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 > General Discussion > The Climate Debate is Ridiculous

The Climate Debate is Ridiculous

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Hi examinator, re-interpreting your use of the term “fear” does not change the dynamics or context of its application to a public alarm phenomena. As we have previously discussed, it is the Green/Armstrong research that draws the analogous match to AGW as the 26th public alarm phenomena. I just thought it interesting that you described it so well, intentionally or not.

I’m not sure about your reference to “total skeptic”, how can being skeptical about anything be absolute? unless it is intended to radicalize the tag.

When deciding on a “solution”, my first response will always be, tell me all I need to know about the “problem”. That doesn’t seem hard now does it?

So when I ask questions about AGW I’m told many things that describe the problem. Then I say OK, that’s fine but where is the other side of the story? Everyone knows there is always another side. Now I’m in trouble on multiple counts, for inferring that there IS another view, for looking for it, for researching it and for speaking about it.

No matter how hard I try to balance the two opposing scientific views in order to qualify the “problem” I am challenged and labeled as skeptical. Why is it that requiring all the information I need about the problem so wrong?

If I am willing to state that if both contrary scientific camps conduct a full review of both sets of research I will accept this, why is this not acceptable to AGW advocates?

When AGW advocates can step away from their “singular science” perspectives and promote inclusive reviews of the science, is when this whole contentious debate will be resolved.

All I’m asking is for advocates to say, yep! That makes perfect sense, put all the scientists together and let them review everything and sort out a conclusion. Without this any "solution" will be flawed.

Why examinator, is this so hard?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:52:30 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
This mornings Sydney morning Herald has a story worth a look.
Last year was Australia's second hottest year, 2005 still holds the record for the hottest on record.
NSW had its hottest year on record last year.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 30 July 2010 5:40:24 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
Foxy - "The "Climate Debate" is ridiculous? Only to people
who believe that we have infinite resources, and that
we can keep on doing what we're currently doing with
no ill effects whatsoever."

Now tell me

So what on earth are you talking about

"Climate Change"

or

"Resource depletion"

Noting that the two are completely separate and independent of one another

As for doing what we are doing... well so long as you are free to do what you want and I am free to do as I want we have no problem

But the moment you think you are in any way entitled to dictate what I may do is when we will have a war.
Posted by Stern, Friday, 30 July 2010 9:09:32 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
Dear Stern,

I wasn't aware that I was dictating anything
to you or anyone else, merely pointing out
that we should be careful how we mistreat
our natural environment as we all too easily
forget that ultimately we are dependent on it
for our survival as any other species.

And you tell me that this is not connected to
a change in global climate?

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of
the burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of
forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is steadily increasing. This gas creates
a "greenhouse effect" on the planet, for it allows
solar rays to reach the earth's surface but prevents
heat from radiating back into space. The consequence
will be a global warming, which will eventually
cause the melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in
sea levels, and changes in weather patterns.

This warming effect is already under way, and average
global temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030. This seems like a small change, but
minor fluctuations in global temperature can have
drastic consequences: during the last ice age, when much
of North America was covered with sheets of ice more than
a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degrees
cooler than today.

You say that if I dictate to you what you can or can't do,
there will be a war?

I would not presume to dictate anything to you Sir.
Nature will take care of that.

By the end of the twenty-first century, global
temperature may have increased by as much as 9 degress.

But, nobody can tell you anything - I get it.
You're fine with not knowing what the ultimate
consequences would be for life on the planet and for
human society.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 30 July 2010 11:02:05 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
Purely in the interests of adding balance to Belly’s piece:

“Dozens of people are reported to have died from hypothermia as a cold snap sweeps across several countries in LATIN AMERICA.
In Argentina, 33 people died as temperatures dropped down to around -14 degrees Celsius in the centre of the country. Many homeless people are among the victims who died in the capital city Buenos Aires…1,000 cattle died in the freezing temperatures, mostly in the northern part of the country.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/21/2959907.htm

“Brace yourself for more winters like the last one, northern EUROPE . Freezing conditions could become more likely: winter temperatures may even plummet to depths last seen at the end of the 17th century, a time known as the Little Ice Age. That's the message from a new study that identifies a compelling link between solar activity and winter temperatures in northern Europe.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627564.800-quiet-sun-puts-europe-on-ice.html

“SYDNEY has shivered through its coldest June day in 27 years, with the mercury plummeting to 4.7 degrees in the city. Not since 1983 has a colder June temperature been recorded, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said on Tuesday.It was also the coldest day of any month since 2007...And NSW is not the only state rugging up.Tuesday was MELBOURNE'S coldest day in almost two years...A day earlier, BRISBANE had its coldest morning of the year"
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-has-coldest-june-day-in-27-years-20100629-zija.html

( And, yes, I know AGWers see any change: cold ,hot ,wet ,dry, as "EVIDENCE" their creed is the one true faith --but the world has known similar changes many times before -- such being more in line with natural cycles than systems swinging wildly out of balance)
Posted by Horus, Friday, 30 July 2010 8:45:52 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
Dear Horus,

Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome
of industrial technology; it derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather
than bear the costs - probably including slower
economic - of limiting it. We do have some
antipollution laws, but these are clearly insufficient
to prevent potential grave damage to the atmosphere.
Further control of pollution is politically
difficult, however, for the economic interests behind
"smokestack" industries are a powerful political
lobby that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources
to the task.

Incidentally, modern technology is even polluting space
beyond the upper atmosphere. At present, according to
Ian Robertson, "Sociology," - " there are
over 15,000 detectable artificial objects orbiting
the earth, of which only about 235 are operational
satellites. The rest are space junk - nonfunctioning
satellites, spent rockets, exploded boosters, oxygen
cylinders, and the like. Additionally, there are
several million other objects that are too small to
track, most of them bits and pieces resulting from
collisions of space junk and from intentional
detonations by experimental "killer" satellites."

"Further collisions among these various objects create
a constant rain of new fragments. Because of its high
impact velocity, this orbiting garbage now represents a
serious threat to spacecraft and working satellites.
A piece of metal as small as a walnut travelling at six
miles a second has the explosive impact of a hand grenade,
and could easily penetrate a space shuttle, killing its
occupants. Some multimillion-dollar satellites are
already believed to have stopped functioning because of
such damage, and any future space station will have to
be protected against space-junk impacts."

"In fact, the possibility of collisions would be a
continuing threat to any space-based missile defense
system, for its components could be accidentally disabled
by chance encounters with space debris."

The point that I'm trying to make is that the use of any
resources can't be considered in isolation from its
potentially complex environmental impacts.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 31 July 2010 10:56:47 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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