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 > Snow Snow beautiful snow.

Snow Snow beautiful snow.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
The first snow I ever saw was at that little high point between Bathurst & Orange. 1951 & there was about an inch or so on the ground. Thousands had driven out from the 2 towns to see this incredibly rare phenomena. Not enough to make a snow man, but a few snow balls were thrown. It did not happen again in the next few years we lived in Bathurst.

Now after 68 years of global warming, the SES have to rescue motorists stranded by the deep snow at that same high point.

Here in South East Queensland we have had so many frosts, starting in May for gods sake, that we are losing natives indigenous to this area, even when protected by shade cloth &/or Envy spray.

How on earth are there people so gullible that they still believe this global warming fraud.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 11 August 2019 9:13:03 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
Global warming has certainly caused lot of record low temperatures all over the country.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 11 August 2019 11:02:48 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
Hasbeen Black Springs is a chance of being that place you first saw snow
It was for me, knew the area well and over two decades returned in winter rabbit shooting
Uncle worked on large property there and I camped often at Shooters Hill with a couple of mates from Holsworthy Army camp, always went home with near a hundred rabbits
You can have my share of snow these days, but it is only just two hours drive away from it here some winters Barrington Tops
Posted by Belly, Monday, 12 August 2019 6:27:54 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 Hasbeen,

The strange unpredictable cold fronts of today may have nothing to do with global warming but a lot to do with the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica opening up again, something that is being caused by China which is not complying with the guidelines of the Montreal Protocol.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 August 2019 10:39:26 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
No thanks Belly, it's all yours.

My lady & I actually discussed moving back up to the Whitsunday area last night. Although somewhat younger than me, she is finding her joints are not responding well to the increased cold of our winters here in SE Queensland.

So far the attraction of regular contact with kids & grandkids is winning the battle. However, much more of this global warming & the attraction of the tropics may win.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 August 2019 11:12:12 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
The way the football commentators were carrying on the other night in Canberra I assume they all came from Sydney.

However snow in winter is not unusual, I can recall a snow covered train at Sydney's Central station. It happened in the 60s when the overnight Southern Aurora, heading for Sydney from Melbourne came through a snow storm in the southern highlands and was still covered when it arrived at Central.

More unusual, I recall snow on Christmas Day in Crookwell and Oberon on the tablelands.

There are many pictures of Parliament House, Canberra, with the snow covered Brindabella mountains in the background.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 12 August 2019 11:31:13 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
In that case HenryL, it can't be caused by global warming at all.

Please tell Mr O , he has it all wrong, but then what else would you expect.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 August 2019 11:46:03 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
Hasbeen,
As you are aware weather does some strange things at times. But I believe the climate changes and we humans have nothing to do with it. Mother nature does all that.

Brisbane must have a large Met Bureau, so do you know if they have ever done an honest, accurate temp annalasis over the years, to record the true picture of tempt. I first saw Sydney harbor, at Circular Quay, more than 70 years ago and many times since. I have not noticed any rise or fall in the water level and the last I saw it was just a few years ago. Fort Dennison still protrudes from the water, despite their dire predictions.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 12 August 2019 12:23:42 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 HenryL,

Do you mind telling us your background? We know Hasbeen has a Bachelor of Santa Claus degree and is a Plastic Engineer. Are you in his league?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 August 2019 12:52:45 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
Well we love to bicker, and too tell each other we know far more than the rest do
Will someone sit down and tell me why the ice melted to the tune of ten billion tons in one day
Why each summer is hotter than the last, why England, indeed Europe had record breaking heat waves
Why are Russia is fighting bust fires in their north?
Too please why half the world thinks man made climate change is real, after all it is not as if man buggers everything he touches
Oh hang on, he does
Posted by Belly, Monday, 12 August 2019 1:13:18 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
Mr Opinion,
Me,just an old fart that was conceived during the war and went to the school of hard knocks when there were far more practical people in this country. I,ll conceed to human induced climate change when they can stop continental drift and prevent volcanoes from erupting all that gas and stop earthquakes. Even to stop the tides rising and falling or just making it rain when required. Then I will accept that humans are important enough to change the world climate. How entitled do climate changers think humans are?

There has been so much bull been told by those claiming to be experts, such as that Tim Whatever that has yet to get a prediction partially correct about dams filling,etc. Or the fool in UK who predicted kids would not know what snow was. The wheels fell off the wagon ages ago and now only religious nutters believe in human induced climate change now. Yep, they believe without evidence and the 'experts' have fiddled the books.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 12 August 2019 1:45:16 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
I'm not sure that NASA data would qualify as
"fiddling the books." Still, to each his own.

These links might help:

http://scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/

http://ucsa/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 August 2019 1:55:12 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
Your a "tragic" hasbeen...:-)
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 12 August 2019 1:57:33 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
Sorry.

Here's the second link again:

http://www.ucsa/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 August 2019 2:02:34 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
Foxy,
It was shown years ago that the Climate scientists were changing the data and placing instruments in locations where there was artificial warming.

Why should they be believed now. Perhaps they have found a new morality, like religious priests. If the predictions were correct the Maldives should now be under water and islands in the Pacific abandoned. Poor old Bangladesh better learn to swim.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 12 August 2019 2:15:43 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
There are many reasons why sea-level may not go up or down as predicted:

* . the Australian tectonic plate is moving under the Pacific Plate to the north and up-lifting in the south - hence the cliffs along the Great Australian Bight are rising out of the sea. Of course, if there was sea-level rise, this might mean that the sea-level rise along the north coast is out-pacing the sea-level drop along the south coast. I don't know if this is so ? How do you actually measure sea-level rise, given twice-daily tides, swells, etc ?

* . after the Ice Age finished ten or twelve thousand years ago, the areas of Australia covered by ice back then would have slowly re-bounded - say in Tasmania and Victoria (and probably NSW). So we should expect to see what looks like a drop in sea-level along those coasts.

* . sea-levels rise in South Australia twice a day by up to a metre ! At this rate, the entire state will be swamped by 2100.

Sea-level rise seems to have been about half an inch around European coasts over the last century, taking all (?) factors into account. At that rate, the Maldives will be swamped in barely a thousand years. And Fiji in only about a million years.

On the other hand, some Pacific islands are slowly rising out of the sea and growing in area, given the natural building of coral reefs, as pointed out ( I think ?) by Darwin.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 12 August 2019 2:45:48 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 HenryL.,

Scientists are united in their findings.

And NASA data comes from its various satellites
flying around the globe.

Believe what you want - I believe the hard evidence
of science. And the claim that they're all lying and
fudging figures is absurd.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 August 2019 3:03:52 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 Foxy,

HenryL, Hasbeen, etc., are denialists who are suffering from paranoid delusions, believing the scientific community is lying to them and trying to do them harm.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 August 2019 3:20:11 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
Foxy,
I read your first link and all it argued was that you cannot use one winter or one summer to claim the earth is cooling or warming. OK i accept that. Your second link could not be brought up.

Now you say there is evidence that humans induce climate change. So let us see that evidence. I have yet to see hard evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. Why cannot it be sun activity or say a slight variation in orbit,or a small out of balance in rotation caused by earthquake or some other reason. I want a solid reason, not just someone saying it is human activity without hard evidence to support that.

Give me some solid evidence that humans are responsible. I need a victim and a suspect holding a smoking gun with his fingerprints. And no alibi and witnesses. Not heresay.
Posted by HenryL, Monday, 12 August 2019 4:09:52 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 HenryL,

You have said 'Give me some solid evidence that humans are responsible' for global warming.

So HenryL, can you please tell us what evidence you would need to see that would convince you that global warming during the industrial era of the past 250 years is a result of human activity?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 August 2019 4:55:05 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 HenryL.,

This is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 August 2019 5:03:32 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
The last time it really snowed in Sydney was in 1836 but my Aunt and I were walking in Martin Place in about 1948 and snow settled on our clothes for a moment or two but melted instantly when it hit the pavement.

A pilot friend told me years ago that it frequently snowed over Sydney but turned to cold rain before it hit the ground.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 12 August 2019 6:13:12 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
Foxy if you keep your eyes open you will see a very large number of retired academics & scientists tell their real opinion on global warming, & it is suddenly very different to what they have to say to protect their careers.

Check out Don Aitkin's blog,& you will see a very different opinion than he was forced to at least not disagree with while a vice chancellor
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 August 2019 6:37:15 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
I grew up in the snow & I don't want to encounter any more snowflakes of any kind !
Can't stand the mess when they melt !
Posted by individual, Monday, 12 August 2019 6:57:15 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 Hasbeen,

You can throw up all the red herrings you can find but it still won't stop the scientific community from telling us that anthropogenic global warming is real. Please believe us when we tell you that the scientific community is not lying to you and out to do you harm. I don't know what caused your paranoid delusions; maybe some PCBs got into your system when you were working as a Plastic Engineer.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 12 August 2019 6:58:55 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
Mr O please go back to your arts community at some university. You will find many more useful idiots to share your fool religion with in such places.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 August 2019 8:28:01 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
'How about Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia who said:
Within a few years children just aren't going to know what snow is. Snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event. '

prediction was made in 2000. These alarmist have more false prophecies than the Jehovah witness's.
Posted by runner, Monday, 12 August 2019 8:38:43 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 Hasbeen,

No! Never! I'm fighting for truth, justice, and the anti-anthropogenic global warming way!

Now you on the other hand .....................
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 12:27:43 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
Mr Opinion you are head butting a brick wall.
Most here are not going to change they are indoctrinated by the far right
And for them climate change is not even taking place
They, truly,think science has been used to lie to us all
Truth is the first victim in this debate
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 6:48:16 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
Dear Belly,

You are just so correct. The denialists are denialists simply because they don't want their world to change. They think that everything is alright and we can keep on plundering the planet of its natural resources without any consequences. They are like the cigarette smokers who refuse to believe that smoking causes lung cancer until they get the disease and then they'll believe anything if it means having a chance to stay alive.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 8:39:01 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 Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock?

Lol. It looks like your Christmas came early this year didn't it. Santa's present was a cold front. Luckily for us you will have taken your repeatedly offered advice and not taken a single weather event as evidence of anything to do with climate.

I mean it would be the height of hypocrisy for you to claim this is anything but an aberration.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 9:55:06 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
'Snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event. '

the alarmist spokeman writes

'Luckily for us you will have taken your repeatedly offered advice and not taken a single weather event as evidence of anything to do with climate.'

just happens snow continues to fall every year. Sometime a lot, sometimes less. Its been 18 years since the soothsayers prediction. The alarmist just can't win. They just continue their lies and misrepresentations. Now they want to move on to eating meat. What atrocious 'science'.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 10:00:23 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
runner,

If you have any evidence to disprove the science
why don't you present it here.

In the meantime this link may help:

http://climate.nasa/gov/evidence/
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 11:37:16 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
Dear runner,

As mean global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising the credibility of you denialists keeps on diminishing. As the planet becomes hotter and the climate becomes more unpredictable and erratic you denialists will fade into insignificance. How do you like the math on that?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 11:42:29 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
runner,

Sorry for the typo.

Here's the link again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 11:44:15 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
"Scientists are united in their findings."

Its simply untrue. There are any number of scientists who don't accept the AGW theory. In another thread here, I showed a group of scientists who have a theory that the climate changes are caused by the strength or lack thereof of solar winds. Hundreds of papers are published yearly that disagree with or heavily limit the extent of AGW.

But the media, particularly the media that the many here read, are united in spreading the myth that the scientists are united.

"And NASA data comes from its various satellites
flying around the globe."

You'd think so wouldn't you. But in fact no. NASA's SST data comes from ground stations. The satellite data is provided by groups other than NASA. Why? Well a cynic might opine that NASA prefers data other than the satellite data because the satellite data constantly shows less warming and those at GISS don't want that, and they definitely don't want it publicised.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 2:16:49 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
Scientific Consensus:

97% of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely dut to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organisations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Earth orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data collected over many years reveals the signals of a changing climate.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 3:23:19 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
I know Mr Opinion that you faith filled believers hate it when totally dud predictions by scientific soothsayers continue to fail time and time again. However for you fundamentalist the 'science' is settled! No wonder you are so desperate to quote idiotic figures like 97% of scientist agree with this nonsense.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 3:29:14 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
Foxy yes true
However as we both know the others side is unimpressed with science truth or the planets health
I find it interesting asking how will they, in a not far away future, try to tell us they never said what they now say
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 3:29:17 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
runner,

You're welcome to provide your own evidence to disprove
what 97% of climate scientists agree on and the data
from earth-orbiting satellites and other technological
advances have enabled scientists to see. You're welcome to
provide evidence for your claims - and try to convince us
all that your claims are legitimate.

The stage is yours.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 3:35:19 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 mhaze,

It is all very well having scientists looking at other areas of climatic influence but it is like treating an obviously pregnant woman for overeating.

I would require a person to give a detailed explanation of why I should ignore the physic properties of CO2 before I looked at anything else. Its increase is both measurable and attributable.

"Ockham's razor is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually correct."
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 3:39:04 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
Foxy with the multitude of lies you believe I doubt any amount of evidence or lack of it would change your narrative. I take it you are sticking to your Russian collusion fantasy even after the lying liberal media are spattered with rotten egg all over their faces. Granted they are not the only ones.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 3:46:22 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 runner,

Foxy asked you a direct question and once again you have responded with drivel and misdirection.

What it does is show just how empty your kit bag is and emphasise what a blowhard you are.

Now why don't you take a moment and respond properly for once.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 4:10:26 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
Oh Foxy, not the 97% rubbish again. Darl, I think I'd have more respect for a young earth creationist claiming a 6400 year old earth than someone still falling for the 97% stuff. The whole thing has been utterly discredited so much its hard to believe there are still some around who buy it.

I'm sure I've explained it to you before but let's try once again.

Back in 2009 two researchers (and I use the word loosely) Doran and Zimmerman sent out a questionnaire to 10000+ scientists asking two questions

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Most scientists including those you'd call denialists would and did agree that temperatures had risen.

Of the original 10000+ survey requests, 3146 replied. (At least some who didn't reply said the survey was way to vague to be of any value).

When the 'researchers' compiled the results of their survey, they didn't like the answers. Only about 80% answered yes to question 2.

So what does any good scientist do when the results don't marry with the belief systems....fudge the results. So they started to eliminate certain types of scientists and got down to about about 1000 survey answers. Still the results weren't what was desired. So more fudging. Finally they got down to 79 (out of the original 10000) of which 77 answered yes to question 2. Heh presto! 97% and the gullible have bought it ever since.

Despite you saying (or regurgitating) that these 79 scientists think the warming was "extremely likely dut to human activities" in fact they merely agreed that humans have had a "significant" effect. Some of the 77 said they thought 20% was significant. The IPCC's definition on the issue is 50%.

So actually nothing like what your preferred media have misled you to believe. But I guess you'll just ignore it, eh?
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 5:17:52 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
SR,

You don't need to "ignore the physic properties of CO2" just better understand them. No one is saying CO2 doesn't cause warming. But its operating in a spectacularly complex system. CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere. It absorbs heat from sunlight in only some of the spectrum. So if CO2 were 100% effective at absorbing 100% of the light in its spectrum, it wouldn't have the ability to much vary temperatures.

Indeed even within the so-called consensus community, this is recognised. There is a concept called TCR (Transient Climate Response). This is the calculated increase in temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 if all else stays unchanged. The number is still disputed but it is generally accepted to be between 1 and 2 degrees C. That is, if we double CO2 (and we aren't even close to that) temperatures will rise by less than 2C which the alarmists keep saying is the goal.

So how do they get to their scary (to you) scenarios? By assuming feedbacks. eg they say that if CO2 causes temperature rises, then water vapour will rise. Water vapour is a far more efficient greenhouse gas. I'm sure I explained feedbacks to you previously when you showed a complete lack of understanding of them.

Anyway, the whole scare is based, not on CO2 but on these postulated feedbacks. But in its most recent report, the IPCC acknowledged that they know very little about feedbacks, how great they really are and indeed whether they are all positive ie some might be negative feedbacks offsetting the temperature rises caused by CO2. Indeed there is some recent research showing water vapour decreasing rather than rising ie a negative feedback.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 5:27:36 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
/cont

So just naively asserting that CO2 causes some warming therefore we're all gunna die, is the opposite of science and even the opposite of adulthood. Using you're pregnant women scenario, the doctor says that since we know having sex causes pregnancy, since she had sex she must be pregnant - no other possible causes for the weight.

Of coarse, part of a hypothesis is making predictions and seeing if they work out. So doctor says you'll give birth in 9 months. When it doesn't happen, he says just wait, the science is settled and you will give birth. In the meantime stop having sex ( = stop CO2 output.)

As we know the climate science is riddled with failed predictions. But since its now a religion rather than a science, the believers just agree to forget the failed predictions and totally believe the new predictions.

While here, just back to all those scientists who are working on different hypotheses about why the slight increase in temperatures over the past 200 yrs occurred or doing work that questions AGW. Do you acknowledge that their work and existance proves that statements like ""Scientists are united in their findings" are plain wrong. I'm just asking since it seems Foxy is going to dodge the issue and when I put it to Belly and our resident fake academic, they just pretended that nothing of that sort of 'other' science existed.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 5:27:40 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
mhaze,

My information comes from NASA and NASA tells us that -

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively
publishing scientists do agree. There's more at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

If you have evidence to disprove what NASA tells us -
as I said to runner, show us the evidence for your claims

The stage you can share with runner.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 5:29:03 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
I'm fighting for truth, justice, and the anti-anthropogenic global warming way!
Mr Opinion,
So, how are you actually fighting climate change ? What life-changing, GW preventing habits are you adopting ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 7:07:59 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
Foxy if you read deeply enough to form your own opinion, rather than deferring to authority you would know that there is more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb & reradiate all the frequencies of long wave radiation it is capable of absorbing. CO2 has a very small range of radiation it is capable of absorbing.

Water vapour on the other hand can absorb everything CO2 is capable of absorbing, & a huge range of frequencies CO2 cant absorb. This is well known to anyone who has bothered to study the subject, probably even to those who claim to be climate scientists.

There were a number of peer reviewed published scientific papers published a couple of years or more back, both Chinese & Japanese, which reported that CO2 increases in the atmosphere was displacing water vapour, so acting as a cooling agent.

Of course the Chinese government didn't like this, they want to sell windmills to fool westerners, so disappeared it quickly. Of course, gravy train riders pretended it didn't happen, & with support from the lefty press, few ever heard about the research.

Those who don't bother to become fully informed before forming an opinion are fools.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 13 August 2019 10:43:56 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
Hasbeen, mate, that post is about you
True you damn my side of this debate, but in the end you, not us, have been hoodwinked
Foxy has, truthfully, said over 90 percent of scientists say man made global warming is real
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 5:39:16 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
Dear individiual,

I made a decision a long time ago never to own or drive an automobile as an attempt on my part to stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere in order to prevent anthropogenic global warming.

What have you done?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 8:20:13 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 Hasbeen,

Your knowledge of the world and the way you use it are both quite twisted. Are you sure you have a Bachelor of Santa Claus degree and once worked as a Plastic Engineer?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 8:26:09 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
I made a decision a long time ago never to own or drive an automobile as an attempt on my part to stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere in order to prevent anthropogenic global warming.
Mr Opinion,
Yeah, I know that kind of environmentalist, bludging off others makes them think they're not contributing to pollution.
What do I do ? I refrain from frivolous activities that are polluting as much as is realistically possible. If we don't want any pollution at at all we must let humans perish.
The Planet can handle man-made pollution, it's the excess that is the problem. Such as those morons burning oil wells & constantly flying all over the world. People like you & I who use computers, electricity etc all made from oil.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 8:36:01 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
Belly,
Are you sure you're not confusing Climate change with Global warming ?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 8:37:36 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 individual,

You really need to get a grip on yourself. Going by your comment above to Belly you seem to think that climate change and global warming are unrelated. Everyone - even you denialists - know that climate change is a consequence of global warming. I am really left wondering about your background.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 8:55:57 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
Mr Opinion,
It's you who needs a grip on themselves.
Everyone - even you denialists - know that climate change is a consequence of global warming.
You're confused too. It's the other way round ! Human induced pollution is definitely accelerating it but it is not the cause.
Someone with a bit of sense like a village idiot will tell you that. You really shouldn't rely so much on Govt funded, using our tax dollars, professional guessers !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 9:54:13 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 mhaze,

You saying “CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.” already flags where you are heading.

How to explain this easily to you is the question.

When you go to a paint shop the attendant will often make the paint up in front of you. Taking a base white he/she will add a pigment turning it into often very dark colours. This pigment will be less than 1% of the volume. If you were to paint a bit of tin in the original white on one half and the dark colour on the other and put it in the sun you will find the dark section heating up far more quickly than the white. This has occurred through the addition of a relatively small amount of pigment. CO2 obviously acts a little differently but the point is that it really doesn't matter the percentage if the effect is significant enough.

NASA says CO2 is responsible for around 20% of the greenhouse effect and water vapour about 50%.

But water vapour is not a driver because with no other inputs its percentage in the atmosphere would remain relatively stable. While there may well be some human activity which directly increases or decreases the percentage there will be very minimal compared to the volumes.

Solar cycles of course drive ice ages and water vapour plays an important role as a feedback mechanism. Warming after ice ages is enhanced by increases in water vapour.

CO2 in modern times is a principal driver directly impacted by human activities with water vapour playing a feedback role.

I do like this analogy from Adam Sobel of Columbia University;

“Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce.”

Let me know if I can assist your understanding further.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 10:23:11 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 mhaze,

Now to your attack on Foxy.

What a dishonest mangling and twisting of her works you just engaged in.

Foxy wrote; “97% of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century”

You then went on a whole rant about “Back in 2009 two researchers (and I use the word loosely) Doran and Zimmerman sent out a questionnaire to 10000+ scientists asking two questions”

You do have some grasp of the difference between climate scientists and all scientists don't you? Apparently not because if you did you would not have even gone there.

This is from an abstract of a relatively recent study;

“The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Now how about you apologise to Foxy for your diatribe.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 10:32:53 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 wrote: "My information comes from NASA and NASA tells us that "

Well more precisely it comes from GISS which is a (rogue) department with NASA. The 'S' in NASA stands for space. GISS ignores space data because it doesn't tell the approved story.

Read here what others within NASA think of GISS...
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/49-nasa-scientists-vs-global-warming-greg-pollowitz/

You want other data. Well I thought I'd already given you some with my explanation of how the bogus 97% came about. But clearly, since your entire being is about subservience to authority (oh NASA said it therefore its true) how about this one among many from Perdue University...

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html

Take away data....only 53% of climatologists agree with the statement "Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities".

Of coarse, science isn't a popularity contest. Einstein is reported to have said it only takes one scientist to disprove all his theories. And we've had plenty of theories over the years that have had massive consensus support but ultimately shown to be utter rubbish.

And you should also note that no surveys show that there is a consensus that AGW, even if it exists, is dangerous or likely to be dangerous.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 1:34:23 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
SR wrote :"You saying “CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.” already flags where you are heading."

Toward the facts? Want to come along?

So we get a bunch of further useless analogies from SR. He had one yesterday comparing AGW to pregnancy but that fell flat and demonstrated the opposite of what he thought. So now we get CO2 (a colourless gas) as paint. The significance is unclear but I assume the paint sales-lady must be pregnant.

And then we get another analogy with CO2 as a volume dial. Its all about the sound system. What SR forgets is that the sound system plays sounds from the record (or whatever) Think of the sun as the record. If its playing heavy metal the volume will be quite different to Brahms's Lullaby. Change the record will change the volume irrespective of the CO2-dial.
All these silly analogies assume that CO2 is the driver in order to prove CO2 is the driver. Science it ain't.

"You do have some grasp of the difference between climate scientists and all scientists don't you?"

Define climate scientist. Are solar scientists climate scientists. The sun does play some part in climate even though the SRs of the world don't get it. But they are excluded from these 97% studies. Meteorologists? Also excluded. Cloud and atmospheric scientists? Excluded.

I think in SR-land a climate scientist is someone who agrees that we're all gunna die 10 years from next Tuesday week </sarc>.

Re the study on published papers that you regurgitate without examination. Many of the original authors of the papers disputed the claims about their own studies. eg Richard Tol, an IPCC lead author, said all 10 of his papers included had been misclassified as being supportive of the so-called consensus.

But its nice to see SR come riding in like Galahad in defence of a damsel in distress. Its good to see chivalry lives. Although perhaps Foxy might have hoped for a more accomplished knoght in shining armour. (Knoght was a typo but it seemed appropriate so I left it in).
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 2:01:32 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
mhaze,

I gave the link which clearly indicates where
my information comes from.

You're attempts at strawmen arguments don't do
you any credit.

You need to lift your game.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 2:19:28 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 Steele,

You seem to have touched a nerve with mhaze.

Thank You for posting facts instead of the
usual diatribe that occurs on this forum.

It is appreciated.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 2:23:13 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 mhaze,

“coarse” was another typo from you and it is fitting it was left in as well.

The reason I give you analogies is to try and make it easier for you to understand concepts which you are obviously struggling with.

The task is indeed formidable.

You write; “All these silly analogies assume that CO2 is the driver in order to prove CO2 is the driver. Science it ain't.”

Lol. So young scout pray tell us what has driven the CO2 levels from under 320 to over 400ppm since 1960? Do you even understand the concept?

Another question is do you know the difference between a climatologist and a climate scientist? Tim Ball has a degree in geology but calls himself a climatologist. Even he doesn't refer to himself as a climate scientist.

The study you linked to used the results from just 19 “climatologists” of whom only one thought climate change was caused just by changes in the natural environment alone.

One single person.

And you are holding this up as capable of refuting NASA and the studies they are quoting which looked at over 2,000 submitted papers?

Good god you are desperate in the extreme. Go find something substantial to debate us with because your latest offerings are seriously not worth the effort.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 2:47:42 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 foxy,

Too easy I'm afraid. I do remember a time when the people holding a counter view on climate change put in a decent effort and properly debated the issue. Now we are left with posters like mhaze and god forbid Hasbeen who are just trotting out tired and long discredited talking points.

And don't get me started on runner. A religiously anti-GW cultish zealot of the first degree.

Oh well.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 3:03:09 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
I do not understand people any more, those words said to me today by would you believe it a man who taught school
In fact in a very small country town my last school, Yanderra
He was talking about people not caring about others any more
Not in truth caring enough about themselves
While not sure we here are a true representation of the average Aussie, we tend to think along twisted lines
Say it is my opinion therefore it is right
And the other point of view? mad!
Climate change, global warming if indy insists, is real, only folk forced fed on Fox/Sky Murdock Trump do not know that
Thankfully however increasing numbers world wide demand action and are taking it
PS that man started at that school 30 years after I left he worked there near thirty years then? we meet on a river bank and learn we have lived two Ks from each other for five years
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 3:27:20 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 Belly,

Human nature is a funny thing. We all have our
prejudices. In fact we're all thrown curve balls
in the form of people and situations we are
tempted to judge. How otherwise would we grow
but by growing through such challenges?
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 3:49:16 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
the usual diatribe that occurs on this forum.
Foxy,
Yes, mostly from the Lefties !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 7:50:56 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 SteeleRedux,

I wouldn't get too flustered about Hasbeen, mhaze, runner, etc. They say the things they do because they are suffering from paranoid delusion, thinking that the scientific community is lying to them about anthropogenic global warming with the aim of trying to do them harm.

As the planet grows hotter and the climate grows worse and more unpredictable the denialists will fade into the background never to be seen or heard of again.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:33:24 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
True Foxy however this debate is a very very important one
And stunning, to think deniers claim not just us but science is committing a fraud on humanity
As we near another record breaking heat wave summer, like the one the other half of the world has had
We will see them still telling us we are fools
We if we look, will see in this debate you can indeed fool some of the people all off the time
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 15 August 2019 7:01:16 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
Dear Belly,

I ask the question What the hell are we debating this for?

We should just ignore the denialists and take the advice of the scientific community and an ever increasing number of scholars and learn how to live or die in a world that is being devastated by anthropogenic global warming all because human beings are selfish and greedy and got themselves trapped in a system of global consumerism driven by fossil fuel technologies.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 15 August 2019 8:46:48 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 Mr Opinion,

They really aren't the flustering type. They are being led by the nose by their politics and so for them to change their views will not be just a matter of altering those around climate change. It would require a major shift which I am pretty certain most of them are not capable of.

Of course it is a little hard to blame them as the amount of money fossil fuel companies like Gina's are pouring into hard right think tanks make it difficult for people like these to recognise and rise above the propaganda that vested interests are spewing forth.

Places like Europe do not have this problem and as such far more acceptance of the science.

Our resident deniers are very unlikely to ever admit they are the unpaid soldiers for fossil fuel interests. I'm happy to accept that and just have a bit of fun with them. Perhaps I'm being a bit cruel in doing so but it is something I am willing to live with at the moment.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 15 August 2019 9:06:17 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
Amazing isn't it, how the same people can be useful idiots for the communists, academics & investment bankers, all at the same time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 15 August 2019 11:45:13 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
oh dear, SR, this is getting beyond silly.
Now SR demonstrates that he doesn't even understand the notion of CO2 as a climate driver. While I don't actually think it is a driver , you SR as a good and loyal alarmist are supposed to accept unthinkingly and uncritically that CO2 is the major climate driver over the past 2 centuries.

So when I say that they think that "CO2 is the driver" SR demurs in his usual inept fashion. You see the concept is that increasing CO2 is the root cause of all the warming. I don't buy it but I do understand the belief. SR does buy it and doesn't understand the belief.

So in his dumb analogy of the climate being just like a stereo system, the volume knob is CO2 and the amplifier is water vapour. Turn the knob and you get more volume. But now SR is saying that it’s the manufacturer of the knob is the real driver.

Now SR, I have graciously taken on the task of educating you on the whole issue. In the past I taught you about the hiatus and about trend calculations and about feedbacks. I’m even prepared to educate you about the nuances of the theory that you so faithfully and uncritically accept.
But I’m sorry. I draw the line at having to explain to you your own fantasy-world. I did explain to you that your pregnancy story showed the exact opposite of what you thought it said. I didn’t get around to explaining to you that your paint story failed due to your innumeracy (ie you talked about how adding colouring to base paint changed it property. But you didn’t realise that with CO2 being 0.04% of the atmosphere, the colouring you’d be adding to make the analogy approximate reality would be less than a drop in 4 litres) . And now I’ve explained your stereo stuff up (failing in stereo…kudos). But that’s it. You’re on your own in regards to your fantasy-world.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:06:02 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
/cont

Now we find SR’s innumeracy telling us that one survey is better than the other because it had more subjects. BOTH surveys were of the views of climate scientists, not just climatologist, but SR appears to be unaware that his favoured one did that. He’s also unaware that his favoured survey is of papers and really only covered the views of about 200 scientists while complaining that the other survey was of a similar size. (oh dear).

As with most research SR does he decides on the answer he wants and then looks for the data. He found this Cook survey and it said what he wanted and that was the end of the research. Had he looked at the data he’d have found that “only 1.6 percent [of the papers] explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.” The paper got to the 97% figure by saying that any paper that didn’t specifically oppose AGW, accepted it i.e. it lied. But SR is used to falling for such cheats.

What I find extraordinary is just how little the local alarmists know while being utterly convinced of the theory.

Mention TCR and you get crickets.
Ask what a climate scientist is …crickets.
Mention that the IPCC has admitted it knows little about feedbacks…crickets.
Mention that plenty of scientists are looking at alternative hypotheses to the AGW theory…crickets.
Mention that the current temperatures have been exceeded in 3000 of the last 12000 years….crickets.

Its all just a case of ignoring any and all data that might conflict with the one true faith.
And then laughably claiming to follow the science. Following only the science that adheres to your pre-determined beliefs isn’t following the science. The very opposite in fact.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:06:07 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
Foxy,
put all her faith in writings from the GISS division of NASA because apparently NASA is the ultimate authority on the issue, or something.
So I pointed out that even people in NASA know and are prepared to document the fact that GISS isn’t any sort of reliable or honest authority in climate change.

Response…crickets.

Then we get this piece of sophistry… “You're attempts at strawmen arguments don't do
you any credit.”

Quite what strawman arguments she alleges isn’t defined. Its just a case of having to say something when her fondest beliefs are challenged and alleging strawmen is as good as any other empty statement.
Might I point out that alleging someone is making strawman arguments without identifying what those strawman arguments are, is (ahem) a strawman argument.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:06:13 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
Its been my observation over the past 20 odd years of being in groups like this that there is a clear divide between those who’d roughly define as being of the right and those would define as being on the left. I did see a paper written on this issue a while back.

The divide is this. Those of the right are basically individualistic. They write their views without seeking to adhere to the right-wing group. They are prepared to even disagree with those on the right in the group.
But those on the left are very much about being in the herd. Don’t criticise others in the group. Don’t divert from the consensus of the herd. And most importantly seek the approval of the herd as reassurance that your views are valid.

Foxy, when pressured, will reflexively praise anyone who might oppose her assailant. SR makes some dumb argument about this or that and she’ll praise it for no other reason than it oppose those who oppose her.

SR will constantly praise the left-herd for no other reason than it’s the left-herd. Mr O is desperately trying to find people who’ll accept his daffy ideas.

Among chimps, when the herd is threatened they’ll congregate and pet each other to assure themselves that all is well. It’s an accepted psychological reaction but in regard to debate, largely limited to the left. You see it in the Twitterverse where someone will make some clearly daffy assertion and the herd will defend it to the nth degree.

But a special mention to Belly who is quite prepared to advocate outside the group. Impressively, when the whole Russian collusion story blew up, Belly was the only person prepared to put his hand up as having been misled. The rest of the herd gathered around and assured each other that they really were correct despite all available evidence.

It’s a very interesting phenomenon. I think I’ll do some more research into it.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:06:20 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
Nevertheless mhaze your faterfall of posts highlights my view one side is so very wrong here
That side,at best, is yet to be determined, the evidence is in the science known
But with record heat, cold, rain, drought, world wide it remains a debate
IF coal became worthless overnight, if petroleum too was no longer used
I suspect the anti climate changers would disappear too
They exist because, behind the scenes self interest drives the anti mob in to a place remote from truth
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:51:01 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 Belly,

Pollution of the environment has begun to threaten
the ecological balance of the planet and the health
of many of its species, including ourselves.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult
one to solve, for several reasons.. First, some people
and governments see pollution as a regrettable, but
inevitable by-product of desired economic development -
"where there's smoke, there's jobs."

Second, control of pollution sometimes requires
international co-ordination, for one country's emissions
or pesticides can end up in other countries air or
food.

Third, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with
little public awareness that it is taking place.

Fourth, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damage is
irreversible - impossible.

In general however, the most industrialised nations
are now seeing the problems and are actively trying
to limit the effects of pollution.

The most far-reaching effect of air-pollution is a
change in global climate. However,
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 growth - of limiting it.

Further, control of pollution is politically difficult.
For the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries
are a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the job.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 August 2019 2:24:02 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
cont'd ...

I'd just like to add a few thoughts on "labelling"
people.

According to Psychology Today, some people often label
others by the characteristics that they think these others
project at a given time. It usually deals with views that
are contrary to theirs.

This labelling may seem to be a reasonable reflection of how
these others may present themselves at that time. But it
is not accurate to think that their behaviour reflects that
person's entire and often complex persona. Because if we
use rather narrow terminology to describe what people
are saying at a given point in time or just on any one
issue - it limits the complete picture of that person and
also tends to indicate that these people cannot change.

Psychology Today tell us that what is needed is to think
about people's personalities in a less fixed way because it
is important to realize that we should not completely
define people only by their given behaviour at any
point in time. Circumstances do change as do people.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 August 2019 2:36:19 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 mhaze,

Lol.

I will admit though I am struggling to follow your last posts. I think you may be trying a little too hard. Time to take a deep breath.

All I did was pose a simple question, well simple to me at least, for you to answer;

“So young scout pray tell us what has driven the CO2 levels from under 320 to over 400ppm since 1960?”

And you immediately slunk away with;

“But I’m sorry. I draw the line at having to explain to you your own fantasy-world.”

In a way I don't blame you. Having your inadequacies on full display is not very edifying. But I put it to you again, what has driven the CO2 levels from under 320 to over 400ppm since 1960?

This would be relatively simple for a great student of climate science as you seem to deem yourself. Obfuscation really should not be your refuge yet again. So how about it hombre?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 15 August 2019 5:35:43 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
Oh, snow, it was extremely unexpected, it was very cool;)
Posted by Shirik, Friday, 16 August 2019 5:33:37 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
Foxy, just 2 questions.

If all this pollution you can somehow find is so bad, how come we are all living longer healthier lives.

If CO2 is so effective, how come those climate scientists you so revere have to keep downgrading all their projections, & have had to do so for over a decade.

mhaze, you must stop using all those long words. We really should not use words of more than 2 syllabus, it makes SR even more confused.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 16 August 2019 6:04:02 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 Hasbeen,

In the preindustrial societies human technology made
comparatively little demand on the resources of the
environment. Populations were relatively small, and for
the most part people's material needs were fairly limited
and easily satisfied.

Industrialisation, however, has brought about rapid
population increases and also an endless expanse in
people's material desires.

Yes, we're living longer thanks to technology but
most technologically advanced societies are now digging
deeper into the planetary environment for the raw materials
and energy they need to fuel their economic development.
Thus causing problems.

As for the variance in scientific predictions? Conditions
change. However, things are getting worse, not better.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 16 August 2019 6:56:07 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
Put your bias and opinion about this subject in the bucket at the door
Having done that enter the room without any view
Now concentrate on only this
*How did the two sides two views come about*
How did we split on belief in the sciences, the causes, the danger if any
Now tell me no one influenced this debate
More importantly why
IF we near overnight, saw coal no longer in use, petroleum products too, millions of service stations closed for ever
Would the fear of that huge loss the turmoil be reason to power one side of the debate
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 17 August 2019 5:57:19 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
In this game the term Expert is really just a fancier word for guessing !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 17 August 2019 8:50:31 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
Yes Belly, take one of those video trips down the old US Route 66, & you will get a little idea of the horrible future without coal & petroleum would be like. 45 year old, brand new cars, rusting away on flat tyres in derelict buildings falling apart around them. Houses that no one needs, once thriving businesses abandoned, all because of a new road.

One of my main objections to electric cars is that the industry & owners expect the taxpayer to fund the refuelling infrastructure. The petroleum industry, & car manufacturers have funded the refuelling of ICE cars, why should electric stuff get a free ride on our taxes. If it is not viable for the electric car industry, [& it isn't], to fund the infrastructure to make their products viable, then the products are simply expensive toys.

It is really only cars & building that employs most of us, directly or indirectly, & with out either, chaos. Wind & solar just can not power the modern civilisation. I don't give a damn what does, coal, nuclear, or pedal power, but without reliable power, & the jobs dependent on it, we will make the dark ages look like a Christmas party.

God we have so many naïve fools in this world.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 17 August 2019 12:47:34 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
A word exists Hasbeen for those blindly fearing the future
Can not bring it to mind right now but
Yes But if this world lives for another two hundred years your view will not
Change will come
In our discussion about things that changed in our lifetime
You would be aware of the steam train, would know the first plane flew not much more than 100 years ago
WW2 charcoal burning cars,gasbag fitted
Charcoal itself no longer produced
Petrol coal and oil will not be in use two hundred, maybe twentery, years from now
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 17 August 2019 3:53:46 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
Yes belly I have no doubt that change will come. New fuels & power systems will be developed, but it won't be changed in your or my lifetime, other than a total collapse if we try to rely on wind. Our civilisation most definitely will not be powered by windmills or solar panels, except in very minor ways.

I use solar for pumping water. It does not pump much, & would be useless if I still irrigated acres, but to pump water up for the garden & horses, it works fine.

I really don't give a damn what supplies my power, house, equipment or transport. I used wind to sail 53,000 miles around the Pacific, so am not against anything that works. However I threw unreliables off my yacht, & they have no place in a grid that so many in cities are entirely dependent on. They are only of use to rip off merchants robbing us blind, courtesy of our fool politicians.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 17 August 2019 6:04:13 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
Yet Hasbeen over 30 years ago those damn hippies in Nimbin used water to drive a generator and power the smoking houses
1983 HERE, In this then even sleepier village, a young Vietnam vet, built his first new generation portable power plant
And started on his first of many millions
My solar, both batteries and feedback paid for themselves years ago
And my bills [after leaving a thieving supplier] are over a third less
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 18 August 2019 5:02:47 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
No Belly, we tax payers paid for your solar, with subsidies for purchase, instillation & feed in tariff. With out that injection of tax payer funds your solar would have been a dead loss. What's more I am still paying for your solar with my inflated electricity bills.

A small thankyou will do.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 18 August 2019 6:32:09 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
Thanks Hasbeen BUT my solar did not get the some times eighty cent feedback subsidy
In fact I get five cents thereby subsidising your power
No thanks needed see in all things the lucky should help the not so lucky
Posted by Belly, Monday, 19 August 2019 7:26:21 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 Belly,

Lol.

It is unlikely you would ever get a thank you from that old scrooge but I will give one instead. Thanks for subsidising my electricity prices with your feed in electricity for which you are most certainly underpaid. I am grateful.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 19 August 2019 5:52:28 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
If t is true Belly, you must be the worst negotiator on earth.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 August 2019 11:12:53 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
Hasbeen sorry old mate but did you truly need tos how us you know NOTHING about the subject?
See the eighty cents ended years ago
In fact my panels fitted at least eight years ago NEVER attacked more than six cents
Too no one got much more from that time
Earlier folk got, and for a time kept, the cash benefits
Long ago however and the claim today's solar is thieving from other users is in fact rubbish
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 20 August 2019 11:35:28 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. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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