/cont

And then we get the likes of SR, who just makes up his own science (it was warming in the middle of the century?...dear oh dear) and then proceeds to call others deniers and flat-earthers.

In fact, if you follow the science, the correct position is to be agnostic. We know, or think we know, that the earth’s warmed a little over the past century or so. But we don’t know how much of that warming is down to human activity. (I read a paper recently that said that termites emit more CO2 than humans and that it appears that termite numbers are increasing. Best to ignore that science?)

But what we most definitely don’t know is the future. As the science improves, the chances of the future being grim, declines. There is a concept called ECS which basically calculates how much warming there’ll be given a doubling in CO2 levels. Almost from the beginning of the scare that number has been falling. Early on models were very bad a handling cloud activity. As they got better, the calculated ECS fell. It continues to fall. It seems to me to be unlikely that we’ll even see a doubling of CO2 levels yet, currently, a lot of scientific research shows that doubling would result in a 1 c warming only. Feedbacks would then kick in but research continues to throw doubt on the severity of that as well.

Research by economists, including those with the IPCC shows that people around 2080 will be about 4 times wealthier than today and have access to technologies that haven’t even been thought of as yet. Should there be a spike in climate problems at that time (ie 2080 -2100) our descendants will be in a vastly better position to address it than we are today. Yet the alarmists continue to think that its preferable to destroy jobs and threaten economic well-being based on problems that don’t currently exist and may never eventuate and will not be resolved by the measures they advocate even if they eventuate.

Please read this days SMH story NSW Liberal Government declares war on it Federal party/government
Then same paper latest story about climate change
Note source for that story
Then come back and remind me those of us who believe the science are fools

Belly,

You'll need to be a lot more specific about which SMH articles you're talking about. Just post the links.

"Then come back and remind me those of us who believe the science are fools"

I'm not criticising you for following the science. I'm criticising you for your attacks on those who don't accept uncritically the science you follow; for calling those that disagree with you flat-earthers and deniers and so on. And then hypocritically decrying the use of the "mindless insult".

So let me ask you this Belly. You say you follow the science. I've posted links to show that 'the science' shows that for large parts of the last 12000 years, temperatures have been higher than now. Do you follow THAT science?

I've posted links to articles that say that higher CO2 levels have little or no effect on the climate. Do you follow THAT science.

I've posted links showing that the CSIRO's data predicts only low to moderate warming over the next 60 years. Do you follow THAT science?

In the past I've posted links showing that models exaggerate the level of predicted warming. Do you follow THAT science?

Or do you deny THAT science.

You see, those who mindlessly call others deniers make the mistake of thinking there's only one 'the science'. But I deny that :)

Belly,

A little punctuation would help readers to decipher your posts :)

MHaze,

Yes, surely it would be sensible for governments to be allocating generous funds to something like the CSIRO to remediate the greenhouse effect. As well, why not mass plantings of vegetation to soak up the vast amounts of CO2 - trees (timber trees, cash crop trees like ti-tree and sandalwood, fruit trees where appropriate), suitable grasses, etc. ?

Come to think of it, is there a formula for working out how much new vegetation would be required to match the amount of CO2 being produced each year ? Or is that just a crazy idea, showing up my obvious ignorance of the whole process ?

While we're at it, [more ignorance], why massive burn-offs across rural and remote Australia - doesn't this put enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere ? Maybe even more than the termites produce ? Of course, burn-offs are necessary to minimise under-storey build-up - which is even more reason to manage vast plantations across the north.

Plantations across the north, forever, would provide employment for Aboriginal people in remote areas, who are crying out for full employment, for life. Spin-offs would include development of Aboriginal expertise in nursery management, plant husbandry, hydrology and irrigation, timber-mills and timber-processing forever, food production, agribusiness and transport.

What's not to like ?

Cheers,

Joe

SR,

Don't lie the quote was:

"the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."

Not only do you have feeble grasp on genetics, but your memory is going as well.

Braindead!

I knew about mitochondrial DNA as teenager, incl the theories as to how it came to be, what it was for, its uses in tracking population movements and the search for a mitochondrial eve, so when you cocked it up it stood out like a sore thumb.

ALTRAV,

I made it quite clear (or so I thought),
that I am not interested in conspiracy
theories about the Rothschilds. Yet you are
still banging on about the link you gave me
to the "jdreport.com."

My preference in websites - lies
in reputable sources of information. I like
to know who the people are behind the
information being given so that I can weigh
up their credibility.

The "jdreport.com." has
hidden its identity. It's even got a
disclaimer as to the accuracy of the content
being given and because of that I suspect that
coming from the Netherlands - it's a "hate
website," not to be taken seriously.

Also I've seen the long, long, list of banks
given earlier on
a different website - and the claim of some of
the bank names listed
that are supposedly owned by the Rothschilds
are completely false - such as the Reserve
Bank of Australia, and the Reserve Bank of
New Zealand to name just a few.

To me, at least it seems that the "jdreport.com"
is anti-Semitic and has a vendetta against the
Rothschilds. That is nothing new. The Rothschilds
conspiracy theories have followed this family
for decades.

If I have gone down in your estimation somehow.
That's unfortunate. However, I shall have to
try to do my best to live with that.

Enjoy your day.