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 > Climate Emergency

Climate Emergency

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 114
  7. 115
  8. 116
  9. All
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/untold-suffering-global-scientists-warn-of-climate-emergency-20191105-p537mt.html
I believe the science
Too the eleven thousand scentists who put this report together
In it they share views I have posted here
World population, our general standard of living, the fact far to many live lesser lives
That in parts the world is overpopulated
Even [my view now] we pollute this world and must change our ways
Disagree? tell me why, tell me is the climate changing? related to man made or not?
Will it return to the one it was say 50 years ago?
Tell me who conned me, how, why, to think the science is right
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 10:43:14 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
MHaze went under the knife about a week ago, hope he is well
He would take to me on this subject
While at it rechtub would too, we can only hope he is ok
Wanted, a case to prove I and those like me have been conned and why, will watch with interest
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 4:44:03 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
Hi Belly,

It could be 11 million scientists, the radical right forumites, brain washed on the subject of climate change by Big Oil and Big Coal, will never accept that climate change is real. These guys have been fooled into believing climate change is the brain child of the left, and no matter how great the evidence, they are simply going to plod along and allow the disaster to take its toll on humanity.

One crazy poster believes climate change science is an attack on his fundo christian beliefs, the work of Marxist/Atheists. Abortion Boy might pop in soon with one of his way out comments.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 7:25:03 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
Dear Paul,

«These guys have been fooled into believing climate change is the brain child of the left»

Margaret Thatcher is "left"?

It was her invention, in order to crush the coal-miners' union, by using nuclear energy to make the coal-miners redundant and stop their disruptive strikes.

There are far better reasons to abandon oil and coal, but this dishonest hoax of right-wing Margaret is not one of them!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 8:12:37 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
It'll be alright, stop worrying. Just keep burning fossil fuels - it's only coal, it won't hurt you.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 8:46:57 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
another load of c ap written by people who want to preach to others while still producing well above carbon footprints. These scaremongers are a disgrace to true science. Very comical.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 10:15:02 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
Oh 11000 scientist. Oh dear oh dear. What bollocks. You guys are either extremely gullible or totally dishonest. No wonder the likes of Jussie Smollett can put it over you so easily. Try finding some true facts before announcing Greta's narrative. You might scare a few kids.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 11:26:09 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
Gee belly that must be a worry for you. A couple of years ago it was 15,000 scientists making the same fool statement. Have another 4000 woken up to the scam?

Of course Ten years ago 31,487 American Scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s signed the Global Warming Petition Project warning that there is no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic heating. So their 31,487 trumps your 11,000 & diminishing pro warming lot pretty easily.

In the last few years even more proof that global warming is a scam has been even more rapidly.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 7 November 2019 12:33:29 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
Hassy, do you still have that rain gauge in the chook pen, along with the 97 year old neighbour that proves all that climate change stuff is malarkey?

p/s Are you still smoking the dried geraniums?

As I said Belly, 11 million scientists could agree there is a climate change emergency and the forums 'Usual Suspects' would still be in denial.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:06:58 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
Thanks to all contributors
Paul as you know I agree totally
And as you know in depth discussion is not possible on this subject with some
Well aware GY thinks our side is crap
But the link, the announcement itself, is much more than just climate
But very much related to it
I think, coal [use and sell it while we can] is on the way out, say 50 years no more and its use will end
Pollution? it gets worse every day, and will in itself FORCE us to change
Population [respect to Loudmouth] is at a turning point and in part bringing about mass migration/refugee flows
Runner, read your posts, every one baffles me, the Christ I LOVED is never seen in your posts
regards all
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:36:51 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
Hey Belly,
Come on really?
Do I really have to click and read the next installment of 'fear and guilt'?

It's as bad as the constant coverage of the Royals, to keep them relevant and their profile propped up when they're not good for squat.

- Except flying around in private jets and telling everyone else there's too many people and we need to worry about the climate of course...
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:55:28 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
Hasbeen's right. global warming and climate change are fake. So let's all get over it and get on with our lives burning all the coal, oil and gas we can get our hands on.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 7 November 2019 6:43:41 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 Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed, but the alarmists want you to believe the change is caused by coal the energy that has created a prosperous and healthy world; or overpopulation which is also the effect coal has caused. Before coal 1 in 5 children dies before 5 years, similar to developing third world. The answer to third world poverty is the creative use of fossil fuel, in raising their standard of living. It is done by capitalism and a valued care for people.
The Marxist do not want more children, their view of the individual is disposable, that is why one child policy, abortion and euthanise is paramount in their agenda. Catastrophic climate is making young women fearful of having children, that is Greta's anger, "How dare you destroy my future!".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=MaN2_XT1BVo&fbclid=IwAR1icXOwMwVyIPQ_plTKwCerN9A8DJ-xMuF630UZt7uh8mSF3PyuQHzQh8k&app=desktop
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 7 November 2019 7:20:37 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
There is no climate emergency. Superstitious people are being panicked by fear-mongering and lies. Only ignorant, uneducated people fall for such codswallop, and this site has more than its fair share of that sort - the sort that believes in black magic in the guise of science.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 7 November 2019 9:01:23 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
So lets get real! First no more air travel, gas heating or cars. This should start the ball rolling. Cancel all public service pensions and seize private superannuation and use that money for remediation!
Of course this applies only to members of political parties supporting the emergency. Scientists supporting the emergency and fellow travelers. Myself I welcome more space on airline travel and roads.The strife in financial markets wont affect me either.
Lets see how serious you guys really are with this existential threat to life on earth? Any takers or any increases on my sensible measures?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 7 November 2019 9:55:21 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,

Scientists have a moral obligation to issue warnings
of catastrophic threats. They are obligated to speak
out based on their evidence. Now it seems they are
going beyond just research and publishing and are
going directly to citizens and policy makers.

However, making changes is politically difficult
as the economic interests behind the various industries
are a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the task. The reluctance to
make changes derives from political decisions not to
slow down economic growth.

We have to wait and see if appealing to citizens and
policy makers directly will produce better results.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 10:41:55 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
This paper pretty comprehensively details temperature changes around the world, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere:

https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/

Very illuminating.

I'm puzzled why there is alarm at birth-rates, which, on a world scale, are approaching zero population growth:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-age-group-to-2100

Note that it's not the births, but the older age-groups which are rapidly growing in numbers, as people live longer and don't conveniently die off. That 'demographic transition' will last only until life-spans reach a natural limit, of 100-120; and then those numbers will stabilise.

The number of births round the world will stabilise in the next couple of decades, then slowly decline. So, a few years later, the number of 5-14-year-olds will decline; and then, of course, the 15-24 year-olds after them. And then, us.

But the number of working-age people, 25-64, will increase substantially, by about 40 % by 2100; and the number of people aged 65+ will increase by three and a half times. It's going to be a much older world by 2100.

So let's see: with a fascist one-world government, who should we kill off ? And how ? Should it be us old farts first ? Some un-named ethnic groups ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 7 November 2019 11:06:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Belly.

The scare tatics of global warming, and the consistent use of "emergency" should be all the proof you need that there is a con job being made. Is there any truth to the matter? I use to believe that there was, but watching one "climite emergancy" follow another climate emergancy, and I think it's all rubbish at this point. A hurricane is an emergancy. People die from those,my hey thappen suddenly and cause a lot of havoc. A famine on the other hand is a disaster, but it is not an emergancy like a hurricane, a tornado, an earthquake, or a flood is.

The repeated use of the term climate emergency with no actual destruction, deaths, or otherwise shown threat, show that this is a con.

You asked for proof. I'm telling you the proof is in the words being used, and in the lack of actual harm that's occured. The damage of Global warming is that everyone who sees it further their pursuits uses it as a truth to score points for their cause (if they are environmentalist), for their career (if they are a scientist looking for grants), or for their popularity (if they are a politician looking for votes). Each group exaggerates the claims and make it yet another emergency that follows yet another false alarm. This harms those who actually do care for the environment. There are big issues to tackle. Smog being one huge issue for countries that issue warnings for their population to wear masks and stay indoors.

What happens to environment concerns when global warming is found out for what it is? A giant scare machine that isn't actually helping anything. People will lose heart on environmentalists and clean air advocates, because they associated with global warming frauds over and over again. No reliability means no trust. No trust means LOCAL POLUTION will get worse and no one will look for better solutions because they don't trust the industry providing solutions and lies.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 7 November 2019 11:31:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
quick ring 000
Posted by runner, Thursday, 7 November 2019 11:43:42 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,

It wasn't raining
when Noah built the ark.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 11:48:26 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
WELL, we agreed, check your comments, in a thread called climate change is taking place
Do we now[regardless of its course ]say it is not?
Loudmouth you left the s on, your links will not work
Hasbeen and a host of others, SO THE WHOLE THING is a fraud, why?
Who convinced you my view is the wrong one, me a victim of fraud?
Can it be fossil fuel owners/investors unlike the tobacco industry are not trying to defend their own interests?
Then tell me again about me being a victim of a huge fraud, tell me why, who gains
Then, catch your breath, read not my link but the story it is about
Tell me those scientists are wrong, to remind us we are polluting the planet
To loudly remind us some [far too many] are living in substandard conditions
Tell me the last 36 months here in this country being records for heat, is a fraud
Then remind me about ice melting not being a signal the world is heating up
38 Degrees outside, month of NOVEMBER ok with that?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 7 November 2019 12:12:03 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
Sorry, Belly, thanks :)

Temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere (i.e. much more than in the Southern Hemisphere - more land area and far more population):

http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/

Slowing population growth:

http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-age-group-to-2100

I hope these help.

I won't be around but I'll bet that by 2100, the retirement (pension) age will be more like 75, or even 80. And since work is far less likely to be heavy, manual labour, 75 and 80 will be like the new 55.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 7 November 2019 12:27:30 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
'runner,

It wasn't raining
when Noah built the ark.

seemed like the climatologist got it totally wrong back then to Foxy! They to were to silly to heed God's warning so made up their own religion. Hmmm!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 7 November 2019 1:00:25 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 NNS,

You write;

“You asked for proof. I'm telling you the proof is in the words being used”

Yup, well that's the level of scientific rigour some people bring to the table.

Dear runner,

You write;

“quick ring 000”

Why? Is there yet another child being abused by your faith's leadership?

Dear Josephus,

You write;

“It is done by capitalism and a valued care for people.”

Sorry but these two are diametrically opposed. Further more inventions like the solar cell give us completely viable and often cheaper alternatives to coal.

The rest of your post is dribble.

Dear Jbowyer,

Or we could just facilitate a move to renewable energy and electric transportation.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 7 November 2019 1:20:46 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
runner,

The climatologists got it wrong?

No.

The flood did come.

I shouldn't be surprised at your reaction.
It is very tempting to live for
the moment. Why think about years from now?

But that's not how good Christians live. Good Christians are
very aware of one day being judged by their Creator.
So they try to behave accordingly.

The people who got it wrong were the people who
took no notice of the warnings. That's been happening since
the days of Noah. But Noah listened to the
warnings. He planned ahead. And so should you as a
good Christian.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 2:25:50 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 as some comments prove we are not talking about the report
Some are thanks Loudmouth, but some have no clue as to its basic warning
If we look, at the report not our own view of what it says, we will be forced to see it part at least it is right
Waiting for some to put in print, their view of how and why I have been conned
And by who for what reason
Climate change is here, it may never change back
Indeed it may/will make parts of the world worse or better who truly knows
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 7 November 2019 3:25:08 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
Belly it is only a Media report. We want the same scientist as I posted including Professor Plimer saying yes this is fact, and not scare mongering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=MaN2_XT1BVo&fbclid=IwAR1icXOwMwVyIPQ_plTKwCerN9A8DJ-xMuF630UZt7uh8mSF3PyuQHzQh8k&app=desktop

When these scientists say this is real and solar panels farms which incinerate birds and wind farms which kill large birds will save the Planet. All the product mined and processed with fossil fuel to save the Planet. The alarmists are not selling their diesel and petrol four wheel drives, we do not see the evidence from the alarmists, just the radical Marxists who have never worked in their life.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 7 November 2019 3:40:06 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 Josephus,

Who are the radical Marxists that you're speaking about
who have never worked in their lives?
Could you name names and give us some evidence please?
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 3:50:14 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, Have you not heard of "Get Up"? I'm going out to dinner now will give you an interview with one later.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 7 November 2019 4:01:41 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 Josephus.

I'm looking forward to it.

Enjoy your dinner.

My husband's cooking tonight (smile).
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 4:04:12 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
Has anyone checked to see how many of these 11,O00 scientists are actually involved in climate science? Or, like the media, do you think that people with science degrees know everything about ALL science, irrespective of their personal disciplines.

Superstitious, cultish Leftist fools will fall for anything. It used to religious cults making monkeys out of ignorant rubes; now it's climate cults.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 7 November 2019 4:40:39 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
Steeleredux, Solar cells you say? If they are the cheapest why is my bill twice what it was and still going up? Questions, questions.
Lets get serious the greens, getup, Extinction rebellion unable to fly, register cars or even travel in them. No electricity, super or public service pensions? This will sort out how dire this emergency really is.
Thank you Joe as usual a breath of fresh air and sound common sense. Steel baby on with the usual abuse?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 7 November 2019 4:53:26 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
Dear Josephus,

I looked up GetUp. It appears that they're an
independent political activist group.
The Australian Electoral Commission acknowledged
that Getup's activities are issue-based rather
than supporting or advocating support for a
particular registered political party.

In 2019 the AEC's determination was also supported by
the Australian Government's Solicitor and the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Perhaps you're getting the group mixed up with someone
else? Did you know that former Liberal politician
John Hewson used to be on the Board of Directors
of GetUp?
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:21:44 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 at least the Kiwis are taking this thing seriously, even the Nationals.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/this-is-our-nuclear-moment-nz-passes-climate-change-law-20191107-p538fd.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2PGd2YRUC-pzTsK7Onx4f0vGbwGbLhGdd2xBe7-MGwRRvnBZwdqNIRWt4#Echobox=1573105591
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:35:10 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
Leigh Sales described the 11,000 activists as 'experts'. Experts in what? Certainly not the climate, which was what they were lecturing us on. There were all sorts, from engineers to theologians. Over 2,000 were students! What of, who knows! Chiropractors and herbalists were involved in the scam. And the usual mugs were sucked in again.

One idiot gabbled on about climate change and bushfires, not knowing that even the arch climate villain, the IPCC, had said some time ago that bushfires were not more prevalent, and they had nothing to do with climate change anyway.

As usual, this latest scare-mongering is bullshite.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:40:49 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
Dear JBowyer,

Usual abuse? Not sure what I wrote that would be considered abusive.

Perhaps if I were to raise it to this level it might be a contender; "I love how this idiot has been totally discredited in just a few posts."

As to you gibbering on about everyone concerned about the impact of GHGs giving up electricity when there are many avenues for supplying renewable energy to power our homes, cars, and industries you really need to stop. It makes you look foolish.

Dear Josephus,

Plimer is not a climate scientist but rather a geologist by training and one that sits on the boards of fossil fuel companies. Stop quoting him. It does you no credit.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:58:43 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
I thought everyone knew that all the stories of the Great Flood were just the memory of the Ice Age thaw? The ice age put a cap of ice around the North of the earth five kilometres thick it stretched down to just North of the site of London.
No North Sea, no English Channel, Bass Strait or sea between us and New Guinea, the water bound up as ice. Then in the space of fifty years precious little ice and the missing seas appeared in less than fifty years.
Happened fifteen thousand years ago so well within human memory!
Steel again I have to ask if solar cells are the cheapest generator of electricity why are all our bills not only double what they were but are still increasing?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 7 November 2019 7:51:10 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
For gods sake SR, how can you suggest the kiwis are rational beings we should copy, when you see what they have as a PM.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 7 November 2019 8:06:37 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
'runner,

The climatologists got it wrong?

No.

The flood did come.'

just another convenient lie you choose to believe Foxy. No wonder you live in fantasy land fed by regressives.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 7 November 2019 8:46:08 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,

Ah runner, your rejection of The Story
of Noah, The Ark, and The Flood in
Genesis 6-9 indicates that you do accept
scientific evidence instead.

Gotcha!
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 November 2019 9:48:23 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
Dear Joe,

«I won't be around but I'll bet that by 2100, the retirement (pension) age will be more like 75, or even 80. And since work is far less likely to be heavy, manual labour, 75 and 80 will be like the new 55.»

How depressing.

If you are correct, then people will be forced into slavery for even longer years than they do now. All this technology that was *supposed* to give us more free time and allow us to retire earlier, has backfired, so instead of machines serving people to allow them to do what is really important and fulfil life's true purpose, people will have to serve those machines until the age of 75-80...

Fortunately, nobody can tell the future.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 7 November 2019 10:37:09 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
Josephus you tell me it is only the media? then expect me to put a high value on your opinion?
Fact is it is scientists, not media, who wrote the report
Not activists not anything other than scientists
Yes read, understand, what New Zealand has done, then see why it has acted
Then leave the baby pen Fox/Sky news is, be brave, research other opinion, other world news about clean energy, it's increasingly lower costs
But SOME must first find the report, take the time to read it, then tell me why it [the report] is a hoax
regards
Posted by Belly, Friday, 8 November 2019 4:36:18 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
Steel, the site you posted is a journalist report on NZ, not a science journal by a reputable science on what is happening to the Earth. Take the time to listen to this site and give the scientific evidence to refute their position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=MaN2_XT1BVo&fbclid=IwAR
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 8 November 2019 7:05:46 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 list of 11,000 includes Mickey Mouse. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/scientists-petition-on-climate-crisis-blocked-over-fake-signatories/news-story/eb7b2647890516320363863b8dd1caee?fbclid=IwAR3dEBDGR_Y9M4ar-UlmYazXbbgpFwA7JegN78YE93_3UcK8Q3AkeFAF0lY
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 8 November 2019 8:43:41 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
Evidence would be nice. In Adelaide, we had the hottest day ever back in january, half a degree hotter than back in 1939, in a much bigger city pumping out vastly more heat. Heat has (I don't know for sure, Steele knows far more than me) something to do with temperature ?

Our beaches here suffer from natural erosion, sand taken by the current from south to north. The sea-level doesn't seem to have risen, but that might be because of constant uplift along the entire southern edge of the Australian tectonic plate (note the cliffs along the Bight), and dipping along the north coast.

So it would be nice if there were real discussions about temperature and sea-level rise, instead of hysteria, although I'll be the first to that admit hysteria has its place.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 8 November 2019 9:00:59 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,
Listen to the full interview to gain Jacob Andrewartha credentials.
Their purpose is to destroy Democratic capitalism. The majority of the Climate activist are Marxists at the Melbourne Climate protests.

Climate activist Jacob Andrewartha says “we have every right to organise a protest because protests are inherently disruptive”.
More: http://bit.ly/2Npjmgy #TheBoltReport
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 8 November 2019 9:48:54 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 Josephus,

Thank you for the links and information.

There's so much information to sift through isn't
there? I'll add the following as well:

http://www.seti.org/more-than-11000-scientists-confirm-earth-climate-emergency

This link is useful because it also gives other sites you
can look up such as NASA's climate change site and a site
giving images of the effects of climate change. Also it's
worth while checking out the American Institute of Bio Science's
journal - BioScience.

There's also commentary on the study available on the BBC
and the Washington Post that are worth a read.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 November 2019 10:06:31 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
I missed this post before, but it is a perfect example of scientific argument on climate change by a lefty useful idiot.

Paul, "Hassy, do you still have that rain gauge in the chook pen, along with the 97 year old neighbour that proves all that climate change stuff is malarkey?

p/s Are you still smoking the dried geraniums?

As I said Belly, 11 million scientists could agree there is a climate change emergency and the forums 'Usual Suspects' would still be in denial".
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 November 2019 5:06:58 AM.

An example of a mental giant among the warmist community.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 8 November 2019 10:43:43 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
The level of abuse is near to the level of refusing to see any view other than your own for some
We still have not addressed the report, some just never will
And we too refuse to see NZ is far far from going it alone in that manner
The list would be many posts long
See Foxy, a Librarian, has her sources challenged in a rude fashion
Paul let his emotions do something very very risky here, he told the truth
Steelredux has been targeted, even his intelligence, by someone clearly not qualified to judge others
Read the report understand it
Posted by Belly, Friday, 8 November 2019 10:44:29 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
Belly,

Where is the development of zero carbon nuclear being prioritised? Why is the UN persisting with a total ban on ocean fertilisation? Even OF scientific experiments are banned for the totally comical reason that the outcome of such experiments is unknown. If fifty year predictions by far from perfect software models stoked with very incomplete data should be given any credence, then why should governments be so choosy about what solutions are acceptable?

What has occurred over the past 150 years is between 0.5 and 1.0 degrees Celsius atmospheric warming and about 0.3 degrees Celsius warming of the top 700 metres of the oceans, hardly a plot line for a Hollywood apocalypse. A warming ocean may bring more rain: This could be enhanced with ocean fertilisation, but with the ban in place we wont find out if this is possible. At least the LNP wants to try a modified Bradfield scheme: All that northern rain earlier in the year might have made a difference.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Friday, 8 November 2019 11:47:19 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
Belly do not give us news paper reports by Journalists, Give us Scientists defending their position. The report you gave us has been debunked as it also includes Mickey Mouse: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/scientists-petition-on-climate-crisis-blocked-over-fake-signatories/news-story/eb7b2647890516320363863b8dd1caee?fbclid=IwAR3dEBDGR_Y9M4ar-UlmYazXbbgpFwA7JegN78YE93_3UcK8Q3AkeFAF0lY
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 8 November 2019 12:34:37 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
At first I thought the 11000 survey was the usual rubbish. But then I found out that one of the signatories was the famed Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore.

As we know, Dumbledore has good form in regards to championing causes where the world is threatened but the authorities are blind to the problem. Having created the cult of 'Dumbledore's Army' to fight 'he who shall not be named', he is now involved in the new cult of climate alarmism to fight an invisible gas. Very compelling data indeed.

On the other hand, another signatory was Mickey Mouse (who struggles to spell his own name). But those of us with long memories know that Mr Mouse got his start as a steamboat driver, belching smoke like there's no tomorrow (http://youtu.be/hxf-UHuGobI?t=19) - just another alarmist who refuses to practice what they preach.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 8 November 2019 12:57:34 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
Hey Josephus,

I'm not interested in journalists;
I'm not interested in scientists.

I don't want narrative and conjecture.
I don't want any part of going around in circles achieving nothing.

I'm a realist.
Give me intelligent and logical ideas with a sound economic basis;
Then give me a plan to make it happen.

- Otherwise I'll abuse everyone for their incompetence -
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 8 November 2019 12:57:45 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
Those here claiming to be 'following the science' deceive - mainly themselves.

There is no "The science". There are several strands of science in regards to the current climate. There are perfectly argued papers saying that there has been warming over the past 200 years and its caused by various gasses. Equally there are perfectly argued papers saying that there has been warming but the cause is other than gasses. And papers saying that there is no warming. Or that the warming is natural and expected and maybe even welcome. Or that the warming is over.

The notion that there is a settled "The Science" is unscientific.

Previously on these pages I've shown some of these 'I'm-following-the-science people some of the contrary science. They simply refuse to accept it. Some even refuse to acknowledge it. Even when given the URL they just pretend to not notice it. Its as though its surrounded by a S.E.P (http://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem_field)
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 8 November 2019 1:33:54 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
We (humankind) have been presented with predictions of gloom as far back as we know. The Bible would be half its size if all the 'prophets' were excised. Ever since Malthus we've been told that population is a problem. We are always running out of food to feed the growing masses. We are using up resources. And yet for 200 years these population fetishists have been utterly, utterly wrong. Not just a little wrong - utterly wrong. And yet, here we are presented with the latest population alarm, and the usual crowd fall into line, forgetting the previous false predictions and treating this one as infallible.

Remember when we were told that cities like New York would be partially or fully inundated by now?

Remember when we were told Pacific Islands would go under by now?

Remember when we were told the Arctic would be ice free in summer by now?

There'd be 50 million climate refugees by now?
We'd run out of oil by now?
There'd by famine throughout the world by now?
That snow would be so rare, kids wouldn't recognise it.
That our ski industry would cease to exist because of lack of snow.
That the dams wouldn't fill.
That Perth would be a ghost-town.

And so much more.

All fervently believed at the time by the same types of people (and often the same people) who now believe this latest 'we're-all-gunna-die' malarkey.

All fervently believed with the attendant screams to 'do sumfing'.

AND ALL WRONG.

But that's the beauty of these things. These people can make all the outlandish predictions they like in the sure and certain knowledge that not only will they not be called out on it when it fails to happen, but that their followers will actively not remember the false claims.

Me? well I can't wait to see what we're all gunna die of next year. Because the one prediction that's assured to be true, is that, when these ones don't pan-out, others will take their place.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 8 November 2019 1:40:30 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
The report had much more in it, tell me are some living a substandard life
Is the climate changing? reason [left out]
Are the never seen before fires raging on the NSW coast drought or climate related
Josephus sorry old mate putting you in the never going to hear basket
Are humans polluting this world, do we need to change that
Yes the climate is changing yes the ice is melting at record levels
And yes SOME will refuse to see it
See Murdocks propaganda factory lost over 300 million dollars, needed that! good news on a bleak day
Visit NSW RBF fires near me, pull up NSW north coast
Our main highway is closed in both directions, fire rages homes burn but the climate is ok?
Posted by Belly, Friday, 8 November 2019 2:47:39 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
Belly,

The climate changes. Australia unfortunately has cooler than average sea surface temperatures in the areas from which evaporation forms much of our rainfall. Meanwhile rainfall is heavier in other areas of the globe. Why are the sea surface temperatures cooler? How anomalous are the current conditions compared with past decades and centuries?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 8 November 2019 5:02:55 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
'runner,

Ah runner, your rejection of The Story
of Noah, The Ark, and The Flood in
Genesis 6-9 indicates that you do accept
scientific evidence instead.

Gotcha!'

you certainly did Foxy! I fell in my own trap.

btw My wife had an uncle (mother's brother who recently passed on) who grew up very poor by aussie standards. He ended up head of the Agriculture Dept. in Victoria for a number of years. The rest of the family thought he was all a bit woke but were quite proud of his achievements. Probably about 7 years ago I was speaking to him (only met him about 3 times). Usually we disagreed on most things. I nearly fell off my chair when he stated what rubbish the climate change narrative was. I never did find out what changed his mind.
Posted by runner, Friday, 8 November 2019 5:31:04 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
Hi runner,

Thanks for getting back to me.

I'm not surprised though about people changing
their minds regarding climate change. It works
both ways. Many of our friends who were rather
dubious before are slowly starting to look at things
from a different perspective.

I read the report that appeared in the American
Institute of BioScience's journal, BioScience
and the recommendations made a lot of sense,
especially that so many climate scientists endorsed
it.

Anyway, I'm still reading as much as I can on the subject.
I, like I suspect so many other people, don't quite
understand things fully - so reading up helps.
(Anything to do with science - makes my eyes glaze over).

Here's a link that I found useful from the Smithsonian.
The world's largest museum and research center in
Washington DC. I had dealings with them when I was in
charge of Inter-Library Loans at the University Library
at USC (University of Southern California) in Los Angeles.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency-180973462/
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 8 November 2019 6:52:37 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
http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018/Australias-changing-climate
CSIRO no less wounder who conned them?
Well worth the read, and adds to our debate, only for those with open minds however
Posted by Belly, Friday, 8 November 2019 7:06:37 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
The climate in Australia is emerging out of a mini ice age and Australia’s climate has warmed by just over 1 °C since 1910. However there is no evidence to link this to burning coal or human increase in population. As the ice melts into the oceans it will reduce the ocean temperature. This will have a wider effect on climate as cool ocean currents will reduce the amount of CO2 being released from the ocean.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 8 November 2019 7:47:11 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
CSIRO questioned in the Senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ya1oznG-uo&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR15aEF2XxgkT00rnuh9wzd8OaPBdNlrLfQlMC9xvZp000y5VMm-FBmzfjM
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 8 November 2019 8:24:30 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
Belly,

I remember a CSIRO report saying how solar was much cheaper than coal, and that nuclear was impossibly expensive, so "CSIRO" does not mean "beyond question".

Within your link:

"The year-to-year changes in Australia’s climate are mostly associated with natural climate variability such as El Niño and La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean and phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole in the Indian Ocean. This natural variability now occurs on top of the warming trend, which can modify the impact of these natural drivers on the Australian climate."

That is what we have currently. Also, the report only looks at the past 120 years or so and gives no consideration of the effect of a warming ocean, which lags surface warming by several decades. And what of the effect of the ozone hole? I see the report more extrapolation than insight.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Friday, 8 November 2019 8:36:26 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
Fester get a rear vision mirror, right behind you is the mounting evidence solar and other clean energy is cheaper than you think
And getting cheaper and used more for economic reasons not climate
Some insist, on wrongly saying it is the reason we pay too much for power
Fact is privatisation, the desperate need of its new owners for profit, leads that race
To the overspending on wire delivery before those sales
Tell me PLEASE , someone explain to me why and who, conned me, who built the case the climate is changing, who said it was man made
Then as you try to force feed me the news it was or is a fraud explain to me why and who
Pacific Highway cut here over night in this areas worse EVER spring bushfire crisis, but wait! it will get far far worse
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 9 November 2019 5:44:29 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
This solar farm has to switch off every second day due to negative prices
http://reneweconomy.com.au/this-solar-farm-has-to-switch-off-every-second-day-due-to-negative-prices-63529/
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 9 November 2019 6:31:28 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
Hi AC,

It goes to show the success of renewables, capacity is more than meeting demand. Having the ability to "switch off" and still be meeting demand is a positive not a negative. Switching off is nothing new, your article said; "In the days when coal reigned supreme, many plants had to switch off or ramp down at times of low demand, which used to happen exclusively at night (as opposed to during the day now, mostly due to the impact of rooftop solar)". Is there a new problem?

Are we not fortunate to be in this situation;

"Some peaking gas plants operate just two per cent of the time. Some diesel plants, built under capacity payments, don’t switch on at all, because they are not needed" are we not fortunate to be in that situation."

With the high cost of gas and diesel, you would only want to operate those facilities as a last resort, in an emergency no less. Thankfully not too many emergencies.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 9 November 2019 7:48:24 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
Belly,

If we had stuck with coal fired power and built a couple of nuclear power stations, electricity would probably be cheaper and emissions lower. I have rooftop solar, but cheap and reliable batteries have yet to be developed, so going off-grid would be far more costly than paying the inflated electricity costs we have currently.

Another thing in that CSIRO report: It said that the oceans were heating as fast as the land, which is untrue. The problem we have at present is the cool water around Australia reducing evaporation. Ocean fertilisation may be able to increase ocean evaporation, but this cannot be determined while the UN ban remains.

You might want to look at the solar minimum as well. It has an association with weak el nino conditions.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 9 November 2019 7:56:45 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 renewables, wind and solar , cost two to three times more than coal, gas or nuclear in electricity generation and will never be cheaper than them nor as reliable. Australia is not even particularly well-endowed in wind and solar, except in the more inhospitable and remote parts of the continent.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 9 November 2019 8:56:54 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
ttbn is right in inferring that the sun rarely shines in Australia.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 9 November 2019 9:35:32 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
ttbn, instead of making broad unsubstantiated claims like; "The renewables, wind and solar , cost two to three times more than coal, gas or nuclear in electricity generation and will never be cheaper than them nor as reliable"

Why not read the facts as presented by the CSIRO;

http://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP178771&dsid=DS2

Sorry if the don't fit your narrative.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 9 November 2019 9:55:32 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
Fester are you aware the sunspot cycle is well understood and has existed even before men?
It is at a low point, it has low points, its full cycle, while it changes, is about 11 years
Take me on, tell me renewables cost too much
But please, do not ignore the fast growing use of it in many parts of the world
Tell me again, fossil fuel owners are saints, want to use coal to gift us cheaper power
Self delusion is never fact
Look up the link in the thread firebugs, see it right now, see the national route one as it enters its 22 hour of total shut down
Read of the fire storms here and in Queensland, tell me it is normal
Mr Opinion, you are brighter than that, lift your game
My forcast for a dreadful summer remains true, and it is not yet summer, do many understand? one of the fires, mid total fire ban, was a deliberately lite [controlled burn?]
Tinder dry here, truly horrific, and it will burn, this summer it will burn we can only hope it does not kill
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 9 November 2019 10:44:39 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
So ..... it's not disputed that world temperatures have risen by about a degree over the last century ? And that sea-levels have gone up by maybe two inches ?

Is that the general consensus ? If not, then what is the 'true' story ?

Another puzzle, at least for me - well, two really:

* . a number of gases are accused of contributing to global warming (am I allowed to use that term, or 'greenhouse effect'?) - carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, water vapour. Does anybody know how much each contributes ? And how many parts per million etc. of each of these is perfectly safe, even necessary for life ? i.e. what's the comfortable limit of - especially - CO2 ? Greenhouse operators pump CO2 into their green-houses at 1050-1200 parts per million to stimulate plant growth and proportionally increase water efficiency, after all.

* . CO2 etc. are produced, not just by human activity (as they have done since we learnt to use fire 750,000 years ago), but also by volcanoes, innumerable sub-oceanic micro-tectonic vents, all animal life, and perhaps other sources that I don't understand. Does anyone know, or have a rough idea, how much is produced by different sources ?

Another thing: what programs can be introduced to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, to partly counter the impact of the greenhouse effect ? Massive and permanent tree-planting schemes of course - useful timber trees, fruit & nut & medicinal trees and other vegetation - but what else ? Oceanic algal blooms of the right sort of algae ? Etc. Etc. - to bring CO2 in the atmosphere down to acceptable levels ?

Or should we go nuclear ? [Yes, yes, let's talk about 60-year-old technology like Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island, or keep building nuclear power stations on the beach in tsunami-prone areas, etc. ?] . France and Finland seem to be doing okay on it.

Or does everybody else but me already know 100 % the answers to these tiresome questions ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 9 November 2019 10:48:57 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
The 11,000 persons clicked on an editorial that were supposedly called scientists. Check the persons out here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0Gvm7ZvSxHksawPFAO3hFXaqywZfzSkByROjGUa-fpooh58o-UUAnjNsI
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 9 November 2019 11:03:48 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
http://theconversation.com/stabilising-the-global-population-is-not-a-solution-to-the-climate-emergency-but-we-should-do-it-anyway-126446
That is interesting, did not need to remove the s from my link, this site or its birth place
Loudmouth this is for you, yes know is is against your thoughts but it is a part of the report we are talking about
You quoted temperature rise but some will not believe it has risen, or the sea
And my reason for posting this? clear reminder the report is about many things many that we must consider rather than just rejecting it
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 9 November 2019 11:05:11 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
Belly, get a good belly laugh as you listen to the truth on these scientists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0Gvm7ZvSxHksawPFAO3hFXaqywZfzSkByROjGUa-fpooh58o-UUAnjNsI
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 9 November 2019 11:13:56 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 Loudmouth,

Mate, do yourself a favour and go look these things up. It is very easy to do. You have put numerous questions to me in the past and I have endevoured to give you answers but none have changed your mind in the slightest.

Now you are here doing a rinse and repeat. Yes people know how much each of the GHGs contribute. CO2 is around 20% of the greenhouse effect which has the average global temperature at 15 degrees Celsius rather that the -18 degrees it would be without it.

And no, there is absolutely no doubt that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a third is due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans.

There are all things you can find out for your self with very little effort. My question to you is why don't you do it?

If instead you were determined to stick with your position you will need to be able to demonstrate what physical property of CO2 no long applies. I have had a look and there is nothing I can see. How about you enlighten the rest of us how it could be so.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 November 2019 11:36:55 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
Hi Steele,

The problem is that there are so many conflicting answers to my dopey questions - who to believe ?

And neither do you put your money where your fingers are and assert something - an inch in sea-level rise ? Two metres ? A metre a year ? - and, of course, back it up. Meanwhile tides go up and down twice a day, a metre or more each time. Horrors !

Sorry, I can't take any of this seriously. I have this naive idea that the production of heat, in manufacturing, air-conditioning, cooking, etc., pushes up the temperature, especially in built-up areas like cities. Not being at all woke, but suspecting that many factors, including CO2, contribute to increases in temperature and sea-level, such as they are, I simply don't know.

But it's 12 degrees here at the moment, my phone says, three weeks away from Summer. Yep, last week and next week, it was/will be 30 degrees, so I know Summer is coming. Just not this weekend.

Pacific atolls are growing, I'm told, since that's what they do, said Darwin. Fiji has mountains above a kilometre high, much of it is safe for now. Our coast-line goes slowly up along the south coast and down on the north coast, due to tectonic activity, as the Australian Plate slips below the Pacific Plate. There is probably still some post-Ice-Age continental uplift going on in S-E Australia. Nothing stays the same for long.

I fervently wish that I could get hysterical about runaway global warming, like St Greta of the Holy Tundra. Please provide me with some definitive evidence why I should.

Here's another dopey idea, given that sea-levels have risen an inch or two in a century, how much of it might be (seriously) dumped waste - plastics, thongs, packaging, building material, car-bodies, etc., raising the world sea-level by, say, a millimetre ? And soil degradation flowing into the sea around the world - up another millimetre ? And a million ships sitting on all that water - up another millimetre ?

Meanwhile the tides .........

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 9 November 2019 12:50:35 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
Loudmouth is absolutely correct! Humans do not produce greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels.

Loudmouth has heaps of degrees in this area and has been studying it forever and knows more than anyone else. He's so good that he should be a climate change adviser to ScuMo and the LNP who also know that climate change is all just hocus pocus invented by scheming lying scientists who aren't as learned as Loudmouth.

So let's all get over it and get stuck into burning all of the coal, oil and gas we can get our hands on.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 9 November 2019 12:53:01 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
With the greatest respect appropriate to your status, Misopinionated, I disagree with your last post. Good luck with your TAFE certificate this year.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 9 November 2019 1:18:06 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
OMG Loudmouth! Are you saying you don't have degrees in this area and don't know anything about AGW and climate change. What a shock! Well that shouldn't stop you from being an adviser to ScuMo because he knows as little as you do about climate change.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 9 November 2019 1:45:34 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
Dear Loudmouth,

You write;

“And neither do you put your money where your fingers are and assert something - an inch in sea-level rise ? Two metres ? A metre a year ? - and, of course, back it up. Meanwhile tides go up and down twice a day, a metre or more each time. Horrors !”

Absolute tosh mate.

You have asked this before just two months ago and I have answered providing both quotes and sources;

Quote

“Thus, these results indicate about 11–14 cm (4–5 inches) of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990. Tide gauge analyses indicate that GMSL rose at a considerably faster rate of about 3 mm/year ... since 1993, a result supported by satellite data indicating a trend of 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/year ... over 1993–2015 … . These results indicate an additional GMSL rise of about 7 cm ... since 1990 ... and about 16–21 cm ... since 1900.

http://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

Let me know if you need any clarification on these figures.

End quote

Your response then?

Quote

Thanks SR,

So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century ? And six to eight inches of sea-level rise since 1900 ?

Right, now we have something to go on.

Cheers,

Joe

End quote

Now you are back running the same passive aggressive prevaricating crap up the flag pole again.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 November 2019 1:47:41 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
Read my link Joe? Loudmouth?
Any thoughts? how about the theory sea temperatures are rising down deep if not on the surface
Can we re look at the report we are talking about? see its other concerns?
My recent link needs at least a look Loudmouth
Mr O you can do better, the position of snide rude dude is already filled, you are no chance of getting it
Just opened my highway, but not to trucks, the long way around has been cut in one of the only two ways, by fire
Right now this is this state's worst fires event, long long ago as a kid fought southern highlands fire [a school] with a milk tankers load, tank water only there
57 homes went in the Blue Mountains then and about thirty others around the state
We lost 150 yesterday and over night, now? grim worse to come next week but far too many erupting right now
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 9 November 2019 3:15:35 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
LM,

Re your questions...

There is a rough consensus that temperatures have risen somewhere between 0.8 and 1.2c since 1850. It depends on which temperature database you prefer. Although most people in the field would accept that number there are many who dispute it, saying there's either no or much less warming or that there is insufficient evidence to actually know the answer.

Equally in sea-level rises there's a rough consensus of around 15 - 22cm since 1900. Again many would dissent from those numbers but most would agree or at least not strongly disagree.NB: seas have been rising since the start of the Holocene, on average.

Despite what some might say here, no one knows the effectiveness or extent of warming caused by the various greenhouse gases (GHG). For example there is a concept called Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECR) which is the estimate temperature increase caused by a doubling in the level of CO2. The IPCC and most others say that number is between 1.5c and 4.5c. A range that big means they're really saying its between not much a a helluva lot. They don't know. The more we learn about the climate the lower that number gets.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 9 November 2019 3:25:58 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'd be really interested in understanding the mindset that just accepts these scary scenarios as gospel.

Earlier I listed a small sample of the myriad climate predictions that have proven to be just plain wrong. Yet they were all believed at the time and just as fervently as the current scares. And there was equal certainty that we needed to do something at the time. Yet nothing was done and nothing happened. The Arctic didn't melt, cities didn't flood, snow still falls, Pacific islands are still there, the 50 million climate refugees didn't eventuate.

So I'd like to know how it is that so many here and elsewhere, just disregard these previously failed claims when evaluating the validity of the new scary claims. Indeed not just disregard, but ignore them or just pretend they never happened.

What mindset allows people to be utterly hoodwinked 5, 10, 20 years ago and yet be utterly certain that this time they aren't being led down the garden path. Its no different, indeed precisely the same thinking that occurs in religious cults where the faithful are told the world will end on so-and-so a time and, when it doesn't occur, just accept the new end-date as though the previous prediction never happened.

But I wish I understood how people 'think' like that. Or what it would take to snap them out of their delusions.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 9 November 2019 3:36:49 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
Paul,

The CSIRO is merely another tax-wasting department where you get your second hand lies from.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 9 November 2019 3:38:28 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
Speak to the Chinese and Indians if you think that there is a 'climate emergency'.

China has 1,032 coal-fired power stations currently in operation, and a further 126 under construction. India 291 coal plants and 33 more on the way.

Australia has 20, and none on the drawing board
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 9 November 2019 4:35:41 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
CSIRO is our pre-eminent public research organisation.
And its science is world class. It is sad that to
some people none of that matters.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now
actively trying to limit the effects of pollution,
but the populous less developed societies are more
concerned with economic growth, and tend to see pollution
as part of the price they have to pay for it.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 9 November 2019 4:54:43 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
About 360 billion tonnes of shipping to raise sea level by 1mm, Joe. It's a big bath tub.

Belly,

A coal fired power station can pump out electricity at capacity for 85% of the time it operates. On average, solar panels will put out 25% of capacity per day, with substantial variation within and between days, as well as seasonal and geographic variation. Like Alan's thorium reactor, a one gigawatt 24/7 renewable power system is yet to be built. I think the thorium reactor would be far cheaper and easier.

Here is a link discussing the relation of enso to solar cycles:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/05/solar-minimum-and-enso-prediction/

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 9 November 2019 4:56:12 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
The highlight of this thread is "EMERGENCY!" So it is supposed to scare us into action, to pack our essentials and be ready to board the nearest craft. But look at the people calling the emergency! Every news Channel around the world reported it even our SBS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0Gvm7ZvSxHksawPFAO3hFXaqywZfzSkByROjGUa-fpooh58o-UUAnjNsI

Sounds like the Marxist political scam that it is, promoted as an emergency by those susceptible to scams.
Sea levels in Sydney: http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sea-levels-sydney.pdf

I think I will move back to Sydney, as tide levels there are lower than they have been in past measurements
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 9 November 2019 5:25:02 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
Thanks, Fester.

Someone asserted that renewable energy was already cheaper than coal- or gas-fired energy. So it would be cheaper to produce wind towers and solar panels, etc., by using renewable energy generation instead of fossil-fuel-generated energy ?

Really ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 9 November 2019 5:34:26 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
This is where the Emergency began for Greta:

Quote"This should do our POSTER CHILD for MENDACITY. The former Maldives President Mohammed Nasheed, who famously held an underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldives in November 2009. The meeting, chaired by President Mohamed Nasheed, took place around a table 5 metres underwater. Bubbles ascended from the face masks the president and the Cabinet wore, and fish swam around them. At the meeting, the Cabinet signed a declaration calling for global cuts in carbon emissions that will be presented before a U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. Asked what would happen if Copenhagen fails, the president said, "we are all going to die."

We are ALL going to die! Well yes, but many not be by drowning, I'm now 80.


Nasheed has since been ousted from office, and the new Maldives government is front and centre in promoting high-class tourism on islands only centimetres above the high tide mark. The lying and hypocrisy is rank."
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 9 November 2019 5:42:47 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
Dear mhaze,

Make sure you copy and paste your answers to Loudmouth's questions. He will be back within a few months to ask the same ones again.

As to predictions that the Arctic will be ice free at some stage in summer they are perfectly on track. The fact that there have been some overly enthusiastic calls on when that will be does not negate one iota the fact that the trajectory is very much headed in that direction.

https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Disappearing_Ice.webm

I am curious why you latch on to these top end predictions by a very small number of the scientific community and use them to toss out the notion that the ice retreat is happening at all.

It surely must take a deep level of delusion to allow such a personal deception. How do you manage it?

As to what a warmer climate look like this is an example;

http://twitter.com/weatherdak/status/1192718035603189760

Dear Josephus,

Mate, sketchy youtube clips and amateurish 'papers' are hardly of sufficient weight to make your case. Care to find something a little more substantial for us.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 9 November 2019 7:30:18 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
The only ones with that worry about climate change are people with something to loose, and them wats inclined to panic.

I'm neither of those, so good night!

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 9 November 2019 8:51:53 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's a climate emergency around the Glen Innes district, the Mayor of Glen Innes has declared that the bushfire that went through the village of Wytallibah was due to climate change.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 9 November 2019 9:17:49 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
Is Mise, If only they could catch that bastard Climate Emergency and imprison him for arson!

I see Steel glosses over and not reads or opens links, so imagines what is written. Probably low energy by seven at night.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 10 November 2019 4:48:54 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
Again, did any single poster read the report
Or the second link that, looked at population?
Yes the anti climate changers are at full voice, even reminding my side we are victims of a con
Yet to see why and by who
Yet to see science from the it is not true side, from experts in climate
Josephus mate, you are becoming lost in a world of your own, one that in truth never existed
In this thread at least the anti climate change case is shallow and bitter
Tell me why a con is in play
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 10 November 2019 5:00:50 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 Is Mise,

You are one of the few people who are now seeing the current spate of bushfires in Australia as a consequence of climate change.

As an environmental sociologist I saw this coming a long time ago and I have formed the opinion that the climate in these areas is now fixed. What I mean by that is that a tipping point may have occurred and the climate has no chance of returning to what we knew as normal with periods of drought followed by rain followed by good weather. I think we now will just have drought followed by drought followed by more drought.

Humankind only has itself to blame for causing climate change with its uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels that is heating the planet. Actually I stand corrected: it is not all of humankind that is responsible, it is just people like ScuMo, Tony Abbott, John Howard, etc.

I said a long time ago that northern NSW and southern Qld were destined to become dust bowls and it's looking like I am going to be proven correct.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 6:51:36 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
Belly,

I felt the CSIRO report pumping renewables and trashing coal and nuclear was ideologically motivated and deliberately misleading. Many people believe that renewables can completely replace coal and supply cheaper electricity. The anti-nukes remain as militant as ever, blind to the fact that French nuclear power will make up the shortfall for Germany's renewable odyssey, let alone the French example of nuclear power providing low carbon electricity safely, reliably and cheaply.

Why is nuclear power a heresy in the Church of Climate Change?
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 10 November 2019 7:37:20 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 wasn't quoting me, but the Mayor of Glen Innes who is a well known Greenie and lives (lived, as her houses were burned) at Wytallabah, something of a Green community nestled among the gumtrees.

TV is shewing the result of having your houses surrounded by fire accelerant trees.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 10 November 2019 7:58:17 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
More devastating, but not unusual, bushfires in NSW and Queensland; and, also not unusual, the mad dogs are barking about 'man made climate change'. The only man made thing about bushfires is the failure to clean up undergrowth and take sensible precautions if you want to live in the scrub. The Sydney Morning Herald's rubbish-talking ratbag heroine this time is the mayor of Innes. This woman,apparently, is an expert in climate change and bushfires. Perhaps we should get rid of the professional politicians and replace them with bored, batty housewives wasting their brilliance on local councils.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 10 November 2019 8:01:28 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
Dear Is Mise,

Sorry about that. So you are saying you are a climate change denialist?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 8:01:41 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
Misoppinionated you said, "As an environmental sociologist I saw this coming a long time ago and I have formed the opinion that the climate in these areas is now fixed. What I mean by that is that a tipping point may have occurred and the climate has no chance of returning to what we knew as normal with periods of drought followed by rain followed by good weather. I think we now will just have drought followed by drought followed by more drought."

What absolute nonsense, Queensland during that same time had the biggest flood they had ever recorded; costing the country $1.243 billion. So Queensland are the good guys who burn less coal and NSW the coal environazis. You cannot have it both ways. The Alpine winter has been some of the best snow falls in years. Snow is water, not drought. It is just that drought happens to fit your political agenda.
Be aware of the world around you, not opinion based in your computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Townsville_flood
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 10 November 2019 8:02:46 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 Josephus,

I didn't know Townsville was in southern Qld. Thanks for correcting me. You are a wise man; it is no wonder as to why they call you Josephus.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 8:26:54 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
Once people had a degree of faith in institutions like the CSIRO. Since the total corruption has been revealed in the deep south in the US more and more have lost any confidence in bureaucracy. Bom seem to think its fine to fiddle with data and ensure it fits their narrative. The anti coal bigots have shown themselves to be desperate and dishonest while raking in billions of tax payer money in questionable renewable scams.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:34:07 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
OK let us continue to ignore the report that started this thread
Too everyone including the UN who warns us the climate is changing
Even us, yes almost every poster in the recent thread Climate, agreed it is changing
Doubt anyone elected Mayor in Glen Innes is green, BUT yes some things are weird
ABC radio interviewed the Taree Mayor [good bloke but] see he lives northwest of our two fires, and is in no danger, but they thought he was
Now read the thread, do please, take not of the charges laid against believers, then look for the basic evidence to support those claims, try to find some
Tell me again man has no impact on the environment zero on climate, and very little needs changing
I need the grin
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 10 November 2019 11:00:36 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
SR,

Thanks for helping make my point. The true believers just ignore and/or minimise the past predictions and go week-kneed at the new predictions.

Now according to SR, the predictions are on track because the Arctic will be ice free at some time. But the predictions were more specific than that. They were predicting 2013-14 or before 2020. And not a few but the ubiquitous "scientists". eg from the BBC in 2007 "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years."

And that nice Mr Gore won a Nobel (and made a sh!tload o money) by predicting 2013.

But, as I stated, when the prediction fails, the clueless just move onto the next prediction.

And the Arctic isn't even moving in the right direction for your claims to be true. While the trend-line (you remember trend-lines, I taught you about them a few years back) for 1979-2006 was for progressively less ice, the trend-line for 2007 to 2018 has been progressively more ice. So your assertion (ie a claim without basis) that "the fact that the trajectory is very much headed in that direction." is utterly wrong.

Still as George Costanza explained... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

Oh, by the way, your link was rubbish.

So still we see the true-believers trying hard to forget all the past false-predictions and fervently believing the current false predictions. And so it goes.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 10 November 2019 11:08:19 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
So Belly, would you like to explain to me why you now so strongly believe the current set of predictions when so many of the previous similar predictions were shown to be wrong. I can't help but notice that you are assiduously avoiding that problem.

Yes the climate is changing. Always has been...always will. Yes its a little hotter now than 100 years ago.

But we had bushfires 100 years ago. We had drought 100 yrs ago. And floods. and cyclones/hurricanes. and rising seas. and new record high temperatures and new record low temperatures.

But even after all that, even if these predictions of impending doom are even plausible, there remains no evidence that anything we (Australia) do will make the slightest difference to the outcome.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 10 November 2019 11:33:30 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 it never occurred to me to believe you were silly enough to actually take seriously anything coming out of the UN, but in your last post you appear to be trying to force me to such a belief.

I don't see how anyone could believe anything that Mr O stated his belief in. Such a ratbag should convince anyone to doubt anything he believes.

A quick thought about our fire history would be enough to convince any rational human being with half a brain that nothing has changed.

Remember ash Wednesday, & it's occurrence long before any increase in CO2 occurred.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 10 November 2019 11:40:47 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
Dear mhaze,

Back gilding the lily as always.

These 'ubiquitous scientists' were clearly defined in the article as Professor Wieslaw Maslowski and his group.

The same bloody article quoted a Dr Mark Serreze from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) which collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins.

"A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

He even said of Maslowski "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years.”

As to trend lines (sigh) all you did was reveal how much your cherry picking was breath-taking back then and I have little doubt that is what you are trying to push here.

However I would be kind of interested to see how you have managed to come up with this claim;

“And the Arctic isn't even moving in the right direction for your claims to be true. While the trend-line (you remember trend-lines, I taught you about them a few years back) for 1979-2006 was for progressively less ice, the trend-line for 2007 to 2018 has been progressively more ice. So your assertion (ie a claim without basis) that "the fact that the trajectory is very much headed in that direction." is utterly wrong.”

Especially given we currently sit at the second lowest extent and area for this time of year.

http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

Oh and why was my link 'rubbish'? All it did was show satellite imagery turned into a gif. Are you that brain addled you won't accept such a format?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 10 November 2019 1:14:20 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 Hasbeen,

Measurements started in Hawaii in 1959 have been recording exponential increases in CO2 to today, which is definitely before the Ash Wed fires of 1983.

This is the problem when untrained people are constantly sticking their beak into subjects they have no qualifications in. I can understand why climatologists feel like they're fighting a lost cause trying to make the general public aware of the problems of AGW and climate change. A case of knowledge versus ignorance.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 2:07:23 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
Mr o. Please tell us why we have record floods in middle OLD and record droughts in South western QLD during the same period, According to your knowledge which you learned at Uni, you can now predict [foresaw you said] these happening.

"As an environmental sociologist I saw this coming a long time ago and I have formed the opinion that the climate in these areas is now fixed." No the problem you see is an opportunity to pipe water from the north to the south, but a sociologist you only see the problems not the answers. This is the challenge!

So can I ask you when it is going to rain in the drought areas? The farmers are relying on your knowledge so as to plant crops. In 1951 Indigo Jones predicted the big drought in the new century and his calculations had it breaking in 14/11/2019, but others using his same calculations put it in 4/05/2020. I see you now learned weather predictions at University based on Climate science. We just want to know when will it rain to make the rivers flow? I suppose your university lecturer was a Marxist socialist, they seem to have all the clues on Climate, especially the coming doom of mankind.

When most of us on this site have been around for 80+ years we have seen a few things, droughts, floods, fires etc. We have not seen the people along the beach fronts moving to higher ground, or the cities on Australian ports abandoning their ports and building new ports on higher ground. Perhaps that is a career path you could pursue. Big money in Ports building especially now the sea levels are changing!

No it is all a lot of hot air incinerating birds and wind clobbering rare night birds, we are seeing; even that air will be cooled as the ice melts and water covers more land and we will have to return to coal fires to keep us warm.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 10 November 2019 2:20:30 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
MrOpinion,

Not at all, I simply quoted the Green Mayor of Glen Innes, she is getting a lot of sympathy; at the town markets this morn a local was heard to say that he had intended to take up a collection for her but his wife objected and wouldn't lend him one of her thimbles.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 10 November 2019 2:23:56 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
Oh dear SR,

The article I linked was a mere example or the myriad of similar stories. You manage to find one guy in there that has a slightly longer time frame and then, you assert that he's the really-trooly scientist.

Google "Arctic ice free 2013" and you'll get over 32 million finds. I think people were talking about despite your fading or convenient memory.

This article might help ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/#726d1533aa19

Re trend-lines. Still re-writing history I see. Way back, when I pointed out there were 100s of trend-lines concerning the so-called climate pause, you were aghast that there was more than one. I had to explain why. But its a just another inconvenient truth that is now residing in the memory-hole.

So out of all the failed predictions over the decades you pick one where some scientists didn't make the same erroneous prediction and think that vindicates all the other failed predictions. Oh dear.

As to your rubbish link I was refer to the first one in your post.... https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Disappearing_Ice.webm

As to the facts...minimum sea ice extent has INcreased by 10% since 2007. The lowest ever (well since 1981) was 2012. If its moving in the direction you say, why is it higher now than then?
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 10 November 2019 2:48:11 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
Belly,

You wanted to know how you'd been duped?

Try watching this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss

I suspect you won't bother or won't get too far in but at least watch the first 10 minutes and then explain to us (and yourself) how you were taken in.

Mr O,

"Measurements started in Hawaii in 1959 have been recording exponential increases in CO2 to today"

False. False. and False.

Do you know what exponential means? Obviously not.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 10 November 2019 2:57:37 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
Mhaze first glad to see you back many wished you well in that link before your op
Well let me be honest Hasbeen take note, please
See I believe some conspiracies are very very real
And that the anti climate change story is one
As well think, totally, *fake news * is too
That those who charge others with it, *invented it*
And use it to protect wealth privilege and defy the truth, DAILY
Science I trust science, know mother nature is a myth, no such thing exists, *only natural selection*
Can any one show me some thing humanity has not damaged in the post birth of the industrial revolution, just one thing
So yes I believe in mans damage to the climate, I understand [ham radio operators do] the earths different layers, they affect radio communications
See sporadic ionisation of the E layer, love some now
Do we admit to adding anything to any of those layers?
I do, man has not stopped putting profit before planet
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 10 November 2019 3:14:07 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
Climate scientist says she resigned because it has become too political to disagree with the politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg_I8QypcvM&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2nPIHTdWj6srZ7IoJv0YrohMqRS8M4i36DV8rHHR4QgXX26IM932w2FFw
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 10 November 2019 3:57:37 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
It is unfortunate that so many things are being politicised
these days.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 November 2019 4:09:28 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 Foxy,

The only thing that can save the environment and humankind from destruction is socialism. We cannot escape from political action. Socialism or capitalism? The choice is ours.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 4:15:16 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
Dear Mr Opinion,

Socialism is not as innovative or productive as capitalism.
It also gives the government a great deal of
power. Government leaders can abuse their
position and claim power for themselves.

Not an ideal situation.

Perhaps a combination of socialism and capitalism
would be a better result?
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 November 2019 4:37:26 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
Dear mhaze,

Utter rot. Now you are just making things up.

Firstly you say; “You manage to find one guy in there that has a slightly longer time frame”

Not at all, there was one other scientist mentioned in the article a Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, who is an expert on Arctic ice, and he too said it may not be as early as 2013 as well.

Then I asked you to substantiate this;

“And the Arctic isn't even moving in the right direction for your claims to be true. While the trend-line (you remember trend-lines, I taught you about them a few years back) for 1979-2006 was for progressively less ice, the trend-line for 2007 to 2018 has been progressively more ice. So your assertion (ie a claim without basis) that "the fact that the trajectory is very much headed in that direction." is utterly wrong.”

You replied with;

“As to the facts...minimum sea ice extent has INcreased by 10% since 2007. The lowest ever (well since 1981) was 2012. If its moving in the direction you say, why is it higher now than then?”

I had said; “As to trend lines (sigh) all you did was reveal how much your cherry picking was breath-taking back then and I have little doubt that is what you are trying to push here.”

And boy was I right. You picked what you thought was the second lowest year on record (2007) and then tried to say there isn't a problem because the subsequent years did not reach that far.

Well it so happens the minimum extent reached on Sept 18 2007 was 4.16 million km2. The provisional results for this year was 4.15.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/09/arctic-sea-ice-reaches-second-lowest-minimum-in-satellite-record/

Hardly an increase of 10%. was it, rather a decrease. Grow up.

As to the animation it came from NASA. Why do you struggle with it?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 10 November 2019 4:47:59 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
Dear Foxy,

I wonder if Misopinionated is actually a Chinese or Russian troll ? He/she has that naivety of a young, true believer, if you know what I mean nudge nudge wink wink.

Socialism now has a very long and detailed (I won't say 'rich') history - a history of the inevitable degeneration of 'fine principle' into a sort of left-wing fascism, time and again, a history of the dangers of total power, of brutality, of callous disregard for humanity. It's an evil system, and I have to confess to having supported it for nearly fifty years, until the Tien An Men massacres.

Democracy, on the other hand, is an imperfect, forever-unfinished, messy system which, as Churchill noted, is superior to any other system. The ultimate alternative to democracy is only fascism.

Joe

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 November 2019 5:23:44 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
Ahh! Mr O is a Marxist. Of course he has a degree in social engineering. Capitalism is evil and communism has the answers. Unfortunately he has not lived long enough to know the real difference of both systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpVv49v8BLQ
It is a wonder that the brilliant Mr O did not share his marks equally with the dumbest kid in his class, he wanted to excel over all. He is a rotten capitalist for not making himself share with the Fail lot so that it brought their score up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEa8DpheXkM
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 10 November 2019 5:25:07 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
Dear Loudmouth and Josephus,

Give it a rest. Unless you are prepared to decry socialised medicine ie Medicare and spruik for a system like the US then you two are socialists. Are you?

How is adopting Medicare going to lead to "the inevitable degeneration of 'fine principle' into a sort of left-wing fascism"?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 10 November 2019 5:53:57 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,

You did not properly comprehend what I said.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 6:08:28 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 Mr Opinion,

If I misunderstood you then kindly explain
what you did mean.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 November 2019 6:16:21 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
<Unless you are prepared to decry socialised medicine ie Medicare and spruik for a system like the US then you two are socialists. Are you?>

I think mercy and kindness to others precedes socialism by quite a bit. If you want to see socialised medicine in action, then look at Venezuela's health care system. At least the doomsayers there are being placated with a humanitarian catastrophe. Those waiting for the world destroying evil capitalism to be wiped out by the avenging climate change will need a little more patience.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 10 November 2019 6:36:58 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
Steel, That is why we have non taxpayers from the third world flocking here for social welfare, and the socialists complain when non citizens do not receive equally the labour of our hands for which we have paid. Ultimately the whole system fails as it is easier to be on welfare than spend half our income on taxes. Wait till everyone goes of private insurance and see how the system works.

Climate scaremongering is a Marxist agenda supported by the Muslim UN.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 10 November 2019 6:44:07 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
Dear Foxy,

Unfortunately I cannot because to do that I would need to draw on the knowledge gained under my qualifications and that would be totally anathema to others. No, I must plead ignorance in order to placate others who would shame me for my asocial desire to be seen as myself. I am but a poor philosophical harlot. O shame on me.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 10 November 2019 6:44:52 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 Mr Opinion,

" Every harlot was a virgin once."

(William Blake).
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:47:47 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
Churchill got it right but it may well be time to give capitalism a heart
This whole debate is weighted down by those who profit by not addressing climate change and the whole list of this the report is telling us
Evivence? science? put your head out the window, see the bush fires , look at the very true record breaking drought, see how long ago the last one was
Then tell me the climate is not changing
Our national highway was closed for three days
Opened only to be closed again as fire travels from the sea to forests right up to that highway
We humans will address these issues or we will see hundreds die as fires such as last year in Greece, this years in California, and our horrific ones in WA QLD and NSW are not yet near over
Posted by Belly, Monday, 11 November 2019 4:56:47 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
Belly, Earth climate is bigger than local weather conditions.

This is the weather - Tell us how Townsville can have the biggest flood ever recorded while in the same State same time, can have the biggest drought ever recorded. Tell us how human emissions of CO2 has caused the difference in air streams, and include Kilauea in Hawaii spewing toxic fumes for years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WolhhbcOtYw and Indonesian volcanoes: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=indonesian+volcanoes&ie=&oe=

These are not predictable and affect air quality that stream through wind paths. Take these into account in forecasting weather patterns across Australia. Now tell us this is the set pattern we can expect now in those areas, as Mr Opinion states
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 11 November 2019 6:21:28 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
I wonder how ScuMo is going to explain his lack of interest in climate change in the wake of the firestorms this week. I know! he can blame Labor. What a brilliant idea.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 11 November 2019 6:27:36 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
Mr O, Lets find the culprit that is lighting the fires, and we will know who to blame. Looking at your contribution to Climate it is obvious you like the blame game. That is why you want to destroy Capitalism.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 11 November 2019 7:50:42 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
SR,

1. The link I was referring to wasn't the NASA video but this one (https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Disappearing_Ice.webm). I don't really care. I just pointed it out because I thought you might like to fix it if you thought it was material. I'm sure you understand what I was talking about but as per usual try to obfuscate to avoid admitting an error, no matter how minor. I used to find your practice of playing to fool to avoid admitting error to be disturbing but now its just funny and sad.

2. Re the sea ice extent. I was using 2018 data not preliminary 2019 data. Prelim data is subject to change and often significant change.

3. My original point was that the predictions made by 'scientists' that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 was wrong. Try as you might, that remains a fact. Now it may be that, in SR-land, when someone says it'll happen in 2013 they mean 2023, 2033 or the 12th of never ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNRGa3pKyw) but in adult-world it means 2013. The prediction was ubiquitous and wrong which was my point. The current crop of predictions will suffer the same fate and the same bunch of true-believers will do their best to forget the error.

4. Whatever the momentary sea ice extent, the fact is, if its going to become ice free it needs to be declining in extent year on year on average.Its not. Its no closer to being ice free now than it was a decade ago. Its simply a failed prediction. But then again it wasn't a prediction - it was just more propaganda in the great scare campaign.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 November 2019 8:32:26 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
So Belly, I'm guessing you didn't watch the link I posted. Good idea.

Just for clarification the video shows:

1. The new report isn't new. It contains zero new data.

2. It wasn't put together by 11000 scientists but by one guy who then invited others to 'like' it. 11000 did so.

3. The vast majority of the 11000 aren't scientists at all but just climate alarmists. Belly, you could have signed it.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 November 2019 8:37:07 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 International Disaster Database reports that the risk of danger from weather has fallen by 99% over the past century. We are getting fewer cyclones, and the planet is getting greener.

Everything about this "11,000 scientists" story was absolute rubbish. The alarmist fiction was put on the internet for any idiot to sign, which is what idiots did.

But, certain posters will continue making fools of yourselves, with their pathetic references to every nutbag site they can find. It's unlikely that they will ever emerge from their caves into the light
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 11 November 2019 9:02:15 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
NASA, CSIRO, Smithsonian, and 11,000 scientists,
climate scientists, from over 153 different countries
all live in caves?

Wow! Who says we can't learn anything on this forum.
The previous thing we learned from this poster was that
"Leftists" lived under rocks.

Seems to be a bit of a pattern in thinking - here.
Perhaps there should be a need for this person to get
out from under and into the sun light - for some
enlightenment?

Just a thought.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 11 November 2019 9:28:06 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
'I wonder how ScuMo is going to explain his lack of interest in climate change in the wake of the firestorms this week. I know! he can blame Labor. What a brilliant idea.'

hopefully by calling out idiotic Greens who oppose back burning and then have the audacity to use people's misfortune to push their gw religion.
Posted by runner, Monday, 11 November 2019 10:28:11 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,

Come on young fella, you can do better than that. All you had to do was look at the Wikipedia source and you would have found this link;

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4616

Most definitely from NASA.

Now please don't engage in your normal "practice of playing to fool to avoid admitting error" because it use "to be disturbing but now its just funny and sad".

Now the fact that a small group of scientists predicted 2013 as the date the Arctic would be ice-free and were wrong is not in dispute. But what you are extremely disingenuously attempting to do is claim this was the opinion of the wider scientific community which it most definitely was not. Please stop.

As to the sea ice extent the only thing that held up confirming the figure was the fact that "Changing winds or late-season melt could still reduce the Arctic ice extent, as happened in 2005 and 2010." That figure is now accepted as confirmed. Not only that the October data is even bleaker.

"Arctic sea ice extent averaged for October 2019 was 5.66 million square kilometers (2.19 million square miles), the lowest in the 41-year continuous satellite record. This was 230,000 square kilometers (88,800 square miles) below that observed in 2012—the previous record low for the month—and 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average."

Therefore when you write;

"Its no closer to being ice free now than it was a decade ago."

It's rubbish! The outliers are becoming the norm indicating a trajectory to everyone but the most indoctrinated.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 11 November 2019 10:53:24 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
Wonder how my detractors would judge man made climate change if it was not linked in any way to fossil fuels?
See protecting just that, is the basic reason a campaign to deny it exists
Mhaze have read yours and everyone's posts, always do, but just drove 45 klm north
Right into the heart of a still burning bush fire, it will take two decades[ with normal rainfall] to get near what it was
Now yes *as another said* climate change did not light the fires firebugs did
Around here schools are closed, so another fire is likely, but not every firebug is a child
The biggest dry in living memory contributed, ,climate change?
Who knows but again put your head out the window, read other than SkyFox Fake News
Posted by Belly, Monday, 11 November 2019 11:27:39 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
"NASA, CSIRO, Smithsonian, and 11,000 scientists,
climate scientists, from over 153 different countries
all live in caves?"

What did I say about "certain posters" making fools of themselves!

I said these posters were the ones living in caves, not people I don't know, and who don't make fools of themselves daily on OLO. The sort of fool who has chosen to ignore the latest information that "11,000 scientists" don't exist. The sort of fool who just keeps on posting rubbish hoping to get a rise out of other posters because she has nothing better to do, and "needs" to keep doing it because she has "serious health problems" (she has actually posted this stuff) that she likes to keep us up to date with them at every opportunity. The sort of fool who buddies up with another fool to rabbit on about about people who "put off" new posters when she and her buddy top the list of suspects in that regard
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 11 November 2019 11:50:03 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
ttbn,

Don't take yourself so seriously.

No one else does.

We know that you never really want to hurt anyone.

You just feel it an obligation.

We get it.

You're the same old sausage, fizzing and sputtering
in your own grease.

It would help your mental well-being if you were to
come out from down under -
into the sunlight every now and then.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 11 November 2019 12:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keep on trolling Foxy; it seems to be all you have in life.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 11 November 2019 1:43:57 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 Scomo,s most telling comment was made a few years ago at Maccas in his local suburb
My thoughts are with Queenslanders today along with WA and SA my state too
After the fires if we see and after this summer, it will remain tragic as we take stock, insects and such most animals did not escape this holocaust
Hurts to know some maybe most are deliberate acts, we know kids started at least two massive blazes not yet under control
Foxy is targeted so am I because we believe in the science, we are joined by massive numbers of humans all over the world
Those who may read our words in fifty year may well know my thought the anti change team is part of the Fake News conspiracy, I do already, and you can indeed sell some people anything
Posted by Belly, Monday, 11 November 2019 3:23:33 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
'In August, environmentalists celebrated the protests staged 40 years ago against logging of the Terania Creek rainforest in NSW.
https://www.abc.net.au/…/terania-creek-anti-loggin…/11406660
Today, the same forest is being destroyed by bushfire.
The same people that jumped in front of bull dozers back then are the same ones blaming these bush fires on climate change.
“The forest wars” in the late 70s and early 80s saw 900,000 hectares of native forests in NSW and Qld converted to national park.
NSW now has more than 870 national parks and reserves totalling over 7 million hectares. Queensland 8.2 million hectares.
Today, large areas of national park estate in NSW and Queensland are being incinerated by fires that could have been avoided.' Malcom Roberts

Meanwhile the Marxist will cash in on the gullible while people die and lose their properties. And if anyone was to link the deaths to abortion laws!
Posted by runner, Monday, 11 November 2019 3:26:34 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
We should focus our effort on Human Change & the emergency it causes !
Posted by individual, Monday, 11 November 2019 3:37:31 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
ttbn,

You have no idea what I or anyone else has in life.

However, your deep need to complain is
obvious for all to see.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 11 November 2019 3:39:20 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
11000 scientists??

A check was done on all the Canadian signatures. Almost no climate scientists found and indeed few actual scientists.

A check was done on all the German signatures. Almost no climate scientists found and indeed few actual scientists.

And now?....the page where the signatures are listed is now unavailable.

They say its because of technical problems. I'm sure all those who fell for the 11000 story will fall for that as well.

SR writes: "the fact that a small group of scientists predicted 2013 as the date the Arctic would be ice-free and were wrong is not in dispute. "

Well it took an effort to get to even that admission, but small mercies.

IF you google arctic ice free 2013 you get over 32,000,000 hits. So maybe not a small group. Remember people pushing this prediction got a Nobel. And money, money money.

But its always the way these things go. The same thing happened with the old ice age scare. At the time it was everywhere and widely accepted. Then it didn't happen. Now the true-believers will tell you no-one really bought it.

Same with the Arctic 2013 story. Its everywhere, widely pushed, no real dissenters among the alarmist community. Then come 2014 and suddenly we're told no one really bought it.

The predictions in this silly report will suffer the same fate. OMG we have to act now or its all over. And then in a year or two, we'll be told the same thing all over again. And the same people will buy it all over again.

The circle of life.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 November 2019 3:44:54 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,

Well let's look at your record in the last few posts.

You said there was only one person in the article indicating a longer time frame – there were more.

You said the trend of Arctic ice extent was increasing – it is decreasing.

You said "Its no closer to being ice free now than it was a decade ago." - there was less ice in October just gone than there has ever been from when records started.

You claimed the animation wasn't from NASA – it was.

And now you are claiming that the number of Google hits as evidence of something.

Done and dusted once again. Time to give it a rest mate.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 11 November 2019 4:04:35 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
May I politely suggest the following link as being
worth a read from the Smithsonian - the world's
largest museum and research center (19 museums and 9
research centers and affiliates around the world).
It may help clarify a few things:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency-180973462/
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 11 November 2019 4:11:51 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
Good news everyone. There's no climite emergency. Find something else and stop wasting your time on this. But do try to take care of the enviornment. Just because there's no climite change doesn't mean a damn thing if your weeds cause a wild fire, your cities choke out the breathable air, your water is used up or un-drinkable.

Either way. Move on. Your burning daylight wasting breath on fake emergencies.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 11 November 2019 4:16:30 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
another quote from fire fighter you won't hear on abc

'Smith said the environmental authorities who have a put a stop to reduction burns — which include controlled burning, mechanical clearing like slashing undergrowth, or even reducing the ground fuel by hand — “need to be held personally accountable for the losses people have endured. People have lost their lives as a direct result of the decisions made by the environmental authorities!”

The firey ended the post, asking, “Tell me why these enviros shouldn’t be stood up in front of a judge and charged with manslaughter? Enough is enough!”

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/rural-firefighters-heartbreaking-plea/news-story/602b8b84c7092a232fd6fdceecb37f86
Posted by runner, Monday, 11 November 2019 4:40:13 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
Belly, if we are both around in f years, tell me again that what you currently believe was the "SCIENCE".
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 11 November 2019 4:47:09 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
Dear NNS,

Sorry old chap but I don't think it is all that seemly for someone who is obsessed with believing something they have zero evidence for is trying to tell people that regardless of the science there is 'nothing to see here'.

Of course global warming is real unless the physical properties of CO2 have miraculously been altered by divine intervention.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 11 November 2019 6:10:26 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
Unfortunately SR you need a bit of Math to understand how the properties really work.

If you had enough you would know it can't possibly do what the UN IPCC & people like you claim.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 11 November 2019 6:22:59 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
http://nswnationalparksandwildlifeservice.cmail19.com/t/r-l-jdhrhtid-uumcuudd-y/

All National Parks and picnic grounds closed.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 11 November 2019 8:22:19 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
To SR.

Look at the track record of climite change, and of it's alarmed emergencies. If climite change exists, it isn't the way it's described by climite change narratives. And it definately isn't an emergancy. How many times does a cause have to cry wolf before you realize it's not credible? Move on dude. Take care of the enviornment but don't follow a known lie.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 3:19:55 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
Will those who think man made climate change is a fraud take a breath?
Think just for a minute who gains by such a fraud, tell us who
Then consider my view, Fake News is the product of the right
They use it constantly, to smother the truth
Is it not just as likely you are a victim of fraud as you say I am
Yes, the quote [please take the s from your link so it works] those PC tree huggers do bring us firestorms
Not letting winter burns take place
Some of you, in NSW at least, know local government asks for far too much paperwork to let burns take place, so they do not
BUT surely we have ex firefighters here? it is just *too dry* to risk winter burns in some areas
NNS you confidence is misplaced read other than Sky/Fox generated FAKE NEWS
Hope we all get this day/week over safely
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 4:50:54 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
Emergency:

A sudden unforeseen crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action.

By no definition of the word is climate change an emergency, and Climate emergency is an oxymoron declared by virtue signalling greenymorons.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 6:20:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister

A lot of people probably see you as an oxymoron: A know-all-know-nothing who knows everything.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 6:41:55 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
Hi Belly,

Are all things okay down your way? Niece in Penrith has been told to watch out for burning embers in neighbourhood around house, expected to travel up to 30km.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 6:43:48 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
Mr Opinion,

If the gibberish in your last post was the best you could come up as an ad hominem I can't feel threatened by you, only pity.

PS I've tried to us small words.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 7:07:21 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
Belly, it's not the news agency that causes me to disbelieve. It's being observant. Over the years I've heard the cause for climite change corrections. And I believed it. Then time passes and you see what's happened and what hasn't happened. The whole issue is like a child crying wolf when there is no wolf. Over and over again until there is no credibility.

And that's my issue with all if this. The lack of credibility combined with the closeness climite change causes are with the general causes to protect the enviornment, and clean up polution. It's not a matter of IF climate change is publically denounced as a mistake or worse a fraud; it's a matter of WHEN climite change is counted as a mistake or a fraud. Personally I don't want all the other efforts of preserving natural resources, cleaning up polutions and better waste management systems to be set aside because they are all tied too closely to a lie repeated over and over again.

My position is that the truth should be the standard, not scare tactics. So far that is a standard that climate change narratives fail to hold up to. Move along, and waste your breath on this sham no more.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 7:43:54 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
On that note though Belly, you've asked a question. Who started this lie, and what do they have to gain. I assume that if I don't have an answer then you think that that proves I'm wrong?

I'm not a cop and it's not my intent to put those responsible to justice. There are theories and accusations that I've heard, some of them make sense too. Others just might be a possibility in order to throw one's adversaries under the bus. I'm sure you've seen the same people and the same groups blamed for promoting climite change for their gain.

Doesn't matter. Those who are ether foolish enough or powerful enough to continube such a sham, are unlikely to recieve any punishment, or repercussions. They are either too powerful (as some conspiracy theories perpose such as saying these lies are communist propaganda to weaken western societies) and they are not going to be put to justice anyways. Or they are the foolish ill informed public and scientists that don't know how the world climate works well enough to see they are doped or mistaken. No justice or negitive repercussions for them either, it's too large a group.

What does matter is the loss of concern and confidance over enviornmental issues. That's the real concern. Imagine all of the progress for preserving the enviornment lost because it is tied to an ongoing uncreditible lie. Personally I like natural reservations too much to throw them away for WHEN climate change is scattered as the lie that it is.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 8:03:23 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
Dear NNS,

Firstly mate you really need to put a sock in it. My understanding is you aren't an Australian and right now probably isn't the time to be calling the whole thing a lie.

We have our biggest capital city under threat of catastrophic fire conditions today, something that has not been flagged before.

We have the extraordinary circumstance of both California burning while we have catastrophic fires occurring here.

Significant firefighting aircraft like Elvis use to be able to be shared between the hemispheres but that looks increasingly problematic given the extended fire seasons in both countries due to climate change.

To have a group of 23 former fire chiefs with over 600 years of experience seeking for months but not getting a meeting with our prime minister to warn about the exact same scenario NSW is facing now is very unsettling.

This is an emergency, we very much need action now and to be planning for a new fire risk regime, yet the very mention of the word climate change has this bloke putting the shutters up.

This is not a lie at all, and there is far more evidence for global warming than for the God you hold so much stead in.

Dear Hasbeen,

The earth is 33 degrees warmer that in it would be without the greenhouse effect. CO2 makes up about 20% of that effect. We have raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by a third thus far. How could anyone with even just a modicum of intelligence say there has been no impact?

The answer? They can't. Where does that leave you?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 8:43:16 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
SR

"You said there was only one person in the article indicating a longer time frame – there were more."

WRONG - I never commented on how many people were in the article

"You said the trend of Arctic ice extent was increasing – it is decreasing."

WRONG - you don't understand trends. It doesn't mean to take two carefully selected points and take them as a trend. It involves a highly complex (for you) averaging of StdDev and least squares to get a sense of the gradient of the trendline. When you do that using recent confirmed data you find the arctic minimum has been increasing.

"You said "Its no closer to being ice free now than it was a decade ago." - there was less ice in October just gone than there has ever been from when records started."

Wrong - first the October data isn't confirmed. Its a guess. Second, if we ever get to an ice free arctic it'll occur first in September which is when the arctic reaches its lowest levels. So what happens in October is neither here nor there in terms of ice free predictions. But I get that you'd want to use guesses from irrelevant periods that support your pre-judged views than actual relevant data that doesn't.

"You claimed the animation wasn't from NASA – it was."

WRONG - never made such a claim. Your link was to some sort of search page. Somehow you assumed that everyone would work out which of those search finds you meant.

"And now you are claiming that the number of Google hits as evidence of something."

CORRECT - its evidence that the 2013 claims were widespread. You assert without any evidence that it was a prediction made by a small number. I can see how someone having a view based on evidence, rather than a view based on mere hope, might be confusing to you.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 8:58:20 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 wrote: "Then consider my view, Fake News is the product of the right
They use it constantly, to smother the truth".

So the chap who has conniptions at the mere mention of "the left" has no problem smearing the right.

Who in his fevered mind are the constant purveyors of "Fake News".

Hilariously the very 'report' he relied on to start this thread was fake news.

11000 scientists? Not even close. We'll probably never know how many actual scientists signed the 'report' because the people who put it together have now hidden all access to the signature list to stop others checking the names.

But based on the findings by the Canadian checkers, there's probably less than 500 scientists of whom maybe 10% had anything to do with climate studies.

But that sort of fake news is the sort Belly et al like and they'll never recognise they've been had.

Years from now the belly's of the world will still be talking of the 11000 as though its a fact.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 9:18:18 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,

These were your exact words; “The article I linked was a mere example or the myriad of similar stories. You manage to find one guy in there that has a slightly longer time frame and then, you assert that he's the really-trooly scientist.”

So yes you did assert there was only one.

You say; “When you do that using recent confirmed data you find the arctic minimum has been increasing.”

I would love to see what torturing you have had to do with the data to get that result. So how about you tell us what have you used.

You say you never made the claim the animation wasn't from NASA but here are your exact words; “The link I was referring to wasn't the NASA video but this one (https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Disappearing_Ice.webm).”

Finally you say about your Google hits “its evidence that the 2013 claims were widespread”. Show me any other scientific study which independently said the region would be ice free in 2013.

Mate, this propensity of not ever saying you are wrong is getting a bit thin. It's okay to fess up. Might be good for the soul. Give it a try for once.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 10:37:17 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
Saw all posts, Paul rough diamond here old mate but I truly am afraid,
100 Meters visibility here and for the surrounding hundred k,s this morning
Tanks near empty, have at most 400 gallons, lawn dead forrest tinder dry
Near here [totally true] floating down ash on fire about three inches square and ten k from the fire
Wind picked up and by nightfall? my home may not be here
Shadow Minister truly pleased you are safe, mate if you sat with me on watch on my veranda you would not question the word emergency
So many years ago, this then not quite a teen ager fought the fire that took Almertons only school with? milk from a tanker,
We can only hope if nothing else,the inquiry to come ensures when safe controlled winter burns are ALWAYS done,
Will post local fire map next post
Regards all
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 10:41:50 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
Come off the raw prawn SR, you can't just make things up when you are talking to most on here. "CO2 makes up about 20% of that effect", what drivel. Careful there mate, your lack of math is showing. We may have raised the CO2 by 0.004%, which can cause a similar percentage of stuff all.

No amount of CO2 can increase the temperature by more than 0.78 degrees C, & that is recognised by even that august body, the IPCC.

Yes climate changes, but it in not puny man doing it. In fact if the current trend in sunspots continues, we are in for a very cold couple of decades getting towards a Maunder minimum.

The fact is eastern Asia & the US have been cooling [using raw figures,even NASA figures, not concocted tortured figures] for a couple of years, with resultant crop failures. The growing belt for corn & Sorghum have moved some couple of hundred miles south of their usually areas.

Do try to keep up with what is happening in the world, rather than in the computers of the scam brigade old mate, if you want to be taken seriously.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 10:56:45 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,

This has never worked in the past so I am not holding my breath but how would you like to show us where you pulled this from;

"No amount of CO2 can increase the temperature by more than 0.78 degrees C, & that is recognised by even that august body, the IPCC."

What a load of crock.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 12:38:19 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
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-me
Here is the fire closest to me, at day break not one of the 70 still burning was at warning
Now seven are,never seen it so hot and dry, never
Too Australian National Highway cut again, 3 klm south of me and north about 40 klm, no traffic moves
Hasbeen steelredux has a point, you will need something far better to convince me
Explore that page if you go to the link, then see QLDS too
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 1:07:04 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
Climate emergency is challenged in another thread and here
Try this, my small village has become a refuge for hundreds of trucks unable to drive on either national routes Pacific and new England closed
A town not far north, one of three, is under warning to leave, two hundred homes!
The same fire that closed this road from Friday till yesterday, now has a circumference of at least one hundred klm, it is heading my way, north east winds due to switch around midnight here, southerly buster coming
IT will change the direction of the fire
50 burning in NSW 11 at danger level half [25] out of control
That number was 7 just hours ago
dry winter stopped burn off yes tree huggers too but every attempt to burn got out of control
Me? 5.000 liters of tank water left,if power goes off? no water, if planes drop water? fire retardant may poison me
We have a climate emergency right now
[lost three more homes this day] in this fire stay safe Queenslanders
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 3:03:38 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,

"So yes you did assert there was only one."

NUP - I pointed out that you mentioned one.

"I would love to see what torturing you have had to do with the data to get that result. So how about you tell us what have you used."

I already told you. I used the Sept 2018 figures. They are the most recent confirmed minimum figures. Its not as simple as this but let's keep it easy for the innumerate. September 2007 minimum 4,160,000 sq km; September 2018 minimum 4,660,000 sq km.

(4660000 - 4160000)/ 4160000 *100 = 12% which I rounded down because I'm so fair-minded.

"You say you never made the claim the animation wasn't from NASA but here are your exact words; “The link I was referring to wasn't the NASA video but this one (https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Disappearing_Ice.webm).”"

At the time you made two links. One was from NASA the other was unintelligible. It now turns out the unintelligible one was also NASA. Who knew?

" Show me any other scientific study which independently said the region would be ice free in 2013."

That's the entire point. There are no studies. The claims were widely disseminated but had no basis in fact. Just like the claims in the opinion piece masquerading as science that started this thread. That was my original point.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 4:12:43 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 Belly,

Just an update on my niece.

I rang my brother - and the fires are really
bad where they are. My niece and her three kids
are safe they're now in Kempsey (in the town)
with my brother and his wife. But her husband has
stayed on their property and is watching things there.
He'd installed a sprinkler system some time ago
on the roof. However there's no water - so much for
that.

My other niece's husband is right in the front lines.
He's a park ranger - and he's out there fighting
the fires.

Our prayers and thoughts are with all these brave men.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 5:17:18 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
Belly, take care tonight with the southerly coming your way. Hope its a positive and works in your favour.

Foxy, wish your folks all the best as well, dangerous time with night coming, no property is worth a life, lets hope all is well.

Watched the ABC most of the day, fantastic effort by all those fighting these fires, those on the front line, those supporting, and those doing the coordinating.

Can't let this pass, one of the sewer rats of Australian politics, the disguising National MP Barnaby Joyce had the audacity to claim people who died in the recent bush firers must be Green voters. Five people have be charged with deliberately lighting fires, would the sewer rat Joyce like to suggest these pyromaniacs are National Party voters, and any who might live in his electorate voted for the grub himself.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 6:06:19 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
Belly I know nothing will ever convince you on climate change, unless Labor tell you it was all wrong.

I wonder if your pipes freezing on winter mornings would do it, or would you parrot the tripe that global warming makes it cold too.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 7:01:08 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
Paul,

Here's what Joyce said,
"Mr Joyce made the comments about the fire victims in response to a question about whether the NSW Government had provided enough resources for hazard reduction.
"They may need more resources, but they also need legislation regulations that allow them to get in there and do it in a more substantial way," he told Sky News' Kieran Gilbert.

"The crazy thing there Kieran, I acknowledge the two people who died were most likely people who voted for the Green party.

"So I'm not going to start attacking them, that's the last thing I want to do.

"What I wanted to concentrate was on the policies, we can mitigate these tragedies happening again in the future."

And they probably were Greens voters as they came from a heavily infested Green area.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-12/barnaby-joyce-greens-council-bushfire-victims/11696654
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 7:13:34 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
Dear Paul,

Thank You for your well wishes regarding my family.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all the people
doing it tough out there.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 8:10:34 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
Alternate energy emergency.

FOCUS reports: “The crisis in the German wind energy industry is worsening. According to the ‘Süddeutsche Zeitung’, hard cuts at the largest German manufacturer Enercon will cost 3000 jobs.”

It appears the Germans are over paying through the nose for alternate power, & are forcing their governments hand in reducing subsidies, the only thing that keeps wind power alive.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 8:51:06 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
Issy, I expect that kind of garbage from a jerk like Joyce. That's the same bloke who was bonking his office girl at taxpayers expense. The fool wouldn't have a clue who they voted for, will he agree pyromaniacs most likely vote for the National Party.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 9:13:16 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
Dear mhaze,

Lol. Really?

You had earlier said “WRONG - you don't understand trends. It doesn't mean to take two carefully selected points and take them as a trend”.

Now you go and do just that.

Here is the trend line since measurements were taken;

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09_Sep/N_09_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png

It delivers a slope of -12.9.

You had to work your cherry-picking arse off to get a +12% slope didn't you. Don't you ever sit there and say to yourself I have become a shameless manipulator of data, perhaps the position I am attempting to defend is untenable?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 11:04:07 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
Dear Hasbeen,

Dodged the question twice now. Third time lucky?

"This has never worked in the past so I am not holding my breath but how would you like to show us where you pulled this from;

"No amount of CO2 can increase the temperature by more than 0.78 degrees C, & that is recognised by even that august body, the IPCC.""
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 11:06:30 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
Is that how it's going to be from now on? Wild fires are going to be blamed on global warming instead of mismanagement?

The cause for global warming will be to reduce pollution, but the premise of global warming is that polution needs to be reduced world wide. A condition that isn't going to be met by China or by several other large polluters of the world. Thus it can always be the great excape goat to blame on. Seek to reduce polution instead of facing the issue of fire management and wild lands groomed for safety of potential fires?

NO! What needs to happen for fire management is to put in place strict restrictions and consquences for breaking restrictions in dry seasons so that a brush fire doesn't start by those going out into the brush. Then on top of that, standards for electric companies to remove any trees or branches that a power line can set on fire. (As was the case of one of the fires in California).

Next thing we'll see is that flooding, and erosion will be blamed on global warming instead of those who are managing the area that had the floods and erosion. Or there will be an oil explosion and the cry will be "climate change sparked the oil." Instead of the real issues of what actually caused it.

My hopes are for any of you facing the fires going on, and that you and your loved ones will be safe.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 4:24:57 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
Paul,

What Joyce was remarking on was the irony, that he said it was slightly in bad taste, but it doesn't come anywhere near the slandering of dead and living Australian soldiers by alleging that they threw bombs at children.

I knew both George Nole and Judy Fletcher and I'm 99% sure that they voted Green and I also know that their local village was a fire trap, George was killed in his car, I don't know exactly where but in all probability on a road that was bordered by very flammable trees and plenty of dead wood on the ground.

One thing that is for sure, the Greens will do everything that they can to divert the emphasis away from tree removal and clearing safe areas around buildings etc.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 7:48:34 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 come on SR,

Now you're just being silly and/or grasping at straws.

I didn't say I was showing you a trend line. I was merely showing a very simplified way of demonstrating that my original point that ice is increasing in the Arctic was true. I even said it was a simplified method and not the way I'd normally do it. But I don't have the heart to teach you least squares theory.

Come what may, even if you want to use the unverified 2019 figures which are probably an underestimate (2018 figures were recently increased due to under-estimation), the fact remains that we're are no closer to an ice free arctic now than we were a decade or more ago.

Now you may not want that to be true and we've seen over the years that you prefer the fantasy to the fact, but it remains a fact that the predictions of an ice free arctic in 2013, 2020, 2030 or our life time is looking pretty sick.

Just like all the other BS predictions the alarmist community conjures up
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 9:33:39 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
Issy, did Bonking Barney allege dead and living Australian soldiers threw bombs at children. He must have read 'Scorched Earth, Black Snow' by Andrew Salmon, plenty of first hand accounts on that very subject given in the book. You should have a read, it might open your eyes to the truth
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 10:17:43 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
Dear mhaze,

Stop being so bloody slippery mate. You had been talking about trend lines right through our conversation and asserting they were going up.

“the trend-line for 2007 to 2018 has been progressively more ice”

Then you give a 'simplified version' of what? A trend line of course. One which took against you very own advice “two carefully selected points and take them as a trend”.

The Sept 2019 figure is very much confirmed so stop trying to slither away from it.

You have attempted statistical bastardry and been found out. You really should be ashamed but as is usual for people like yourself you have instead tried to double down.

You really are very ordinary aren't you.

Once again this is the link to the actual trend line for any who are bothering to follow this;

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09_Sep/N_09_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 10:31:26 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
Paul,

You and the truth are as far from each other as DiNatoli and reality.

His latest gurge doesn't say anything about clearing gumtrees away from buildings.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 10:55:43 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
Sr,

For Christ-sake, this is just getting silly. Are you really that desperate to prove black is white?

Here's what I've said earlier....

"for 1979-2006 was for progressively less ice, the trend-line for 2007 to 2018 has been progressively more ice."

Both those statements are true.

"minimum sea ice extent has INcreased by 10% since 2007."

Again true. Unless you want to use the unverified 2019 numbers in which case go for it. I prefer to use real data.

As to my last post showing calculations as to the ice, I specifically said I was keeping it simple ie no trend lines just proof that the ice minimum has increased.

As to using 2007, call it a cherry pick if you want but I wasn't hiding it. I mentioned it from the outset. The trouble is that you forensically parse each post to search for any ambiguity to hang your daft notions on. I feel like I need to run each post past a lawyer.

Here are the facts: (not that you'll care)

1. The claim was it would be ice free by 2013....it wasn't.
2. Not only isn't it ice free, but from 2007 to 2018 the minimum ice levels rose.
3. Even if the 2019 levels are confirmed, the trend will still be up.
4. If the theory that these things are cyclical is correct, then there will be an inflection point at some time. At the moment that looks like 2007. So not a cherry-pick but an identifiable change in the data.

IF you are so concerned about getting the full picture, why go back to just 1981? http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/86917-1.jpg

Oh and just to make it clear, this whole thing grew out of me saying 2013 wasn't ice free. In SR-land, that isn't true for totally unrelated excuses....or something.

So again SR. Where the predictions about 2013 shown to be true or false?
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 1:00:57 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
Issy, you have read the Andrew Salmon book, have you? Are you claiming the first hand accounts of war crimes committed during the Korean War by Australian and British soldiers are fabrications or distortions of the truth?
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 1:47:02 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
You can only hope that Morrison has learn't that you can't appease the gw Marxist alarmist. He wasted another billion dollars by giving it to the renewables fraud recently. In response he has been called an arsonist. I would say he would be totally foolish to continue wasting money on this religion. The fraudsters will still be wanting more and using autistic children and corrupt 'science' to continue their cause.

btw is Foxy, Steele, Paul, Mr Opinion or any others protesting outside the Chinese or Indian embassy yet? Thought not. Obviously unable to think past this very flawed narrative.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 1:59:00 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
Paul,

"Issy, you have read the Andrew Salmon book, have you? Are you claiming the first hand accounts of war crimes committed during the Korean War by Australian and British soldiers are fabrications or distortions of the truth?
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 1:47:02 PM"

All that I'm claiming is that your statement that Australian soldiers threw bombs at children is another lie by an habitual liar.

You cannot substantiate your ridiculous claim
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 2:03:21 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,

“So not a cherry-pick but an identifiable change in the data.”

Well that got a laugh. So an outlier becomes an inflection point in your eyes. You really are a shocker aren't you.

Let me have a go. From 2008 to 2019 there was a nearly 19% reduction in ice extent in the Arctic.

There is not another 10 years period within the entire record that you could have picked to get the figure you did is there.

I am enjoying you showing everyone a common denier tactic. Sorry mate, you got caught with your pants down and no amount of scurrying about is going to get you out of this one. Good job.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 2:09:43 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
My last word on the subject. Issy, you were given the evidence, go read it again, you refused to accept it, I can't help that. If you are really interested there are many more first hand accounts in Andrew Salmon's book.

BTW, how convenient to claim "friendship" of two people killed by bushfires, and then claim you know how they voted, to give credence to your own warped political leaning. You would have no idea how these people voted, you most likely don't even know them. You are one sick dude to link supposed friends deaths to how they voted in the past. Can't speak for themselves now can they, how convenient!

Next election, if you feel so strongly about it, stand outside a country polling booth and scream at prospective voters; "If you vote Green then there's a good chance you'll burn to death in a bush fire, like my dear friends!". Sicko's should get carted off to jail.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 3:34:57 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
'BTW, how convenient to claim "friendship" of two people killed by bushfires, and then claim you know how they voted, to give credence to your own warped political leaning'

yeah must admit Paul a low blow and probably as bad as that Green calling pollies arsonist. In line with much of Green ignorance. Both despicable statements. Makes Pauline look better and better. I suppose that's what the Nats are afraid of.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 5:37:44 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
Paul,

"BTW, how convenient to claim "friendship" of two people killed by bushfires, and then claim you know how they voted"

I said that I knew them and was 99% sure how they would vote.

Can't help making up lies, can you?
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 13 November 2019 7:11:24 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
IM,

I think the greens are struggling with the concept that their policy of stopping the reduction of fuel load has far more impact on the forest fires than any emissions by Australia.

Paul,

Once again your questionable ethics are on display.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 14 November 2019 5:41:46 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
Is climate change responsible for the volatile oils in gumtrees?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 November 2019 7:41:56 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 think the greens are struggling with the concept that their policy of stopping the reduction of fuel load has far more impact on the forest fires than any emissions by Australia.'

actually the Greens largely struggle with truth.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 November 2019 8:00:38 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
For SR, 2019 is a critical year vis a vis the Arctic sea ice extent. His entire argument against the fact that Arctic Sea ice has been increasing since 2007 is based on the as yet unverified guesstimate as to the September 2019 numbers.

2007 on the other hand is a mere outlier, to be ignored. Only used by deniers or something.

So 2019 - super important and totally relevant.
2007 - nothing to see here...move along.

Sea Ice extent in 2019 4,150,000 sq km
Sea Ice extent in 2007 4,160,000 sq km

A statistical tie according to NSIDC.

Same number, totally different value. One supports his hopes and is therefore oh so important. One debunks his beliefs and must be disregarded.

This is the level of logic that leads SR down the garden path so often.

BTW SR were the predictions about 2013 shown to be true or false?
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 14 November 2019 10:15:31 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
runner, I can understand why you are a fundo christian, believing in fairy tales like you do. No the Greens do not have a policy of no hazard reduction, that is simply a lie, 3 Hail Mary's and an Act of Contrition my son and all will be forgiven by the Great Sky Being.

Issy, sitting out in the bush waiting for a burnt up wombat to shoot, and sniffing petrol at the same time is extra dangerous at the moment.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 14 November 2019 10:19:05 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
Paul,

You're right about the Greens having a policy on hazard reduction, they wrote it in after they were so heavily criticized over their role in the disastrous Victorian bushfires a few years ago.

Can you tell us if it's true that they are going to advise people to clear the gumtrees away from their homes?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 November 2019 11:21:45 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
42 Hours without the internet, my servers mountain top site hit by fires
If some could see my area? I did first on Tuesday a brief trip in to ash then, after another highway closure yesterday
The term Emergency sure is best to describe this and many other areas
Tell me when, in spring, this country faced so many fires
So many stated at once fighting them
I saw homes of people I knew reduced to ash and twisted tin
I hope we do not see the inspected summer and even autumn and send my regards to victims and fire fighters country wide
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 November 2019 12:58:11 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
Fake News has impacted on the ability of some to think clearly
Right now that product of the very right [implemented to confuse and constantly abuse any truth] is running wild with this subject
It may be hard for some of the wheelchair warriors here, but getting out in the unburnt forest, then the burnt one would bring wet eyes to anyone
NO animals could have gotten away from some firestorms near here
A million plus hectares burnt out, not yet summer
I WISH it will not be true, but I fear for the unburnt forest right behind me
At Christmas, and I will never know why, Victorians camp in there
By a creek before it becomes a river under trees, we call it the mud flats
They if it goes up? have zero chance of the single one road 14 klm drive out emergency? hope I am wrong fear I am right
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 November 2019 3:48:50 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,

Trying to deflect I see after getting caught with your pants down.

Twice now you have asked;

“BTW SR were the predictions about 2013 shown to be true or false?”

Of course we both know that earlier I had written;

“Now the fact that a small group of scientists predicted 2013 as the date the Arctic would be ice-free and were wrong is not in dispute.”

So the only reason you have raised it again is through desperation.

And it makes you look like an insufferable idiot who can't admit when they are wrong.

Grow up.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 November 2019 6:26:17 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
Belly,

I'm in the bush and the nearest gumtree is 500 metres away, there are trees near the house and sheds but no closer than 100 metres except for the shade trees but all the close trees are proven fire retardants.
Not my doing but done donkey's years ago when property owners could manage their properties without Green instigated interference, all that we do is maintain the early setup and relentlessly dig out any gum seedlings that shew themselves.

We also have reserves of water that is for firefighting only and is never used, it's in underground cisterns that were built over 150 years ago and still don't leak although the water is a bit manky!

This is worth reading,
"TAKE THE EUCALYPT OUT OF INCENDIARY DEBATE
'The Australian' 1/1/2010 - By Robert Darby and Nick Brown"
http://www.smalltreefarm.com.au/Aust-Article-Take-The-Eucalypt-Out-of-Incendiary-Debate.pdf
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 14 November 2019 7:09:56 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
Ise mise my place is my fault, I am the first to live here, relocated Sydney 1970,s home on what was a cattle paddock
My trees are mostly bottle brush, first lot selected for their height 6 to eight meters tall
Only natives here all for birds and me to enjoy, plus a few fruit trees
Sadly had to remove mulberrys great plums, [3 fruit bearing] pair, loved that
But tank water and flying foxes do not mix
Four other houses, same history, flanked by highway grown over two feet deep fire feed
And a 20 square meter heap of drain blocked timber half a meter height, constant requests see zero action
So it will burn, believe me it concerns me
Last night I lost server, just got it back, and the highways was blocked yet again
A two week old fire went tropo again, it started in forest 20 klm maybe more, from the sea, and went there and 25 klm south, last night it took off in a westerly run not yet over
Climate emergency [lack of rain] brought these fires to us
Posted by Belly, Friday, 15 November 2019 7:47:58 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
SR.

"So the only reason you have raised it again is through desperation."

No I keep pointing it out since, in the end, after all the wriggling nd squirming, the fact remains that my original point remains unassailed and unassailable.

So now that we've established that your whole argument falls apart because of the illogicality of thinking that two years with the same levels of ice are simultaneously critically important and mere outliers (doublethink lives in SR_land), we find SR reverting, as per usual, to ad homs.

Ad hominem, the refuge of those who can't cut the mustard.

Now we all know that you're going to dispute that analysis, so, while doing so, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how 2007 is a mere outlier, while 2019, with the same levels of ice, is the year you choose to hang your hat upon.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 15 November 2019 11:55:10 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
To Belly.

Glad to hear you're still alright. Hope you stay well.

The dryness, both from a lack of rain, as well as from heat drying the land after a rain are aspects to watch out for. But I don't think those are contributed by a world wide climate change due to excess pollution. However, even if that is a factor, the issues of climate change won't fix fire hazards and fire seasons. Instead climate change will become a scape goat without any practical solution.

For the time being, there are nations that have such a problem with pollutionin their cities, that citizens have to wear face masks when going outside. Some even recommending their people to not go outside as much. Those nations with these problems aren't going to stop their pollution. Maybe someday that will change, but for now, you can't count on that and will have to manage how to handle brush fires on your own. World wide pollution isn't changing. Making climate change when an emergency a scape goat with no actual solution.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 16 November 2019 3:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS thanks, still trying to get my car back
Well this much is true it is hot and dry, and winter burns got away so did not take place
Cost cutting had a role, parks truly professional fire fighters no longer exist
One HORRIBLE truth exists, firebugs, some from the very group we owe so much to, volunteer firefighters have been started on purpose
SOME landowners have started fires mid this crisis, to? they say protect their property!
One truth
By summer's end right or wrong those who demand climate change action will see huge increases in their numbers bank on it
Firefighting fire bugs? yes it is an illness and much like phedophils joining Scout groups they join firefighters
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 16 November 2019 5:44:03 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
Dear Belly,

The basic fact is that the world is just getting gradually hotter.

Scientists who have been measuring and modelling the Earth especially since the 1960s are telling us that the cause is the burning of fossil fuels.

Research by scholars especially environmental historians, environmental archaeologists and environmental sociologists supports what the science is saying.

The problem is too big to stop the planet from continuing to heat up.

People must learn how to deal with the problems and prepare for future worst case scenarios.

Expect the worst that Mother Nature will throw at us.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 16 November 2019 6:12:40 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
Much this climate 'emergency' hysteria is probably due to increasing depression and mental illness in society. Many people have become so run down with lies and Left propaganda that they can no longer sort fact from fiction, or think clearly for themselves.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 16 November 2019 6:46:41 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 O, Is burning trees equivalent to fossil fuels? How much carbon and air pollution is released from 1,000,000 hectares of burnt forest?

The Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 killed 173 people, 120 in the Kinglake area alone. Another 414 people were injured. More than 450,000 hectares had burned and 3,500 buildings including more than 2000 houses destroyed. The RSPCA estimated that up to one million wild and domesticated animals died in the disaster.
http://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/black-saturday-bushfires

1851: 6 February, Black Thursday
Fires covered a quarter of what is now Victoria (about five million hectares). Areas affected included Portland, Plenty Ranges, Westernport, the Wimmera and Dandenong districts.
Around 12 lives, one million sheep and thousands of cattle were lost.

Fire has been present on the Australian continent for millions of years and has been significant in shaping much of the landscape. Many fires were started by lightning.
Aboriginal people used fire for many thousands of years to 'care for country'. The fires were a tool that encouraged the growth and extent of grasslands to enhance hunting, reduced levels of fuel, and kept vegetation from becoming dense and hard to walk through.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 16 November 2019 6:48:30 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 ttbn and Josephus (plus others),

Actually I'm beginning to enjoy your one dollar brain comments. It's good to see how the ignorant and uneducated think.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 16 November 2019 7:50:17 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
I can see Mr O working hard on his post graduate studies. He will go far in this world, especially with China.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 16 November 2019 10:16:12 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
Josephus Mr Opinion, let me be clear I think I know climate change is man made
Too I think/know big money is behind the anti climate change side
As it was with tobacco
Now mid true real climate emergency, some, continue to say nothing is taking place
A country known to be built on land that is sinking is in [well one of its cities] trouble after a 50 year record flood
My morning drive just to shop, went past truly horrific burnt out bush, and the fires burn still
Tell the victims it is not climate change, if we three could get together and do that drive, then stop and see unburnt grass, even my backyard, we could start this debate with open eyes
Yes and YES some scientists who put out those emails, who continue to do so, are idiots
But not most of them not most of the world's scientists
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 16 November 2019 12:02:32 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
One of the things that needs to be done is clearing gum trees well away from buildings, if you don't want a fire then don't provide fuel.

Second thing is clear all trees from the road right of ways, then there will be less chance of cars burning (plus their occupants) and no chance of a burning tree falling and blocking a road.

Climate change may or mayn't be real but gumtrees are real and they are very flammable plus they are wont to drop limbs on the unexpecting.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 16 November 2019 1:40:58 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
Yep very very true ise mise, you will have heard of widow makers, gum trees snapping limbs of and killing those under them, even in camping grounds
Once while road worker would arm myself and clear huge areas of them by the road
Practice stopped! see we workers had to work to fill a contracts needs
No mention there so we had to stop doing it
EVEN no longer able to drag dead animals of the road, no contract to do that
Lady lived on roadside Kangaroo killed and in middle of driveway
Believe it! boss said we must not move it! not our job
Council said not theirs either
Bloke about my size traveled past on way to and from work base, he had a cup of coffee with her lovely lady,she got an idea, ring the local paper!
That story became front page news
Both us and council sent teams to remove it!
Continued
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 16 November 2019 2:44:27 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
Further long before effort was made to get true reform in to the roads a team did great stuff
I was honored to see it in action, workers and bosses got together and made huge savings with great innovations
Golden Circle was its name
It aware people die needlessly after hitting roadside trees, was this
Plant from edge of motorway to fence native bottle brush and such
Remove all tall growing trees, make the garden barrier both a thing of beauty wattles too, and a car catcher slowing out of control cars not ripping them apart
Your thoughts see are shared, just think spring driving with flowers in bloom city to city tourists would love it
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 16 November 2019 2:50:58 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
Hi Belly,

There are plenty of native trees and bushes under three metre maximum, why can't bigger trees than that be cleared, say ten or fifteen metres from roadways, and smaller ones planted in their place ? Even graded from 3-metre trees closer to the tall trees and 1-metre bushes closer to the road ?

I'm on a corner block and have planted half-metre-high (and 2-metres-wide) acacias up to the pathway along the road and 1- and 2-metre bushes and trees further away from it. It's hardly rocket science.

I'm sure that many, many city Greens would jump at the chance to spend a week or two clearing country roads and re-planting smaller bushes and trees. It would be good for them, both to put their money and effort where their mouths are, and to be the first time they've ever been out of a city.

And some nearby towns may even have coffee shops which sell smashed avocado and soy-latte kale smoothies. Win-win !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 16 November 2019 3:01:05 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
I've got a question. I agree with the removal of
gum trees in critical areas. They do have very
oily residue. However I've been watching on the
news that bush fires are spread out at random and
unconnected areas - my question is - what starts
those bush-fires? Lightning strikes might
explain some of them - but what about the rest. Are they
all started by people? Surely not.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 November 2019 3:04:31 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,

Another fire starter is spontaneous combustion, any buildup of leaves, grass and other rubbish against a rock or a log can heat up from decomposition, probably with help from the sun until it reaches a critical point then ignite.

I have heard of Malley Fowl nests going up when something has happened to the attendant birds and the temperature is not regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 16 November 2019 11:45:38 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
Loudmouth in the end brand new four lane motorways took over from my death highway [it name given after far too many deaths]
That plan had been for from one meter to three meter roadside native flowering trees
We saw in the end a Native wattle mad engineer see cicle pod wattles planted, they fall over, gas up, and make wonderful firestorms blocking highway traffic sometimes for days
Ise mise right again, here fires have been started by our much loved bush turkey nests
BUT in such dry and hot, even windy weather?
Our winter too has those westerly winds
We here and south of us think they come rushing in to remind us every August it is still winter,
Dry here fires under control but still burning
Idiot started one to the north to protect his drug crop'
Some farmers we are told evidence exists, started fires to put a barrier around their crop to
Firebugs arrested now number 7 in this state
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 17 November 2019 7:02:56 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
http://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117937578400885/1334833920044572/?type=3&eid=ARC1x8LwtdlruVqtRhjrRNk-nIGzpUa1KX-w7Dv1RZbf5URHVFJYXlirLUX905yl5W_jwIOXA-SpeH1L&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARAMCiXeuMYa7-u2biIe-3ZHt6v7-m6ZzF88l0a-hMWDhEInbBd_s4rvY_EwdtBTxOJyeaYkCBbUbh2Qh-486rChJRT2B9D3p-WUz-7JCTgNCuMXLbyWHdeZxRLWJDkzY-Whv-MjANVteuuPw_Un31-F-T2GPgk36SwczFiA20SAfeUza1gjlB55RtDPHe0wxVg-ju1JYTFXZnI4atSTd81DEremZgi-zEs_sVgat1JTQ6T6e9HKGm36R9PU_c2VGmaxAUd83Chdv9sJK6gM2qd8sOMLWyundcCIZjxBiyCalNTL5u5hMEvAhBZq49b0dYn_LeDZA4TrH8a9pWDGafpTjs-u3dnGDXmLDfW1QyEtNlUwLKdF62Q&__tn__=EEHH-R

Venice in 1830 was in water the same as in 2019.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 17 November 2019 7:22:34 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 Is Mise,

Thanks for that - something I did not know.

On the news yesterday - they were interviewing
a psychologist who explained why some people
go off and start fires.

It's all a bit much to take in.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 November 2019 9:04:35 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,

You'll appreciate this, on a well known part of the New England Highway, Black Mountain, a new section was built (and it's a vast improvement) but, to stabilize the fresh earthworks, millet or a similar grain was planted; the result was that the kangaroos soon got the word and came from miles around for the good feed.

The law of unintended consequences at work.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 17 November 2019 10:15:31 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
Belly, "much loved bush turkey nests". I loved them too, great eating, until they protected them.

They were a problem at the Happy Bay resort on Long Island in the Whitsundays. Hundreds of the things, & the young ones, looking for a place to build their nest mounds would move in to the resort, & start building against one of the guest cabins. Determined things, nothing would stop them, move every thing away with the loader, & they would drag it all back.

The only cure was to catch them & deport them to Lindeman island, who had none, & wanted them. Lindeman ended up with a moderate bachelor population of turkeys.

Sorry mate, you've got the reason for the westerly winds wrong. The authorities who run the Brisbane Ekka, [our Royal Easter show equivalent], offended the climate gods way back last century, so the gods send the westerlies to coincide with the start of the Ekka each year. Why is it that authorities are always so clumsy?

Sorry you have to suffer them too.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 17 November 2019 11:31:57 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
Ise mise yes true in fact along the sides of highways grass is greener always, cut but not removed it grows in fertile land it created itself
But right now that grass even the meter high stuff outside mowed area is dry and dead
Fires here are in containment lines for about the fourth time
But they are not so north west of Sydney
SMH tells us the homes lost are now more than all lost in last three years summer fires
Sorry tell everyone but by summer's end this will see no one doubt we have a crisis of dreadful and record proportions
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 17 November 2019 11:37:02 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
Climate emergency has received a lift because of these far from out fires
And right now here the wind has changed two, from strong north west to near gale southerly
A truth is here to see Morrison is wedged by his party just as Turnbull was
Morrison may, seems to, not think climate change is real, Turnbull knew it is
Far too many conservatives use the Barnany tactic, [also used by Brant] feed the chooks [supporters] and fullsteam ahead
It will fail, only a failed economy could be worse for this government
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 17 November 2019 3:05:52 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
Belly,

Over our way, the grass is becoming less of a threat, in places where it has been exposed to strong wind it has broken off low down and has been blown away leaving only a stubble; it'll still burn but with less intensity and consequently be easier to extinguish.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 17 November 2019 3:42:11 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
Dear Is Mise,

May I suggest you and your mates start now by pulling out the stubble with your hands. If you leave it late it might us get away from you like wildfire!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 17 November 2019 4:15:46 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
Opinionated,

It ain't our stubble, on the our place all the dry grass around the house was rollered and then raked and stored as light-up material for the steam tractor.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 17 November 2019 5:02:37 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
Issy, if a bushfire comes your way, just put up a sign "I didn't vote Green!". You'll be perfectly safe. After all according to Barnyard Joy the people who burn up in bushfires are Green voters.

A farmer has been arrested for lighting a fire, said he was protecting his crop by back burning. FARMER! he must be a National Party voter!
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 17 November 2019 9:27:31 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
"Issy, if a bushfire comes your way, just put up a sign "I didn't vote Green!". You'll be perfectly safe. After all according to Barnyard Joy the people who burn up in bushfires are Green voters."

Ya! Herr Arzt
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 17 November 2019 10:07:45 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
Issy, Me thinks we should do some scientific experimentation into Barnyards theory to save us all from bushfires. How about the next time there is a big bushfire, we sit Barnyard on top of a 44 gallon drum of petrol in the path of the fire. I'm 99% sure Barnyard don't vote Green, I'm also 99% sure no harm will come to Barnyard. Should however Barnyard go up like the 4th July then the 1% comes into play, and we know that Barnyard has been a dirty rotten deceitful liar all these years, and has been secretly voting Green!
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 17 November 2019 10:44:05 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
Well barnaby gets a run, but in truth he may have hurt his relationship with farmers
More and more are demanding action on climate change
Graas here, well looked after garden and lawn, is dead to the very roots in some places
Three meters outside my fence that drain ,20 m2 of dead tree and leaves, one match and my home and three others? gone ise mise
The saddest thing? plenty would set that fire without blinking
True but not popular view some few but some, firefighters are fire bugs, start fires to look like heros, we will by summer's end hear more about that
My first fire, first I fought? eleven years old, near the only male there, small country town women fought until men could get home from work
We got jam sandwiches and hot tea as a reward and weeks after saw our self in action on 8mm film shot by scoutmaster
Posted by Belly, Monday, 18 November 2019 5:51:26 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
Paul,

Methinks we should start cutting down gum trees as a means of reducing hazards; does that fit in with the Greens' Hazard Reduction policy?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 18 November 2019 8:03:31 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
Issy, my wife was reading our posts last night, she wants to know what asylum we all come from? She specifically asked "who is this Dizzy person you talk to?"

I said; "No he's not Dizzy, he's Issy, although by some of his posts you might think he is dizzy. Issy is a 97 year old ex-hippy from Nimbin, who left the commune in 1968, because the other hippies wouldn't let him shoot fury little woodland creatures."

The wife's reply; "As I said, what asylum do you and your forum mates come from!"
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 November 2019 8:33:30 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
Paul,

Is cutting down and removing hazardous and flammable trees from around dwellings not a good idea?

If not, why not?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 18 November 2019 10:38:26 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
Needling isey? or just displaying a lack of understanding?
This country, for the next one hundred years, should plant two hardwood [gum trees] for everyone we remove
We have the world best hardwood lets farm it
So much marjinal land needs to provide a reliable income such trees do
Stop fires? 5 years minimum time kids too, for every firebug soon fires will fade away
Posted by Belly, Monday, 18 November 2019 10:40:50 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
Issy you ask; Is cutting down and removing hazardous and flammable trees from around dwellings not a good idea?

My answer is; Yes its a good idea.

Many folk have moved to bush land settings, and not because they are prevented from doing so, or they are lazy (could be a bit of that), but rather because they choose not to remove fire hazards from around their property. Nothing to do with government, or environmentalists, or greenies. They simply like the "natural" aspect of the whole environment they have moved to. Also some people are complacent; "There's no chance of a bushfire coming through here." attitude, "There hasn't been a bushfire through here in 50 years!" Then next season their house burns down in a 1 in 50 year bushfire.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 November 2019 5:36:26 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
Paul.

"INVERELL Shire Council received a warning in August from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) following a tree-clearing activity sanctioned by council...
The warning came after the investigation found council had breached the long-standing National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 for damage to an ecological community, identified under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

OEH spokesperson, Lawrence Orel, said failure to heed the warning could result in fine of up to $110,000.

Inverell Shire Council general manager, Paul Henry, said in a written response to the Times that the action was initiated by a number of calls from the community in relation to trees, limbs and fallen timber in close proximity with the Ashford/Inverell Road.

Mr Henry also said a motorist and his family were potentially endangered when the truck they were following knocked loose an overhanging branch, which struck their vehicle."
http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/story/2554995/inverell-shire-council-warned-after-bulldozing-trees/

Permission is needed to remove native trees.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 18 November 2019 7:29:35 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
Further to the above,

"State-by-state rules around tree removal
Despite the fact that a tree may be located solely on your property does not mean you have free rein to remove it. In fact, removing a tree from your property without proper approvals from your local council can incur hefty fines.

Nationally, native species are all protected and require approval before any removal. You will also need to supply specific reasons for the removal. In most states, this rule against removing native tree species only applies to rural areas. ACT and South Australia are the only states to have blanket rules against removing native tree species. Trees that have heritage and Aboriginal heritage significance also have protection on a national level.

The tree species that are exempt from this protection are pest species. You are also exempt when it comes to pruning protected trees for maintenance or when intervention is in the best interest of the tree..."
http://www.finder.com.au/cutting-down-trees-on-your-property
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 18 November 2019 7:39:13 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
Here is a paper from one who changed his mind for Climate Emergency to no Emergency at all!
http://www.quora.com/Why-did-you-change-your-views-on-climate-change/answer/Chris-Boyd-50?ch=10&share=a2211cae&srid=ZKwA&fbclid=IwAR2QvPEsOqSUnCbynn8IJPFo2IlejaKUGM0aq_hvFzBjGISjUueGZXTMgmQ
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 18 November 2019 8:30:57 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
We see some clutching at straws here, even inventing the straws to start with
Greens do not hold any power over the NSW Government, can not be behind silly council tree preservation laws
Right here, in a place in real danger if one local fire gets going in today's heat, folk live under trees
Talk to snakes they let sleep under beds
They may not even vote
Climate emergency is not caused by at most, ten percent of the population
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 5:54:30 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, the climate is changing but there is NO emergency! Emergency is a political ploy to scare the population to make them believe the United Nations is to be believed [as they initiated the scare mongering], that we need a whole world unified Marxist Government telling us what to believe and how to act.

They tell us it is Democratic Capitalism that is destroying the Earth. That the Earth is overpopulated and people are disposable. Young brainwashed Marxist Australians promote the drought on human produced CO2, but they ignore the floods in QLD and record snow in the ski fields.

The ABC and SBS both are captured by the lie, promoting Venice flooding as Climate emergency when it has happened before in history, high tides flood the canals.
"Large parts of central Venice are under water again, as another exceptionally high tide inundated the Italian city.
Three of the worst 10 floods since records began in Venice, nearly a hundred years ago, have now happened in a week." http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-50452688/venice-floods-further-warnings-of-high-tides
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 6:39:11 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
Josephus, let's be honest, it is my view you are so entrenched in your own view you will not let the truth breath
Climate emergency exists, we see it every day, ice melting cities fooding fire storms here Greece California in record numbers
You see a huge conspiracy at work, so do I but we differ on by who and why
As more, world wide, come to demand action, and as renewable energy maintains its growth, just on economic grounds, it will see more agree we must consider the science not fight it
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 10:57:11 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
In the 1820's Joseph Fourier discovered something in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. (This was a quarter century before the Communist Manifesto was published.) In 1856 Eunice Foote discovered it was CO2. John Tyndall confirmed it in 1859. The power of CO2 as a heat trapper can be tested in any decent physics lab on the planet. Trap some CO2, shine various wavelengths of energy through it, and see what "shadows" form on the other side. The shadows indicate what wavelengths didn't make it and were redirected by the gases.
Even simple thermal cameras can confirm it. Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! (1 minute) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw It's SUCH basic physics that even Mythbusters could set up a backyard test that demonstrated how CO2 traps heat. (3 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
CO2 traps heat. This is known. It's in physics textbooks over a century old. Warnings to the public started over 60 years ago, as this 1958 Bell Telephone Company "Science Hour" shows. (2 minutes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s
Anyone stating this is all a conspiracy theory is proposing a conspiracy that goes back over 163 years to Eunice Foote!
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 11:12:37 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
Max Green welcome you will shortly find insults heaped on you by the flat earther here
Please stay around, my hobby more than anything [ham radio] showed me much about the earth's layers that make our planet habitable.
Sun spot cycles gives us radio nuts great fun or disappointment
We have a climate emergency, but some, unknowingly in defense of fossil fuels will not see it
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 2:40:47 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
Max Green,
Have a look at the facts:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlmFr4FMv
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 2:58:24 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
Hi Josephus,
not until you give me a 2 paragraph summary of what it says. Do you have evidence that CO2 does NOT trap heat as I showed above? Or are you going off on one of the more infamous tinfoil hat traps, like "The Sun did it!" or "Temps haven't warmed since 1998!" or "They said there would be an ice age!" or any one of a dozen other denialist myths I've come to know and love like that cantankerous old uncle that always gets drunk at Christmas.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 3:11:05 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
Belly,

"Greens do not hold any power over the NSW Government, can not be behind silly council tree preservation laws"

Then who is?
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 5:17:49 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
Issy, its the Shooters and Hooters! Shooters with their fire sticks, and Hooters with their exhaust sparks!

BTW Another Egg-On-Face Award is coming your way.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 6:54:00 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
Max I just let the scientist talk! Listen to the UTube clip and debate his science.
1. Former Greenpeace leader Roger Moore "The shortage of Carbon"
2. CO2 is unseen the basis of all life on Earth and currently 30/1,000,000 above death of all plants. For Green House plant health CO2 should be 1,000/1,000,000.
3. Natural gas is cleaner than coal burning, and coal can be changed to liquid fuel, and is currently done.
4. Carbon the basis of all energy. It cannot be increased or decreased.
5. Oil has given us a healthier and longer life span.
6. The agenda is a religious cult has formed to return us to hunter gatherers. That humans are the enemy of the Earth. Leonardo DiCaprio is a hypocrite with his lavish lifestyle with large yacht and private Jet consuming huge amount of fossil fuel.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 7:04:48 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 Josephus,

Are you confined to the mental health unit or are you free to step out for a few hours during the day to visit others with your worldview, like mhaze, Bazz, Loudmouth, Hasbeen, individual, etc?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 7:48:25 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
Hi Josephus,
You've got to get out of the denier echo chamber and read some real science! How plants respond to CO2 completely bypasses the KNOWN RADIATIVE FORCING of CO2. You've ignored my previous post, so why should I respond to yours? But I'll try anyway, just to show you how engaging in a conversation with others is done!

Some plants may respond well to higher CO2. Some don't! But first remember the RADIATIVE FORCING = extra heat will hit food production with various rainfall shifts. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased famines and floods. The net effect? About a quarter less grain grown right as the population hits 9 or 10 billion!

Also, just saying “CO2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!” We might in truth get bigger. But the trite summary above ignores diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death. Some important crops and grazing pastures get their self-defence toxins unbalanced. Some produce too little and become vulnerable to bug attacks.
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/08/the-co2-is-good-for-plants-crock-turns-out-not-so-much/
Some produce too much making them inedible to us or livestock.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2943500.htm

Did you know this? Did your denier hero talk about any of this? The "Carbon shortage" claim is just ridiculous. Look up how long the planet has got by on 250ppm! Tell us all the last time it was 400ppm!

"It cannot be increased or decreased" is also ridiculous. Is your denier hero really delusional enough to say fossil fuels will NEVER run out? Google peak fossil fuels. Get to understand Hubbert's peak. We will run out one day, after we've cooked ourselves to do it.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 19 November 2019 9:17:57 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
http://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/huge-tesla-battery-in-south-australia-primed-for-big-upgrade-20191119-p53byo.html
State and Federal Liberal governments support battery storage upgrade
More evedence renewables have a force of their own and continue to grow
If not the greens who, a question put to me,tree huggers are not all greens, some truly think they can change the *environmental history * of our country
They in doing that bring about fire storms climate change brings them about in extremely dry summers or winters
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 5:33:47 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
Dear Max Green,

You need to keep in mind that Josephus and the other deniers of AGW and it's consequential climate change have $1 minds so of course they are going to come up with the weirdest illogical explanations for how the world works. It's simply because they are ignorant and uneducated.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 5:40:30 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 O,

The single biggest problem is that Australia contributes 1.3% to GHGs. Even if Aus became carbon neutral tomorrow the difference would probably not be measurable.

Thus any town council or even state that declares a "climate emergency" is purely delusional.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 6:34:57 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
Dear Shadow Minister,

The crime being committed by humanity is the endless burning of fossil fuels.

We are not all responsible, it is only those like Tony Abbott, John Howard, ScuMo, etc. who are responsible.

They're the ones causing the climate change that is heating the planet to the point where it is now starting to catch on fire.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 6:42:00 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
Opionated,

Are not bushfires the similar to the burning of fossil fuels, if not then the solution to our problem would seem to be the burning of wood that is not fossilised.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 7:49:26 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
Mr O a delusional hypocrite, John Howard is long retired, and Tony Abbott is trying to stop the burning of carbon fuels and reducing particulate carbon in the atmosphere by fighting the current bush fires. I do not see you fighting the fires, burning carbon fuels releasing CO2.

The problem is yours Mr O as you use fossil fuelled transport and breathe CO2 into the atmosphere and release methane from consumed carbon fuels. You are part of your own problem, consuming carbon and fossil fuels. To be true to your agenda, you would return to the bush as a hunter gatherer, use no computer, phone, plastics, medicine, harvested broad acre food, wood, or coal fired metals.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 7:51:41 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
So Mr O, the Earth is burning try telling it to my Northern Hemisphere friends. Fake Alarmist News!
http://electroverse.net/northern-hemisphere-snow-season-off-to-a-monster-start/
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 7:56:18 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
Max, I am a gardener and compost carbon fuels to add to my plants, they thrive better on introduced carbon matter to their soil. I do not need to force feed them they root it out themselves. When I was growing mushrooms producing 60 tons of carbon substrate the Mushrooms loved it. Carbon is what creates the basic building blocks of life, carbon and oxygen. I consume both and love it!
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:10:16 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
Josephus, you never replied to my "CO2 is plant food" post?

Also, you know that breeder reactors eat nuclear waste, have passive safety, only leave fission products waste which is only 1 golf ball per human lifetime (or 1.4 Olympic pools of waste for Australia for 70 years!) and only has to be buried for 300 years? That normal reactors return about 60 times the energy it took to build the reactor, but breeders eliminate all that uranium mining and refining because they eat nuclear waste and get 90 times the energy out of it, so their energy profit is in the high HUNDREDS of times the energy profit? That means they have ample energy left over to manufacture all the diesel we need for harvesters and jet fuel for airlines, all from seawater. You knew all this, right?

And did you know uranium from seawater can run this for billions of years?

So what's this crap about us requiring fossil fuels? France cleaned up their energy grid in about 15 years by going nuclear. Why can't we?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:12:03 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
Max, talk to the Greens about Nuclear fuels. I'm all for nuclear fuels!
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:15:02 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 O

It is wackadoodle statements like

"We are not all responsible, it is only those like Tony Abbott, John Howard, ScuMo, etc. who are responsible."

That make the rest of us believe that you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:34:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

Misopinionated probably thinks that carbon, and carbon dioxide, are poisons. Perhaps, when he finishes Primary School, if he enrols in General Science in Year 8 and waits until Year 10 to enrol in Chemistry, he may learn something. Ag Science would be a big help for him too.

And yes, nuclear power will probably be the way to go: after all, France and Finland don't seem to be having any problems with it. France sells the cheap energy generated there to Germany to help bring down the price of electricity generated by wind-farms.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:39:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,
so if you're all for nuclear, I gather that's based on the engineering and scientific realities?

So why on earth are you buying the anti-science claims of the alt-right? Why are you falling for anti-climate memes that are so weak 5 minutes googling pops them like a bubble?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:50:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green many who post here are to the right of the ault right
Some base their views on reading the paper the fish and chips came in
Climate emergency has a momentum all of its own
We spring not yet over, have a summer from hell to overcome
By its end that momentum will have grown beyond belief
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 11:11:17 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
Yes, we'll see. There's only 10% chance of La Nina which could rescue us with extra rain. 60% chance neutral, which is more or less 'normal' weather, and 30% chance of hell on earth El Nino drying us out even more.

https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/el-ni%C3%B1ola-ni%C3%B1a-update
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 11:31:53 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
Belly,

"Some base their views on reading the paper the fish and chips came in"

Get up to date, wrapping fish and chips in old (or new) newspapers was made illegal decades ago, or else your local shop is out of touch with the world.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 12:03:01 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
Is Mise,
I'm glad to see you post worthy and on-topic corrections there! ;-) Do you have something relevant to say about climate change?

In the meantime, our extra CO2 contribution continues to delay an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second of heat leaving the earth. In seconds, how long will it take you to read this post? Multiply by 4 Hiroshimas. That's how much extra energy we've trapped while you've been reading this.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 1:00:54 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
Plant transpiration and its use of CO2.
The quantitative relation between stomatal aperture and gas exchange through the stomatal pore can be described by physical models derived from Fick's first law of diffusion. Such models, usually based on a simplified pore geometry, are used to calculate leaf conductance from stomatal pore dimensions or vice versa. A combination of gas&#8208;exchange measurements and simultaneous microscopical observations of stomatal apertures was used to empirically determine this relationship. The results show a substantial deviation between measured stomatal conductance and that calculated from the simplified models. The main difference is a much steeper increase of conductance with aperture at small apertures. When the calculation was based on a realistic pore geometry derived from confocal laser scanning microscopy, a good fit to the experimentally found relationship could be obtained if additionally a significant contribution of a mesophyll diffusional resistance was taken into account.

To investigate the diurnal variation of stomatal sensitivity to CO2, stomatal response to a 30&#8195;min pulse of low CO2 was measured four times during a 24&#8195;h time&#8208;course in two Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) species Kalanchoe daigremontiana and Kalanchoe pinnata, which vary in the degree of succulence, and hence, expression and commitment to CAM. In both species, stomata opened in response to a reduction in pCO2 in the dark and in the latter half of the light period, and thus in CAM species, chloroplast photosynthesis is not required for the stomatal response to low pCO2. Stomata did not respond to a decreased pCO2 in K. daigremontiana in the light when stomata were closed, even when the supply of internal CO2 was experimentally reduced. We conclude that stomatal closure during phase III is not solely mediated by high internal pCO2, and suggest that in CAM species the diurnal variability in the responsiveness of stomata to pCO2 could be explained by hypothesizing the existence of a single CO2 sensor which interacts with other signalling pathways. When not perturbed by low pCO2, CO2 assimilation rate and stomatal conductance were correlated both in the light and in the dark in both species.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 2:04:09 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
Well I roam around the bush a bit
Once walked it now age makes it a drive, bit down this few days so? went for a drive
On to the long ago highway, back on the new few dirt roads, all well known to me
Seen them all in drought and good times, in places some of our best land
DRY no not just dry grass dying dry, heat dried and either blackened and burnt or dead, never ever seen anything like that
this gardener has twice the water storage his neighbors have 44.250 liters
Down to my last 500, watering only two tubs, see fill one tank is three four hundred dollar loads
Water? two tubs from? two liter bottle after topping up the aviary water.
Tell those living in this area, 200 klm, we do not have an emergency
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 2:52:26 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
The Climate emergency made over 100 youths start fires in QLD. They are hot headed bed wetters.

ttp://7news.com.au/news/qld/no-need-for-tougher-laws-for-queensland-kids-who-start-bushfires-says-government-c-564143?utm_campaign=share-icons&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&tid=1574205708407&fbclid=IwAR2Yo9avgkVO0IfR0VopuQMYxcgfNGJbZSQiPvIetQ-kgdpOv0AtZIPaAgk
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 2:54:53 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
Hey Max Green,

"Do you have something relevant to say about climate change?"

I do.

I don't know if there's any merit to this climate change business;

- But I think we should consider 'getting rid of' all the people whinging about climate change first.
All I ever hear about these days is this climate change this and climate change that.
On and on and on I wish everyone would just shut up.
I'm sick of it.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 2:56:48 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
Armchair doesn't like science and is a bit sick of it.
Poor diddums.
When your grandchildren's crops fail and they starve to death, or get killed in some future climate war, get back to us about how sick you were about scientists warning us all this was coming, OK?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 3:25:55 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
Max Green,

Yes, I have something relevant to say about climate change, I think that it is real but not necessarily man made and we should be minimising the danger of bushfires.

A place to start would be getting rid of a few million gum trees that are in a position to be a danger to human life.

We've just seen what happened in Wytaliba where love of trees outweighed common sense and years of warnings and sound advice.

If bushfires are going to get worse then we need to remove the major source of fuel.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 4:45:55 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
First of all, the best science available to the human race disagrees with you and calculates that the KNOWN demonstrable radiative forcing of CO2 is trapping heaps of heat. Where that goes and the models that predict future impacts on local weather systems and micro-climates is another question, and they are perfecting those models all the time. But the overall picture is clear. It is us. It is our particular isotope of fossil CO2. Not the sun. Not Milankovitch wobbles. Not cosmic rays or volcanoes. Us. This is known. Debating this is just wrong.

Second of all, cut down millions of trees? People love trees. People NEED trees for psychological well being. Patients that can see trees from hospital windows recover faster. Did you know this? It's a fact. Cutting down millions of trees is exactly the OPPOSITE direction we want to take if we're going to help solve climate change. We don't just need clean energy systems like breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste, we need to reduce the current CO2 load on the atmosphere.

Maybe we can create fire breaks around our towns and cities, with careful attention to public parks getting enough recycled water for irrigating and reducing fire risk. But our national parks need more trees, not less, because the climate needs more trees. BILLIONS of them worldwide!
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 4:56:21 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 Max Green,

It's obvious that you have a million dollar brain. Unfortunately you will find yourself arguing with a lot of $1 brains like mhaze, ttbn, Hasbeen, individual, Loudmouth and a lot of others who are skilled in pub philosophy. Good luck.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 5:21:52 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
Yes, I note none of them have refuted a single point made in my opening statement about CO2.

So Deniers, here we go again. In the 1820'sJoseph Fourier discovered something in the atmosphere traps the suns heat. (This was a quarter century before the Communist Manifesto was published, for those who track such things.) In 1856 Eunice Foote discovered CO2 traps heat very effectively. John Tyndall confirmed it in 1859. The power of CO2 as a heat trapper can be tested in any decent physics lab on the planet. Trap some CO2, shine various wavelengths of energy through it, and see what "shadows" form on the other side. The shadows indicate what wavelengths didn't make it and were redirected by the gases.
Even simple thermal cameras can confirm it. Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! (1 minute) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

It's SUCH basic physics that even Mythbusters could set up a backyard test that demonstrated how CO2 traps heat. (3 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

CO2 traps heat. This is known. It's in physics textbooks over a century old. Warnings to the public started over 60 years ago, as this 1958 Bell Telephone Company "Science Hour" shows. (2 minutes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 5:44:10 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
Max,

" Eucalypts are iconic Australian forest trees. Ninety-two million hectares of the Eucalypt forest type occurs in Australia, and forms three-quarters of the total native forest area."
How many to the hectare?

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/profiles/eucalypt-forest
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/profiles/eucalypt-forest

Note the absence of the 's' from 'https' in the successful link.

It's an OLO thing, Max, and newcomers to the forum always get caught but few will bother to tell you.

People love trees, true, but trees, particularly eucalypts don't love people, they drop very heavy limbs on them and burn them in bushfires.
We can afford to cut down a few million to save lives.

If you want trees then plant fire retardant species and Multiculturalists could plant imported trees such as oak and elm.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 7:45:39 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
Max, using the nature of CO2 forming shadows means the Earth should be cooling as More CO2 in the atmosphere traps more radiation.

http://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:37:26 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
NASA
http://coldclimatechange.com/
NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 20 November 2019 8:45:35 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 Max Green,

I am an environmental sociologist conducting independent research on water. My knowledge of science I got through doing my mechanical engineering degree and my readings to complement my interest in environmental issues and the manifest nature of water. I concur with what you are saying but it is my understanding that CO2 acts more as a trigger to global warming and is the direct cause of the main of producing the real culprit, being water vapour.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 21 November 2019 5:09:16 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
Max here in this place we get folk like you, informed posters often few stay
See truth has little value for many, they feed on a very real conspiracy
Put in place to confuse, to lie, to insult truth
Huge numbers world wide of true scientists tell us climate change is real
In fact countrys and groups like NASA WHO, the UN itself tell us this is true
But the combat continues,why
BECAUSE of self interests of the owners of fossil fuels
Much like the tobacco lobby murdered the truth
The first victims of climate change lineup here to give evidence they are unconcerned about the truth
Be safe today, as four states face fires that have already killed and destroyed, in the worst drought we have not yet seen the end of
Climate change? proof? wait and see
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 November 2019 5:16:57 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
Which one of you $1 brains said that Tony Abbott is not one of those responsible for climate change because he is helping to fight the bushfires as a volunteer?

I thought he lost his seat because he was seen as being anti climate change.

Well Australia's internationally renowned village idiot should have his hands full today because he can chose to fight fires in SA, NSW and Qld.

Tony Abbott's not one of those responsible for climate change. What a joke!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 21 November 2019 6:20:07 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
Hi JOSEPHUS,
that "Cold Climate" website doesn't even have an 'about us' section and hardly represents the glorified heights of NASA. I mean, the leading NASA papers show that last century...

THE SUN COOLED WHILE THE EARTH STILL WARMED!
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Explain THAT data in your "The sun did it!" conspiracy theory!
This is the official NASA website.
Hint: It has NASA in the URL! ;-)

Hi MR OPINION:
I hear you. CO2 is the trigger for the more powerful water vapour feedback. More CO2 = more water vapour feedback. That's what the standard IPCC climate change model says! Flipside = less CO2, less water vapour feedback, less global warming. We're on the same page.

Hi BELLY,
I hear you, especially on Josephus's dodgy internet links! ;-) How utterly un-adult! Tinfoil hat much?

Meanwhile, to all deniers: today's weather is served with a good dose of climate change, dry with a side serve of ash and smoke. Enjoy.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 21 November 2019 6:59:27 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 am an environmental sociologist conducting independent research on water."

I thought that you were on something stronger.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 21 November 2019 8:04:35 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, False statement. We believe the climate is changing as it has done for millions of years, but do not believe man alone is responsible for the changes which you continue to put forward. That man is the criminal of Climate change, from the results of human social development.

When you can prove what we are seeing has never happened before and it is totally man made then you win! I hope I live long enough to see 2030 when the world will be destroyed by your and Greta's calculations. Humans must adapt to change not give in to it.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 21 November 2019 8:14:22 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
Josephus,
OF COURSE THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED BEFORE AND THE CLIMATOLOGISTS ARE ALL OVER THIS!

Previous climate catastrophe's demonstrate the risks.
Paleoclimate studies demonstrate apocalyptic Extinction Level Events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Global_warming
It took tens of millions of years for new species to evolve and recover after some of these super-greenhouse extinctions!

While not as hot as previous super-greenhouse events (yet), it's going to be harder for life to adapt this time because it's 10 times faster than the ice-age cycle so ecosystems don't have as much *time* to move. Ecosystems are also hemmed in and trapped by our vast grazing and farmlands, so it's not as *free* to move. We've put nature in solitary confinement, and turned up the heat.
The tiny isolated pockets of nature and wildlife that are left could just get snuffed out by climate change.

The IPCC has measured ALL the natural forcings that explain previous natural warming and cooling cycles. Understanding the climate's deep history is one of the keys in understanding how today's climate might behave. Rather than some mystery that climatologists have somehow accidentally overlooked, paleoclimate is one of the foundations to understanding today's climate.
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

Our modern civilisation is utterly dependent on today's stable climate for our agricultural and grazing lands, which together cover almost HALF the planet. By mid century we could be losing a quarter of our crops on a regular basis. I have collected links on my blog here. http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/global-warming-is-serious/

In summary, previous super-greenhouses were catastrophic then and will be catastrophic again unless we stop burning fossil fuels. http://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html
Only the most ignorant and obtuse climate denier would assert "The climate has changed before" as some sort of *objection*. The only appropriate reply? "Derr!"
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 21 November 2019 10:58:08 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
Josephus mate we will not agree on much if anything
In my work life I would put such a person as you, to whoever I was addressing, as evidence of completely wrong view/opinion on the subject
You are a victim of a very real conspiracy
Behind that conspiracy the thousands of service station owners coal owners, fossil fuel owning LUDITTS have conned you
We are in motion on this subject, it is moving under its own momentum as evidence mounts it is very real, man has impacted on the climate and continues to
But not forever action has been started and that too is moving under its own steam, and this truth, it is financially sound to switch to renewables
See even the lie it costs more is being undone by truth
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 November 2019 11:08:53 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
Josephus said: "When you can prove what we are seeing has never happened before and it is totally man made then you win!"

Max and Belly both say:
"Deerrrr!"
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 21 November 2019 12:20:30 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
" More CO2 = more water vapour feedback."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

Explain those $million brains to me again, fellas.

Oh now I get it, you were talking Zimbabwean dollars.

Welcome back, Max. Nice to see you've decided to stick your head above the parapet again. Better luck this time.

But not looking good so far, n'est pas?
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 21 November 2019 12:31:35 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 old evolution fairytale being used by Max. No wonder he gets everything so wrong and thinks by demonising people who expect real evidence as deniers. What a joke. He obviously totally overlooks the numerous false prophecies over the last 50 years. No problem he will continue his ignorant rants.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 21 November 2019 12:33:02 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
The joke [anti man made climate change] is both old and in trouble
While we, yes me too, think of those street protesters as doing more harm than good the other side is no better
I picture them in bib and brace overalls straw hats, gum boots [on the wrong feet] marching under a make America great again flag
Easy that, dump Trump
Yes climate change is real and yes we made it
Maybe time some looked at those atmospheric rings around our planet
Saw the effects even sunspots have on them and us
Too tell us why so many are continuing to warn us the ice has reasons it is melting, and just maybe this is no drought, but long term climate change
Look too at sea water movements, currents that keep England from freezing over what takes place if that current changes?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 November 2019 2:48:40 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
Hey Max Green,

Thanks for contributing to the forum.

"Armchair doesn't like science and is a bit sick of it.
Poor diddums.
When your grandchildren's crops fail and they starve to death, or get killed in some future climate war, get back to us about how sick you were about scientists warning us all this was coming, OK?"

Under my scenario this won't happen, the crops will be fine:
- IF we 'get rid of' all the people whinging about climate change first.
At lot of people are whinging about climate change am I right?

With all them 'gone', the risk of climate change will be mitigated and there will be no more of this constant droning on an on like a broken record about climate change.

We can (oh well those of us left) just get back to living and enjoying life peacefully
- Like we used to, before all this silly climate crap started.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 21 November 2019 3:03:16 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
Hi Mhaze,
don't here me laying that down as one of the 10 Commandments or something! It's a general rule that is still generally true, but the specifics can change as other factors influence it.

Who would have thought Mt Pinatubo would cause more cooling than just the sunlight it blocked because that lack of sunlight also caused more drying?
"Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels."

http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

Just because something is complex doesn't mean it is wrong.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 21 November 2019 3:07:16 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
Dear mhaze,

All you need to know is that you have a $1 brain.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 21 November 2019 5:58:34 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
Voting should definitely not be compulsory if this discussion is anything to go by !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 21 November 2019 6:54:53 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, and Dear Mhaze,

"Welcome back, Max. Nice to see you've decided to stick your head above the parapet again. Better luck this time."
This bit was particularly presumptuous and not a little narcissistic! I didn't leave because of your pot shots at me, nor do I require any luck. I'm not a climate scientist and don't pretend to be one. I'm just occasionally fascinated — kind of out of sheer morbid curiosity — at how utterly awful it is to watch people struggle to convince themselves that global warming isn't real, despite the best of modern science. It's like a train wreck, horrible but somehow fascinating to watch. For instance, your recent "Aha, gotchya!" moment about CO2 interacting with water vapour. Like, really? Is that the best you've got? No, I'm not sticking my head 'above the parapet'. Rather, I'm kind of poking a stick in a cess pool to see what will float to the top. Sometime soon I'll remember I have a life, am working and running a business and studying on the side, have 2 young adult kids, and will eventually get bored of the cess pool... especially this one. It's just a bit too daft, you see?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 21 November 2019 7:24:27 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 Max Green,

Totally agree. The $1 brains can wear one out. Apparently a lot of climatologists have become so put off by the denialists that they have given up altogether. Best idea is to take a break when they all become to much.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 21 November 2019 7:43:03 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
Hi Mr Opinion,
They don't really become "too much" as just plain get boring. There's only so many times you can hear the fools sing from the same tired old debunked Denialist hymn book. Already I've bumped into "It's the sun" and "It's water vapour" and "the predictions so far have failed." All dime a dozen. All cheap. All old and debunked and repeated religiously by the denialist dogma. They assert them with all the zeal of Dorothy clicking her ruby slippers together, but no matter how many times they click, the planet keeps heating.

And if I'm not wrong, a Young Earth Creationist lurks here, wanting to stamp out any flames of climate science because it might indicate a world older than 10,000 years. Seriously? In a land where most Australian Anglican ministers are taught at Moore Theological College that the Genre of Genesis is an ancient *literary* theological narrative rebuking the *theology* of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and even Egyptian creation myths, not ever intended to be a *literal* narrative! "Runner" should read the following, and give up his fear of an old earth and his fear of climate science. This is written by Dr John Dickson, now famous for his "Undeceptions" podcast. Runner, you're welcome.
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

In the meantime, Josephus still has to get back to us about the raw physics of CO2 repeatable in any decent physics lab on the planet. You don't even have to have a proper Fourier Device to test it. What say you Josephus? Got an answer for that one yet?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 21 November 2019 8:21:00 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
Hi Max Green,

Don't despair, I for one totally agree with your line of argument on this topic. Along with Mr O there are a few on here who articulate a reasoned argument on most topics, Foxy and Steele can always be relied upon to show up the lunatic fringe for what they are. Good old Belly always makes a worthwhile contribution to the debate, along with a few others from time to time.

Unfortunately over the years the forum has lost many of its good contributors due to unchecked abuse from the decrepit (average age 97) Ratbag Right faction, and the Fundo Christian Haters, we have several of them on here.

My forum buddies above, I can tell are very nice people, and tend not to return fire when abused by the ratbag brigade. For myself that's not the case, I can give as good as I get, my suspension record will testify to that. I tell the good folk, as I am telling you, when the ratbags open up with abuse, apply the 'Armadillo Principle', it works for me, I hope it would work for you.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 22 November 2019 5:07:47 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
Sorry truth matters even when it hurts see some of our verbal opponents are well, past it
Remember Queensland they say is about a hundred years behind
Some are, original thought is an impossibility for some and evidence always lies unless it props their views up
About 20 years ago the man made climate change thing got a hit, from within its own side, those emails
But things have changed, [some posts here make those few emails look brilliant] people are seeing the evidence
It is right in front of us, now one poster, not fully informed, often told me sunspots [he had just discovered them] not climate change, was the problem
Research our earth's layers, find out about sun spots, see their well documented cycle
And the effect they have on radio communications, even our power system if intense, then ask why carbon * could not gather in one of those layers and have an effect on our planet* Max please consider staying around, we need other than bitter old men here
Posted by Belly, Friday, 22 November 2019 5:34:36 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 Max Greens,

All the usual suspects only have a $1 brain.

Our task, as million dollar brains, should be the educate the $1 brains with the purpose of creating a better world for everyone.

I have become the bete noire of the $1 brains. They hate the fact that I am what they are not: one of the most educated guys in the country and - according to people who know a lot more than I do - extremely smart.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 22 November 2019 6:33:39 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 thing that amazes me is they go on about it being a conspiracy. But Eunice Foote discovered CO2 traps heat in 1856!? Who is driving this over 163 years? What's their angle, and how has it survived WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the Collapse of the Soviet Union, etc?

Even science documentaries back in the day were warning us about it! 61 Years ago the Bell Telephone Company "Science Hour" showed this. (2 minutes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s

61 YEARS AGO?

Come on Mhaze, even you've got to admit that believing in a conspiracy going back this far stretches all credibility.
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 22 November 2019 6:46:42 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 O and Max,

You are two of the smartest contributors on the forum, without doubt. But I liken what you are doing with your intelligence and the ratbags, to being like carting cow manure around in a brand new Mercedes. The end result is worthless sit all over your million dollar car.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 22 November 2019 7:48:48 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
Belly, so you believe: "it is financially sound to switch to renewables".
So you believe we can hold back the tide of Climate change by mining more copper, silicon, concrete, aluminium, steel and fracking rocks to produce lithium. According to you this is the answer. This is just continuing the carbon release not reducing it.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 22 November 2019 8:20:45 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
Same old Max...

"...about CO2 interacting with water vapour. Like, really? Is that the best you've got?"

No not the best I've got, just the least I needed. You made a blanket assertion ..." More CO2 = more water vapour feedback" which I knew was wrong. Increases in atmospheric water vapour sometimes correlates to increases in CO2, and sometimes it doesn't. No 1 to 1 relationship.

I'm pleased to see you walked that back with alacrity. That's to your credit. I accept that you didn't mean to imply such a direct relationship.

In terms of maintaining your credibility, I was going to warn you about your new BFF (Mr O) that he's a fool and an unconscionable liar, but it seems he's doing that for me with his last post.

"Come on Mhaze, even you've got to admit that believing in a conspiracy going back this far stretches all credibility."

Just to set the terms early:

* I don't believe there is a conspiracy although I do think some alarmist scientists are corrupt.

* I agree that, all else being equal, an increase in CO2 leads to some warming

* I agree that the earth has warmed since the Dalton minimum

* I don't think the sunspot theory is the only answer to changes in the climate. I don't think there is an 'only answer'. I think its a combination of many factors that are beyond our current scientific knowledge to fully understand and most definitely beyond our ability to quantify.

* I think the TCR is closer to 1c than 2.5c but that we'll never get to a doubling of CO2 levels to find out anyway.

So just to make it clear, I'm not your caricature 'denialist'. Very few are.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 22 November 2019 8:38:49 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 have become the bete noire of the $1 brains. They hate the fact that I am what they are not: one of the most educated guys in the country and - according to people who know a lot more than I do - extremely smart."

WOW!! I take it that your excreta don't stink either?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 22 November 2019 9:47:42 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 don't think the sunspot theory is the only answer to changes in the climate"
Good!

>>"I don't think there is an 'only answer'"
Then you're with the majority of climate scientists that measure many different forcings. But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet.

>>"I think its a combination of many factors that are beyond our current scientific knowledge"
On what basis? A counter-theory requires some sort of evidence. Why don't you accept the 95% confidence of the IPCC? We KNOW how much heat CO2 traps: 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. That's physics. We MODEL where it goes. That's the tricky part. How much heat can our massive oceans hold without side effects on us? Etc. Where the heat goes is the trick. But their models are accurate, and getting more so every year, sharpening to the nth degree.

>>"I think the TCR is closer to 1c than 2.5c but that we'll never get to a doubling of CO2 levels to find out anyway"
That's what you think. I note it's got no evidence?

>>"I'm not your caricature 'denialist'. Very few are."
You might not be, I can grant that. But MOST are!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 22 November 2019 9:49:32 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
Josephus, stand by *do you understand it was JOHN HOWARD * who first subsidised solar panels?
Why do you think he did that?
Do you understand we who use them never ever got that 60 cents for feedback power
That we in fact [after big change] get no more than eight cents
Some maintain a higher rate but not near all
As I pay more than I get how is solar dearer, subsidies are constantly being removed
Now what do you base your costs on
A cost you ignore
The cost of not taking action
38 degrees here right now, summer yet to come, fire smoke [no nearby fire yet] is making breathing a little hard climate change? you prove it is not.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 22 November 2019 10:40:40 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
From their ABC, lunch time today: half of all bushfires are deliberately lit.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 22 November 2019 11:44:20 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
TTBN: Whether lightning strike or arsonist is not the issue.

The sheer scale of the drought and current weather conditions is!
This CSIRO climate scientist knew 40 years ago that we'd be facing this around now.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/17/what-could-i-have-done-the-scientist-who-predicted-the-bushfire-emergency-four-decades-ago

Also, while Coalition politicians blame city greenies, it's actually the FIRE experts saying they can't burn off during winter any more because the weather is too dry!
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/14/former-australian-fire-chiefs-say-coalition-doesnt-like-talking-about-climate-change
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 22 November 2019 1:05:26 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
Max Green while you are aware many are not
Social media is full of the greens did it but that ignores the truth
Country folk are not supporters of the greens we want to burn in winter,always have
But this drought, and those that came before, make winter burns firestorms, see many that got away
Yes some demand we not burn lard heads at best
But you can not burn when very real fire storms are the result
Yes firebugs start fires but they have dry weather and climate change making that possible
Clutching at straws, looking for something to blame other than drought and climate change is not on
Posted by Belly, Friday, 22 November 2019 3:01:00 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
"Then you're with the majority of climate scientists that measure many different forcings. But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet."

Well that may be true at certain times. And untrue at other times. eg half of the warming since 1850 was during periods when CO2e couldn't have had any real effect to speak of. And clearly CO2 etc weren't the dominant forces during the pause.

"Why don't you accept the 95% confidence of the IPCC?"
95% confident of what?

" 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. That's physics."
No that's propaganda.

If we were as certain on these issues as you suggest then there wouldn't be so many errors in the models. Whatismore the models wouldn't be in such disagreement.

"That's what you think. I note it's got no evidence?"
Well the IPCC and many others say its between 1 and 2.5c so perhaps there's more evidence than you are aware of.

"You might not be [your caricature denialist], I can grant that. But MOST are!"

That's what you think. I note it's got no evidence? :)
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 22 November 2019 4:59:07 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
As the First Fleet sailed north to Botany Bay it was noted that not much could be seen ashore because of the smoke from the forest fires.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 22 November 2019 5:18:00 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
>>"eg half of the warming since 1850 was during periods when CO2e couldn't have had any real effect to speak of."

Forgive me if I ask for a source?

"And clearly CO2 etc weren't the dominant forces during the pause."
You mean the 1960's 1970's pause due to the peer-reviewed and known phenomenon of Global Dimming due to sulfur particulates that a very few climatologists thought might cause an ice age? That same Global Dimming science that they're still studying today in case we need to artificially mimic volcanoes with Solar Radiation Management (SRM)? That one, that they know all about? Yeah, CO2 was still there, ready to warm the planet the moment the particulates reduced, and then it carried on as always.

>>"95% confident of what?"
Now you're being daft, and already tempting me to give up on this forum again. It's interesting, but I much prefer a good debate over on The Conversation where 1. you have to use your real name and 2. They eventually ban climate deniers.

>>"No that's propaganda."
4 Hiroshima bombs per second is physics, and just counter-asserting without scientific evidence is daft. You're boring me again. Try not to be the cliche.

>>"If we were as certain on these issues as you suggest then there wouldn't be so many errors in the models."
What error? So many mere assertions from a tinfoil hat science-hating climate denier in one post — so few links to evidence. Not good enough!

"Well the IPCC and many others say its between 1 and 2.5c so perhaps there's more evidence than you are aware of."
Could you link to it please and show me what you're talking about, because maybe it was the way you dropped the acronym in and I read it late one night...
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 22 November 2019 6:57:06 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
Hi Max Green,

Can you suggest any interesting reading?

There are some good books by Brian Fagan that might be of interest to you if you haven't already come across them:

. The Great Warming
. The Little Ice Age
. Floods, Famines, and Emperors

I'm researching the environmental sociology of water from every angle. Weather is basically water driven by the Sun's energy and winds. Fascinating stuff that goes a long way in explaining our current environmental catastrophes, which are exactly what these current bushfires and droughts are.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 22 November 2019 7:21:45 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
Huge grin came with me this morning to this thread
Yesterday we saw it was JOHN HOWARD who first subsidised solar panels
Yesterday? remember the childlike kicking and screaming from Scomos mob about SA battery storage?
Sco mo told us yesterday, he, along with two state governments would upgrade them doubling their holding ability
Clean energy has a momentum all of its own
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 November 2019 5:52:37 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,

What do you think of Twiggy Forrest and Co wanting to build the world's biggest solar farm in the NT to provide electricity to people outside of Australia? So much for business begins at home. What about us citizens who need cheap reliable power?

And I bet ScuMo and Co will back it with taxpayers dollars. Makes me so angry to see how this country is being ripped off by politicians, bureaucrats and business people who are only concerned about getting rich selling off this country.

And Australians have to carry the burden by letting the politicians and bureaucrats swamp our cities with cashed up Chinese in order to prop up the economy. Jared Diamond has called Chinese immigrants to Australia an invasive species equal to cane toads, foxes, rabbits, etc. and I totally agree with him!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 6:52:35 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
Opinion,

Leave the rabbits out of it, no comparison, we can't eat Chinese.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 23 November 2019 6:57:30 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
Hi Mr Opinion,
you and I aren't energy engineers, right? So let's be a little humble in how we approach the energy discussion. My understanding is that while those giant Tesla packs down in Adelaide don't have a hope of making renewables baseload, they are great at load balancing. That's a totally different market for the grid, and if they're helping and prevent some shorter blackouts for some smaller areas for a short period of time, then that's fine. What they won't be doing is backing up the whole of Adelaide for even half an hour! They'd struggle to run one suburb overnight. They're just not that powerful. I don't have the math on me right now, but a summary paper is by

Dr Ken Caldeira says storage would have to become 100 times cheaper to enable wind and solar to go 100%! He believes renewables could form a good majority of the grid... I think he said up near 80% with all sorts of clever measures. But my question to that is why bother if those clever measures cost to much?
https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/03/hail-mary-to-save-the-climate.html

If we just plug Gen3+ and Gen4 nukes into today's dumb grid, we can save all that money on trying to make it 'smart' for the sake of unreliables. That's what Dr James Hansen would do anyway.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 7:03:22 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 Max Green,

Why are you explaining this to me? I haven't commented on the SA Tesla plant.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 9:12:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TO BELLY
(Sorry Mr Opinion, I had a rough night and early morning, with bad visual cross-referencing on my part there! Apologies, I meant to address it to Belly. I'll try again!)

BELLY, you and I aren't energy engineers, right? So let's be a little humble in how we approach the energy discussion. My understanding is that while those giant Tesla packs down in Adelaide don't have a hope of making renewables baseload, they are great at load balancing. That's a totally different market for the grid, and if they're helping and prevent some shorter blackouts for some smaller areas for a short period of time, then that's fine. What they won't be doing is backing up the whole of Adelaide for even half an hour! They'd struggle to run one suburb overnight. They're just not that powerful. I don't have the math on me right now, but a summary paper is by

Dr Ken Caldeira says storage would have to become 100 times cheaper to enable wind and solar to go 100%! He believes renewables could form a good majority of the grid... I think he said up near 80% with all sorts of clever measures. But my question to that is why bother if those clever measures cost to much?
https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/03/hail-mary-to-save-the-climate.html

If we just plug Gen3+ and Gen4 nukes into today's dumb grid, we can save all that money on trying to make it 'smart' for the sake of unreliables. That's what Dr James Hansen would do anyway.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 9:44:22 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
If the Government mandates safe clearing around all buildings in bush/forest areas and clears the roads of scrub etc., then when a bushfire starts it can be left to burn itself out until it reaches the Government maintained adequate firebreaks.

We can do little about climate change but we can do something about the management of the countryside.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 23 November 2019 10:05:31 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
"Forgive me if I ask for a source? [on warming pre-1940]"

Check any database with long records back to 1850 eg HadCrut, GISS, BEST (I think). Preferably one without the recent 'homogenisation' but even most of them. Half of the 1c warming occurred pre-1940.

______________________________________________________
"You mean the 1960's 1970's pause "

No I mean the mid-1990s to early 2010s pause.

______________________________________________________
"Now you're being daft," [for asking what the IPCC is 95% sure of]
They have myriad 95% confidence intervals. I'd guess literally 100s. Which one do you refer to?

______________________________________________________

"and already tempting me to give up on this forum again. "

Oh no...please don't go.Whatever would we do without you. At least leave your bat and ball.

______________________________________________________
"I much prefer a good debate over on The Conversation where.. They eventually ban climate deniers."

Yes Conversations where you ban dissenting views are always preferable to a certain mindset. To my chagrin I've never been banned at the Conversation but have had quite a few posts moderated out of existence. I have been banned from 'Watching the Deniers' (for pointing out that an article from the blog owners directly contradicted an article 2 months earlier). I also have 4 different user names banned from Hotwhopper.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 November 2019 10:47:42 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
/cont

"4 Hiroshima bombs per second is physics"

Oh dear Max. Show me physics papers which use the A-bomb as a unit of measurement. The background to this is that it was invented by John Cook of 97% consensus infamy. A proper scientist suggested that the level of extra warming could be explained to the public by imagining a kids night-light on each square meter of the planet. Cook vetoed that because it wasn't scary enough and invented the Hiroshima trope because it was scary to the uninitiated. He'd be please to see it worked on at least one dupe.

BTW if you want to use Hiroshima as a unit of measure...the sun hits the earth with 1000 Hiroshimas each second. But that's not physics either.

______________________________________________________
"What error?"
Are you seriously suggesting that the models haven't made errors. Eg as above, only 2 of 114 models are able to reproduce the pause. Get a chart where the models are compared and see how different they are. They can't simultaneously be right and in disagreement.

______________________________________________________
"Could you link to it please and show me what you're talking about"

http://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

Why did you say I had no evidence for it, when you didn't even understand what I was talking about?
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 November 2019 10:47:59 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
Max Green my hobby is a dieing one, ham radio,we have another here who by the way is very very well respected in that hobby
We still float but do not bring in many/near any, newcomers
We before it became normal, used solar on our remote repeaters sites
I think battery storage is the key, for the present
Now I use just six batteries, and four panels, to back up my power, give both 12 and 240 volt power, and for a few hours, [longest so far 12 hours] make me blackout proof
I also feed back from another rooftop installation
One ham, now silent key[dead] ran two systems, one totally feeding back the other running every thing using massive battery storage
But yes you are right, we are not those who are dragging us in to the future
Mr O now for you.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 November 2019 11:54:01 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
Mr Opinion I share your view of this government
But as Albo has told us many opportunities exist in the whole renewable energy field
And right now we export gas, at a cost less than we pay for it, my view is we should reserve some of it for our use
But let them export power if they can create jobs and profit in doing it
In the end any advancement that sees profit in renewables works for me
I am spending some time [ bit anchored down car still on blocks up north]reading over seas experts on the subject
True real momentum is moving more away from the silly view the climate emergency is a fraud
Time is on our side
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 November 2019 12:00:56 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
MHAZE doesn’t like the image of 4 Hiroshima bombs and so is calling the SEMANTICS of it propaganda. Well, as Hiroshima bombs per second are a local event, and global warming is a… well … global event, there does need to be *some* small measure of explanation that this energy is spread across the planet. But it’s still the physics! It’s still the raw brute fact of that rough amount of extra heat being trapped. So, call the terminology “4 Hiroshima bombs per second” propaganda all you want, it won’t make the FACT of that extra heat go away.

Ah, you said 'homogenisation' which explains your pre-1940 hang ups. Jennifer Marohasy much? Conspiracy theory much? Tinfoil hat much? Blargh! I thought you were not the cliché denialist? R U serious?

As for the ‘pause’ in the mid-1990s? You're not a cherrypicker as well as every other denier cliché? I mean, did you even read the basic wiki on it? You know that climate is generally discussed in 30 year blocks, right? I mean, there are micro-climate events like the famous 1998 El Nino super-spike in temperatures which threw the numbers out and made the following years look ‘flat’, even though they were hotter than normal but just not in comparison to the El Nino. But of course, we’ve beaten 1998 repeatedly in the last decade. 30 year trends, buddy, 30 year trends. Say that 3 times as you click your ruby slippers together, instead of the usual “There’s no climate change! There’s no climate change!” Because your slippers won’t be taking you back to Kanzas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 12:56:58 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,

The politicians have sold ALL of Australia's major gas reserves to China leaving virtually nothing for us or our descendants.

There will not be many jobs created by the proposed Tennant Creek solar plant. What jobs there are will probably go to Chinese migrant workers who do a crap job and then disappear into Chinese communities in the big cities instead of returning to China.

When people start relinquishing their farms because of ongoing drought ScuMo and Co will send in the Chinese gas fracking companies to suck gas from the ground for export to China. I can just see ScuMo rubbing his hands together already counting the cash he will be stuffing into his pockets. They don't call him ScuMo for nothing!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 1:01:59 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
Hi Belly,
I love the idea of renewables but they have some pretty staggering problems, unreliability being the primary one. It's not just that storage is orders of magnitude too expensive to make them viable, it's that the EROEI of the overall system is too low. Nukes have an EROEI of about 60, and that includes the energetically expensive process of mining and refining all that uranium in a once-through fuel cycle. Breeders that then eat the nuclear waste may have EROEI's in the HUNDREDS!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 1:06:38 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 Max Green,

I suppose our politicians and bureaucrats would be relying on China to supply all of the know-how, workers, and materials to build nuclear power plants in Australia. Of course the power produced would be mostly going to China through a gigantic undersea cable system. And of course all of this will be financed by the Australia taxpayer both for construction and long term maintenance. And of course it will have to be manned and operated by Chinese nationals, preferably those trained by the PLA. What a wonderful Chinese future Australia has!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 1:52:30 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
Dear Max Green,

Do you think an El Nino will kick in this summer? I'm predicting yes based on the extensive cyclone activity in the Indian Ocean early this year as the indicator for one. If it happens we're in for a super-drought, which I think might put an end to a lot of Australia's farming industry.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 2:01:01 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
Max Green, Mr Opinion I support Nuclear power think we can improve with ease on the bound to fail Russia and Japanese models
To be honest think we need to have Nuclear arms, to make invasion hurt
But there is a place for solar wind and water generation
And in time another way will be found
For me my system has cut over a third from my bill and got me past about thirty blackouts, not fridges and such but tv and cooking [breif] with ease
Climate emergency will, at times, lead us up wrong paths trying to overcome it but we will find the right fuels
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 November 2019 2:34:24 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
BELLY,
Cool! Have I shared this 7 point rave about Molten Salt Reactors here already? Forgive me if I have.

+ It *cannot* melt down because the fuel is already a liquid.
+ It requires power to keep the fuel up in the core and reacting. In a power failure the hot liquid salt pours down to the drain tank and the moment it cools to 400 C the salt crystalises into a solid block that's not going anywhere.
+ The Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor eats uranium and thorium and nuclear waste and nuclear warheads!
+ It burns all the longer-lived 'waste' out of it, getting 90 times the energy out of the waste, turning a 100,000 year storage problem into today's energy solution.
+ The final wastes are fission products that you melt into ceramic blocks and bury under the reactor carpark for 300 years. Then they're safe! Your whole life would only result in 1 golf ball of waste. That volume for Australia would only come to 1.4 Sydney Olympic pools of nuclear waste after 70 years of abundant, reliable, carbon free electricity!
+ Uranium from seawater can run the world for billions of years. It's essentiall 'renewable' because geological activity and erosion tops up the oceans.
+ Dr James Hansen, the world's most famous climatologist, says we need nuclear power and we should look to the history of the French. They built out a mostly nuclear grid in just 15 years. It can be done, fast and cheap. The French electricity bill is about half Germany's, and Germany is only a third done with their unreliable wind and solar plan. According to Hansen the choice is nuclear power or climate change.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 2:36:36 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
So no Physics papers to show that the Hiroshima bomb analogy is anything other than propaganda designed to fool the unwary.....Figures.

And no acknowledgement that even though those bombs sound scary (to the dupes) its a rounding error in regards to the amount of heating we get from the big yellow thing in the sky each second.

Still Cook designed it to scare the dills in our midst and he succeeded, so begrudging kudos to him on that front.

Oh I mentioned 'homogenised' and off Max goes. Of coarse its a standard term in the science but Max seems unaware of that. Hell, you can even go to the NASA site and find data they call 'homogenised'. But somehow its a big scary word to Max - like the A-Bomb.

I said you can find the data in both the homogenised and unhomogenised sets but Max wants to ignore those facts and needs to find some way of doing so.

There's also another thing at play here. The Maxes of the world have become reliant on a few talking points and can't really handle any nuance. So he's desperate to label everyone who doesn't agree 100% with his daffy views as deniers. So he goes from me using a word that NASA uses as a matter of coarse to deciding it proves I'm a tin-foil hat denier. Funny while also sad.

Oh, and all the while ignoring the point.

Same with the pause. Firstly he uses Wikipedia as his source. Obviously never heard of William Connelly. Well comment on that rogue is probably banned at the Conversation. And then reverts to 30 year rule talking point.

Of coarse the 30 year rule only applies when it suits. Temperature rises between 1980 and 1995 and we're all gunna die. Doesn't rise for the next 15 years. Nothing to see here- move along. They call that science </sarc>.

Oh and I didn't mention 1998 but that's part of 'Climate Change for Dummies' play-book, so Max just has to go there.

Nothing on the models and TCR. Very prudent.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 November 2019 2:49:36 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
Oh MHAZE, how desperately you whine!

First, you fulfilled my prediction that you would call the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second "Propaganda" again — how funny! You really don't like how much energy is actually redirected and bounced around by our CO2 molecules, do you? Yup, 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of *heat* is trapped. Every second. Yup, this is quite a small number compared to the amount of incoming sunlight hitting the earths' atmosphere at once, but remember not all of that makes it to the earth's surface to actually be re-radiated as heat. As NASA says:-

"Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

The fact that you paraphrased all this as "a rounding error in regards to the amount of heating we get from the big yellow thing" shows you've been influenced by the "Great Global Warming Swindle" swindle, written by Martin Durkin who was just jerkin his gherkin! Yup, sun big, earth small. Yup, lots of energy come down, only tiny bit trapped. Yup, comforting to deniers who like to sneer about things like they're watching Sesame Street, and appear to be stuck on concepts like big and little.

But it's not about the relative percent of something being 'big' or 'little', it's the thing's agency. It's power to do stuff. Try arguing with a cop next time you're booked for being over 0.05% blood alcohol! "But occifer, it's only half of a tenth of 1 pershent! It cannot do noffing to me osshifer?"

... continued...
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 3:28:02 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 mhaze,

It's good to see you $1 brains presenting your view. We need conflict just as much as we need consensus to make our world understandable. It's too bad you were never able to acquire an education worthwhile having.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 3:29:33 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
Guess what replying with cheap sarcasm to the 30 year rule and then re-cherrypicking your favourite 15 years shows you to be? A cherrypicker! NASA on the 30 year rule (for lurkers).
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

MHAZE, you've revealed what kind of denier you are, and I'm not writing to you at the moment but more to any lurkers that might be confused about your early 20th Century comments. From what I've read, the climate scientists have accounted for the variability and the warming in the early 20th Century wasn't as great as it is now, but was still significant given it shows that even the small amounts of CO2 we added then had an impact.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

MHAZE apparently doesn't trust the world's top temperature databases, as they've all been 'homogenised.' MHAZE says "its a standard term in the science" but of course just prior said: "Preferably one without the recent 'homogenisation'. Hmm, contradicting yourself much?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295150

NASA's GISTEMP tracks the increases in temperature. http://tinyurl.com/y3js28tc
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The World Meteorological Organisation confirms that the last 20 or so years have all been in the hottest on record.
http://tinyurl.com/yxdadu8r
The UK's Met Office also confirm the last century of temperatures keep rising, and the last few decades are the hottest on record and we keep breaking records. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2018/2019-global-temperature-forecast
NOAA also confirm it. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Other evidence from the natural world confirms warming:-
Why are the cooler seasons late and spring arriving earlier and earlier?
Why are the glaciers retreating up mountains?
Why is the *multi-year* thick ice retreating at the Arctic and Antarctica? I'll tell you. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second equivalent extra heat from our CO2 going from 280ppm pre-industrial revolution to over 400ppm now.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 23 November 2019 4:04:37 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
Dear Max Green,

CO2 levels being produced by the Industrial Revolution only really start to accelerate at an alarming rate from the 1950s. The reason has less to do with our physical world and a whole lot to do with our social world. In the 1950s New York Madison Street ad men invented consumerism which resulted in increasing usage of fossil fuels to manufacture and power all of the gadgets people in the First World just had to have each year like the latest model cars, washing machines, ovens, etc., etc.

We are the problem and exponentially growing world population where 7.7 billion of us are wanting a First World lifestyle driven by unbridled consumerism is driving CO2 levels to unacceptable levels for our species to survive.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 23 November 2019 4:30:13 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
Let us briefly look at the man made climate change is fraud group
What are they defending, why, what true evidence do they have
If we project the likely short term outcomes of true action to stop carbon emissions they may give the answer
See in related threads, electric cars for instance, they go to war verbally too
So if we find [and it can be done] alternative fuel to petroleum ones what happens to millions of service stations
The economy of the middle east [and those who own that oil]
I strongly feel the campaign is hooking its supporters and in the end they do not understand they have purchased a pup
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 24 November 2019 6:02:08 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 don't waste my time looking at the so-called evidence presented by those refuting anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change. If they don't want to accept it then let them go down that path. I see them as ignorant and uneducated.

That's why I go to such lengths to mock them. They are complete fools and idiots. Every age and culture has its group of fools. In our modern world and global civilisation it just happens to be made up of people like Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth, individual, etc.

I spent half my life building myself into one of the most educated guys in the country and I refuse to waste my time trying to convince a bunch of knuckleheads that AGW is real and dangerous to our planet and our species. I've got better things to do with my time.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 24 November 2019 6:44:12 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
"NASA on the 30 year rule (for lurkers)."

Nasa says..."Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years."

Some scientists say 30. Some 40. Some just say an extended time. Some don't say at all. But for Max, since it suits his purpose just now, its firm law. Oh dear.

Just to clarify..Max originally claimed "But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet." I showed him two of the vast array of instances and periods where that is simply untrue. Not sorta true, or arguable true, but just plain wrong. And Max's response? Well he's spent who knows how many posts trying to obfuscate the issue. My favourite was when he went into a moral-panic over the word 'homogenise', a word used often from organisations like NASA through to IPCC, but which, somehow, is proof positive of the user being denier.

So just to try again....was "CO2 and methane" the dominant forcings in those periods I mentioned? were they the dominant forcings during the mid-century cooling? In fact periods where there have been a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temps are rather small in the great scheme of things.

Then Max panics over all those A-bombs going off in the climate. Hilariously he fails to understand that that is the equivalent of 0.6 watts /sqm which is the usual non-alarmist way of measuring. Or 0.4% of the amount of energy received each second from the sun. But alarmist gotta alarm,....and be alarmed.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 24 November 2019 7:18:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've noticed one of Max's techniques is to throw out assertions in the hope that they're right or even arguable and then to just drop it when he finds out otherwise.

He tells me to pay attention to the IPCC's 95% confidence interval. I ask which one. He says that's a daft question. I then point out there are 100s of such 95 % confidence intervals.....CRICKETS

He's says the models are always right. I point out that that can't be true when they disagree internally....CRICKETS

I say I think the TCR is closer to 1c. He says I have no evidence for that and then that he doesn't know what it means (so how did he know I had no evidence?). I show him the evidence....CRICKETS

He says I cherry-picked 1998 as the start of the pause. I point out that not only didn't I do that, I deliberately avoided that date.....CRICKETS

I ask for evidence that the Physics community uses his daft 4 Hiroshima equivalence as a unit of measure...CRICKETS

I'm expecting to hear a lot of crickets over the next while, until Max again beats a retreat.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 24 November 2019 7:33:31 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
MHAZE, you're not the only person in this thread. It took 2 posts to answer your last strawman attacks and I had other people to discuss things with. You're really not the centre of my world. Also, you don't get to monopolise my time by throwing out a dozen silly red-herrings for me to chase while not conceding the answers put back to you! Stop playing silly word games around subjects, and answer the questions!

You've failed to give an adequate response as to why you repeatedly asserted you only want to study temperature graphs in a particular 15-year range. ;-) Rather than avoid this, I linked to databases that cover this period.

You've failed to explain why you don't trust those temperature charts because you prefer ones "without the recent 'homogenisation'" and yet "its a standard term in the science". ;-) You can claim I went into "moral-panic" over the word, but you're the one preferring temperature charts *without* homogenisation. You avoid explaining why? ;-)

You've failed to explain why you brought up the early 20th Century, and why the science shows some CO2 related warming, but not much compared to today! ;-) Again, I linked to databases that cover this period. You've failed to explain why the top 4 temperature databases on the planet all say the same thing, and why seasonal and biological evidence from the real world also confirm the planet is cooking. ;-)

You've failed to understand that 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is a GREAT way to explain 3 extra Christmas light per square meter of the earth. Sure it's a dramatic image and not the scientific measure, but I'm not a scientist and this is a lay person's forum. It's appropriate, and rather catchy! I know that rankles you because you hate all this stuff, but, well, that's your problem. But here is a good brief for newcomers who want the correct terms. Also, this link says you got the measure wrong. It’s 0.8 watts / sqm, but denier’s gotta deny! ;-)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 24 November 2019 8:28:59 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
"You've failed to give an adequate response as to why you repeatedly asserted you only want to study temperature graphs in a particular 15-year range."

Nup. I've explained before. You claimed "But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet" and that 15yr or so period was one example where that claim was wrong.

"You've failed to explain why you don't trust those temperature charts"

I never said any such thing. I simply suggested that you look at the pre-1940 data to show that your CO2 claims were wrong and that unhomogenised data from that time would show it better. I also said "you can find the data in both the homogenised and unhomogenised sets". But then you'd be forced to address the main point, and you'd really prefer to avoid that, n'est pas?

"You've failed to explain why you brought up the early 20th Century"

Nup. I've explained it many times. It was to show that your claims about CO2 were wrong.

"You've failed to explain why the top 4 temperature databases on the planet all say the same thing, and why seasonal and biological evidence from the real world also confirm the planet is cooking."

See now you're just making stuff up. I've not talked at all about the databases and most certainly haven't disputed that the planet is warming. Its always a dead give-away when people start making stuff up.

"You've failed to understand that 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is a GREAT way to explain..."

You say explain. I say propagandise. Let's call the whole thing off.

"Also, this link says you got the measure wrong. It’s 0.8 watts / sqm, but denier’s gotta deny!"

Nup. The link says that the number is hard to measure. But the people who created the Hiroshima meme used 0.6 watts so I went with that. Had I not done so, I suspect we'd be having a long discussion about why I falsified their number.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 24 November 2019 10:23:00 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
My last post asked a question, it presented a list [only part of one] of who may suffer when we take action to TRY to stop man made climate change
It got no answer
But it did get mhaze showing he needs no science or real evidence, to sustain his augment
Those in the tobacco industry who ran for so long such a fraudulent campaign in defense of killing their customers, take a bow
You works lead the way for today's deniers
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 24 November 2019 11:41:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Max Green,

Please do not waste your time disputing AGW with the $1 brains. There are too many important aspects to AGW and climate change that are worthwhile discussing. Have you read any of those books by Brian Fagan that I mentioned earlier?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 24 November 2019 12:43:57 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,
you seem to be reading on climate more recently than I have been (at least in any depth). What are your most serious concerns and potential geopolitical flashpoints if we don't reduce our various greenhouse gas emissions?
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 24 November 2019 12:53:52 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 Max Green,

My research entails finding out what scientists and scholars are saying about the environment (particularly water). The emerging picture is a lot worse than climatologists were initially predicting and it's looking like we have reached a tipping point where it will be impossible to undo the damage caused by ongoing use of fossil fuels.

One critic, Roy Stranton, has written a short book Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene, which basically says that the gig is up, it's too late, and we should be teaching ourselves how to accept the extinction of our species as a consequence of AGW.

But I highly recommend the books of Brian Fagan, an internationally recognised archaeologist of the highest repute and one of my earliest reads in my first year of my anthropology degree.

To fully understand AGW and climate change requires an interdisciplinary approach, which needs to take account of both the sciences and the humanities to give us the big picture.

Interesting stuff that fascinates me as a sociologist but unfortunately it looks like we are all looking down the barrel of an extinction event.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 24 November 2019 2:48:57 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
Max Green, Mr Opinion let me be honest I am not near as well educated as you two
But read extensively and my fears are real. like climate change
My main concerns is not the deniers, time will defeat them
But rainfall and ocean currents
My reading has shown England, if it's warmer current stops working may become unlivable
Rain? we are getting more droughts more often
Aware SOME parts of the planet will be greener/wetter what if part or all of our country is not that lucky
Time and truth are on our side too the momentum being built up by renewables being used and planned right now
I see a future day when polutors may face trade embargo if they refuse to take action on climate change
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 24 November 2019 3:00:31 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,

I think Max Green has convincingly warned against putting our hopes in renewables to get rid of the problem. I'm sure Max can elaborate on that issue.

I'm glad you raised the issue of water - my favourite topic.

Yes the great thermohaline global current can come to a halt under certain conditions stopping the Gulf Stream bringing warm water to the west of the UK which produces the rainy weather the UK is so famous for. It can also do other drastic things to weather around the world. Did you catch the movie The Day After Tomorrow which was about that type of event.

Everything is interrelated. Did you know that 40% of the planet's CO2 is held by our oceans. As the oceans warm they cannot hold as much CO2 releasing it into the atmosphere which in turn increases to greenhouse gas effect.

Let's hope an El Nino doesn't kick in this January otherwise things in Australia will just become disastrous for a lot of country folk.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 24 November 2019 3:22:53 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,
On the pre 1940 issue:
* are we to trust the temperature datasets or not? ;-)
* Have they been homogenised or not? ;-)
* Why did you prefer unhomogenised? ;-)
* Why did you dismiss the studies in the link I shared?
* What don’t you like about their science?
* What links do you have that demonstrate that the pre 1940 temperatures somehow contradict our understanding of climate science?
* Is this your ONLY ‘evidence’ or ‘argument’ or ‘inkling’ that pushes your scepticism into overt paranoia that “they” are cooking up a story but in your ‘reality’ we still really truly wooly don’t know how to do climate change models yet?
(Despite getting those computer models and running them backwards against historical records and confirming that they work!)
* Who is this they, and how much cool-aid does one have to swallow to see them?
* On the other matters — you’re sulking and redirecting now. Repeatedly going over and over them again over them yet again would be to utterly boring to contemplate.
* When was the last time you had a BBQ with some mates or turned off the computer and went outside and spoke to another actual human being? I think you should; you're getting some kind of sad reward cooped up in your room arguing with people that accept regular science like us 'alarmists'. (We're not the ones pushing an all powerful global conspiracy that goes back 163 years to Eunice Foote! Talk about an alarming worldview! You tinfoil hatters must be freaked out — except you secretly know your conspiracies just are not true!) It's sad when negative attention is better than no attention. I think you should get out for a bit, OK?
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 24 November 2019 4:30:58 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
Just an example of what can happen,
driving from Glen Innes towards Inverell (on the way home0), there was a bush fire to the north of the Gwydir Highway, glow in the sky and enough smoke for the headlights to be on.
Then ran into the heaviest rain in a storm that I've experienced for at least thirty years, if not longer,
Conditions became so dangerous, with visibility down to 50 feet or less that I pulled off the road at a wide point and put the hazard lights on. soon joined by four other vehicles, we sat it out for some ten minutes before it eased off enough to safely proceed.

Nice bit of rain though.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 24 November 2019 5:58:54 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
Hi BELLY & MR OPINION,
Belly — don't be too down on yourself. At least you are open to the science! I'm not a scientist. To my shame I almost sided with the deniers at one point in my life, after seeing "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I was just ignorant about it all — completely unread. I had denialist friends. But when I researched each and every claim from that movie, I discovered very clever half-truths, or outright lies! It just takes knowing some of the better websites to read and a few youtube channels. Then you can research the real peer-reviewed science from the sneaky little tactics of the attention-seeking trolls in here.
Always start here. http://skepticalscience.com/

Back to the risks of climate change. Not many climatologists go the whole way to predicting extinction for us. Let's face it, we're planning a city on Mars which is a thousand times harder than life here on earth. But that's the pinnacle of our scientific elite using the most expensive, state of the art equipment in human history. It's not your African hunters or your Indian rice farmers or South American indigenous tribe. Or even a Texan rancher! I'm not predicting the extinction of human life, but if we really stuff up maybe half the human race and half the ecosystems going extinct.

AS MR OPINION SAYS — to assess the risks, one needs to read the scientific consensus, have some basic economics and then model in some realpolitik. In other words, sociology, which I have an Advanced Diploma in.

Water wars are our greatest risk. For every 1 warmer it gets, the atmosphere can hold 5% more water which is faster drying and greater deluges. Famines and floods. It means America going dustbowl again, permanently. Globally 25% less grain as we head towards 9 billion by 2050!

This 2009 video shows more on climate models, including Hansen just outright guessing on a volcano! http://youtu.be/D6Un69RMNSw

This one is on SRM. If we use it right, it could give us decades more time. Wrong, and we may start WW3!
http://youtu.be/wdQRPUtVrSc
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 24 November 2019 7:17:33 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
There was something on the news tonight about the ITER project in France. Maybe that will save us all from extinction if it produces fusion based energy. Actually looks like the nations of the world getting together to save the planet type stuff that movies are made out of. Makes me angry that there were and still is so many people who tried to prevent action in response to AGW and global world. Are they just selfish or stupid? I suppose a bit of both.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 24 November 2019 8:31:37 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
There was steady rain for over three hours!!
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 24 November 2019 9:28:16 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
ISE MISE, you are aware extremes are part of Global Warming? it tickles me when the so called informed get excited over extremes cold rain and offer it as proof GW is fraud
EG super high tides in Europe [right now
We missed the rain, twice it did not follow it usual course and come first here
Hurt hearing thunder two nights in a row, looking at the radar [do that several times a day RAAF and Sydney] it is about to do the same
Max Green Mr Opinion agree with most things but Mr O as we move toward something better right now right here solar wind aqua, and hot rock will for a time be the power we use
Nuclear while good for power will not fuel our cars
We in the long term future, will find another fuel for that purpose regards all three
Posted by Belly, Monday, 25 November 2019 5:21:50 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 Is Mise,

There's a great little book by Laura Lee titled 'Blame It On The Rain' that is really worth reading. It's several dozen short explanations of how wet weather determined great historical outcomes.

Not too sure if rain will get rid of anthropogenic global warming but you never know, stranger things have happened. Maybe if we all close our eyes and, as Max Green might say: click our ruby red shoes and say "Go away AGW' a few times, it might just work. Let me know how you get on.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 25 November 2019 6:30:18 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
Hi BELLY,

NREL studies show we can convert about a third of our cars into EV's without requiring a single extra power plant if we turn all our baseload plants up to full and charge at night. This would mainly be light vehicles like family cars and light trucks. “For the United States as a whole, 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and SUVs could be supported by the existing infrastructure”
http://tinyurl.com/y6b6s7nx

This means that we can charge about a third of today's vehicles for "free" on today's electricity grid without building a single new power plant. Another study confirms that "the grid has enough excess capacity to support over 150 million battery-powered cars, or about 75 percent of the cars, pickups, and SUVs on the road in the United States." Technology Review August 2013 http://tinyurl.com/y3qvtv5k

Then for the heavy vehicles Tesla are building a heavy long-haul truck, but we can also build more nuclear power plants to crack seawater into e-diesel and jet fuel at today's oil prices!
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 25 November 2019 7:09:39 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
Top Scientist Resigns: 'Global Warming is a $Trillions Scam — It has Corrupted Many Scientists'

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Harold 'Hal' Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago)…..
For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.)

I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it....In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. This is not science; other forces are at work.

cont
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 25 November 2019 8:02:19 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
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 25 November 2019 8:03:01 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
AWWW, ain't you cute Josephus? You read this one complaint where a smartish dude reads a book and gets a bad case of moral outrage and publishes a letter he's later going to be embarrassed about. With some insomnia last night, I think I sent an email like that at 3am last night. It happens. When he wakes up from his one-book approach to life he's going to be so embarrassed. I mean, did he even check the wiki?
_______________

The mainstream media picked up the story, as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December 2009.[12] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[13] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding: "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway... it is a growing threat to society".[14]

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 25 November 2019 8:11:14 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
"* are we to trust the temperature datasets or not? ;-)"

Yes, that's why I suggested you check it. Have you done that yet?

"* Have they been homogenised or not? ;-)"
They've been homogenised but unhomogenised data is also available. Your question is rather strange, suggesting you don't quite under the issue. All temperature data is available in both forms.

"* Why did you prefer unhomogenised? ;-)"
Because it better displayed the point I was making. The homogenised data showed it as well but not quite as clearly ie I was trying to make the point easier for the those of a certain bent to understand. But I did say check either. My point that you were wrong remained valid either way. But I get tht you are trying very hard to not understand that.

"* Why did you dismiss the studies in the link I shared?"
Did I? Where did I do that? As per usual, I don't expect that you'll be able to show where I did it.

"* What don’t you like about their science?"
Did I say that? Where?

"* What links do you have that demonstrate that the pre 1940 temperatures somehow contradict our understanding of climate science?"

The pre-1940 data shows that your uninformed claim that "CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet."
That's all. But you continue to try to avoid admitting that.

"overt paranoia that “they” are cooking up"

You're the only one talking about 'them' cooking up data. Paranoia indeed.

"(Despite getting those computer models and running them backwards against historical records and confirming that they work!)"

Now I know we're in an area that is going to be beyond your comprehension, but running the models backwards doesn't prove they work. Running them forward and seeing that their prediction were right would prove they work. They don't.

"* Who is this they, and how much cool-aid does one have to swallow to see them?"

You're the only one talking about this mythical 'they'. So why ask me?

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 25 November 2019 9:05:23 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
/cont
"Repeatedly going over and over them again"
Because you refuse to acknowledge you were utterly wrong or attempt to show otherwise. Ethics in't a big issue with this one.

"* When was the last time you had a BBQ "

Now we're into the bizarre. He's increasingly deranged as he's shown to be clueless. Actually, I had a very pleasant afternoon yesterday among family and friends. 5th grandchild's naming ceremony (Christening replacement). But not a barbie - fires bans and all that.

Max, do you know what psychological projection is? Perhaps you should check it out.

"We're not the ones pushing an all powerful global conspiracy"
Actually you are. A conspiracy by some mythical cabal of fossil fuel executives to hide AGW...or something.

I on the other hand haven't mentioned or so much as suggested a conspiracy of any sort.

Here's my guess as to why Max is determined to ignore the issues and instead try to paint anyone who fails to fully agree with him as a denier.

Last year Max was running around here claiming that the math proved we only had a given amount of emissions before it was all over. Every time someone spoke up he'd ridicule them and told them to "do the Math". So I did and proved his claims were rubbish. Next post he completely backtracked and shortly thereafter he stopped posting. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#335172

Of he went to places like The Conversation, where he could get away with his BS unchallenged because alternate voices are banned.

So he comes back here, confident he can now hold his own against those silly deniers. Only to find out that his caricature deniers don't exist and that he has to argue the nuance. And he can't. And he's becoming increasingly deranged as he realises that.

BELLY,

"But it did get mhaze showing he needs no science or real evidence, to sustain his augment"

I thought you were better thanthat. The last time round, I showed you the science and you not only didn't address it, but pretended to not even see it, pretended it didn't exist.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 25 November 2019 9:05:30 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
MHAZE,
Here is where I said something about the 1940's, but you rushed past it.

It's the post where I said:-

"the variability and the warming in the early 20th Century wasn't as great as it is now, but was still significant given it shows that even the small amounts of CO2 we added then had an impact."
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

I also linked to the world's top 4 temperature databases that all confirm the warming trend really kicks in in the second half of the 20th Century, not the first half - where your 'argument' lies. I'm now aware some of the links to the temp databases have expired, but I'm sure you have the intelligence to look them up. Whether or not you have the intelligence to accept what they say, well, that depends on your attitude to them being 'homogenised.'

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295184

Also, this:-

"1890s to 1940: Average surface air temperatures increase by about 0.25 °C. Some scientists see the American Dust Bowl as a sign of the greenhouse effect at work."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9912-timeline-climate-change/#ixzz66F4RWLzv
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 25 November 2019 10:16:01 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
Just a thought right now another one of the 60 fires still burning in NSW has got out of hand again
It started a very long way from the Pacific highway, but now threatens Iluka, on the coast
WA SA, Vic, Qld, and NSW have had about the same number of fires
And they are near to having burned out two million hectares, and it is not yet summer
By summer's end that number will be more than twice its current number
A Royal Commision will again be called
The evidence will lead to recommendations that will again, be ignored
What will be the result if the following 12 months is the same as this last year
Some will continue to say climate change is not taking place
Posted by Belly, Monday, 25 November 2019 10:36:17 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
From one of your SkepticalScience links..."Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn't as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount."

Repeat..."natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming" ie CO2 and methane were NOT the dominant forcings pre 1940.

Surely you can now understand that your silly claim that " "CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet" is simply wrong. Why can't you just admit it and move on?

Which is all I've been saying all along and what you've been trying to avoid admitting all along.

(I'm only using this ink because you used it. In the main I consider using SkepticalScience on climate change the same as using the Vatican on christianity. They aren't unbiased observers but the most partisan of all sites, with the possible exception of RealClimate.)

(There you go, you can try to change the subject from your "dominant forcings" error, to arguing in favour of your goto site.)

Re your misplaced faith in the climate models:....
http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 25 November 2019 2:05:25 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
"CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet"

Oh my goodness! From the context of my original post, you can see that I was talking about the consensus understanding of CO2 and methane being the dominant forcings NOW! As in, we're doing it, obvious from around the start of the 20th Century but really kicking in from the 1950's. Seriously, the CONTEXT of my post should have been obvious given I just congratulated you for not giving into another Denialist theory about climate NOW... the sunspots! EG:
__________

>>"I don't think the sunspot theory is the only answer to changes in the climate"
Good!

>>"I don't think there is an 'only answer'"
Then you're with the majority of climate scientists that measure many different forcings. But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295062

BUT THEN you go and rely on a proverbial invisible 'Black Swan' for why you don't accept climate change today.
>>"I think its a combination of many factors that are beyond our current scientific knowledge"
That's where you have a problem. Feelings and suspicions are not a contrary dataset or even coherent argument.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 25 November 2019 2:56:13 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
Been net surfing could have posted so very much to back up my position
And yes some truly laughable stuff rebutting my view [like a laugh]
But no set out a case for me, why is there an anti climate change force
Who runs it, why, who gains if it wins this battle
Tell me why deniers will not believe NATO? the UN? who? ICE MELTING RECORDS SET EVERY YEAR
Why has someone conned me
Or we could [as a fellow ham radio man has, look at the past history of temperatures rainfall and weather over the last 50 years
His grand dad then dad wrote daily in the dairy farms rainfall and weather book, it makes my case
Posted by Belly, Monday, 25 November 2019 3:02:45 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
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-sign-of-slowdown-atmospheric-greenhouse-gas-levels-hit-new-high-20191125-p53e15.html
I offer the link so those who denie the science have something new to tell us is put together by fraudsters
In the end that truth can not be avoided if the science is wrong [and it is not] massive fraud is taking place
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 5:19:58 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
Max,

"From the context of my original post, you can see that I was talking about the consensus understanding of CO2 and methane being the dominant forcings NOW!"

You spend days arguing that the pre-1940 period fits your hypothesis and then when you find out your gurus have already said the opposite you suddenly decide you were only talking about NOW!!

Oh well I guess that's as close as we are likely to get to a mea culpa.

"BUT THEN you go and rely on a proverbial invisible 'Black Swan' for why you don't accept climate change today."
Where did I say I don't "accept climate change today"?

"Feelings and suspicions are not a contrary dataset or even coherent argument."
Where did I say it was? OTOH just hoping we can quantify the various components of the climate system isn't a winning strategy either.

Look, you just don't get this. I, and most of the people you call deniers, do accept that the climate has warmed, do accept that there's been some change in various climate regional systems, do accept that man has had some part in this.

Where I diverge from the alarmist is:

1. I think man played some part, not necessarily the dominant part and most certainly is not the whole cause.
2. I don't agree the warming since 1950 is bad. A warmer world has always been beneficial to mankind, and so far, has been beneficial to this generation.
3. I don't think there's been an uptick in climate related disasters.
4. I don't think we'll ever get to 560ppm of CO2e.
5. I don't think we need to subsidise renewables.
6. I favour the IPCC's RCP 4.5 predictions over the RCP 8.5
7. I favour non-regrets mitigation policies and oppose all other mitigation measures at this time.

In summary, I accept most of the current data about climate change to the present and reject almost all the fear-mongering claims about the future and therefore oppose all claims that we have to act now.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 8:01:35 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 atmospheric concentration of key greenhouse gases hit new highs in 2018, reaching levels not seen in at least 3 million years when sea-levels were as much as 20 metres higher than now.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a United Nations agency, said on Monday that globally averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached 407.8 parts per million (ppm) last year, up from 405.5 in 2017."

Not good news! Keep in mind that 3 million years ago the world may have been in a 'hotter' Milankovitch 'wobble' (angle, orbit, tilt etc of the Earth around the sun) to push those sea levels up even higher than today's CO2 levels indicate. But here's the thing. What do today's CO2 levels *really* mean for sea level? Recent indications show an Earth with slightly lower CO2 than today, but higher sea levels! Why? Milankovitch wobbles in the earth's angle & tilt & orbit added to the CO2 effect to cook things up a little warmer. But it's still not a good indication for today, and that West Antarctic ice sheet may go a lot earlier than we thought. The 'sleeping giant' of Antarctica could go!

This is a similar article about a more recent combination
http://theconversation.com/scientists-looked-at-sea-levels-125-000-years-in-the-past-the-results-are-terrifying-126017
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 8:18:11 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
MHAZE

>>1. I think man played some part, not necessarily the dominant part and most certainly is not the whole cause.
Of course you think this. And modern climate science says WRONG!

>>2. I don't agree the warming since 1950 is bad. A warmer world has always been beneficial to mankind, and so far, has been beneficial to this generation.
If it's a hot muggy day and someone jumps off the top of the Burj Khalifa, there might be an initial rush of wind that is quite cooling.

>>3. I don't think there's been an uptick in climate related disasters.
Of course you think this. And modern climate science says WRONG!

>>4. I don't think we'll ever get to 560ppm of CO2e.
I hope we don't but as just posted by Belly, we keep climbing.

>>5. I don't think we need to subsidise renewables.
Dr James Hansen says believing in renewables is like believing in the Tooth Fairy, so we have that in common.

>>6. I favour the IPCC's RCP 4.5 predictions over the RCP 8.5
Except the RCP is more up to date.

>>7. I favour non-regrets mitigation policies and oppose all other mitigation measures at this time.
We may need everything!

In summary, global warming is real, is us and is serious. Deny any of these and you have become EXACTLY the kind of irrational tinfoil hat, alternate reality conspiracy theorist I thought you were. It's what the science ACTUALLY says about the ACTUAL world we live in. Deny that because you have an over-inflated sense of your own importance and that of your precious opinion and you are just not worth listening to. There's a very serious crisis and a job to be done. Move aside so the adults in the room can do it!
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 9:36:28 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
mhaze time is on my side near daily other start to demand action on man made climate change
Powered by extremes in weather that number will continue to grow
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 11:03:21 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
1. "And modern climate science says WRONG!"

Well it doesn't. Even the IPCC agrees that there is doubt about how much of the overall warming is due to CO2e.

2. "someone jumps off the top of the Burj Khalifa"

Very scientific Max. Struth!! It can easily be shown that each period of historic warming has corresponded with periods of advances in civilisation. And as I showed you last year, 25% of the last 12000 yrs were warmer than now. Periods like the Minoan Warm Period, the Egyptian WP, Sumerian WP, Roman WP, Medieval WP. Each of these resulted in advances or creation of new civilisations. They also occur roughly every 1000 years and its been 1000 years since the last one. Not drawing conclusions there - just an interesting factoid.

3. "And modern climate science says WRONG! [about disasters]."

Check the IPCC.I taught you about this last year - don't tell me you've forgotten already!.

4. "I hope we don't but as just posted by Belly, we keep climbing."

My grandson keeps getting taller but that doesn't mean he'll get to 10 foot.

7. "We may need everything!"

If only we could afford everything.

"Move aside so the adults in the room can do it!"

Do you know any?

I left this to last. "Except the RCP is more up to date." I almost chocked on my coffee when I read that. I'll leave you to research RCP's to find out why your thinking that RCP8.5 is a more recent version demonstrates a total ignorance on these issues. I'm sorry Max, but it shows that you really haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

All you've got is to shout that all scientists believe this or that without actually knowing what is being discussed.

But thanks. That really was the funniest thing I've seen for ages
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 3:30:21 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,
It's not my fault you like to quibble and play semantic games in the absolutely tiniest margins of uncertainty. It's not my fault you're attracted to the tinfoil hat side of the debate. And it's not my fault you have delusions of grandeur that you somehow magically defeated me when it's not ABOUT ME! All I have to do is refer reasonable people to the IPCC reports, which should UTTERLY smack down *any* of your tinfoil hat blatherings! If they read the reports for themselves and follow any peer-reviewed journals, they'll see through your shallow word games.

Oh, and seriously? "Minoan Warm Period, the Egyptian WP, Sumerian WP, Roman WP, Medieval WP." Denialist hymn book much? What does the IPCC say about these periods, old buddy old pal? (Or did you forget when you tightened your tinfoil hat too much?)

Yeah, it's like I ran away from this forum weeping you so smacked me down last time! ;-) These over-arching claims of yours are the sure signs of an attention seeking internet troll that would rather have NEGATIVE attention than no attention! Anything's better than no attention! "Please, ye gods, don't IGNORE ME WHATEVER YOU DO" screams MHaze, as Max left Online Opinion a year ago to study IT and enjoy other more sensible forums! I mean, it has to be something like that, because you can't seem to stop talking about it! ;-)

Did you miss me that much? ;-) Really, unplug and go make some friends. Then have a nice cup of warm milk before bed — it will help you forget that you've come down on the wrong side of history or that the IPCC even exists. ;-) Night night! Sleep tight! Don't let the climate science bite!
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 26 November 2019 8:54:56 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 Max Green,

Are you from my home town Sydney?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 5:28:19 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
MHAZE raised the so called "Medieval Warm Period."

The so called Medieval Warm Period idea came from studies mainly focused on tree rings in England, and did not represent a collection of data from all over the world. It did not really focus on Greenland. This 5 minute youtube is now 10 years old, but it's dealing with the history of this subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

More recent science is even more blatant. "Climate scientists writing in the journal Nature have found there is no evidence for "globally coherent warm and cold periods" over the past 2,000 years prior to industrialisation. That's significant, because climate change deniers have sometimes pointed to epochs like the so-called "Little Ice Age" or "Medieval Warm Period" to argue that the current global warming is one among multiple similar global climate events. But what the research actually shows is that other "peak warming and cooling events" over the past two millennia appear to have been localised, whereas the human-caused global warming observed over the past 150 years is unparalleled in its global scale (not to mention its absolute temperatures)." Not only this, but the Little Ice Age was a series of different events in different geographies at different times. Regional climate variations do happen. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/climate-change-nothing-like-this-over-past-2000-years-scientists/11345022

Finally, "There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon... The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old.... So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green."
https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-intermediate.htm

It's a really tired old myth, and a classic example of the tinfoil hatters INTENTIONALLY misreading the science, or even outright lying to people.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 7:14:33 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
Quite the tantrum there Max. Don't like being made to look the fool? Well who does? But you should be used to it by now.

Re: the various warming periods.

Unfortunately those who continually preen themselves as "following the science" don't really know how to do that. Its most certainly not by running off to the various alarmist gurus and asking them. Seriously, your sources are Youtube, the ABc and SkepticalScience?

If you follow the science, you go to the science....

eg "The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 Common Era. Here we present a palaeotemperature synthesis for the MCA in Africa and Arabia, based on 44 published localities. The data sets have been thoroughly correlated and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped."
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017PA003237

I have literally dozens of these type of actual science papers that show the MWP in South America, China, India and Australia. I was going to list a few but you really don't care, do you?

These warm periods are a real problem for the alarmist wing of the climate change group. That's why the hockey stick was invented - specifically to get rid of the MWP. But that failed when the hockey stick was so comprehensively debunked. (Quick, off to RealClimate to find someone to tell you that wasn't so...).

The really funny part to all of this is that people like you and Belly who righteously claim to follow the science, don't even know what the science is. Unfortunately there are millions like you and they might yet create massive problems for the lifestyles of the next few generations.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 11:19:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well maybe just one more to show you just how much is being hidden from you by your goto alarmist gurus...

http://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C-163.88738776830348&z=1
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 11:49:33 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
MHAZE, that youtube and those news sources were summarising the science.

I'm not pretending I've read the hundreds of papers on the MWP, but I'm pretty sure I know what they say because of the sources I choose! I don't listen to WUWT or Alan Jones all day, OK?

Sumamry on MWP: It wasn't global, but local climate changes due to more local forcings. It wasn't uniform, but in different places and different centuries. And I doubt any particular hot spot was warmer than say the 1950's, let alone today. What do you say to that?

The IPCC defines the MWP as "An interval between AD 1000 and 1300 in which some Northern Hemisphere regions were warmer than during the Little Ice Age that followed"
Page 949
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf

Now to your quoted paragraph! Yes, something changed in the MWP. But what, exactly! Ha ha ha, oh it's too beautiful! What the do you think you have actually proved quoting that paper, that you've OBVIOUSLY READ ENTIRELY BEFORE QUOTING IT? ;-)

I mean, it was YOU who said "If you follow the science, you go to the science...."

YOU said: "I have literally dozens of these type of actual science papers that show the MWP in South America, China, India and Australia. I was going to list a few but you really don't care, do you?"

I do care. Which is why I actually scanned through your report. Now here's the question. DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN LINK? Ha ha ha! ;-)
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017PA003237 While it admits Africa is huge and requires more study, and that the majority of it had warming points, there were also many cooling points. Check the conclusion! Also,

"The most likely key drivers of the observed medieval climate change are solar forcing and ocean cycles. Conspicuous cold spikes during the earliest and latest MCA may help to discriminate between solar (Oort Minimum) and ocean cycle (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO) influence."

Today's climate consensus embraces paleoclimate to understand how things might develop from here. Nothing in this paper asserts anywhere was hotter than today.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 5:12:45 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
"That's why the hockey stick was invented "

WARNING WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! DANGER!

The real danger here is that I'm feeding the troll. But other readers beware, climate deniers are known for large scale tinfoil hat conspiracy theories without any solid evidence. The below is from the IPCC, page 469. According to MHAZE all these people and papers are lying! Oh what evidence, pray tell? Well, if you ask the deluded to explain what their fevered imaginations have cooked up, they'll LOVE to tell you... again... and again... and again... until you feel like you shot yourself in the foot for having dared ask their opinion. Like (slaps hand to forehead) why would anyone DO THAT? ;-)

FROM THE IPCC
_____________________

A number of studies that have attempted to produce very large spatial-scale reconstructions have come to the same conclusion: that medieval warmth was heterogeneous in terms of its precise timing and regional expression (Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Folland et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002; Bradley et al., 2003a; Jones and Mann, 2004; D’Arrigo et al., 2006).

The uncertainty associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, Figure 6.10 shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 5:55:24 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 Max Green,

I don't know why you are wasting your time arguing with a $1 brain like mhaze.

The reason I asked if you live in Sydney is because mhaze reckons that only 1 in 20 people in Sydney is a Chinese. What do you reckon?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 6:38:07 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
Dear mhaze,

You are a scream.

You really did just link to a paper by Sebastian Luning. Unbelievable.

This bloke is “listed as a “Founding Member” of group named Climate Exit (Clexit) led by climate change denier Christopher Monckton. According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.””

Further “Sebastian Lüning (alternatively spelled Sebastian Luening) is a geologist currently working for Portuguese oil and gas energy corporation, Galp Energia, according to his LinkedIn profile.  He formerly worked for the oil and gas company RWE Dea AG in Hamburg, Germany.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/sebastian-luning

You really are a shocker aren't you.

And apparently you have other 'unbiased' “actual science papers”.

This should be good. Name one more.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 27 November 2019 8:27:52 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 SteeleRedux,

Thanks for that. I was considering whether or not to elevate mhaze to a $2 brain but after seeing what you just wrote he definitely is staying at the $1 brain level and I've stamped his file NOT TO BE RELEASED.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 28 November 2019 5:03:58 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
Ha ha, thanks Steele Redux! I was so tired last night I just read the document at face value and forgot:-

1. Always always always check the authorship of anything written about climate 'on the internet'.

2. Always always always check the authorship of anything linked to by a lying tinfoil hat science hater!

(MHAZE, to reference Greta, "How dare you!" You've just bored me to tears being so utterly and repulsively predictable! Eeeewww you're a waste of my time!)

Now I'm going to have to go read a REAL peer-reviewed document about the MWP in Africa, as I've got all this dumb-arse filth in my brain now!
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 28 November 2019 7:37:22 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
MHaze live long and prosper
I want you to live long enough to see the deniers fold their tents, tell us they always knew man made climate change is real and swear they never said most of what they do here
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 28 November 2019 11:43:19 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
What can Australia do to help avert climate change?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 November 2019 7:47:10 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
We can do our bit. That's what all nations in the world should do. Their bit.

We should nationalise electricity and exponentially deploy MCSFR's ASAP.

We can mine and refine uranium and sell it to other countries.

We can take their nuclear waste and feed it to our MCSFR's.

We can stop selling coal, but increase our selling of uranium.

We can buy ThorCon nukes to demonstrate our willingness to use this technology and then other countries will get on board.

We can lead the way.

We can stop hindering and start helping, and stop whining like little bitches that 'we're just not sure yet' when the science IS saying we ARE sure - as sure as anything human beings can know, anyway.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 28 November 2019 9:36:48 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 Max Green,

I would like to actually see just how hot we can make the planet by burning all of the fossil fuels. Think of it as a scientific experiment.

And it would be interesting to see just how devastating the climate could become. I reckon Australia will become one big dust bowl so it will be interesting to see if my prediction turns out to be correct.

So I say that even though one might accept AGW and climate change let's just burn the stuff anyway to see how much damage we can do.

Plus as an environmental sociologist I'll get to study how people behave under extreme circumstances of environmental stress. Sort of like being an observer on Easter Island when everything went to crap.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:23:38 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
Max I may never reach your level of education but first thank ise mise for the question
Forgive me for this but first yes nationalise the whole power grid
Doing that we should aim for cheaper power so industrys can remain in this country
Nuclear power maybe three reactors and make them safe
Yes export uranium
We after such moves will have lowered the WORLD'S carbon output by much more than our own is right now
Please understand the benefits in leading other countrys to do the same
But me no buts about how low out outputs are compared to other countrys
Based on population ours is much much more than some countrys
We should be part of a world wide move to help other countrys get cheaper reliable power grids
Power, like water, can make or break an economy so sometimes subsidies [power] should go to such things as producers of steel and aluminum
Posted by Belly, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:26:35 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,

These sorts of decisions will be made behind the closed doors of the Chinese Communist Party meeting rooms in Beijing. So don't go worrying yourself about these things because the Chinese will take care of us.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 29 November 2019 6:32:24 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
Ha ha ha, Mr Opinion, stop being deadpan sarcastic and start putting in more wink marks and emotion indicators like (sarcasm) or something or people will believe you're 'one of those'. ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 29 November 2019 7:13:38 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 O from not long after your arrival you have warned me the Chinese are in massive numbers and intend to buy us out
Never going to happen the Japanese and Americans are not willing to sell
But yes we need to watch them and maybe plan for a day our trade comes under threat
Look for positives ,this country can and should lead by providing cheaper power grid,by that supporting a whole new set of industries, some who fled may even come back
I still FIRMLY thing renewables will be the fill in until we and the world develops better
Posted by Belly, Friday, 29 November 2019 10:37:15 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
SR,

Well that's the difference between us. When I see new information I set out to evaluate the data as data. Does it stand up. What are the sources. Can I see the sources. Are the sources reliable.

When you see new data you first evaluate if it supports your prejudices or not. If yes, its immediately accepted, no questions asked. Otherwise, rather than addressing the data you see if you can find any reason to reject it, valid or not. Oh, our author works for people I don't like...reject anything he says. That's apparently following the science in some circles.

"Name one more.".

Well I did show a site were you can see hundreds more. But for fun, try Marcott et al 2013. You might find it hard to discredit the author, given that he's a fully fledged alarmist, but to save you time, just start talking about the data he tacked onto the end of his graph. Its invalid and he himself accepts that, but I'm sure that won't bother you.

Belly,

"I want you to live long enough to see the deniers fold their tents, "

Well, since I not a denier, I don't care what they do. But thank you for wishing immortality on me.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 29 November 2019 1:11:02 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
Imagine you're having a long discussion with someone about Australia politics and the future of decision making. Then you suddenly find out that they are utterly ignorant of the fact that Federal Australia has two houses of parliament. They are utterly ignorant of the existence of the Senate. Would you bother continuing the discussion or wait a year or three while they re-evaluated everything they know based on this new information?

The entire climate hysteria is based on the predictions from the various authorities about what will happen in the future. And integral to those predictions are the four major Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). These are scenarios (guesses) about what will happen with emissions over the next century or so. Based upon these scenarios, the climate models are set to make their guesses about what will happen to temperatures.

You can only evaluate those guesses if you know where they came from. You can of coarse accept the guesses based on blind ignorant faith in your alarmist gurus but that's not really science, although you might convince yourself otherwise.

Max knows nothing about the various RCP's but nevertheless professes utter faith in the models...blind ignorant faith. I suspect Belly is the same. Mr O is probably lost by the logic of it all. Pretty sure SR knows about it because I gave him an education on RCPs a few years back.

But just as I'd cease all discussion with our Senate-ignorant comrade, I really can't see any reason to discuss future climate predictions with Max. Opinions based on ignorance are really not worth engaging.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 29 November 2019 1:26:41 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
Awwww, diddums got found out quoting quacks! Paawwww diddums.
Quack.
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 29 November 2019 1:58:43 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
Imagine you're having a long conversation with a climate denier about the MWP and right from the start you admit there WAS such a thing as the MWP and the denier smugly says everything HE knows about the MWP says it disproves today's climate science but the denier is too dense to actually bother finding the actual quotes and paragraphs from the actual studies that SHOW how the MWP disproves today's understanding of climate science!

Once again... local not global, various not uniform.

FROM THE IPCC
_____________________

A number of studies that have attempted to produce very large spatial-scale reconstructions have come to the same conclusion: that medieval warmth was heterogeneous in terms of its precise timing and regional expression (Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Folland et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002; Bradley et al., 2003a; Jones and Mann, 2004; D’Arrigo et al., 2006).

The uncertainty associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, Figure 6.10 shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 29 November 2019 3:05:37 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
This days news papers [maybe not the Fox factory stuff] mentions both us and the once United States are deep in a fight with the EU
Over free trade agreements until we get better climate change action
Just think, if it continues trade not climate, may push us to take action
Posted by Belly, Friday, 29 November 2019 3:29:08 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
Ha ha ha, MHAZE this is my impression of you right now!

MHAZE: "Dang, they've cottoned on to me quoting quacks! What can I do? Oh I know — grab the ever handy Denialist 101 toolkit. Now, where's the index... the chapter index... oh yeah, at the front. "What to do when you've been caught exaggerating a claim?" Page 20... Ahah! Of course! D&D, DISTRACT AND DIVERT!

Ah, got it. Now to the RCPS!
"Max knows nothing about the various RCP's but nevertheless professes utter faith in the models..."

Dear, deluded MHAZE.

Where is your QUOTE proving the MWP was actually warmer than today and is somehow in conflict with today's climate science? Just quoting a name isn't good enough. Remember, your Lordship, that you're the one claiming to be a genius here. How about if your worshipfulness deigns to demonstrate some of that genius and actually quote the friggin chapter and verse that shows the MWP to be warmer than today? From an actual peer-reviewed journal? Thanks in advance your Lordshipfulness!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:08:06 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
Max,

During the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), Vikings are supposed to have colonised southern Greenland, even planting crops there for a short time. Hence 'Greenland', unless Vikings were notable for irony.

A team of archaeologists recently tried to excavate a graveyard there, but hit permafrost only a foot or so down. They might have to wait a while until the ground thaws out.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:23:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth 3 hang up the phone, science [an unwanted thing here] claims the start of the industrial revolution, mid 17OO.RDS STARTED climate change
That is man made as we poured filth in to the air
Vikings by that time had nearly ended their invading other countrys
Posted by Belly, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:40:47 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
"There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon... The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old.... So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green."
http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-intermediate.htm

Those ancient ice-sheets are in trouble today. Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009. (Source: GRACE satellite data)
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Not only is Greenland losing ice but that these ice losses are accelerating at a rapid pace
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009GL040222
Further evidence suggests that although ice losses have up to this point primarily occurred in the South and Southwest portions of Greenland, these losses are now spreading to the Northwest sector of the ice sheet
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2010GL042460
Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2008GL034816
Along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986

In conclusion: the MWP may have warmed some small areas of Greenland but it is now losing ANCIENT ICE. That is a first in hundreds of thousands of years!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:43:33 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
Dear Max Green,

Do you want to hear something really funny? Loudmouth told me he has about a dozen degrees including a BA and a BA (Honns). I brought up the name Foucault and he said he didn't have a clue who Foucault was, which makes me think he is a total BS artist.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 29 November 2019 5:48:07 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
and as he could have looked 'Foucault' up on the net then me thinks that he is having a lend of you.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 29 November 2019 6:53:32 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
Dear Is Mise,

His initial reply was spontaneous. He only made out that he had some knowledge of Foucault after I pointed out to him that an Arts grad would be aware of Foucault, suggesting that he looked him up on the web after being caught out. But that's okay, Loudmouth is not the only BS artist claiming to be educated. Hasbeen said he has a BSc in engineering from Sydney Uni but upon investigation it appears that Sydney Uni has never awarded a BSc in engineering, only BEs. If they want to pretend they are something they're not then I say let them enjoy themselves.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 29 November 2019 7:11:26 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
For the record, I'm not a scientist nor claiming to be any sort of expert on climate change. I'm just saying there's enough reasonable evidence for anyone of a reasonable mindset to ask questions, hear the denialist 'challenges', read the peer-reviewed replies and make a decision.

I've listened to the likes of Martin Durkin and friends recycle the same tired old myths time and again. Science adapts with new data, but denialist dogma doesn't. It's stuck on, like a disease you just can't shake. The peer-reviewed responses do not just dismiss the old arguments but come up with NEW data that continually reinforces and REFINES the current paradigm! Denialists just dig in, coming up with vague assertions about 'dozens of MWP papers' but unable to quote a single paragraph that shows how these papers are different to conventional MWP papers.

Under all the annoyance from deniers, I actually feel pity for them. Just IMAGINE believing in a conspiracy theory that goes back 163 years to Eunice Foote! A conspiracy that somehow involves every physics lab and National Academy of Science on the planet and survived WW1, WW2, the Cold War and collapse of the Berlin wall! It absolutely boggles the imagination. But if deniers have got anything, it's lots of imagination. *Fevered* imagination!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 29 November 2019 9:33:10 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 once more can those who deny the whole thing tell us who is behind what they name fraud and why?
Been asking from first post but no one took the time to set down a case that man made climate change was a fraud because
Because who made it so? why?
Science is no small rock on the road, driving around it, telling us they know better, needs us to be told why it is fraud
When GreenLand got a run in the conversation,we got close to admitting the anti case thrives on miss information
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 30 November 2019 4:56:03 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
Dear Belly & Max Green,

Why do you waste your time engaging in discourse with the denialists?

They have their reasons for not wanting to believe in AGW and its consequences. What's important is knowing who and what they are that places them in that position.

I have come to the conclusion that denialists such as Loudmouth, Hasbeen, individual, mhaze, ttbn, etc., are actually inmates at psychiatric detention centres around the country. That is the only reason I've been able to come up with to adequately explain their denial of AGW.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 5:17:06 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
MR OPINION,
I know right? That's how they seem, but I've met denialists in real life and sometimes it's shocking how dumb smart people can be. How stubborn. How almost-normal, except for this great glaring contradiction between their politics and the specific science of AGW which has them entranced by all sorts of crazy lies.

MHAZE,
where is your specific paragraph from a specific paper from a specific peer-reviewed author that demonstrates AGW is a problem for today's climate science, not a normal FOUNDATION TO REFINING IT! It might shock YOU that 'The climate's changed before', but it certainly doesn't shock climate scientists. They study those proxies and natural climate forcings with great interest to refine today's models. Previous natural climate changes and forcings are not a problem for today's climate science, instead they are FOUNDATIONAL TO IT! So when you say "And as I showed you last year, 25% of the last 12000 yrs were warmer than now. Periods like the Minoan Warm Period, the Egyptian WP, Sumerian WP, Roman WP, Medieval WP"...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295403

... I say, "Der!" and face-palm, because you're certainly having trouble coming up with the numbers for even ONE of these periods, the MWP we've been discussing for pages now! Oh MHAZE, where did you go? ;-) Yooouuuuu whoooooo? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 30 November 2019 8:28:14 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 Max Green,

You know something that the denialists do not know. That is why you are concerned about the consequences of AGW.

BTW, AGW has a sister: the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica appears to be getting bigger again. So if droughts and super storms don't kill us then UV radiation might starve us of oxygen by killing off the phytoplankton in our oceans.

PS Keep that under your hat and don't let the denialists in on it otherwise they, along with their mates in the psych centre, will get even madder than they already are.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 8:59:17 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
Misopinonated,

Of course there is climate change going on, it always has been, always is. The key questions are,

* to what extent is CO2 the major accelerant, presuming any other solar-induced factors are insignificant;

* amongst volcanic emissions, bushfires, undersea vents, animals farting, etc., to what extent is human activity responsible for that rise in CO2 emissions; and

* how can we reduce CO2 emissions to an optimal level ?

Yes, world temperatures have risen by a degree in the past century. Yes, sea-levels have risen by a couple of inches in the same time.

And, given that renewables are still somewhat unreliable and reliant on government subsidies, sooner or later we will have to revisit nuclear energy generation. So perhaps you can tell us about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima and how we shouldn't adopt 60-year-old technology.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Saturday, 30 November 2019 9:04:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

I've only got one word to say to you: Foucault.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 9:19:15 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
Loudmouth,
did you know the isotopes of carbon dioxide we emit by burning fossil fuels have a different signature to natural CO2 from volcanoes and trees? We can tell it's us because the increase in CO2 corresponds to what we actually burn each year (- about a third absorbed by nature), and the atmospheric mix of CO2 is gradually changing from natural to fossil fuel CO2 as it increases.

Dr James Hansen is *the* climatologist that diagnosed our climate problem — but he says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. http://tinyurl.com/yclaf2sn Instead, Hansen says the world should build 115 reactors a year! http://tinyurl.com/zp3552t Reactors like today's CAP1400 could come in at around $2.3 billion per GW if built in bulk. There are breeder reactors coming that can eat all the nuclear waste, getting 60 times the energy out of it. But that's tomorrow. Today we should do what the French did in the 1970's and pick our best reactor design, standardise it, and mass produce it. The French deployed Gen2 reactors en-mass and built up to 15 reactors a year at one point. Only bold mass deployment will standardise, bring the price down, stop all the outrageous 'one-of-a-kind' and even 'first-of-a-kind' costs some nuclear projects have today, and get the job done in time.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 30 November 2019 9:55:14 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
Misopinionated,

I get mixed up between Foucault and Derrida and Baudrillard, to be honest, and I don't really care. After all, their narratives are as illusory, transitory, and ephemeral as all (or most) other narratives according to their own teachings, and clearly post-modernism collapses under its own inconsistencies and contradictions, so why should anyone bother ?

Still, perhaps you can tell us how Foucault discoursed learnedly on climate change, or what his precepts would advise us now 35 years after his death ? After all, clearly I know Foucault about any of it.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Saturday, 30 November 2019 9:57:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I want to indulge myself, see on starting the thread I referred to that eleven thousand signatures
And the reports full list of concerns
Loudmouth 3 has agreed change is taking place, a good start
Remember that report spoke about world population? and the standards of living for some?
I propose this, show me a sea or river we have not polluted
Smell the air in some forever smog bound cities
Search out the millions of tons of recycled waste ending up in landfill
If you came opon our planet surely your first thought would be what has man not polluted
Polluting the atmosphere is not an impossibility we do such things every day
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 30 November 2019 12:04:05 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 Max Green,

We can get the Chinese Communist Party to build and operate nuclear power plants for us. It's their country now so they should be playing a bigger part, especially when Australia is definitely heading towards a Chinese future.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 1:08:17 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
Dear Loudmouth,

The gig is up! You are not a part of the Arts so stop pretending and showing us how smart you are at cutting and pasting snippets off Wikipedia to try and make it look as if you are educated.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 1:11:35 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
Belly,

I suspect that pollution - of the oceans, rivers, etc. - has been developing into as big a problem as human contributions to climate change. i.e. a Pollution Emergency. A separate issue, of course, with different solutions.

Perhaps the Extinction Rebellion kids could get out and get involved in Pollution Extinction clean-ups ? i.e. do something useful ?

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Saturday, 30 November 2019 1:14:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mhaze,

Rubbish mate. You got caught presenting a study from a bloke who is a serial climate change denier and who is very much in bed with one of the most notorious deniers of our age.

And this is incorrect "When you see new data you first evaluate if it supports your prejudices or not"

No, when I see new data I accept that I will not have the skill set (and neither do you) to full assess what is before me. Therefore I tend to first evaluate the authors and source to see if I can confidently deem their work as robust.

You clearly do not.

As to Marcott what is your point?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 30 November 2019 1:16:05 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
Hi SteeleRedux,
"As to Marcott what is your point?"
I agree! Exactly! MHAZE you need to quote a paragraph and show us you're not just full of it! Or is it 'the vibe of the thing'? ;-)

You said "25% of the last 12000 yrs were warmer than now". http://tinyurl.com/rx5cxll You scalded us for not knowing the actual science, but then failed to demonstrate that you know anything other than bald-faced lies from paid up members of the denial club! ;-) That wasn't predictable! ;-) http://tinyurl.com/wv2beee

Then you just linked to a gish-gallop, trying to hide behind the 'vibe of the thing' again. http://tinyurl.com/s6amlkb

But you studiously avoid burrowing down into any specific paragraph from all those texts.

Last call. If you HAVE information about the MWP proving it was warmer than today, THEN SHARE IT!

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 30 November 2019 1:26:35 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 Max Green and SteeleRedux,

Please stop picking on mhaze. You are making his $1 brain hurt.

mhaze cannot understand how AGW is changing the environment. We need to take this into consideration when trying to explain things to the denialists. They just do not understand how the world works.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 1:35:28 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
To Max Green.

I don't know how long you've been on OLO, but have you seen one of Alan B's posts on deinionized Salt reactors? If we're looking at making more reactors and pumping money into that infrastructure, then having one of those might be worth the investment. It's at least as good as trying renewable energy sources that have turned out less then they promised. Might as well invest in looking for other solution then the ones that are just complained and do nothing more. Something to look into.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 30 November 2019 2:05:38 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
For years and years Kirk Sorenson's LFTR looked like the best reactor on the planet, and I was ecstatic.

Then... Ed Pheil, an ex-navy guy, came up with one even better! It's simpler, cheaper, safer, and does not remove waste streams that might be weaponised. I couldn't believe it! Now, you've got to double check everything I say because I'm not a scientist. But the nuclear engineers I know online are very excited by this new salt reactor which instead of being a LFTR 'slow' reactor (aka thermal reactor) is a FAST reactor. It's the MCSFR.

The main advantage? It eats everything! Not just thorium, not just uranium, but spent fuel, plutonium from old bombs, everything!

Has all the usual benefits of a LFTR, PLUS the fact that it can eat anything, not just thorium.

+ It *cannot* melt down because the fuel is already a liquid.
+ It requires power to keep the fuel up in the core and reacting. In a power failure the hot liquid salt pours down to the drain tank and the moment it cools to 400 C the salt crystalises into a solid block that's not going anywhere. Most reactors require power to cool, this one requires power to keep functioning!
+ It burns all the longer-lived 'waste' out of it, getting 90 times the energy out of the waste, turning a 100,000 year storage problem into today's energy solution.
+ The final wastes are fission products that you melt into ceramic blocks and bury under the reactor carpark for 300 years. Then they're safe! Your whole life would only result in 1 golf ball of waste. That volume for Australia would only come to 1.4 Sydney Olympic pools of nuclear waste after 70 years of abundant, reliable, carbon free electricity!
+ Uranium from seawater can run the world for billions of years. It's basically 'renewable' because geological activity and erosion tops up the oceans.

Even this long time Sorenson fan and youtuber is starting to promote Pheil's version of the Molten Salt Reactor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ou_xswB2b0
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 30 November 2019 2:36:41 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 again leap in to defend renewables
They are not the forever answer but right now they fill a roll
More and better Battery storage is here and better coming
My system, lights burning every night totally free [battery backed up paid for by me no one else] proves a roll is being played
Blackouts leave neighbors baffled until they are told
Yes however better newer power will come maybe that salt reactor
We if we believe what we are told, could have been running our road traffic on other fuels long ago but are told self interest killed electric cars [not dead yet] and Hydreigon engines
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 30 November 2019 3:20:05 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
So you've heard of it. Great. Global warming and climite emergencies have become focal points of complaint and no actual action. Instead of actually fighting pollution they hold speeches and continue on misleading research while using up a lot of fossil fuel energy on privite planes. Honestly it's all talk and politics with nothing else except a hole to throw money into. Might as well do something useful instead.

I'm not sure the salt reactor will turn out any better then wind farms or solar energy farms for reliable energy, but at least if it's given a chance it's a better investment to look into then the green energy that apparently has no reliability.

Either way. The point is to reduce pollution, not save the world from a fake disaster that won't happen in the next 5-10 years. There is no climate emergancy. We should spend our focus on the actual enviornmental issues and possible solutions. Climate emergancy was even blamed for wild fires instead of looking for reliable sustainable solutions.

Hope you understand. And good luck. If any of the pridictions for a salt reactor are true then it's worth the investment. Even if it doesn't turn out to be a reliable source of energy, if it can be used for nuclear waste management, then that's a win.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 30 November 2019 3:20:56 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 Not_Now.Soon,

What rot.

We have had a catastrophic start to our bushfire season here. It is now overlapping with that of California meaning once shared fire fighting resources are now not available. There is every indication this is a new normal which is frightening, and yet you are off in some other location telling us we don't have a problem?

This is a real issue, not a fake disaster. It is an emergency in a very real measure of the world even if your politics doesn't allow you to acknowledge it.

So forgive me if we don't take you seriously.

As to no action you obviously haven't visited my state in a very long time if ever. There are extensive renewable projects both completed and planned which are making a significant difference even without Federal Government support.

To say there is no action is a demonstrable lie and I would thank you to cease propagating it.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 30 November 2019 4:02:55 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
California and even within the Arctic circle have had huge fires in their summer
Right now we are not alone, for other reasons the Amazon is burning and parts of the sub continent
Australian droughts can not be blamed for that
Feeble straw clutching to deny climate change is if nothing else amusing
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 30 November 2019 6:06:52 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
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the ITER project when discussing alternative fuel sources?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 30 November 2019 7:02:26 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
Hi MR OPINION,
Fusion has an AWESOME potential, and I don't for one moment rule it out. But it's too far away to make a difference now. While I LOVE Molten Salt Reactors, we haven't even built the first simplified Thorcon non-breeder reactor yet. ThorCon has super-cheap MSR safety and is mass produced in a shipyard block-build assembly line. 7c / kwh! Not a breeder reactor that can eat nuclear waste, but on a podcast I listened to the founders of both ThorCon and MCSFR seem to be friends. Thorcon produces the ideal waste stream for MCSFR's to build.

Baseline point? ThorCon + MCSFR's could take us HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years into the future without needing another primary energy source, even if we don't discover how to do fusion or space based solar. But if we DO learn to do fusion? That's one of the key ingredients into a post-scarcity economy!

FUSION by ISAAC ARTHUR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChTJHEdf6yM

POWERSATS (SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER) by ISAAC ARTHUR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCbdThIJNE&t=1s

It's just these have to be cheaper than Thorcon + MCSFR.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 30 November 2019 8:44:15 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
You guys are a riot. You know that? Do a quick Google search on the world's top polluters. See where Australia lines up. If it's not in the top ten, then what chance do you think green policies are going to have an effect for your fire seasons?

Follow my logic on this one. Global warming is considered a disaster in the world wide sense. Meaning that unless the largest contributors of pollution curb their pollution, the world is still screwed.

What are the chances that you can convince multiple countries to stop their manufacturing industries and shut down their economies? What's needed is practitical solutions to POLLUTION in general. Have that and more countries will likely jump on board because regardless of global warming scares, they all see the harms on their people living with the polluted air, or polluted water.

Practical solutions. Guess what that could also include? Not just pollution or global warming, but also fire management solutions to try and reduce the risk for Australia. What is all the effort for a greener Australia done for you? It's created a political storm, and a global warming hype that can be the brunt of the blame for enviornmental issues, with no real search for solutions.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 3:22:38 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
(Continued)

What a bunch of laugh riots. Seriously guys, I don't care what you believe with global warming or not. Be fooled into it if you want. But don't buy into the narrative that continually changes the goal posts of it's scare program. Look for practical solutions. But don't throw away your current solutions until you have something that works to take it's place. Look at new technologies. If they work, then you might not only help the local enviornment of Australia, but you might also find another reliable source of energy, or at the very least have a place that can eat up nuclear waste for a small amount of energy. Then you can put up nuclear energy plants and salut reactors to supply both energy and a solution to nuclear waste.

Solutions guys. Really hard concept I know when bickering about the "truth" of climite change is a topic. But try to focus for a minute before continuing on with the insults to your favorite scape goatee "denialists." Focus. Solutions. Otherwise what is any of this except running your mouth off and causing divisions?
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 3:23:06 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
NNS bright but you can never be as bright as you think you are
See we know
That Australia compared to other countrys by mass volume we deposit, are a minor contributor to Global Warming
We know too, by head of population, we put much much more into the air than others
Now, please consider, we understand if we STOPPED EVERY BIT OF OUR EMISSIONS it would be a blimp on the world's carbon capture system
And yes we know such as the massive fraud in the denyers bag, the above figures are a tool used to? rebutte truth
Again that we know, by setting an example we could, go Nuclear. safe well constructed latest safest Nuclear and? lead the world it this matter
However my regards I like reading your stuff
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 1 December 2019 3:52:49 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 Max Green,

Of course all this talk and action being undertaken worldwide to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases has left the denialists like Hasbeen, ttbn, individual, Loudmouth, mhaze, etc. saying 'Derrr ....... What is this all about? Derrr ....... Why are they doing this? Derrr ....... My $1 brain hurts.'
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 7:52:27 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
Not So Soon,
I'm not sure what the point of your rant is, other than to just... rant? And maybe show how ignorant you are?

YES, as Belly said, we know our total contributions are small compared to other nations. Yet at the same time, very high on a per capita basis. We DO have an international obligation and moral duty to solve our own emissions.

YES, there are solutions on the way, and it sounds like you've even misunderstood them. Breeder reactors like the Molten Chloride Salt FAST Reactor do not "eat up nuclear waste for a small amount of energy." They eat it up to return 60 TIMES the energy we got out of the once-through fuel model of the Light Water Reactor. 60 times more energy! Now think about that for a minute. Think about the EROEI, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested! That's how much ENERGY profit an energy source gives you. A good solar farm in the right place might give you an energy profit of 30:1, where you're getting 30 times the energy back that you invested in making the thing. A Light Water Reactor might give you 40 to 60 times the energy profit, but that is at least reliable and can give you all the heating you need on the quietest, darkest, snowiest winter night. (In snowy countries, reliable power saves lives!) The Light Water Reactor energy profit shows you how amazing E = MC2 really is, because there is a CONSIDERABLE amount of energy used up in the mining and refining of uranium. So much diesel! Yet it still gives us an EROEI of up to 60! That's amazing!

...continued...
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 1 December 2019 8:03:03 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
...continued...

Breeder reactors will get something like 60 times the energy out of each bit of uranium! If a Light Water Reactor has an EROEI of 40 to 60, then a breeder reactor will have an EROEI multiplied by 60 into the thousands! Thousands of times the energy profit of the energy it took to build the thing! That's enough ENERGY PROFIT to not only easily replace all the electricity in the world, but to have some energy left over to manufacture all the liquid fuels we need as well. We can crack seawater into jet fuel and diesel! We can charge all the electric cars we want. We can have all the power we need to mine and smelt and refine all the metals we could ever need. We can desalinate all the water we need. We can extract fresh medical isotopes for radioactive contrast dies used in diagnostic procedures in hospitals. We can burn through the longer-lived radioactive actinides in nuclear waste and smash them down to the highly radioactive broken atoms we call fission products, the real nuclear waste. Finally, we can have more than enough energy profit to vitrify those fission products into ceramic blocks we deposit under the reactor for just 300 years and then they're safe. It's a golf ball per person-lifetime. Nothing to worry about. THAT's the solution, and it will save tens of thousands of Australian lives each year by ending coal pollution.

Any questions?
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 1 December 2019 8:04:50 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 Max Green,

I have a question: How do you expect the $1 brain denialists to understand all of this? You need to simplify things to the level of a ten year-old otherwise they just won't get it.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 8:44:07 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
Ha ha ha, OK, the SIMPLER VERSION!~

Breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste are almost as good as fusion is meant to be, but here now.

We can rebuild our energy systems. We have the technology. We can have ALL the energy we need, when we need it, all the time, really cheap!

CHEAPER THAN COAL because it doesn't come with coal's terrible health bill! Coal is so bad that you basically take your annual energy bill and then double it. Why double it? That's what coal costs us in our health bill. You're paying for fossil fuels twice, once in your electricity and petrol bills, and again in your public health taxes for the sickness they give people. And that's BEFORE we measure the impacts of the (very real) climate change!

BREEDER REACTORS FIX THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM, HAVE SAFETY SYSTEMS HOMER SIMPSON COULDN'T BREAK BECAUSE THEY'RE BASED ON PHYSICS, NOT TECHNICIANS BEING SMART, AND ARE REALLY REALLY GOOD.

ALL THE ENERGY WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT IT, AT A PRICE WE WANT.

VOTE NUCLEAR POWER! WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AND TELL THEM YOU WANT BREEDER REACTORS NOW!
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 1 December 2019 9:03:17 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
To Max Green.

It's not the information that I have questions about. It's on whether the reactor will deliver what it's promised. Honestly it comes down to the idea that seeing is believing. I think what is offered by salt reactors is great and worth an investment of at least one to see how well it does. If it does well and measures up to all the information that's out there for it, then awesome. Great. Wonderful. If it doesn't deliver on all the qualities info-graphed without a reliable test reactor, but still delivers on some then that's still great, just not as great. For instance if the reactor can eat up nuclear waste, but the energy it produces takes much longer then the energy that is used up by the sourounding area, then that's not as great, but still is worth it in the long run of needing a solution to nuclear waste. In that case it'd be on par with other green energy ideas, as far as energy production, but still worth it with the solution to take nuclear waste from around the world. Think of it on a economic level, Australia being the first country that can safely and permanently dispose of nuclear waste. There's a large scale economic recovery in that equation

The reactor promises so much, can you blame a guy for being skeptical of if it can deliver everything it promises? But on the other hand it DOES promise so much, skeptism or not it's worth an investment to give it a chance.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 9:10:47 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
Dear Max Green,

Thanks, that's much better. The denialists can only refute that explanation at the expense of admitting that they have a 50 cents brain in lieu of a $1 brain.

PS You are absolutely right about the cost of climate change which we are all beginning to see as a result of extreme droughts, firestorms, cyclones, etc. not to mention the extinction of other species from environmental degradation caused by human activity in general.

Personally, I'm pessimistic about fixing the problem wrought by 240 years of burning fossil fuels
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 9:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Belly.

I'm glad you like some of what I write (though honestly suprised by that statement). But with regards to global warming issues, I've gotten tired of the same story of making a one world dictatorship in order to get the whole world on board. That's really the only feesible way to do what the alarmists are asking for. Outside of that global warming is just shifting blame on those not following suit, instead of looking for solutions that doesn't require international teamwork.

I don't think China or India is going to get on board the global warming bandwagon any time soon. And the dead line for action is a consistently tiring "Now! Now! Now!" Panic frenzy. There's no reason to believe it, no credibility, and no active and practical solutions to put into place.

To Mr. O

Is this the best your education can muster. Trying to come up with hip insults to brand the people with the sence to say climate change industry is fishy beyond belief.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 9:24:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Not Now Soon,

We know the physics works of breeding waste. We have over 400 reactor-years (breeders times years in operation) with Integral FAST Reactors. These are a bit different to Molten Salt Reactors in that they still use solid fuel. The nuclear 'waste' that must be turned into fuel lives in a blanket surrounding the reactor much like wet logs placed around a fire to dry out. We KNOW they work, and the Russians just built the BN-800 and could be upgrading to a BN-1200 MW next time.

But there was a trial Molten Salt Reactor back in the 1960's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

See my blog for a photo of JFK touring the experimental MSR.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/molten-salt-reactors/
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 1 December 2019 9:36:19 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
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

As a scholar I seek the truth. You are not in that league.

You do not understand how the world works and I question the motive of your stance against acknowledging the reality that is AGW and it's consequences. That is, apart from the simple fact that you have a $1 brain.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 9:38:14 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
Not Now soon, NEVER! but I get a kick out of your conspiracy theory for its sheer silliness
See Donald Trump [the bloke is insane] posted his head on Arnys body, on his twitter account.
He is a conspiracy within a conspiracy but you out do him with that
5 mm of rainn here last night, along with the one mm earlier in the week 6mm in two months
Went south [two hours drive] and return grass dead even on roadside, it usually does well from being cut and left , we are midst a climate crisis
Not a take over the world conspiracy
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 1 December 2019 10:34:39 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
Hi Not.Now.Soon,
We don't need a one-world-dictator to solve climate change, but just the usual diplomatic pressure of constantly nagging each other to do the right thing.

But when you think of global governance, why 1 dictator for the world, and not a world democracy? Why is world governance a bad idea? We have the UN, but it currently works by having diplomats doing dirty deals behind closed doors. What if we brought all that stuff out into the open and voted on it?

I'm not saying this is going to happen any time soon. It may take centuries! Or not. The EU is gradually moving towards one Federation. The AU is taking baby steps in that direction. MERCOSUR is a joke, and hasn't increased the free movement of trade around South America much at all — but it exists and they might catch a vision of what it can achieve one day. Slowly various regions of the world that used to be at war with each other are putting differences aside and figuring out how to work together. Bit by bit. It has ups and downs. One day, with a variety of new regional super-powers of Europe and Africa and South America (USAN), maybe they'll be able to make a global governance structure?

“In my opinion the only salvation for civilisation and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”
Albert Einstein
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 1 December 2019 11:45:24 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
Max Green you seem to be right, we can not rule our selves but a world wide dictatorship may be the answer
It however is more likely to be China style or big brother
In no way beneliavent
The thought expressed that such a plot is in play right now highlights this
How did the plotters get so much ice to melt
How did they start so many parts of the world to burn
Produce record heat cold flood drought weird weather?
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 1 December 2019 3:02:53 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,

You hit the nail right on the head.

It will be China that pushes for a unified socialist system. Unfortunately it appears that socialism is going to be the only system that can guarantee an equitable distribution of resources in a world devastated by the consequences of AGW.

Australia is already on its way to having a Chinese future brought to us by greedy politicians, bureaucrats and business people who are only worried about how much money they can stuff into their pockets.

If you don't believe Australia has a Chinese future then pay a visit to Sydney and have a look for yourself. I was waiting to get off a crowded train the other day and was surrounded by mostly Chinese; I could see one other Aussie and was tempted to tap him on the shoulder and say 'Not many of us left now.'
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 3:20:49 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
Belly,

Surely you're not too old to remember Nazism and fascism, and how Stalinism was hardly that different in practice ? That all non- (i.e. anti-) democratic forms of society trend rapidly to totalitarianism, and thereby fascism ?

The idiocies of one-world-government will move in exactly that direction, and currently, as you breezily point out, uner Chinese fascist rule. Thankfully, Australia and New Zealand will probably never agree to be under one government. Nor India and Pakistan. Nor even Sudan and South Sudan, Kosovo and Serbia, Russia and Ukraine, Canada and the US, even Russia and China, Britain and Ireland, and so on. It's a fascist pipe-dream. Move on.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Sunday, 1 December 2019 5:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

I like the way Loudmouth is trying to fool you into believing that we have nothing to fear from the Chinese. Keep in mind he is pro-China and the last thing he wants is for people wanting to reject their future Chinese overlords. A Chinese invasion will come to Australia. That's as certain as death and taxes.

Are you aware that the Chinese invaded Indonesia (specifically Java) in about 1270 AD. The Chinese still believe they have suzerainty over most of Southeast Asia (eg. their recent annexation of the South China Sea).
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 5:59:50 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 all,
France nationalised their electricity grid during the 1970's oil crisis. They were burning OIL for electricity. They realised it was a matter of not just comfort, not just productivity, but of national security and civilisation itself to keep the lights on.

They nationalised the grid and at one stage were building 15 reactors a year. They are now 75% nuclear, 25% hydro.

While they nationalised the energy sector in a massive public private partnership (PPP), they did NOT become a totalitarian state.

REPEAT, FRANCE SOLVED CLIMATE CHANGE IN THEIR ELECTRICITY SECTOR WITHOUT BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP!

Mystery of mysteries, it can be done, and I don't even have to wear a tinfoil hat or tune into my astral stones to detect it! It's history! It happened! And despite what people might say about Macron, they're still not a dictatorship!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

How can this be? (Runs off to sit under a glass pyramid and chant for an hour for personal safety from the things and whatevers now that I've pointed out the tinfoil hat industry can collapse!)
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 1 December 2019 6:48:44 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
Misopinionated Simpleton,

So when I write, "The idiocies of one-world-government will move in exactly that direction, and currently, as you breezily point out, un[d]er Chinese fascist rule. ...." somehow that's pro-China ?

Is English your second or third language, and in your first language are there problems with the negative ?

No, China (per se) didn't invade Java in about 1270 AD. For one thing, we would be talking about the attempted Mongol invasion of China about then. Secondly, it didn't succeed.

They also tried to invade northern Vietnam, from overland and from up the Hong River, but that failed too. They had their arses kicked there too.

In fact, for all the claptrap about thousands of years of Chinese continuity, it's interesting that the Mongols and the Manchus controlled China for close to five hundred years over the last millenium. Even the Mings, in between, may have had a good deal of foreign influence, strangely from Christian missionaries. And perhaps the Tangs before the Mongol invasion as well. Can you interpret those comments as somehow pro-China ?

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Sunday, 1 December 2019 7:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

If the hat fits ...............
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 1 December 2019 7:41:45 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
To Max Green.

Regarding a democratic approach or a dictatorial approach consider this. We're not talking about one nation changing it's economic and energy landscape. We're talking about a world wide change (if global warming is taken seriously and given real preasure to achieve). Then on top of that there is the narrative that we're on the verge of a world wide collapse. That fear based narrative has been on for several decades now and hasn't changed it's tune. For reference consider this news story a few months old now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736

If this seems reasonable to you, then I'd wager that your in too deep yo that fear based ploy, and it's time to reconsider the actual situation the world is in.

However, taking control of a world wide governance isn't the worst of the matter. It's also economic stability, and population control that wages a tyrannical dictator-like situation.

Considering the economic issues remember the yellow vest protects in France.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/29/emmanuel-macrons-france-yellow-jackets-police-europe-year-of-cracking-heads/

For population control consider this news story (a few years old but still relevant due to population control in Global warming narratives.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question

A quote from the story.

When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern ... let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over “population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings. It’s almost always, ahem, particular populations that need reducing."

Another news story to consider the issue:

http://msmagazine.com/2019/09/24/population-control-isnt-the-answer-to-our-climate-crisis/
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 10:33:15 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
All of that is on the basis that we take Global warming seriously instead of as a passing thought. The reason to hold it as a passing thought instead though I've already explained a few times as have others regarding the climite scientists reliability versus their unchanging rhetoric of an emergancy and last chance, fear based hype. There is no reliability in their predictions therefore no reliability in their science. The main issue should therefore be taken away from global warming scare scams, and put onto the actual real issues of pollution, waste management, clean water, and other enviornmental issues for local areas.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 10:39:51 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

Once again if this is the strength of your education then one should ask one of two questions: "did you actually get the education you claim" or "what's wrong in the education system to produce you as a result."

Consider this.

-You claim to be a sociologist, yet all you can do online is insult others. That is your one and only contribution to any discussion. Something is amiss between the two,

-You claim to seek the truth and then your next post misquotes and slanders Loudmouth.

Take that critism as seriously (or as personally) as you want but until you do, all you are is a joke.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 December 2019 10:53:50 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
Being honest here, think the thread is drifting away from its intended path
Maybe not however from some of the things said in the link I shared on starting it
An overview of that report, to me at least, highlights we humans have a very poor record of managing the planet and ourselves
Loudmouth 32, quite rightly, said one world government would, or was it could be, unpleasant
My view however is unchanged if I wanted to start a not now soon type conspiracy it could start this way
A look around the world will find few leaders worthy of our trust
Many communities marching in the streets demanding far better government
This climate change debate, setting people against one another
All, in my fallacy [or is it?] view to promote a desperation, a feeling that dictatorship is better than what we have
Remember that old mantra * when Dictatorship arrives some will [quite wrongly] call it freedom
Posted by Belly, Monday, 2 December 2019 5:23:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not_Now.Soon,

I always call a spade a shovel.

I'm not the one who started with the insults but I'll give as good as I take.

Loudmouth is a BS artist who was caught out being a BS artist and he can't handle it. Tough bananas, welcome to the real world!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 2 December 2019 5:57:38 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 O,

You are clearly the worst offender with response to insults with close to zero contribution to the debate. Combine this with your clear anti Chinese racism and you are one of the most odious posters on this thread.

The thread originally was about whether there was a "climate emergency" not whether AGW was real or not.

The term "emergency" suggests that there is an existential crisis that needs to be resolved very quickly, and that all viable options need to be addressed with alacrity. The fires would be a good example.

However, the left whingers clamouring for AGW to be treated as an emergency are the same Fwits that refuse to consider nuclear power or even HELE coal as an interim measure and consider the fleet of wind turbines and solar panels as permanent power supplies rather than the limited time high maintenance units that they are. A fleet of 30 modern nuclear reactors would eliminate nearly all electricity related emissions and provide GHG free power for electrical transport etc. A complete boycott of goods from high emitters such as china etc would also be called for.

If these measures are ruled out then there is no emergency.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 2 December 2019 7:58:35 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
Not Now Soon,

"We're not talking about one nation changing it's economic and energy landscape."
No, but where does climate science abolish individual nations? We're asking each individual nation to do their bit. That's what the Paris AGREEMENTS are. They're not Paris LAWS or Paris National Abolition or Paris International Senate Overlords. It's the Paris AGREEMENT. It's about individual nations AGREEING to do something. Asserting anything else is tinfoil hat land! True madness!

"We're talking about a world wide change (if global warming is taken seriously and given real preasure to achieve)."
Yeah, how terrible! Energy independence forever, clean skies, less pollution, less health costs (which actually DOUBLES the cost of 'cheap coal'), and a healthier population. How horrid!

"narrative that we're on the verge of a world wide collapse."
RUBBISH! More harsh droughts and loss of biodiversity by 2050, more sea level rise and wildlife extinctions by 2100. I see most climatologists talking about economic pain in various scenarios. Extinction? Only the most extreme end of the climate scientists mention this, and are usually rebuked by the rest of the climate community.

Please acknowledge you understand this was a false accusation from yourself, or provide evidence of your assertions!

"That fear based narrative has been on for several decades now and hasn't changed it's tune."
Rubbish! See above. Dr James Hansen's projections in the 1980's were for increasing CO2 emissions around now and various consequences later this century. The idea that they've been CONSTANTLY pushing climate change as a civilisation ending event "ANY TIME NOW..." for decades is just a lie. Please retract it.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 2 December 2019 11:05:09 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
Once again tell me, some have zero trouble telling me I am a victim of a huge fraud
Too that I consume left wing junk for breakfast
Teach me, force me to see the truth
Show me how us believers in the science got the climate to change
Started fires in the Attic, America, we know nearby Asia is burning so forests can be replaced by palm oil
That the Amazon is being murdered by an idiot leader to?*develop the country*
How did we tell the ice to melt
What made this drought come so hard and fast on the back of the last two
Why has temperature risen, seas too show me please
Posted by Belly, Monday, 2 December 2019 12:23:53 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
To Max Green

Since you asked for it, here is a sample of climate scares. Look through them carefully.

http://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

To Belly.

So far I don't