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 > Climate change is here despite denial > Comments

Climate change is here despite denial : Comments

By Lyn Bender, published 4/2/2014

Seems it never rains in Southern California. But California Dreamin' has become a California Dryin' nightmare and many are praying for the drought to end.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. All
Cohenite, you show signs of being quite fanatical yourself.

The Met Office also said (from your link):

"the chances of extreme weather occurring may have altered because of climate change. So it would be consistent with the picture we have seen of increasing rainfall in the UK over the past few decades."

You can continue to cherry pick the science to suit your world view all you like but just because you can, does not make it right.

Get a life.
Posted by ozdoc, Tuesday, 4 February 2014 10:32:29 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
So much vitriol. Like gangs of kids in the playground, each side is trying to shout longer and louder than the other. What a bonanza this global warming debate is to on-line baiting.
Meanwhile there are kyacks in the Northwest Passage, California is drying and southern Oz cooked this past summer.
Anyone checked on Greenland lately?
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 4 February 2014 10:41:02 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
Lyn is writing her first novel! She should do well, if this work of fiction is any indication, she has a vivid imagination.

I can't understand why the lady continues to make a fool of herself with these pieces, rehashing all the failed arguments of the global warming fraud. Could it be this rubbish is her application for
preselection as a Greens candidate in an upcoming election.

She doesn't even seem to understand her own discipline. If she did, she would know that all this fluff, so much of it already totally discredited, is only likely to drive any thinking person away from her belief. When so much she writes is utter tripe, how could it not?
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 4 February 2014 11:00:57 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
'Experts and activists such as James Hansen, Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein are now saying there will need to be mass civil disobedience to bring about massive divestment and to keep coal in the ground. '

Yep the left love to build a case for violence and disobedience. Keep feeding those rebellious natures Lyn. Self righteous indignation while flying the planet telling others not to heat their houses in winter or cool them in summer is a favourite pass time of the High Priests. By all means feel guilty about our self indulgenece but stop inventing a new faith to disguise it.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 February 2014 11:07:02 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 connection between population and emissions although clear are not in any way useful in solving the problem.

Over the last 25 years emissions have roughly increased in line with population. The population is not due to level out until around 2050, unless humans are decimated by an epidemic or a large scale war. So while a massive reduction in population would ease the problem, the only ways of achieving it in any useful time frame is either not practical or devastating.

The reasons it is so hard to get people to come to terms with the problem are I believe.

1 The know reserves of fossil fuels are worth something of the order of 100 trillion dollars and the economic imperative is to exploit this resource.

2 Humans have a number of advantages over all other creatures and the use fire is either at or near the top of the list.

3 The access to abundant cheap energy opens up huge possibilities.

The problem which is now clear is that the downside of burning vast quantities of fossil fuels is the dramatic alteration to the earth's climate. In theory we know all we need to know to avoid the worst aspects of climate change, we just need to acknowledge the problem and get on with it.

The article makes the same old mistake that climate change does not end on the 1st Jan 2100, even if emissions were to magically stop on that date. Temperatures will continue to rise for decades and probably centuries from the time we actually manage to stabilize levels of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 4 February 2014 11:17:04 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
Greenland, nothing unusual:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2012/00000058/00000212/art00015

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1315843110.abstract

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

Whatever melting is occurring in Greenland may be due to interior thermal effects:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n9/full/ngeo1898.html

Ozdoc; thanks for reading the link; yes the MET spokesperson hedged his bets and wouldn't definitely commit to the notion that AGW would lead to a decrease in extreme weather but who can blame government employees when they have to deal with the ratbags who believe in AGW. But what about professor Muller:

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/expert-claims-climate-change-is-making-tornadoes-weaker/story-fnii5s3x-1226766820533

Have you not read the Nature and IPCC links which are rather more unequivocal about the lack of a connection between AGW and extreme weather? No, I thought not. And of course you won't read the definitive Reanalysis project:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/pdf

Which shows no trends in the planet's major climate indices such as North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation,
and the Pacific–North American pattern, which means no climatic basis to claims of increased extreme weather.

What a pack of weirdos alarmists are; even when their own evidentiary sources contradict them they still believe and when those same official evidentiary sources dare imply AGW is GOOD more disbelief.

What are the psychological terms for these attributes, delusion, projection, cognitive dissonance?
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 4 February 2014 11:18:02 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. All

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