<< Your thoughts.>>

My thoughts … ye're talkin thru yer hat laddie !

You show us a link to a story on tree die backs under a heading of “Rapid Climate Change”.
I saw the program –and noted the ABC’s positioning of it just before their “I Can Change You Mind About Climate Change” special.
It examines a HYPOTHESIS that trees are dying off due to a series of hot days .
And even if it were ever proven, it can hardly be said to be proof of “rapid climate change”.

I’m with you -- if you want to preserve the natural environment, reduce pollution, or develop solar power.
But when your climate change programs see OZ impose a STARTING $23 carbon tax while our dirtier competitors sit on their hands.
And when your recommendations call for climate change reparations for economically underdeveloped nations with over overdeveloped fertility rates.
And when the groups you align yourself with talk of world parliaments and a re-distribution of world resources on a per capita basis -- you can count me out.

Well what a mixed response. It seems optimism or blunt denial for breakfast this morning.

We have Hasbeen with....." Oh do come off it."

Runner with....." the discovery of a new found religion"

Belly with...." But never thought this day would come." I agree:)

Lexi with "
likely to harm vested economic and political interests"

SPQR with ( and the most entertaining one )......."ye're talkin thru yer hat laddie! "

SPQR. A few hot days:) I think thats the whole point matey-boy:) but I think I'll wait for a few more while I eat my coco pops.

c

Is Rapid climate for real, well I would suggest everyone go and read/watch the report again. Quote...

http://tinyurl.com/83kejfn

"The effect climate change may have on our forests is a huge concern. But an even greater worry - how will dying trees affect the climate? In 2005, the heart of the world's biggest rainforest's suffered a drought so hot and severe it turned the Amazon jungle from a carbon sink to a carbon source. A second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later.

And this from......
Kane Smith - 30 Apr 2012 9:20:06am

In this debate the possibility of the average person understanding science for and against the climate debate is not likely for most of us. Thus I look at the issue in my own mind like this, if the science is all a con and we spend billions of dollars on re-engineering our life's and the we do not see climate change the we can say what a complete waste of money, on the flip side if the science is right and we do nothing and all the bad stuff happen then we will say why did we not do something when we could, so the choice is act and maybe waste a whole lot of money, or do not spend money and maybe waste a plant.

....and the blind right up to their old tricks once again.

One of the main points that the Gillard Government has, is that this tax will benefit not only the world fund, also helps with shortening the disparity's between the rich and the poorer Australians.

Enjoy.

http://tinyurl.com/cz2rpyh

Every country right around the world is having the same effect! I would love someone to explain that one, if climate change is false.
Belly points out that its more than just the trees that change is happening (ice melts etc ) and what is more worrying, is the food for 7 billion people that rapid change WILL cause.

cc

Plant,

<<Every country right around the world is having the same effect! I would love someone to explain that one, if climate change is false>>

Okay Plant I’ll try, though I do expect that I’ll run up against the old paradox: you can send a hoarse lefty to water but you can't make him think.

First of all a concession: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL.
The climate is ALWAYS swinging one way of another. And often you get decades or even centuries where the trend is all one way.
A just-right Goldilocks climate only exists in fairy tales – and, left-wing political party statements of climate policy (though it be somewhat redundant to distinguish between them since they're peas in the same pod)

Now a correction: every region is NOT experiencing the same.
Some places are hotter, some places are colder. It only appears uniform when you play with numbers and start “average” things out

<<In 2005, the heart of the world's biggest rainforest's suffered a drought …[its] second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later>>

Once in a century/millennium classifications are only estimates--very rough estimates.Sometimes you get a run of droughts or floods, or worse Labor governments. Sometimes you have a run of heads or a run of tales. Sometimes all the buses arrive at once.

So now, you can relax and go back to eating your coco pops -–by the way, I hope they’re made from FAIRDTRADE coco & rice!

SPQR,

No doubt you'll enjoy this article. I've just posted it on another thread, but it seems a shame to leave it out of this one.

The Heartalnd Institute, that slightly kooky bastion of climate denial, has come up with a bumper media campaign that appears to be ever so slightly more insane than usual:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?CMP=twt_gu

Poirot,
The Heartland Institute is a little slow I'd say. Warmists have been been using mass murder/genocide/war crimes imagery for years!

Besides, they'd have to be real good to out do this guy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html

or old Bank Ki Moon when he spruiks AGW.