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 > Tuvalu - the touchstone of global warming and rising sea level > Comments

Tuvalu - the touchstone of global warming and rising sea level : Comments

By Cliff Ollier, published 26/11/2010

Real statistics and evidence for the plight of Pacific Islands and sea level rises.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
579, I don't think anyone doubts that the climate changes, what many doubt and are skeptical about are the causes and the so called solutions, which seem to involve taxes to"fix" the climate.

A lot of folks think climate change is natural, and poorly understood.

Sure, we can always clean up our act, but the alarmist claptrap goes way beyond that to telling us how to lead our lives .. many people resent that.

nothing new there is there?

Why do you say "I don't know why you lot are so much against climate change. " ..?

Do you think anyone has said the climate does not change? Where?

You do sound a little miffed that there are disbelievers?

Do you think mankind can control climate? (Stuff it up maybe, but control it?)
Posted by rpg, Friday, 26 November 2010 4:54:11 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
579 said- " I don't know why you lot are so much against climate change. Or is it carbon tax what you are worried about. Industry needs a good clean up, and so do households. Power hungry houses need ripping down, it is not necessary.
Instead of calling it a lot of bull, give us some reasons for status quo."

579 -
Don't you realise WE are going to pay if industry has to pay? I'm not against energy efficiency, no reasonable person is. People here are against the notion of AGW Climate Change simply because it is a scientifically dubious idea being used to extract money from inhabitants of industrialised countries to achieve dodgy economic,political and ideological ends and ultimately have no effect on the climate anyway.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 26 November 2010 8:56:59 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
A year or so ago I examined the tidal data at the BOM for Australian sea level measuring stations and over the last few years the sea level at Cocos Island has fallen significantly. The same group had measuring stations for a large group of Pacific Islands and any change in sea level was barely measurable. Only a few stations in WA showed much in the way of sea level rise and ther may be a different cause for that.
The same false panic has occurred over sea acidity. The ocean pH is about 8.3 or quite alkaline.
Sodium and magnesium salts in the ocean operate like buffering agents and all the fossil fuel in the world, if burned to carbon dioxide, would hardly lower the ocean pH significantly.
Over eons of time carbon dioxide may cause magnesium carbonate to settle out of the oceans much the same way that carbon dioxide caused the calcium carbonate which formed the White Cliffs of Dover to settle from lime rich water. That would hardly change the magnesium salt content of the oceans at all as the ocean contains about two million billion (2 with fifteen zeros) tonnes of the stuff.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 26 November 2010 10:12:12 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
Ian Fry is with the Centre for Climate Law and Policy at the ANU. He is said to be the International Environmental Officer for the Environment Department of the Government of Tuvalu, which he does from the ANU.

Where did you get the idea that using Tuvalu for his lefty nonsense projects means that he has been there, bonmot? When his wife was asked if he had ever been to Tuvalu, she said she would not comment.

He is a fact challenged negotiator for the Tuvalu government. His job is to fool people like you, bonmot, although I do not believe you are as stupid as you pretend,

Here is a sample of this wierdo’s spiel:

“Obviously, hopefully, things will change on the U.S. legislation front. If they do, it will relieve pressure from the situation and allow for more progress to occur. And hopefully we'll be meeting again in June in Bonn, and that may allow us to move forward in a more substantive way. Hopefully we will move to Mexico with ideas of the U.S. having signed a legal agreement.... It gives us a little bit of breathing space. If that works out favourably, then I think we can really get into some negotiations of proper outcomes and not just window dressing, like we did in Copenhagen.”

So many words, and so little meaning or cohesion. A great sample of the substance lacking mouthings of a lefty academic supporter of the attempted fraud of AGW.

Please do some research on what constitutes a fact, bonmot, before you try to comment on facts again.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 26 November 2010 10:38:06 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
Leo
Where did I say Ian Fry has been to Tuvalu? You can cyber-bully Ian Fry all you want Leo, but for Tuvalu’s residents (totaling less than a modest Australian rural/regional town) he is most definitely not a “weirdo.”

Your ‘dog whistle’ argument is non sequitur, Leo – conflating the article’s premises with your fallacious conclusions.

AR4 projects a sea level rise of 59 cm by 2100 (with error bars). Taking into account uncertainties (which are acknowledged) and the fact that ice-sheet melt was not sufficiently researched to be included in AR4, 59 cm is bad enough. This is particularly so for regions where ‘king’ tides and storm surges will exacerbate an already low-lying coastal fringe – Tuvalu OR wherever.

Foyle
The 'ocean pH' has become ‘more acidic’; it is not acidic per se. Nevertheless, the decrease in 'ocean pH' due to the oceans absorbing more CO2 is having major repercussions on the soft-shelled exoskeletons at the bottom of the (sea) food chain.

Jon J
Daly’s 7 year old paper has been superseded by more robust satellite data – and an old school atlas just doesn’t ‘cut it’. But go ahead, challenge someone like John Church with your assertions – and please, post his reply here for our enlightenment.

Curmudgeon
“Scientists may be, well scientists, but they still don't seem to go out of their way to inform themselves on anything apart from what they happen to be working on at that moment.”

Not quite sure what you are alluding to.
Scientists are real sceptics (unlike the cynics I see here) – they do look at past and current research that could impact their theses.
Are they supposed to be “experts in/on everything”? Clearly not. However, if you ask them for a “qualified opinion” on something outside their area of expertise, they will often give it – as Ollier does here. Does that make it gospel? Clearly not.

Two more things;
John Church is more of a scientist than you give him credit for.
Do you/others really think you’re in some kind of OLO dialogue with Cliff Ollier?
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 27 November 2010 12:29:52 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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11282#190683

bonmot, your 4th para reply to foyle.

How does ocean pH moving away from alkaline corrosive, towards a pH neutral, non corrosive state equate to thinning of shells?

Given that all left wing Academics, clearly have motives both financial & ideological. Why should we believe any of them on anything?

Almost all myths promoted by Radical, Extreme, Loony, Left Wing-Nut, Academics, Bureaucrooks, Politicians & Journalists for several centuries have been successfully debunked throughout history, but especially over the last decade or 2.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Perhaps this will help you to understand?
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 27 November 2010 1:10:13 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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