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 > Are environmentalists on the road to Damascus? > Comments

Are environmentalists on the road to Damascus? : Comments

By Max Rheese, published 2/4/2008

Some will never admit the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming - they will simply move onto the next environmental scare campaign.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“Kevin Rudd, Ross Garnaut, Penny Wong and many others are ready to commit huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to schemes that will limit the effects of unproven man-made climate change, while the science opposing this view becomes more compelling by the day.”

The long range nature of ‘solutions’ to climate change put about by these people might save us from expensive follies – x% reduction in emissions by 2050 etc. And, who knows; perhaps someone might even admit that they have been led up the garden path by climate change alarmists
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 8:56:40 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
So what is the point of your article Max? Is it that we should just continue business as usual until we are forced to convert to other fuel sources by the depletion or economics of oil and coal?

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, the approach needed to protect our future is basically the same, with respect to energy. We MUST find alternative energy sources. Indeed, we must do this for a more urgent reason than climate change; peak oil.

Instead of just blanketly bagging environmentalists for being concerned about climate change, wouldn’t it be better to implore them to ‘correct’ their focus onto the more urgent issue of peak oil and the underlying necessity of developing a sustainable society?

Surely your organisation, the Australian Environment Foundation, wants to work with those who have environmental concerns and the passion to do something about them. And yet your article is entirely negative and alienating towards them.

“Some will never admit the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming.”

Come on Max, you don’t know that it is false. Quite frankly, this statement destroys your credibility. Combined with the complete lack of suggestion as to how environmentalist might better focus their energies and a complete lack of expression on just what approach we should be taken towards protecting our future, I can only assume the worst – a desire to see business as usual and concomitantly to stay in the good books with the big-business profit-driven manically pro-growth end of town.

I hope I’m wrong, but that’s how it looks.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:24:05 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
Louis Hissink, a geologist, who contributes articles for http://www.henrythornton.com/ first drew my attention to the 'fact' that anthropogenic global warming was not a done deal.

It took a while to get my 'greenie' head around this. However, he was not arguing that we should do nothing about self-evident environmental problems, which are obviously a direct result of human activity, but that perhaps we should not be so arrogant as a species to assume we can fix everything. That 'global warming' - and I take the point of the article, that we may have global flat lining or even cooling - is probably a long term geological 'event' in which case how we address it should take this into account.

The religious zeal of the true believers is strong. My friends simply refuse to listen to this argument. One, a scientist, simply says he is wrong and 'stupid' and will not even read his articles.

I think that it is important that we non-scientists keep our mind open and encourage our politicians to do the same, before they squander zillions of our hard earned $$$$$$'s on red-herrings (a species that is definitely not endangered).
Posted by DialecticBlue, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:13:45 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
Ludwig. You and I are wasting out time trying to convince these cretins that conservation of the earth's resources for the use of future generations is a worthwhile pursuit. The selfish raping of the planet for monetary gain will continue, regardless of whether AGW occurs or not. It will only be a matter of time before we go the way of the Mayans , hastened by these parasites.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:17:42 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
Give it up Max. Your front group has no credibility and it never will - its emergence as a polyp splitting off from the IPA was too obvious. The real question is when you lot will give up your ideological obsession with bashing straw man "environmentalists". A shred of honesty might improve your credibility, but I suspect that would be too hard for you. And that fossil fuel funding might dry up.
Posted by NorthWestShelf, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 11:04:21 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
Until then I guess we'll have to be careful with how we are changing the natural environment to suit ourselves. Far from taking sides, humankind is changing the environment. And the point being nobody knows what effect this is having in the long run. So it's going to cost society a few dollars.

At least if global warming is occurring and it's anthrogenic there's the possibility of changing our behaviour - like a diagnosis, the earlier the better! Where do you stand if there's no possibility of changing such a catastrophe? I would say the natural environment having its own back.
Posted by Richard_, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:02:21 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
Until then I guess we'll have to be careful with how we are changing the natural environment to suit ourselves. Far from taking sides, humankind is changing the environment. And the point being nobody knows what effect this is having in the long run. So it's going to cost society a few dollars.

At least if global warming is occurring and it's anthropogenic there's the possibility of changing our behaviour - like a diagnosis, the earlier the better! Where do you stand if there's no possibility of changing such a catastrophe? I would say the natural environment having its own back.
Posted by Richard_, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:02:27 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
Looks increasingly like OLO is a safe haven for GW deniers. Funny how they like to start their time series with 1998, an El Nino year. What you must do now is start a new series just for eastern Australia beginning 2008 (a cool La Nina year), 2009, 2010 and so on. Then add results for Adelaide and Perth.

If it's still getting cooler you might be on to something. Then present your findings to a forum of scientists who have studied maths, physics, statistics etc. Your name could soon be up there with the scientific greats.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:03:41 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
On the Road to DAMASCUS? err lets sure hope so, but even more...

that they might meet the risen Lord Jesus on the way.

Now 'that' would be something.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:09:38 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 whole point of all this research is to find out the best way to spend our wealth to improve the condition of the earth.
If CO2 is NOT driver of temperature change, why spend money on something that is not a problem.
Better to spend that same money on family planning, landscape remediation, etc.
I like the idea of minimising the use of water, power, packaging,etc but most of all I like to minimise the amount of my taxes that Govt spends on the latest scare campaign.
Posted by Little Brother, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 2:40:43 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
Yet another Institute for Public Affairs frontman (Rheese's Australian Environment Foundation sharing a mailing address & funders with the IPA) regurgitating yet more climate 'sceptic' dreck on climate, as usual without a skerrick of meaningful data. Recycling misinformation is getting to be OLO's core function these days - is a merger with the IPA a logical synergy?

The AQUA satellite was launched primarily to study water, and yes its data suggests atmospheric water vapour not increasing as most global warming models forecast it would. So there appears, based solely on the AQUA satellite data (only launched in 2002), that there is some as yet missed dynamic thats stopping warmer oceans (undisputed) and warmer air (undisputed) making for more water vapour. This is significant, because WV is supposed to relay & amplify the effect of higher co2, but there is data from other satellites going back to 1988 that suggest WV has been rising (eg. see Santor 2007 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf). The perils of relying on short-run data are nicely illustrated by figure and article at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523 . Aqua has incidentally provided data to support warming regardless of atmospheric WV, eg. January 23, 2008 - Antarctic Ice Loss accelerating http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=825
Global warming is not entirely contingent on one reading of water vapour, so the IPA's parrots can save their hype for another day. Theres other red herrings in the AEF & Marohasys article in The Australian, but decades of rebuttals have educated the denialists not at all.

Imagine if the Institute for Public Affairs demanded the same absolute accuracy of their hype on the benefits of free trade/privatisation/deregulation/neoliberalism - did deregulating banks provider lower fees and more modest profits for banks? Not likely, but yet theres no economic rationalists doubting that dogma. Hypocrisy in spades, ho hum, i think the prolific fossil fools industry suggests that the coal industry can afford a very high carbon price indeed.

Don't miss this image from AQUA, Hurricane Katrina being sucked into Gulf of Mexico by higher water temps
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn7929/dn7929-2_550.jpg
Posted by Liam, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 2:52:20 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
Max, if you want credibility I suggest you don't use your articles to cross-promote the work of Jennifer Marohasy, your fellow Team Member from your Foundation. It would also help if you argued you case rather than slagging off those who don't share your view. And if your Foundation was more honestly named - perhaps the Anti-Environment Foundation, as it seems to promote exploitation and destruction for profit over conservation or protection. Where are your morals on that?
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 3:38:46 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
Max Rheese

When will you get the message that we posters are exhausted with your GW crap? In less than one month, you and your toxic affiliates from the AEF an IPA have spruiked no less than five articles on OLO - Carter, Ridd, Marohasy, Quirk. Is that not a signal of desperation? Must we now endure your repetitive rants?

The Australian Environment Foundation eh? So why not speak on the actual environment - the trashing of our oceans, our underground water supplies, our soil, our air, our animals, our resources? We don't actually care if the climate is hot or cold. Nor does the hazardous pollution which you devils continue to promote - anthropogenic pollution which violates all the laws of nature.

"Some will never admit the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming - they will simply move onto the next environmental scare campaign."

So what's your next "scare campaign" Max? What about one on industrial pollution? Is that a "falsehood" too or is it an issue which you dare not allude to because the science is conclusive? Tell us why millions of humans are now dying annually from industrial pollution Max and what should we do about that?

And since your article relies mainly on the ad hominen to "reinforce" your silly argument, I remind you that when you accept sponsorship from the likes of Monsanto, you have descended into an unconscionable and ethics-free pit of slime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3798581.stm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm#roundup

Your greenwash is a pathetic endeavour to give cover to a whole range of corporations with environmental credibility problems - i.e. the "Monsantos" and the other morally repugnant corporate cockroaches who believe it is their right to continue vandalising and privatising our ecosystems.

Nice try Max!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 3:55:56 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
The Heartland Institute has really fired them up!

I won't quibble on the Max dribble.

Stay tuned, next will come Ray Evans and the Lavoisier Group.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 5:10:40 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
Don't expect an apology from the Government. The Government was partially elected on scaring the wits out of the gullible public when it came to GW. John Howard now looks silly because he had to pretend to be a believer in this nonsense. More than half the posters on here also tried to make out that they were some kind of scientist. They look sillier and sillier as each day goes on.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 5:46:05 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 knew a weather scientist who worked for the CSIRO back in the early seventies. (The late) Peter was in no danger of losing his job. He loved his work for it's own sake. He was in every way yer typical quiet, unassuming, slightly obssessive man of pure science.

He told me that he was in need of sensors that could measure the CO2 content of the air and be accurate to within a few parts per million. I think he wanted to fly them on his weather balloons, which they released in those days from the old Edithvale (Melb) weather station. He told me that the CO2 content of the atmosphere had the potential to make profound changes to the weather, because of the danger of entrapped heat energy.

All this, so long ago. So what did I do, having been given the inside running on this crucial piece of information? Why, nothing of course. I was young, full of testosterone, and what could possibly go wrong on such a sunny day? All of this was forgotten until the red flags really started to go up a couple of years ago.

In the intervening years as a miner, I burned vast quantities of coal and diesel to produce little bricks of gold. They paid me well, so I suppose I was good at my work. And this is the problem isn't it? How to separate a feller from his ego and his precious salary, long enough to shake a bit of common sense into him.

So farewell to the IPA, the AEF and their ilk. Their pronouncements will grow angrier but fainter, the more their economic tenets diverge from the new physical reality.

- have you considered a job in agriculture?
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 8:17:13 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
"More than half the posters on here also tried to make out that they were some kind of scientist. They look sillier and sillier as each day goes on." (Runner)

I say Runner, let's in on it, please. What's Rheese's credentials?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 8:25:20 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
dickie,

Thanks for point out who the Australian Environment Foundation are. I hadn't thought to look it up, and it turns out it isn't difficult. This link gives describes them well:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

It looks to me that OLO makes the same sort of effort to strike a balance in their articles that other media does. So we have a couple articles from David Suzuki, and we have a couple from the other point of view.

What sticks in the throat is how the arithmetic is done. Suzuki makes his point by presenting the facts as he see them and his reasoning about them. The AEF's main method of making their point seems to be deception - starting with the name[1]. Outright lies seems to be OK too - its also not difficult to find where they have said things they know can't be true. Alls fair in love, war and making a profit, I guess. The point is, apparently in journalism one of Suzuki's articles equals one of AEF's. That just "feels" wrong.

[1] For those of you who don't know, the AEF was formed to protect timber interests, and got funding from them. The registration for their web site address and phone number are the same as Timber Communities Australia. In a structure reminiscent of chinese dolls, the Timber Communities Australia has the same director and Canberra office as the National Association of Forest Industries. The National Association of Forest Industries is funded primarily by Gunns.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:19:23 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
"1] For those of you who don't know, the AEF was formed to protect timber interests"

Strangely enough, sustainable management of forests seems to be one of the few subjects about which they have some expertise. On this subject, it seems to be the greenies who are full of BS.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:27:11 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
i guess the price of having OLO run by liberals is having to tolerate articles from these laughable corporate hacks.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:31:01 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
Interesting post rstuart.

The AEF use the term "evidence based science" as though they developed the concept.

Does AEF really think that science has come to a conclusive agreement on GM crops.

AEF are for the pulp mill, logging of old growth forests, anti-national park (red river gums) and GM crops. These are odd credentials for an environment organisation particularly one that holds such disdain for groups that do not share their "pale green" objectives.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 11:08:32 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
david: no disagreement from me on logging. Looking with mild interest from afar, it seems the safeguards were in place to ensure the Tasmanian logging operation was as low impact as it can be with current technology - and certainly doesn't appear any to have more impact that other land uses. The only disappointing for me was how Gunns manages to short circuit the evaluation process. Its seems to me they would of got the same outcome with a lot less agro if they had just let it run its course.

I actually have some sympathy for Gunns. A whole pile of greenies spewing the same sort of "logic" as the AEF must be as difficult for them as reading this sort of drivel is for me. I presume they decided to fight fire with fire, and thus set up front organisations like the Timber Communities Australia and the AEF to do it. But we do need the greenies. Like any for profit organisation Gunns will do things the cheapest way possible. World class environmental safeguards cost money. They wouldn't be there without the greenies constant agitation.

As for the AEF - they have moved onto other things it seems. Maybe there were not getting enough money from the timber mob. Their expertise they have in a particular area would be relevant if their purpose was to inject that into the debate. It isn't. They are paid talking heads. They are paid to stoop down to same level as the greenies, and they seem to do that enthusiastically.

Which sparks an interesting thought. Surely an journalistic balance for this article for some equivalent claptrap from the greenies? Ahh - but then what I am saying. Am I asking OLO to replace a thoughtful piece by Suzuki with a greenie foaming at the mouth? Surely not. This journalistic business isn't as black and white as it appears, it seems.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 3 April 2008 8:48:02 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
Who is on the road of reality and truth? Let us see if members of The Forum can honestly answer, especially Peter Ridd, author of AEF Online opinion "The Great Barrier Reef Swindle". The Ridd opinion seems to be missing any reference to government dumped sewage southern city nutrient pollution transported by northward streaming coastal current into Coral Sea waters where coral bleaching is occurring.

The test of truth is this. For every action there is a reaction, sewage is being dumped, so where do the dissolved and solid nutrients travel to? I ask Peter Ridd, is it possible the eddy postulated by science to exist between Fraser Island and the GBR could be transporting southern city and town sewage nutrient pollution onto the Swain Reefs and therefore into GBR and Coral Sea waters? Further, why is this eddy just postulated to exist and not confirmed or denied by science? Does the eddy exists or does it not? I the eddy a key mechanism?

Geologist Prof Ron Boyd of Newcastle Uni has reference to the Fraser-Swains postulated eddy. My involvement is since 1982, tracking cause of malnutrition amongst seafood dependent poverty stricken Solomon Islands people living in the SW Pacific ocean food web ecosystem. Starvation of marine animals is also clearly apparent.

Long term investigation reveals pilchard, anchovy, herring - baitfish are dependent on seagrass food web nursery being smothered and destroyed by epiphyte and algae growth fed by nutrient pollution. Invasive algae blooms fed by nutrient pollution is smothering coral algae, killing coral and resulting in coral bleaching especially in warm weather when algae thrives. Cause can not be proven due to global warming. Vital and critically urgent debate is now however being kept out of the picture by global warming agenda.

There is a test of truth. Where does the dumped and concentrated sewage nutrient pollution flow to according to science? Is there an eddy dispersal mechanism between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs or is there not? Is southern Australian city sewage nutrient pollution adding to GBR rural catchment nutrient run off or is it not?
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:50:17 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
Very interesting, JF Aus, care to expand on your knowledge via a full article on OLO?

Not cos the AEF or IPA are likely to answer your challenge in a meaningful way (PR hacks never do), but cos the rest of us are interested. God knows The Australian/NewsCorp/7/9/10 & (since Howards cultural warriors neutered them) ABC/SBS wont tell us.
Posted by Liam, Thursday, 3 April 2008 1:39:37 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
So, David, those who do not agree with you are 'cretins', ego, those who agree you are not cretins.

What makes you right, I wonder?

Even the scientists do not agree. As a matter of interest, L Hissink is a geologist, a scientist. You may not agree with his argument on GW, but that does not make him a cretin. He also, if you bothered to read what he says with an open mind, backs up his argument with science (you remind me of my friend whose mind is like a steel trap, a closed steel trap on this issue). If you are going to challenge that science, then do so with science.

Also, as a matter of interest, I took no stand on GW. I am not a scientist and I refuse to form an opinion based on secondary sources. I did call for open minds.
Posted by DialecticBlue, Thursday, 3 April 2008 1:42:23 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
DialecticBlue.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that my admittedly intemperate comments were directed toward those who don't think "that conservation of the earth's resources for the use of future generations is a worthwhile pursuit."

If you are in that category then you will have to wear my opprobriums, otherwise, congratulations.

My comments on GW were benign, as were yours.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 3 April 2008 3:58:18 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
one need not be a cretin in order to make cretinous claims.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 3 April 2008 6:59:42 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
Liam,

Writing a full article is difficult because so much is involved. Nevertheless I believe I could provide insight by answering any questions or opinion concerning interest you or anyone else may have.
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 3 April 2008 11:06:25 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
Max Rheese quotes Pearson who quotes Marohasy who went to a festival in New York which was put on by an organization supported by Exxon where Roy Spencer (a well known climate skeptic) made some comments about his analysis of some data from NASA's Aqua satellite. As a result of all this we are assured that we don't need to worry about global warming.

Get real Max! Did you even look at the paper by Spencer? It is a short term study of certain types of weather oscillations in equatorial regions. Spencer claims that in this (very limited) situation the feedback between CO2 and water vapour is not as great as was thought. But he says "...it is not obvious whether similar behaviour would occur on the longer time scales associated with global warming." Not to mention in the vast bulk of the atmosphere not involved in his study!

In the same volume of Geophysical Research Letters there are many articles either assuming or confirming anthropogenic global warming. Why pick out this one? The answer is obvious of course. And on this basis we are told AGW is a myth! Add to this the total nonsense about global warming stopping since 1998 (the hottest year ever - don't these people understand the difference between weather and climate?) and we see that their cause has nothing to do with getting at the truth of the matter.

The skeptics and deniers are a tiny minority of scientific opinion and yet they make very loud noises. They seem to think that the team that makes the most noise wins. For the sake of our future, let's hope that's not true.
Posted by KeithB, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 7:48:10 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
KeithB

Exactly!
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 8:45:32 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
So Max, the views expressed here are pretty profoundly against you and the Australian Environment Foundation.

Are you going to come back and defend yourself? Or are you going to let this opinion prevail unchallenged?

As the director of AEF you must surely feel obligated to defend your views and your organisation.

I for one would love to think that the AEF is a genuine environmental organisation.

Please, convince us that it is.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 8:55:15 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'm glad to see everyone found this as agravating as I did.
I've had three attempts at this but keep hitting my 350 word limit.

Max,
The anomalous peak in 1998 has been readily explained ad infinitum.
I like how you jumped on the 1998 to 2007 comparrison and completely ignore the 2000 to 2007 comparison (oh look, a rise!).
Two can play at that game.
Around 1860 there was a low spike and the Global temperature was 13.5 degrees celcius. Therefore, the globe has warmed more than we first thought and AGW is much worse than we think.

How far do we take misreading of statistics? The Globe warmed a massive 0.25 degrees from late 2005 until 2007. Do we look at that 18 months and each buy refrigerator suits?
Posted by T.Sett, Monday, 14 April 2008 3:38:51 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