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 > General Discussion > Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All
I draw your attention to this translated report from Japan (see extract of its conclusion below):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

They compare the IPCC's climate science to ancient astrology.

"4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability."
Posted by Ratty, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 6:21:26 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
"Fester, I'm not getting into a discussion on whether your layman's understanding of AGW is bigger than mine."

Be fair, Pericles. You asked for my opinion on some articles and I gave it to you. The ozone comment was only to illustrate that there seemed a reluctance to acknowledge any human influence on climate. But I agree with you that human ingenuity is capable of solving the problems we face, excepting an ice sheet collapse in the short term. I'd much rather discuss positives, such as the huge promise of developing technologies.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 6:38:47 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
Posted elsewhere by mistake:

I draw your attention to this translated report from Japan (see extract of its conclusion below):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

They compare the IPCC's climate science to ancient astrology.

"4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability."
Posted by Ratty, Thursday, 16 April 2009 9:10:15 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
In 1989, a prediction was made that within ten years, the sea would be two metres higher. Twenty years later they are more or less the same. Yesterday in the SMH a report was printed saying the Antarctic Ice is getting thicker. Is it our scientists who are getting thicker?

To debate this subject intelligently it is almost necessary to read the book by Michael Crichton, called State of Fear. It has thirty pages of bibliography, and is really a criticism of how lawyers manipulate the system for personal gain. It is all about trying to create a catastrophic event like the World Trade Centre demolition, or the Port Arthur massacre, so that the public will accept an unpalatable political course. In this book they are trying to create a tsunami, a huge calving on an ice shelf in Antarctica, and trying to get a scientist to fudge the figures on a glacier in Iceland. There is a cameo entrance by a scientist who postulates that governments have to have something for us to universally fear, and in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, climate change got the nod.

What is really sad is that there is one major Church that was desperately preaching hell fire and brimstone, to a largely uneducated population, and that Church is increasingly preaching to empty pews. What that Church has failed to tell us is that when its system of governance was adopted into Australia in 1970, the entire Australian people have been forced to settle for a three years or so cycle of accountability, instead of the continuous system of accountability that exists in the United States reported in State of Fear.

There are two competing Christian systems of government. One system was adopted by Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Mao Tse Tung, and the other was the English Christian model. For almost forty years we have been badly governed, but the roots go way back to 1900. A State of Fear about sea levels, and Climate Change, has replaced the old fear of the Devil and Hell, but the results are the same
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 19 April 2009 3:50:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<In 1989, a prediction was made that within ten years, the sea would be two metres higher.>

Could you provide some more info on this, please? There is evidence of past sudden sea level rise such as this:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/15/tech-090415-coral-sea-level-climate-change.html

So it might be prudent to look for precipitating factors, and it would be good to know whether the risk was significant.

<Twenty years later they are more or less the same.>

About 5 centimetres higher. To put it in perspective, over the past three millennia prior to 1850, sea level changed by 0.1-0.2 mm per year, so a 5 centimetre change would have taken between 250 and 500 years to eventuate.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 19 April 2009 6:41:50 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
Well, regarding predictions, this one was made recently: "Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

I wonder what sea level rises were predicted in GoreAl's AIT? I was already a non-believer when it was released.

Loved your post, Peter the Believer.

Ratty the Realist
Posted by Ratty, Monday, 20 April 2009 8:16:13 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All

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