 |
Aardvark
Aardvark Forums
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6061
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:11 am Post subject: Come on, it's a con-job isn't it? (8 Feb 2010) |
 |
|
This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0208.shtml
Even if climate change is real, ought we not take a leaf from the pages of the Bible and enjoy life while we can?
Is the public losing faith in the claims of politicians and scientists when it comes to the dire predictions they've proffered regarding climate change?
In fact, should we even believe a bunch of dim-witted, easily duped politicians and a few scientists who've been uncovered as basing much of their "evidence" on hearsay and fake/misinterpreted data? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rainman
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
What a disappointing post, from an engineer.
The "Luddite Greenie" meme is a very poor strawman, Bruce, and you of all people can do better. Semantic arguments about what we have popularly called this? Quoting the bible to prop up your ideology? Equating the idiocy of Rutherford with the scientific processes behind the entire edifice of climatology? Tut, tut.
It's not just sometimes I think we humans are idiots... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6061
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Come on... I got religion and politics into a column designed to incite, just couldn't figure out how to sneak sex in for a hat-trick!
But the reality is that, according to recent surveys, the public are rapidly losing faith in the claims of the climate-change proponents.
Whether it's bad science or bad management, the outcome may be the same -- a lack of public (and therefore political) support for change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virtualkiwi
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Blenheim
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't freezing Europe exactly what 'global warming' - sorry climate change should cause?
The only reason the UK isn't like Greenland is because of the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf Stream stops or reduces due to less of a thermal gradient (ie the Arctic warming up) then northern Europe is going to have some rather nasty winters, although summer might be a bit warmer - which is pretty much exactly what has been happening.
I was in Europe in October/November last year... supposedly autumn, but there were a number of days above 30ºC - unseasonally hot according to locals. During the summer they had people dying of heat exhaustion.
Should we care? Sure, because even a lot of greenies are pretty keen to welcome refugees, and there are likely to be a LOT of them if climate extremes in the northern hemisphere continue.
While we don't have a great track record ourselves, there simply aren't enough of us to have made too much of an impact globally, but if we have an influx of potentially millions fleeing the mess of their own making to our little islands with such abysmal transport infrastructure among other things, 'climate change' isn't going to be the only crisis we're going to be facing.
Actually there might be nothing to worry about, although it might not be very nice what happens. If the climate extremes get wild enough, ie cold enough in winter and enough heat waves in summer, enough people might die that the global population reduces sufficiently that climate altering activities are reduced to a sustainable level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perry
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 538
Location: Hastings
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
The longer range info all suggests that this stuff
happens in cycles. Ice Ages, followed by Warm
Periods, seem to have been the norm for eons.
Even a few scientists say that another Ice Age
will happen, as they have in the past. That we
humans have any real influence is conjecture,
or wishful thinking, at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GSVNoFixedAbode
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 143
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it still trolling when you write the column for the day?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techy
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's hilarious that when extreme heat and dryness is experienced it's global warming. When freezing and extreme snow is experienced it's global warming.
It suits them to bang on about it and use whatrever data they like to promote it. If you disagree or have doubts you are branded a leper.
The planet has warmed and cooled before.
What will kill our environment (and note I didn't say kill the planet), is our ever increasing population.
People will immediately come up with reasons why that isn't a problem and justify our breeding like flies, but all the environmental problems stem form that one single fact.
You could pollute as much as you like and it won't affect anything seriously if there are only 5 of you.
Nearly 7 billion and it's another matter altogether.
That's why so many other species are endangered, we move in, remove their environment and concrete it over.
And people forget we are not increasing slowly, we are now compounding the population.
Remove at least6 1/2 billion and we won't have a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 22
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Techy - I think you are right. Unfortunately those that support AGW tend to automatically think those against the theory do not care about the environment. So the debate gets muddled. After Copenhagen many of the pro AGW people started pointing the finger at those they fealt responsible for its failure. Included in this was China. China acted years ago by bringing in their one child policy.( done for other reasons at the time ) If there was one thing that was going to reduce CO2 emmissions that would help , but you don't hear any of them mentioning that. Also China has a policy of producing 25% of all energy requirement rom renewables by 2020 ( that is ALL energy not just electricity -- fuel for transport - everything). People I speak to say " Beijing have said it so it will happen ". I'm not pro China but just mention this to illustrate what I believe to be more important - sustainaility of energy sources , reduction in pollution for environmental and health reasons.
The whole AGW issue has been political from day one and ironically it goes back to Thatcher and her fight with the miners ( Scargill and co ) and also then bringing in contestability of funding for research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainman
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | Come on... I got religion and politics into a column designed to incite, just couldn't figure out how to sneak sex in for a hat-trick!
|
Well trolled, then.
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | But the reality is that, according to recent surveys, the public are rapidly losing faith in the claims of the climate-change proponents.
Whether it's bad science or bad management, the outcome may be the same -- a lack of public (and therefore political) support for change. |
Well, yes. People are irrational and don't listen to information that they find inconvenient. (A similar phenomenon occurs with discussions about potential oil depletion). We won't change until we absolutely have to, and then those with more power and resources will have an easier job of it than the poor. In the meantime we'll keep reinforcing the narrative of global progress and general happy-goodness.
Surely this isn't a surprise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scott.nightingale
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think on the whole your readers have made a much more objective argument on this one than you have Bruce. Let us all face it, unless you've got a PhD in the climatology you don't have a show of really putting any weight behind your argument. There are very smart people on both sides of the fence, which makes me think the only sensible approach is cautious scepticism. Would it really hurt to be a little more efficient in the way we use energy / polluting technologies etc? Of course politicians will try to bend the issues to suit their purposes, but we can't throw the baby out with the bath water. If it all turns out to be balony we've spread our energy eggs around, if not we've tried.
And all those saying we can't do anything about climate change, you need to watch this http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophocles
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 880
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woo hoo! What a gas!
Love it.
Do it again: go on! See if you can get all three together! (Has Madonna done anything lately which can be tied in?)
| Bruce wrote: |
Not only does it now appear that much of the "evidence" supporting the argument for climate change is little more than hearsay but we're also seeing increasingly powerful evidence that the planet is getting far from warmer.
|
Fact: the climate has warmed and is likely to continue warming a bit more over the next 150 years or so with some dips. Or it could be over.
Fact: there has been no warming over the last 10 years.
Fact: the Sun's magnetic cycle reached its minimum in late 2006/early 2007.
Fact: this minimum showed the least sunspot activity (almost nothing) for the longest time since 1928.
Fact: the Earth's magnetic field provides little protection from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GRCF = Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux).
Fact: the Sun's magnetic field provides most of the protection from the GCRF we get
Fact: the Sun's magnetic field is dragged out to the Heliopause by the Solar Wind
Fact: the Solar Wind has been decreasing since 1995
Fact: it takes about 18 months for the Solar Wind to make to the Heliopause
Fact: the new sunspot cycle (cycle 24) has finally gotten underway but:
Fact: the CRF (Cosmic Ray Flux) is presently about 19-20% higher than it has been since the start of the Space Age (that's about how long we've been measuring it) http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm
Fact: recent research has shown that the CRF modulates ocean cloud cover (ie: causes more cloud when up) http://dsri.dk/priresup2.pdf
Fact: the CRF influenced cloud is cooling cloud and affects the weather (obviously)
Or we could have had all the warming we're going to get: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
The next few sunspot cycles could be very interesting. Another Dalton Minimum or even a Maunder Minimum? We don't know!
| Bruce wrote: |
Even if climate change is real, ought we not take a leaf from the pages of the Bible and enjoy life while we can?
|
Climate change is real. It's in the Ice Cores (an Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore et al). As Perry noted:
| Perry wrote: |
The longer range info all suggests that this stuff happens in cycles. Ice Ages, followed by Warm Periods, seem to have been the norm for eons.
|
And he's right. The Ice Cores from Greenland and Antarctica along with the seabed cores show a cycle with a periodicity of 1470 +/- 500 years --- an unstoppable temperature variation of about +2 degrees C abover the mean and -2 degrees C below the mean temperature (Dansgaard and Oeschger circa 1995. These two pegged it as an 1800-2000 year cycle in their paper. Their data was examined carefully by others and it was reduced to first 1500 years +/- 500 years and then to 1470 +/- 500 years (S. Fred Singer of Virginia University)).
The main climate driver is the Sun's magnetic activity and how it varies the GCRF this planet is exposed to. This affects the oceanic cloud cover (Shaviv, Veizer, Svensmark, Marsh et al) which has an effect on the weather: more clouds means cooling which means more precipitation. The heat of condensation is what fuels storms so the more water vapour which condenses to form rain, snow or ice, the more energy available for the storms. It's when the temperature drops, that the condensation is faster (and there is more of it because of a greater temperature difference) and the faster it can be ripped out by the storm, which makes for a more energetic storm.
People do not know their history. The Middle Ages Warming (which was about 2 degrees Centigrade and so was warmer than now ---- we've only had about 0.65 degrees C ( Shaviv et al) or .71 degree C (IPCC) so far--- is very well documented. Weather was calmer, not wilder. Plants and therefore crops flourished. People were well fed. Disease was minimal. Population doubled. In other words: the MAW was benign.
Whereas the colder climes---both the Dark Ages from 600-900AD and the Little Ice Age which started from about 1320 and went until 1850---- were quite malignant and were responsible for the deaths of millions of people. They were notable for their plagues. The first plague through Europe was Justinian's plage in the 700's. Plague struck again in the 14th, 15, and 16th Centuries. Europe's population dropped from 5 million plus to a about 2 million.
They were notable for their cold wet weather. You only need to look at the landscapes painted by artists over the LIA centuries: the skies were uniformly clouded. The LIA was wet and cold. Ergotism was rife. Nasty illness, ergotism. People were cold and wet: firewood was scarce and so was straw. People thought the continuous bad weather (and the continuous poor harvests) were caused by Satanists and the witch hunts started.
They were also notable for their long droughts. The Mayan civilisation collapsed. The mesa Indians in New Mexico went elsewhere while those who stayed died. This is all a matter of historical record.
Bruce is quite right: we shouldn't panic about global warming. We should kick back and enjoy it. Any attempt we make to try and alter it (which I don't think we can do) will kill millions if not billions of people. It will crash our present civilisation and do it rapidly by crashing our agiculture. We are only about 3 months away from hand-to-mouth at any instant in this civilisation. So we should consider change carefully and introduce it carefully. Our biggest gain could be from our use of nitrogenous fertilizers. Western agriculture is particularly careless here.
If you think back, you might remember (look back in the Aardvark archives --- go on, I dare you to!) I've said that I expect the summer we're currently experiencing to be cloudier than usual. I can't complain about it here in Auckland: Auckland and Northland were hit by a drought with blue-dome skies and calm settled weather, while the rest of New Zealand didn't seem to be getting a summer. I've been watching the weather: temperatures across NZ are a little lower than previous years this summer. Humidity (a measure of the air's water vapour content) has been almost half what it usually is, making the lower temperatures feel "cooler."
The Northern Hemispere is experiencing a bad winter. This coming winter for us may be bad too: it depends on the cloud cover, which depends on the GCRF (Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux). If it stays well elevated over this year, then our winter will be nasty, too.
Watch the Arctic Ice cap. It's going to wax and wane just like it did during the MAW ---that's how the Vikings got around so much. There's a lot of heat stored in the oceans so the Arctic will be more or less ice free over summer for a while yet even if we do get a few years of cooling. That's not a problem: it does that every 1500 years for a couple of hundred years. There is not going to be any catastrophic rise in sea levels either: it takes about 20,000 years to melt a large ice sheet like those in Antarctica and Greenland's also don't seem to be threatened. Most of the ice from the last ice age has already gone and what's left can't raise sea levels much more they are now. What about Antarctica you say? Well, what about it? Apart from the peninsular below South America, which has warmed noticably, Antarctica has been cooling. It has its warm periods when the Northern Hemisphere is having its Little Ice Ages. Decade on decade, there has been more pack ice around Antarctica than before.
Think: Global Warming = benign milder weather, more reliable and plentiful crops = more food = better nourishment = less disease
Global Cooling = worse weather: long periods of wet, interspersed with long droughts, = crop failures = worse nourishment = more disease.
This is all documented in the historic record.
I know which part of the global cycle I like. However: just because we haven't yet warmed to the same degree the MAW did does not mean our pollution could not be having any effect. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has gone from about 280 ppm in 1850 to about 347 ppm now. It is a relatively weak greenhouse gas. But along with CO2 are increases in NOx which are much stronger GHGs from our careless use of fertilizers. In the 1970's there was a dip with sufficient cooling to excite the headlines about our pollution maybe triggering a new Ice Age. This was put down to the sulphur oxides being poured into the air. If these really are "cooling" gases, then could they have contributed to the lower levels of warming in this current warming cycle? Ahem. And maybe not too. As Dr. Shaviv puts it: "We don't even know the sign ..." of the climate impact of our emissions.
Some of the warming we have had can be put down to mankind's dirtiness. About 30% of the temperature increase so far could be laid at our feet and the other 70% the sun (Shaviv: http://www.sciencebits.com).
| Bruce wrote: |
Whether it's bad science or bad management
|
The Climategate emails from last year indicate a science fraud. I believe it to be based on the English method of funding research which New Zealand adopted about seven years ago: Performance Based Research Funding. This is where those who are successful in having more papers published are more likely to receive funding for whatever research project(s) they propose. This gives remarkable opportunities for corruption. I downloaded the CRU (Climate Reasearch Unit of East Anglia University) emails from one of the sources they were released to last year. I'm having a leisurely trip through them. (Aside: If you want to see just what has been turning up in them to make me use the 'F' word above then read Steve McIntyre's on-going analysis of them at http://www.climateaudit.org. He's being gentle with the miscreants ....)
What I'm seeing is a group of academics who are "onto a good thing." It gives them continuity of funding with little effort required. As it is, under the PBRF regime, the average academic has to spend about 40% of their time writing funding proposals and canvassing funding outlets to try and obtain funds for their research. Those whose "paper count" is higher get preference over the rest.
This is just a part of it. Once the political element became involved (IPCC) then so did the economists and big corporations. As the big corporations own the various economics schools, it was little surprise to hear the Chicago School state that "global warming is best handled by the markets..." Uh oh. What markets? Then a "Carbon Market" appeared out of nowhere and Kyoto was on the way.
Now, there's the possibility of really big money here, and the big corporations are really sensitive to such possibilities. Over 6 billion people of whom about 2 - 2.5 billion (say) may be taxpayers at about 400-4000 dollars per tax payer (richer countries pay more) per year for "carbon charges" ... you do the sums. So AGW research suddenly gets even more preferential funding. Then journal editors---who are ever sensitive to advertising dollars---are nudged to ensure not too much of any research which might gainsay all this is published. One university is even known to have refused tenure to a researcher who did not think the "party line" was necessarily correct. (see Shaviv's blog).
Last edited by Sophocles on Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Napier, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sad.
If I wasn't eating a nice toasted sandwich I'd tell Sophocles what I think of his (how many!!??) lines. Man, he sure has a lot of time on his hands. I read the first and last lines.
It's hard to figure out from those two lines whether he ackowledges the facts of global warming or not!
Sigh... ikf people can't understanf... that climate change is currentlt a result of global warming.
Damn, it's hard to type one handed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophocles
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 880
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg wrote: |
Man, he sure has a lot of time on his hands.
|
I'm between research projects ... 
... and I touch type with both hands ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scott.nightingale
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks Sophocies, nice to see some actual references being pulled out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grumpy-mike
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aardvark Daily
New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 14th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.
Yeah-right....so how much "reasonable effort was applied here?
Absolute garbage! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6061
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aardvark Daily -- also known to wear his devil's advocate hat to incite passioned debate amongst readers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulw
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1136
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| grumpy-mike wrote: | Aardvark Daily
New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 14th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.
Yeah-right....so how much "reasonable effort was applied here?
Absolute garbage! |
So are you going to run around saying "Burn him. burn him the global warming unbeliever. " ?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Napier, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: |
Aardvark Daily -- also known to wear his devil's advocate hat to incite passioned debate amongst readers |
Sure you're not related to grumpy-mike eh Bruce?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jynyl
Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 45
Location: Taranaki
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | I got religion and politics into a column designed to incite, just couldn't figure out how to sneak sex in for a hat-trick! |
Try cheat neutral.
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | according to recent surveys, the public are rapidly losing faith in the claims of the climate-change proponents |
Yes, the lobby groups (such as the Heartland Institute) have been quite effective. Those who are funding them must be very pleased.
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | So why did they call it "global warming" then, only to change the name to "climate change" once it became obvious that things just weren't getting warmer at all |
The IPCC has been called that since it started in 1988. The global warming term seems to be a more recent media invention (or maybe it came from those lobby groups?).
For another view on things, check out Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techy
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The End Is Nigh!
Sooner or later, that will be correct.
It may not be temperature, it may not be comets or asteroids, it might just be the death of the universe......but sooner or later, whatever gets us in the end, we will for sure die and be another extinct species.
But how many other species will we screw up before we go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johntech
Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 3
Location: Brisbane
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: Steve Mc and the 2007 correction |
|
|
Sophocles,
You've figured what many in NZ seem a little slow to catch on to. I'm surprised, over here in Oz, at least for the people that I know, most realise the world has been conned. That's not to say we shouldn't look be good environmentalists, we should. It's so funny how they managed to persuade everyone that C02 is our biggest pollution problem.
Anyway, maybe you know the answer to this question that I can't figure out. You know how Steve Mc spotted a GISS error (one of many) which resulted in them being forced to (quietly) change their data for USA temps which resulted in 1934 being the hottest not 1998. Well I know this happened and I checked the raw data in 2007 and indeed 1998 was 2nd hottest. Well since then they have carried on fiddling with the data and now if you look at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt you will see that 1998 is warmer than 1934 once again. I understand why they did that, but what I can't understand is why there's nothing in the blogs about this. No-one seems to have noticed or to have mentioned it.
Cheers johntech |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:44 am Post subject: Re: Come on, it's a con-job isn't it? (8 Feb 2010) |
|
|
Because we are heading for serious problems but if we act promptly, we can avert a major calamity.
| Quote: | | Is the public losing faith in the claims of politicians and scientists when it comes to the dire predictions they've proffered regarding climate change? |
Probably something to do with the relentless drumbeat of lies, distortions, & distractions coming from the well-funded denialist camp, assisted by the dim-witted, easily duped MSM.
| Quote: | | In fact, should we even believe a bunch of dim-witted, easily duped politicians and a few scientists who've been uncovered as basing much of their "evidence" on hearsay and fake/misinterpreted data? |
Some of the summaries produced by unpaid volunteers on the IPCC have contained mistakes, however they don't change the vast body of evidence* that CC is real and is happening. Wistful thinking won't make the bubbling tundra go away.
*by coincidence this outburst has occurred the same day the GW News hit the street. It's a weekly collation of the ferment in the blogosphere pertaining the CC. Don't bother printing it out, it runs to 44 pages.
See http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/02/gw_news_february_7_2010.php#more |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barryl
Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 254
Location: Canterbury
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's simply too hard for me as a dumb engineer to sift through the competing data and "evidence" but I suspect there's egos to grow, budgets to enhance, entire departments to grow, and careers to be made from hopping on the bandwagon.
I know that climate change is here, just like it's always been. Did "we" cause it? Some of it, for sure.
However, I'd be more inclined to take note of their these people and their cheerleader, that hypocritical sanctimonious babbling idiot Al Gore, when his personal energy use drops to something reasonable. His house and pool gobbled up 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, compared with my 7,888. What an a-----hole. Does he expect anybody to take him seriously????
I also see most of the local cheerleaders are the same ones that babble about the huge advantages of a pure, organic, natural lifestyle. Just the other day I heard twice in 15 minutes the usual mantra "It's all natural so it's good for you" Well, here's some more pure natural, organic stuff for them:
Ricin.
Datura
Nicotine
Tetrodotoxin
Ergot
Fusarium
Ciguatera
Ochratoxin.
Alkaloids (in hundreds of plants)
So, which of the greenies will be the first to go?
No, I thought not, they are all talking c---- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Napier, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of people miss the point... global warming is a fact proven, not by scientists. It's proven by environmentalists. Sure, the scientists back up scientifically what the environmentalists first discovered. But it's the guys at the coal-face who've observed the affects who should be taken most seriously.
National Geographic Society contributors are probably the best sources to take seriously. The Society itself understands the threats and impacts that we've had on global warming.
I'd rather take them more seriously than some who get their opinions from the local blurb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superglue
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
Oh dear oh dear this old argument is becoming such a bore (yawn yawn yawn)
What a lot of codswallop this whole "global warming/climate change" thing is. You can not tell me this whole "business" is not designed to extract money out of the sheeples of the world, you and me, whilst the so called "scientists" are fattening their wallets / departments / research centres ..... and no matter what we do, the universe will do whatever its going to do anyway, nothing we can do about it.
Thats not to say we should not be wasteful of our resources, everyone knows they are limited, but we still need to live comfortably, and we need to keep our money in our own pockets, and not line those of Al Gore, the IPCC or any other outfit who jumps on this bandwagon!!
I am so over hearing about it, the world is not warming, the islands are not going to be buried under the sea, get over the whole damn thing and put ya resources into something useful.
Go Sophocles, you're about the only person around here who actually talks some sense about this subject |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Napier, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gluey... ever heard of the "ostrich" syndrome?
Douglas Adams (may he rest in peace) alluded to this in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. As I recall, he referred to some galactic being who was the most dangerous being ever known. However, this being was so incredibly stupid, that if you closed your eyes it thought it couldn't see you.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophocles
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 880
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The End Is Nigh!
Sooner or later, that will be correct.
|
Yep. The very end will be when the sun ( a main sequence yellow star) dies the death of main sequence yellow stars but fortunately, we have a few billion years left before that happens. (you could look through some of the photos at http://www.stsci.edu --- the space telescope science institute --- for some beautiful if not spectacular pictures by the Hubble telescope of some of the butterfly-like nebulae formed by dying yellow stars....awesome!)
The solar system is also butting up against the rear edge of the Orion spiral arm of the Home galaxy (a spur arm off the Carina arm) and is about to cross it. Spiral Arm crossings trigger Ice Ages (Shaviv: http://sciencebits.com/iceages for the full story). A few of these crossings have triggered snowball earth episodes (would that be cool enough for you Ian?). So we know we have an incoming ice age in a few MYears (MYears = mega years or million years) or less ....
| johnthetech wrote: |
maybe you know the answer to this question that I can't figure out.
|
I wasn't aware of that and I don't know the answer. You could try drawing Steve's (Steve McIntyre: http://www.climateaudit.org ) attention to it. He may be aware of it and able to answer, or if not, he may be interested in hearing about it.
It could be a "zealot defending the cause" by "correcting" all changes so that the AGW status quo is maintained. A William Connelly was recently accused of similar activity on Wikipedia. If you search for the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming you will discover graphs which show the 20th Century as the warmest ever----which we know from the fossil record is NOT true. Whether Mr Connelly is guilty as accused I can't say... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superglue
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greg,
I'll be the one laughing when in a few years time the world finally comes to the realisation that AGW is the worlds biggest scam ever and you all conclude you got sucked in big time by a handful of selfish di.....ds (Al Gore et all).
I think you lot are the ones who need to open your eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| superglue wrote: |
I am so over hearing about it, the world is not warming, the islands are not going to be buried under the sea, get over the whole damn thing and put ya resources into something useful. |
Oh joy! My heart leaps at the very thought. You, Superglue, have found a flaw in all the data streaming in from around the world showing inexorably higher temperatures, rational explanations for all the melting glaciers, the rotten multi-year Arctic ice, the bubbling tundra, the collapsing ice highways, the biological season shifts, the increasing ocean temperatures and lowering pH, advancing boreal forests and the increasingly erratic weather (& insurance claims). I have been fretting that with the global political system paralysed by greed, we weren't going to pull finger in time to avoid catastrophic changes affecting my children and grandchildren, but I'm much reassured that I don't have to worry. Thank you, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Napier, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian O wrote: | | superglue wrote: |
I am so over hearing about it, the world is not warming, the islands are not going to be buried under the sea, get over the whole damn thing and put ya resources into something useful. |
Oh joy! My heart leaps at the very thought. You, Superglue, have found a flaw in all the data streaming in from around the world showing inexorably higher temperatures, rational explanations for all the melting glaciers, the rotten multi-year Arctic ice, the bubbling tundra, the collapsing ice highways, the biological season shifts, the increasing ocean temperatures and lowering pH, advancing boreal forests and the increasingly erratic weather (& insurance claims). I have been fretting that with the global political system paralysed by greed, we weren't going to pull finger in time to avoid catastrophic changes affecting my children and grandchildren, but I'm much reassured that I don't have to worry. Thank you, thank you. |
LOL at Ian... I dunno for sure if he was being sarcastic, but it's a worthy contribution to the argument.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
