Global warming?

[Reckless]

Thought this might generate some discussion.

Scam

http://www.sott.net/article/277349-Top-scientist-resigns-from-post-admits-Global-Warming-is-a-scam

[awa355]

It's called climate change these days. Happens about four times a year according to my fruit trees.

[mashman]

He seems to have a handle on it, money! Science to a budget, limited budget to go around all of the disciplines, financial ROI being a prerequisite before any research in anger commences blah blah blah... hardly surprising we can't get an honest answer in regards to climate change/AGW etc...

DITCH THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND IT ALL GOES AWAY. R.B.E. muthafuckas.

[willytheekid]

Hal Lewis = morals & ethics!...EXACTLY whats missing in this world of money & power.<_<


"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded"

-Dwight Eisenhower -Smart man! :yes:


Yup!, Money, Profit & Greed...mankinds new ultimate driving force, pitty to those who stand in its way or resist!...for there is no mercy for the poor...history has proven this.

[Mike.Gayner]

Four years late on this one...

[Jantar]

Next year, in Prague, is the 4 yearly conference on earth and environmental sciences, which include climate and hydrology. Looking at the climate programme it appears that there is a rapid change away from the idea that man is the main cause of change.

Of the 21 symposia on climate there only only 5 where reference to anthropogenic causes are in the brief. Even these are looking at other causes.

E.g. M13 Regional Climate Variability and Change
Convener: Sumant Nigam (College Park, USA)


Co-convener: Adam Scaife (Exeter, U.K.)

Description

The symposium targets sub-continental regions exhibiting notable warming (and cooling) since the 1970s, focusing on the detection, attribution, and mechanisms of multi-decadal variability and change. The symposium will bring together dynamically oriented observational analysts and coupled modellers to advance attribution – multi-decadal natural variability vs. anthropogenic influence (GHG, aerosols) – and draw attention to the discrepancies in the observational and model based assessments of regional multi-decadal climate variability and change. Characterizing the dynamical and thermodynamical mechanisms governing such variability/change in both nature and coupled models is an important symposium goal; multi-decadal simulation and prediction experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights.

Full programme at http://www.iugg2015prague.com/scientific-program.htm

Yes, I shall be attending and presenting my recent paper comparing the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and the El-Nino Southern Oscillation.

[The Reibz]

Global Warming = Illuminati Confirmed

[unstuck]

Baaaaaaa, suckers............


https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10730785_10152744963338908_544071726928512338_n.jp g?oh=aeb38f78bd09d060e33edb10ca9664ed&oe=54AF8DD7&__gda__=1421666749_08a74880994d9657cda75bf9c36bc71 b

[mashman]

Hal Lewis = morals & ethics!...EXACTLY whats missing in this world of money & power.<_<


"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded"

-Dwight Eisenhower -Smart man! :yes:


Yup!, Money, Profit & Greed...mankinds new ultimate driving force, pitty to those who stand in its way or resist!...for there is no mercy for the poor...history has proven this.

Oooooooooooooooo adrenal gland tweak :headbang:. Remove the money from that equation and you'll all but completely remove the profit and greed driven behaviour that is associated with money from society. We needz to cooperate so that the technology ans science that isn't being invested in can come to the fore. The solution is so easy it's laughable. Still adrenal tweakin........

[mashman]

Global Warming = Illuminati Confirmed

I call bullshit ;). We are making a difference, there is no doubt, but we've got next to fuck all to compare our effect with and therefore really don't know what we have done to the future. That's not being alarmist before the know me better than I do crowd get them thar panties bunched, it's simply stating a fact. There used to be forest where I live now, there never will be again. You don't think all of them other forests that've gone never to return and that are directly tied into the ecosystem and the function of breathing for many species might have some effect on our climate? I do, but as said above to what degree, who really knows to what extent and when it will happen. Then add natural climate change/global warming fer shits n giggles... then add the marketing and advertising brigade that need to manufacture jobs somehow (call them the illuminati if you prefer, perhaps knights templar, maybe zionists etc...). Sigh, yet we make preparations in neither direction.

[ellipsis]

...it was warm today...it's nice...

[oldrider]

United Nations today: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

Alternative opinion here: http://drsircus.com/world-news/cooling-fast#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b80e721100-Article_211&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-b80e721100-9531509&mc_cid=b80e721100&mc_eid=783acdf144

Who does one believe? If any! :facepalm: As I get older I do notice the cold more than the heat ... think maybe it's getting colder! :cold:

[willytheekid]

...it was warm today...it's nice...

:eek5:...its warm today too!!

...Im getting icecream!:D...WTF?:blink:

http://www.coolfunpics.com/slides/The_Global_Warming.jpg

:facepalm:...F U Global warming....thats just not cool!:oi-grr:

[unstuck]

25 here yesterday morning, 10 this morning. Fucking aliens.:angry2:

[James Deuce]

Sorry, what?
305006

[Banditbandit]

http://www.azhaguboomi.org/images/cartoons5.jpg

[Jantar]

There is a new paper just published that drops the trend of the New Zealand temperature record (NZTR) to 0.28C per century, down from ~0.9C per century. The paper has finally made it through peer review more than a year after it was submitted to the journal Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand
C.R. de Freitas with M.O. Dedekind and B.E. Brill.


Abstract

Detecting trends in climate is important in assessments of global change based on regional long-term data. Equally important is the reliability of the results that are widely used as a major input for a large number of societal design and planning purposes. New Zealand provides a rare long temperature time series in the Southern Hemisphere, and it is one of the longest continuous climate series available in the Southern Hemisphere Pacific. It is therefore important that this temperature dataset meets the highest quality control standards. New Zealand’s national record for the period 1909 to 2009 is analysed and the data homogenized. Current New Zealand century-long climatology based on 1981 methods produces a trend of 0.91 °C per century. Our analysis, which uses updated measurement techniques and corrects for shelter-contaminated data, produces a trend of 0.28 °C per century.


Conclusion:

Using well-accepted homogenization methods, we have derived a mean land surface air temperature trend for New
Zealand over the past century of 0.28±0.29 °C per century, which is considerably less than the S81/M10 value of 0.91±
0.30 °C per century. By excluding weighted averages and including adjustments which are not statistically significant,
S81 may have allowed too many “false positives” to occur. In addition, using long comparison time periods may have
allowed creeping inhomogeneities and undocumented shifts at reference sites to skew the individual adjustments. This is
borne out by Table 5, which demonstrates that in every case the S81 station adjustments greatly increased the individual trends, while the RS93 method resulted in equal numbers of increases and decreases. As noted previously, S81 did not account for gradual effects such as sheltering or UHI. The detrending of Albert Park in Auckland and Kelburn in Wellington also contributed significantly to the mean trend result.
We have also shown that a very similar outcome would follow if those two stations were not corrected but simply omitted
from the series.

[SPman]

Is there a link to this paper?

[Jantar]

Is there a link to this paper?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z#page-1

[SPman]

Thought this might generate some discussion.

Scam

http://www.sott.net/article/277349-Top-scientist-resigns-from-post-admits-Global-Warming-is-a-scam


The quibbling over methodology is a common diversion by 'pseudo skeptics'.

You can present the evidence again and again and they default to the same diversionary tactics.

Another tactic is to accuse thousands of scientists of lying, cheating, falsifying or massaging data just so they can get on the research grant gravy train.........


:yawn:

[Jantar]

......
Another tactic is to accuse thousands of scientists of lying, cheating, falsifying or massaging data just so they can get on the research grant gravy train.........


:yawn:
No, only about 12 (max) who do that. Only 2 confirmed, but the other 10 are associates who have based their papers on work by those 2. Where do you get this number of "thousands" from?

Most of the scientists who are currently researching climate are using the same data, and coming up with different results. That alone is what tells us that the science is not settled.

[Maha]

Strange shit happens with weather patterns, always have done and always will do, nothing new there. I remember (as a kid in PN) it snowing in Ashhurst and later in life (early 80's) living in Taupo where the temperature was frequently in the early to mid 30's during one summer.

[yokel]

Most of the scientists who are currently researching climate are using the same data, and coming up with different results. That alone is what tells us that the science is not settled.

in other words it's bullshit science,
they will never get the science settled because there is no control eg another planet earth

[Voltaire]

I believe Global warming is due to Terrorists with box cutters.:rolleyes:

[unstuck]

I blame NASA, all those rockets and shit poking holes in the ozone layer.:yes:

[mashman]

I believe that global warming is us moving closer and further away from the sun... and A.G.W. and hot bitches constantly gettin their tats oot.

[BoristheBiter]

I believe you guys need to worry less and ride more.

[oldrider]

I believe Global warming is due to Terrorists with box cutters.:rolleyes:

What are the odds on a KB 3:1 ratio on that? :yes:

[yokel]

I believe Global warming is due to Terrorists with box cutters.:rolleyes:

Almost, the same outfit that dreamed up terrorists with box cutters also dreamed up global warming/climate change.
Hence all the disinformation and confusion

[Reckless]

Just to keep you thinking :)

FFS Now talking about geo engineering 10 decades of aerosols into the atmosphere

Popped up on FB here http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/23/nasa-expert-warns-rogue-geoengineers-chemtrail-consequences/

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/8X1j58Y6B0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

Just to keep you thinking :)

FFS Now talking about geo engineering 10 decades of aerosols into the atmosphere

Popped up on FB here http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/23/nasa-expert-warns-rogue-geoengineers-chemtrail-consequences/


Nice find... all lies, but nice find.

[bogan]

I blame NASA, all those rockets and shit poking holes in the ozone layer.:yes:

Nah mate, defo a case of 'thanks obama' He simply needed to give NASA the resources to go to pluto and bring back the mad ice cubes to cool us off, and what did he do instead? went back in time and gave t'rists box cutters.

[SPman]

There is a new paper just published that drops the trend of the New Zealand temperature record (NZTR) to 0.28C per century, down from ~0.9C per century.

This is quite possible in a more local scenario. However, there are also scenarios like this


warming in parts of northern Alaska was up to 3°C from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s. It also concludes that about two-thirds of the last century’s global temperature increase has occurred since 1980.
But Barrow’s long-term temperature rise has not been uniform, the Fairbanks study says. Its analysis of weather records between 1921 and 2012 shows a much more modest average annual rise, of 1.51°C. In 2014, the city experienced the coolest summer day recorded − 14.5°C.

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/ice-loss-sends-alaskan-temperatures-soaring/

I guess this could be seen to sum it up

So one conclusion is to remember just how complex a system the climate is − and how even 34 years may be too short a time to allow for any certainty. but the certainty is certainly tending to point in one direction. It's getting warmer folks, and, even if we stopped all crap being pumped into the atmosphere tomorrow, it'll keep on warming, once the deep oceans stop taking any more heat.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/temperature.html

[Swoop]

all those rockets and shit poking holes in the ozone layer.:yes:
Sadly, wrong.
My conclusive, scientifically proven* data finds that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by '80s fashions and all of the hairspray product used by "hair bands" and their fans.;)



* I asked a bloke at the pub. Nobody else refuted what he said.

I'm sure someone wearing a tin-foil hat from the CNI will be along soon with another conspiracy theory about it though...

[unstuck]

[QUOTE=Swoop;1130788698 was caused by '80s fashions and all of the hairspray product used by "hair bands" and their fans.;)



[/QUOTE]

Yeah, what was up with that shit. :weird:

[carbonhed]

This is quite possible in a more local scenario.

You're entirely missing the significance of this re analysis. The original work was done by one guy, Jim Salinger, as part of his PhD, he managed to milk the data until it provided double the predicted rate of warming expected by the IPCC, despite the fact that we're surrounded by oceans which should have ameliorated the effect of any warming. When called on to provide his methodology and data he claimed that a dog had eaten his homework.

Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA because he's a cock. He's also great buddies with Kevin Trenberth from their time at NZ metservice Kelburn. Kevin Trenberth is the eminense gris behind a big chunk of computer climate modelling.

They're part of a tiny group of guys in a formerly backwater area of science that didn't attract the cream of the crop academically to start with that collectively have cost the world $2 Trillion so far in an utterly futile effort to reduce carbon emissions. They'll be retiring soon and dead in 20. All they have to do is ride it out and hope the shit doesn't hit the fan before they're gone.

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.

[oldrider]

You're entirely missing the significance of this re analysis. The original work was done by one guy, Jim Salinger, as part of his PhD, he managed to milk the data until it provided double the predicted rate of warming expected by the IPCC, despite the fact that we're surrounded by oceans which should have ameliorated the effect of any warming. When called on to provide his methodology and data he claimed that a dog had eaten his homework.

Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA because he's a cock. He's also great buddies with Kevin Trenberth from their time at NZ metservice Kelburn. Kevin Trenberth is the eminense gris behind a big chunk of computer climate modelling.

They're part of a tiny group of guys in a formerly backwater area of science that didn't attract the cream of the crop academically to start with that collectively have cost the world $2 Trillion so far in an utterly futile effort to reduce carbon emissions. They'll be retiring soon and dead in 20. All they have to do is ride it out and hope the shit doesn't hit the fan before they're gone.

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.

I keep reading stuff that says we are heading into a mini ice age FFS! .... So many men so many opinions .... at least nature seems to know where it's going! :yes:

[unstuck]

. at least nature seems to know where it's going! :yes:

And that is why I am not concerned about climate change. :Punk::Punk:

[SPman]

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.
Bullshit.
Here's a graph that shows statistically what NO change since 1998 should look like if only it had happened - the blue line shows no change.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/hadcrut4_zps6d0611d6.jpg (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/hadcrut4_zps6d0611d6.jpg.html)

The temp at the start of the 1998-2014 trend line is not representative of whet we know the worlds temp was, or, if people want to claim it was, then the warming up to that point is way way worse than any actual climatologist ever claimed. However, feel free to pick 1998 as a start then ignore the entirely false basis of that analysis. Over this period, the sun was cooling for a non sunspot cycle., yet the climate kept right on warming

[James Deuce]

Hey look, people are still confusing weather and climate and grossly underestimating the amount of energy required to increase the temperature 0.1C across the entire globe.

It's cold today, climate change is bullshit.

Some scientists have been discredited because their methodology at the very start of an attempt to understand what the fuck is going on was flawed. So therefore, all climate science is hogwash.

Only one thing remains true.

You're all idiots. Me too.

[SPman]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z#page-1

Do a bit of digging and.....


I notice that, as usual, you have picked out something doing the rounds on the well known denier blogs.

The paper was rejected by Theoretical and Applied Climatology, before being accepted by a lesser journal, Environmental Modelling and Assessment.
Among many criticisms are that it uses one and two year periods, instead of four year periods – this reduces the statistical significance of the results. It also lacks supplementary material, which would enable others to reproduce results.

The authors are known climate sceptics.

One thing I find very telling is that these blogs always agree with papers that seem to show no change or very slight change, yet they rubbish those that do show change. Considering that almost all papers show climate change is happening, that's quite an achievement.

[Voltaire]

The polar caps are melting due to it getting colder.
I did my bit stopped using R11, R12 and R22, R18 is still ok

[swarfie]

The polar caps are melting due to it getting colder.
I did my bit stopped using R11, R12 and R22, R18 is still ok

Will you stop watching those R22 and R18 porn channels :clap::nya: You'll go blinder :killingme

[Swoop]

You're entirely missing the significance of this re analysis. The original work was done by one guy, Jim Salinger, as part of his PhD, he managed to milk the data until it provided double the predicted rate of warming expected by the IPCC, despite the fact that we're surrounded by oceans which should have ameliorated the effect of any warming. When called on to provide his methodology and data he claimed that a dog had eaten his homework.

Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA because he's a cock. He's also great buddies with Kevin Trenberth from their time at NZ metservice Kelburn. Kevin Trenberth is the eminense gris behind a big chunk of computer climate modelling.

They're part of a tiny group of guys in a formerly backwater area of science that didn't attract the cream of the crop academically to start with that collectively have cost the world $2 Trillion so far in an utterly futile effort to reduce carbon emissions. They'll be retiring soon and dead in 20. All they have to do is ride it out and hope the shit doesn't hit the fan before they're gone.

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.
Yup. People who are eager to get on board the "research" gravy train. If a respected body rejects your "findings", just go to another (then another...) journal until the author is found to be better, more intelligent AND have a nicer beard, than Darwin.

[SPman]

Back to the "great worldwide conspiracy among scientists" theory again. There is one huge hole in this denier's nonsense, there is an enormous amount of money around to produce science that counters the current consensus.


So where is the counter science?

That position basically argues that scientists have to study climate science as a weekend hobby for no pay to make their work valid, and any other position means their work is invalid.

The average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000.


http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars


they make wages. They perform work and they receive a wage. It's like any other form of scientific field. People make money because its their profession. Why does this money conspiracy only encircle climate science? Why aren't cancer researchers continually berated that they paid for their profession?

And further to the "New Zealand is not getting warmer post: -


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z

For a start, the Australian, New Zealand and global warming trends are NOT a postulation, but the result of actual temperature MEASUREMENTS. It is NOT just a theory or idea.

Now, as already noted by Mr. Tea, this paper has been doing the rounds of the ideoblogs. Someday perhaps the penny will finally drop and you might actually realise that ideoblogs are the last place one should go to get scientific information. The real mystery is why do you keep thinking that people here actually want to know about the latest ideoblog mutterings?

This latest junk paper that you have linked to is written by well known climate pseudoskeptics.

Chris de Freitas is listed as
an 'expert' by Heartland
http://heartland.org/chris-de-freitas
An 'advisor' of the NZ Climate Science Coalition
And a ICSC Consultant Science Adviser
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280

Chris de Freitas is a former editor of Climate Research, where he was involved in a controversy surrounding a research article co-authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. 13 of the authors that had been cited in the paper refuted the interpretation of their work and 3 members of the Climate Research board resigned in protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

Manfred Otto 'Bob' Dedekind is also a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition. The NZCSC is infamously known for suing the the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and losing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition

The judge involved in the case "questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose "general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science".
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-deniers-shot-down-high-court-challenge-niwa-bd-127869

The New Zealand High court ordered that the NZCSC pay costs, but they liquidated the trust, leaving the New Zealand taxpayer holding the can.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9600968/Failed-doubters-trust-leaves-taxpayers-at-loss

Barry Edward Brill is a retired lawyer, a former National MP, and Chairman of the NZCSC, who was also involved in the NIWA case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill

You couldn't pick a more suspect lot of infamous criminals to write a climate paper could you?

But lets ignore the trio's dubious history shall we. Is there any merit in the paper?

Well no. Apart from it being error ridden, it does not have consilience. That is, other datasets, like sea surface temperature data, does not support their conclusions.

For an in depth review of the data that was used in the paper, see this.

"The key result of the re-analysis is that the NZ-wide warming trend from the “seven-station” series of about 0.9 °C/century is virtually the same in the revised series as in the previous series. In terms of the detail for individual sites, the 100-year trend has increased slightly at some sites, and decreased slightly at some others."

"The spatial pattern in the warming is consistent with changes in sea surface temperature around New Zealand, with greatest warming in the north of the country (Auckland) and least warming (but still significant) in the southeast (Dunedin)."
http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/import/attachments/Report-on-the-Review-of-NIWAas-Seven-Station-Temperature-Series_v3.pdf

[caspernz]

I believe you guys need to worry less and ride more.

This is my approach to a lot of life's situations...I prefer to wear out tyres instead of keyboards :eek:

[Jantar]

warming in parts of northern Alaska was up to 3°C from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s. It also concludes that about two-thirds of the last century’s global temperature increase has occurred since 1980.
But Barrow’s long-term temperature rise has not been uniform, the Fairbanks study says. Its analysis of weather records between 1921 and 2012 shows a much more modest average annual rise, of 1.51°C. In 2014, the city experienced the coolest summer day recorded − 14.5°C.
So what you are quoting shows a rise in temperature, at Fairbanks, of 134.3 C in 89 years? I think that would be noticeable. Either Fairbanks was the coldest place on earth ever recorded, or is now the hottest place on earth ever recorded, or both. Whichever, it is obvious that Fairbanks is uninhabitable.

Maybe it is just that you are quoting/misquoting junk science.

[Jantar]

..... However, feel free to pick 1998 as a start then ignore the entirely false basis of that analysis. ...
Oh boy, what a way to misuse statistics. For showing a pause in a trend the start point is today, not sometime in the past. Then you work backwards to find the point at which the trendline is 0. That point is now 1996, not 1998. However, if you wish to use SS as a source, then feel free to do so. It has no scientific credibility.

[Jantar]

Do a bit of digging and
Among many criticisms are that it uses one and two year periods, instead of four year periods – this reduces the statistical significance of the results.....
Sorry, but using shorter periods on one and two years rather than four years, INCREASES the statistical significance, rather than reducing it. n is greater, therfore the degrees of freedom are greater, and r becomes more significant, not less. Oh, that is high schools stats, not even Uni level.

[oldrider]

Maybe time to bump up the old Global Warming bullshit again: http://drsircus.com/world-news/climate-fools

So many men so many opinions but the wheels are falling off this topic lately! :facepalm:

[unstuck]

Maybe time to bump up the old Global Warming bullshit again: http://drsircus.com/world-news/climate-fools

So many men so many opinions but the wheels are falling off this topic lately! :facepalm:

But what will they do? It's like the police, They do not want us all to live on beds of roses because they would have no job.
If everyone had a job the winz people would be out of work, so surely they do not want zero unemployment.
A car that never needs servicing or never breaks down, mechanics everywhere must be terrified of the prospects.:blink:

[mashman]

Is climate change only an Earth related problem? Apparently not according to some (http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-27-2004_Interplanetary_Part_2/InterplanetaryDayAfter-Part2.htm)

[unstuck]

Is climate change only an Earth related problem? Apparently not according to some (http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-27-2004_Interplanetary_Part_2/InterplanetaryDayAfter-Part2.htm)

Nice link Sheldon.:bleh:

[James Deuce]

If everyone had a job the winz people would be out of work, so surely they do not want zero unemployment.


That's not quite what happens. Job demand is driven by consumer participation. It keeps the proles competing hard for low paid jobs that are in high demand. Government involvement is the bit where they keep people just hungry enough to want a minimum wage job with no prospects.

[Jantar]

Maybe time to bump up the old Global Warming bullshit again: http://drsircus.com/world-news/climate-fools

So many men so many opinions but the wheels are falling off this topic lately! :facepalm:

One of the most important sentences in that article is "Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science shows how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models."

There are 4 main climate databases in use for global data. They are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut, and GISS
UAH and RSS are both satelite records and cover the entire globe except for a small part of each pole. Neither of these sets is ever adjusted retrospectly, other than to make minor corrections when a satelite's orbit decays.
Both use the same radiative data, but interpret it slightly differently. RSS uses it raw according to the part of the atmosphere that is being measured, while UAH weights it slightly. Both show the warming has paused, RSS for over 18 years and UAH for just under 10 years. Both show that what warming has been detected prior to that is not statistically significant, RSS for 26 years and UAH for 16 years.

Hadcrut is the British Climate Research Unit's Temperature series. it has had major changes 4 times over its history. At least the British are honest and have renumbered the data set each time. It is now up to version 4.2. The changes from Version 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 were peer reviewed, and this is the ground based set used by the IPCC. Version 4 has not yet been peer reviewed, but Version 3 is no longer being updated. This set shows no pause in warming, but the rate of warming has not been statistically significant for 19 years.

GISS is the NASA ground based set. It uses the highly modified USHCN data set, and it also uses modelled data to replace actual data. It has lowered historical temperatures and raised recent temperatures. It shows a warming that has continued unabated. So much so that USA must have been freezing during the super hot 1930 hot spells, and is now cooking while eastern USA and most of northern Europe and Asia are buried under snow.

[awa355]

Maybe time to bump up the old Global Warming bullshit again: http://drsircus.com/world-news/climate-fools

So many men so many opinions but the wheels are falling off this topic lately! :facepalm:

As the old lady in the cartoon says, "Why dont the greenhouse gases simply go through the hole in the ozone layer?"

[James Deuce]

As the old lady in the cartoon says, "Why dont the greenhouse gases simply go through the hole in the ozone layer?"

'Cos it's not an ozone layer.

[oldrider]

But what will they do? It's like the police, They do not want us all to live on beds of roses because they would have no job.
If everyone had a job the winz people would be out of work, so surely they do not want zero unemployment.
A car that never needs servicing or never breaks down, mechanics everywhere must be terrified of the prospects.:blink:

True! Look at the old rabbit boards ... did they get rid of the rabbits? They were their food bowl ... their reason for being! :no:

Churches without sinners! :eek: Police forces Lawyers and Judges without crime! :eek: Teachers without children! :confused: . :Oops: .. :laugh:

[mashman]

Churches without sinners! :eek: Police forces Lawyers and Judges without crime! :eek: Teachers without children! :confused: . :Oops: .. :laugh:

Peace on Earth.

[SPman]

So many men so many opinions but the wheels are falling off this topic lately! :facepalm:


"The numbers don’t lie," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State. "Greenhouse gases are rising steadily and the cause is fossil fuel burning and other human activities. The globe is warming, ice is melting and our climate is changing as a result." He is right of course CO2 has been rising but it is cooling not warming.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

We've got it all in that article....
Logical fallacies of all shapes, strawman arguments, motivated reasoning, and the old fallback of just making crap up.

Such fun!

[oldrider]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

We've got it all in that article....
Logical fallacies of all shapes, strawman arguments, motivated reasoning, and the old fallback of just making crap up.

Such fun!

Yeah but the same applies to both (multiple) sides of this whole global warming argument who the fuck can you believe? :rolleyes:

[puddytat]

Yeah but the same applies to both (multiple) sides of this whole global warming argument who the fuck can you believe? :rolleyes:

Look around Dude....make up your own mind.

Or maybe wake up & smell the pollution...

[yokel]

how come no one is talking about the advantages of a little global warming??

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GeZZr_p6vB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mada]

To be honest we can't trust the scientists because they make a living from climate change and the ways it can be fixed. We can trust those who are making money off things that are alleged to cause it, because they have no bias.

It's the same with getting the bike fixed, theres no fucking way I trust any bike mechanic because they make a living from fixing bikes and the ways it can be fixed. I only trust those who cause problems to bikes, eg. shitty drivers.:yes:

[swbarnett]

Look around Dude....make up your own mind.

Or maybe wake up & smell the pollution...
Fuck! Your global perception is a hell of a lot better than mine. Or are you telling me that you actually believe anything the modern media shovels at us?

[swbarnett]

We can trust those who are making money off things that are alleged to cause it, because they have no bias.
Bullshit. They have a bias to it not happening.

Nobody is completely bias free.

[mada]

Bullshit. They have a bias to it not happening.

Nobody is completely bias free.

Sorry mate, should have said I was being sarcastic with that sentence.

One of the arguments out there is we cant trust scientists, because they get paid for research... but yeh we can trust oil companies, coal burning factories, etc.

Nowhere else do we hear this argument... we cant trust doctors cause they make money off us being ill, we cant trust Police or Corrections because they make money from crime existing.

[swbarnett]

Sorry mate, should have said I was being sarcastic with that sentence.
No worries mate. My sarcasim sensor tends to wane at this time of night.

[oldrider]

Look around Dude....make up your own mind.

Or maybe wake up & smell the pollution...

True the world around us is full of shit ... it always has been always will be its only the depth that varies! :whistle:

[bogan]

Sorry mate, should have said I was being sarcastic with that sentence.

One of the arguments out there is we cant trust scientists, because they get paid for research... but yeh we can trust oil companies, coal burning factories, etc.

Nowhere else do we hear this argument... we cant trust doctors cause they make money off us being ill, we cant trust Police or Corrections because they make money from crime existing.

That's because that argument is just a way for plebs to justify having their own 'right' opinion while remaining ignorant of the science. How would you apply that reasoning to doctors or jailers?

[Katman]

Yeah but the same applies to both (multiple) sides of this whole global warming argument who the fuck can you believe? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what to believe with the whole global warming business.

What I am sure of is that we seem hell-bent on polluting the fuck out of the earth that we rely on for our survival.

[caspernz]

The premise to the whole global warming phenomenon being man made is supremely simple. Allegedly increased CO2 emissions cause temperature rise, but the record shows temperature has been rising ahead of the CO2 increase. The same scientists who first raised the topic of global warming being man made went back over their research and found they were wrong...compelling logic in my book. http://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

[SPman]

The premise to the whole global warming phenomenon being man made is supremely simple. Allegedly increased CO2 emissions cause temperature rise, but the record shows temperature has been rising ahead of the CO2 increase. The same scientists who first raised the topic of global warming being man made went back over their research and found they were wrong...compelling logic in my book. http://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

ALLEGEDLY - there's no allegedly about it - unless you have an insight into physics unknown to some of the top physicists of the last 150 yrs. (Tyndall, Rankine, Ångström, Langley, Stefan, Planck, Kirchhoff & Svante Arrhenius.)

The CO2 lags warming by 700 or 800 years is the old paradigm, but now there is new high resolution data that rewrites a new paradigm. One where during the ice ages CO2 PRECEDED the warming.


"The work also confirms earlier studies showing that the initial rise of atmospheric CO2 did indeed precede the thawing of the globe, despite previous indications that it lagged behind slightly in ice cores."


http://arstechnica.com/scien<wbr>ce/2014/11/as-earth-left-the<wbr>-last-ice-age-co2-rose-in-fi<wbr>ts-and-starts/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/11/as-earth-left-the-last-ice-age-co2-rose-in-fits-and-starts/)
http://www.<wbr>nature.com/nature/journal/v5<wbr>14/n7524/full/nature13799.ht<wbr>ml (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7524/full/nature13799.html)
http://www.sciencemag.o<wbr>rg/content/339/6123/1060 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060)
h<wbr>ttp://www.nature.com/nature/<wbr>journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html)

[SPman]

I'm not sure what to believe with the whole global warming business.

What I am sure of is that we seem hell-bent on polluting the fuck out of the earth that we rely on for our survival.
And if nothing else, we should be at least addressing it on this basis!


The melt rate of glaciers in the fastest-melting part of Antarctica has tripled over the past decade, researchers say in an analysis of the past 21 years.
Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica are losing ice faster than another part of Antarctica and are the biggest contributor to rising sea levels, said researchers at the University of California at Irvine and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory on Tuesday.
Research published in May concluded that the melting of glaciers in West Antarctica, which contain enough water to raise sea levels by at least a metre, is speeding up and seems irreversible.



http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/12/03/melt-rate-antarctica-glaciers-speeding/

[mada]

That's because that argument is just a way for plebs to justify having their own 'right' opinion while remaining ignorant of the science. How would you apply that reasoning to doctors or jailers?

Yeh mate, thankfully those who use that argument usually support professionals and science on other matters eg. vaccines, but there are a small minority who will find one report from some very discredited person or one tiny piece of research against thousands and thousands to justify why "mans impact on climate change" or "vaccines" are completely wrong and all those who support them must have some bias or interest in making money - doctors and nurses make no money from vaccines. My point is that it is absurd to attack research on the basis that the researchers get paid to undertake it.

The solution to global warming is clear (taking the piss/sarcastic)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

[SPman]

The same scientists who first raised the topic of global warming being man made went back over their research and found they were wrong Svante Arrhenius - he died in 1927.!

[swbarnett]

ALLEGEDLY - there's no allegedly about it
No science is ever 100% certain.

Often we think we know what's going on until someone comes along with a fresh perspective.

[puddytat]

Fuck! Your global perception is a hell of a lot better than mine. Or are you telling me that you actually believe anything the modern media shovels at us?

No.....Im telling you that I no longer need the MSM or any other "agency " to tell me anything that my "gut" has'nt been telling me for years....

[bogan]

No.....Im telling you that I no longer need the MSM or any other "agency " to tell me anything that my "gut" has'nt been telling me for years....

My gut just told me its fucking cold for December.

Global Warming disproved, next.

[SPman]

No science is ever 100% certain.

Often we think we know what's going on until someone comes along with a fresh perspective.True, but the empirical evidence has not been able to disprove the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 100 yrs. If someone can PROVE otherwise, I'll gladly change my stance and feel like a prat - but - it ain't gonna happen!

[swbarnett]

True, but the empirical evidence has not been able to disprove the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 100 yrs. If someone can PROVE otherwise, I'll gladly change my stance and feel like a prat - but - it ain't gonna happen!
I actually think you're right. CO2 is in all likelihood a greenhouse gas. As with anything I just like to keep an open mind to the possibility that someone may prove otherwise some day, no matter how unlikely.

[R650R]

The establishment is so worried there having to run articles in the Herald to coach the CO2 cult how to deal with debating the truth that man made climate change is a fraud.
Note the article mentions no facts to back up debate just the usual misdirection and ridicule techniques....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11377926

If there really was such a thing as a greenhouse effect why the hell does the temp vary so much from one day to another even when there is little wind...??? If you purchased a commercial greenhouse with such variations you'd want a refund....

[Edbear]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/66728187/Nervous-scientists-wary-of-giant-craters-in-Siberia

Global warming is a fact. More evidence coming to the fore in recent times is ever more critical of Man's contribution to it too. However, whatever the ratio of blame, the snowball is rolling and increasing in size and speed.

[ellipsis]

Global warming is coming to recent times. Man is ever more critical . However, the blame ratio of the snowball is rolling and increasing in size and speed.


...ok Ed...

[swbarnett]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/66728187/Nervous-scientists-wary-of-giant-craters-in-Siberia

Global warming is a fact. More evidence coming to the fore in recent times is ever more critical of Man's contribution to it too. However, whatever the ratio of blame, the snowball is rolling and increasing in size and speed.
I'll believe it 100 years down the track when it's still happening. We were heading for an ice age in the '70s and that never happened.

[mashman]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/66728187/Nervous-scientists-wary-of-giant-craters-in-Siberia

Global warming is a fact. More evidence coming to the fore in recent times is ever more critical of Man's contribution to it too. However, whatever the ratio of blame, the snowball is rolling and increasing in size and speed.

It will likely be ignored, because to do what needs to be done in order for human beings to prepare for either warming or cooling, will cost more money than humans have. Better just ignore it... or better yet, and in true young ones styleez, an alien spaceship full of cash is going to smash through my front room window.

[Edbear]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2923

It's more serious than many seem to think.

[ellipsis]

It's another conspiracy.

...ok Ed...

[Edbear]

...ok Ed...

Bollox of course. I am simply posting what the scientists are finding. Some seem to prefer to remain ignorant, but that doesn't stop it happening, of course.

[swbarnett]

I am simply posting what the scientists are finding.
You mean an interpretation of what the scientists are finding. Like anything it can be interpreted in several different ways. Especially if they're selective when it comes to what data to present.

Personally, I don't believe either side. Is it warmer than when I was a kid? Globally, I can't say. Certainly we don't get the frosts in northern NZ that I remember so it may well be warmer now than it has been. The real question is "will it last?". I have my doubts. None can really say to any level of certainty. If it turns out to be unusual solar activity or some other periodical cause then we'll be back to cooling before long (in geological terms).

The next question is "if it does last what can we do about it?". In terms of reversing the change the answer is easy - we can do diddly squat. Good luck getting the emerging Chinese nouveau riche to cut their emissions any time soon. We'd be far better off to start thinking of ways to cope with it.

[ellipsis]

...if it's a cyclic thing, we are in the cycle, 'cos we are here...if it's a human induced thingy, then we're also in it...what'cha gonna do bout it...recycle?...store baked beans...sell batteries...dribble a lot?...

[caspernz]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2923

It's more serious than many seem to think.

The suspicion I have is that there's money on offer to prove/combat global warming. So taking into account human nature, how many folks from the scientific community can resist the temptation to take up the offer?

Is global warming real? Probably. But we may have the cause and effect the wrong way around. Give it another 50 years and we'll know :sweatdrop

[Ocean1]

The suspicion I have is that there's money on offer to prove/combat global warming. So taking into account human nature, how many folks from the scientific community can resist the temptation to take up the offer?

It's worse than that. There's no money for any other potentially related research. Which means the chances of research results indicating anything other than changing climate is fucking slim.


Is global warming real? Probably. But we may have the cause and effect the wrong way around. Give it another 50 years and we'll know :sweatdrop

I agree. Only I see most of the global climate change industry as essentially misanthropic hysteria. The symptom of a rather ugly social illness.

I also see the obvious solution to any unwanted climate change is the sort of engineering only humans can achieve.

[george formby]

I also see the obvious solution to any unwanted climate change is the sort of engineering only humans can achieve.

Which will kick in when it can be made profitable.

Them holes in Siberia make cow farts look pretty inconsequential.

Interesting times.

[mashman]

I also see the obvious solution to any unwanted climate change is the sort of engineering only humans can achieve.

Stop producing half of the useless shit we currently produce and the stuff we do build, build to last?

[george formby]

Stop producing half of the useless shit we currently produce and the stuff we do build, build to last?

I wish. Longevity is expensive but very effective.

The future could give a whole new meaning to user pays.

[mashman]

I wish. Longevity is expensive but very effective.

The future could give a whole new meaning to user pays.

I wish too.

Only when left in the hands of children :shifty:

[Edbear]

Nobody can do anything to stop or reverse it, of course. Once the Permafrost started melting it was inevitable. It is part of a cycle, but a very long term cycle. Man's contribution has been to speed up the process and intensify the effects - a lot!

As more data is collected, the effects of the Industrial Age over the last couple of hundred years are proving to be far greater than initially thought.

As you say, there's precious little we can do about it now, and can but adapt and be informed.

There is no conspiracy by TPTB, everyone is going to be affected and nothing Man can come up with will make a jot of difference now. Even stopping all emissions will do nothing more than slow it down a little bit.

Of more immediate concern is the death of the oceans, the rainforrests and the bees. These will cause us far more harm in the next 30 to 50 years. These are entirely the fault of Man's greed and irresponsibility. We are using up the Earth's resources 1.5x faster than the Earth can replenish them .

[Voltaire]

Stop producing half of the useless shit we currently produce and the stuff we do build, build to last?

Can we start with all that crap that come in the letter box, that must cost a bundle to make, distribute and then go into landfill or so called recycling.
....oh I suppose it provides jobs to keep the stats looking better....:rolleyes:

[swbarnett]

Stop producing half of the useless shit we currently produce and the stuff we do build, build to last?
This will only slow things down a little bit. It is the out of control population growth that is the real problem.


Of more immediate concern is the death of the oceans, the rainforrests and the bees. These will cause us far more harm in the next 30 to 50 years. These are entirely the fault of Man's greed and irresponsibility. We are using up the Earth's resources 1.5x faster than the Earth can replenish them .
Agree 100%. Again the only real solution to this is to curb the out of control population growth. A mass human culling would be ideal. Either that or mass colonisation of other planets.

[unstuck]

. A mass human culling would be ideal.

But then we would have another thread about how bad war is and how wrong killing people is.:whistle:

[mashman]

Can we start with all that crap that come in the letter box, that must cost a bundle to make, distribute and then go into landfill or so called recycling.
....oh I suppose it provides jobs to keep the stats looking better....:rolleyes:

Absolutely fuckin instantly!
lol... cynical fuck.

[mashman]

This will only slow things down a little bit. It is the out of control population growth that is the real problem.

So not worth trying? That's certainly an interesting issue that needs to be dealt with. Alas, until you ask people to be careful, it will likely continue... that and, growth requires population growth. I'm sure Ocean could leap into action showing stats that equate population boom with economic growth. In which case, halving production will half population growth ;)

[flyingcrocodile46]

Most of the scientists who are currently researching climate are using the same data, and coming up with different results. That alone is what tells us that the science is not settled.

They aren't scientists. They are dirty low life shills.

The recent announcement by the UN of the recording of the highest temperatures since records began (by approx .1 of a degree) were based on records presented by just such shills.

They didn't have any trouble interpreting the results on which to base their opinions. They simply took all of the historical data from the last 180 odd years and instead of falsifying the present day temperatures to show temperature increases (like they did during the last round of climategate), this time they changed the records of the previous 180 years to reduce most of the previous recorded periods of high temperature by up to 1 degree, so that the current temperatures appeared higher by comparison.

If you want to research it, it ain't hard. Many genuinely honest climate scientists have published copies of the original records side by side with the doctored records over the last few months. They are all over the interwobble if you care to open your eyes.

Of course this isn't a conspiracy (as there are no real conspiracies), it is just a massive coincidence :rolleyes:

[Ocean1]

Which will kick in when it can be made profitable.

Them holes in Siberia make cow farts look pretty inconsequential.

Interesting times.

Of course. For "profitable" read "enough people want it".

And yes, natural global phenomena dwarf our contribution to changes to the atmosphere.


Stop producing half of the useless shit we currently produce and the stuff we do build, build to last?

What's that got to do with climate change? It's entirely possible to make shit, disposable or otherwise that affect climate not a jot.


Nobody can do anything to stop or reverse it, of course.

You're talking shit Ed, the only thing that might prevent someone from stopping or reversing it are the luddites that feed the currently fashionable chicken little industry. And that trash don't count as human, so I figure they'd be the first item that need to be stopped and/or reversed.

[Woodman]

Stop producing half of the useless shit we currently produce and the stuff we do build, build to last?


Agree, its getting (got) out of hand.

You wanna see the faulty/misused/damaged/goodwill can't be assed arguing with idiot customers so you just give them a new one products that the average retailer throws away.

[Ocean1]

So not worth trying? That's certainly an interesting issue that needs to be dealt with. Alas, until you ask people to be careful, it will likely continue... that and, growth requires population growth. I'm sure Ocean could leap into action showing stats that equate population boom with economic growth. In which case, halving production will half population growth ;)

On the contrary, I'm sure the stats would show what any rational person would expect: economic growth is a function of the growth of productivity.

The recent boom of the non-productive population, on the other hand does nothing but depress economic growth.

Indeed, as I've been suggesting for some time, arseholing the unproductive half of the population would do wonders for not only the consumption of useless shit but the general wellbeing of the other half.

[Voltaire]

Does running an old vehicle that's already had energy used to make it leave a larger carbon footprint than buying a new fuel efficient car? just wondering as I like running old shitters I can fix.

[Ocean1]

Does running an old vehicle that's already had energy used to make it leave a larger carbon footprint than buying a new fuel efficient car? just wondering as I like running old shitters I can fix.

Depends on how much you run it.

I like the German concept: charge a sales tax on everything such that the cost of recycling is built into the purchase price.

[mashman]

What's that got to do with climate change?

It's entirely possible to make shit, disposable or otherwise that affect climate not a jot.

Everything. If we don't make a drastic change, how are we going to know whether we affect the climate or not? It'd be a good thing to know, yeah?

It is. Yet we can't... because people don't have enough money to help pay for the development and production of the many alternatives that are available... and those who are in a position to drive that change won't, unless they make money out of it, because money is their arbiter. Yet the will is there (intent), as are the materials, as are people, as is the knowledge, hmmmmmm, wtf is wrong with this picture.

[mashman]

Agree, its getting (got) out of hand.

You wanna see the faulty/misused/damaged/goodwill can't be assed arguing with idiot customers so you just give them a new one products that the average retailer throws away.

It's a beautiful system innit man <_<.

[mashman]

On the contrary, I'm sure the stats would show what any rational person would expect: economic growth is a function of the growth of productivity.

The recent boom of the non-productive population, on the other hand does nothing but depress economic growth.

Indeed, as I've been suggesting for some time, arseholing the unproductive half of the population would do wonders for not only the consumption of useless shit but the general wellbeing of the other half.

Is that like from a 50's economic propaganda manual?

I know, it's a bummer of a consequence of people not having money to buy the stuff that industry relies on in order to sell stuff and pay for future brand new and much more shiny than the last time stuff.

Arseholing? Can't you retask them? Sorry, don't shoot me, I was sitting in reception and found that idea in a bin marked "Way Too Fuckin HARD" and thought it seemed quite sensible.

[Ocean1]

Everything. If we don't make a drastic change, how are we going to know whether we affect the climate or not? It'd be a good thing to know, yeah?

Circular logic. Until you KNOW how it will affect the climate any drastic change stands as much chance of any change being worse than better.

You need to know first. Which is why the whole climate change industry is anathema to the scientific method: it reeks of contrived results and it denies resources for genuine scientific process.


It is. Yet we can't... because people don't have enough money to help pay for the development and production of the many alternatives that are available... and those who are in a position to drive that change won't, unless they make money out of it, because money is their arbiter. Yet the will is there (intent), as are the materials, as are people, as is the knowledge, hmmmmmm, wtf is wrong with this picture.

Your understanding of development, production and economics.

Removing money from the equation (:killingme) simply removes the best way to control the effects of manufacture on the environment:


I like the German concept: charge a sales tax on everything such that the cost of recycling is built into the purchase price.

[mashman]

Does running an old vehicle that's already had energy used to make it leave a larger carbon footprint than buying a new fuel efficient car? just wondering as I like running old shitters I can fix.

Then have I got something for you. Think magazines that sell a "part" of some vehicle with each issue :blip:

You can look up the plans for the vehicle below on the website of your local 3D printing shop's website, full construction manual. Sign up for the vehicle. When a part is ready for you to be collected, you will be notified. It will take 100 weeks to build. Keep yer shitter til it dies, because you'll be building the future.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8_wQiYIIAAhRnF.png

Dreams are free. Realities are merely a matter of logistics ;).

[Ocean1]

Is that like from a 50's economic propaganda manual?

I know, it's a bummer of a consequence of people not having money to buy the stuff that industry relies on in order to sell stuff and pay for future brand new and much more shiny than the last time stuff.

Arseholing? Can't you retask them? Sorry, don't shoot me, I was sitting in reception and found that idea in a bin marked "Way Too Fuckin HARD" and thought it seemed quite sensible.

Hardly surprising that you don't recognise a simple fact when it's presented.

Industry isn't responsible for unproductive losers, dude. Unproductive losers are responsible for unproductive losers.

Why is it my job to "re-task" them? They're responsible for their own productivity, or lack of.

[mashman]

Circular logic. Until you KNOW how it will affect the climate any drastic change stands as much chance of any change being worse than better.

You need to know first. Which is why the whole climate change industry is anathema to the scientific method: it reeks of contrived results and it denies resources for genuine scientific process.

Your understanding of development, production and economics.

Removing money from the equation (:killingme) simply removes the best way to control the effects of manufacture on the environment:

Does that not depend on the scale of the change?

Why do you need to know first? Why can't you do and then observe globally as you are doing?

Was that sentence finished?

It's not the best way.

[mashman]

Hardly surprising that you don't recognise a simple fact when it's presented.

Industry isn't responsible for unproductive losers, dude. Unproductive losers are responsible for unproductive losers.

Why is it my job to "re-task" them? They're responsible for their own productivity, or lack of.

I was lolling at the language.

:killingme

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme

[george formby]

Watched this doco last night, gonna watch the rest because I like documentary's. Miracle Planet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAGGQ9gzbx0)

The relevant bit about Methane Hydrate starts at 10:30, after the really big volcano and before dinosaur lungs.

[Voltaire]

Then have I got something for you. Think magazines that sell a "part" of some vehicle with each issue :blip:

You can look up the plans for the vehicle below on the website of your local 3D printing shop's website, full construction manual. Sign up for the vehicle. When a part is ready for you to be collected, you will be notified. It will take 100 weeks to build. Keep yer shitter til it dies, because you'll be building the future.
Dreams are free. Realities are merely a matter of logistics ;).

I'm still trying to get over the disappointment of Seamonkeys.
http://www.merrystockings.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/seamonkees.jpg

[swbarnett]

But then we would have another thread about how bad war is and how wrong killing people is.:whistle:
Indeed. Which is why I suggested a planetary colonisation as an alternative.

[swbarnett]

So not worth trying?
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to get rid of half the junk that is "needed" in today's affluent society. I'm just saying that that will only delay the inevitable.


, growth requires population growth.
I've always wondered what's so good about economic growth? Surely if money is going around and we can all feed ourselves we don't need to grow the economy?

Of course, more people will require more money to maintain a standard of living so I suppose this is where economic growth is required. If this is true then if we have zero population growth shouldn't need economic growth.

[ellipsis]

Indeed. Which is why I suggested a planetary colonisation as an alternative.


...we could probably afford to colonise the closest planets first... the Chathams and then the Auckland Islands...after they have stopped the dastardly Caliphate from expanding...

[mashman]

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to get rid of half the junk that is "needed" in today's affluent society. I'm just saying that that will only delay the inevitable.

I've always wondered what's so good about economic growth? Surely if money is going around and we can all feed ourselves we don't need to grow the economy?

Of course, more people will require more money to maintain a standard of living so I suppose this is where economic growth is required. If this is true then if we have zero population growth shouldn't need economic growth.

Lots of things are inevitable... stuff we have no control over will happen. Acts of nature springing to mind. But one thing is inevitable, that which we choose to do, will also happen. If nothing else it'll make the place look cool for a while.

lol, aye, you and me both. Turns out it's all about money, give or take, who knew. Tis a shame we're asked to think in terms of economic growth, instead of, what do we need, do we have the resources, go.

[unstuck]

...we could probably afford to colonise the closest planets first... the Chathams and then the Auckland Islands...after they have stopped the dastardly Caliphate from expanding...

I think Ceres is already inhabited by the look of the latest pics from NASA.:shifty:

[caspernz]

There's no money for any other potentially related research. Which means the chances of research results indicating anything other than changing climate is fucking slim.

That's what I found disturbing when I looked around with an open mind. The focus on merely proving over and over that mankind is adding to the natural cycle of planetary warming/cooling, without even considering the possibility that our own contribution is negligible in the grand scheme of things...troubles me that many have jumped on the global warming bandwagon at the behest of the media.

[yokel]

That's what I found disturbing when I looked around with an open mind. The focus on merely proving over and over that mankind is adding to the natural cycle of planetary warming/cooling, without even considering the possibility that our own contribution is negligible in the grand scheme of things...troubles me that many have jumped on the global warming bandwagon at the behest of the media.

Very true, there's only one planet earth.
Who knows what the climate should be doing say 10 years from now?
Its all pseudoscience.

[Voltaire]

That's what I found disturbing when I looked around with an open mind. The focus on merely proving over and over that mankind is adding to the natural cycle of planetary warming/cooling, without even considering the possibility that our own contribution is negligible in the grand scheme of things...troubles me that many have jumped on the global warming bandwagon at the behest of the media.


that's right, how could 9 billion people cooking, driving, flying, farting, belching, growing alien animals like cows, buying manufactured stuff building on green sites possibly have any effect on the world ..... its just piffle.
I used to work in the refrigeration industry and one of the best gases was R12, they banned that as it was eating the Ozone and forming a layer trapping heat in. It was used in spray cans, making foam, air conditioning..... gee I miss it.:weep:

[caspernz]

that's right, how could 9 billion people cooking, driving, flying, farting, belching, growing alien animals like cows, buying manufactured stuff building on green sites possibly have any effect on the world ..... its just piffle.
I used to work in the refrigeration industry and one of the best gases was R12, they banned that as it was eating the Ozone and forming a layer trapping heat in. It was used in spray cans, making foam, air conditioning..... gee I miss it.:weep:

Hey I'm not suggesting we're not contributing to the problem...

But when you get a group of scientists showing you that temperature has historically gone up BEFORE the rise in so called greenhouse gases such as CO2 it has to make you think?! If CO2 causes temp rise then the historic record shows the reverse. But it seems that suggesting the commonly espoused logic is flawed...results in one being ostracised...I can't help but feel we're being railroaded into thinking what mass media is force feeding us.

[awa355]

Here is an Aussie view point on the global warming debate.

http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/australian-government-releases-list-of-reasons-global-warming-may-actually-be-a-great-thing/

[george formby]

Hey I'm not suggesting we're not contributing to the problem...

But when you get a group of scientists showing you that temperature has historically gone up BEFORE the rise in so called greenhouse gases such as CO2 it has to make you think?! If CO2 causes temp rise then the historic record shows the reverse. But it seems that suggesting the commonly espoused logic is flawed...results in one being ostracised...I can't help but feel we're being railroaded into thinking what mass media is force feeding us.

Yeah, the science is not perfect but we have masses of historical & geological data which tell us an awful lot about the variations of our planets climate and the consequences.

Climate change is a given regardless of the cause(s). Whether we drown, bake or freeze out of existence is moot.

The big brains & big money should be focused on how humanity can adapt & continue to thrive regardless of the weather. IMHO. Just sayin.

[Banditbandit]

The focus on merely proving over and over that mankind is adding to the natural cycle of planetary warming/cooling, without even considering the possibility that our own contribution is negligible in the grand scheme of things...


1 Humans are contributing to the cycle

2 Even if that is negligible we are polluting our planet

3 The consequences for human beings IF global warming occurs (from whatever cause) is disastrous

4 We should stop polluting the only planet we have AND

5 We should not take the risk of ignoring the probability that we are contributing to global warming - the consequences are too high ... we should mitigate it as much as possible or our children and grandchildren will suffer those consequences if the scientists are right.

It bothers me that the arguments over the science is getting in the way of stopping pollution AND doing whatever we can to mitigate global warming ...

[unstuck]

2 Even if that is negligible we are polluting our planet



Yep, clean green NZ.:facepalm:


http://warnet.ws/img5/251/pod/26.jpg

[Voltaire]

Yep, clean green NZ.:facepalm:


http://warnet.ws/img5/251/pod/26.jpg

Can we blame it on Tourists?

Was watching an interesting series on History of Oil on the BBC last night, almost everything has oil in it or needs oil to make it happen.

[unstuck]

Can we blame it on Tourists?



We could, but from what I have seen on my travels around our country, kiwis are just as bad as the rest of the world. Just take a walk down any highway in NZ and you will see enough to make you think. Well it does me anyway.

[swbarnett]

5 We should not take the risk of ignoring the probability that we are contributing to global warming - the consequences are too high ... we should mitigate it as much as possible or our children and grandchildren will suffer those consequences if the scientists are right.
The last thing we need is a knee-jerk reaction. The consequences of a shattered economy will be just as bad if not worse to the environment - people living from hand to mouth don't have the energy to care about long term environmental affects.


It bothers me that the arguments over the science is getting in the way of stopping pollution
And yet without general agreement on what the science says how are we to know where best to channel our efforts? The argument is not the problem, the problem is that there is money to be made by jumping on the band wagon.

[Banditbandit]

The last thing we need is a knee-jerk reaction. The consequences of a shattered economy will be just as bad if not worse to the environment - people living from hand to mouth don't have the energy to care about long term environmental affects.

Yeah maybe. The way we are polluting our planet now is pretty bad - even without global warming we have massive air pollution, especially in industrial countries like China, Russia ... pollution enough to kill people through long term illnesses .. as well as the other life forms we are killing off.

The same measures to curb pollution will also slow up global warming if we are causing it .. I'll take the first reason for now ...

As well, we are going to run out of oil - which will be disastrous in itself UNLESS we develop new technologies (but we will still have issues with all the things that come from oil beside petroleum) So why not develop the technologies now so that we are no longer so reliant on oil and we stop a lot of the current pollution as well .. those new technologies will also slow down whatever contribution humans make to global warming ...

It's not a knee-jerk reaction to global warming - it's a positive step to stop pollution ... slowing global warming may (or may not be) a beneficial side effect ...



And yet without general agreement on what the science says how are we to know where best to channel our efforts? The argument is not the problem, the problem is that there is money to be made by jumping on the band wagon.

ANYTHING in a capitalist European-derived culture is a money-making opportunity (even the act of pro-creation is for sale) .. is that a reason to continue to pollute our planet? To stop people making money?

In fact, I'd go further and say that nothing happens in our European-derived capitalist-focused cultures UNLESS someone has an opportunity to make money ..

And this sculpture is in Berlin .. it's called 'Politicians discussing global warming" .. it's what could happen if we procrastinate ...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjAuW66CYAETzF1.jpg

[Tazz]

Yep, clean green NZ.:facepalm:



Show that to a few KLR riders and they'd at go clean up those crates :blip:

Where is that out of interest? We are doing fuck all on the conservation front and there is a general lack of interest in changing that, especially if it means coughing up a bit of money. Reseeding in the Paua industry is a great example. The big boys don't give a fuck but the smaller quota holders are doing the best they can.


We could, but from what I have seen on my travels around our country, kiwis are just as bad as the rest of the world. Just take a walk down any highway in NZ and you will see enough to make you think. Well it does me anyway.

Last truckie I hitched a ride with threw all his cans out the window and laughed saying he was giving someone a job. Fat fucking lazy cunting prick that guy was.
Rest stops are pretty bad for campers emptying their shit out too. Campers are pretty popular for NZers to own too though, not just for tourists to hire...

[SPman]

And yet without general agreement on what the science says how are we to know where best to channel our efforts? The argument is not the problem, the problem is that there is money to be made by jumping on the band wagon. The only people who aren't in general agreement about the science are those who've deluded themselves it's all a money making scam. The science is settled, (as much as science can ever be settled)and the observations are backing up the theories, faster than many people are willing to admit.


The big brains & big money should be focused on how humanity can adapt & continue to thrive regardless of the weather. IMHO. Just sayin. Trouble is, once temperatures start to average over 38C, human beans just can't take it. 'Taint that hot atm, but even where we are we now have 2 months at 35C + average and median...

[swbarnett]

Yeah maybe. The way we are polluting our planet now is pretty bad - even without global warming we have massive air pollution,
Put the bulk of the world into poverty and the situation will only get worse.


As well, we are going to run out of oil - which will be disastrous in itself UNLESS we develop new technologies (but we will still have issues with all the things that come from oil beside petroleum) So why not develop the technologies now so that we are no longer so reliant on oil and we stop a lot of the current pollution as well .. those new technologies will also slow down whatever contribution humans make to global warming ...
No argument there.


It's not a knee-jerk reaction to global warming - it's a positive step to stop pollution ... slowing global warming may (or may not be) a beneficial side effect ...
That's certainly not how it's being touted.


ANYTHING in a capitalist European-derived culture is a money-making opportunity (even the act of pro-creation is for sale) ..
What I'm saying is that if you say you want to do some research and you aim to prove GW is happening and we're causing it then you'll have great wads of money thrown at you. If you say you aim to prove the opposite you won't get funded. This situation hardly makes for a balanced result. Any findings must be treated with extreme suspicion.

Have you heard of pure research? Research with no aim in mind. IBM for one are great believers in this.


is that a reason to continue to pollute our planet? To stop people making money?
I never said that. Bad science is no reason to ruin an economy for dubious gain.


In fact, I'd go further and say that nothing happens in our European-derived capitalist-focused cultures UNLESS someone has an opportunity to make money ..
Shit that's cynical. While on the most part that may be true, if it were absolutely true there would be no charities for a start.


And this sculpture is in Berlin .. it's called 'Politicians discussing global warming" .. it's what could happen if we procrastinate ...
Apart from the fact that so-called "sea-level rise" has nothing to do with global warming. It's due to the fact that the tectonic plates are tilting (one side rise while the other sinks). Sweden, among others is still rebounding after the last ice-age.

[swbarnett]

The only people who aren't in general agreement about the science are those who've deluded themselves it's all a money making scam.
Boy is that ever a statement from a closed mind. For that to be true every person on the planet would have to have an intimate knowledge of climate science.

I know of at least one scientist (almost first hand) that was denied funding because his preliminary findings didn't support GW.

[Banditbandit]

Put the bulk of the world into poverty and the situation will only get worse.

If climate change is occurring then the situation will be much worse than economic collapse ...




What I'm saying is that if you say you want to do some research and you aim to prove GW is happening and we're causing it then you'll have great wads of money thrown at you. If you say you aim to prove the opposite you won't get funded. This situation hardly makes for a balanced result. Any findings must be treated with extreme suspicion.

That is probably quite accurate ... but not how I read your comment. I can't disagree.


Have you heard of pure research? Research with no aim in mind. IBM for one are great believers in this.

Yes, I support pure research ... it's hugely productive . there is also focused research as well ...



I never said that. Bad science is no reason to ruin an economy for dubious gain.

Looking at epistemologies .. I wonder what "good science" looks like ... they are all just structured attempts to explain the world .. but fail because the connections to reality can never be proven ..

And I wonder just how much responses to climate change will damage the economy. New Zealand turning into a desert or a swamp will certainly be disastrous for our economy.



Shit that's cynical. While on the most part that may be true, if it were absolutely true there would be no charities for a start.

Maybe it is a bit cynical - I regard it more as a Marxist-based analysis of Capitalist societies .. and I was not thinking of charities when I wrote it ... only in terms of technological change.



Apart from the fact that so-called "sea-level rise" has nothing to do with global warming. It's due to the fact that the tectonic plates are tilting (one side rise while the other sinks). Sweden, among others is still rebounding after the last ice-age.

Tectonic plate movements will not affect all the sea level, only the comparative level of the sea on either side of a plate. Place a tray in your bath water and tip it to one side. One side will go under water the other side will rise up .. but overall the level of water in the bath will not change.

The sea level rises as more water enters the sea, from melting ice at the poles, etc. This is a result of the average surface temperature rising. Even those who suggest that humans are not responsible for global warming accept that the average temperature is rising.

This is a map of the Nelson region showing what will be under water (in yellow) if the sea level rises by One metre.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/NelsonSLR.jpg

That's completely disastrous for Nelson .. economically, socially etc etc ...

Have a look here at what could happen to Wellington ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/3129374/Wellington-could-be-more-like-Venice-by-2100


assets worth billions of dollars which could be affected, including roads, railway lines and the city centre.
Do you really think that billions of dollars of asests affected by global warming will NOT be disatrous for the economy?

As well, a 1 degree rise in water temperature in the oceans means there is more energy in the system, and adds 5 miles an hour to wind speeds across that ocean. This is why the hurricane crossing the Atlantic to hit the USA are becoming stringer and creating more damage. That is very bad for the US economy as the costs of clean ups after these hurricanes is increased ...

Climate change involving warmer temperatures also means more evaporation of water, more clouds in the air, more rain .. look at the increasing floods across the globe.

You think it is just going to be warmer . and we can sit on the beach in the sun for longer ... Wrong wrong wrong .. climate change will be completely disastrous for future generations ...

[oldrider]

Pictures and story for individual reference and interest only!: http://drsircus.com/world-news/february-2015-coldest-month-in-history#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=724cc0e989-Article_264&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-724cc0e989-9531509&mc_cid=724cc0e989&mc_eid=783acdf144 Make up your own mind! :mellow:

[swbarnett]

If climate change is occurring then the situation will be much worse than economic collapse ...
You may well be right now that I think about it a bit more. Economic collapse would see a massive population drop very quickly as people starve in the cities and wars break out over very limited resources. This would actually be a good thing for the environment.


Looking at epistemologies .. I wonder what "good science" looks like ... they are all just structured attempts to explain the world .. but fail because the connections to reality can never be proven ..
Good science is that practiced by scientists that are interested in the truth no matter which side of the argument that lies on (usually it's somewhere in the middle) and can be recognised by the repeated experiments that all show outcomes predicted by the theory being tested. This is where climate science (among others) often falls down. You can't experiment with a planetary weather system.


Tectonic plate movements will not affect all the sea level, only the comparative level of the sea on either side of a plate. Place a tray in your bath water and tip it to one side. One side will go under water the other side will rise up .. but overall the level of water in the bath will not change.
Which is exactly my point. Sea level appears to rise on one side but in actual fact it's not. It's the land that's dropping.

Really all I'm saying with all this is that I think the jury is still well and truly out on the subject. Come back in a hundred years and look at the historical data. Then we just might be able to figure out what happened.

[ellipsis]

...we can't stop whatever is going to happen...doesn't matter what, who, when, why. We adapt or die...I would probably die...being a ginga, 'n all that...or drown 'cos I'm not really a water baby...I'm glad I got volunteered upon to be a swinger on a chair that is being built...it would be a real cunt to shrivel up or drown before I could make people realise how silly I really am...and fearlessly stupid...

[Banditbandit]

Good science is that practiced by scientists that are interested in the truth no matter which side of the argument that lies on (usually it's somewhere in the middle) and can be recognised by the repeated experiments that all show outcomes predicted by the theory being tested. This is where climate science (among others) often falls down. You can't experiment with a planetary weather system.


Umm ... yeah .. your position is extremely Karl Popper ... scientists claim that is what they do, but in reality that is not what they do. Einstein (Albert) and Mach (Ernst) both wrote about the foundations of science - and both placed 'intuition' as an important part of their work ... have you looked at the more contemporary work of Paul Feyerabend ????

Even Kuhn and Lakatos accepted that science was based in the discourse - or Feyerabend's suggestion that whoever has the best argument wins ... i.e. if you can convince enough scientists that you are right, then what you say is accepted ...

This has little to do with "truth" content ... which philosophy shows is impossible to achieve.



Really all I'm saying with all this is that I think the jury is still well and truly out on the subject. Come back in a hundred years and look at the historical data. Then we just might be able to figure out what happened.

Yes - I accept that .. and in 100 years we will certainly know what happened .. I'm saying the risk is too high to wait ...

[oldrider]

Not even one comment on the frozen waves? - Shit you guys must live extremely exciting lives if that doesn't even phase you! :scratch: (post above)

I have sailed through the Southern Ocean but never seen cold like that FFS! :shit:

[Banditbandit]

Not even one comment on the frozen waves? - Shit you guys must live extremely exciting lives if that doesn't even phase you! :scratch: (post above)

I have sailed through the Southern Ocean but never seen cold like that FFS! :shit:

Yeah .. that does make me wonder ... I'm not a climate scientist ...

So - the world is not warming up - climate change promoted by human actions is not occurring ... we can go on happily polluting our planet without guilt .. EXCELLENT !!!

[swbarnett]

Umm ... yeah .. your position is extremely Karl Popper ... scientists claim that is what they do, but in reality that is not what they do. Einstein (Albert) and Mach (Ernst) both wrote about the foundations of science - and both placed 'intuition' as an important part of their work ...
I've not studied the workings of science at all - except for having a wife with a masters in Physics that lectured and Auckland University for a few years and has read writings by the likes of Richard Feynman. Yes, intuition is very important. So is the willingness to be wrong. It's no good starting off with a hypothesis if you can't let it go when the evidence is against said hypothesis.


i.e. if you can convince enough scientists that you are right, then what you say is accepted ...
Indeed this is often the case. And exactly why I don't believe what's being touted as fact when it comes to GW.


This has little to do with "truth" content ... which philosophy shows is impossible to achieve.
Science is never about truth. It's about "fact". Or more accurately, "what we currently think is going on".


and in 100 years we will certainly know what happened ..
Yes, we'll know what happened to the weather. Will we know whether we caused it? That's debateable.


I'm saying the risk is too high to wait ...
And I'm saying that the risk of doing the wrong thing is at least as great. We don't even know if we CAN fix it. Better not to twiddle with the knobs until we know how the system works. Of course I'm only talking about GW here. Other environmental issues are far better understood.

[swbarnett]

Not even one comment on the frozen waves? - Shit you guys must live extremely exciting lives if that doesn't even phase you! :scratch: (post above)

I have sailed through the Southern Ocean but never seen cold like that FFS! :shit:
That didn't surprise me because it's in the Northern hemisphere. One of the predictions of GW is that the jet stream will be disrupted and northern parts will freeze since the jet stream carries warm air north.

So even if this GW is a temporary things some parts of the planet will get cooler - that's why they stopped calling it GW and went with "Climate Change".

[Banditbandit]

. It's no good starting off with a hypothesis if you can't let it go when the evidence is against said hypothesis.

And neither is the reverse - not accepting what the evidence is telling us ... unfortunately, neither of us is going to be around to see who is right ..


That didn't surprise me because it's in the Northern hemisphere. One of the predictions of GW is that the jet stream will be disrupted and northern parts will freeze since the jet stream carries warm air north.

So even if this GW is a temporary things some parts of the planet will get cooler - that's why they stopped calling it GW and went with "Climate Change".

Hang on .. nek minute your explaining the impacts of Climate Change ... but you don't accept the science ... something is not right here ..

[swbarnett]

And neither is the reverse - not accepting what the evidence is telling us ...
Agreed. My only contention is that the lay public don't know what the evidence says and has no hope of knowing in the current climate.


unfortunately, neither of us is going to be around to see who is right ..
That actually may be a good thing. There are some possible scenarios that I would prefer not to live through.


Hang on .. nek minute your explaining the impacts of Climate Change ... but you don't accept the science ... something is not right here ..
I know, ironic isn't it. I've been known to shoot down my own arguments at times because I value logic and reasoned debate over hysteria and sticking blindly to one's point of view. I always try to keep an open mind.

Climate change deniers who use freezing conditions in northern regions as evidence are just trying to prove a point. I object to any party in a debate using arguments based on a poor understanding of the opposing view.

I have seen the evidence and can agree that the jet stream has shifted. Climate change may be happening (it's certainly warmer in NZ than it was 40 years ago) but we the public can't be certain. My main point really is that the public at large doesn't really have a shits show of really knowing for sure either way because the debate has gotten far too political.

[Banditbandit]

I know, ironic isn't it. I've been known to shoot down my own arguments at times because I value logic and reasoned debate over hysteria and sticking blindly to one's point of view. I always try to keep an open mind.

I thought about this last night ... its completely ironic .. because I'm the one who attacks the base of science - because philosophy removes any possibility of coherency between what we might say about the world and how the world actually is ..

But I'm the one who was defending global warming ...



I have seen the evidence and can agree that the jet stream has shifted. Climate change may be happening (it's certainly warmer in NZ than it was 40 years ago) but we the public can't be certain. My main point really is that the public at large doesn't really have a shits show of really knowing for sure either way because the debate has gotten far too political.

I agree .. that's why I argue we should stop polluting our planet. IF climate change is driven by human agency then that will go a long way to mitigate it ...

[swbarnett]

that's why I argue we should stop polluting our planet.
I totally that we should stop polluting our planet. What I'd like to see is calls for this to be based on better science than what is coming out of the GW debate. There are plenty of things happening to our environment that are far better understood.


IF climate change is driven by human agency then that will go a long way to mitigate it ...
Indeed. At least this way the GW debate won't get in the way.

[mashman]

Climate change is a natural cycle. The "side-effects" of our resource usage is another problem entirely. That it might bring a mini ice age/heat wave forwards or retard that change by 100 years (hypothetical figure) doesn't really matter.

Heard something last night.... if either hemisphere starts to head towards an obvious ice age, that hemisphere will likely suffer severe power outages and resource loss enough to render that area uninhabitable and tank the entire global economy. We're not ready for it, not by a long way.

Too many people in positions of responsibility getting side tracked with when it's going to happen before committing any resources to addressing the issue :facepalm:... as an aside: if you believe that a financial system can manage any of the above issues, let alone address them, then you're out of your cotton pickin mind.

[flyingcrocodile46]

On that note and hot off the press.

Listen to head of EPA's lack of answers to a senators questions a couple of days ago when trying to establish validity or existence of evidence to back up climate change claims.



“This is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency — who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase — doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong,”

LMAO@ when in response to the challenge that over 90% of the climate models were wrong she says she doesn't know how the "evidence" stacks up against the climate models but that sometimes it's faster and some times it's slower (this is 'evidence' she is talking about) but that on the whole "it" makes no difference to the validity and robustness of climate science.

That's it folks, when push comes to shove and the hard questions are asked. The answer is that evidence has fuck all to do with "c-Lie-mate science".



http://youtu.be/24DP1uG-MEM

[mashman]

On that note and hot off the press.

Listen to head of EPA's lack of answers to a senators questions a couple of days ago when trying to establish validity or existence of evidence to back up climate change claims.

I thought her answers were good enough to be honest. She doesn't look like the golfing type, and I assume she's pretty busy dealing with areas that are being fooked over in one way or another. Then again, she reckons more budget is the solution.

[yokel]

I thought her answers were good enough to be honest. She doesn't look like the golfing type, and I assume she's pretty busy dealing with areas that are being fooked over in one way or another. Then again, she reckons more budget is the solution.

No, she had absolutely no answers at all other than her "factual evidence" global scamming rhetoric.

she is a lying shit for brains.
http://youtu.be/24DP1uG-MEM?t=4m14s "i'm happy to submit" no you're not you lying cunt.

[mashman]

No, she had absolutely no answers at all other than her "factual evidence" global scamming rhetoric.

she is a lying shit for brains.
http://youtu.be/24DP1uG-MEM?t=4m14s "i'm happy to submit" no you're not you lying cunt.

Are there lots of climate change models? Do all of those climate models give the same "answers"? She may well have a preferred scenario, but she's got a career to think about... and $4 billion of extra funding to squeeze from thin air in order to protect the world from a naturally occurring phenomenon. She gave answers, just not the answers anyone wanted to hear. I may well be very wrong, but I ain't gonna hang her on that performance.

[oldrider]

Are there lots of climate change models? Do all of those climate models give the same "answers"? She may well have a preferred scenario, but she's got a career to think about... and $4 billion of extra funding to squeeze from thin air in order to protect the world from a naturally occurring phenomenon. She gave answers, just not the answers anyone wanted to hear. I may well be very wrong, but I ain't gonna hang her on that performance.

C'mon mashie - a little bit of hanging goes a long long way! :lol:

[mashman]

C'mon mashie - a little bit of hanging goes a long long way! :lol:

heh... I've learned that it's rather counter-productive and counter-intuitive to hang anyone. The irony is not lost on me :laugh: (sometimes I forget though :shifty:)

[SPman]

It's real, it's happening regardless of what anyone might think contrary wise, so let's all rearrange the chairs on the Titanic and deny the ship is sinking! The planet doesn't give a fuck if humans live or die - if we stop all pollution now we're still looking at a minimum 2-3C average rise (inertia is a bitch). The US military reckons GW is a major security threat to the US - they call it AGW - not climate change.

I'm not a climate change scientist, but I have a couple of acquaintances who are, and they are really worried about where the climate is going (not the weather) and the fact that lots of people are still being sucked in by pseudo science cranks and think it's all a scam! It's not!

But.......what will happen, will happen............to late to do anything when the shit really hits the fan!

[yokel]

It's real, it's happening regardless of what anyone might think contrary wise, so let's all rearrange the chairs on the Titanic and deny the ship is sinking! The planet doesn't give a fuck if humans live or die - if we stop all pollution now we're still looking at a minimum 2-3C average rise (inertia is a bitch). The US military reckons GW is a major security threat to the US - they call it AGW - not climate change.

I'm not a climate change scientist, but I have a couple of acquaintances who are, and they are really worried about where the climate is going (not the weather) and the fact that lots of people are still being sucked in by pseudo science cranks and think it's all a scam! It's not!

But.......what will happen, will happen............to late to do anything when the shit really hits the fan!

your acquaintances should worry about something else.
like in the other vid, CO2 is plant food.
150 gigatons of CO2 comes from bacteria and animals vs 6 gigstons are man made, then theres CO2 from dying vegetation and the oceans.

at the end of the day the climate is controlled by the sun, it out of our hands.
we should be more worry about our physical environment but because people are so caught up in this global warming nonsense the actual real environment gets raped and pillaged.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hGZKMbDlnso" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[puddytat]

You wont stop climate change as long as there is Capitalism.

The rest is just semantics & schism.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you

[carbonhed]

Are there lots of climate change models? Do all of those climate models give the same "answers"? She may well have a preferred scenario, but she's got a career to think about... and $4 billion of extra funding to squeeze from thin air in order to protect the world from a naturally occurring phenomenon. She gave answers, just not the answers anyone wanted to hear. I may well be very wrong, but I ain't gonna hang her on that performance.

Yes there's dozens and dozens of models and settings. Here's a graph of their outputs against real world measurements in the tropical mid troposphere.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r319/carbonhed/CMIP%20model%20v%20actual..png

[mashman]

You wont stop climate change as long as there is Capitalism.

The rest is just semantics & schism.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you

Can't argue with that.


Yes there's dozens and dozens of models and settings. Here's a graph of their outputs against real world measurements in the tropical mid troposphere.

Does that mean it's going to be raining next week?

[carbonhed]

Does that mean it's going to be raining next week?

They can't tell you that, or next month, or next year, or a decade out... but 50 or a 100 years into the future and they're golden.

[Ocean1]

Can't argue with that.

You argue cast iron facts every second time you open your mouth, it comes as no great shock that you can't argue the most controversial subject of modern times.

[mashman]

They can't tell you that, or next month, or next year, or a decade out... but 50 or a 100 years into the future and they're golden.

Well they've improved since the 70's. When I were a lad they could only do 30 years.


You argue cast iron facts every second time you open your mouth, it comes as no great shock that you can't argue the most controversial subject of modern times.

Bullshit is easier to challenge.

[swbarnett]

You wont stop climate change as long as there is Capitalism.

The rest is just semantics & schism.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you
What a load of crap. You can't blame that on GW without wome serious investigation into the chemical make up of the tarmac. I would hazard a guess that the culprit is more likely a crap surface that has a melting point that's far too low. Hell, NZ's roads melt at if the ambient temperature in anything nearing the mid to high 20s.

[puddytat]

I take it you didn't read very far.....

[swbarnett]

I take it you didn't read very far.....
I read far enough to know that they were blaming GW for the plane sinking into the tarmac.

You'll have to enlighten me if there's anything in there to the contrary.

[george formby]

You wont stop climate change as long as there is Capitalism.

The rest is just semantics & schism.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you

As long as there is consumerism anyhoo.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/67081472/film-highlighting-pollution-woes-vanishes-from-chinas-internet

[Jantar]

They aren't scientists. They are dirty low life shills.

The recent announcement by the UN of the recording of the highest temperatures since records began (by approx .1 of a degree) were based on records presented by just such shills. ....
Make that "(by approx .01 of a degree)" and you would be closer to the claimed result. However, not all are dirty low life shills, a few are, a very few that is. Most climate scientists are involved in genuine research, and are not into the politics of the IPCC and the AGW claims.

If you read the research literature rather than the MSM you would get a totally different idea of what is happening to the climate. I.e. It is currently in a pause, or even cooling.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Make that "(by approx .01 of a degree)" and you would be closer to the claimed result. However, not all are dirty low life shills, a few are, a very few that is. Most climate scientists are involved in genuine research, and are not into the politics of the IPCC and the AGW claims.

If you read the research literature rather than the MSM you would get a totally different idea of what is happening to the climate. I.e. It is currently in a pause, or even cooling.


I do (a bit) and I know we're not warming As the IPC and UN would have us believe (through their promotion of falsely presented evidence). They have a big voice that 90+% of people believe to be gospel. What chance does the truth have when "Most climate scientists who are involved in genuine research, and who are not into the politics of the IPCC and the AGW claims" remain silent in the face of those lies which are said to represent their "science"? Whether the lie is based on a .1% or 0.1% lie, it's still a lie. The real unfalsifiable evidence does not support their lies, but the 0.1% lie does.

Until those "scientists" take control of the voice of their "science' and right this wrong, their "science" is nothing more than a fraud based on lies. That is the truth.

[Voltaire]

Highest temps recorded by me on a BMS ( Building Management System ) in East Tamaki this summer were in March, 26 degrees.

I noticed riding back into Auckland last Sunday how hot it was, suspect roads being black and absorbing heat is contributing to Global Warming, roads really need to be white to reflect the sun. :innocent:

[yokel]

Highest temps recorded by me on a BMS ( Building Management System ) in East Tamaki this summer were in March, 26 degrees.

I noticed riding back into Auckland last Sunday how hot it was, suspect roads being black and absorbing heat is contributing to Global Warming, roads really need to be white to reflect the sun. :innocent:

no need, global warming will put more moisture in the atmosphere that will produce more cloud over that will reflect the suns rays back out to space that will in turn make the planet cooler.

[Jantar]

......
Trouble is, once temperatures start to average over 38C, human beans just can't take it. 'Taint that hot atm, but even where we are we now have 2 months at 35C + average and median...
The global average temperature is currently just under 14C. Each doubling of CO2 causes an increase of around 1.2C (on latest IPCC data) so to get to 38C would require the CO2 concentration to be doubled 20 times. Yes 2^20. As the present concentration is 400 ppm (0.0004) then to get to 2^20 times the present concentration would require 1048576 x 0.0004 ppm. You can check this yourself but that is 419 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently atmosphere in total. As O2 is only 21% of the atmosphere, where is the oxygen required to make this amount of CO2 going to come from?

[Jantar]

I have seen the evidence and can agree that the jet stream has shifted.
Yes, the jet stream has shifted. It is no longer where it was in 1990, or even in 1980, but it is exactly where it was in 1955. Remember that the idea of a jet stream came about during trans Atlantic flights in WW2. It was first described as a theory in 1947 by Namias, and expanded on in 1949 by Namais and Clapp. It wasn't confirmed until 1955, when it was actually measured and its wave nature mapped. It was then in the same locations as it is now, but had moved somewhat in between times. We do not yet have sufficient data to predict its behaviour over time, although it does show remarkable teleconnection with the main oceanic indices.



Climate change may be happening (it's certainly warmer in NZ than it was 40 years ago) but we the public can't be certain. My main point really is that the public at large doesn't really have a shits show of really knowing for sure either way because the debate has gotten far too political.
Yes it is. Particularly in the cities. But in most rural areas today's temperatures are very similar to 60 years ago. NIWA's 7 and 11 station series both show that most of New Zealand's warming happened prior to 1955. Anthropogenic Global Warming theory says that most warming should have been since 1955.

[carbonhed]

Rajendra Pachauri head of the UN IPCC has had to resign because he's a serial sex pest. With junior members of staff... as per.

In his resignation letter he says :- "For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

So there's your dispassionate, objective, rational assesment of scientific evidence flushed by an ecotard douchebag.

http://s4.firstpost.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/rk-pachauri.jpg

Good to know the trillions the West is spending is in such good hands.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/02/pachauri-groped-97-women/

[swbarnett]

the survival of all species
This guy is away with the fairies. Extinction is a natural part of our ecosystem. I think we can be pretty he wouldn't want dinosaurs running loose in the modern world. Mind you, if they were humans would never have evolved anyway.

[JimO]

saw a interisting docco presented by Baldric from blackadder today about glaciers in pomgolia, did you know some of england was under 1 mile of ice back in the old days

[Banditbandit]

Good to know the trillions the West is spending is in such good hands.



It really doesn't mater what money is spent on ... for Capitalism spending money is everything ... spend it on wars .. spend it on climate change prevention ..

Someone always wins by making shit loads of money ... which is the point ..

[swbarnett]

Someone always wins by making shit loads of money ... which is the point ..
Very true. There is a point, however that we are very close to where the economy will be crippled by exactly that. 1% of the people holding 99% of the financial wealth is not good for the economy. It's not even good for that 1%.

[Banditbandit]

saw a interisting docco presented by Baldric from blackadder today about glaciers in pomgolia, did you know some of england was under 1 mile of ice back in the old days

That could be why they all left and came down here to pester us ...

[yokel]

It really doesn't mater what money is spent on ... for Capitalism spending money is everything ... spend it on wars .. spend it on climate change prevention ..

Someone always wins by making shit loads of money ... which is the point ..

No you are wrong, making money is capitalism. using your or others money/capital (not borrowed) to help make more money/capital.
what we have now is the opposite, they're not making money, they're receiving money.

[Banditbandit]

No you are wrong, making money is capitalism. using your or others money/capital (not borrowed) to help make more money/capital.
what we have now is the opposite, they're not making money, they're receiving money.

Gee .. you really are stupid aren't you ..

If someone is receiving money then someone else is giving (spending) it ..

[george formby]

saw a interisting docco presented by Baldric from blackadder today about glaciers in pomgolia, did you know some of england was under 1 mile of ice back in the old days

I did. A mate built a house on the side of a Loch in Scotland a few years ago. It's actually on the beach but a 5 minute walk up a very steep hill away from the Loch. Huge drop in water level over the last few 10's of thousands of years. It's a u shaped glacial valley and the surrounding (huge) hills are round like bowling balls where the ice has scoured over them. Quite awesome place actually.
A bit further north the coastal rock is the same strata which forms the Appalachian mountain chain in a Mercka. The rock was split and pushed apart by the mid Atlantic trench.
That's quite enuf geology from me. A'll get me coat.

[carbonhed]

Huge drop in water level over the last few 10's of thousands of years.

Really?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

[yokel]

Gee .. you really are stupid aren't you ..

If someone is receiving money then someone else is giving (spending) it ..

That's not capitalism you foolish fool you.

http://hittingthewall.paulglover.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/oneup21.jpg

[Banditbandit]

That's not capitalism you foolish fool you.



I am fully aware of what Capitalism is. Any Capitalist economy (or more precisely, a capitalist-democratic political economy such as Godzone) requires people to spend money. Simply, manufacturing goods for sale (or providing services) requires people with money to purchase those goods or services, and provide a profit for the capitalist factory owner, or service owner.

Money circulates upwards as people spend. Without spending the system collapses.

This is why we get bombarded by advertising - so we spend money. Without spending the capitalists make no profit.

If you think that capitalist is confined to investment and money-generation then you are lost in the economic-focused cultures of the European-derived world - which is precisely where the capitalist overlords want you to be.

[george formby]

Really?



I did say 10's of thousands of years. Maybe hundreds. Sea level has been higher and it's been lower. As we are witnessing now. Was just a point of interest.

[SPman]

The global average temperature is currently just under 14C. Each doubling of CO2 causes an increase of around 1.2C (on latest IPCC data) so to get to 38C would require the CO2 concentration to be doubled 20 times. Yes 2^20. As the present concentration is 400 ppm (0.0004) then to get to 2^20 times the present concentration would require 1048576 x 0.0004 ppm. You can check this yourself but that is 419 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently atmosphere in total. As O2 is only 21% of the atmosphere, where is the oxygen required to make this amount of CO2 going to come from?You are quite right - I didn't mean a global average of 38C - more, consistent summer averages of 38C +, in major population areas who are not ready for it. ie greater and longer heat waves.... always proven fatal to many, and not that many can sit inside in Air conditioned comfort...

If you read the research literature rather than the MSM you would get a totally different idea of what is happening to the climate. I.e. It is currently in a pause, or even cooling. Really?
You have the facts to back this up?
All the papers I've read from reputable scientific establishments show no such thing.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm)

While the warming of surface temperatures was relatively slow from 1998 to 2012, it was relatively fast from 1990 through 2006. Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected (http://skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html).

[SPman]

your acquaintances should worry about something else.
like in the other vid, CO2 is plant food.
150 gigatons of CO2 comes from bacteria and animals vs 6 gigstons are man made, then theres CO2 from dying vegetation and the oceans. So? Sure, humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth, but what you neglect to consider is that the natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks. Human CO2 emissions have upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. The end result is that humans are responsible for 100% of CUMULATIVE emissions, that is the CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.There is a global equilibrium which is reasonably efficient balancing CO2 levels. Start pumping extra into the system - even if it seems like not a lot in the global scheme of things, and the scales start to tilt.
"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

CO2 levels have not reached the levels we have now in over 15 million years, (humans in any form have only existed for the last two million years or so)

Yes - CO2 is plant food, and extra amounts are beneficial - up to a point -once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances, and many plants don't react well to jumps in CO2 levels.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html


at the end of the day the climate is controlled by the sun, it out of our hands.Bullshit - please explain how the temperature continued to increase during a period of low sunspot activity - a sun "cool phase"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm


we should be more worry about our physical environment but because people are so caught up in this global warming nonsense the actual real environment gets raped and pillaged. Yes, we should - but in many areas, the two are currently interlinked.

[george formby]

Anybody seen this weekends weather forecast? Looks a bit wet & windy.

http://www.metvuw.com/forecast/forecast1.php?type=rain&region=nzni&tim=108

Only posted here as I did not want to start a weekend weather thread.

[yokel]

So? Sure, humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth, but what you neglect to consider is that the natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks. Human CO2 emissions have upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. The end result is that humans are responsible for 100% of CUMULATIVE emissions, that is the CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.There is a global equilibrium which is reasonably efficient balancing CO2 levels. Start pumping extra into the system - even if it seems like not a lot in the global scheme of things, and the scales start to tilt.
"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

CO2 levels have not reached the levels we have now in over 15 million years, (humans in any form have only existed for the last two million years or so)

Yes - CO2 is plant food, and extra amounts are beneficial - up to a point -once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances, and many plants don't react well to jumps in CO2 levels.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

Bullshit - please explain how the temperature continued to increase during a period of low sunspot activity - a sun "cool phase"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Yes, we should - but in many areas, the two are currently interlinked.

"humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth" that sounds way to high to me, were those numbers come from?

Sooo what about the dominate greenhouse gas water vapour, should we stop emitting that too?

The computer models are wrong, that means the man made co2 hypothesis that the computer models are based on is most likely horse shit.
more about computer models http://youtu.be/T2J8zEJHIg8?t=2m14s

website that use words like "myths" or "debunked" I find hard to take seriously. just give me your numbers and facts I'll decide if it is "debunked"

" At skepticalscience.com, we are skeptical about skeptical science" haha


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0gDErDwXqhc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Jantar]

"humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth" that sounds way to high to me,.....
You would be correct.

"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found." Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710.

[george formby]

Start pumping extra into the system - even if it seems like not a lot in the global scheme of things, and the scales start to tilt.
.

Bugger, deleted the equilibrium bit.
Any hoo. It strikes me that deforestation, desertification, concrete jungles, mono cultures, pillaging the oceans and much more must have a consequence, not just the consequences of pollution & emissions in the atmosphere
We are making our home dirtier and getting rid of the cleaners.

[oldrider]

Simply a contribution:http://drsircus.com/world-news/this-winter%E2%80%99s-impact-on-human-activity#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=177aaa00b2-Article_269&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-177aaa00b2-9531509&mc_cid=177aaa00b2&mc_eid=783acdf144

[Ocean1]

Any hoo. It strikes me that deforestation...

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

I find the compensation required to offset the effect reporting almost exclusively bad news has (especially the misanthropic fetishist variety) is very nearly absolute.


A balanced view nowadays is best represented by completely ignoring bad news, it's almost always bullshit.

[flyingcrocodile46]

The truth about the climate science lies

If you want credible news and evidence about the climate change we are experiencing, watch this. Or you can continue to eat up the IPCC and UN money driven propaganda lies.


Our climate is controlled by our sun. Climate change is occurring on all planets in our solar system. See why and how here.


https://youtu.be/4Ew05sRDAcU

[SPman]

The truth about the climate science lies

If you want credible news and evidence about the climate change we are experiencing, watch this. Or you can continue to eat up the IPCC and UN money driven propaganda lies.


Our climate is controlled by our sun. Climate change is occurring on all planets in our solar system. See why and how here.


https://youtu.be/4Ew05sRDAcU

A volcano under The Antarctic causing the ice to melt? Where did he pluck that gem from. :facepalm:


Our climate is controlled by our sun. To a certain degree, yes. However, the effects the sun has on climate..sunspot cycles, Milankovitch cycles ( http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles ), etc, are well understood and allowed for by reputable climatologists. Their general conclusion is that "Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle."

But....people don't believe any of it.....frankly.....I no longer give a toss! People are free to believe what they will - it's fascinating watching what lengths they go to, to justify their beliefs. It's just like creationists vs evolutionists............

[carbonhed]

A volcano under The Antarctic causing the ice to melt? Where did he pluck that gem from. :facepalm:



He's right. The West Antarctic ice sheet is being destabilised by geothermal heat. Make that palm a fist.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

[yokel]

A volcano under The Antarctic causing the ice to melt? Where did he pluck that gem from. :facepalm:

To a certain degree, yes. However, the effects the sun has on climate..sunspot cycles, Milankovitch cycles ( http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles ), etc, are well understood and allowed for by reputable climatologists. Their general conclusion is that "Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle."

But....people don't believe any of it.....frankly.....I no longer give a toss! People are free to believe what they will - it's fascinating watching what lengths they go to, to justify their beliefs. It's just like creationists vs evolutionists............

This whole global warming/ climate change nonsense really shows how science is fundamentally flawed, I now rate scientist up there with religious nut jobs. https://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI?t=8m54s

Science is currently corrupted, pretty much all human activity produces CO2 so a tax on CO2 is a tax on ALL human activity.

and burning fossil fuel is actually GOOD for the environment and the rain forests, so me having two V8's is beneficial for the environment haha.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eYKggC5VOzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Voltaire]

This whole global warming/ climate change nonsense really shows how science is fundamentally flawed, I now rate threads on rant and rave up there with religious nut jobs.

Fixed that for ya ( in colour to make it easier):lol:

[yokel]

Fixed that for ya ( in colour because I'm a homosexual ):lol:

Fixed that for ya lols

[Voltaire]

Fixed that for ya lols

Probably about the only thing you could fix :nya:

[yokel]

Probably about the only thing you could fix :nya:

well I have used a conspiracy theory tinfoil hat youtube vid to help me do the valve clearances on my sr2 monster, so that's at lest two things.

[Voltaire]

well I have used a conspiracy theory tinfoil hat youtube vid to help me do the valve clearances on my sr2 monster, so that's at lest two things.

All twin cylinder Ducatis have Desmos.....or do they...how can you be sure....
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/i0cAAMXQPmNSNUg-/$(KGrHqYOKosFIvWLvK,QBSNUg-LQ-w~~60_35.JPG

[SPman]

He's right. The West Antarctic ice sheet is being destabilised by geothermal heat. Make that palm a fist.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/No, the Thwaites glacier in West Antarctica looks like it's being destabilised by geothermal heat. Interesting and quite probable
According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.

As a commenter remarked - Note that human caused CO2 forcing is much more, about 1,500 milliwatts per square meter.
I read an article about the heating of the continent beneath the 2mi. thick glaciers above. It said that the melting of the ice above has exerted less pressure on the continent and has caused the land to begin to rise. The rising of the land has caused fissions and releasing the heat below.

The Thwaites glacier, though large, isn't the only ice sheet melting from below. The Totten glacier in East Antarctica, is also melting from below...as is the ice sheet all over

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-
worse/?postshare=1131426548561540

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?postshare=1131426548561540)
This whole global warming/ climate change nonsense really shows how science is fundamentally flawed, I now rate scientist up there with religious nut jobs. https://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI?t=8m54s

Science is currently corrupted, pretty much all human activity produces CO2 so a tax on CO2 is a tax on ALL human activity.

and burning fossil fuel is actually GOOD for the environment and the rain forests, so me having two V8's is beneficial for the environment haha

Yeah....whatever......:rolleyes:

[oldrider]

Changes in availability of water? - Serious shit!:http://drsircus.com/world-news/worldwide-droughts-preparing-ahead-for-mass-migrations#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8856aa090e-Article_273&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-8856aa090e-9531509&mc_cid=8856aa090e&mc_eid=783acdf144

[carbonhed]

No, the Thwaites glacier in West Antarctica looks like it's being destabilised by geothermal heat. Interesting and quite probable
According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.

As a commenter remarked - [I]Note that human caused CO2 forcing is much more, about 1,500 milliwatts per square meter.
I read an article about the heating of the continent beneath the 2mi. thick glaciers above. It said that the melting of the ice above has exerted less pressure on the continent and has caused the land to begin to rise. The rising of the land has caused fissions and releasing the heat below.



I'm glad we can agree that you were wrong to dismiss geothermal heating as a possible precursor to increased rates of ice sheet loss.

The bit about 1500 mwatts per sq m is classic alarmist misdirection 101. When you've got nothing... make noise and wave arms. The geothermal heat isn't significant because it's causing mass loss it's important because it's lubricating the interface between eleventy billion gigatonnes of ice and the bedrock, in the form of an iclined plane, under the influence of gravity.

I'll dismiss the yarn about anal fissures releasing the heat below in about the same length of time it took to fabricate. You could make the same story if the ice was increasing and depressing the Earth's crust. Unless you've got peer reviewed papers to the contrary?

The Washington Post article? In a hundred years time, may, could, possibly, might, but we don't know because we didn't measure it... more research needed.... send money... KA CHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Why thankyou! Most generous. Employment guaranteed.

[SPman]

Changes in availability of water? - Serious shit!:http://drsircus.com/world-news/worldwide-droughts-preparing-ahead-for-mass-migrations#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8856aa090e-Article_273&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-8856aa090e-9531509&mc_cid=8856aa090e&mc_eid=783acdf144
California, with 40m people is in the grip of a drought, that looks like depleting their entire water stocks, groundwater and reservoirs. Lulled into a false sense of security by good rainfalls, 1977-99, it now looks like returning to it's traditional arid ways, AGW may be making things worse than they would have been -

Megadroughts are sustained periods of sparse precipitation and significant loss of soil moisture that span generations, about 10 times as long as a normal three-year drought.
North America’s last megadroughts happened in medieval times, during the 12th and 13th centuries. They were caused by natural changes in weather that give megadroughts a 10 percent chance of forming at any time.
But climate change driven by human activity dramatically increases those chances. “With climate change, the likelihood of a megadrought goes up considerably,”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/28631-a-megadrought-will-grip-us-in-the-coming-decades-nasa-researchers-say (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/28631-a-megadrought-will-grip-us-in-the-coming-decades-nasa-researchers-say)

Even though warming produces more rain, it tends to fall in areas that don't really need it. Situations like this will become more common, and more dangerous - with bugger all water available, how long before large segments of that 40 mil pop. start to get antsy..... 60-90% of many of the USA's fruit, nuts and veges are also grown in Ca. - no change in prices yet, but, if everything comes to a grinding halt........?

[yokel]

California, with 40m people is in the grip of a drought, that looks like depleting their entire water stocks, groundwater and reservoirs. Lulled into a false sense of security by good rainfalls, 1977-99, it now looks like returning to it's traditional arid ways, AGW may be making things worse than they would have been -

Megadroughts are sustained periods of sparse precipitation and significant loss of soil moisture that span generations, about 10 times as long as a normal three-year drought.
North America’s last megadroughts happened in medieval times, during the 12th and 13th centuries. They were caused by natural changes in weather that give megadroughts a 10 percent chance of forming at any time.
But climate change driven by human activity dramatically increases those chances. “With climate change, the likelihood of a megadrought goes up considerably,”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/28631-a-megadrought-will-grip-us-in-the-coming-decades-nasa-researchers-say (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/28631-a-megadrought-will-grip-us-in-the-coming-decades-nasa-researchers-say)

Even though warming produces more rain, it tends to fall in areas that don't really need it. Situations like this will become more common, and more dangerous - with bugger all water available, how long before large segments of that 40 mil pop. start to get antsy..... 60-90% of many of the USA's fruit, nuts and veges are also grown in Ca. - no change in prices yet, but, if everything comes to a grinding halt........?

Give it up, you've been fooled.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SyUDGfCNC-k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Voltaire]

Give it up, you've been fooled.

Yet another youtubeomentary

He needs an English accent to be remotely believable.:laugh:

[mashman]

The Amazon Rainforest is Losing its Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide, Alarming 30-Year Study Reveals... (http://upriser.com/posts/the-amazon-is-losing-its-ability-to-absorb-carbon-fight-climate-change-monumental-30-year-study-reveals)

[Voltaire]

I don't have a utube clip but were they not chopping the size of Belguim ( or other small country) each year to turn into farmland..... but hey its a natural cycle :laugh:, chop trees down, grow beef, eat maccers

[carbonhed]

The Amazon Rainforest is Losing its Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide, Alarming 30-Year Study Reveals... (http://upriser.com/posts/the-amazon-is-losing-its-ability-to-absorb-carbon-fight-climate-change-monumental-30-year-study-reveals)

Could, might, possibly, maybe, we don't know, more research needed, send money............. KACHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ etc etc etc. Oh yeah... and alarming!

[mashman]

Could, might, possibly, maybe, we don't know, more research needed, send money............. KACHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ etc etc etc. Oh yeah... and alarming!

Wow, not a hit on any of those words... could be because they were presenting the results of their research? Yup it costs lots of money.

[carbonhed]

Wow, not a hit on any of those words... could be because they were presenting the results of their research? Yup it costs lots of money.

Could be because you only read the words in large print? Did you read the abstract or track the paper down in Nature magazine? Perhaps look for a less sensationalised journalistic interpretation of the paper?

Way too much effort involved.

[mashman]

Could be because you only read the words in large print? Did you read the abstract or track the paper down in Nature magazine? Perhaps look for a less sensationalised journalistic interpretation of the paper?

Way too much effort involved.

I read the article... yes I never read through any further than the page linked, but I have this weird feeling that the findings could be true... something along the lines of, and I know this'll be seen as a conspiracy or sommink, along the lines of: a little tree will absorb less carbon dioxide than a big tree. :rofl:@sentationalism.

Not at all, merely accepting of what was written given basic tree/ground function.

[carbonhed]

I read the article... yes I never read through any further than the page linked, but I have this weird feeling that the findings could be true... something along the lines of, and I know this'll be seen as a conspiracy or sommink, along the lines of: a little tree will absorb less carbon dioxide than a big tree. :rofl:@sentationalism.

Not at all, merely accepting of what was written given basic tree/ground function.

You have to delete the input of the churnalist. Because churnalists are the scum of the Earth and the entire story is spun by them. So ditch "alarming" and delete the "CO2 output of Latin America" which is irrelevant. Get down towards what the paper actually says.. and it's interesting. Though why it should be surprising that the rate of increase slows towards a new plateau is beyond my paygrade.

[mashman]

You have to delete the input of the churnalist. Because churnalists are the scum of the Earth and the entire story is spun by them. So ditch "alarming" and delete the "CO2 output of Latin America" which is irrelevant. Get down towards what the paper actually says.. and it's interesting. Though why it should be surprising that the rate of increase slows towards a new plateau is beyond my paygrade.

Do you have a link to what you read?

[Jantar]

A volcano under The Antarctic causing the ice to melt? Where did he pluck that gem from. :facepalm:

...........

Maybe from http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/abs/ngeo1992.html

Or perhaps from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm

Or even from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

However if the science is too difficult and you want a layman's version then just go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=volcano+antarctic

[SPman]

Yes I've read all the articles - very interesting. You don't think of residual volcanic activity occuring under the ice sheets, but, off course, why not. Tectonic activity is as frequent in Antarctica as it is elsewhere.

The initial eruption must have been spectacular at the time......

This is, however, sfa to do with AGW.

[carbonhed]

This is, however, sfa to do with AGW.

The potential collapse of Antarctic glaciers was trumpeted loud and long as proof of AGW... right up until it wasn't. I'm glad we can agree another of your stupid scare stories just face planted. Keep them coming.

[carbonhed]

Barack Obama joins Al Gore in the rush to buy beachfront property... days after warning of dangerous sea level rise. These cocks really know how walk the talk

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/21/obama-hawaii-magnum-pi-global-warming/

[SPman]

The potential collapse of Antarctic glaciers was trumpeted loud and long as proof of AGW... right up until it wasn't. I'm glad we can agree another of your stupid scare stories just face planted. Keep them coming.
"right up until it wasn't."?
Now when did that event slip through the mass of scientists and become established fact!
from a couple of days ago....

Antarctic researchers have long been aware that warm-water currents in the region are eroding the continent's western ice sheets, with the Southern Ocean's high salinity allowing warm water to sink uncharacteristically below cold water. According to the ICECAP team, those same warm-water currents are also gaining access under the east side of the Totten Glacier through two "gateways" into a large cavity in the ice shelf.
The Totten Glacier covers an area of 90 miles by 22 miles, but more important is the "catchment" of inland ice the frozen glacier holds back from the surrounding ocean. That catchment is estimated at 538,000 square kilometers, or three-quarters the size of Texas. There is enough ice in the catchment area behind the glacier to raise sea levels by 11 feet, according to the ICECAP team.

"And that's a conservative lower limit," said Jamin Greenbaum, an ICECAP geophysicist and lead author of the study.

Stupid scare stories? as stupid as ignoring what is happening and pretending it doesn't exist?

If your truck is stuck on a level crossing, and you can see the train coming early enough, you can easier figure out how to get out of it's way...wait until it's almost on you, and you're in deep schtung!

[Katman]

It's time for us all to wake up.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ipe6CMvW0Dg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[bogan]

It's time for us all to wake up.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ipe6CMvW0Dg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fuck I love yesterday, today, schedules, text books, work, etc. Got a bit bored after a 2.5 minutes and who the fuck pronounces louvre and plague like that; fucking uneducated muppet. Jantar is killing it here with the facts and research though, so I've not much to add.

[Katman]

Got a bit bored after a 2.5 minutes....

Considering your attention span you should probably be commended for getting that far.

[bogan]

Considering your attention span you should probably be commended for getting that far.

Still longer than yours though, or have you started reading Jantar's links and having an on-topic discussion while I didn't notice? (posting an anti-the-man vid certainly suggests this is not the case)

[yokel]

"right up until it wasn't."?
Now when did that event slip through the mass of scientists and become established fact!
from a couple of days ago....


Stupid scare stories? as stupid as ignoring what is happening and pretending it doesn't exist?

If your truck is stuck on a level crossing, and you can see the train coming early enough, you can easier figure out how to get out of it's way...wait until it's almost on you, and you're in deep schtung!

Perhaps this will help?


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nq4Bc2WCsdE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

It's time for us all to wake up.

Great watch, cheers.


Considering your attention span you should probably be commended for getting that far.

T'would be around about the time the money bashing started. Coincidence?

[bogan]

T'would be around about the time the money bashing started. Coincidence?

Nah, didn't get to that part, guess it confirms my evaluation of whether it got any better or not though :laugh: Still, wasn't this about global warming at one point? Or is any serious issue just an excuse for you fools to start soap-bombing?

[mashman]

Nah, didn't get to that part, guess it confirms my evaluation of whether it got any better or not though :laugh: Still, wasn't this about global warming at one point? Or is any serious issue just an excuse for you fools to start soap-bombing?

You'd have hated the rest of it... and no, it wasn't about money. T'was just that tiny window.

[carbonhed]

Stupid scare stories? as stupid as ignoring what is happening and pretending it doesn't exist?




Thanks for providing a glorious example of "Don't just read the headlines, ignore everything the churnalist says, don't even read the abstract... read the fucking paper"

The paper predicts NOTHING. It provides a possible mechanism that could if blah diddy blah might possibly... more research needed... send money......... KACHING$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Here's the paper :- http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2388.epdf?referrer_access_token=1iycSaHzBwo4_d w9hdQawNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M6FkI2Id53a8a4YoVhkHdR vu5zQo6dS9Bd2iL29-XkpMtohsm7Q6K5gtTkrT668ijlq1NwADjpZP4PkmHzuTjD6cLv t7iGpgc5eiJQyf1AuTegdWHwKgYOdtxe5HtSzCaAGnVKS8QKbI wghZeq16vOnXq74Po1RJmpFExNNrhKCw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=boingboing.net

Above all ignore the panty wetting hysterics of politically motivated scumbags.

[mashman]

Thanks for providing a glorious example of "Don't just read the headlines, ignore everything the churnalist says, don't even read the abstract... read the fucking paper"

That's not how I read it. I think the important bit is: "as stupid as ignoring what is happening and pretending it doesn't exist".

Has there ever been an ice age? has there ever been an asteroid impact? has Earth ever had deforestation to the levels WE create? has the ocean ever been higher than it currently is? etc... Using those eyes (not necessarily SPMan's), the numbers are as irrelevant as any headline... as the same probability remains i.e. it will happen, or it won't.

[ellipsis]

...it will probably rain on Saturday...it will probably be .3 warmer than what we are acclimatised to...bugger...

[oldrider]

So many men - so many opinions - ponder this:http://drsircus.com/world-news/climate-change-pathology#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f74bebe676-Article_274&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-f74bebe676-9531509

[carbonhed]

All the Klimate Scienz lemmings love trotting out the "97% consensus" line to support their point... as if consensus has any significance in science.

Here's an analysis of how they managed to manufacture that particular lie. Naturally being part of the cannon it's shabby fraud and mediocrity as per usual.

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.nz/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html

[SPman]

Here's an analysis of how they managed to manufacture that particular lie. Naturally being part of the cannon it's shabby fraud and mediocrity as per usual.

l (http://richardtol.blogspot.co.nz/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html)

Really?
Rather like Tol's analysis

Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html

[carbonhed]

Really?
Rather like Tol's analysis[SIZE=2]



:laugh: We'll they're both from your side of the argument... so whaddya expect?

I love the way they ignore all the criticisms of their corrupt methodology and instead argue statistics.

Still when you've got nothing.... wave arms make noise. Klimatescienzskiiz 101.

[SPman]

:laugh: We'll they're both from your side of the argument... so whaddya expect?

I love the way they ignore all the criticisms of their corrupt methodology and instead argue statistics.

Still when you've got nothing.... wave arms make noise. Klimatescienzskiiz 101. Rather like you do........

[mashman]

Rockefeller family tried and failed to get ExxonMobil to accept climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/27/rockefeller-family-tried-and-failed-exxonmobil-accept-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_tw)

[carbonhed]

Rockefeller family tried and failed to get ExxonMobil to accept climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/27/rockefeller-family-tried-and-failed-exxonmobil-accept-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_tw)

Exxon Mobil tells the Grauniad where to shove it. Bravo!

[mashman]

Obama's big climate change memo to America: This isn't opinion, it's fact (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/obama-s-big-climate-change-memo-to-america-this-isn-t-opinion-it-fact-q04040.html)

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/fd/fd27532e3558eece3743a07815ea8cb52e58d10c49345f4d5d 27481340bfcead.jpg

[yokel]

It's official, climate change is now a religion, just like 9/11

http://media.cagle.com/95/2015/06/23/165506_600.jpg

[Banditbandit]

http://wrongologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/COW-Pope-Republicans.jpg

https://claytoonz.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cjones09212015.jpg

[yokel]

That guy in the red shirt gets it.
fucking cultural marxists are everywhere.

https://56packardman.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/screen-shot-2015-06-20-at-4-50-03-am.png?w=600&h=401

[Voltaire]

Its pretty obvious what causes Global Warming.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Uz1acsGGvQ/VB9kv1NLvdI/AAAAAAAAGmQ/bNQxNBGJ8sU/s1600/GOD%2BCONTROLS%2BCLIMATE%2BCHANGE.png