This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
wayneL said:
Not really.

It just demonstrates that ETS is pretty much a tax grab and a nice earner for vested interests at the expense of the broader community; with no outcome on co2 levels. That much is patently obvious.
Click to expand...
Tax is collected by governments for redistribution on a reasonably equitable basis for many essential services. How is that at the expense of the broader community?
Who are these other "vested interests"?
On what basis do you conclude there will be no outcome on CO2 levels?


In any case, the pirate ship "global warming" has been holed beneath the water line and taking water fast. It's as good as sunk. Gu'mints will have to think up another method of perpetual alarm quickly...
Click to expand...
As shown in other threads, this is not the case at all. The gathering evidence is stronger by the year. Those arguing to the contrary are bereft of scientific support of their case and delve in distractions to the principal theme.
 
Oh come on rederob! This has been discussed at length on this forum already; as well as a million other places in the public domain. If you honestly have to ask this.....

As shown in other threads, this is not the case at all. The gathering evidence is stronger by the year. Those arguing to the contrary are bereft of scientific support of their case and delve in distractions to the principal theme.
Click to expand...

It IS groundhog day! :sleeping:

Confirmation bias anyone?
 
sneak'n said:
As shown in other threads, this is not the case at all. The gathering evidence is stronger by the year. Those arguing to the contrary are bereft of scientific support of their case and delve in distractions to the principal theme.
Click to expand...
If you are up to date with the bulk of scientific research on the subject, then even if you do believe in global warming why would you support a levy that in effect taxes only CO2 producers?
 
wayneL said:
Oh come on rederob! This has been discussed at length on this forum already; as well as a million other places in the public domain. If you honestly have to ask this.....

It IS groundhog day! :sleeping:

Confirmation bias anyone?
Click to expand...
A simple "present the evidence" request is all I seek.
The fact that many people who know little about the detail discuss matters and come to baseless conclusions counts for very little.
If you read this forum on ETS you would get the impression that countries don't want to get involved in carbon trading/emission abatement. Nothing is further from the truth.
The difficulty is getting agreement on a raft of technical issues, let alone quantum and timing.
Few countries are willing to "go first" as there is a real and immediate cost to them. The greater issue, however, is about the longer term costs of not acting sooner.
 

That article appeared in all MSM papers around the world.

Exactly what new information has this "study" (spits on the ground) brought to light?

Nuttin'

Nada

Zero

It is just a re-interpretation of existing information. It is a statement of religious faith - a tardy and futile defensive parry from an absolute PR hiding in recent months.

The AGW faithful will cheer and point, the rest of us will roll our eyes.
 
We had a big shower here in Melbourne today, struth, they closed the races at Fleminton and the football, and Flinders Street became a billabong for the Yarra.

Climate change ??? G/G would say its the Athiest's convention and the anger of God

Been very humid here in Victoria the last three weeks, worse than Darwin and everyone was saying Global Warming, he he he....nothing like a shower to fix that
 
wayneL said:
Exactly what new information has this "study" (spits on the ground) brought to light?

Nuttin'

Nada

Zero
Click to expand...

From the article....

The panel assessed more than 100 recent peer-reviewed scientific papers and found the overwhelming majority had detected clear evidence of human influence on the climate.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, who led the study, said: "This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

....

The study found that since 1980, the average global temperature had increased by about 0.5C and that the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade. This trend is reflected in measurements from the oceans. Warmer temperatures had led to more evaporation from the surface, most noticeably in the sub-tropical Atlantic, Dr Stott said.
 
Recent <> new.

Where are the references?
 
wayneL said:
Recent <> new.

Where are the references?
Click to expand...
If we have to have lots of references ASF could look like 'Wikipedia'. Then there would have to be stars put in indicating 'reference needed'. I suppose we should reference sometimes but all the same, there are our search engines to see if information is correct, if not, cite the fact.
 
Utter nonsense!

You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.
 
wayneL said:
Utter nonsense!

You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Wayne. Do you mean assertions like the following, which I noticed didn't come with any corroborating evidence:

It is just a re-interpretation of existing information. It is a statement of religious faith - a tardy and futile defensive parry from an absolute PR hiding in recent months.
Click to expand...

It is a newspaper article. You would need to go to the source to validate what is being reported.
 
wayneL said:
Utter nonsense!

You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Mr L, you continually make unsupported statements, and rely on apparent information from unnamed sources on many occasions to support your beliefs (with the exception of unexplained references to Pielke Snr).
Not one single reply from you to my requests has ever indicated that you understand the science.
Since the last IPCC report there have been dozens of scientific conferences where hundreds of peer reviewed papers were presented, many relating to climate and the causes of its change. Only the most radical of these papers ever sees the media latch on, and that probably gives this thread some life.
Those with a lot of time on their hands (and a bit of download available) can get a wonderful perspective on the role carbon plays by watching this: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Science is seldom absolute, especially when such a huge range of complex factors are at work in a dynamic system. But the simple bottom line when it comes to hypothesising about global temperature changes is that carbon dioxide is always large in the frame.
 
If the rains and flooding in Western Qld and NSW is a result of climate change, I say bring it on.

The health of the Murray-Darling river system is dependent on big floods, not government regulations.
 

Yep was a shocker here yesterday explod

One of my friends rang me that her cars windscreen got shattered and dints in her car. She couldnt believe the size of the hailstones.
 

Rederob,

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to sell an incorrect and now discredited hypothesis, you people are. I don't have to prove or disprove anything as there are ample sources already doing do.

Meanwhile the opportunity to address the correct causes of climate change and environmental damage slips by as policy makers and vested interests seek to profit rather than promote sustainability.
 
wayneL said:
Meanwhile the opportunity to address the correct causes of climate change and environmental damage slips by as policy makers and vested interests seek to profit rather than promote sustainability.
Click to expand...
You might wish to elaborate on "the correct causes of climate change" so that we have a starting point for policy makers who, to your mind, seem somehow more interested in profiting from than solving.
The logical flaws and irrationality of your statements cause me to wonder why I have bothered to reply!
 
Resist climate hysteria, certainly yes. However, if you burn coal smoke comes off and if you burn millions of tonnes of it, then whole cities are covered in it and the result is a coughing and sick nation.
 
wayneL said:
Utter nonsense!

You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Fair enough if that's what you think I said. However, it was more a criticism of always wanting a citing if the view posted isn't liked much. I'm more understanding of the tiredness brought on by long distance travel that renders us all a touch poseur maybe - no pother intended but respect.
 
Re Carbon Trading Schemes:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100305...t-rich-off-trading-scheme-study?quicktabs_1=0

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
25K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
13K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
2K
divs4ever
July 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
45
Views
7K
ducati916
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
17K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...