1. 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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scotty, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    No one would argue that peer review doesn't have its faults. But, as matty_k said, there isn't a better system.

    If we look at the IPCC report, I assume you don't believe that the however many thousand scientists responsible for producing the peer reviewed IPCC report either all lack common sense or are conspiring amongst themselves to carry out a massive fraud. If anything, they're underestimating the effects - http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-rising-higher-and-faster-20110504-1e8j7.html.

    If the money men are saying these things, it pays to listen http://www.smh.com.au/business/us-investment-guru-backs-carbon-tax-20110504-1e8e8.html.
  2. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    No of course. However it does appear that you believe that the scientist researching and publishing contradictory information to the IPCC are indeed conspiring.
  3. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Why do you say that?
  4. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Because of comments like this.
  5. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    [video=youtube;fK0rXRmC4DQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK0rXRmC4DQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]

    Discuss.
  6. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    No peer review = no credibility.
  7. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    But does pier review=credibility?
  8. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Not necessarily, but there can be no credibility without it. A rigorous peer review process would guarantee credibility.

    No thoughts on the population speech from the esteemed Sir David Attenborough?
  9. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Sorry, haven't had a chance to watch it yet. Will do so in the next few days, or over the weekend.
  10. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...inds-dire-need-for-action-20110522-1ez0o.html

    I suppose it's too much to hope for a bipartisan solution.
  11. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Another interesting article.http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-planet-is-yet-to-sink-in-20110522-1eyqk.html

  12. Aussie D Dick Tooth (41)

    Likes Received:
    540
    So we have two articles from leftist-leaning media telling us that we need to adopt a bipartisan position on climate change. This is to support the first big report from the Climate Commission who has found that we need to act immediately? *cough*independence*cough* Sorry, I must be a flat earther and too stupid to see the truth when it is planted in front of me.
  13. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    I haven't yet looked at the speech above, Cutter, but I assume it has a lot to do with this from the second article you just posted.

    This is the issue with any environmental concern. The question is - how is this fixed? The answers (as far as reducing or stabilising population) are probably only:

    1. Move all 3rd world countries to first world, thus decreasing reproductive rates. I have no idea how this can happen in anything less than 1000 years.

    2. Mass wipe out of the population from hunger, disease or good old mother nature.

    If we are seriously destroying the earth (which is likely in one way or another), then its response will be to hit us back, possibly leading to massive losses of life. As much as it doesn't sound too good, this is probably the most likely solution. The stonger and more prepared will survive and the weaker will die. That is life. That is how it has always worked, and how it will continue to work.

    If the predictions of the likes of Flannery are all correct, then I can't possibly see how we can stop this from occurring. Hoping for the world to agree is futile. Hoping for people to put others, living 200 years in the future ahead of themselves living today is, in general futile.

    We can all do a bit to improve life on this earth, climate change being one of these many issues (other issues that are just as important now sit buried because of the focus on reducing CO2), but I don't think we should all do what equates to holding our breaths while we wait to see if everyone else follows. We will only achieve one thing by that - damaging ourselves, and our ability to prepare and adapt.
  14. mark_s Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    766
    This is the most confusing of debates. The issues are able to be presented to serve any agenda at all. I have no idea what to think or who to believe but I am very much inclined to take strong action now to try and mitigate the effects of climate change rather than rely on the hope that the other side has it wrong.
  15. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...to-dangers-ahead/story-e6frg6zo-1225710269931

    Here is an article from a few years ago, also from Mike Sandiford.

    Some interesting things in this:

    So the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising at 200 times faster than after the last ice age. He wants to compare atmospheric CO2 levels to rises in the sea levels (compare, but does not come out straight and say which leads to the other). So during this period 18,000 to 10,000 years ago, the sea level rose 130m. Approximately 16mm per year. 16mm! Now, the level of C02 is rising 200 times faster. 200 x 16 = 3200mm. 3.2m per year. That is scary isn't it? Hang on - why aren't we seeing anything like this at all? Maybe it will take a lot of time before this starts occurring, maybe there is just a little more to it than what he implies (although he doesn't directly make any conclusions or predictions - good on him - much more credible than Flannery). Talking about Flannery, he has a little dig at the likes of him here:

  16. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    The smh is left of the Murdoch media, but is hardly left in the true sense. In relation to the Climate Commission (http://australia.gov.au/directories/australia/cc):

    What it does is analyse the science which is where the debate is too often lacking. If you disagree with the conclusions, it's not sufficient to attack the publication running it, you need to attack the science. Your turn now.
  17. Aussie D Dick Tooth (41)

    Likes Received:
    540
    My issue is more about independence. The climate commission may be independent but it doesn't have the appearance due to the fact it's very existence is contingent on anthropological climate change being real.
  18. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    It seems you don't think anthropological climate change is real. If that is the case, on what do you base your view (bearing in mind it runs contrary to the scientific consensus)?
  19. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    By far the worst argument against climate science is the "their jobs are dependent on government funding and climate change being real".

    Most of them have many qualifications, in fact most climate scientists until 10 or so years ago came from completely independent fields. They will easily go and find another job, or get more qualifications. Also, you're assuming they get paid a salary by the government that can't be matched in any other field of research.

    Try refuting the actual science for once. I'm quite happy to see someone prove the greenhouse effect is not what we think it is and the predicted levels of greenhouse gas emissions will actually not have an effect on the climate. But the whole debate has turned to petty newspaper opinion pieces and politics.

    There are genuine climate change skeptics out there, that focus on doing exactly that. But i'm pretty sure most of their arguments are focused around exactly what the greenhouse effect will result in (ie: Will coral reefs actually be effected? Will the oceans temperature rise do anything?). They don't try to attack the science because some particular climate scientists are being paid to do their job.
    Cutter likes this.
  20. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Bruwheresmycar,

    An appropriate name, for my next question:

    How many of Julia Gillard's team actually drive fuel efficient cars? Low CO2 polluting ones?

    Do they really believe?

Share This Page