Anti-green

Please explain what relevance your "global cooling" graph has to do with the following:

Australians - largest polluters per capita on the planet

Globally, fifty percent of mangrove forests lost

Thousands of shore and sea birds dying

Marine pollution - 200 hundred ocean dead zones devoid of any life

A decline in thirty percent of species since 1970

Land salinity in WA claiming the equivalent of 19 football ovals per day

WA - one of the planet's worst environmental hotspots

Ecological threatened plants, native animals and eco communities in Australia

The Murray River

Twenty six thousand square kilometres of Amazonian forest chopped down in one year

The poisoning of the Greenland Inuits by their staple diet of marine life which is contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins

Etc etc.

All of the above are documented, scientific facts - facts which appear unknown to some posters on this thread.

Is your "global cooling" report suggesting that all is well and that we should continue on with our "Business as usual" mindset?

If not, what is the point you are making, please?

When I went to school, we had to cite our sources, otherwise there was a contention that what we quoted was opinion, not fact.

Perhaps Dickie should pick up the phone and ring her old employer,
the Catholic Church, and ask them why they insist that people
should throw away their birth control pills and condoms and keep
breeding like rabbits in the third world. The Vatican has
alot of answering to do on this one.

“Please explain what relevance your "global cooling" graph has to do with the following:”

If the continuation of Global warming is shown to be wrong and the earth is about to enter a cooling period; then you will just have to devise another alarmist theory to explain away your horror examples. I would have thought even poor old blind Freddie would understand this.

“Australians - largest polluters per capita on the planet”

I assume you mean CO2 emission per capita. The answer to this is nuclear power. Nuclear power stations can be built in tandem with hydrogen production. Nuclear is cheaper then clean coal, wind and solar etc. A strong case for nuclear can be made out on grounds of health and safety [Switkowski report].

The rest of your posting is unverified and I expect unverifiable. You have failed to provide any experimental evidence for your wild claims.

Just one of your examples,” Twenty six thousand square kilometres of Amazonian forest chopped down in one year.”

Are you claiming this is due to global warming? Or that it is the cause of global warming? Are you claiming that there are no other social and economic factors operating? What if there is no global warming, do you expect the forests to instantly grow back?

Your posting meets the criteria for “virtuous corruption.”

It sticks out like the ‘proverbials’ that some people don’t know, or want to know, the difference between “climate” and “weather”. This is a shame, particularly since the recalcitrant use this ‘misunderstanding’ to distort and misrepresent climate science.

Put simply, weather is natural variability measured over short time intervals and narrow spatial areas (seasonal and regionally) while climate is weather averaged out over longer time frames (decades) and broader regions (nationally, hemispheres and globally).

Some chaotic factors influence weather directly, like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO, roller-coasting between El Niño and its La Niña cousin – the former typically lasting longer than the latter) and volcanic eruptions.

The ENSO is an oceanographic phenomenon extending across the Pacific Ocean from Indonesia to South America. For the last decade Australia has been experiencing the effects of an El Niño (low rainfall) on top of global warming.

For the last few months La Niña has struck with vengeance – rain and more rain as some parts of Oz can attest.

A La Niña event occurs when cooler than normal sea surface temperatures form along the equator. The cooler water temperatures associated with La Niña are caused by an increase in easterly sea surface winds. When the winds increase, cold water from below is forced up, cooling the ocean surface.

Some OLO posters, media shock-jocks and bloggers poo-poo GW because they think their cubby-hole has been experiencing cold and wet lately.

They even think GW means each year has to be warmer than the previous – these people distort the science to fit their beliefs.

They are either ignorant (not in a derogative way) or they are ignorant AND have malicious intent. They certainly don’t understand climate science, linear regression or trend analysis.

Australia experienced its sixth warmest year on record in 2007. Some parts of the country reached the highest average temperatures ever recorded, including the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. The standout year was 2005, Australia's and the planet’s warmest year on record.

Similarly, some people also confuse chaotic weather (e.g ENSO) with extreme weather events.

Your posting meets the criteria for “virtuous corruption.” (Anti-green)

Ah yes Anti-green. Who would know more about "virtuous corruption" than the lunar right, the cult which serves your self-interests.

I would much prefer to take advice from the eminent astrophysicist, Professor Weiss who too has had to defend himself from the disgraceful distorted quotes which spill rapidly from the mouths of the likes of you and your buddies.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

You do have a habit of manipulating the facts. Christine's article predominantly pertains to fossil fuel pollution, the major threat to climate change and our fragile eco systems. You see, Anti-green, the rest of the world has moved on from your global cooling rubbish.

Frankly Anti-green you and your ilk are a bit of a joke. You just keep harping on about nuclear power. In which decade do you anticipate that Australia will have the 25 nuclear reactors recommended by your hero, Switkowski? Mmmmm? 2040 or perhaps 2050 when the planet's cooked? And how will that remediate Australia's ecosystems since other industries are responsible for higher emissions of specific hydrocarbons than the energy industry?

"The rest of your posting is unverified and I expect unverifiable. You have failed to provide any experimental evidence for your wild claims.

"Just one of your examples,” Twenty six thousand square kilometres of Amazonian forest chopped down in one year.” (Anti-green)

What a vicious little poster you are Anti-green and extremely ill-informed. Why didn't you politely request verification rather than accuse me of "wild claims." Unlike you, I do not make claims on this forum which I am unable to substantiate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4561189.stm

http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_mangroves_2.htm

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,19328439-2761,00.html

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2145

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329993/

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://home.att.net/~thehessians/fishkill.html

Perhaps you will now have the good manners to address my original question:

Is your "global cooling" report suggesting that all is well and that we should continue on with our "Business as usual" mindset? So what part of that sentence do you not understand?