The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The coming death of the oceans > Comments

The coming death of the oceans : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 30/1/2015

'Reconsidering Ocean Calamities' is by Carlos Duarte and seven others, most of them Australian, and it is thought important enough for Nature to have devoted an editorial to its message.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
My apologies, Aidan.

Hasbeen wrote:"Ant you must be a fellow traveler, if not a fully funded passenger on the gravy train."

Hasbeen, you're joking, I'm not employed in any way by those promoting a realistic view to climate change; nor, do I belong to any political party. My concern has come from the kind of world we will be passing onto my children, young relatives, and people generally.

The gravy train sits on the other side of the fence, Hasbeen; mining interests give huge donations particularly to the LNP. A number of peak onsite denier sites are also funded by mining interests.
The Koch bros in the US have promised $889 million towards the 2016 US elections, Heartlands and the Cato Institute et al are funded by mining interests.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/27/3615930/koch-brothers-climate-delay-889-million-2016-election/

A recent paper by Hanno Meyer et al published in Nature Geoscience on 26th January 2015 was subtly misquoted by Watts to give the wrong impression about climate change. One of the authors Thomas Laepple was contacted and the Watts version was totally repudiated. Just one example of many where Watts has been shown to be wrong.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 3 February 2015 7:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant: " Please provide properly researched up to date scientific papers that show that anthropogenic climate change is not happening."

It is up to the proponents to show that anthropogenic climate change -- as distinct from natural climate variation -- is happening.

The application of scientific method calls for the proponents of an hypothesis to test whether it is correct or incorrect. However, no one has succeeded in tabling the empirical scientific evidence necessary to prove the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming (climate change).

Rather than spoil a good story by acknowledging the inconvenient truth, proponents (including the corruptly-influenced IPCC, ideologically-biased ABC, politicised science organisations (CSIRO and science academies), vested-interest and unprofessional scientists and entrepreneurs) resort to unscientific means, viz. asserting, alarm-generating unvalidated climate models, politicising, propagandising, and shouting down anyone with an opposing view.

In this context, the recent interview with Dr Patrick Moore, committed environmentalist and Greenpeace co-founder, (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLXNiEd7axY#t=10 ) is pertinent. Moore discusses various climate change issues, including his reinstatement of science as the basis of environmental policy and his conclusion that claims human action caused climate change are not scientific.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 4 February 2015 10:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, the opinion of a non-scientist is worthless without any evidence. Deniers of climate change apparently wish the argument to go along the lines of ... yes it is...while the denier says ...no its not.
Those who deny climate change come from groups such as having religious conviction; they get paid or are influenced by anti science groups; people with highly conservative views find it difficult to comprehend, climate change is not in a neat little package; conservatives tend to be more tunnel visioned; its just too scary; climate change is a conspiracy.

Deniers often suggest that climate change is fraud or a hoax no real evidence is supplied. The logic is along the lines of if a small group of GPs are caught out for malpractice that means that all GPS are corrupt; or, if a few political scientists are corrupt it means that all political scientists are corrupt; that's clearly just nonsensense. When investigations are held; deniers don't believe the outcomes ... its a conspiracy.
The 4 droughts in the last decade in the Amazon Basin are a conspiracy I guess; though normally drought there is a 100 year event.

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
Posted by ant, Thursday, 5 February 2015 4:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, you display blind faith in the 'religion' of man-made climate change.

" The 4 droughts in the last decade in the Amazon Basin are a conspiracy I guess ..."

Assumably, by your reckoning, these 4 extreme weather events may be explained by GISS showing temperatures in a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay having risen faster than almost anywhere else -- an illustration of man-caused global warming.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out that this temperature rise was indeed ' man-caused'.

As reported in Christopher Booker's 24 January 2015 article, 'Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html :

When Paul Homewood (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/) examined GISS records between 1950 and 2014 for three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay, they showed a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

When Homewood checked GISS’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
Posted by Raycom, Saturday, 7 February 2015 10:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, with deforestation water cycles are changed; temperature, may, or may not be an issue. Did you not know, or are you trying to obfuscate? What might be your explanation for the droughts?
As stated previously, there are many natural phenomena that are displaying climate change; and temperature increasing.
. the 35,000 walrus on a land spit cannot be explained away by deniers.
. the lakes forming on the Greenland ice sheet during summer and drained by rivers disappearing into moulins cannot be explained away by deniers. Try explaining that away, Raycom.
.

Methane is a serious greenhouse gas; mining companies in the US had been assuring the EPA that little if any was voiding from fracking sites. The EPA choose to accept the word of mining companies; a third party measured the methane being voided and found that levels far exceeded what was considered to be safe. NASA measured a methane cloud 2,500 square miles in size and initially felt their instrumentation was faulty. Try googling methane levels over Utah.
Another case where self regulation has been shown to produce wrong data. The last in the film series Years of living Dangerously and data from NASA; bring that to our attention.
Raycom, you can produce as many references as you like about the conspiracy of temperature data being tampered with; in the meantime our planet practically warns us temperatures are increasing.

You made an attempt to answer the drought issue in the Amazon Basin; its a matter of basic science as to what is happening.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 8 February 2015 6:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant: "... you can produce as many references as you like about the conspiracy of temperature data being tampered with; in the meantime our planet practically warns us temperatures are increasing."

Tampering of temperature data, detected at least in South America, USA, Russia, Australia, NZ and the Arctic, is not the only form of corruption that appears acceptable to the IPCC.

The infamous 'hockey stick' curve of northern hemisphere temperature played a central role in the launch of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report in 2001, appearing in the Summary for Policymakers, the Technical Summary, and the Synthesis Report.

Warmists avoid mentioning Climategate. This is not surprising, in light of conclusions about Climategate reached by respected NZ investigative journalist, Poneke, in 2010 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nz.general/bF0e3QINu8M ):

"Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say
they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.
The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the
IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in
England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves 'the Team',
bully and smear any critics. They control the 'peer review' process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.

The Team's members are the heart of the IPCC process, many of them
the lead authors of its reports.

They falsely claim there is a scientific 'consensus' that the
'science is settled', by getting lists of scientists to sign petitions claiming there is such a consensus. They have fought for years to conceal the actual shonky data they have used to wrongly claim there has been unprecedented global warming this past 50 years. Their emailed discussions among each other show they have concocted their data by matching analyses of tree rings from around 1000 AD to 1960, then actual temperatures from 1960 to make it look temperatures have shot up alarmingly since then, after the tree rings from 1960 on inconveniently failed to match observed temperatures."
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 11:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy