PDA

View Full Version : Climate change - Warning, Very Off Topic



bshwckr
21st December 2010, 08:06 PM
OK, Ill admit it. I am a man-made climate change sceptic.
I have been following a web site for a couple of years,

http://www.climate4you.com/

, that until recently has been a fence sitter. All they have done is present data and allowed you to interpret it. From the data presented, I interpreted that the world has been cooling for at least 8 years, maybe as much as 10 years. Yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise through this entire period. A recent check of the above web site shows that they are now stating that the relationship between CO2 and climate change is weak. They say that it is possible that it is a contributor but not the major reason.
So what is the major reason?
Is man made climate change real? Is it a naturally occurring cycle and because humans only live for a minuscule time in the broad scheme of things, we cannot fathom what is normal for the planet and what is not? Some science suggests that the sun is the major contributing factor. Not much we can do about that!
It has worried me for some time that CO2 was not the main reason and that we were wasting huge amounts of money and resources on a false problem. There are lots of other things we could be spending this money and effort on such as child poverty, third world health, (better walking tracks in Australia :wave ) etc.
We are all about to pay a lot of money in taxes and energy bills in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions. Is this cost based on bad science? Is it based on spin?
Most areas of Australia are now drought free, Europe is freezing with blizzards and the coldest winters in 100 years. Lucky for them that they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".
The reason I am interested in this topic is because I like to get out and enjoy nature. I often walk and camp out for days. I take my GPS so I don't get lost (hence my association with this site) and I would hate to see it all disappear because of false priorities. I would like the generations that follow to be able to enjoy the same things that we can now. We need to get it right.
As a man made climate change sceptic, I can be swayed either way by convincing evidence. So far, I have seen no evidence that suggests we are seeing any climate change beyond the norm. Maybe I just need to be educated?
What do you think?

PS after this topic, I would like to discuss religion and politics. Also safe topics for open discussion. :flamed

Clancy2
22nd December 2010, 03:37 AM
I too am a sceptic of man-made climate change. The arrogance of man that makes him think that he can alter the climate disturbs me.

Your postscript warns that you wish to discuss politics and religion next - the way the man-made climate change is viewed within society you have already entered these murky, inhospitable and illogical waters.

Alas and alack, there is too much money involved now, with too little credible science, for the heretics (you & I) to voice our opinion and have it heard over the clamour of greed and careers (political and professional).

Notwithstanding the above comments, I am appalled by the waste of resources that constitutes our everyday life. Reducing waste has got to be good for the planet as she changes.

By the by, it astonishes me that the scientific community, indeed the whole community, the vast majority of whom accept Darwins Theory, cannot cope with the reality of it - that is - adapt or perish.

Merry Christmas

photohiker
22nd December 2010, 07:37 AM
Reality is, sooner or later we need to get off fossil fuels. Also, it makes me feel a bit guilty that the fossil fuels we are destined to consume within a few centuries took millions and millions of years to put there in the first place.

My dear old mum always used to say 'don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today'

The Climate change discussion is doomed before it begins. Opinions are polarised, and rarely change because of something people read on the interwebs.

Conspiracy theories are rife from both sides and there is so much spin that we probably wouldn't recognise the truth if we tripped over it.

:hot:

Michael

Wahroonga Farm
22nd December 2010, 08:15 AM
Reality is, sooner or later we need to get off fossil fuels. ..And that IS the reality!

And sooner ... with a plan is ... much better.

Nicko
22nd December 2010, 10:20 AM
I somewhat agree with photohiker but I am less a skeptic, maybe we are not the primary cause of the climate change but maybe a trigger for what does cause the change. It's not so much the gunpowder being the issue but the spark that causes the gunpowder to explode.

The weird weather patterns world wide varies from driest to coldest to wettest to hottest conditions in recorded history and that is a good indicator something is up.

I really don't think it should matter who is the cause, the only option like any situation is a "process of elimination" and that is what the climate change supporters are attempting to do. The fact that we do not recycle our water on a scale like they do on the international space lab (94%) and fully recycle plastics, glass, wood, metal etc shows a lack of consideration for the future of the human race but more importantly the Earth.

I don't care about the semantics of it all, change is a MUST.

mihermano
22nd December 2010, 01:44 PM
"Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it."

:) :(

Nicko
22nd December 2010, 01:47 PM
I wonder if wikileaks will shed some light on this subject

mihermano
22nd December 2010, 01:50 PM
:sick3

Nicko
22nd December 2010, 02:25 PM
Well I meant as to what governments really think about it and why they are so cold about it.

photohiker
22nd December 2010, 03:00 PM
I somewhat agree with photohiker but I am less a skeptic, maybe we are not the primary cause of the climate change but maybe a trigger for what does cause the change. It's not so much the gunpowder being the issue but the spark that causes the gunpowder to explode.

If you read what I wrote, the only scepticism I displayed is that you will either not find the answer on the internet, or recognise it if you did.

I think that on balance, we are having an effect, but its a big system and there is lots of noise so we could easily misconstrue what's going on either way. I think we should do something about it, and am happy to put up. (cop higher costs and work to reduce impacts) You won't find many Climate change 'sceptics' saying things like that, which raises some concerns for me.


I don't care about the semantics of it all, change is a MUST.

Amen. :hatoff

Nicko
22nd December 2010, 03:42 PM
The scepticism was not in reference or implied to what you said but to others that are :)

bshwckr
22nd December 2010, 04:11 PM
The weird weather patterns world wide varies from driest to coldest to wettest to hottest conditions in recorded history and that is a good indicator something is up.



I am still to see any evidence that backs up the above statement. This is not a personal attack on you Nicko. We hear it said all the time in the news but it is never backed up with facts. It seems that all you need to do is say it often enough and it becomes fact. I have read news reports in reputable newspapers that say to visit Venice before it is under water because of global warming. Venice is actually sinking! Nothing to do with rising water levels.

From trawling the net (it must be true if it is on the internet :scratchch );
The hottest day ever recorded anywhere was in 1922.
The coldest day ever recorded was 1983.
The wettest day was in 1952.


However, I am sure that with statistics, we could prove anything we wanted to.

We have been keeping weather records for how long?
The earth is 4.54 billion years old. During this 4.54 billion years, the climate would have been changing constantly yet we seem to think we can halt or control this?

I do agree that we should strive to live in as clean an environment as possible.
Given all the other problems of the world, should this be our main priority?

Wahroonga Farm
22nd December 2010, 05:41 PM
...I do agree that we should strive to live in as clean an environment as possible.

Given all the other problems of the world, should this be our main priority?... and starting with replacement energy sources for fossil fuels ... is a pretty darn good start.

Don't you think?

bshwckr
22nd December 2010, 05:48 PM
... and starting with replacement energy sources for fossil fuels ... is a pretty darn good start.

Don't you think?

No, I honestly believe we have greater priorities.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

Wahroonga Farm
22nd December 2010, 06:21 PM
...I do agree that we should strive to live in as clean an environment as possible.

Given all the other problems of the world, should this be our main priority?I thought you were discussing the ... environment.

Not world hunger. Silly me. :)

However they are inexorably linked!

bshwckr
22nd December 2010, 07:01 PM
I thought you were discussing the ... environment.

Not world hunger. Silly me. :)

However they are inexorably linked!

My first post touched on both. Sorry if I was vague. I am concerned that we are spending huge amounts on a doubtful environmental crises when we have far more real problems to deal with. To quote myself from the first post; "There are lots of other things we could be spending this money and effort on such as child poverty, third world health, (better walking tracks in Australia )" The last example was meant as a joke but also to indicate that everyone has their own agendas.

Also, the first post was to encourage visits to the linked web site. I would like other peoples interpretation on the data. Don't forget, I am a climate change "agnostic".

The Explorer
23rd December 2010, 08:05 AM
Hi

Difficult to 100% prove that the earthís climate is changing as a direct consequence of human activity due to limited data I suppose. However, I canít see how changing the composition of the earthís atmosphere (e.g. increasing CO2 by way of man made emissions - this is a fact) would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the climate.

Bottom line is that we cant keep pumping CO2 etc into the atmosphere even if there are some people around (i.e climate change sceptics) who think it will have no effect now or later. Bit like population growth - at some point in time it is going to have to stop. Now? Or way down the track when everything is stuffed beyond repair?

Cheers
Greg

Redtail
23rd December 2010, 11:40 AM
First of all, let's be clear about the use of the word "skeptic".
It's often confused with "cynic" or "denialist".http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience1012_skeptic.htm

Secondly, I would encourage skeptical thinking for pretty much anything, including climate change and its associated sciences. After all, critical (another oft misused word) thinking is all about following the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence. But here's the important part - continuing to review and research for evidence, and be prepared to come to a different conclusion based on the (growing) body of evidence.

It's the default mode of human thinking to believe something, and then go find evidence to support that belief.
Sadly, IMHO, that's where a lot of the climate change debate is. i.e. based in a belief, not unlike a religion. (Certainly in my part of the world!)

I, too, am a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change. Previously being a fence-sitter myself, I am starting to to hear about a lot of work that has been done in "fingerprinting". I understand this is a method of determining particular changes at particular times, and the causes linked to events. This evidence is suggesting the climate is indeed being influenced by humans. For the moment, I am off the fence, but more than happy to get back on it, or the other side, in light of more evidence.

Yes, there are many problems in the world. If the climate is changing, and we are the cause, then we can do something about it. If the climate is changing, and we are not the cause, we still need to do something about it.
Adapt or perish? You bet. It takes several generations for adapations to start showing up. But humans are clever and resourceful animals. That's how us pink squishy apes have survived for so long. :-)

The Explorer
23rd December 2010, 10:55 PM
Good for a laugh

Climate Denial Crock of the Week (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#g/c/029130BFDC78FA33)

Cheers
Greg

Treadly
24th December 2010, 10:32 AM
I wasn't going to get into this debate as it nearly always ends in an argument but..

If I climb onto the roof of my house I can see three coal fired power stations, they run 24 hours around the clock, burning coal and producing C02. I've also worked in a coal fired power station for nearly 33 years, the one I work in has never completely stopped running while I've been there. Wiki says we burn about 7 BILLION tons of coal a year which makes nearly 21 BILLION tons of C02. A ton of gas takes up a lot of space so I can scarcely imagine the volume of 21 BILLION tons of CO2. It MUST be having some sort of effect on the planet.
So to reduce my footprint on the earth I've installed solar panels, double glazed windows and have arranged with my power supplier to source what I consume from renewable sources. It's really not that hard to do something about making the world a better place.

Nicko
24th December 2010, 11:17 AM
As long as it is not based on the following :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc&feature=fvst

Treadly
24th December 2010, 11:23 AM
Sorry Nicko, I can't argue with you, you haven't paid!

Nicko
24th December 2010, 11:32 AM
Well U.K. have it bad at the moment, but then again USA has had a notable increase in hurricanes, but look at the floods in the Qld! It is said it used to be colder but now the winters are warmer so who has it hardest?

Ask the guys in the following link, they willl tell you how bad it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo&feature=related

Treadly
24th December 2010, 11:43 AM
Well my town had its driest winter since white man arrived here. I even cancelled a canoe race which I've organised for the last ten years because there was simply no water in the river. I wish we could get some of what the eastern states is getting. Do you think if we built some more desalination plants we'd get some rain?

Michael
24th December 2010, 12:26 PM
Do you think if we built some more desalination plants we'd some rain?
Well it has worked for Victoria. :hysterica :hysterica
Also brought in a change of govt. :hysterica :hysterica

bshwckr
25th December 2010, 06:52 AM
I wasn't going to get into this debate as it nearly always ends in an argument but..

If I climb onto the roof of my house I can see three coal fired power stations, they run 24 hours around the clock, burning coal and producing C02. I've also worked in a coal fired power station for nearly 33 years, the one I work in has never completely stopped running while I've been there. Wiki says we burn about 7 BILLION tons of coal a year which makes nearly 21 BILLION tons of C02. A ton of gas takes up a lot of space so I can scarcely imagine the volume of 21 BILLION tons of CO2. It MUST be having some sort of effect on the planet.
So to reduce my footprint on the earth I've installed solar panels, double glazed windows and have arranged with my power supplier to source what I consume from renewable sources. It's really not that hard to do something about making the world a better place.

I was hoping for stimulating conversation prior to deteriorating into argument. So far so good.

Apparantly, CO2 is still such a small percentage of our atmosphere that if all the gases of the atmosphere were to be stratafied, the co2 layer would only be 3.4m thick. This in an atmosphere that is 480km high. Hard to imagine that even multiplying this by 10 would have any impact.

I cannot see the human race giving up on its addiction to fossel fuels any time soon. In fact, I believe this will not happen until we run out. Current estimates say 50 years for oil but maybe a 1000 years for coal.
To stop using fossel fuels would spell the end of our economy as we know it. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, just unlikely to happen with current world power balance.
If we feel the need to act just in case, maybe a more likely scenario should be that we stop logging old growth forests and start planting a lot more CO2 absorbing trees. At least this would give mother nature something to fight with. (And more forests for me to walk in.)

Merry Christmas everone.

Cattle-ist
25th December 2010, 07:32 AM
Nitrogen , or nitrogen oxide , does more damage to the artmosphere than anyone could believe . More corrosive to the ozone as there is ten times more of it than CO2 .

There ..... "cat among the pigeons" ....lol

Treadly
25th December 2010, 08:22 AM
Apparantly, CO2 is still such a small percentage of our atmosphere that if all the gases of the atmosphere were to be stratafied, the co2 layer would only be 3.4m thick. This in an atmosphere that is 480km high. Hard to imagine that even multiplying this by 10 would have any impact.

Merry Christmas everone.

So don't the "greenhouses gases" trap heat in? If so, how thick does the layer need to be? A surface that reflects radiant heat, such as a mirror, needs to be only a few microns thick. A plastic bag is only a fraction of a millimetre thick yet it has no trouble containing its contents. How much "greenhouse gas" can we put into the atmosphere before it makes a difference?

gonebush
26th December 2010, 05:46 PM
OK, Ill admit it. I am a man-made climate change sceptic.
Is man made climate change real? Is it a naturally occurring cycle and because humans only live for a minuscule time in the broad scheme of things, we cannot fathom what is normal for the planet and what is not?

G'day, I am not a skeptic but a beliver that it is all a load of BS.

As stated in the previous posts, we have not been recording weather for long in the scope of things, if climate change exists (climate always changing anyhow) via man wouldn't this be since the industrial revolution only?
Weather can be estimated from grow rings in trees and core drilling on land and ice.

I belive that the weather is a cycle, just as the four seasons cycle, after all aren't seasons a cycling effect, so why not a greater cycle?
There could be a cycle within a cycle, lets say for a minute that within the year there is a cycle of the four seasons, now why could there not be another cycle that is 1000 years long and that cycle exists within a cycle of 100 000 years.

With the wobbles of the earths axis and shift of axis maybe there is no cycle at all and weather is just similar and there is no regular pattern at all. (although recorded history shows different)
Every known planet and thier moons all have weather and since we are only another rock in orbit in space how would any one know what is normal anyhow.

Still interesting to hear what others believe or the theories they have.
Cheers

gonebush
26th December 2010, 05:56 PM
So don't the "greenhouses gases" trap heat in?

That is the theory, I heard a scientist (maybe Lord Monkten) say that they have been monitoring the amount of radiation leaving the Earth via satillite, the conclusion was that the radiation levels have never changed, if global warming was taking effect then less radiation would be leaving the atmosphere and the earth warming.

Treadly
26th December 2010, 08:03 PM
So what you're saying is we can pump more greenhouse gases into the air because it's not having any effect anyway, is that right?

gonebush
27th December 2010, 12:57 PM
That is not what I said, but with some of the other things that goes on in the world, ie. oil spills in the ocean, nucular waste dumping etc etc does it all really matter about co2 levels? would be nice to reduce emissions and prevent killing the earth but I think we are doomed and if we don't kill our own existence then the earth may just fight back ay!!

Treadly
27th December 2010, 01:26 PM
That is not what I said, but with some of the other things that goes on in the world, ie. oil spills in the ocean, nucular waste dumping etc etc does it all really matter about co2 levels? would be nice to reduce emissions and prevent killing the earth but I think we are doomed and if we don't kill our own existence then the earth may just fight back ay!!

I wasn't being critical of your opinion but just trying to establish how much CO2 is too much. There must be a point at where excessive CO2 gases become a problem. Right?

Nicko
27th December 2010, 01:46 PM
I heard a scientist (maybe Lord Monkten)

Now there's a contradiction!

He is just a Journo thinking he is a scientist.

gonebush
27th December 2010, 01:55 PM
There must be a point at where excessive CO2 gases become a problem. Right?

Yes I agree,
CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere. Wich fluctuates depending on the season caused by the tree growth in the Northern Hemisphere.

To have an effect on humans....
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

So there would have to be a level that would effect the planet also, but I feel that while there are still level fluctuations we are not there YET, hence why I believe there is no effect on climate at this stage.

Cheers

Treadly
27th December 2010, 02:25 PM
So there would have to be a level that would effect the planet also, but I feel that while there are still level fluctuations we are not there YET, hence why I believe there is no effect on climate at this stage.

Cheers

I was hoping someone could supply an actual figure rather than what they feel or believe.

KevinS
28th December 2010, 07:39 AM
Well, the news today is that 1.5 billion dollars in wind farm investment has stalled because of a colapse in the price of renewable energy certificates and that power generators associated with sugar mills will go into receivership if the price that they receive doesn't double. So that's what's happenibg at the sharp end of this subject.

And Treadly, do you know if anyone has worked out how many wind farms or hectares of solar panels would be needed to replace the two coal power stations that you can see from your roof.

It seem to me that there are not too many practical people at the head of the climate change movement. Green energy seems to be falling in a heap. It won't run until it is economically viable. When there is a battery powered 4x4 that will tow my caravan I kight start to get interested. Not because I just want to keep towing it but because when we get to that point we will be getting practical alternatives to fossil fuel. We certainly don't have them yet.

Kevin

mihermano
28th December 2010, 09:36 AM
We peeps tend to believe what we choose to believe, sometimes due to fact and sometimes due to convenience, ignorance, and probably countless other reasons and for better or worse always have.

I personally think that Climate Change is happening. I think it's part of a much longer-term cycle or cycles. I also think that man-made emissions of CO2 and other pollutants are, to some degree, upsetting the natural balance of the Earth's atmosphere.

I'm a long way from being a Greenie but saving the planet :blah started with planting more trees in my back yard. :)

Nicko
28th December 2010, 10:23 AM
What you may also find is that there is another motive or agenda (albeit a secondary) behind this go green concept, that being the health of the human race. Excessive pollution has caused thousands of deaths and has caused damage to buildings and flora and fauna. Asthma and allergies are on the rise.

Viability of anything on a mass scale requires recouping costs over a long time. However, the health costs is not increasing just because the populous is getting older but also due to deteriorating health. When does a corporate driven technology become a hazard? It took decades to bring to light the deadly affects of products such as Asbestos, Tobacco and Thalidomide but no doubt cheap finite resources that drive the economy will continue to deliver a poor quality outcome.

But living in Perth has made it clear to me that successive government over decades have no forward thinking, if they did they would have built the Ord River to Perth water pipeline by now. To say I am angry with the political system that we have is an understatement; self serving, pro-lieing "votecentric" and deliberately deceptive is only the start.

We have a choice we either go natural power or we go nuclear power; we can't continue using up a finite resource.

KevinS
28th December 2010, 11:02 AM
So what is the primary agenda?

Nicko
28th December 2010, 11:07 AM
votes?

KevinS
28th December 2010, 11:25 AM
You got it in one!

bshwckr
28th December 2010, 05:02 PM
We peeps tend to believe what we choose to believe, sometimes due to fact and sometimes due to convenience, ignorance, and probably countless other reasons and for better or worse always have.


Too true.
I think another way of saying this is that we base our beliefs on our priorities.
As for climate change, we have to deal with the priorities of many inc;
Media
Scientists
Politicians
Big Business
Coal miners
Petroleum Workers
Forest workers
etc etc

Each will believe what meets their needs.

I am sure the average resident of Swaziland could not care less about greenhouse gas emissions or how many trees we plant. Their priority is probably looking for a way to live more than 40 years and beat their national average.


So what is the primary agenda?

votes?

You got it in one!

Totally agree. If the politicians done the maths tomorrow and found that more people are climate sceptic than believers (hypothetical, I think), they would be falling over themselves to become sceptics. As for the media, the ratio of pro/against climate change stories would alter accordingly.

Politicians and the media :sick1
One wants votes and the other wants to sell papers (advertising). They will both say anything to be the most popular.

Fortunately we now have forums to share opinions.

(Note to administrators: Is it possible to put up one of those vote thingies on this thread? I would be interested in how many people are sceptics, believers or fence sitters when it comes to man made climate change. I appreciate that this would only show people on this forum and then only those that could be bothered to vote but I would still find it interesting.)

Treadly
28th December 2010, 05:20 PM
You're going off topic. The original post asked for evidence to sway you one way or the other. A poll on opinions or beliefs isn't evidence.

Wahroonga Farm
28th December 2010, 05:40 PM
Scientific skepticism is healthy.

Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.

Do their arguments have any scientific basis?

What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?If evidence rather than opinion ... is of any value :), readers may like to refer to considered scientific responses to sceptics 'careless' use of scientific 'facts'.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Here is the synopsis.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1691/skepticaugumentssmall.jpg

bshwckr
28th December 2010, 05:57 PM
WF. Everything you just posted could be correct.... or not. There is no definitive proof in any of the answers. There are many arguments to the contrary.

Wahroonga Farm
28th December 2010, 06:05 PM
WF. Everything you just posted could be correct.... or not. There is no definitive proof in any of the answers. There are many arguments to the contrary.Of course; as we have already twigged, it is opinion, not fact, that decides the outcomes of our political systems.

And of course the biggest environmental factor of all ... is the hip pocket.

Once the realisation hit that there was a real consumer cost associated with an effective response to man made environmental problems, our enthusiasm has naturally waned.

It was clear at the outset, that out initial childlike enthusiasm would evaporate once we became responsible through increased taxation.

It was a flawed political call, yet it was a major factor in the downfall of the Howard Government. Three year later it produced a hung parliament; after the incumbent Labor party failed to respond to rapidly changing opinion.

However, I put my faith in science not opinion.

The Explorer
28th December 2010, 06:18 PM
WF. Everything you just posted could be correct.... or not. There is no definitive proof in any of the answers. There are many arguments to the contrary.

Spoken like a true sceptic...
Definition...
sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity.

Hang on - I'm one as well (Point 3) Oh well. I believe in GPS so we all have something in common even if we cant agree on why the weather isnt the same as it use to be :)

Cheers
Greg

KevinS
28th December 2010, 06:19 PM
Wahroonga Farm, are you aware that there are many climate scientests who are skeptics when it comes to "man made" climate change. They don't seem to be represented in your list. The list appears to come straight from the United Nations climate closed shop.

bshwckr
28th December 2010, 06:30 PM
Spoken like a true sceptic...
Definition...
sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity.

Hang on - I'm one as well (Point 3) Oh well. I believe in GPS so we all have something in common even if we cant agree on why the weather isnt the same as it use to be :)

Cheers
Greg

I believe there is a lot of similarities between religion and man made climate change.
A religious person would produce a list longer than WF's Climate List on how their God has been proven to exist.
But lets not get into religion (Yet) There is still a lot more CO2 debate to be had. Like this info http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

The Explorer
28th December 2010, 06:36 PM
snip
Wahroonga Farm, are you aware that there are many climate scientests who are skeptics when it comes to "man made" climate change. They don't seem to be represented in your list.

Why are they different to other skeptics? Left hand column ..."skeptic argument" :)

Cheers
Greg

KevinS
28th December 2010, 06:53 PM
Why are they different to other skeptics? Left hand column ..."skeptic arguments" :)

Cheers
Greg

My query relates to the answers. I accept that some skeptics raise the kind of issues in the left hand column. Other skeptics have very cogent arguments, such as Professors Primmer and Carter.

The Explorer
28th December 2010, 06:58 PM
snip
But lets not get into religion (Yet)

Thank Christ for that :) I am however very skeptical of the true value of this thread let alone another on religion.

Cheers
Greg

The Explorer
28th December 2010, 07:07 PM
My query relates to the answers. I accept that some skeptics raise the kind of issues in the left hand column. Other skeptics have very cogent arguments, such as Professors Primmer and Carter.

Fair enough - maybe they should have three columns to include comments from the relative small number of scientists who have interpreted/accepted available evidence contrary to the majority.

Cheers
Greg

sharkcaver
28th December 2010, 07:14 PM
For the record (ducks for cover from the snipers deadly parting shot) i'm a skeptic. However, I'm also scientifically open minded enough to be swayed by weight of evidence. ATM, I can see almost every argument on both sides being counter argued. Until the weight of balance falls heavily one way or the other, I'll remain skeptical.

In this instance, I do not believe in the "precautionary principle" because the effects of doing so will have a massive impost on all in other non-constructive ways. "Precautionary principles" generally go to hard, to soon, and its very hard to turn the clock back once implemented. That's not to say we cant do something constructive and less invasive in the meantime.

One of the basic laws of physics states "mass (energy) can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be transformed" - Or an even better fit for alternative energies is "for a body in equilibrium, for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction" - Both attributable to Issac Newton - There is no such thing as a free lunch (or free and clean energy), wake up and smell the roses peoples...

One of the often unlooked (or blatantly rarely reported) facts of "greener" energy sources is their by-products. EG, chemical and heavy metal waste from electrical storage cells in solar, waste from nuclear - whom no one wants to take by the way and so forth. All present alternative forms of energy are cost prohibitive and all have bad side effects just as fossil fuel use does. Until such time as alternative sources can be made cost effective, waste minimal and fit for design, I think we are all on a hiding to nothing. Geo-thermal is one of the best fits in this area (until a century later when we find the planets mantle has cooled to such an extent the planet is about to cave in :hysterica :hysterica ).

And this has not even touched on probably the most important thing about planetary environmental sustainability, that being population density, population growth and over population in general.

I could go on, but I have not answered anything thus far on CO2 and its effect on global warming.

Now my hats in the ring, I put a dime in the middle.

Shane.

bshwckr
28th December 2010, 07:22 PM
Thank Christ for that :) I am however very skeptical of the true value of this thread let alone another on religion.

Cheers
Greg
I was only kidding about the religious thread. I don't have enough asbestos for that suit!

bshwckr
28th December 2010, 07:34 PM
At the risk of taking the thread off-topic, this is serious.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061129-warming-gps.html

mihermano
28th December 2010, 10:37 PM
At the minute, I just wish it would stop jolly well raining.

:mighty "Thanks for the rain but we've had enough."

Wahroonga Farm
29th December 2010, 06:04 AM
Thank Christ for that :) I am however very skeptical of the true value of this thread let alone another on religion.

Cheers
GregAmen!

Nicko
29th December 2010, 09:34 AM
Yeah, send it to South West WA :)

wokka
12th April 2011, 08:22 PM
When we pollute, over farm and ruin the land the evidence is very visible.
When we pollute and ruin our waterways, again the evidence is very visible.
Problem is that any damage we are doing to the atmosphere is not as visible.So I guess naturally it's out of sight and out of mind.
What ever climate model we choose to follow, the recorded data facts are that CO2 and Methane levels are continuing to rise and even if you are a skeptic, nothing can alter that fact.

I am lucky(Or unlucky) depending on your view to have a brother in law, who works specifically in this field for the BOM. His view is simple. We have already done the damage to the atmosphere. What he and most scientist generally struggle with(Due to the complexity of the issue), is the extent of damage that we will experience over the years.

I tend to think that any action we take that may help our children in years to come, is worth it.Even if it does cost me a few dollars.

Well thats my bit.

val_b
29th November 2011, 12:04 AM
climate change is a very serious issue nowadays around the world..and I must say we all have something to do about it.. we have to start with ourselves and our own home..we have to give much attention to it because its about the future of our planet where we and our next generation live and will be living.
I'm glad we have a thread like this..:)