Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 10:32:38 GMT 10
When conservative led NSW, WA and Qld governments have watered down land clearing laws and farmers are now out there bulldozing trees into the ground, CO2 absorption by trees is fairly null and void.
Considering that NSW Nth coast is enduring floods again after a 3 week reprisal from the last floods, heralds what the climate scientist predicted...the North floods and the South fries in climate change.
Its happening and because of the sceptics deleberate delaying tactics on action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we are on the Titanic going down....sceptics should be charged as criminals.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 22, 2013 11:59:37 GMT 10
sceptics should be charged as criminals. And right there you have illustrated what this climate change BS is really all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 12:37:05 GMT 10
Climate change BS... ....people may pass this recent bash of floods off as just a passing phase, when it happens again and again and again....the penny will drop.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 22, 2013 13:29:03 GMT 10
When conservative led NSW, WA and Qld governments have watered down land clearing laws and farmers are now out there bulldozing trees into the ground, CO2 absorption by trees is fairly null and void. Lord knows I'm no apologist for conservative governments, Spindrift, but it seems nobody's got clean hands on environmental issues - and that includes the Greens. We'd have had Rudd's ETS back in 2010 and the story of CO2 emission reduction in Australia would have been very different. Seems to me that the legislative history of the past couple of years would have been very different - and better! - if it hadn't been for the Greens. In hindsight, Rudd was right not to talk to 'em and Gillard made a huge mistake in doing that 2010 deal. You're conflating weather events with century-long trends. There is no smoking gun when it comes to global warming just as you can't point to the individual cigarette that gave a lung cancer patient his death sentence. This type of argument is a gift to the naysayers and denialists like Garfield who, dishonestly and disingenuously because they have their own manipulative agendas, are then able to accuse the advocates of human-induced climate change of merely talking about the weather insteads of about climate trends. They don't have to "prove" anything. All they have to do is discredit you - and you're making it easy for them. That's the first of three gifts you've given to Garfield in your post. He must think it's Christmas! I'll gloss over most of that last bit and highlight the last statement sceptics should be charged as criminalsTwo things: 1. They're not "sceptics". A "sceptic" is someone whose approach towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, is marked by a questioning attitude, or by doubt, regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. For instance, on the Religion board there are few "sceptics". You, Spindrift, aren't a "sceptic" as regards the existence of God. You simply deny that God exists. That's not scepticism, that's denial. Same with Matt. No scepticism there! He vows, declares and affirms the existence of the Big Fella Upstairs. He's a believer. The only "sceptic" on the God question is an agnostic. Same with climate change: Garfield is no "sceptic". If you "doubt" something is true, or if your approach is marked by a questioning attitude, that means you've left open the possibility that it might be true. No such ambivalence with Garfield!! He's 100% into denial. If a coal-fired power station were a cigarette, Garfield would be in there arguing that smoking is good for you. So don't call Garfield a "sceptic"! That's unfair to sceptics and it lets Garfield off the hook. That's the second gift you've given him in your post. 2. Why should they be charged as criminals? I'm sorry Spindrift but that's a stupid thing to say and I completely dissociate myself from it. It's the third gift you've given to Garfield. Three gifts in the one post!! Why are you being so generous to him!! Strewth, mate, if you really were political and were out there publicly on the hustings advocating a position and attacking the other side, they'd look at you as a "friend" - in the sense that the redneck Guns & Big Coal rootin' tootin' Barnaby Joyce types like Garfied would take one look and laugh among themselves "Strewth! With enemies like Spindrift, who needs friends!" To advocate that anyone who holds an opinion on the environment that you oppose should be treated as a criminal by the law is downright sinister. If that's what the so-called "democratic socialists" are calling for then I'll certainly be placing them last on any ballot paper that passes through my hands!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 22, 2013 13:46:17 GMT 10
For f***'s sake Buzz don't try to make a remark I made en passant about religion to illustrate a point I was making about the difference between climate change scepticism and climate change denial an excuse to deflect from the thread into one of your tirades about religion. Give us a break - please!
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 22, 2013 14:07:07 GMT 10
Just to recap * Nobody denies climate change only anthropogenic climate change * The world hasn't warmed for sixteen years * All the studies show more co2 is beneficial for plant growth * There is no evidence of increased storm activity * There is no evidence that man is heating the planet, its still only a theory * All the computer models were wrong * Arctic ice is back to normal levels and Antarctica is growing * A lot of glaciers are growing The list go's on, anyone that isn't sceptical either has an agenda or they just aren't interested in real science
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 20:13:05 GMT 10
I don't disagree with that commentary Pim....the Greens have been dogmatically unbending on many issues, that isn't surprising in the game of politics...and by all accounts Labor and the Greens are divorced.
Far from popular misconception the right have with greens as long haired ferals, the green voter demographic are for the most are highly skilled inner city dwellers on good incomes and professional people such as doctors wives who have a green conscience.
The biggest greenies I know are working class people who are out there volunteering their time with environmental groups such as Dune Care, Land Care , River Care, Conservation Associations and National Parks Association. Such as it is O'Farrell has pulled funding on many of these groups especially Land Care, still these people vote for all parties more so Labor.
Back to topic ...I was making the point that conservative led governments are watering down Labor made land clearing legislation and laws and the policies of such laws, now.
And we are not talking a farmer with an axe going to a back paddock to ring bark a few trees.....more two large bulldozers with heavy chains rip tearing vast hectares.
So much for trees soaking up excess CO2 emissions.
Actually no I am not conflating weather events as recent (decade or two)weather events are not following any trend but defying known long term trends, with flooding it was a once in 100 year flood, now flooding is frequent and often, despite a prolonged La Nina effect.
The forecast from climate scientists with weather effecting Australia is for more floods and storm's in the north and more severe heat in the south, as climate change happens I have been around long enough to know that weather is changing, from experience and talking to ol' timers storms and flooding has increased along the Northern East Coast....which ties in with the coastal erosion which is obvious, it use to be sand erosion happened but the sands came back in a relative short amount of time, one can visibly see that the sands are not returning to the beaches as they once did, this isn't a cyclic trend, the seas are rising.
As a coastal dweller I have also noticed that the sea is warming over the years through the seasons, even in winter months.
Modeling predictions are more accurate, observations, weather charts and records there is enough anecdotal evidence to say yes there is a smoking gun with the changing weather, and we know what that is.
And on sceptics: it is confusing to make a religious analogy, sceptic atheist and God believers isn't quite the same as people who trust the peer reviewed judgment of climate scientist and those that don't the sceptics who are denying science. The sceptics, who are not denying the existence of a changing climate, they don't trust the science that says it is changing due to human activity, they think it is gods doing, or its au natural cycle, and more CO2 is beneficial to plants therefore the weather extremes are of no consequence.
I'll give you an antedotal eg: as to why religion is a different from climate change science believers and sceptic believers; On a holiday to Vanuatu last year my wife and I purchased a hand made chieftain wooden mask that resides on a TV unit that I had hand made using blackbutt timber, the mask facing outward and a south east direction moves by itself imperceptibly over a few days to face North East, a 90deg turn, we turn it back SE and in turns back NE by itself, and has done this numerous times, not just once or twice, do not see it move, but it moves either very slowly or quickly, one doesn't see it move or wobble.
Now I could say crikey that's spooky and fall down on my knees and say its a miracle from the Vanuatu gods and the chieftain is spiritually turning to face his home in the NE.....or I can use science and observation to find out just how this 35cm mask on a base moves by itself, my logic says it must be vibration.
Its the same with religion and Gods, and climate science and sceptics, those who perceive logic and those that don't preferring the inexplicable.
And on the criminal aspect that economic pusher sceptics who knowingly created doubt and the consequence of lack of action on climate change, it is my own opinion that they are criminals, just as I think Johnnie Howard is a war criminal....in the overall scheme of things he won't be charged, just as climate sceptics will not be charged for criminal crimes against humanity.
The same sceptics that gave us tobbaco doesn't cause disease, sulphides from coal fired power stations does not create acid rain, and DDT cause any environmnetal harm....the delays in action they created had a great impact on human health and the environment, were not charged and how they are allowed now to create climate scepticism.
Believe it or not I do not need any politcal party to form my own opinions, .... nor do I think you of the Labor right Pim would tick the social democrats regardless if they shared the same opinion as myself....Socialist is a dirty word...sput ding..!!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 23, 2013 7:39:49 GMT 10
I wasn't trying to make a big thing over the religion analogy, Spindrift and so, OK, I won't push that one. Just stick with the dictionary definition of "sceptic" which is someone who approaches a given proposition or hypothesis with a questioning attitude. Any scientist in any field, whether it be climatology or physics or biology or chemistry or any other branch of science that you could name, is ipso facto a sceptic. Scepticism is the very stuff of scientific research. To be a sceptic is an honorable thing. No scepticism = no good science. My point is simply that to label someone like Garfield a climate "sceptic" is to misrepresent an honorable and necessary component of scientific research. But you go even further by saying that to be a sceptic is to be a criminal and that climate "sceptics" should be treated like criminals. Spindrift that is a monstrous thing to say. Firstly, people like Garfield are not "sceptics". Please don't pay them that compliment. Garfield isn't "sceptical", he's so 100% certain of his position that he considers it a no-brainer. He is completely into anthropogenic climate change denial. That;s not "scepticism". And secondly people who are into denial over climate change are entitled to their opinion whether you like it or not. To call for the criminalisation of the expression of a denialist opinion of climate change is downright totalitarian. Count me out of that one! In fact count me as one of your opponents if that's your position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 7:12:49 GMT 10
Well Pim one doesn't disagree with the dictionary definition of scepticism, as it is climate 'denialist' (which they are no doubts) as such are called 'sceptics', a perception more than a reality to be sure, while indeed wrong that's just the way it goes, truth is way layed for perception in politics....eg: the created perception Saddam had WMD as truth, or children overboard, denialist are perceived to be sceptics, its not true but that is the perception.
Abbott and his ilk like Garfield are in denial and the truth is irrelevant, there is a political market agenda to push scepticism knowingly that it is wrong. Monckton, RW think tanks, Jonesy etc including Abbott would know the science is accurate on climate change yet are creating environmental vandalism with the perception of scepticism.
So with criminal action consider if I was to pour 10,000 liters of herbicide into the Murray River I would be charged as a criminal for environmental vandalism, until recently as I would have been if I was a farmer or developer land clearing illegally, fined and possible jail, definitely charged as a criminal, so why not those that commit major environmental damage by stalling on climate action just as a political leader who commits war crimes should be...afterall they knowingly know what they are doing, not as though they are mistaken and acting with ignorance is it.
It maybe politically expidient to sweep such things under the carpet, but if laws were in place to charge political leading light people of environmental crimes with pollution of the atmosphere as with other environmental pollution and land clearing, then if they were charged they would act more in truth than percptions in politics...
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 24, 2013 8:58:00 GMT 10
Monckton, Jones, Bolt, Whats up with that, etc etc etc, don't make things up, they report, they bring to our attention very valid and differing views from very credible scientific sources, like the one I have posted here ie, the head of the IPCC climate change panel has stated that there has been no further warning for 17 years. For reasons best known to themselves climate change hysterics are absolutely not interested in viewing this climate change matter in a scientific way, it has become more of a religion to them where scepticsm will not be tolerated, talking to climate change hysterics like Spindrift is no different to talking about god with Dib, in fact Spindrift is even worse than that, he takes the same view that a fundy muslim does in that critics should be killed or jailed and I'm sure that even though the rest of the climate change hysterics don't openly support that view they wouldn't do anything to stop it happening. Man made climate change is a political movement / gravy train, and thats true wether man is changing the climate or not.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 24, 2013 9:03:07 GMT 10
Well the weather here today is glorious so I'm going to hit the road... with the camera and see what damage I can do.
Garfield, get out and get some airing.. you're rotting away.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 24, 2013 11:06:06 GMT 10
Man made climate change is a political movement / gravy train, and thats true wether man is changing the climate or not. Bloody hell, garfield, what do castrated sheep & goats have to do with it? Where the hell did that one come from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 11:34:33 GMT 10
Monckton et al are not offering anything to the debate when their sole objective is to disingenuously discredit climate science, as is your objective with the one line...
"the head of the IPCC climate change panel has stated that there has been no further warning for 17 years."
That itself is a cherry picked statement without adding the whole context of what the head of the IPPC stated which you are clearly not interested in.
Global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels, the world is not below record levels as you have us think and you cannot change that fact.
Temperatures have plateaued but that doesn't factor in that the US and Australia have constantly have had above record temps nor in Europe they suffer record heat waves in summer and freezing their nuts off with below record winter temps.
Clearly the climate is changing the evidence is there to be seen, ignoring that because global temps have plateaued for now would be foolish, to take a small time line of data and to think it is alright for humans to keep polluting is a wrong perception..
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 24, 2013 12:24:56 GMT 10
Pim and Earl pulling each others dicks because they found a spelling mistake again, you two really need to get a life.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Feb 24, 2013 13:11:02 GMT 10
As oppposed to you that seems to making a career out of screaming "no it's not!" as loud as you can.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 24, 2013 14:32:20 GMT 10
No, I mean fuck off and die ;D
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 24, 2013 15:13:23 GMT 10
sea levels will not rise if the snow caps melt.. doh!
if it gets that hot, then there will just be more humidity... which actually presents a worse danger.... fungi will thrive, and fungi eats everything alive!
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 24, 2013 16:09:34 GMT 10
Anyway there is a consensus apparently, a consensus of UN gravy train lefties lead by a weirdo train engineer Pachuri, thats all the evidence your average dumb arse lefty needs to believe anything at all ... the more open minded like me need so much more.
Then theirs the great global warming rorts number one fan Gillard who when not otherwise preoccupied with fast tracking foreign rapists and terrorists into the country is busily adjusting global temperatures from her office in Canberra, funny stuff, well no, tragic really.
We can be thankfull though, in other countries Gillard would be a Queen, think Spain or Greece but here almost everybody thinks she's a fucking idiot and quite rightly so ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 24, 2013 16:11:10 GMT 10
We're waiting for your proof on that. So far you've failed miserably, Fluffoff.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 24, 2013 16:27:46 GMT 10
Anyway there is a consensus apparently, a consensus of UN gravy train lefties lead by a weirdo train engineer Pachuri, thats all the evidence your average dumb arse lefty needs to believe anything at all ... the more open minded like me need so much more. Then theirs the great global warming rorts number one fan Gillard who when not otherwise preoccupied with fast tracking foreign rapists and terrorists into the country is busily adjusting global temperatures from her office in Canberra, funny stuff, well no, tragic really. We can be thankfull though, in other countries Gillard would be a Queen, think Spain or Greece but here almost everybody thinks she's a f***ing idiot and quite rightly so ;D here are the facts... they are running out of oil... fast.. this means, they want us to use alternatives... have you ever asked yourself why they forced everyone to use fluro lights, get solar power hot water or electricity producing panels, switch to gas on cars and trucks... then quadruple the cost of power? they're running out of oil.they're converting everything convincing people to save money... but we don't save money when for less usage, they quadruple the power! they don't want to say, they're running out of oil so they tell you, we have to reduce emissions or we'll all burn up! plus the third world want electricity too...
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 24, 2013 16:40:38 GMT 10
no they won't....
there is a finite capacity of water... the water level today, is the exact same amount from the beginning of time...
the only way water level could increase is by new land being formed like it does with lava spewing from volcanos and cooling in the sea... and since land also sinks, they balance themselves out...
if the caps melt, and they won't, but just say they do, it means the atmosphere is hotter causing quicker evaporation off the oceans and plants... but mainly the oceans... thus causing more humidity.
and that just means it'll come down in places and floods BUT THE OCEANS WILL NOT RISE SIGNIFICANTLY like they claim... a few mils at worst... not meter/s like they BS about!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 24, 2013 16:50:05 GMT 10
Thank you for your dazzling scientific insights Caskur which I feel sure are worth a Nobel Prize at least. I'm sure you've cleared up all the issues and we'll never ever have to talk about it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Feb 24, 2013 17:01:43 GMT 10
Cskur you obviously aren't aware that over the last 100,000 years alone sea levels across the world have varied by hundreds of meters.
50,000-70,000 years ago there was no Bass Strait, you could walk to Tasmania from Victoria, indeed, you can accurately see just how quickly sea levels can rise just by natures influence by noting that the spot where the Spartan's fought the Persians under Xerces is now a few hundred meters out to sea from the coastline.
You maintain some very strange beliefs that can be very easily discounted by readily available facts Caskur, where do you pick these idea's up from?
Sea levels only have to rise by about 1 meter to alter the coastal landscape in an irrevocable way. It's not just the people living in canal developments or beachfront property, it is major rivers rising as well, Nearly every major city in the world is built adjacent to a major river. They all lead into the ocean......
Consider what that will do to the world property market, to the financial market as traditional safe investments like property trusts, insurance companies and the like suddenly have to deal with the fact that the investments your super is invested in are worthless.
And then you have the issue of salt water inundation of the majority of developed, arable land in the country. To maintain food production we will be forced to clear an equally massive part of our environment which in itself feeds into the inability of our existing plantlife to deal with the CO2 we already pump into the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 24, 2013 17:02:20 GMT 10
I will bet 1,000,000 dollars the sea won't rise....
and any melted ice from mountain tops will soak into the thirsty land that is screaming for water...
there was no ice thousands of years ago... the whole earth was tropical... doh... that is where we get oil from now... the earth former jungles rotted down.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 24, 2013 17:03:16 GMT 10
go learn do your science again dumbarses.
|
|