priced abatement certificates they got in exchange.'

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/green-is-the-mantra-of-gillard-the-gullible/story-fn5zmod2-1225897674199

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 6:29am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:48pm: The question is then - how long have we got? I would say about 1000 years left. I don't think we'll die out, but the next 300 years or so will be a major test.   I'd like to think that we'll start colonizing the galaxy.

I think we should be making a very large space telescope with a mirror
big enough to resolve planets.
See link:
http://rayvillard.com/articles/Beyond_hubble.pdf

If we could prove that earth like planets were around nearby stars then
an interstellar mission would find more encouragement.
The closest star is 4.2 light years away.
If we could make a spacecraft go 10% of the speed of light then a robot
mission would take 42 years to get there.
It could then transmit data back to earth which would take 4.2 years.
We could therefore have results in about 46 years.

Still - accelerating a space craft to 10% of C is beyond us right now.
It's a project that will happen when we get the technology one day  -
maybe in the next 100 years.

We should talk about that on the Technical section. It's certainly something that interests a few of us.

Gee, if methane from Cows are making an impact, i'm pretty sure 6+ Billion people C02'ing the world is an impact.

Personally though - this is a job for Environmentalism - NOT Politics.
I think Politics should just shut up and toe the line behind the people who a doing the hard yards upon the 'subject'.
You don't hear Environmentalist telling Polititians how to pass a Bill or behave in a House of Reps??

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 8:53am:

We should talk about that on the Technical section. It's certainly something that interests a few of us.

Yes we should.
I'll transfer that to the Voyager 1 thread.
cheers
Bobby.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 6:32am:

muso wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 6:26am: It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:28pm: Now if you increase the Carbon-dioxide levels by an increase of 6 billion people breathing it out on top of a decrease in forestation ....well, have you every stood in a small room packed with people, the door shut and just a few indoor plants ----> it gets hot and stuffy don't it. ::) Mate, the CO2 produced by people breathing is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to burning oil and gas. And the CO2 produced by Australia is a drop in the ocean when you compare it to the rest of the world.

Actually, when it comes to pollution, we punch far above our weight.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 9:22am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 6:32am: muso wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 6:26am: It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:28pm: Now if you increase the Carbon-dioxide levels by an increase of 6 billion people breathing it out on top of a decrease in forestation ....well, have you every stood in a small room packed with people, the door shut and just a few indoor plants ----> it gets hot and stuffy don't it. ::) Mate, the CO2 produced by people breathing is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to burning oil and gas. And the CO2 produced by Australia is a drop in the ocean when you compare it to the rest of the world. Actually, when it comes to pollution, we punch far above our weight.

Relatively yes, absolutely no.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

Gee, if methane from Cows are making an impact, i'm pretty sure 6+ Billion people C02'ing the world is an impact. Personally though - this is a job for Environmentalism - NOT Politics. I think Politics should just shut up and toe the line behind the people who a doing the hard yards upon the 'subject'. You don't hear Environmentalist telling Polititians how to pass a Bill or behave in a House of Reps??

Methane has a much greater impact on the atmosphere, per unit volume, than CO2.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

Personally though - this is a job for Environmentalism - NOT Politics. I think Politics should just shut up and toe the line behind the people who a doing the hard yards upon the 'subject'. You don't hear Environmentalist telling Polititians how to pass a Bill or behave in a House of Reps??

That is the tragedy of the whole global warming debate. It has become politicized into a left v right battle.  

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 9:24am:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 9:22am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 6:32am: muso wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 6:26am: It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:28pm: Now if you increase the Carbon-dioxide levels by an increase of 6 billion people breathing it out on top of a decrease in forestation ....well, have you every stood in a small room packed with people, the door shut and just a few indoor plants ----> it gets hot and stuffy don't it. ::) Mate, the CO2 produced by people breathing is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to burning oil and gas. And the CO2 produced by Australia is a drop in the ocean when you compare it to the rest of the world. Actually, when it comes to pollution, we punch far above our weight. Relatively yes, absolutely no.

Would you like to try to build a ratuional argument from this Anne? Are you suggesting we shouldn't do our bit because our bit is only a small part of a big solution?

Your argument would throw personal responsibility out the window, because an individual will only ever play a very small role in a communal problem like this.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

Gee, if methane from Cows are making an impact, i'm pretty sure 6+ Billion people C02'ing the world is an impact.

Let's put it in perspective. Transportation makes up roughly 14 percent of the emissions. Let's use extremely conservative figures.

Let's take the most efficient mid-size car as an example and the heaviest breathing that you're likely to do. (get your mind out of the gutter :) )

Over 60,000 km, a Toyota Prius will emit 3.8 tonnes of CO2.
A person who cycles that distance (average fitness, average cycling speed) instead will produce about 0.38 tonnes of CO2.

Now while cycling, a person consumes oxygen at up to 10 times the rate of a person at rest.

Now the CO2 emissions per kilometer are negligible for a Toyota Prius compared to other forms of transport. We'll be really conservative and use a factor of 10.

Strenuous exercise is still 1/10 of that of driving the most fuel efficient mid-size car on the road. Normal breathing is about 1/100 of that emission rate.

So can you see that CO2 emitted from breathing doesn't really figure in the exercise? At the absolute maximum, it's 1/1000 of the transport sector or about 0.014% of total emissions, and that's being really conservative. It's probably 1/100 of that again.  It's negligible. I'll summarise with the following equation, where CO2(B) is the CO2 given out by the world's population while breathing:

CO2(B) = 4/5 x FA.    ;D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

Good work Muso, very interesting pie charts and I especially liked your equation CO2(B) = 4/5 x FA.     ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 9:22am:

Actually, when it comes to pollution, we punch far above our weight.

Some figures for 2007
Metric tonnes of CO2 emitted per person (number indicates ranking):

1. Qatar:  55.4 tonnes
11. United States: 18.9 tonnes
12. Australia: 17.9 tonnes
44. United Kingdom: 8.9 tonnes
51. New Zealand: 7.8 tonnes
79. Switzerland: 5.1 tonnes
80. China: 4.9 tonnes
124. Brazil: 1.9 tonnes
204. Nepal: 0.1 tonnes

But you didn't mention the 'regeneration' of the Oxygen by the now depleted forestations ...I reckon more than 60% reduction, just like a near 80% reduction in freshwater sources like Lake Chad, Baikal, etc - since 1900.
6 Billion people may be putting out smaller percentages of C02 in comparison to a toyota's emmission ...but I think the regenerative process has diminished considerably.

It didn't take much to make a giant Ozone hole (wonder how thats going these days?).

All out Thermocuclear Warfare/Holocaust was a REAL threat this this planet not so long ago and I tend to think Environmental Crises (be it warming or cooling or just flipping from one extreme to the other) is just as much as a REAL threat.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

But you didn't mention the 'regeneration' of the Oxygen by the now depleted forestations ...I reckon more than 60% reduction, just like a near 80% reduction in freshwater sources like Lake Chad, Baikal, etc - since 1900.

Yeah, that's usually factored into the Land Use and  biomass burning section, but you're quite right.


Quote:

It didn't take much to make a giant Ozone hole (wonder how thats going these days?).

The last I checked, it's past its peak which was in 2006. Back to late 80's levels, but it will probably take up to 2050 to get back to normal, if it ever gets there.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 8:48am:

muso wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 6:29am: Bobby. wrote on Dec 18th, 2010 at 10:48pm: The question is then - how long have we got? I would say about 1000 years left. I don't think we'll die out, but the next 300 years or so will be a major test.   I'd like to think that we'll start colonizing the galaxy. I think we should be making a very large space telescope with a mirror big enough to resolve planets. See link: http://rayvillard.com/articles/Beyond_hubble.pdf If we could prove that earth like planets were around nearby stars then an interstellar mission would find more encouragement. The closest star is 4.2 light years away. If we could make a spacecraft go 10% of the speed of light then a robot mission would take 42 years to get there. It could then transmit data back to earth which would take 4.2 years. We could therefore have results in about 46 years. Still - accelerating a space craft to 10% of C is beyond us right now. It's a project that will happen when we get the technology one day  - maybe in the next 100 years.

I'm not 100% sure that 1/10th of C is impossible......especially in a robot probe ship....it's just a matter of fuel load more than anything else...

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 10:14am:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2010 at 9:22am: Actually, when it comes to pollution, we punch far above our weight. Some figures for 2007 Metric tonnes of CO2 emitted per person (number indicates ranking): 1. Qatar:  55.4 tonnes 11. United States: 18.9 tonnes 12. Australia: 17.9 tonnes 44. United Kingdom: 8.9 tonnes 51. New Zealand: 7.8 tonnes 79. Switzerland: 5.1 tonnes 80. China: 4.9 tonnes 124. Brazil: 1.9 tonnes 204. Nepal: 0.1 tonnes

By way of comparison of per capita to total emissions -

List of countries by 2007 emissions
Rank, Country, Annual CO2 emissions
(in thousands of metric tons), Percentage of global total
 World 29,321,302 100%

1  China 6,538,367.00 22.30%
2  United States 5,838,381.00 19.91%
-  European Union  4,177,817.86[11] 14.04%
3  India 1,612,362.00 5.50%
4  Russia 1,537,357.00 5.24%
5  Japan 1,254,543.00 4.28%
6  Germany 787,936.00 2.69%
7  Canada 557,340.00 1.90%
8  United Kingdom 539,617.00 1.84%
9  South Korea 503,321.00 1.72%
10  Iran 495,987.00 1.69%
11  Mexico 471,459.00 1.61%
12  Italy] 456,428.00 1.56%
13  South Africa 433,527.00 1.48%
14  Saudi Arabia 402,450.00 1.37%
15  Indonesia 397,143.00 1.35%
16  Australia 374,045.00 1.28%

52 Qatar 63,000.00 0.22%
18 Brazil 368,317.00 1.26%
72 New Zealand 32,662.00 0.11%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

In the overall scheme of things, both per capita & Total size are important.

That said, if China, the USA, Europe, India & Russia are not in, then we are all out!  

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

Gee, if methane from Cows are making an impact, i'm pretty sure 6+ Billion people C02'ing the world is an impact.

And that's just from one oriface.

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 12:08pm:

By way of comparison of per capita to total emissions - List of countries by 2007 emissions Rank, Country, Annual CO2 emissions (in thousands of metric tons), Percentage of global total  World 29,321,302 100% 1  China 6,538,367.00 22.30% 2  United States 5,838,381.00 19.91% -  European Union  4,177,817.86[11] 14.04% 3  India 1,612,362.00 5.50% 4  Russia 1,537,357.00 5.24% 5  Japan 1,254,543.00 4.28% 6  Germany 787,936.00 2.69% 7  Canada 557,340.00 1.90% 8  United Kingdom 539,617.00 1.84% 9  South Korea 503,321.00 1.72% 10  Iran 495,987.00 1.69% 11  Mexico 471,459.00 1.61% 12  Italy] 456,428.00 1.56% 13  South Africa 433,527.00 1.48% 14  Saudi Arabia 402,450.00 1.37% 15  Indonesia 397,143.00 1.35% 16  Australia 374,045.00 1.28% 52 Qatar 63,000.00 0.22% 18 Brazil 368,317.00 1.26% 72 New Zealand 32,662.00 0.11% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions In the overall scheme of things, both per capita & Total size are important. That said, if China, the USA, Europe, India & Russia are not in, then we are all out!

Oh yes, we can see that if Australia cuts down it's emissions by half then that will save the world!

Why not fit a device to the arse of all our cloven hoofed beasts that converts methane into clean and pure oxygen. Why not get Australian of the Year recipient Tim Flannery to fit the devices with a little help from high priestess Penny Wong?

Why not just fit one TO Tim Flannery??
After all, he IS a horse's arse anyway..

salad in wrote on Dec 20^th, 2010 at 6:44am:

Why not fit a device to the arse of all our cloven hoofed beasts that converts methane into clean and pure oxygen. Why not get Australian of the Year recipient Tim Flannery to fit the devices with a little help from high priestess Penny Wong?

You may find that Penny Wong would only fit the device to women, and then for fitting the device to men would exclusively be done by Bob Brown.
With Timmy sitting by oggling waiting to brush, comb and style the guy's hair afterwards!

If the government was really serious about cutting emissions then they'd ban all Indian restaurants.