CSIRO: 78 per cent of Australians believe in climate change

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: A five year study of Australians' views on climate change has found 78 per cent believe it is happening, but there is a surprising level of volatility in personal views.

The CSIRO study found only 28 per cent of Liberal voters believe human activity is responsible for climate change, compared to 58 per cent of Labor voters.

But one of the report's authors, Zoe Leviston, says many respondents changed their opinion over different surveys.

Dr Leviston spoke to Francis Keany in Canberra.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4344787.htm

Respondents diverged predictable along political lines.

A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring.

A total of 52 per cent were in line with this thinking, while 28 per cent blamed humanity.

Similarly, more Nationals voters were of the opinion it was natural – 42 per cent to 22 per cent.

Meanwhile, 59 per cent of ALP supporters said climate change was human-induced, and 31 per cent agreed it was natural.

Predictably, the most voters who endorsed the science were the Greens’ at 76 per cent. But, perhaps surprisingly, a total of 24 per cent were skeptical of the science all-together

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/11/04/slim-majority-australians-reject-climate-change-science/

Indonesian Forest Fires Have Been Burning Since August

Millions of acres of pristine, irreplaceable and invaluable Indonesian forest has been reduced to smouldering blackened ash, as 100,000 fires rage through the island region.

The sheer size and scale of the fire crisis is difficult to properly comprehend. Some of these fires have been burning since August, torching forest eons old and blanketing Papua, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and countless islands of Indonesia in thick grey hazy smoke.

Earlier in October, Indonesia's Forestry Ministry reported 4.2 million acres of forest had been burnt out, a figure which is sure to have risen since first reported.

Carbon emissions from the fires, at their peak, surpassed emissions belched out by the entire United States of America. More than half a million people have reported respiratory problems.

Results on the Pollutant Standard Index have reached toward 2000, on a scale where a reading above 300 is considered "hazardous." The cost to the region's economy? A bill of $47 billion was considered conservative at the beginning of October.

But how does a region suffer 127,000 fires? And how have these fires in Indonesia, our closest major neighbour, gone basically unnoticed in Australia?

Basically, because money.

Indonesia is the world's largest producer of palm oil. To plant great swathes of timber trees and palm oil-producing crops, Indonesian plantation companies clear huge expanses of land. The best way to quickly and cheaply clear huge tracts of dense jungle and thick forest? Burn it.

Plantation companies in Indonesia simply set fire to trees, waiting till the fire burns itself out then racing through the blackened undergrowth to plant their crops. These fires are set each year by plantation companies, seeing huge plumes of smoke and haze settle in over the region, but this year has been slightly different.

The companies have cut canals and dried out the peat, the decaying vegetation matter on or under the forest floor, turning a valuable part of the ecosystem into a veritable tinderbox for fire. Coupled with El Nino climate factors, the fires met with the dried peat to spark a firestorm the likes of which have not been seen in Indonesia for some 20 years.

The fires have also gone underground, burning and smouldering in the subterranean peat; these fires are all but impossible to extinguish and will burn almost endlessly, unable to be reached by rains or monsoon.

Burning peat can also release hundreds of times as much carbon as a regular forest fire. Greenpeace describe the Indonesian situation as a "carbon bomb."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/11/02/indonesia-fire_n_8447584.html

Lib voters think these sort of things occur without human influence. !!!

Show me top 10 carbon emission sources

Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:05am:

A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring

If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::)

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute

Maqqa, may I introduce you to a search engine.

https://www.google.com.au/

Don't be so efing lazy.

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::)

Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger.

If yes.
Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one.

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:08am: Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute Maqqa, may I introduce you to a search engine. https://www.google.com.au/ Don't be so efing lazy.

Looked for it many years and still can't find it

So please show everyone the table I've asked for

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:21am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:17am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:08am: Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute Maqqa, may I introduce you to a search engine. https://www.google.com.au/ Don't be so efing lazy. Looked for it many years and still can't find it So please show everyone the table I've asked for

I'm not your wet nurse. Ask one of your carers for help.

So Greens can't even produce the evidence

Back under your rock

My intuition is that climate change is real.

My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level.

My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet.

Not a problem,

as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced.
There will be winners and losers.

just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout .

Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt.

The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure.

If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources.
Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of.

Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable.

we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land.

Bring it on  ;)

Even if everyone in Australia stopped emit carbon - there's no evidence it will/won't impact climate change by 1 degree

Greens can't produce a list of carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list in percentage terms

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

So Greens can't even produce the evidence Back under your rock

Yet you want it as your evidence and since you can't supply it, it shows you bring nothing to the table besides trolling.

---

Greens can't produce the evidence. Back under your rock boy

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;)

Oh wise one. How is Australia to be a food bowl to asia, when we no longer have any top soil. The fertile soil loss increased due to deforestation, farming practices, and increasing extreme weather events.

Are we to export fungi grown underground. since due to the heat above ground, is now no longer inhabitable.

Greens still can't produce evidence so it's all a moot point.

NEXT!!!

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

Greens can't produce the evidence. Back under your rock boy

It's you who couldn't find any evidence and then wants everyone else to bow and scrape to your demands.

Life in the real world isn't like your family home where screaming gets your mum and third dad running to your beck and call.

Show the evidence or go search for it. 

Your trolling will now be ignored.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;)

Good grief. Australia is the most vulnerable to the effects of AGW! His imaginary creek would dry out, is drying out if it is in the southern half of the country.  :D :D :D

Don't even bother engaging with them Greens. They are paid LNP astroturfers designed to derail debate.

Either way.

This does show a huge issue with the LNP, as much as people like to pretend Turnbull is a progressive the fact that 72% of Libs are in the pocket of big energy shows that have no intention ever of actually fighting climate change or moving into the green sector, the fastest growing industrial sector in the world.

What I find strange is this mass climate change denialism from these reactionaries seems to be quite unique to Anglo countries, Right wing Governments across Europe, Middle East, Asia etc are jumping on renewables. What makes Anglo countries unique in its mass denialism?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute

Maqqa wants to believe volcanoes emit the most CO2. They don’t, our burning of fossil fuels does.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

What I find strange is this mass climate change denialism from these reactionaries seems to be quite unique to Anglo countries, Right wing Governments across Europe, Middle East, Asia etc are jumping on renewables. What makes Anglo countries unique in its mass denialism?

Everything with context when it comes to their action

I'd be happy to discuss each example in context of their country of origin

But lets first peruse the agreement that started all this in 1991 - Kyoto Agreement. Lets look at the basis for that agreement

This is why I asked for a list of carbon emission sources and the percentage contributions of each

Where do humans rank on that list?

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:33am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:25am: My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;) Oh wise one. How is Australia to be a food bowl to asia, when we no longer have any top soil. The fertile soil loss increased due to deforestation, farming practices, and increasing extreme weather events. Are we to export fungi grown underground. since due to the heat above ground, is now no longer inhabitable.

Best farmers in the world.
Asia (for example india ) has a billion people who directly rely on the melt from the himalayas.
they will be loving my water.
China has relinquished its one child policy.
They will be loving our clean food as their land and waterways are becoming more and more toxic.

Just keep our population down.
Let the farmers get on with it.
Build a few dams.

Our land is so under utilised. there are 3 million feral goats in qld alone , and 10 million roos.
thats a lot of protein just running about untapped.  ;) ;)

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:39am: What I find strange is this mass climate change denialism from these reactionaries seems to be quite unique to Anglo countries, Right wing Governments across Europe, Middle East, Asia etc are jumping on renewables. What makes Anglo countries unique in its mass denialism? Everything with context when it comes to their action I'd be happy to discuss each example in context of their country of origin But lets first peruse the agreement that started all this in 1991 - Kyoto Agreement. Lets look at the basis for that agreement This is why I asked for a list of carbon emission sources and the percentage contributions of each Where do humans rank on that list?

Don't care.

This discussion doesn't involve you.
Cheerio.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:25am: My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;) Good grief. Australia is the most vulnerable to the effects of AGW! His imaginary creek would dry out, is drying out if it is in the southern half of the country.  :D :D :D

my creek (actually its a river) runs directly out of a national park on the coast and i can tell you, it is getting more water in it every year.

why does this surprise anyone.

if we warm up the climate, then the sub tropical coast, will become like the tropical coast.
Tully in the tropics is the wettest place in australia.
In 20 years brisbane should be recieivng tully level rains as it has the same ranges to the west.

we will need to build cyclone proof housing and more dams

bring it on

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:08am: Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute Maqqa wants to believe volcanoes emit the most CO2. They don’t, our burning of fossil fuels does.

Where did I say "mostly"

In fact the carbon emissions depends on the activity of the volcano

I just want a list showing the top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:46am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:39am: What I find strange is this mass climate change denialism from these reactionaries seems to be quite unique to Anglo countries, Right wing Governments across Europe, Middle East, Asia etc are jumping on renewables. What makes Anglo countries unique in its mass denialism? Everything with context when it comes to their action I'd be happy to discuss each example in context of their country of origin But lets first peruse the agreement that started all this in 1991 - Kyoto Agreement. Lets look at the basis for that agreement This is why I asked for a list of carbon emission sources and the percentage contributions of each Where do humans rank on that list? Don't care. This discussion doesn't involve you. Cheerio.

Run away little boy

Make a statement then run away

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:40am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:08am: Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute Maqqa wants to believe volcanoes emit the most CO2. They don’t, our burning of fossil fuels does. Where did I say "mostly" In fact the carbon emissions depends on the activity of the volcano I just want a list showing the top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list

Mostly is what you want to say. That has been shown as not true.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:51am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:40am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:08am: Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute Maqqa wants to believe volcanoes emit the most CO2. They don’t, our burning of fossil fuels does. Where did I say "mostly" In fact the carbon emissions depends on the activity of the volcano I just want a list showing the top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list Mostly is what you want to say. That has been shown as not true.

So now you are pre-empting what I want to say

Well here's what I am saying

Show me a top 10 list of all carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list

There's nothing in that sentence that says or suggest anything about mostly carbon emission in a volcano

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:33am: aquascoot wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:25am: My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;) Oh wise one. How is Australia to be a food bowl to asia, when we no longer have any top soil. The fertile soil loss increased due to deforestation, farming practices, and increasing extreme weather events. Are we to export fungi grown underground. since due to the heat above ground, is now no longer inhabitable. Best farmers in the world. Asia (for example india ) has a billion people who directly rely on the melt from the himalayas. they will be loving my water. China has relinquished its one child policy. They will be loving our clean food as their land and waterways are becoming more and more toxic. Just keep our population down. Let the farmers get on with it. Build a few dams. Our land is so under utilised. there are 3 million feral goats in qld alone , and 10 million roos. thats a lot of protein just running about untapped.  ;) ;)

Yet you ran away from my question. Your suggestion on how Australia will adapt to having no fertile top soil due to the increased loss of it from extreme weather caused from human activity.

You say adaption is the key. So explain. How o Australian farmers farm without topsoil?

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one.

The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs occurred about 35 million years before the last ice age. Believe me, the two aren't even remotely related.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:20am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs occurred about 35 million years before the last ice age. Believe me, the two aren't even remotely related.

My point is asteroids can cause mass extinctions. Yet mass extinctions can occur without an asteroid triggering it.

When denialists look at the pre industrialised human past for proof humans caused climate change, then they are not looking at the whole picture.


Now. If we had a full out human caused nuclear war. Every weapon used. Would humans change the global climate?

Would humans cause a mass extinction?

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:18am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:20am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs occurred about 35 million years before the last ice age. Believe me, the two aren't even remotely related. My point is asteroids can cause mass extinctions. Yet mass extinctions can occur without an asteroid triggering it. When denialists look at the pre industrialised human past for proof humans caused climate change, then they are not looking at the whole picture. Now. If we had a full out human caused nuclear war. Every weapon used. Would humans change the global climate? Would humans cause a mass extinction?

No, you're saying that if humans don't cause climate change, it must only be something catastrophic like an asteroid. The truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:30am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:18am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:20am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs occurred about 35 million years before the last ice age. Believe me, the two aren't even remotely related. My point is asteroids can cause mass extinctions. Yet mass extinctions can occur without an asteroid triggering it. When denialists look at the pre industrialised human past for proof humans caused climate change, then they are not looking at the whole picture. Now. If we had a full out human caused nuclear war. Every weapon used. Would humans change the global climate? Would humans cause a mass extinction? No, you're saying that if humans don't cause climate change, it must only be something catastrophic like an asteroid. The truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur.

Pre industrialised humans were likely, not powerful enough.

Now back to the question. Would a full out human caused nuclear war change the global climate and cause a mass extinction.

Are humans powerful enough now to change the global climate?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute

Why don't you do it yourself if you are that interested ?

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;)

My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet.

A planet whose food supply can support a few Billion less people will be no fun for those people who do not survive.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:21am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:17am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:08am: Show me top 10 carbon emission sources Then break it down in percentage terms how much each source contribute Maqqa, may I introduce you to a search engine. https://www.google.com.au/ Don't be so efing lazy. Looked for it many years and still can't find it So please show everyone the table I've asked for

When are you going back to Manly ?

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::)

No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence.

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one.

What's that got to do with my question?  :-?

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:20am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one. What's that got to do with my question?  :-?

What Kytro said.

The current and rapid change occurring now is different to previous times because of a new factor. Industrialised human behaviour.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence.

The CSIRO is......


Quote:

The CSIRO study found only 28 per cent of Liberal voters believe human activity is responsible for climate change, compared to 58 per cent of Labor voters.

Q -> "Do you believe that human activity is responsible for climate change?"  If I was a Liberal Voter I would have voted NO as well.

Human activity is not responsible for climate change.  Climate change is natural.  The climate will change whether humans exist or not.

Re-phrase the question....

Q "Does human activity have an impact on climate change." If I was a Liberal voter I would have voted YES.

Everything has an impact on climate.

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:04am:

CSIRO: 78 per cent of Australians believe in climate change

So according to Australia's chief scientific organisation - climate change is a belief issue, not a science issue.

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:21am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:20am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: ____ wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:05am: A majority of Liberal voters, among a total of 18,000 Australian surveyed over five years, supported the idea that climate change was naturally occurring If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger. If yes. Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one. What's that got to do with my question?  :-? What Kytro said. The current and rapid change occurring now is different to previous times because of a new factor. Industrialised human behaviour.

Ok, let me interpret, Human activity is akin to a massive asteroid in so much as having an impact on climate because a massive asteroid can effect climate.  :-?

The current rapid change being blamed on increased Co2 concentrations and that human activity is the suspect of perpetrating the increased Co2 concentrations?  There is a correlation between warming and Co2 concentrations?  Is this correct?  :-/

Dnarever wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:25am: My intuition is that climate change is real. My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level. My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. Not a problem, as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced. There will be winners and losers. just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout . Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt. The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure. If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources. Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of. Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable. we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land. Bring it on  ;) My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet. A planet whose food supply can support a few Billion less people will be no fun for those people who do not survive.

here on planet earth which i call "REALITY", this fact is just a universal law of nature.

the wells are running dry in rural india, they are having to dig them deeper and deeper and soon they will run out of water.(those wells not already poisoned with cyanide)

Have you seen emus lined up 10 deep along a fence ?all dropping dead from thirst.
its not a pretty sight.

part of our strategy with climate change should include the aim of reducing human population.
i think this is green policy as well and one of the few policies i agree with.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

he wells are running dry in rural india, they are having to dig them deeper and deeper and soon they will run out of water.

Overdrawing of aquifers, caused by more and more people, is not a climate problem.

'part of our strategy with climate change should include the aim of reducing human population.
i think this is green policy as well and one of the few policies i agree with.'

Harsh but overdrawn wells will achieve that.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur.

That old furphy.

Climate changes when there are drivers for it, climate change does not just happen. The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc.

If you are a Lib and have no brain you STILL have to find a driver for the warming that has been happening for nearly 200 years. You cannot deny CO2/NH4 etc are greenhouse gases, that has been proved in the lab. So—what is the driver for the 200 years of warming?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc.

You do know that CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change, don't you?

Edit: And with our factories closing down in Australia, it won't be our problem.

72% Of Libs ~ Humans Are Not Responsible

Not surprising the Libs don't take responsibility for anything ?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

Even if everyone in Australia stopped emit carbon - there's no evidence it will/won't impact climate change by 1 degree Greens can't produce a list of carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list in percentage terms

You do realise that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a majority of LNP voters are completely ignorant of the science behind climate change, right? It's a red herring.

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:17am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence. The CSIRO is...... Quote: The CSIRO study found only 28 per cent of Liberal voters believe human activity is responsible for climate change, compared to 58 per cent of Labor voters. Q -> "Do you believe that human activity is responsible for climate change?"  If I was a Liberal Voter I would have voted NO as well. Human activity is not responsible for climate change.  Climate change is natural.  The climate will change whether humans exist or not. Re-phrase the question.... Q "Does human activity have an impact on climate change." If I was a Liberal voter I would have voted YES. Everything has an impact on climate.

This is the actual study.

It does not ask: "Do you believe that human activity is responsible for climate change?"

It asks if you think about climate change with these answers:


Quote:

Survey respondents were asked to rate which of a series of statements best described their thoughts about the causes of climate change (Figure 2). Just under half of respondents (45.9%) selected the statement indicating climate change was largely caused by humans. A further 38.6% indicated they thought it was happening, but just a natural fluctuation. Smaller proportions selected the option that it was not happening at all (7.9%) and that they didn’t know (7.7%).

Dnarever wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 11:29am:

72% Of Libs ~ Humans Are Not Responsible Not surprising the Libs don't take responsibility for anything ?

Sure they do - cleaning up Labor's messes.

You mean Libs leaving messes for Labor to clean up!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:47am: truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur. That old furphy. Climate changes when there are drivers for it, climate change does not just happen. The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc. If you are a Lib and have no brain you STILL have to find a driver for the warming that has been happening for nearly 200 years. You cannot deny CO2/NH4 etc are greenhouse gases, that has been proved in the lab. So—what is the driver for the 200 years of warming?

You idiots are fixated on humans being the cause when it is entirely possible other factors could be the cause, for example the sun or changes to magma activity deep beneath the Earth's crust. There are any number of naturally occurring phenomena that could drive changes in our climate.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

You idiots are fixated on humans being the cause when it is entirely possible other factors could be the cause, for example the sun or changes to magma activity deep beneath the Earth's crust. There are any number of naturally occurring phenomena that could drive changes in our climate.

These were not forgotten, there were taken into account and dismissed as lacking evidence.

It is possible there is something that has been missed, of course and that happens to also be correlated with the human induced factors we are tracking against the climate, but so far nobody can find anything else that explains the evidence better.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

but so far nobody can find anything else that explains the evidence better.

So correlation is causation.

Edit. Natural variation - couldn't explain the warming but can explain the hiatus?

'Dr Leviston stressed opinions on climate change were more closely related to deep-seated world views rather than political allegiances.

"Those connections or those relationships we see are explained by quite deep fundamental orientations towards the environment and humans in general," she said.

"I think it's an over simplification to say it's driven by political leanings.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940

But it makes for a good story.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 12:28pm: but so far nobody can find anything else that explains the evidence better. So correlation is causation. Edit. Natural variation - couldn't explain the warming but can explain the hiatus?

Correlation provides for areas of interest. We already know the mechanism by which CO2 could cause a greenhouse effect, and there are measurements that back that up.

The evidence that human activity is causing the world to warm is strong and has been getting stronger over time. This is standard science, prediction and observation.

There isn't any evidence of a hiatus in the temperature trend. It does not have to break records every year for a trend to exist.

To answer your question, natural variability in the climate can cause jumps and dips that appear to slow or speed a trend. This isn't unexplainable, there are reasons behind it.

Natural variation could explain the warming too if there was sufficient evidence linking the natural changes to the trend, but there isn't.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 11:00am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:55am: The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc. You do know that CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change, don't you? Edit: And with our factories closing down in Australia, it won't be our problem.

The view that CO2 is a lagging indicator has long been disproved. I guess denialist websites don’t publish that  :D

Greens please show us all a list of top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list

Do they even make the top 10?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:

The view that CO2 is a lagging indicator has long been disproved.

When it comes to climate change every single facet has been proven and disproved  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:30pm:

Greens please show us all a list of top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list Do they even make the top 10?

what is the purpose of DA Gumpy?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:47am: truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur. That old furphy. Climate changes when there are drivers for it, climate change does not just happen. The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc. If you are a Lib and have no brain you STILL have to find a driver for the warming that has been happening for nearly 200 years. You cannot deny CO2/NH4 etc are greenhouse gases, that has been proved in the lab. So—what is the driver for the 200 years of warming? You idiots are fixated on humans being the cause when it is entirely possible other factors could be the cause, for example the sun or changes to magma activity deep beneath the Earth's crust. There are any number of naturally occurring phenomena that could drive changes in our climate.

No.

I love climate, I'm going to be sorry to see it gone when the idiot left finally gets rid of it through taxation and socialism  :'(

I'm going to miss stuff like this  :'(








Flooded drive through of the McDonalds at Port Lincoln
Posted about 5 hours ago

Tamara Barker took her kayak to McDonald's to grab some cheeseburgers.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6910568-4x3-940x705.jpg

Warmer climate so more water content in the atmosphere so bigger rainfall and more and bigger floods. Just like your example.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 12:22pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:47am: truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur. That old furphy. Climate changes when there are drivers for it, climate change does not just happen. The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc. If you are a Lib and have no brain you STILL have to find a driver for the warming that has been happening for nearly 200 years. You cannot deny CO2/NH4 etc are greenhouse gases, that has been proved in the lab. So—what is the driver for the 200 years of warming? You idiots are fixated on humans being the cause when it is entirely possible other factors could be the cause, for example the sun or changes to magma activity deep beneath the Earth's crust. There are any number of naturally occurring phenomena that could drive changes in our climate. No.

You are in denial. No, not the river.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

There isn't any evidence of a hiatus in the temperature trend

'Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than
over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational
data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3,
Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04oC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11oC per
decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen
et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST
(Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related
questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Seems the IPCC disagree.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

Warmer climate so more water content in the atmosphere so bigger rainfall and more and bigger floods. Just like your example.

Yes I know, thats why I said that is what I'm going to miss when you wonderful idiot left types fix the climate.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 2:40pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 12:22pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:47am: truth is that the climate changes naturally and doesn't require people or asteroids for that to occur. That old furphy. Climate changes when there are drivers for it, climate change does not just happen. The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc. If you are a Lib and have no brain you STILL have to find a driver for the warming that has been happening for nearly 200 years. You cannot deny CO2/NH4 etc are greenhouse gases, that has been proved in the lab. So—what is the driver for the 200 years of warming? You idiots are fixated on humans being the cause when it is entirely possible other factors could be the cause, for example the sun or changes to magma activity deep beneath the Earth's crust. There are any number of naturally occurring phenomena that could drive changes in our climate. No. You are in denial. No, not the river.

Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect. The core is not getting hotter nor is the sun.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect..

You are right and it has had an effect ...


Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening'


Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:

The view that CO2 is a lagging indicator has long been disproved.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:37am: Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:17am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence. The CSIRO is...... Quote: The CSIRO study found only 28 per cent of Liberal voters believe human activity is responsible for climate change, compared to 58 per cent of Labor voters. Q -> "Do you believe that human activity is responsible for climate change?"  If I was a Liberal Voter I would have voted NO as well. Human activity is not responsible for climate change.  Climate change is natural.  The climate will change whether humans exist or not. Re-phrase the question.... Q "Does human activity have an impact on climate change." If I was a Liberal voter I would have voted YES. Everything has an impact on climate. This is the actual study. It does not ask: "Do you believe that human activity is responsible for climate change?" It asks if you think about climate change with these answers: [quote] Survey respondents were asked to rate which of a series of statements best described their thoughts about the causes of climate change (Figure 2). Just under half of respondents (45.9%) selected the statement indicating climate change was largely caused by humans. A further 38.6% indicated they thought it was happening, but just a natural fluctuation. Smaller proportions selected the option that it was not happening at all (7.9%) and that they didn’t know (7.7%).

[/quote]


What is it with modern society that wants to run polls all the time, asking people their position on topics they are utterly out of their depth on? You might as well asked them if they believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson - as if it matters.

I don't care one iota about what the general public THINKS about climate change. I care a great deal about what they actually KNOW.  Perhaps there should be some followup questions to see if their opinion is based on some actual reasoning or understanding or simply parroting an opinion they heard somewhere or their political party espouses etc.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 2:49pm: Warmer climate so more water content in the atmosphere so bigger rainfall and more and bigger floods. Just like your example. Yes I know, thats why I said that is what I'm going to miss when you wonderful idiot left types fix the climate.

Well it is going to take like a thousand years after emissions are brought under control before the climate settles down so don’t worry. I think it is not just “lefties” want the climate issue brought under control. Govts too, apart from the shambles in power here, want to get emissions under control. I think the Chinese have seen the Himalayan glaciers  retreat and realised they had better do something about GHG emissions.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:30pm:

Greens please show us all a list of top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list Do they even make the top 10?

So, what's the story Maqqa, you got a full time job, at the Liberal Party, a while ago?

Now, your back to Part-time there & part time here, but still being paid to promote the Liberal Party?

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:12pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect.. You are right and it has had an effect ... Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

The extra moisture would help with that.

The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:

I think the Chinese have seen the Himalayan glaciers  retreat and realised they had better do something about GHG emissions.

'At a conference on coal gasification in Colorado Springs on 12th October, the lead speaker was Dr Yong-Wang Li of Synfuels China. The third slide of his presentation contained this statement:

China has to find solutions to completely replace fossil fuels with new energy resources within about 100 years.'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/02/involuntary-decarbonization/

Urgent action indeed.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:12pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect.. You are right and it has had an effect ... Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/ The extra moisture would help with that. The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2.

The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners. 

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2.

You ever hear of legumes- they take their nitrogen from the air . So you eat more legumes.

Oh no; beanz meanz fartz.  ;D ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 1:30pm: Greens please show us all a list of top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list Do they even make the top 10? So, what's the story Maqqa, you got a full time job, at the Liberal Party, a while ago? Now, your back to Part-time there & part time here, but still being paid to promote the Liberal Party?

hi PN

been working overseas

back for about 3 months then I am off again

how have you been

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:23pm:

What is it with modern society that wants to run polls all the time, asking people their position on topics they are utterly out of their depth on? You might as well asked them if they believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson - as if it matters. I don't care one iota about what the general public THINKS about climate change. I care a great deal about what they actually KNOW.  Perhaps there should be some followup questions to see if their opinion is based on some actual reasoning or understanding or simply parroting an opinion they heard somewhere or their political party espouses etc.

I'm not really sure, perhaps they are trying to gauge scientific communication.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:23pm: What is it with modern society that wants to run polls all the time, asking people their position on topics they are utterly out of their depth on? You might as well asked them if they believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson - as if it matters. I don't care one iota about what the general public THINKS about climate change. I care a great deal about what they actually KNOW.  Perhaps there should be some followup questions to see if their opinion is based on some actual reasoning or understanding or simply parroting an opinion they heard somewhere or their political party espouses etc. I'm not really sure, perhaps they are trying to gauge scientific communication.

And how would that be working?  Asking the unqualified some over-simplified questions and your results are what? Accurate measurement of an ignorant opinion?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 6:28pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:23pm: What is it with modern society that wants to run polls all the time, asking people their position on topics they are utterly out of their depth on? You might as well asked them if they believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson - as if it matters. I don't care one iota about what the general public THINKS about climate change. I care a great deal about what they actually KNOW.  Perhaps there should be some followup questions to see if their opinion is based on some actual reasoning or understanding or simply parroting an opinion they heard somewhere or their political party espouses etc. I'm not really sure, perhaps they are trying to gauge scientific communication. And how would that be working?  Asking the unqualified some over-simplified questions and your results are what? Accurate measurement of an ignorant opinion?

You think the voting public are stupid cattle in the fields?  You cheeky little elitist, you... (pinches your cheek affectionately)...

If Longy were here..... he'd use Ph.D level mathematics to show us the error of our ways.... he's that good!

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

Don't even bother engaging with them Greens. They are paid LNP astroturfers designed to derail debate. Either way. This does show a huge issue with the LNP, as much as people like to pretend Turnbull is a progressive the fact that 72% of Libs are in the pocket of big energy shows that have no intention ever of actually fighting climate change or moving into the green sector, the fastest growing industrial sector in the world. What I find strange is this mass climate change denialism from these reactionaries seems to be quite unique to Anglo countries, Right wing Governments across Europe, Middle East, Asia etc are jumping on renewables. What makes Anglo countries unique in its mass denialism?

And you are paid by the Russian Embassy to derail threads.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence.

Actually, ALL the evidence suggests that we are experiencing nothing more than natural variation - and not much variation at that!  It is .6 of a degree warmer than 50 years ago and still several degrees cooler than the MWP. There is no 'runaway'. there are no mass meltings, no massive sea rises, no ANYTHING. Very, very little has changed and none of it is even remotely unprecedented.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:50am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:47am: he wells are running dry in rural india, they are having to dig them deeper and deeper and soon they will run out of water. Overdrawing of aquifers, caused by more and more people, is not a climate problem. 'part of our strategy with climate change should include the aim of reducing human population. i think this is green policy as well and one of the few policies i agree with.' Harsh but overdrawn wells will achieve that.

Don't be so sure. Canadian oil drillers tapped an enormous reservoir of fresh water over 4 miles down. The quantity of water is MORE THAN ALL THE FRESH WATER ON EARTH.

If it is one place, then it is in a lot more. Advanced Drilling techniques may actually solve the water problem world-wide.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 11:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 7:36pm: Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 6:28pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:23pm: What is it with modern society that wants to run polls all the time, asking people their position on topics they are utterly out of their depth on? You might as well asked them if they believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson - as if it matters. I don't care one iota about what the general public THINKS about climate change. I care a great deal about what they actually KNOW.  Perhaps there should be some followup questions to see if their opinion is based on some actual reasoning or understanding or simply parroting an opinion they heard somewhere or their political party espouses etc. I'm not really sure, perhaps they are trying to gauge scientific communication. And how would that be working?  Asking the unqualified some over-simplified questions and your results are what? Accurate measurement of an ignorant opinion? You think the voting public are stupid cattle in the fields?  You cheeky little elitist, you... (pinches your cheek affectionately)... If Longy were here..... he'd use Ph.D level mathematics to show us the error of our ways.... he's that good!

As a rule, yes.  If you were to ask the general public their opinion on faster-than-light neutrinos, how many of them could even given an informed opinion? 1% And of those 1% how many actually understand the nature of the science? 1%

It is the same with the climate change polls. The outcomes are interesting, but worthless.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

Don't be so sure. Canadian oil drillers tapped an enormous reservoir of fresh water over 4 miles down. The quantity of water is MORE THAN ALL THE FRESH WATER ON EARTH.

Did you mean that it is larger than the previously known "all the fresh water on earth"?

lee wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:04pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 8:32am: Don't be so sure. Canadian oil drillers tapped an enormous reservoir of fresh water over 4 miles down. The quantity of water is MORE THAN ALL THE FRESH WATER ON EARTH. Did you mean that it is larger than the previously known "all the fresh water on earth"?

The quantity exceeds all the rivers lacks and surface fresh water on the planet. It was an amazing find and begs the question as to whether or not other such reservoirs exist and how to find them. 4kms down is a really long way!

Yep, but by definition it must form part of all the water on earth, just a before unknown source and quantity.

lee wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Yep, but by definition it must form part of all the water on earth, just a before unknown source and quantity.

Since we are playing the pedantry game, remember I said ON earth, not underneath it. It is a pretty big distinction.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 10:17am: Swagman wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:10am: If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history.... ::) No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence. Actually, ALL the evidence suggests that we are experiencing nothing more than natural variation - and not much variation at that!  It is .6 of a degree warmer than 50 years ago and still several degrees cooler than the MWP. There is no 'runaway'. there are no mass meltings, no massive sea rises, no ANYTHING. Very, very little has changed and none of it is even remotely unprecedented.

::) ::) maria has- apparently- never heard of the calculus but enjoys mobile and wireless everything to put her pretty female feet up on whilst window shopping with intent to spend via wireless and mobile everything  ::) ::)

If the men don't go to war for her she sends the family a special type of flower, anonymously of course  ;)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 11:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 7:36pm: Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 6:28pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:23pm: What is it with modern society that wants to run polls all the time, asking people their position on topics they are utterly out of their depth on? You might as well asked them if they believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson - as if it matters. I don't care one iota about what the general public THINKS about climate change. I care a great deal about what they actually KNOW.  Perhaps there should be some followup questions to see if their opinion is based on some actual reasoning or understanding or simply parroting an opinion they heard somewhere or their political party espouses etc. I'm not really sure, perhaps they are trying to gauge scientific communication. And how would that be working?  Asking the unqualified some over-simplified questions and your results are what? Accurate measurement of an ignorant opinion? You think the voting public are stupid cattle in the fields?  You cheeky little elitist, you... (pinches your cheek affectionately)... If Longy were here..... he'd use Ph.D level mathematics to show us the error of our ways.... he's that good!

maria has never heard of specialisation of the workforce and thinks everyone is born into and stays in their caste: you get that smoking crack and drinking metho  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 1:30pm: Greens please show us all a list of top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list Do they even make the top 10? So, what's the story Maqqa, you got a full time job, at the Liberal Party, a while ago? Now, your back to Part-time there & part time here, but still being paid to promote the Liberal Party? hi PN been working overseas back for about 3 months then I am off again how have you been

wow: seriously hardcore  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ya got like a girl and stuff aswell buddy  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:21pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:43pm: The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2. You ever hear of legumes- they take their nitrogen from the air . So you eat more legumes. Oh no; beanz meanz fartz.  ;D ;D

ultimately co2 aint the only limiting factor to plant growth: once again, the calculus  :D :D :D :D :D :D

You may have heard of 'limits' in a subject called economics but daddy conveniently left that bit out for a laugh didn't he  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

** What's diminishing: oh, malcoms copper internet dream-scape  ;)

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:43pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:12pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect.. You are right and it has had an effect ... Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/ The extra moisture would help with that. The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2. The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners.

INNOCENT IS ABOUT TO EXPLAIN WHY CO2 IS THE ONLY LIMITING FACTOR TO PLANT GROWTH...


HEY, WHERE'D HE GO????????????????????????????????????????????????????

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 4:13pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:43pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:12pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect.. You are right and it has had an effect ... Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/ The extra moisture would help with that. The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2. The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners.  INNOCENT IS ABOUT TO EXPLAIN WHY CO2 IS THE ONLY LIMITING FACTOR TO PLANT GROWTH... HEY, WHERE'D HE GO????????????????????????????????????????????????????

HAS ANYONE SEEN INNOCENT: WE HAD A DATE  :o :o :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:06pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 4:13pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:43pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:12pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect.. You are right and it has had an effect ... Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/ The extra moisture would help with that. The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2. The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners.  INNOCENT IS ABOUT TO EXPLAIN WHY CO2 IS THE ONLY LIMITING FACTOR TO PLANT GROWTH... HEY, WHERE'D HE GO???????????????????????????????????????????????????? HAS ANYONE SEEN INNOCENT: WE HAD A DATE  :o :o :o :o

RIGHT: THAT'S IT- NO MORE REACH-AROUNDS FOR ANONYMOUS TRYHARD UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASSERS  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:07pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:06pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:06pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 4:13pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:43pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:12pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect.. You are right and it has had an effect ... Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/ The extra moisture would help with that. The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2. The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners.  INNOCENT IS ABOUT TO EXPLAIN WHY CO2 IS THE ONLY LIMITING FACTOR TO PLANT GROWTH... HEY, WHERE'D HE GO???????????????????????????????????????????????????? HAS ANYONE SEEN INNOCENT: WE HAD A DATE  :o :o :o :o RIGHT: THAT'S IT- NO MORE REACH-AROUNDS FOR ANONYMOUS TRYHARD UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASSERS  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

..WAIT ,.. WAIT: I NEED YOU NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW  :D :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 1:13pm: The view that CO2 is a lagging indicator has long been disproved. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ). Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

iS LEE SAYING CO2 DOESN'T COME OUT OF SOLUTION WITH RISING TEMPERATURE???

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 2:49pm: Warmer climate so more water content in the atmosphere so bigger rainfall and more and bigger floods. Just like your example. Yes I know, thats why I said that is what I'm going to miss when you wonderful idiot left types fix the climate.

ALFRED THINKS HE KNOWS MORE THAN A LEVEL 8 IN A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT BECAUSE HE'S OBVIOUSLY THAT F'N GOOD  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

YOU SHOULD RUN A FARM AND REFUSE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTAL ADVICE BUDDY... NO SERIOUSLY: GREAT F'N IDEA  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D