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 > Avoiding catastrophe will we do it?

Avoiding catastrophe will we do it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
We know that eventually the earth will be stuffed and all life on earth will be extinguished. This is absolutely certain, because in a billion years or so the sun will expand to a red giant and the earth will be fried. It is also certain that long before we get to that time the earth will suffer many global catastrophes, such as a nearby star going supernovae, a giant asteroid hitting the earth or just a series of super volcanoes. The only question I wonder about is will humans stuff it up first.

The possibilities as I see them are:-
1 We start a nuclear war. It is hard to see how this can be avoided over the course of centuries.
2 We so pollute the Earth that the basic life support mechanisms collapse.
3 Climate change becomes so extreme that civilisation collapses.
4 Humans are wiped out by a manmade super bug.

Therefore I believe that the only hope for humans and ultimately all life on earth is move out into the solar system. First we need to build outposts on the Moon, Mars and eventually build a giant self contained space ship capable of supporting millions of people and a vast array of necessary life forms.

Science has given us the knowledge to do this but are we willing to accept the challenge?
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 31 December 2013 1:09:04 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
While some will find the thread weird, others a lefty plot, it has a truth we can not ignore at its core.
Other great civilizations have lived and died on this planet.
To not understand we too may not survive is to be blind to truth.
A world we would not recognize will exist in my view not century,s away but maybe by the end of the next.
Man is not playing or living well together.
But if survival and true progress is to come,we those left after a war yet to come must improve on that.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 6:02:40 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
If the bugs don't get us an asteroid will --what a wonderfully positive uplifting post for the new year ;)

Actually we don't "know" any of those things will happen, they are not certainties only possibilities --along with a thousand others we haven't yet imagined. But none of them are insurmountable [and if you harbour doubts about us being able to tackle a supernova have a look at what Freeman Dyson thought-up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere --Ok, he wasn't aiming to control a supernova -- but it's in the same ballpark, like Leonardo's sketches of helicopters]

Our biggest stumbling block may lay nearer to home.That the Green/left alliance will sell us out.That the most science savvy parts of humanity will be mortgaged and eventually bankrupted by the left/Green agendas that ostensibly seek to address problems but only succeed in hamstringing those with the wherewithal to advance science.

But, I agree with warmair in one respect, we need to move beyond Earth into the greater solar system, ASAP. This should be one of out major priorities; start moves towards settlement of Mars (FFS! thousands have already volunteered to go)
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 6:30:57 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
"the earth will be fried"
"star going supernovae"
"a giant asteroid hitting the earth"
"super volcanoes"
"nuclear war"
"basic life support mechanisms collapse"
"civilisation collapses"
"manmade super bug"
Warmair, you forgot to mention the greatest possible catastrophe of them all that could beset mankind.
TONY ABBOTT GETS RE-ELECTED FOR A SECOND TERM. and channel re runs the complete series of 'Big Brother' from the day the morons go into the house, until the final eviction of "Toad" from the asylum.
After much consultation with the Astrofools, and a long chat and a beer with me neighbor Merv over the back fence I can confidently predict all of the above will take place, 27th Feb 2014, about tea time, give or take a billion years.
SPQR is the left/Green movement a counter radical mob, intent on destabilizing the true revolutionaries of the Green/left movement? I note you refer to both in your above post.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 8:06:55 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
And Paul has unwittingly (his default mode) given us an insight into his viewing habits:
<<Big Brother>>
<<Big Brother>>
<<Big Brother>>

But in his defence, the TV is always on Big Brother at Green party HQ,
Adam and Christine get very upset is someone changes the channel.
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 8:22:16 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
Dear Warmair,

Why does it concern you?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 8:30:47 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
Sorry but the green left quote is so funny6 it is dangerous I nearly choked laughing.
What use is formal education my Tory mate if you never learned of the massive changes to our past planet?
Species wiped out and maybe our arrival was made possible by that.

We however should watch for those wearing polo shirts with high collars.
They may be red neck ranters known to be hostile to truth and things that threaten massive high incomes or reward the very poor.
From a different part of the planet they hide big moneys crimes against us all and claim they are the victims of big money [them selves!]
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 2:29:09 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
<What use is formal education my Tory mate if you never learned of the massive changes to our past planet?>> [Belly]

Belly old mate, I am probably more aware of the great die-offs in past eras than most lefty-Greenies. And I may even be more committed to saving our environment than most lefty-Greenies.

But what good are all the conservation measures under the sun if at some time in the future the UN comes to us and says: "We at the UN have a dire situation on our hands. Calathumpia's soil is depleted, its cities overpopulated etc etc we need to relocate most of them elsewhere."

"We note that Belly's party and their allies the Greens have sign-off on the UN climate change treaty admitting fault and promising to make restitution."

"And we have noted there is a lot of empty space around Sydney: The Royal National Park, Lane Cove National Park, and your quarter acre housing lots are now a no-longer affordable extravagance in a world with (its then) 30 billion people."

"As part of your compensation to these victims of climate change we propose to resettle most of them in Oz."
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 4:09:18 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
SPQR, naturally as good compliant Bolshy's, we Greenie/Lefties once having tuned our organically wind/wave powered bio diverse, of no particular gender, TV set into the ABC, we naturally removed the channel selector. Thus now allowing us to watch nothing but incessant repeats of Comrade Saleski extolling the virtues of the superiority of the incorruptible communist system over decadent capitalism, on the 7.30 Report. I very much enjoy the fact the program is now broadcast exclusively in Russian, unfortunately I don't understand Russian but it makes for good viewing anyway. As for "Big Brother", is there a Russian version?
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 5:37:11 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
when the end comes the only safe place will be in Christ. History has been written and people ignore it at their peril. The mockers of Noah found out the hard way and it won't be different next time around.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 6:28:20 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
I won't mind if there is another mad flood Runner,
just so long as I'm not on the same boat as you...
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 7:18:53 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
Runner, elsewhere you pan people as "gullible" for believing in global warming, something based on scientific evidence. Yet here you preach the biblical nonsense of Noah's Ark as if it was a reality, when it is nothing more than a concocted fallacy to fool the truly gullible. Which one are you?
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 7:31:01 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
Dear Paul,

Now here's the difference: believing in Noah's Ark doesn't hurt!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 8:10:01 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
you prove my point well Paul.

Susie

actually it will be fire (true global warming) next time.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 8:19:08 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
Yuyutsu, "Now here's the difference: believing in Noah's Ark doesn't hurt!" Some would argue that point. Filling a persons head with biblical nonsense and having them believe such to be true makes them susceptible to believing a whole litany of other lies, as is the case with the Catholic Church and religions in general. The criminal organisation that is the Catholic Church has been extremely successful at brain washing of its followers into believing its teachings to be the (God's) truth, on a whole range of moral and social issues, when in fact, these criminals motivation is the subjugation of gullible people.
An analogy would be, having a child believe the Bogeyman is real, and then using the myth to make the child compliant. Sorry Runner since you believe in Noah's Ark you probably believe in the Bogeyman as well, sorry to shatter the delusion.

Runner, I'll take it you are one of the truly gullible.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 2 January 2014 6:56:31 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
Yuyutsu
I am interested to know what might happen to this planet in the future.

SPQR
Over very long periods of time the natural disasters I have mentioned are as close to certain as makes no difference, but we do have an escape option. It is clear to me that we can escape the long term natural disasters, but are we smart enough to avoid our own misdeeds. It is only by the use of science and technology that I see any hope for intelligent life surviving.

Runner
According to the bible God promised not to try and wipe out all people ever again (probably due to pressure from the greenies about the risk to the yellow bellied parrot).

Suseonline
It looks like you are safe from spending seven and half months in a leaky smelly boat with Runner.

Paul1405
I put science a long way ahead of myth but nevertheless I see genuine Christian principles as a very big positive.
_______________________________________________________________

I cant help noticing how short term peoples thinking is, and just how little regard is taken by the majority in the findings of science. I find it almost beyond comprehension that any government would not appoint a minister for science.

I wish all on this site all the best for the coming year.

PS does anyone know where I can find a good hard hat, thermometer and a Geiger counter ?
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 2 January 2014 9:24:58 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
SPQR said;
"We at the UN have a dire situation on our hands.
Calathumpia's soil is depleted, its cities overpopulated etc etc we need to relocate most of them elsewhere."

Well there is no need to pick a fictitious country just consider Egypt.
83 million people living on a river that can support about 40 million.
From the beginning of the 20th century their population increased from
about 40 million and the food for the excess people was provided by
subsidising food and energy by means of the export income from tourism
and oil exports.

Egypt's oil production peaked in 1999 and has declined so much that
they have reduced subsidies on food and fuel. This what started the
food riots which led to the overthrow of Mumbaric.
The IMF is trying to get Egypt organised financially but the
government has cut back as much as possible and it is currently
living on charity from the Gulf countries.

The only solution, which is the elephant in the room that no one wants
to see, is to either starve 40 million people or export 40 million
people. How many million will Australia be asked to take ?
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 2 January 2014 10:39:54 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
We have to remember that at this stage there is much hype on the “proposed” UCFCCC mandate relating to “Adaption to Climate Change” and the much watered down “compensation” clauses.

The bottom line is that there is currently NO Kyoto for anyone to sign, regardless of how many nations hold out their begging bowls.

A draft of the Kyoto replacement is expected by 2015 for implementation in 2020 however, the developed nations have refused to sign up unless the biggest emitters sign up for binding targets. Since China and India amended clause 2b to “exempt” the biggest emitters from binding targets, it is hard to see anything being agreed.

Australia has also echoed the following statement from the British.

“Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said while countries such as the Philippines could expect help adapting to climate change, they would not get compensation for their losses. Speaking at the annual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw, he said: “We don’t accept the argument on compensation. We never have and we are not intending to start now.” A British official said that it would be impossible to calculate how much storm damage was caused by man-made climate change, even if one accepted that there was a link. --Ben Webster, The Times, 21 November 2013”
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 2 January 2014 12:47:31 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
Spindoc you seem overly defensive?
The thread asks many questions and is not a climate change one so why the defensive stance.
Have one of the deniers recently lept over board from the boat?
In truth warmair we have no chance of not being knocked of in the long term by what we call mother nature.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 2 January 2014 12:53:30 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
*It looks like you are safe from spending seven and half months in a leaky smelly boat with Runner.*

And the final straw would be to find Tony Abort and the whole of the lib "we will turn the boats back" team waiting as you land with all of the animals and Runner.
This could upset Noah.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 2 January 2014 1:37:30 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
Belly,

I was obviously covering the comments about the UNFCCC funding obligations by SPQR. Do you only read your own comments/responses?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 2 January 2014 1:40:46 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
Spindoc, what is the UCFCCC ?
Don't think I have seen that acronym previously.

There will not be any compensation paid to undeveloped countries.
The rest will just not have the money.
I suspect that the coming very tight times for all governments is why
Copenhagen failed and why every conference from now on will fail.
I suspect that the governments are quite aware of the situation but
they just cannot speak its name.

I think it was Joe Hockey who gave some hints recently when questioned
about the $8 billion advanced to the RBA.
Just listen to what some politicians are saying, they are dropping
hints from time to time.

It will not really matter because the wind down we are being promised
is pretty general in its world wide coverage.
Basically all previous agreements on AGW compensation will lapse and
we can expect to see some of the globalisation treaties lapse or be just renounced.
Everything will become local.

Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 2 January 2014 3:08:56 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
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the lovers of technology and money continue to stubbornly place their faith in these things, even though they brought us to this point & continue to bring us closer to the brink.

We not going to be saved while we continue in our greed and arrogance, thumbing our noses at justice for the poor and continuing to invest in our own comfort and security.

The rich in the world, that's us in the developed world, are not going to abandon affluence, perpetual growth, consumerism & greed - we see it as our only security and Savior. However, given a chance, the poor just might lead the way to a sustainable future.

If the poor saw a quicker way to housing & food security than capitalism they'd take it, & we'd all avoid Armageddon https://t.co/JWgUczLq6w
Posted by landrights4all, Thursday, 2 January 2014 3:43:01 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
"I put science a long way ahead of myth but nevertheless I see genuine Christian principles as a very big positive." Warmair, I couldn't agree more. Please don't confuse genuine Christian principles with the likes of the Catholic Church and other organised religions, caulk and cheese.

Does anyone watch the Doomsday Preppers on Foxtel.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-preppers/

If it ever comes, I hope I'm not a survivor with these Yankee wackos on the loose.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 2 January 2014 5:51:34 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
Paul,

There are home grown survivalists right here in your own backyard.
< http://www.aussurvivalist.com/ >
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 2 January 2014 6:43:02 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
Yes Paul, I have seen the Preppers, yes they are a strange mob.
Some seem quite sensible but some are right over the top.
The one in the missile silo was interesting.

In the event of some sort of economic collapse the best situation would
be to be on about 5 acres say 10 to 20 km from a small town.
I think with that, you could grow enough food for a small family plus
have some over to trade for other goods.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 2 January 2014 9:04:29 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
people who believe the gw myth along with the something from nothing fantasy make a mockery of science. Their 'superiority'is sickening as they have to shut their eyes every time they see design and pretend the likes of snowmen have evolved.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 2 January 2014 9:10:27 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
Hi Spindoc,

You're a more trusting man than I am, Gunga Din!

"In the past three years, the number of climate-related lawsuits has ballooned, filling the void of political efforts in tackling greenhouse-gas emissions.Eyeing the money-spinning potential, some major commercial law firms now place climate-change litigation in their Internet shop window"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLQy3ze-D7N4ZQzyDjvLA8ChIEhQ

Sooner or later we are going to get some liberal minded judges who want to make a name for themselves and the dam will burst.

And it makes no difference that China or India or Saudi Arabia did it too. As with the issue for slavery compensation it will be all about getting whitey (how many references do you see on this UNESCO website to the much bigger and longer lasting Arab slave trade:http://webworld.unesco.org/slave_quest/en/links.html ?)

As for: <<“Ed Davey...said while countries such as the Philippines could expect help adapting to climate change, they would not get compensation for their losses...>>

Less than a hundred years stand between Arthur Caldwell saying 'I Stand By White Australia' and open-doors Kevin and Julia.
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 3 January 2014 5:59:58 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
Runner, you are truly astounding. Ridiculing the science of global warming on the one hand as not being based on scientific evidence, when it clearly is. Then on the other hand accepting Biblical BS such as Noah's Ark etc. Mankind would be so much more advanced in his understanding of his true place within the Cosmos if it was not for the retardation imposed by the influence of the superstitions of the religious throughout the ages
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 3 January 2014 7:33:30 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
This morning the Australian Department of Meteorology announced its findings for 2013.
The report shows 2013 to be the hottest year on record.
And a rise of one point something over our long term recorded average.
After next year breaks that record in this month actually,we will still see those who call us fools!

Paul Runner is an nightmare, he in my view is far from the Christian I knew, like it or not true Christians are nice people.
I first saw what is my view such bigotry in a Church, some of its followers and sadly in a relative.
It is my view such folk turn more from God than those Catholic Priests convicted of crimes against Children.
No easy task knowing some use and miss use the teachings of Christ and even speak in his name but in truth are no Christian.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 3 January 2014 7:48:35 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
landrights4all

I happen to agree with you on a number of points, but not on the issue of technology, it is our skill and knowledge which
has allowed us to feed so many people and provide a very basic level of health care, and yes the poor and 3rd world do benefit.
In all parts of the world children survival rates have dramatically improved.

A sustainable future will require high tech to provide power, food, heath care and birth control to as many people as possible.
In the long term if humans are going to be anything more than just an interesting species, which inhabited the earth for geologically brief period,
we will have to recognize that we have the potential to mess the earth up big time, and only by accepting this fact can we have any hope of avoiding disaster.

Climate change is the simplest example of this problem but it is by no means the only one. It also from a technical point of view one of the easier ones to solve, if we choose to ignore it, and place short term gain ahead of the welfare of future generations, it will not bode well for the far more difficult questions such as how to avoid nuclear war over the coming centuries.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 3 January 2014 10:35:56 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
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/84401-report-global-temperatures-to-rise-at-least-4-c-by-2100
My link is for those who tried to use the thread to snear at climate change and those who insist the science is right.
I saw a thread asking many questions and having many possible answers.
But refused to stand idly by while science was rubbished.
Yet those posters may have given evidence that we are indeed doomed.
To challenge science in the name of protecting wealth may stall future science out comes and pay the ultimate price for it.
Planets survival should not have a price tag on it.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 3 January 2014 1:40:26 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
*Warmair, you forgot to mention the greatest possible catastrophe of them all that could beset mankind.
TONY ABORT GETS RE-ELECTED FOR A SECOND TERM.*

Yes that would be the biggest catastrophe.
All the other scenarios can be fixed by following the Japanese example and reducing our fertility rate causing the population to decline.
Posted by Robert LePage, Friday, 3 January 2014 4:48:59 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
Hi Warmair
I wouldn't deny for a moment that we have enjoyed many benefits from technological advancements, and neither would I want to go back to being without those benefits. However, I used to be a salesman where pointing to all the benefits is a tactic to avoid an objective evaluation.

The other side of the story is that our technological advancements and benefits have come at considerable cost, including war, the denial of social justice and considerable environmental damage. They have also put us on the brink. We need a new way to progress.

For me it's not a matter of going back to the cave now, but a matter of having a more honest look at the situation we are in and the future we are creating.

Our advanced technology was developed by the rich for the rich - benefits to the poor were trickle-down benefits - after thoughts, or a way of creating and capitalizing on new markets. The competition involved creates winners and losers and the poorest are always the biggest losers, whatevertrickle-down benefits may eventually get to them, if we last that long.

Science, marketisation and competition are not the only ways to proceed. If the poor (4/5ths of the world) follow this model which we have established the downside will be devastating for all of us. A cooperative option would serve the poor better and faster- cooperation is after all the recommendation of every wise person and spiritually enlightened leader throughout history.

Our one hope is for the poor to see a quicker way to housing & food security than capitalism. If they could see that they'd take it, & we'd all avoid Armageddon https://t.co/JWgUczLq6w
.... and we need to understand that our own inventiveness is only part of the solution. Only justice will save us.
Posted by landrights4all, Friday, 3 January 2014 6:39:44 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
Bazz, you ought to cut Spindoc a little slack for his typo. In the post immediately above yours he got it right, UNFCCC, or the United Nations Framework Committee on Climate Change. Have you read the UNFCCC September 2009 Resolution chaired by Ivo De Boer that was the document that was to be ratified at the November 2009 meeting in Copenhagen? It is worth reading, especially the part about forming a World Government as described under Paragraph 38 at the bottom of Page 18. If you read the document it might enlighten you so instead of offering up your suspicions you may get some real insight into why Copenhagen failed and why KRudd came home with his 120 delegates and never mentioned Global Warming again.

Geoffrey Kelley
Posted by geoffreykelley, Friday, 3 January 2014 6:45:09 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
Belly, Good program on The History Channel at the moment about Biblical BS. Tonight's show is on Noah's Ark, and it debunks the whole Noah nonsense. I hope Runner is watching, but is most likely leading a bunch of creationist up Mt Ararat in search of the non existent ark.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 3 January 2014 7:05:24 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
Geoffrey Kelly,
I wondered if it might have been the same.
I did not know for sure what the first one was although it did seem
to be about global warming.
What is the relationship between that organisation and the IPCC ?

Imagine having a world government. Some want to do away with state
government because it is becoming unmanageable.
The UN is a super bureaucracy now, just imagine the mess we would be in
with a supreme parliament sitting in New York !

Are there really serious people proposing that ?
I remember Bob Brown brought it up once and the shrieks of laughter
seemed to have sunk it never to be heard from again.

Any way it does mot matter whether AGW is real or not, there is just
not enough fossil fuel to burn, not at a price that can be afforded.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 3 January 2014 11:00:53 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
Yes Paul saw it and most of another called in the footsteps of Paul.
I remain interested in how we bought about the God Myths.
But then again we are doing the same with climate change this time trying to avoid the truth.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 4 January 2014 7:48:28 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
I keep asking what I now suspect must be "an inconvenient question"
that is;
"is it true that the earth has been warming for the last 300 years ?"

I have read that the temperature has been rising since the Maunder Minimum.
Interestingly there was very low sunspot counts at that time.
The current sunspot counts at maximum are quite low. Hmmm. Who knows ?
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 January 2014 8:40:35 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
Paul, I read that Prepper link that Ls Mise gave.
http://www.aussurvivalist.com/
Interesting, there is a link on the home page as to the different groups.

What I did not realise was that they are split into such diametrically
opposed groups.
Some are way off the planet, some are just Rambo organisations that
would be really dangerous in a real emergency.
Others are quite sane and prepare for bushfires, loss of electricity etc.
Others put more effort into whatifs such as widespread high unemployment etc.
Still others plan for withdrawl of many government services and the
need for selfsufficiency due to the economic effects of AGW and/or peak oil.

All in all worth a read.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 January 2014 9:29:43 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
‘morning Geoffrey Kelly,

I don’t normally respond to the diversions, distractions and Unicorns offered by many, if the writer is so shallow that content can be ignored for a typo, one has to wonder what is between their ears. Thanks anyway.

It is curious that so many offer what they see as informed comment and yet ask such dumb questions as “What is the relationship between that organization (UNFCC) and the IPCC?”

And yet in NSW the curriculum mandates Agenda 21 as a study topic.

Like Eunuchs at the Orgy, there are always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that they doesn’t really know what’s going on, their knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, they is forever on the margin.

The bullshifters and the liars may hold centre stage for a while but in the end they are found out and their contributions forgotten.

Sit back, watch and enjoy as the “CAGW Titanic” collides with the iceberg that isn’t supposed to be there. Listen to the plaintive cries, abuse, vilification and excuses of the gullible passengers as they head for the lifeboats which departed on November 19th, 2009. Climategate.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 4 January 2014 10:27:17 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
Spindoc said;
and yet ask such dumb questions as “What is the relationship between that organization (UNFCC) and the IPCC?”

Well I am sorry to have had to ask such a dumb question !
I thought it was a very reasonable question.
I know that the IPCC is a committee or commission to conduct an enquiry
and give advice to governments, but I was interested in the organisational
link to the UNFCC. Is the IPCC a creature of the UBFCC or the General Assembly ?

Really to get on such a high horse over such a simple question seems
very strange indeed.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 January 2014 1:33:16 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
Hi Bazz,

I didn’t mention any names when I referred to “dumb questions” in order to avoid your embarrassment. But if you are stepping up to it, that’s fine.

Would you by any chance be the same Bazz that said << Really to get on such a high horse over such a simple question seems very strange indeed>> , whilst previously picking out my typo in a previous post when you said << Spindoc, what is the UCFCCC ? Don't think I have seen that acronym previously >>.

You clearly don’t do hypocrisy, so get your Mum to look it up for you.

I also put four typo’s for you in Para. 4 of my last post but you missed all those didn’t you? That’s because you don’t read at all, you just “feel”.

If you really don’t know the origins of the UNFCCC, the IPCC, Agenda 21 or the Club of Rome, look them up rather than going off half cocked. I suspect from your posts that you read much but sadly, you comprehend little.

If you aspire to be a smart arse at least try to be a good one.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 4 January 2014 2:35:59 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 not much point in being polite here is it ?
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 January 2014 3:27:39 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
Spindoc I was once told that they way we sometimes talk to or about one another is known and surprising to some.
Well I am no different but do you want to own those words.
The ones you applied to us believers?
No site can avoid this question.
Why do we so often need to display our heated views about posters who we disagree with.
[note I am doing just that I charge you with in another thread]
Mate know while I respect you I without any doubt truly think you are not going to like the coming ten years as climate change deniers will be proved wrong.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 4 January 2014 4:20:58 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
The biggest catastrophe facing the world is overpopulation. The present number of people on the planet, over 7 billion and growing, is in itself not sustainable now, and certainly not into the future, even allowing for improvements in technology, which incidentally the worlds poor see very little of.
To give every person on the planet a standard of living equal to the average European's standard, the population would need to be reduced to 2 billion. To give the present 7 billion the standard of living of the average American we would need to find another 5 to 7 plant Earth's to supply the necessary resources, and that is assuming everyone receives an equal share.
Presently, the population is consuming resources at a rate 50% higher than they are being produced, that is for all resources, in the case of fossil fuels and other non renewable resources, it is around 99.999%. Even in the poorest countries resources are being over consumed, the worlds poorest are unsustainably overshooting and depleting their resource biocapacity to renew by over 10% p/a.
What can be done to correct the problem of over population? Technological improvements alone will not be enough, a simple reduction in population will not provide the answer, nor will a reduction in consumption solve the problem, as resources are not equitably shared by all. A combination of all three is required, and at the moment that in itself is very unlikely.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 4 January 2014 8:44:52 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
"Over population" is a lie to transfer the need to reduce consumption away from "us" to "them". Shame on its promoters.
Posted by landrights4all, Saturday, 4 January 2014 10:55:45 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
'The biggest catastrophe facing the world is overpopulation. ' Sure Paul. Nice mantra.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 4 January 2014 11:55:34 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
Landrights4all can you expand on your line "Over population" is a lie.
Runner, what about you, do you have a counter argument?
Can I assume if you do not believe the planet is overpopulated then it must be underpopulated, or at best the population is about right.
UN projections estimate a world population of around 11 billion by the year 2050. Considering we have "problems" with the present population of 7 billion, and I assume you accept the world has "problems" with billions living at an unacceptable level, how do you expect the world to cope with another 4 billion in 40 years time? I will say many of the population problems are man made, war, greed etc. But there are other factors as well not the least a diminishing supply of resources.
I hope your answer is not "The Lord will provide" or some such head in the sand answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 5 January 2014 6:36:46 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
Landrights4all,

<< Over population" is a lie to transfer the need to reduce consumption away from "us" to "them". Shame on its promoter>>

Spoken like a true Greenie!

If you haven't already done so, please present at the nearest Green party office and sign up.

Don't be concerned about Paul 1405 he is a victim the military-industrial complexes propaganda. I suspect that whilst he was eating his fishnchips last night his eyes wandered over some of the articles on the wrapping paper (shame on him, indeed!)-- but never-mind Christine will set him right at the next programming session.

Landrights4all you go boy!

With views like this: <<Over population" is a lie to transfer the need to reduce consumption away from "us" to "them". Shame on its promoter>> you have a big future in the Greens.
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 5 January 2014 7:15:26 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
Paul1405,

That “overpopulation is a lie”.

Simple Paul. It is a forecast/projection brought to you by the UN. Like all UN “projections” they cannot be “true” until or unless they are proven to eventuate, therefore it is a lie.

The UN know full well that there are many people in our society that are incapable of critical thinking. This is evidenced by their passionate defense of their adopted “beliefs”. The UN and its various bodies, feed those with malleable attitudes, values and beliefs, with alarmism.

Their “projections” include. Polar bears, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers, severe weather events, destruction of our grandchildren’s’ future, peak oil, peak food production, peak population, peak CO2, destruction of species, loss of reefs, coastal property inundation, economic doom, loss of jobs, third world annihilation, eco-refugees, acid oceans, disease and pestilence.

For those who cannot think for themselves and are “stimulated” by the prospect of doom, there is always another “alarm” to direct your attention.

The big picture has you living in a bubble of pure fantasy, created for you by such as the UN. You have a finely tuned and sensitive radar for detecting opposing perspectives and yet, you are completely oblivious to your own propaganda rhetoric.

I doubt you are capable of thinking it all through, because your adopted and now self indoctrinated belief system cannot relinquish your intellect for critical thinking.

You are therefore destined to be confused, defensive, belligerent and even angry but sadly at this stage, you show absolutely no signs of ever understanding why?
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 January 2014 9:44:34 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
If we are going to avoid catastrophe we are going to have to get rid of all the bleeding hearts, PC brigade, multicultural parasites, most of the NGOs at least half of the academics, [Turney any one], half the bureaucrats, & all greenies.

Get that done, & we only have to rescind 3/4 of the laws passed in the last ten years, & we will have half a chance. Anything less, & we have no hope.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 5 January 2014 10:35:08 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
Paul, The natural balance is out because of careless and greedy exploitation by the first world - not because of anything the third world has done. However if the third world follows in our footsteps, the impacts, which are already unsustainable will be multiplied catastrophically.

That's the basis for the over population case, but it glosses over need for the first world to live sustainably and the potential for the third world to follow a different path to the unsustainable consumerist and competitive one we have taken.

If the poor saw a quicker way to housing & food security than capitalism they'd obviously take it, with that security, family sizes have been proven to drop & we'd all avoid Armageddon

Technology also has a part to play of course, but more fundamentally, people need a new opportunity to establish security for themselves through cooperation rather than through the model imposed the property ownership whereby people must compete for the land access land they need for shelter and food. Restore justice - restore the natural right of access to natures gifts of land air water & sunlight and things come back into balance.

https://t.co/JWgUczLq6w

Blame the poor is to stick your head in the sand.
Posted by landrights4all, Sunday, 5 January 2014 11:10:55 AM
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
Spindoc, I believe that your "think for yourself" line is nothing more than a rejection of contemporary evidence, and there is volumes of such evidence. All you do is berate others for their opinions, whilst smugly thinking your own conceited opinions are infallible. No doubt if you had been around in the time of Galileo and his evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around, you would have "thought for yourself" and rejected Galileo's thinking and stuck to the line that the Earth is flat. Maybe I should just bow to your superior intellect and leave it at that. Although I do hope your are not another Biblical Bozo who gets all his facts from the Book of Genesis.
Hasbeen, you forgot to mention the Jews, "get rid of", interesting concept, how do you propose to "get rid of" the fore mentioned of yours? Some kind of final solution?
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 5 January 2014 11:24:21 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
The world’s population will increase by something like the figures predicted by the UN unless 1/3 of the current world’s population that is currently under child bearing age, ultimately decide not to have babies.

The question is can feed this increased population, the answer is yes with current technology we could, but this would require that we share the current production out equally, and stop wasting food. We have the crazy situation where something like 1/4 of the world has far too much to eat while the remaining 3/4 are not getting enough. In rich countries the food wastage is upwards of 30%.

The problem that Paul rightly points out is that with current technology the present path in the long term is not sustainable, primarily because the whole system relies on fossil fuels which are a limited resource and cause pollution. The ultimate limit to a sustainable population is how much clean affordable energy we can produce, materials such as metals and the like can be recycled, but not so energy. First we must transition to clean energy sources then we can see just how many people the globe can support. Again the head in the sand approach is not going to work.

Ultimately the great hope is some form of nuclear power, but in my view we are long from making this form of energy clean, safe, or economic but nevertheless it should be possible eventually.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 5 January 2014 11:44:46 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
Hi Paul 1405,

Ah, << contemporary evidence >>, yes, I’d like some of that please.

From those << volumes of such evidence >>, could you kindly “evidence” some of the “projections” I’ve already tabled rather then whining and turning your rhetoric engine up to full volume?

Please start with “Polar bears, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers, severe weather events, destruction of our grandchildren’s’ future, peak oil, peak food production, peak population, peak CO2, destruction of species, loss of reefs, coastal property inundation, economic doom, loss of jobs, third world annihilation, eco-refugees, acid oceans, disease and pestilence”.

When you’re ready, thanks.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 January 2014 12:00:30 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
Spindoc, the evidence you speak of has been produced over and over again, countless times. However you choose not to accept that evidence, and are totally dismissive of it. It would be pointless offering the facts to you as your mind set is such that nothing would be acceptable.
I put forward my argument in a previous post, you read it, and then posted;
"Simple Paul. It is a forecast/projection brought to you by the UN. Like all UN “projections” they cannot be “true” until or unless they are proven to eventuate, therefore it is a lie."
This was then followed by a diatribe against the UN and myself, Anyone, such as yourself, who has to resort to such tactics as personal abuse to try and win an argument, shows their distinct lack of intelligence!
Instead of childish name calling why not come with an intelligent counter argument, or is that asking too much. What is your spin on all this, doc?
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 5 January 2014 8:43:04 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
Hi Paul 1405,

If the “evidence” is out there and has been produced countless times as you claim, surely you must have a link or something you can point us to , even on just one issue.

Lets make it really simple for you, start with dying Polar Bears.

Who did the original research? who were they working for? By whom was it “peer reviewed? What has happened to that researcher since? What other research was published on Polar Bear populations and by whom?

Since this is the sort of “evidence” upon which you base your opinion, how about sharing just a tiny piece of it with OLO?

To suggest I have closed my mind to evidence is wrong. I am skeptical of the evidence available to me however, if you can offer me something we can discuss it. What could be fairer than that.

Just anything you can point to on Polar Bears would be a great start.

Thanks
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 January 2014 7:40:48 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
Hi Paul 1405,

Just thought I’d help you out with the dying Polar Bear alarm. This leaves you free to pick one of your other alarms and get some of your “evidence’ together. Take your pick, I’m sure you have a favorite?

1. Who? Charles Monett

2. Peer Reviewer? His wife

3. Employed by? US Federal Government

4. What happened to him? He was stood down, taken to Federal Court, eventually cleared of misconduct but his research was trashed. Not even good enough to support take the Polar Bear to an endangered species listing. (Flawed forecasting principles, see below)

5. Who else did research? Just Google “Flawed Polar Bear Research”, “their numbers are at a high mark for the twentieth century and perhaps in history, having risen from around 5,000 at the middle of the century to more than 22,000 today”.

“Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.
The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, “Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

http://www.wanliss.com/2011/08/inconvenient-polar-bears/
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 January 2014 9:35:57 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
Spindoc
In view of the title of this thread your list of potential disasters deserves a closer look.

Polar bears current situation
http://wwf.panda.org/_core/image_popup.cfm?uImg=polarbearmap2011_npi_453894.png
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/threats/
Prediction if polar ice declines so will polar bear numbers.

Rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers is well covered here and backed up by data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Severe weather events
Far too vague to give an intelligent answer to, but nevertheless weather related insurance claims are on the rise.
http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2012/2012_10_17_press_release.aspx

Destruction of our grandchildren’s’ future
Data not yet available, you will just have to ask your grand children but I guess they won't be pleased with the damage we have done to the environment.

Peak oil
The principle is well understood and was originally proposed by M. King Hubbert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
It is point a which maximum production is reached for a well or oilfield, usually referring to global production these days.
The price of oil has gone from $10 a barrel to around a $100 since about 2000. In another 15 years will it be $1000?

Peak food production
World wide production of food is highly dependant on oil for fertilizers, sowing, harvesting, and delivery. It would be a pity to waste it all on private transport.

Peak population
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/worlds-population-to-peak-earlier-than-expected/
We can only know this after the event but unless all women suddenly stop have babies population will not level out until sometime after 2050.

Peak CO2
http://www.igbp.net/news/features/features/havewereachedpeakco2.5.1b8ae20512db692f2a680003465.html
Depending on the level of human gross stupidity we could easily get to over 2000 ppm should we decide we are going to burn all the fossil fuels we can.
Even assuming the lowest possible figure for global warming due to CO2 that level increase global average temperatures by 10 deg C.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 6 January 2014 3:12:28 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
Continued

Destruction of species
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/
Scroll to end of page to find data links on page below.
http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html

Loss of reefs,
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs
http://www.aims.gov.au/latest-news/-/asset_publisher/MlU7/content/2-october-2012-the-great-barrier-reef-has-lost-half-of-its-coral-in-the-last-27-years

Coastal property inundation,
See sea level rise.

Economic doom
Can happen anytime and will again.

loss of jobs
There is always plenty of jobs that needs doing, but who is willing to pay for them.

Third world annihilation,
Not in favor who would make our clothes ?

Eco-refugees
Are not a new problem and has been around through out recorded history.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/18/china-ecorefugees-farming
http://www.grida.no/publications/et/ep1/page/2513.aspx

Acid oceans
CO2 dissolves in sea water to create a week acid which prevents sea creatures from depositing calcium as part of its structure.
There is evidence of damage to shell fish, plankton and coral.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Disease and pestilence
A warming climate makes tropical diseases more likely.
The over use of antibiotics pose also a serious health risk.
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
Posted by warmair, Monday, 6 January 2014 3:15:25 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
Dearest warmair,

As Stephen Fry might say on QI, thank you, thank you, thank you.

If anyone was going to make my case for me, it was always going to be you!

Like I said to Paul 1405, << Simple Paul. It is a forecast/projection brought to you by the UN. Like all UN “projections” they cannot be “true” until or unless they are proven to eventuate, therefore it is a lie.>>

Your list of more "projections and forecasts" is astonishing. There is not one example of empirical evidence in your entire list, it is all “projections”.

It is possible that you still do not understand the difference, which would go some way to explaining your infantile grasp of reality.

I gave you a good example of the “dying Polar Bears”. Your “forecasts”, like all the rest of your forecasts have them dying out because of CAGW. Unfortunately, reality has prevailed against you forecasts and it all turns out to be a lie.

You are doomed to live in a world of fantasy, where you devour the slightest sniff of doom. You cannot find any real data, because there isn’t any, so you suck up “projections” that go in some cases out to 2100?

Don’t you find it the least bit odd that you cannot find any real, now, this is what really is information, and are forced to rely on someone else’s opinion about what “might” happen at some future date?

When you have worked out and can evidence what “has” happened rather then what “might” happen, please let us know.

Thank you once again for explaining your own lack of critical thinking and that of many others like you.

I have no idea how the world could ever use people like you in our society, but that my dear, is your problem.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 January 2014 4:39:41 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
Spindoc
I seek some empirical evidence that you read even one of the links that I gave above.
Please provide some evidence that since the 1970s globally there has not been a net loss of ice, temperatures have not risen, coral reefs have not declined by at least 20%, and sea level has not risen by some 60 mm.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 12:29:33 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
Hi warmair,

I did suggest earlier that I doubted you understood the difference between empirical data and projections. Now you have confirmed that you don’t. You seem to think that your links and articles speaking of “Potential” disasters are somehow real?

You really do nee to get past WWF and Wikipedia. You also need to actually READ your own links first, if you did that you would realize that your own links contradict you and you wouldn’t look such a Prat.

“Predictions”, if polar ice declines so will polar bear numbers? Yeh right, IF?

Rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers is well covered here and backed up by data? False. All old data projections from before the IPCC’s AR5 report, all projections failed to eventuate as now confirmed. See AR5

Severe weather events? False, see AR5

Destruction of our grandchildren’s’ future? Prediction

Peak oil? Prediction, never happened. USA has glut of crude

Peak food production? Prediction. It has not happened.

Peak population? Prediction. Has not eventuated.

Peak CO2. Prediction. Has not happened. See IPCC AR5

Destruction of species? Has not happened according to WWF. Only “habitat” being lost not species. Read it before you post.

Loss of reefs,? Old reports now out of date (2004?) Predictions. Threatened coral richness, not actual. Read you own stuff. (Crown of thorns and storms? Get grip)

Coastal property inundation? What sea level rises? Show me? The IPCC disagrees with you.

Economic doom? Projection. In your own words “It can happen any time”. It “might” but it hasn’t.

loss of jobs? “There is always plenty of jobs that needs doing, but who is willing to pay for them?”. What an utterly stupid comment. It’s real jobs going from lost industrial capacity and no Green Jobs to replace them.

Third world annihilation? Not yet, another “Prediction”

Eco-refugees? No, just country shopping opportunists.

Acid oceans? Oceans are Alkaline you dummy. Salt, get it?

Disease and pestilence? A warming climate makes tropical diseases more likely. Mmm! More likely, yes? Another forecast?

My prediction? You will be taken to “The Mother Ship” next week.

I’m done.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 3:17:10 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
Quote Spindoc
"Acid oceans? Oceans are Alkaline you dummy. Salt, get it?"

Salt is sodium chloride which is composed of only sodium and chloride.
Now pH means the power of hydogen, as salt has no hydrogen in it, your comment sugests you don't have a basic understanding of science concepts.

Quote
"Rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers is well covered here and backed up by data? False. All old data projections from before the IPCC’s AR5 report, all projections failed to eventuate as now confirmed. See AR5"

The link below was the one I gave on these issues, it deals with past events.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Now go to the Snow and ice link below, set parameters to sea ice, Region to Northern Hemisphere and month to September. Now that is empirical evidence.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/

You will get a graph clearly showing the sea ice loss since 1979 and also table of data.
The table indicates that an area of about 1.8 million square kilometers of sea ice has been lost since 1979.

The data comes from numerous satelltites and if you really care, can be downloaded from the above site.
QED.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 9:42:54 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. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

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