• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
For you FF (Folau Fainga'a)

formerflanker, I could not be arsed dealing with the zombie bullshit ideas that you put up here. Every time you make some claim, I could link to well-referenced, scientifically proven evidence that destroys your nonsense. But that's been done, a thousand times before in a thousand forums. And if I did that, you'd learn nothing and think that I'd proved nothing, because your brain has a magic shield of ideology and ignorance, where you think that a couple of old guys, generally paid directly or indirectly by oil companies, and without any independent research, operating in totally the wrong field of science, can trump the overwhelming consensus of all the scientific institutions of the world. Putting yours' Andrew Bolt's and Christopher Monckton's views on one side, and the views of the BoM, CSIRO, RS, AAS, NAS, etc etc etc on the other, I don't really see why anyone would bother to continue to debate you. You are an intellectual zombie, repeating stuff that is definitively known to be untrue, by any reasonable standard of debate. I've been there, done that, tried to convince people with logic and evidence, you've all got indiarubber minds, bouncing straight back into nonsense.
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
I wonder how many people who oppose the carbon tax and any other legislated changes to reduce or minimise the effects of climate change, insure their houses.

"In 30 years of home ownership I've never had my house burn down. Hell even my parents before me have never had their house burn down. That's a big enough sample size for me, obviously houses don't burn down and insurance costs me money dammit. These claims that houses do actually burn down are all a scam by insurance companies designed to cost me money and they won't change a thing."

Despite the overwhelming evidence that houses do in fact burn down, they selectively pick their information to justify their position to avoid a hit now. If they are right, then well they saved a few bucks. If they are wrong however, they could stand to lose everything they have. That's why home insurance is a no brainer. Just a thought.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
03b25a75-f0ee-458f-938e-0984662c3edb-460x352.jpeg

A cartoon illustrating the non-sequitur of the 'climate changed naturally in the past' argument
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
Ummmm.
The number of people who disagree with 97% with the scientific consensus since 2002?

A better one.
The average chance I will exercise per day since 2002.
This one coincides with my weight increase since 2002.
 

Mr Doug

Dick Tooth (41)
Hey folks, we will all retain our beliefs until either the ice at both poles melts, or Sydney Harbour freezes over, however, it only takes an incident like the downing of MH 17, to remind us that Man-made Climate Change is currently nowhere near as big a threat to mankind, as some Man-made weapons in the hands of so-called "crusaders", (and I don't mean Todd Blackadder's mob from Christchurch). A 'reality check' methinks.
 

Tex

John Thornett (49)
Mr Doug, I agree that man-made disasters are the greatest threat to peace, stability and the long-term sustainability of Homo sapiens on this little rock.

War, unchecked and unsustainable destruction of forests, acidification of oceans, collapse of fisheries, terrorism, collapse of financial markets.

All have a number of things in common, none are 'worse' than the others.

It's all a fucking great big Dutch dam, and it's all we can do to try to plug each hole as it starts leaking.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Lets see what the next round brings to replace Kyoto etc.

I would suspect just more emissions as the climate alarmist gather for another talk fest
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Last month was a scorcher for global temperatures with warmth over land and sea breaking records for June while sea-surface temperatures posted their largest departure from long-term averages for any month.

Combined average temperatures over land and sea were 0.72 degrees above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees, making it the hottest June and adding to the record May and equal record April, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

More striking for climatologists, though, were the sea-surface temperatures. These came in 0.64 degrees above the 20th century average of 16.4 degrees – the first time any month had exceeded the long-run norm by more than 0.6 degrees.


Read more: [URL='http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/june-a-global-scorcher-as-records-melt-20140722-zvhzq.html#ixzz389QLmpKE'][url]http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/june-a-global-scorcher-as-records-melt-20140722-zvhzq.html#ixzz389QLmpKE[/URL][/URL]
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Clean Energy Finance Corporation plans expansion after dodging axe

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/clean-energy-finance-corporation-plans-expansion-after-dodging-axe-20140721-zvdhg.html#ixzz38AVnHCaj


"The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has capped its first year of operations, managing to avoid the federal government's axe and generating more than $3 billion in investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

The CEFC issued more than $900 million in loans in the year to June 30 – backed by the private sector at the rate of $2.20 for each of its own dollars – securing the annual abatement of at least 4.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the process."
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
China is doing massive trade in cheap solar panels. The quality isn't there with some brands but FFS it shows that if Australia is serious about replacing its manufacturing industries, there is a way to do it.

Fuck, I think I've said this before....
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
I still say methane is more dangerous than carbon dioxide. So lets kill all our cattle and sheep. They are prolific pollutors. Oh no allternative energy source will replace a good steak.
 

wilful

Larry Dwyer (12)
@wilful
@Braveheart81
Phoowr! Now I know what it’s like to be at the bottom of an All Black ruck. In the 1960s. Meads and Kirkpatrick and their boots all over me. With a little bit of Richard Lowe thrown in (thanks BH).

Your ad hominem attack reflects poorly on your ability to argue your case in this forum and I would have assumed our shared enjoyment of rugby would have led you to a reasoned argument with me.

One of my information sources (albeit written by a couple of old guys, paid by oil companies, and without any independent research, operating in totally the wrong field of science) shows me that many current measurements of global temperatures have been totally opposite to the predicted warming of our globe.

The well-referenced, scientifically proven evidence of an unpredicted absence of global warming I refer to is:
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 9 months.
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since September 2000 or 13 years, 9 months. 

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 5 months.
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 5 months.
5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 5 months.
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 9 years, 5 months.
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 9 months.
You may have taken a shot at the messenger, but the message above is that global warming is not occurring at this point in time. It was predicted to do so therefore the models must be wrong. Since they are wrong, we should not be trying to abolish what the models supposed was the cause of CAGW i.e. CO2 emissions.
I said I wouldn't bother, yet here I am. What you just said is pure horse shit (again). You haven't provided any references...

http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

The hottest year on record is 2010. Why cherrypick 1998 as your start year? Why not 1997? Oh because that doesn't work for your bullshit argument. The global warming trend is 0.12 per decade, consistent through the noughties.

Sorry, this is science, it's refereed, published stuff (though from publicly available data), it's not made up crap.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)


I would however take a more pragmatic line and rename the graphics to something more suitable to rational (non-deriding) debate like Long term temperature records V Short term selective analyses of same data.

Continuing to drive the debate by tit for tatting with skeptics (which is a good thing in science so long as their data/research methods/analysis is held to same standards) does little to provide clarity for the non-scientifically informed or leadership in public fora.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top