Why listen to scientists? : Comments

By Geoff Davies, published 26/5/2008

Observations show disturbing signs that the Earth’s response to our activities is happening faster than expected.

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
4
5
6
Page 7
8
9
10
11
12
›
All

Continuing..

So OBSERVATION is showing its not fossil fuels that are the problem. The problem is OUR re-production of carbon footprints. And quite frankly only war will take those hands off their beloved objects of affection and lust.

Strangely enough when her lawyer takes his woman and 2/3 of everything he owns he just rolls over like a puppy.
Are people OBSERVING the real problem now? . Its not carbon we have to cap. Its CHILDREN! And again observation of China shows remarkable growth and prosperity from one-chld policy and with 1-child there is less chance of her lawyer taking YOU to the cleaners.

The bias is not in the science. Its just well ... I am not a mysogynist but women are the problem. And that girly Rudd and Iemma are just feather-nesting & poncing with child friendly policy and immigration. They know or Ought to know they are the culprits in climate problems & shortages of oil, water, fisheries and food. Because they are too drunk on power and post-office-kickbacks & too weak or stupid to cease frameworking for more footprints.

So why us with the one-child policy? Why not the rest of the world?

It has to start somewhere and OBSERVATION shows our leaders are always telling us we are world morality leaders. Like our freedom&democracy fighting in Iraq or our opera house or our million and one other clever country ego trips. So there is precedent for Australia doing its bit with a 1-child policy.

However when it REALLY counts about whether we live or die over imminent wars for oil and climate catastrophes, OBSERVATION tells us our leaders are out to lunch or on the nest.

It is worth noting that science does not end at politics or human affairs. Perhaps the most important scientific OBSERVATIONS for our long term survival and that of our CHILD, are in those domains.

Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:57:56 PM

Posted by one under god, Thursday, 29 May 2008 8:16:53 AM

Why listen to scientists?

Subtext - why not ignore them.

For the same reasons you do or dont listen to anyone.

You are free to speak.
Sometimes its hard not to hear it as noise.
But you arent obligated to listen.

Posted by trade215, Thursday, 29 May 2008 3:01:53 PM

Q&A, my last post was a bit of tongue in cheek if you didn't realise. Sorry if it stirred you up a bit but it did ask the question "Was this one in 1922 a first breath of warm CO2 passing from the lips of an early AGWer?".

I can only say no because if we look at your referenced scientific report for the far north Atlantic ice extent we see that most of the 33% reduction variation over 1860 to 2000 actually occurred from 1860 to 1940. This makes sense with the natural historical temperature up trend basically coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Again looking at your referenced scientific report, since 1940 (i.e. the three first graphs) there is a slight trend to less sea ice based on April. The Eastern Area from 1920 to 2000 is practically flat/trendless so it is yourself that should put 1922 in perspective. This is as expected and there is no way you or anyone else can slot CO2 emissions into that trend.

Are you not just a tad naive when you suggest context, abstraction and preconceived bias? The 1922 newspaper article can hardly be called "misinformed spin" because it was observed but if you put a different date on it like 2008 with little editing it would be practically identical to the spin we hear today. i.e. Geoff or the ABC 'Corse my mention of Sir Joseph Banks would be a tad abstract to AGWers because he was hoping to find the NW Passage open which eventually brought Captain Cook undone. You will find context mentioned many times in my posts ..... sea and wind conditions, temperature, high pressure events, clear sky and albedo, etc, in complex freezing systems as historically/global i.e. antarctic

Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 29 May 2008 9:08:57 PM

one under god

Wow ... you have been busy! Looked at some ... brings back memories and really stirs the neurones. Thanks.
Will be off-line till next week when I hope to get back to you.
Question: If you have 2 movable points at opposite ends of a straight line, where on that line do you think they can join as one under "God"?
____________

Keiran

I admire your tenacity, and thirst for knowledge.
You ask some very pertinent questions, raise some very good points and are sometimes off-the-planet ... some of which I can answer, some bettered answered by others. Either way, I will give some thought to a response and get back next week.

In the mean time ... maybe Geoff Davies would like to make comment?

Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:58:34 PM

All scientists need to be listened to but

All scientists are also men and women with feet of clay and

some scientists have

Suggested that AGW needs to be curtailed, without knowing if it really influences anything at all.

And other scientists told us

Thalidomide was good

Lead in petrol is a good thing

DDT cures all ills

Butter bad, Margarine Good (and forty years on, oops, transfats not so good)

All scientists need to be listened too and all scientists need to be scrutinized.

They need to be scrutinized particularly when the action they promote to resolve what they think, but cannot prove, is happening

will radically influence the life quality of every one on earth,

particularly those of the developed nations, who will be taxed for carbon emissions under a “Socialism by Stealth” arrangement to diminish individual rights in the name of governments.

Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 29 May 2008 11:05:54 PM

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
4
5
6
Page 7
8
9
10
11
12
›
All

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