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 > Paris climate agreement is a triumph of hope over facts > Comments

Paris climate agreement is a triumph of hope over facts : Comments

By Tom Switzer, published 4/1/2016

The prestige of the international community is not great enough to achieve a communal spirit sufficiently unified to discipline recalcitrant nations.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Yes Tom, there was much hyperbolie in relation to the Paris deliberations; but, politicians from various nations do not seem to understand the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change.
And yes, climate does change naturally as well; except, we have given it a mighty big wack.

2015 is about to be the warmest year on record; climate has come out firing in the last week or so of December. At the beginning of December it was already predicted that 2015 would be the warmest year.
Slightly less than 5 degrees South of the North Pole in the dark of winter a buoy measured temperature to be +1C .
"Buoy 300234062785480 located at 85.45N rose 25C in 9 hours (and is now above freezing). It was -24.3C at 0600 hours (day 363.25) and +1.0C at 1500 hours (day 363.626). "

At Svalbard they have measured positive temperatures for a week instead of negative ones, they even had some rain. Ski fields in Europe had very little snow or none in December.
In relation to Britain and US, the term "atmospheric rivers" has been used; warmth, is necessary to produce evaporation.

Wild fires and drought have an impact on climate; firies say that from their point of view climate change is real. There have been severe wildfires in the Northern Hemisphere ranging from Siberia, Alaska, California; and the Amazon Basin and Indonesia have had huge fires as well.
The results from drought can have a big impact on the health of trees and ultimately the water cycle. Although, not stated in reference below, a similar situation to the impact of wild fires and set fires on the health of trees. Indonesia and partly the Amazon Basin have been impacted by set fires.

http://www.newsweek.com/california-drought-58-million-trees-could-die-409557

.The ARM 11 year study has shown how radiated infrared long waves interact with CO2.
While the amount of energy per square meter may seem very small, the number of square meters surrounding the planet is mind boggling.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
Posted by ant, Monday, 4 January 2016 9:40:19 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
Continued:

While the stated aim is to try and keep temperature increase at no more than 1.5C; there are only two chances of this happening, buckleys and none.
The economy at present doesn't take into account the impacts of climate change; deaths, health problems, loss of infrastructure, loss of houses, loss of vehicles, loss of personal possessions, nor does it take into account the subsidies provided to fossil fuel companies.
Posted by ant, Monday, 4 January 2016 9:46:13 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
Twenty years to late, to much stop start, politicians with no idea or other agendas. We are in for one rough ride.
Posted by 579, Monday, 4 January 2016 10:16:54 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
The problem here is vested interest and the power they exert over "leaders".

The fossil fuel industry reaps in over 4 trillion plus per, and will not surrender that income ever, even if that is what is required to guarantee a future for our grandchildren.

Just look at the crazy mess we've made of our world, where some of us are clearly obsessed with becoming the richest men in the graveyard!

Simply put, decarbonizing the economy is the most sensible thing we can ever do, and on hard cold staring you in the face, factual economic grounds.

If the fossil fuel industry would get on board and lead, with viable alternatives? Our problems and theirs would dissolve overnight, almost as if they'd never existed!?Alternatively our so called leaders to grow some testicals and buck the power of these controlling forces; and just get on and do what we pay them for, their jobs!

And if we could just stop the con artists from the usual confidence trickery, we would abandon such things as a carbon market and the huge fees that would generate for a greedy few, who would if they could make carbon the most valuable, most traded commodity in the world and see the world following Germany's insane (the lunatics have taken over the asylum) example and shut down the nuclear industry, in favor of new coal fired power plants!

We need to tell our leaders thus far and no further, and use the ballot box to remove the intransigent recalcitrants, the denialists, the fossil fuel yes men and those who believe they control us.

And make that incredibly obvious by continuing to hold out on a bill of rights, which would devolve power from them to us! Enough with the yes buts and endless excuses already.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 4 January 2016 10:33:41 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
Shorten and Turnbull's global warming policies are all talk. Politically they cannot implement most of their statements/goals.

All leaders and countries rely on economic growth (non-renewable energy growth).

Most energy use/pollution increase discussions center on electrical energy production for fixed properties (homes, offices, factories etc). But it is the increase in petrol using car/truck numbers that is making a big impact in India and China.

Political popularity and economic health rely on economic growth. This is especially true in the main energy users that matter China, India and the US.

Pollution reduction are major needs in China and India but only rich developed countries, like the US, can afford pollution reduction.

Immigration of rich Indian and Chinese to Australia (with Real Estate increases) is a cert and economic benefit for Australia.
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 4 January 2016 11:35:54 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
Given that the major problem, out of control population growth, was never mentioned, nothing was indeed done or achieved.
Posted by ateday, Monday, 4 January 2016 12:21:03 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
Some folks clearly think increased energy provision requires more fossil fuel to be burned. WRONG! Others seem to think, increased economic performance is related to increasing population. WRONG!

China grew dramatically with actual population reduction as part of policy, by around 11% per year.

And could have done even better if they'd embraced cheaper than coal carbon free or carbon neutral alternatives, that didn't include flooding valleys and arable land.

Economic growth that pulled more than a million out of poverty, all while maintaining that impressive double digit economic growth.

We for our part aren't able to emulate that performance, given we are welded to extreme exploitive capitalism and boom bust economic Ideology.

A bit like the landed gentry/tweedle dum and tweedle dumber,(better people/piss pots) slowly going broke sitting on a veritable fortune in a stately home.

Because they can't conceive of commoners wandering all about the estate or that the hired help may have better brains/ideas than the born to rule privileged with their locked and bolted mindset/ pickled brains?

Ideas they won't/can't accept,and that won't allow thinking outside the square or not doing the same thing you've always done, all while expecting different outcomes. i.e. " I say, carbon causing global warming? What a load of cobblers".
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 4 January 2016 1:20:32 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
Plantagenet

In the 70s, I was quite aware of climate change, it seemed then to be something to worry about in the future.
Particularly over the last three years lots of material has been read, including stuff denier groups put out. Denier stuff only says this or that is wrong without providing anything new; ultimately what the deniers posit is found to be wrong.

On the science front there seemed to be tension between groups of scientists; those quite conservative and those expressing stronger opinions, that seemed to me to be the case three years ago. Meanwhile the economy was moving along as usual and denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies were getting much traction.

The scientists who are saying that human extinction will happen in 30 years are still considered too be many steps too far; though, mainstream science from what I have gleaned has moved to what would have been seen to be a more radical view a few years ago. The reason being that knowledge has increased.

Over the decades the economy has waxed and waned, there has been no change in climate change to fit in with the hypothesis that economic improvement will take care of climate change.
The level of CO2 has continually been going up since measuring began at Mauna Lao in the 1950s. Since the advent of multinational companies and globalisation with the development of an increasing wealthy 1%, the trickle down theory needs to be put to bed.

A business as usual approach will lead to an increase in temperatures and an increasing death rate.Thousands have died in 2015 from near wet bulb conditions; that is, due to high temperatures and high humidity. A healthy adult cannot survive high bulb conditions in the outside environment.
Posted by ant, Monday, 4 January 2016 1:58:30 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
Rhosty, we could not emulate China's 10% growth rate because we were
already at the standard of living to which China was aiming.
It is like technology development, the further you go the harder it
gets to produce gains equal to previous gains.
The government, if it is really interested in reducing coal & oil use,
which is what CO2 reduction is really all about, needs a project to
move away from oil quickly and to use the coal to build a new energy system.

My program would be like this.
A first step would be to stop immigration immediately.
A second step is abandon all programs aimed at growth.
It will not happen anyway, so why waste effort trying.
Even defense is now starting to worry about liquid fuel availability.
We need to replace all oil enabled transport with electric transport,
cars, trains, trams and trolley buses.
We have enough coal to get us away from oil and then prepare for the loss of coal.
There are only a very few countries with the coal resources we have
and we need to make sure we keep for our use enough to complete the
change to whatever we build. I doubt anyone has even looked at this.

These are the questions we should be asking now !
How much coal is used to build a nuclear power station ?
How much coal is used to build a wind turbine ?
How much coal is needed to build a tidal power system ?
How much coal is needed to build an enhanced national grid ?
How much coal is needed to build an electrical transport system ?
How much coal is needed to build other liquid fuel systems eg algae ?

It is what we employ politicians to do.

We must leave oil & coal before oil & coal leave us.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 January 2016 2:03:06 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
Hi ant

Rather than man caused climate change (which I also think doesn't exist) I think major hydrocarbon pollution in India and China is a real worry - especially from vehicles and factories. Also Indonesia, smog in Jakarta and burnoffs in Sumatra and Borneo, is another worry.

Such pollution blows-flows out of these countries on winds and water. These countries have particularly high and rapidly growing populations.

Australia may not be as effected by the pollution from India and China but certainly population shifts from them will impact Australia.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 4 January 2016 2:55:19 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,

"high bulb conditions" is a meaningless phrase. "Near wet bulb conditions" are not necessarily dangerous. I think the phrase you're looking for is "high wet bulb temperature".

I suggest you improve your understanding by reading http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, just because the gains may be less than we want doesn't mean we should give up.

The amount of coal required to build new energy systems is trivial, and falling as technology improves and as energy supply shifts away from coal.

We don't need to stop immigration, and I'd much rather see it increased. I don't know whether it will ever increase to the point where nuclear power becomes the best option from an economic point of view. Meanwhile we need to invest heavily in wind and solar infrastructure and an upgraded grid. We need plenty of solar thermal with molten salt storage. We need to start synthesising fuel at times when there's excess energy.

And we need to invest in research into molten oxide electrolysis, so that steel can be made without coal and (due to lower transport costs) more cheaply here than overseas. This would devastate the coal industry, but would trigger a great boom in the iron ore industry and (because of cheaper steel) the building industry.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 4 January 2016 3:35:32 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. Why do you believe that the chinese are smarter than us, and why do we need to use coal to build anything? And how come you know all the reasons we can't beat countries like an increasingly powerful China

One notes that the visionary building tesla electric cars, uses solar power to power mega factories; and we could given the political will given how much we have here, use cheaper than coal thorium to resuscitate our own manufacture.

And what prevents us exploiting homemade biogas, made and used onsite to both power our homes 24/7 and given the employment of ceramic fuel cells, with a world beating 80% energy coefficient; power our homes for around quarter of the current price, all while providing endless free hot water and a salable energy surplus?

We just don't need a scenario where the richest multinationals escape their tax liability, 60 billion plus per, as well as run up record foreign debt, while they turn us into a nation of tenants in our own land.

The world's cheapest energy, and given the political will we can make it here, will virtually compel the high tech manufacturers from around the world to relocate here, and genuine tax reform and massive simplification will add to the number of compulsive reasons for them to relocate and pay their tax liability here.

And given those changes, also invite almost every self funded retiree to do likewise?

Thus massively increasing wealth and jobs growth; and tax receipts right here, along with similar massively increased discretionary spend, the growth engine of the domestic economy.

We need to back those reforms with a massive rollout of new homes in new towns, the product of long overdue decentralization. And sensible reforms to negative gearing.

Which will force down the price of housing, where currently, the only folks getting wealthy or adequately housed, are old farts and over abundant greed driven realtors!

One cannot borrow their way to wealth, nor can we lift ourselves up by the bootstraps, while pursuing policies deliberately designed to create poverty and an unemployed labor pool!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 4 January 2016 4:42:13 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
Steel without coal, interesting concept.
Certainly needs carbon (plus a few more elements), perhaps not coal as such.
Posted by ateday, Monday, 4 January 2016 4:43:16 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
To reiterate, we don't need to use coal to build anything when we have massive deposits of cheaper than coal thorium, and are able to build truck transportable modules, which can be trucked wherever needed and supplying low cost (half price) industrial power within days.

and just bolt on extra modules as the need arises. Decommissioning done in reverse and just as simply and inexpensively.

And given localized power is vastly cheaper than anything supplied by a largely foreign controlled gold plated national grid, allow this huge white elephant to die a natural death by supplying much cheaper localized, by the people, for the people, power.

Yes sure, a few will lose if we reclaim the right to produce affordable power and in so doing, resuscitate our own manufacturing industries.

And all the reason we need to just ignore the objections, particularly those coming from debt laden foreign speculators, and just crack on with decarbing the economy, in ways as outlined, that quite massively grow it!

Nothing to fear here Bazz, except fear itself!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 4 January 2016 5:01:34 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
the non religous doomsayers are at it again. Ignore real problems and reinvent outdated ones. How r the dams in Sydney these days Tim?
Posted by runner, Monday, 4 January 2016 5:08:02 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
Runner you know very well that Proftim said it was Brisbane where it would never rain. That was before catastrophic flooding twice!
My offer is still there to help Tim and Karoly out and buy their waterfront properties for ten dollars each, without any success.
Still we have abundant Thorium and local power so we are covered.
Here's the thing if Al Gore stopped flying in his personal jets to his mansions, the greens and labour politicians were restricted to only rail travel which means no overseas surely this could lead the world? The doomsayers here I assume have all pledged not to travel, go solar and wind only and again lead by example?
No I thought not! I will follow you clowns, off you go!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 4 January 2016 5:35:20 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
it did not stop the doomsayers living in affluence in the 70's when an ice age was being predicted so nothings changed.
Posted by runner, Monday, 4 January 2016 5:44:34 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
Thanks Aiden
What I meant was wet bulb temperature, where humidity and temperature are high and people are not able to perspire, a deadly condition.
Thousands of people did die from near wet bulb temperature in a range of countries; those countries being India, Pakistan, Japan, Cyprus and Middle East earlier in the year, hospitals were over run with huge numbers suffering the impact of near wet bulb temperature ( per Robert Scribbler).

Plantagenet

Man is very involved in deforestation which has an impact on climate change, the water table gets impacted on. The 11 year ARM study certainly showed how the interaction between CO2 and infrared radiated long waves react to cause warming. The study was conducted in the environment creating data relating to what happens in nature. The study showed the exact forcing that scientists have been talking about for many decades.
Posted by ant, Monday, 4 January 2016 6:48:19 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,
THAT'S NOT WHAT WET BULB TEMPERATURE MEANS!

Wet bulb temperature is the effective temperature taking humidity into account. It's measured with a wet bulb thermometer, which is a thermometer kept wet by wet fabric.

A sufficiently high wet bulb temperature can be lethal as it prevents the body cooling itself by perspiration (and by evaporation from the mouth and lungs). But the term "wet bulb temperature" doesn't imply it to be high, let alone lethal.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ateday,
Population growth is only one contributor to the problem, and not the main one. See http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

Not all kinds of steel do have carbon in them. And in Brazil they make steel with charcoal instead of coal. But molten oxide electrolysis is a more efficient process that promises to be a game changer, though it will take a lot more R&D to commercialise it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

JBowyer,
Tim never said it would never rain. He said it the rain MAY NOT come. Not only are you falsely accusing him of making a definite prediction when he was merely highlighting what was a real possibility at the time, but you are also assuming an unlimited timescale when it's more likely he meant it may not rain before the dams run dry.

Nobody would sell you for ten dollars what others would pay hundreds of thousands for.

And leading by example will achieve nothing if nobody follows you.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 4 January 2016 10:57:51 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
Just wondering Runner, is it only 'non-religious people' who predicted global warming/climate change?
Can you show us the proof of that statement, because I think you made that up?
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 1:41:11 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
Paris was a political solution to a political problem. Politicians the world over have talked themselves into a corner and needed to find a way out.

It is now virtually impossible for a western politician to express any doubt about the 'fact' that we are all gunna die unless we mend our sinful ways. And non-western politicians are prepared to go along for the ride because there is no downside for them and they might just extract a few extra bucks or get access to a bit of technology out of it.

So what do you do when you scare the populace into thinking there is a real threat when you have no intention of doing anything serious about that threat? You do Paris.

IF you're a developed nation you promise to do what you are already doing and you promise that someone in the future will do something even more. If you're developing (China, India) you promise to think about doing something sometime in the future and ask for some money. If you're undeveloped (Maldives, Tuvalu) you promise to continue whining that you're gunna drown pretty soon now unless you get lots of money even while you continue to build resorts on the very ground you say will be under water if you don't get said money.

End result? Precisely nothing changes but everyone can claim that there's been change and no one dares point out the naked emperor.

If these people really believed that civilisation was under threat they'd be doing (not promising but actually doing) the things that would avert that threat. But those things would be highly unpopular so are avoided like the plague while nice benign 'solutions' are trotted out that will do nothing while appearing to do something.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 7:27:16 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
So what would people who really believed the hype be doing or agitating for? What would the world look like if the tens of thousands who attend Paris were fair dinkum about reducing CO2 to save the world?

* The world would be inundated with fracking mines seeking to replace as much coal with gas as possible
* Every river on the planet would have hydroelectric dams generating clean power.
* Nuclear plants would be popping up all over while unnecessary regulations restricting those plants would be remved so as to get them up and running asap.
* Taxes on petrol for private use and taxes on home electricity would double and then double again. The Greens would be whining about the fall in petrol prices and promising a policy of increased prices for the next election. (of coarse, pollies instead promise lower petrol/electricity prices in direct contradiction of their we're-all-gunna-die message.)
* Private jets would be banned and non-essential overseas travel curtailed.

These and a thousand other petty constraints designed to reduce emissions would be in place or planned if these people truly believed the hype. They don't and they won't mention let alone propose these measures.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencke
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 7:46:00 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
Our future is not guaranteed in the slightest, more insight into Greenland ice melt shows ice melt gaining speed and said to be unstoppable. Methane escaping from arctic is 25 times more potent than Co2 in the atmosphere.
We are in for a harsh landing, after 21 years of resistance and do nothing the changes are catching up with us with gusto.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 8:27:30 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
Suseonline

Runner is wrong as you have identified, Katherine Hayhoe is a climate scientist who is quite religious.

http://katharinehayhoe.com
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 3:53:32 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
sorry Susie I should of used the word gullible instead of religous. The gw alarmist are more religous than most.

btw: how are the dam levels in Brisbane and Sydney. Oh that's right the 'scientist'are not allowed to be held accountable or even questioned. No wonder the alarmist support in the last survey was under 50% in Australia and dropping. Keep up the good fight of faith Susie as you are badly needed otherwise the funds might dry up even know the dams have not.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 10:04:19 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,

Brisbane dam levels are shown at http://www.seqwater.com.au/water-supply/dam-levels and those for Sydney are at http://www.waternsw.com.au/supply/dam-levels/greater-sydneys-dam-levels

Of course scientists must be questioned and held accountable. But they can't be held accountable for claims they did not make, no matter how much they're falsely accused of making them.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 10:53:23 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
runner

A very strange religion that has physics and chemistry as its base with a number of other science disciplines supporting the view of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change has a history of almost 2 centuries; whereas, denial has only come to the fore in the last decades. The irony is that in the last decades the knowledge in relation to climate change has increased.

Deniers often argue that the science is a hoax; it does not make sense when scientists come from many countries and peak bodies such as the Royal Society, CSIRO, NOAA, and NASA et al, they all agree with the science.
Do you know more than a Glaciologist, Astro Physicist, Marine Scientist, Atmospheric Scientist etc etc? Where is the hard evidence that debunks these various disciplines?

A scientist would gain the status of an Einstein if they were able to show that climate science is wrong.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 11:44:09 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'm an increasingly cynical climate activist. There's actually a lot I agree with in this article! I won't believe we are serious about climate change until we're prepared to listen to some of the Eco-Modernists (like James Hansen's friend Tom Blees) who recommends we put Integral Fast Reactors up on the production line. (They don't use water as a coolant, avoiding the single cast high-pressure cooker cores and containment domes that are so difficult to mass produce and so expensive).

If we listen to Dr Hansen on our climate problem, why not the solution? He says the world should build 115 reactors a year which, on a nuke per GDP rate, is slower than the historical French build out rate. And the French just *nationalised* electricity when the oil crisis hit. They just did it, and pumped out 56 reactors over 15 years.

The world "just" needs to nationalise energy, and pump out 115 reactors a year.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

Until I see that happening, I've basically given up.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 1:47:36 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, if it only was as simple as that.
There was a study of some hundreds of AGW papers conclusions and it
was nowhere near the 98% agreement that we have heard promoted.
From memory is 55% believed AGW as true as displayed and something
like 25% were indeterminate and the rest were not convinced.
If you google for the paper I am sure you will find it.

Anyway as for myself, I don't care either way as it does not matter.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 4:13:32 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 very strange religion that has physics and chemistry as its base with a number of other science disciplines supporting the view of anthropogenic climate change. '

don't flatter yourself. You obviously have no idea of the difference between junk science and real science. You give science a very bad name.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 5:15:23 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

Your quote:

"You obviously have no idea of the difference between junk science and real science. You give science a very bad name."

You say that climate science is junk science; it is a nonsense statement without any kind of proof by references. So the photos created by satellites of the break down of glaciers is junk.
You imply that NASA produces junk science; yet, they are able to send a capsule beyond Pluto.
NASA is fully behind climate science.
Russian scientists are producing junk science when they study the exploding pingos and release of methane at the Yamal Peninsular and continental self off Siberia.
Hydrologists studying the breakdown of water resources in the Andes are producing junk science?

As stated, elsewhere on Facebook and email about 6 new references in relation to climate change come my way. When visiting particular sites there are at least another 10 citations which are about climate change; where are the your beaut references that deniers can claim as being proof positive.
Between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published in journals only a handful were by deniers per Powell.
Top journals such as Science and Nature publish papers by climate scientists; if climate science is junk why do top of the range journals publish their papers?

in response to an earlier comment, fairly regularly on a Sunday night at 10 pm the ABC has a religious radio program where climate science is discussed by Catholic, Uniting Church and Anglican participants
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 7:31:32 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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