ADS said...

Was emailed this link to a Sydney radio station interview yesterday:
http://www.2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998
Some concerning points are raised.
I think we need a national debate on this topic.

What a load of absolute rot! We don't need a debate on bloody Alan Jones terms. Right wing sceptics like this add absolutely nothing to the debate what so ever.

Numbers 'for' or 'against' a point of view never made it right or wrong. And that's the whole problem with the present debate on climate change. It has become an argument with more similarities to a religious debate than a scientific debate.

If you had taken it on the numbers then the earth is the centre of the universe. That point was clearly and definitely decided over 300 years ago. It was so definitely decided that anyone who disagreed and publicly said so, ran the risk of being burned at the stake. And some did, and consequently were.
It took 300 years for the authorative body who claimed the earth was the centre of the universe to publicly admit that they were WRONG! They had to really. With the advent of 20th century science it became obvious to everyone except the most diehard adherents of 'infallible decrees' that nothing much at all revolved around our little rock.

If just one person can put up a clear and reasonable argument that humans are NOT the major cause of the present warming trend then that has to be listened to and disputed on a scientific basis. And that basis cannot be that more people agree with this side than that side. That just proves that they have had to resort to a religious debate because their science is not altogether backing them up.

The change of public perception that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe was started by only a very few people. And there was no money in it for them. And they were right and EVERYONE ELSE was WRONG! They made their point on a scientific basis. Their oponents made their point on a religious basis.
The matter of whether the earth was the centre of the universe had no relevance to the economic welfare of the people. The matter of CO2 "polution" does. The fact that it is called "polution" is a clear sign that logic is not the driving factor of the argument. Carbon is 'polution' to carbon based lifeforms (i.e. us ) in the same way that gold dust would be a polution to your bank acount.

All this talk of "carbon trading" and "carbon credits" taints the whole debate and there is no doubt that even if humans have no effect at all on the climate, there are many who would still push strongly for the present path of carbon trading to continue.

p.s. Yes Carbon trading is ****, but it doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
p.p.s. Don't get me started on Carbon offsetting either.

Climate change is a result of sun spot activity NOT human activity.

I dare anyone to show conclusive proof to the contrary.

If an untruth (lie) is repeated often enough, people eventually accept it as truth.

cisco said...

Climate change is a result of sun spot activity NOT human activity.

I dare anyone to show conclusive proof to the contrary.

If an untruth (lie) is repeated often enough, people eventually accept it as truth.

Here you go, Sun Spot activity vs Global Temp. Data from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Notice the complete lack of correlation.



Kind or ironic that last sentence of yours

I guess you have me there Trant. There is some correlation though however disproportionate. Temperatures and sunspot activity are both rising.

paddymac. I agree with what you say but what you are talking about is "Theory" just like evolution which is still Darwin's theory. It has not been proven and so therefore is not fact like many people believe.

The same is true with Global Warming/Climate Change. It has been repated so often that many people have accepted it as fact.

Another theory worthy of consideration is that put forward by Immanuel Velikovsky in his books Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, published by Abacus.

Google his name to get some idea of it but better if you can get hold of the books which I believe are still available. They really put a different slant on things. His theory is based on facts.

The Wongs, Gawwets and Wudds of the world do not give us facts. They just ripp us off.
Cheers Cisco

I love the way the unintelligent blonde fluff on the news recently said we have had the hottest October day since 1960something (her emphasis on those words)

Of course they then look stern and mention global warming / climate change

Hang on.... so we actually had a hotter October day in the 60's? Hmmmm........

Regardless of which camp you're in, the most infuriating part is always the media.

the reckon climate change is because our solar system is flattening out !!!
dont worry were all going to die in 2012 when our milky way colides with plannet boobies X
undefined Ref ... utube

cisco said...
paddymac. I agree with what you say but what you are talking about is "Theory" just like evolution which is still Darwin's theory. It has not been proven and so therefore is not fact like many people believe.

That's right, it's not a fact. It's a theory that is will supported by a growing body of evidence. That evidence has been gathered through experimentation. The experiments must be repeatable so the others can repeat and verify. That's the scientific method. Scientists are a bunch of skeptics that enjoy testing their colleague's assertions. That's called peer review.

The same is true with Global Warming/Climate Change. It has been repated so often that many people have accepted it as fact.

Another theory worthy of consideration is that put forward by Immanuel Velikovsky in his books Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, published by Abacus.

Google his name to get some idea of it but better if you can get hold of the books which I believe are still available. They really put a different slant on things. His theory is based on facts.

I did, it didn't.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

"His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets..."

"In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community."

That doesn't sound like a theory based on facts.

The Wongs, Gawwets and Wudds of the world do not give us facts.

Most politicians now accept Climate Change given the growing body of credible evidence. How to address Climate Change presents them with an enormous challenge, not the least of which is losing the vote of people that share your opinion. But at least they are having a crack at it and proposing solutions.

Trant said...

cisco said...

Climate change is a result of sun spot activity NOT human activity.

I dare anyone to show conclusive proof to the contrary.

If an untruth (lie) is repeated often enough, people eventually accept it as truth.

Here you go, Sun Spot activity vs Global Temp. Data from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Notice the complete lack of correlation.



Kind or ironic that last sentence of yours

Which ever way you go.........Is this graph relevant? It shows temp over 120 years. 120 YEARS............out of 4.54 billion.

Go back over 1000 years....also not a releveant time period in the bigger scheme of things but the temp had dropped 1 degree to a small ice age before climbing again - what did humans do to cause this, if we can make the temp rise surely we can make it fall!!

Either way, I think we should pollute and use less which dispite the momentum to a greener future I don't see anywhere......here my product is twice as green, now you can buy 4 is closer to the present day to me.

Can anybody think of a dynamic system that doesn't oscillate?? Flags flutter, fins whistle, roads corrugate, skirts go up and down.

No doubt we're doing enough to make a difference, like putting a bit of duck tape on a flag - It'll change the way it flutters but there's a fair chance it will still work OK? Or maybe only half a chance it'll work OK? A bit of a guess, the only way to really know is to put it up the flag pole again.

The next 20 years will be interesting.

Ian K said...

Can anybody think of a dynamic system that doesn't oscillate?? Flags flutter, fins whistle, roads corrugate, skirts go up and down.

No doubt we're doing enough to make a difference, like putting a bit of duck tape on a flag

It's a fair point, everyone knows that the climate has changed in the past without us anyway. What we're doing is waving the flag pole making the flag oscillate more, making things worse. I believe that previously the temperature has never changed this rapidly.

Previous climate changes have led to mass level extinctions in the past so it's probably not a good thing if we help another one come along!

www.mauricecotterell.com


all questions will be answered


the guys a frikken genius

On that line of thought isn't there something contradictory when in one week KRUDD welcomes Australia's population doubling in the next 40 years, then the next week he laments the climate change sceptics ransoming future generation's on the alter of greed and ignorance?

Doesn't take Einstein to work out more people means more consumption and more pollution. Unless our society and economy is radically altered and we revert to some sort of pre or post industrial way of existance then more people must mean more pollution. As technology improves humans are better able to exploit and destroy the environment. Combined with increased numbers means there is more need to exploit and destroy.

50 years ago a household was lucky to have a few electric lights, a fridge and a radio. Now we have all sorts of gadgets that need electricity.

In relation to climate change. The geological evidence indicates that Earth's climate changes regulary. Similarly sea levels regulary change. Human history has recorded changes in climate that predate the possibility of humans affecting climate. For example the Norse grew grapes for wine in modern day Canada and wheat in Greenland. The Romans grew grapes in modern day northern England.

Clearly humanity is greatly affecting local and global environments. The question is whether the idea of carbon taxes are going to anything besides taxing the average person, transferring billions to the biggest polluters and earning brokers big fat bonuses.

I just hope that i can claim carbon credits when I buy carbon windsurfing gear as I am locking up that nasty carbon in my masts, booms and boards etc from the atmosphere.