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 > Snowy Mountain Scheme for the 21st century > Comments

Snowy Mountain Scheme for the 21st century : Comments

By Leigh Ewbank, published 14/7/2009

The Snowy Scheme provides a governance model for an effective approach to fixing climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Big Gore Al - "creator" of the internet, offsetter of his carbon emissions with payment to his own company (nice) - is starting to sound dated, even to this old "climate change advocate". He says it's hard to ignore the stronger cyclones. Er, no Al. It's hard to notice them. There was a big one called Tracy in '74 toward the end of a 30 year cooling when scientists were worried about the coming Ice Age. Bushfires, floods - been around for a while now. You might have read about them in the Bible. But humanity has been swallowed up like Noah in a perceptual conjuring trick that would impress David Copperfield. Tricks of language, tricks of data, tricks of perception. Big Gore Al, the biggest evangelist con man to ever grace our shores.
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 9:35:23 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
Cooling since 1998? Rubbish. Even taking such an extreme outlier as the start point, (why start at 1998 when the records go way back before then if not to mislead) the globe still shows warming since, but using it as a start point is deliberately misleading and those who claim it as evidence of cooling are either mistaken or attempting to mislead.

An extreme hot year in a rising trend is the foundation of arguments that the globe is cooling? Seriously? It's nonsense and more and more people recognize it for nonsense.

Why prefer CRU over GISS ( which shows 2005 as the hottest year) ? GISS includes the fastest warming region of the planet - the Arctic - and CRU doesn't. Did they mention that very significant fact when insisting 1998 was the hottest year on record? Why not if not to deceive? Of course it's better to make use of every measure available whilst taking into account their limitations and that's what climate scientists do when they do an IPCC report (again, not mentioned by the disbelievers). Multiple graphs of multiple independent measures all show clear warming trends even from that unusually hot year of 1998 and that trend would look stronger still if ENSO were adjusted for.

Bluntly put, the disbelievers are wrong and climate science consistently shows them to be wrong. Only by getting people to not look to accredited expert sources can such blatant deception be believed and maintained. Plenty of evidence of that here.

None of their sources is capable of demonstrating the scientific basis of their conclusions (more properly their delusions) to the scientific community or they would have - and shifted the scientific debate. They can't and haven't and aim to persuade the uninformed instead.

Pathetic
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 10:00:16 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
Choosing 1998 is stupid.

Why not choose 1910 or 1950 or 1966 as they were cool years.

Anyway picking out the last few years is pathetic, the trend is up.

It is like saying today is cooler than the day before and we are cooling - as we go into summer.

The last 10 years were still the hottest.
Posted by PeterA, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 10:41:25 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
to Ken and Peter

What puzzles me is your certainty. I've looked at the graphs too, and I wouldn't say that they show either cooling or warming. But what we could say is that a twenty-year fairly steady rise after 1975 has been followed by relative stability since 2000. Since the steady rise is said to have been caused by increased CO2, what explains the apparent stasis in the last decade? If it's the inherent variability in the system, how much of the warming after 1975 could also be explained by similar inherent variability? Going back earlier, what explained the comparable rise in the inter-war period, and the cooling or relative stability before 1975? Was that all variability?

There may be something in the AGW proposition, but you'd have to say that the evidence is spotty at best. And if we are going to radically change our way of life, I'd like much stronger evidence before I gave up coal-fired electricity, my petrol-powered car and the opportunity to see children overseas.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 11:00:04 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
Well said Don, calmy and sensibly, in front of the angry sneering mob who insist on sites and references so they can cross reference to "how to deal with sceptic" sites I'm guessing.

It is getting frantic on that side of the debate, I don't see that level of anger or adhominem attacks on the sceptics side.

I heard a rumour today that the site RealClimate is now admiting that the temperature has plateaued and they are not sure why, but evidently it will continue again to rise in the future.

The models didn't predict that did they? So do they have ESP?

Could be just rumourmongery though, the papers and the web are so often wrong.

Doesthe AGW believer side here seem to believe their own pitch about CO2 or is it just a general hatred of everyone else and consumerism.

Me too Don, I like to travel and do things that require much electricty and fossil fuels. Some businesses run on electricty, we have lots of computers and there is no way we would sign up to unreliable hobby level sources of energy just to please the loud ones in this supposed debate.
Posted by odo, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 12:57:26 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
Hear, hear.. this has been gone over so many times in these sessions. To answer one question, why not use the Goddard centre temperature record, which shows the peak at 2005 is that there have been very nasty allegations online that Hansen (who runs the centre) has been fiddling the results. The authorative instrument site is Hadley which shows the peak at 1998, as does the other three centres - including the two satelite centres that track these things..
But none of that is very important.. the sequence is a major phase of warming from the mid-70s up to around the turn of the century.. stablity for a few years and then (so far) slight cooling. This is now widely admitted, and the IPCC says the warming before the 1940s was natural. Now the argument has moved onto the heat content of the oceans, which still doesn't show what the AGWers want but that's wher ethe argument is now..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 5:34:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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