Jump to content


Melbourne's nicest, most helpful and most entertaining online community!!



MelbChat Safety Tips - PLEASE READ!
Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

Eye Catching Headlines What Grab Your Fancy


  • Please log in to reply
1093 replies to this topic

#1081 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 05:24 AM

G'day Aloy.
 
I don't think even the most ardent climate skeptic supports this static mean theory you speak of.
 
Not even Andrew Bolt would agree with that.
 
The debate is about the cause - not the event.
 
If you want proof have a look at all those graphs you've posted.
 
They all show a rising trend of temperatures :)




Just bcause you don't think is not any kind of refutal of what someone says!

The only direct measure that appears to have any support from alarmists is the emission of CO2.

0.38% of atmospheric air is CO2 - easly verified!

FBD!
  • 0

#1082 PZ.

PZ.

    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 20 November 2019 - 06:31 AM

Just bcause you don't think is not any kind of refutal of what someone says!

The only direct measure that appears to have any support from alarmists is the emission of CO2.

0.38% of atmospheric air is CO2 - easly verified!

FBD!

 

That's a bit cheap mate, but OK... You don't have to think to state the bleeding obvious...

 

Here's something else easily verified > the world has been getting hotter ever since the cold war ended :)

 

Free BD that!


  • 0

#1083 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 02:52 PM

I guess we can cherry pick data but the whole debate is so mired in political mistruths it becomes difficult to form reasoned opinion.
Some alarmist power cells blanket ban any opinion but their own - so much for science and civil discourse.

Actual real climate scientists have varying views but the alarmists believe that their view is the only view.
In effect they are assuming godlike postures - how fitting since their alarmism is a matter of faith in models and predictions, a ridgy didge bonafide religion.

Of course they have the right to proselytise their faith but they don't have the right to deny others the same right.
But they do and fine fighters for democracy stand silently by.
  • 0

#1084 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 06:52 PM

0.038% CO2!

Hello?
  • 0

#1085 PZ.

PZ.

    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 20 November 2019 - 08:32 PM

I guess we can cherry pick data but the whole debate is so mired in political mistruths it becomes difficult to form reasoned opinion.
Some alarmist power cells blanket ban any opinion but their own - so much for science and civil discourse.

Actual real climate scientists have varying views but the alarmists believe that their view is the only view.
In effect they are assuming godlike postures - how fitting since their alarmism is a matter of faith in models and predictions, a ridgy didge bonafide religion.

Of course they have the right to proselytise their faith but they don't have the right to deny others the same right.
But they do and fine fighters for democracy stand silently by.

 

Yeah well.... that's a two way street isn't it ? My previous post started with "I think" so as to say it was my opinion.

 

Always have done that with climate change discussions. But... sometimes the responses ( such as FBD ) devalue the reply to little more of a cursory glance rather than intellectual debate. Not worth the effort on this subject.

 

0.038% CO2 means nothing to me. That's just a sexy stat.

 

What matters to me is the increasing level of personal discomfort as the hot and humid weather seems to start earlier and finish later year after year - especially at night. Western Sydney gets it up the arse every time. Last year, April was freaking hot here. This year, even parts of May were hot. Three summers and one winter... just crap.

 

 

 

Luckily I have that subterranean man cave where the temps stay between 19 - 25 all year.

 

11 meters underground and free power - good enuff for me :)

 

 

 

None of this stuff matters... the ultimate winner will be the planet when the humans go into self induced extinction.

 

After that... Hello.


  • 0

#1086 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 01:53 PM

OK you are worth helping - try these

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=lMfYjKauHbs

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ian_Plimer

 

(Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne,[1] previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide,[2] and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.[3] He has published many scientific papers, six books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology.[4][5] He has been a critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.)

 

a scientist of some standing - the science is not in!!!!


  • 1

#1087 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 01:58 PM

More help:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Willie_Soon

 

Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon (born 1966)[1] is a Malaysian astrophysicist[2] and aerospace engineer[3] employed as a part-time researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[4][5]

 

A scientist of significance


  • 1

#1088 PZ.

PZ.

    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 21 November 2019 - 02:23 PM

Nice one Aloy

 

 

In 2009, Plimer was cited by Tony Abbott, in dismissing the IPCC and its findings:

 


I think that in response to the IPCC alarmist – in inverted commas – view, there've been quite a lot of other reputable scientific voices. Now not everyone agrees with Ian Plimer's position, but he is a highly credible scientist and he has written what seems like a very well-argued book refuting most of the claims of the climate catastrophists.

— Tony Abbott, The Sydney Morning Herald
 
 
By 2011, Abbott had modified his position and stated that climate change is real and humanity makes a contribution to it.

 

----------------------------

 

"From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work"

 

Riiiight !

 

 

 

By declaring "the science is not in" you're giving equal weight to both sides, yeah ?

 

Obviously there are significant scientists of some standing with contrary views to the above

 

Wanna upload their contributions too ?

 

That would be a help - balanced views and all that :)


  • 0

#1089 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 02:38 PM

You already listened to the clip?

 

Heres another Scientist to look at:

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called "climate alarmism."[4]

 

 

No need for me to bring in the alarmists the whole PC system is doing that for us - you know the guys who tell us the science is in

Personally I would hesitate to use Tony Abbott as a scientific expert. 


  • 0

#1090 PZ.

PZ.

    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 21 November 2019 - 02:45 PM

Well you're getting "warmer"  :)
 
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper
 
https://en.wikipedia..._climate_change



Personally I would hesitate to use Tony Abbott as a scientific expert.


So did the people in his former electorate :)
  • 0

#1091 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 22 November 2019 - 12:39 PM

CO2 - 0.038% of atmospheric gas 

 

"Dry air from Earth's atmosphere contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen, helium, and other "noble" gases (by volume), but generally a variable amount of water vapor is also present, on average about 1% at sea level."    https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Atmosphere

 

 

Hello - it's the data not an opinion!

 

https://www.wur.nl/e...ay-353234353730

 

http://www.omafra.go...acts/00-077.htm

 

The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert COand water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by COinclude earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard COas a nutrient.

 

 

 

Let's hear it for CO2 - all vegans should rush out and burn stuff to increase the amount of plant nutrient on the planet.

 

Rain forests would become more luxurient, Deserts would contract!

 

Since the data says that increasing CO2 has not increased global temperatures we should forget the stupid model and feed the plants.

 

You know it makes sense!


  • 0

#1092 PZ.

PZ.

    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 25 November 2019 - 04:07 AM

Your plan has one major obstacle... rain :)



PS, It's good that you're citing Wikipedia for data - most conservatives think Wikipedia is a lunatic lefty outlet.

So well done :)
  • 0

#1093 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 26 November 2019 - 10:39 AM

I merely cite wikipedia because it has some credibility among left leaning folks and that is my audience.

 

After all - it's better to speak french to french people!

 

As to rain - we do get rain - unfortunately the green left are totally opposed to conserving water and thereby mitigating our natural climate of Drought and floods.

 

The day that those folks finally lose their thread-thin credibility will be a good day for the actual real environment.

 

Their cries of "save the planet" are the bleatings of the deathwish do nothing folks.

 

Meanwhile the regular folks do want to save the planet by normal affordable stewardship. Often called common sense!

 

 

Climate change is real it always has been, it always will be - with or without the mindless bleatings of the loony left/green mob.

 

Unfortunately their policies and philosophies - marxism wrapped in a green blanket, has and is responsible for one the largest redistributions of wealth I'm aware of, via our steadily increasing power taxes.

 

 

But hey the kids will end up paying !!

 

 

Just to lighten up and "let it rain" - watch this and appreciate it

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=YcY3FH208l8


  • 0

#1094 PZ.

PZ.

    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 27 November 2019 - 06:54 AM

Nice post Aloy. Can't agree with all of it but you're right about the Greens doing more harm than good to the environment.

 

Their leverage of policy in hazard reduction says much about the current state of pollution due to out of control fires and the preventable loss of life and property.

 

So we both agree climate change is real and we can happily continue to exchange views on how best to deal with it.

 

As for rising power prices: no political party is blameless for this reverse tariff on our economy. Transitioning to a more sustainable form of domestic power generation has cost us at least 4 prime ministers and left us with nothing more than a fustercluck of policy chaos.

 

Politics aside: Banks will no longer sponsor the idea of digging up coal, transporting it, burning it, and disposing it.

 

Alternatives are there and working - the battery plant in SA seems to be working well.

 

As for making it rain.... well I take the view it comes down to atmospheric water generators.

 

I generated 11 liters of water in the last 24 hours and whilst it wasn't drinkable it's still fit for farm stock.

 

 

Sadly, political impartiality means I don't speak French - but I do music - and Cult Rock is an international language :)

 

 

 


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Melbourne Links