9524 replies to this topic

[ayou2]

No, never seen it, but if you'd like to come to a Greens meeting with me you can ask them yourself:)

Cool. I wouldn't mind meeting Adam & offering him some watermelon

http://www.driftline...m=45&start=3474


"Towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement,
Adam Bandt"

Edited by ayou2, 29 March 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[proftournesol]

Cool. I wouldn't mind meeting Adam & offering him some watermelon

http://www.driftline...m=45&start=3474


"Towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement,
Adam Bandt"

I can't see much to complain about in that comment of his but if you'd ask him about it I'm sure that he'd have a good chuckle about it. Have your views changed at all since you were 23?

[ayou2]

I can't see much to complain about in that comment of his but if you'd ask him about it I'm sure that he'd have a good chuckle about it. Have your views changed at all since you were 23?

Its strangely phophetic ... but I guess your right. People change. Maybe some of the AGW supporters could stop with the linking, of anyone who opposes them, to previous affiliations & comments.

I'm just sayin ...

Edited by ayou2, 29 March 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[surfpurple]

No, it has not. Look at the graphs.



Cite this alleged alternative evidence.

http://en.wikipedia....ing_controversy

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

http://en.wikipedia....ing_controversy

I'll ask again:

Cite your alleged evidence. All I see in your cite is this:

"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.^[3][4][5] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[6] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.^[7]"

[surfpurple]

I'll ask again:

Cite your alleged evidence. All I see in your cite is this:

"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.^[3][4][5] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[6] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.^[7]"

You say that all you see in my site is that ONE 'statement' that you pulled out of a whole PAGE of wiki controversy on climate change!

Another one of those 'Alan Jones' points to try and win an argument!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

You say that all you see in my site is that ONE 'statement' that you pulled out of a whole PAGE of wiki controversy on climate change!

Another one of those 'Alan Jones' points to try and win an argument!

It was YOUR cite! I simply quoted your own information back to you.

I'll ask the question again: Have you examined the graphs I directed you to?

They are not in dispute, BTW.

[Willow]

ZB, Prof, I love what you guys are doing here but why can't you see that wind and solar and efficiency and humungoush voluntary social upheaval is just not going to be accepted by the majority of humanity? You're right, in an ideal sense, but you are blind to the fact that too many people don't, and won't, agree with you. There will be no great enlightenment, no gentler path, no low-energy hyper-efficient utopia magically emerging in the next 20 years. People, on the whole, are just too lazy and self-interested for that to happen.

The only option for giving humanity the energy it demands while getting GHG under control is nuclear. And honestly, we've got far more chance of safely managing nuclear technology than we do of convincing the world to change its deep-rooted value systems.

I agree , and this mindset will be greater throughout the emerging countries as the general population move from a subsistence way of life and move into the major centres in
search of a better life/opportunities and the almighty dollar.

This all requires power , and more than any of the alternatives can offer barring nuclear.

There is an interesting talk on this which was given the the US State Department a couple of years ago that I will attempt to dig up and post , very interesting.

[proftournesol]

renewable technologies are already being used throughout the developing world, they aren't news to people who live there and in many instances are more affordable than large scale first world infrastructure. What we will need is a range of technologies

[Willow]

renewable technologies are already being used throughout the developing world, they aren't news to people who live there and in many instances are more affordable than large scale first world infrastructure. What we will need is a range of technologies

Yes I am aware prof , I recall your Bangladeshi PV equipped humpy , however when Bitan and Labonya leave the village to seek their fortune in Dhaka , PV , solar or wind
just ain't gonna cut it.


I found the vid I referred to previously , I only ask ,..... consider.


http://www.ted.com/t...l_heresies.html

[davidsss]

All the talk of nuclear and not one country has worked out what to do with their waste for the last 50 years, let alone thousands more years. Nuclear is an expensive dead end and raving on about how good it will be in the future when the next generation reactors come on line or how good it will be with a different technology is thoroughly unconvincing. I've heard that stuff for over 30 years. You are peddling lines I heard in the 1970s. Lo and behold, 30 years later I'm hearing the same arguments about the wonderful things the next generation of nuclear power will bring. What next? You haven't mentioned power too cheap to meter yet.

Anyway this is not a thread about nuclear power, it is a thread about climate lies. I suppose I should provide a link to Alan Jones, he's good at lying about climate change.

DS

[proftournesol]

Yes I am aware prof , I recall your Bangladeshi PV equipped humpy , however when Bitan and Labonya leave the village to seek their fortune in Dhaka , PV , solar or wind
just ain't gonna cut it.


I found the vid I referred to previously , I only ask ,..... consider.


http://www.ted.com/t...l_heresies.html

The humpy is more liveable with electricity. If it can support a local job then perhaps that humpy resident and millions others may not need to leave and move to the cities, the migration is a product of a lack of local opportunity

[Willow]

The hint of local opportunities interests me greatly , as I understand it the core business of the emerging countries is manufacturing.

Manufacturing=Major Centres=Power

[Willow]

Anyway this is not a thread about nuclear power, it is a thread about climate lies.

DS

As you wish.


http://www.dailymail...zing-again.html

Edited by Willow, 29 March 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[Dustin]

Except for one teeny, tiny problem:

The temperature of the planet is rising, not falling.

You're missing the point again.

The LIA (little ice age) example is but an exercise in logic.
The lesson to be taken from it is that "we don't know".
There is no scope to extract any temperature trend from the logic any more than there is scope to extract the average weight of a pintail duck flying south for the winter.

If we're not careful, some wag will come in here and shrilly call out 'Denier ! ' . . .

[dor]

No. Normally, the temperature rise that has been noted in the past has occured over TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. We are witnessing a similar rise that has taken around 100 years.

Look at these graphs:

http://www.daviesand...nning/New_Data/

http://www.daviesand...Look/index.html


The IPCC has examined all the known influences of warming on this planet. The only one left is excessive CO2 level.


Indeed. However, it is clear to the scientists, that it is humans that are driving this unprecedented rise in temperature.

"the current interglacial period is the longest on record. The current interglacial is also unique in that maximum temperatures have not increased above +2C relative to the mid-20th century benchmark (0C) for very long"

The graphs seem to show that our current climate is within the historical norms and has been\is going through a unprecedented period of extreme stability. It might be even be suggested that humans are about 10,000 to 13,000 years behind and we could of helped the earth by raising the temperature sooner to fit in with historical patterns. Another couple of degrees of warming should result in a natural return to a historical normal highly variable climate.
The issue with climate change isn't a problem with the planet it's a problem with people. Our issue is that 'we' require a very specific set of climatic conditions to support our 'continuous growth' based economies\society and have ignored the fact that the recent climate has been very favourable and stable.

[surfpurple]

It was YOUR cite! I simply quoted your own information back to you.

I'll ask the question again: Have you examined the graphs I directed you to?

They are not in dispute, BTW.

Yes, you did indeed quote my information back to me!..........That was ONE line out of a whole PAGE!.......Why pick that one line? Why not pick out some of the information and scientists that oppose the evidence?

You are manipulating peoples words and ideas to fit in with your agenda.

And no I haven't examined the graphs. I have other things to do besides spend time researching information that one person directs me too.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Yes, you did indeed quote my information back to me!..........That was ONE line out of a whole PAGE!.......Why pick that one line?

It was at the top of the page.

Why not pick out some of the information and scientists that oppose the evidence?

I see no comments that possess any credibility. If you can see any, then cite them, along with your scientific evidence.

You are manipulating peoples words and ideas to fit in with your agenda.

No. I am citing science. Nothing more. If you can cite any science to defend whatever position you hold, then please do so.

And no I haven't examined the graphs.

Of course you haven't. You expect ME to cite YOUR evidence for you, by reading your cites, but you don't pay me the respect to read my cites. I read your cites. I even highlighted an important part of your own cite.

I have other things to do besides spend time researching information that one person directs me too.

{TRANSLATION} "I don't want to read anything that might shatter my preconceived notions. I'd much rather keep my head buried firmly in the sand."

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

You're missing the point again.

The LIA (little ice age) example is but an exercise in logic.
The lesson to be taken from it is that "we don't know".

Correct. We don't know what caused the LIA. We DO know what is causing the present warming. At least, we know with a high degree of confidence. Big difference.

There is no scope to extract any temperature trend from the logic any more than there is scope to extract the average weight of a pintail duck flying south for the winter.

The climatologists seem dispute that point. Tell you what: I'll pay attention to what the climatologists tell me, WRT to climatology. Seems only fair. What is your specialty?

If we're not careful, some wag will come in here and shrilly call out 'Denier ! ' . . .

Good chance.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

"the current interglacial period is the longest on record. The current interglacial is also unique in that maximum temperatures have not increased above +2C relative to the mid-20th century benchmark (0C) for very long"

The graphs seem to show that our current climate is within the historical norms and has been\is going through a unprecedented period of extreme stability.

No. Our climate has BEEN in an unprecedented period of extreme stability. It appears that we are leaving that region of stability. The temperature trend is rising faster than at any time that has ever been detected. Our present detection limts extend back 600,000 years. In a year or two, those detection limits may extend back to more than 1,000,000 years.

So, yes. WAS very stable. Now, not so much.

It might be even be suggested that humans are about 10,000 to 13,000 years behind and we could of helped the earth by raising the temperature sooner to fit in with historical patterns.

Indeed. I've read that theory. It seems to have some validity. Kind or ironic that we, in the past, made the planet more habitable (for us), whilst we are now making it less habitable by doing the same things.

Another couple of degrees of warming should result in a natural return to a historical normal highly variable climate.

Another couple of degrees will take this planet into an area that has not been 'seen' for perhaps a million years or more. It will certainly set up conditions that humans have never experienced. Conditions that the plants and animals that we have depended on for our survival have never had to deal with either. That is cause for some concern.

The issue with climate change isn't a problem with the planet it's a problem with people. Our issue is that 'we' require a very specific set of climatic conditions to support our 'continuous growth' based economies\society and have ignored the fact that the recent climate has been very favourable and stable.

I don't believe that it has been ignored. Perhaps by the ignorant, but that is not everyone.

[ayou2]

The UN wants climate change to be real so they can push through their Agenda 21. Surprise then that the IPCC manages to correlate this.

Here is a few of the tricks pulled along the way.

Tree ring data that didn't agree with instrument data was replaced by more instrument data. Why ?

Because if they don't correlate in present timeframes, this calls into question how reliable the tree ring model is for data further back in time, for which we have no instrument readings.

http://www.british-g...E-INQUIRIES.pdf

See page 16 ... The trick to hide the decline.

Edited by ayou2, 30 March 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[proftournesol]

Follow the money ayou2. And here.
For the more rational minded reader of this thread who doesn't see a global conspiracy behind every tree, Agenda 21 is viewed by some on the American right as a plan to stealthily impose world-wide centralised control over people, attacking private property and energy usage. A resolution approved by the Republican National Committee on 13 January 2012 asserted that Agenda 21 "is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control.

The real opposition behind AGW action is that somehow the extreme right see this as world government by stealth. Bizarre.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

The UN wants climate change to be real so they can push through their Agenda 21.

Got some proof of that wild accusation?

You don't appear to understand how the UN operates. The UN is an umbrella organisation that embraces most nations on Earth. It is not an entity that can dictate policy. The member nations are the fundamental controllers of the UN.

Surprise then that the IPCC manages to correlate this.

The IPCC was set up to establish WHY the planet's climate was changing (the 'CC' part of IPCC refers to Climate Change). It was set up way back in 1988. Further and for the record: Many people contribute their time for no payment to the IPCC. The IPCC initiated and utilised existing science in an attempt to determine:

* What was causing the observed temperature rise.
* What possible effect the observed temperature rise would have on people and environments.
* If there was any action that could be taken BY ALL THE NATIONS ON THE PLANET to counter the observed temperature rise.

The IPCC acts as a scientific and advisory organisation. It has no axe to grind in the issue, one way or the other.

Here is a few of the tricks pulled along the way.

Tree ring data that didn't agree with instrument data was replaced by more instrument data. Why ?

Ice core data has long been the preferred method of proxy data collection. Tree ring data is notoriously unreliable, due to various reasons and tends to provide relatively local figures only. Since 1988, satellite and oceanographic data has been a couple of the preferred methods of data collection.

Because if they don't correlate in present timeframes, this calls into question how reliable the tree ring model is for data further back in time, for which we have no instrument readings.

Which is why ice core data is far more accurate and vastly preferred. And used.

http://www.british-g...E-INQUIRIES.pdf

See page 16 ... The trick to hide the decline.

Check your sources. You need to be more discriminating. The GWPF is a front for big oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWPF

"However, the foundation itself has rejected FoI requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions, leading Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics to comment,
“
These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders."

And:

"In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." ^[20]"

[Art Vandelay]

010101000110100001100101001000000110011001100001011100100010000001110010011010010110011101101000011101000010000001100101011110000111010001110010011001010110110101100101001000000110110101100001011000110110100001101001011011100110010100100000011010010111001100100000011100000110111101110111011001010111001001100101011001000010000001100010011110010010000001101111011010010110110000101100001000000110011101100001011100110010000001100001011011100110010000100000010011100111010101100011011011000110010101100001011100100010000001100101011011100110010101110010011001110111100100101110

[ayou2]

Prof, its well beyond the foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist stage now.

Bob Brown said ... “world should be ruled by a new global parliament under the auspices of the United Nations”

"Australia should to take the lead in establishing a global parliament to govern issues such as nuclear proliferation, international financial transactions and poverty."

and this from June 2011

“the issue of a global parliament was "conceptual" at the moment. He then went on to say that "why should Australia not be at the centre of what is inevitably going to be a global parliamentary governance down the line – if we human beings are going to live with each other on this marvellous planet of ours as we go on our joy ride of the future? Of course we are going to have to make consensus decisions."

[ayou2]

Your links don't prove anything more than money has been donated anonymously ... you've probably done the same your self when you put money in the bucket for a charity at a red light.

Edited by ayou2, 30 March 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[proftournesol]

ayou2
Bob may well want one world government, and I incidentally think that it could possibly have some merit however Bob and I are 2 votes out of over 6,000,000,000 so why are you concerned about it? In any case whatever gives you any greater concern about a world government that the one we have here in Victoria and Australia?

[proftournesol]

Your links don't prove anything more than money has been donated anonymously ... you've probably done the same your self when you put money in the bucket for a charity at a red light.

well if they are trumpeting transparency then they should lead by example especially when the alarmist trough is awash with corporate dollars. I would have thought that the basis of any credibility rests with transparency.

[ayou2]

I'm sure it'll all be fine Professor

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation

"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans. " British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1876

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

Edited by ayou2, 30 March 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[surfpurple]

It was at the top of the page.



I see no comments that possess any credibility. If you can see any, then cite them, along with your scientific evidence.




No. I am citing science. Nothing more. If you can cite any science to defend whatever position you hold, then please do so.


Of course you haven't. You expect ME to cite YOUR evidence for you, by reading your cites, but you don't pay me the respect to read my cites. I read your cites. I even highlighted an important part of your own cite.



{TRANSLATION} "I don't want to read anything that might shatter my preconceived notions. I'd much rather keep my head buried firmly in the sand."

MORE manipulation! You 'cited' MY posts hey? You said that it was the line 'at the top of the page'. Well it wasn't the 'top' line so you are just picking out lines that suit your agenda!

I HAVE cited evidence that supports MY position, and that is in the link I posted. I don't know what else you want but that is evidence of 'descrepency' that is associated with climate change.

And you don't see any credible comments. So what, I DO !!

TRANSLATION!! Another example of YOU putting words in other peoples posts and manipulation.

You should really chill out and let others who don't see this topic (the same way you do), have their views and not try to ram words down peoples throats.

Edited by surfpurple, 30 March 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[proftournesol]

It sounds like a Bob Brown led world government is the least of your worries then

[surfpurple]

It sounds like a Bob Brown led world government is the least of your worries then

Ha ha , yeh!

[ayou2]

ZB won't back down on any of this, he has UN backing

[surfpurple]

I gathered that ......quite a while back!

I thought there must be some ....'agenda' !

[ayou2]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day

http://www.warwickhu...t/scorecard.htm

[ayou2]

I gathered that ......quite a while back!

I thought there must be some ....'agenda' !

Its called Agenda 21 ... hidden in plain sight on the UN website ... strangely all these Watermelon politicians daren't mention it. None that I;ve heard anyways.

[proftournesol]

Its called Agenda 21 ... hidden in plain sight on the UN website ... strangely all these Watermelon politicians daren't mention it. None that I;ve heard anyways.

ZB and I have been promised special roles in the new world government ayuo2, I'm eating the words to the Internationale now:)

[davidsss]

Its called Agenda 21 ... hidden in plain sight on the UN website ... strangely all these Watermelon politicians daren't mention it. None that I;ve heard anyways.

Ooh a conspiracy, I like conspiracies. I bet those big mining companies and merchant banks are quaking in their boots as the environmentalists and lefties prepare to use the UN to take over the world and spread their nasty ideologies. What and who could possibly stop them, they have so much power, especially when compared to the minions in the corporate sector who could never ever get as much influence as those nasty greenies.

Give me a break.

DS

Edited by davidsss, 30 March 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[proftournesol]

David the problem is that the more you deny the conspiracy theory, the more it confirms it's existence to those who choose to believe it. On one hand the loony right claims that the UN is incompetent, and on the other it's clever enough to organise a vast worldwide coordinated conspiracy to take over the world by stealth whilst keeping scientists awash in grant funding:)
So many decisions that affect our lives are made with no scrutiny or accountability in private boardrooms in the US, Europe Japan or China, yet ayou2 is worried about a supposed UN world government led by Bob Brown!

[davidsss]

David the problem is that the more you deny the conspiracy theory, the more it confirms it's existence to those who choose to believe it. On one hand the loony right claims that the UN is incompetent, and on the other it's clever enough to organise a vast worldwide coordinated conspiracy to take over the world by stealth whilst keeping scientists awash in grant funding:)
So many decisions that affect our lives are made with no scrutiny or accountability in private boardrooms in the US, Europe Japan or China, yet ayou2 is worried about a supposed UN world government led by Bob Brown!

Given that anything the UN tries to do can be vetoed by China, USA, Russia, France or the UK it is amazing what people are willing to swallow.

DS

[proftournesol]

The only world government that seems to be OK is the 'business as usual' corporate oligarchy.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

ZB won't back down on any of this, he has UN backing

No. I don't give a crap what position the UN holds in this matter. I ONLY care about the science.

[ayou2]

Any comment on Warwick Hughes scorecard David or Prof ?

http://www.warwickhu...t/scorecard.htm

[ayou2]

No. I don't give a crap what position the UN holds in this matter. I ONLY care about the science.

Commisioned & presented by the UN.

Any comments on the score card ZB ?

Edited by ayou2, 31 March 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

MORE manipulation! You 'cited' MY posts hey? You said that it was the line 'at the top of the page'. Well it wasn't the 'top' line so you are just picking out lines that suit your agenda!

I said it was at the top of the page. I never claimed it was the top line.

I HAVE cited evidence that supports MY position, and that is in the link I posted.

We don't know what your position is, apart form the fact that:

* You allegedly make no claims.
* You have never read any science about the issue.
* You show a fundamental misunderstanding about the science.

I don't know what else you want but that is evidence of 'descrepency' that is associated with climate change.

The page you cited tells us the following:

* There are a huge number of highly qualified scientists (climatologists) who tell us that AGW is real and poses a serious problem for future generations. Those same climatologists tell us that we should do something to reduce CO2 emissions.
* There are a MINISCULE number of highly qualified scientists (climatologists) who tell us that AGW is real, but MAY NOT pose a serious problem for future generations. Those same climatologists tell us that we should not do anything to reduce CO2 emissions, because it is possible that nothing bad will occur.
* There are a bunch of unqualified noisemakers who claim the whole thing is a beat-up.

I know this, because, unlike you, I actually read your cite.

And you don't see any credible comments. So what, I DO !!

Clearly, you have failed to read your own cite.

TRANSLATION!! Another example of YOU putting words in other peoples posts and manipulation.

You should really chill out and let others who don't see this topic (the same way you do), have their views and not try to ram words down peoples throats.

{TRANSLATION} "I'm gonna keep my head firmly buried in the sand."