Emission Trading and climate change

Page 27 of 377 FirstFirst ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 77 127 ... LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,350 of 18819
  1. #1301
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default No genuflection necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by rodmy View Post
    Dr Freud,
    Hope you enjoy your Valentines day, a little lovey dovey stuff is good for the soul and relationships. Trust me though, as a women, the 'lovey dovey stuff' is even more appreciated if it's given outside a day dictated by florists and chocolate manufacturers and what the nearest '24 hour servo' happens to have on the shelves. Hope you and she/he have a great day.

    I've tried to follow many of the interesting links you've posted and appreciate the tremendous effort you put into combing the net for snippets of factual information. I must be honest though and say that some posts I've only scanned, then quickly moved on as it sometimes feels like your screaming at people.

    At post #1366 you appear a little calmer, (must be all that 'lovey dovey stuff' washing over you), so I followed your link and ended up here.
    Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

    I'm a little uncomfortable disputing your fact finding jihad, you being a Senior Member and all. However, there really are several points in your link which are confusing to this dizzy blonde.

    For example, the above link quotes, without linking, Professor Jane Francis, Paleoclimatologist Leeds University UK with: " What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

    I
    s this the same Professor Jane Francis of Leeds Uni, along with a hundred or so other silly scientists, signed off on this public statement?

    Statement from the UK science community

    We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".



    Link: Statement from the UK science community - Times Online

    Poor Jane is also quoted in the the 'Copenhagen Diagnosis', produced by the Climate Change Research Centre, (CCRC), University of NSW.

    "New ice-core records confirm the importance of greenhouse gasses for past temperatures on Earth, and show that CO2 levels are higher now than they have ever been during the last 800,000 years. The last time Earth experienced CO2 levels this high was millions of years ago."
    Professor Jane Francis, University of Leeds, UK

    link:
    The Copenhagen Diagnosis

    I guess it would be just easier to go along with Bolt, Monckton, Joyce et.al. I guess deep down we all crave simplistic populist answers to complex issues. My mate Blue, down at the pub, reckons them scientists are just over paid pointy heads wot probably can't even do up their own shoelaces.

    Peace and happiness,

    Mrs rodmy


    Rest assured, I don't defer to anyone based on their rank, title, tenure or qualifications, and I certainly don't expect anyone to give any credence to me. I'd much rather all credence be given to the upholding of sound scientific and mathematical practices. I can also assure you that not all the information here is factual, a bit of humour and opinion interspersed keeps us all amused .

    In this vein, I certainly don't hold the esteemed Professor Jane Francis as an "authority figure" on climate change. Perhaps during your next scan of the thread you may come across several of these issues that have already been done to death.

    Another issue also thoroughly satisfied is that science is not determined by consensus, but by facts. Having a hundred (or even a trillion zillion) scientists agree with a political report doesn't create a causal relationship between the variables discussed. I'm sure during your next scan you will also uncover this information.

    As for the Copenhagen Diagnosis, this too has been covered briefly, but I am now tempted to begin a jihad against it. If you have researched this document thoroughly, can you please provide all the information in it that may assist with this:


    But in the interim, can anyone please highlight some evidence linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to the increasingly spurious 0.7 degrees celsius warming over the last 150 years. Anyone?
    Because without this, AGW Theory is just another theory, of which there are literally millions, and I'm happy to discuss many of them, but don't want to pay taxes for any of them.

    But it is good to see your interest in the Copenhagen Diagnosis, I too am a big fan of science fiction...



    Hmmmm, warming they say this planet is, but feel it I do not!

  2. #1302
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The force is not strong with this one.

    Meanwhile, what sort of competency has our government shown in rolling out economically sound and environmentally effective policies?

    And

    Interesting how it was Rudd taking the credit, but now Garrett taking the heat.

    Last October, after one installer had died fitting the metal insulation, Mr Garrett met with Master Electricians Australia to discuss safety.

    "Master Electricians were very concerned in general terms that metal fasteners and foil insulation posed an unacceptable safety electrocution risk," Mr Garrett told parliament of what was said in the meeting.

    The electricians asked him to suspend the use of metal insulation in the program and issued a media release calling for the metal insulation to be removed from the scheme.

    Mr Garrett refused to do so.

    Another installer died while fitting the foil insulation after Mr Garrett's decision. This week he banned the foil insulation.


    But

    Sometimes, political commentators sum it up nicely:

    Do you trust these people to introduce a new $114 billion taxation scheme linked to derivative based market prices that will hobble the Australian economy when compared to the rest of the world?



  3. #1303
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Shakespearean tragedy.

    But wait, there’s more:

    Sheesh, talk about urban heat island effects. If people’s lives weren’t being destroyed and ended by this fiasco, it would be comical. But seriously, these same people are telling us they can cool down the entire planet by raising Australian’s taxes.

    Are their current environmental policies increasing their credibility?

  4. #1304
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More evidence?

    New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower



    Sea-level rises and falls as Earth’s giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years ago—well into the last glacial period—was 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. Dorale et al. (p. 860; see the Perspective by Edwards) now challenge this view. A speleothem that has been intermittently submerged in a cave on the island of Mallorca was dated to show that, historically, sea level was more than a meter above its present height. This data implies that temperatures were as high as or higher than now, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much lower.




    Fig. 1 Encrusted speleothems at various levels in caves from Mallorca. (A) Geologic map of Mallorca (10) and location of sampled caves (red dots). (B) Schematic cross-section through a coastal cave in Mallorca showing multiple carbonate encrustation levels. (C and D) Present-day and paleo levels of encrusted speleothems related to higher (E) and lower (F) sea-level stands. (G) Typical morphology for tidal range–related carbonate encrustation (size of speleothem, 20 cm). (H) Bathymetric map of the western Mediterranean region and the predicted present-day rate of sea-level change due to GIA [adapted from (15)

    I say again, this is just another study that adds more information to the AGW Theory debate, it does not disprove the theory, so all the “true believers” can relax.

  5. #1305
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Speed better than figure?

    Global warming has placed the future of the Winter Olympics and winter sports from the Sierras to the Alps in peril, according to interviews with environmental scientists, Olympic officials, historians and athletes in recent weeks.

    Thanks Ingrid. About as credible an argument as my dodgy pictures.





    Maybe if these guys could get to work, they could legislate for the new taxes that would cool the planet down.

    But perhaps a more reasoned El Nino analysis can be found here.

  6. #1306
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I have to admire their perseverance.

    There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.

    That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.



    Surely, this claim has to test even the strongest faith.




    I hope the planet doesn’t warm much more, otherwise we may all freeze to death!





  7. #1307
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default So much information, so little time.

    Emissions 'could rise' under ETS


    Government data appears to show that under the ETS, Australia's emissions would rise from 553 million tonnes in 2000 to 585 million tonnes by 2020.


    The target to cut emissions by 5 per cent is only reached by paying other countries to reduce their emissions.


    Junior climate change minister Greg Combet was unable to guarantee the ETS would reduce Australia's emissions by 2020.


    When asked how much of the emission reduction would come from domestic sources, he said: "That's up to the market".


    This just gets better and better!




  8. #1308
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .



    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    I'm not reading a single word of it

    .





    .



  9. #1309
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .


    Allen James: Academics need not lecture me on how dead rats don’t stink.


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    http://500hats.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/27/head_up_ass.gi
    Heh – nice picture of a leftist academic, and they abound in universities.

    .

    [Two men enter small room]


    Joe Sixpack: Oh man, [cough] what’s that smell?
    Leftist Academic: [gasp, cough] You will find it is the car pollution from outside.
    Joe Sixpack: Phew, it stinks [cough]. No, this is much worse. Something died.
    Academic: [choke] No, you will find . . .
    Joe Sixpack: There – on the floor - a big dead rat!
    Academic: [recoils in horror] Oh, I say! [cough, gasp]
    Joe Sixpack: [Holding nose] Let’s open a window and get that rat smell out of here.
    Academic: No, no! You’ll make the smell worse [gasp]
    Joe Sixpack: [Opening window] Say what? [breaths in fresh air].
    Academic: The smell is from the cars outside! [Goes to window to gulp fresh air in]
    Joe Sixpack: Listen pal, I can see the rat, and I can smell the rat.
    Academic: Ah, but I wrote a paper on this, proving it is car pollution [offers Joe the paper].
    Joe Sixpack: [Taking paper] You think this will convince me that a dead rat doesn’t stink?
    Academic: Precisely. Put that paper to good use immediately, and you won’t regret it!
    Joe Sixpack: No worries [bends down and slides paper under dead rat].
    Academic: What the . . ? I say! What the dickens are you doing?
    Joe Sixpack: Putting your paper to good use. [Lifts rat with paper, exits room].
    Academic: [Following] But that paper took me six months to write!
    Joe Sixpack: [Drops rat in bin, and offers paper back to academic]
    Academic: Why, I never! Harumph! [Stomps off with nose in air]
    Joe Sixpack: [Tosses paper in bin] Hey professor, we need to scrub the floor now!
    Academic: Do it yourself!
    Joe Sixpack: Yeah, I guess you’ll be too busy writing another rat spatula! [Laughs loudly].



    .

  10. #1310
    1K Club Member autogenous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA.
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    but said the exact cause in some remained under investigation.

    This could be the result of insulation around especially 12 volt down lights.The heat is not released around the insulation causing it to catch fire especially, blow in insulation.

    Some light fittings need a surround to release the heat they put off.


    https://www.instagram.com/perth_bricklayer_wa

  11. #1311
    1K Club Member autogenous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA.
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    Sea-level rises and falls as Earth’s giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years ago—well into the last glacial period—was 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive.

    In the Kimberly of Australia there is fossil coral reefs some 100+ metres above sea level.
    https://www.instagram.com/perth_bricklayer_wa

  12. #1312
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Thanks for your replies Chris and Dr Frued. What about the rest of you, or are you going to keep going around in circles?
    I just love sheepies!

  13. #1313
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Surely, this claim has to test even the strongest faith.




    I hope the planet doesn’t warm much more, otherwise we may all freeze to death!


    Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but I get the impression that you are inferring that the snowstorms are anecdotal evidence of the world is in a cooling cycle. Remember, the science is on the global warming, not on isolated weather events.

    Some facts on recent global temperatures:

    Global Highlights


    • The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
    • The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
    • The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.
    Source: State of the Climate | Global Analysis | January 2010

  14. #1314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Jerry : So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo?
    Kramer : It's just a write off for them.
    Jerry : How is it a write off?
    Kramer : They just write it off.
    Jerry : Write it off what?
    Kramer : Jerry all these big companies they write off everything
    Jerry : You don't even know what a write off is.
    Kramer : Do you?
    Jerry : No. I don't.
    Kramer : But they do and they are the ones writing it off.
    Jerry : I wish I just had the last twenty seconds of my life back.

    Fixed
    Not quite. Your effort was plagiarized, and the spelling and grammar were wrong.
    .
    Correct version:
    .
    Jerry: So, we're going to make the post office pay for my new stereo now?
    Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
    Jerry: How is it a write-off?
    Kramer: They just write it off.
    Jerry: Write it off what?
    Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
    Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
    Kramer: Do you?
    Jerry: No, I don't!
    Kramer: But they do. And they're the ones writing it off.
    Jerry: I wish I had the last twenty seconds of my life back.
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Package_(Seinfeld)
    .
    Quite apart from that, your copy and paste had nothing to do with the argument.

    .

    Geez Head, you're easy to beat in debate.




    .
    .

  15. #1315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS for several reasons.
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures.

    Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit.

    Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim.

    Interested to know your thoughts?

    Sure. My thoughts are that you know very well the global warmers are full of hot air. It’s clear they are losing, and you wish to desert the sinking ship.
    .
    .


  16. #1316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    There ya go, Allen. A little something I found surfin the web.

    Obviously, but you made two mistakes. First you did not make a note that it was not yours, by providing a link, and secondly the source you copied was flawed and full of mistakes.
    .
    .

    snip talk about punctuation and grammar

    What I said wasn’t about your writing abilities – it was about the accuracy of the quote you copied and pasted without providing a link.
    .
    .

    I couldn’t understand the rest of your post, and haven’t time to try to figure it out.



    .
    .

  17. #1317
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ip?

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later).

    I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)

    We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
    Here it is:

    Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C

    Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
    Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23 – 12
    Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
    Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23 – 20
    Carboniferous-------320------------------------------------1,000 - 200--------------20 – 12
    Permian---------------270------------------------------------200 – 1,900--------------12 - 23
    Triassic----------------230------------------------------------1,500-----------------------23 – 22
    Jurassic----------------170------------------------------------2,000----------------------22 – 16
    Cretaceous------------110------------------------------------1,500----------------------16 – 22
    Tertiary------------------40---------------------------------------500------------------------22 – 12
    Present Time-----------0---------------------------------------385-------------------------14 - 16

    The planet (Earth) has naturally cycled between 200 and 6000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). The average planetary temperature has naturally ranged between 12 and 23 degrees celsius over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). We, the humans, now intend to maintain carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million and average global temperatures at 16 degrees celsius, FOREVER. Just like nature intended? Kevin Rudd thinks getting governments to agree will be challenging. I think getting the planet Earth to agree will be "challenging".

    As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.


    Just to help you sleep at night, you are stuck on a ball of molten lava that has cooled on the outside due to being stuck in the sub-zero vacuum of space. This ball is hurtling through space at over 100,000 kilometres per hour and no one is driving. Luckily, we are stuck in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion that is slowly expanding, which should disappear in about 1.5 billion years. Gee wiz people, that 2 - 3 degree temperature rise is pretty scary

    Just remember, the Dinosaurs didn't die out because they farted too much, they died because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves, nobody was watching where they were going, and they crashed into a big rock.
    Come on champ, you could at least have quoted this. It took me hours to figure out how many of those little dashes to put in to make all the numbers line up......and they're still crooked.

  18. #1318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    But first, allow me to provide some context

    snip
    Again, you need to provide sources and links when publishing others' writing. It’s called plagiarizing when you don’t, as some people might think you are the author. In this case it was Dr. Freud's writing, not yours.
    .
    At this stage I’m assuming you are deserting the sinking ship of global warming, and that’s fine. Those opposed to GW in this thread won’t expect any apologies.
    .
    Jump off and we’ll haul you to shore, and then you can pretend you were always on our side.


    .

  19. #1319
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go...

    No worries champ.

    I also didn't want you being taken to task over all the inaccuracies in there.

    For example, the sun is estimated to begin expanding in about 1.5 billion years, but won't disappear, but will likely fry the planet then turn into a white dwarf...



    I wonder which one?

  20. #1320
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    I don't have time to post links............
    It would take longer to put in those many periods (full stops) you like so much in between your sentences, so I think you can afford the time.
    .
    .

    Allen James: The source you copied was flawed and full of mistakes.
    My copy and paste was flawed and full of mistakes? I'm only following standard copy and paste protocol in this thread...........

    Try and read carefully. I said the source you copied was flawed and full of mistakes. I’m sure your copy and paste ability is fine, as is my five year old nephew’s.

    .
    .



    why make mention of it now?

    You thought I was talking about your spelling abilities, obviously. Read the posts again if you’ve already forgotten them.
    .
    .

    Fixed

    Despite your fixation with the word ‘fixed’, most of what you are posting is broken, mate. IMHO.




    .
    .
    .

  21. #1321
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Snowstorms are snowstorms.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post


    Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but I get the impression that you are inferring that the snowstorms are anecdotal evidence of the world is in a cooling cycle. Remember, the science is on the global warming, not on isolated weather events.

    Some facts on recent global temperatures:
    Global Highlights


    • The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
    • The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
    • The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.
    Source: State of the Climate | Global Analysis | January 2010
    Apologies, I was trying to point out that earlier IPCC claims were for less snow based on the output from their models they programmed with their own assumptions. Then inconveniently, more snow arrived (yes, just weather).

    A good scientist would do what you did, and explain that weather is not climate.

    However, some AGW Theory proponents are so insecure about their theory based on it's continued empirical implosion, that they are actually trying to spin the fact that this weather event that is contradictory to their predictions, is actually supportive of AGW Theory.

  22. #1322
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    That's a shame...............you may call it plagiarizing, I call it stirring.

    I am not in charge of the word ‘plagiarizing’, I’m just sending you the definition. If you think the definition should be changed to ‘stirring’, you’ll need to consult with the dictionary people and the courts.

    .
    As for your position on GW, I will assume you now support it again, based on your general behaviour and responses here.

    .

    .


  23. #1323
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    one sort of guessed thsat you would know that...................
    Huh?
    .
    .
    who cares..................i'll read em as i like.....................if you want accuracy..............tune into the abc.............

    Translation: I am proud to plagiarize badly, and will continue this practice.
    .
    .
    http://trulyequal.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/fear-global-warming.jpg
    Too busy to post links..........................
    Pictures don’t require links, as they are their own links, as you can see. Slabs of other people’s text do require links, or you are plagiarizing.
    .
    .
    fixed………….fixed…………..fixed…………fixed……….

    Chanting ‘fixed’ at something won’t fix it, I’m sorry to tell you.


    .
    .

  24. #1324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Well, I've got to go gents. They draw the raffle real soon.

    My work here is done.
    Okay then. See ya mate.


    You've done enough fixing for today.
    .

    .

  25. #1325
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Damn...........and I thought I was plagiarizing

    You were when you posted writing that wasn’t yours, without a reference or link. As for the pictures, anyone can right click on them to see the properties, and the link. On the other hand if you put those on your own site and didn’t name the source, that would be a copyright infringement.

    .
    .

  26. #1326
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Not if I see you first.....................fixed................... .link to something...............
    It's probably not a good idea to post after drinking a slab, headpin. Just a little friendly advice.

    .

    .

  27. #1327
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You guys truly are hilarious.

    The missus keeps asking me what I'm giggling at, I think she thinks I'm having some sort of online flirty dalliance.

    Business losing faith in Rudd

    And as Mr Rudd and Wayne Swan defended the government's economic record in parliament, other business groups backed the BCA's criticism, while premiers endorsed Mr Bradley's call for a simplified tax system.

    But where Mr Rudd has constantly justified the need for his proposed carbon emissions trading scheme on the basis it would give business investment certainty, Mr Bradley made clear that the failure of December's international meeting in Copenhagen to seal a binding pact on emissions reductions had changed the equation. "Given the lack of progress at Copenhagen towards a global agreement, there is a need now to calibrate Australia's emissions targets in line with other international responses," Mr Bradley said.

    One would think after failing to heed industry warnings in other failed environmental policies, they might have learned a lesson, but apparently not.


  28. #1328
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    So, another three pages and the basic question isn't being answered.

    Why is that?
    I just love sheepies!

  29. #1329
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Business losing faith in Rudd


    I was enjoying not having to hear about Mr Rudd for the last few pages.

    If you keep this up, I'll have to ignore you as well as that Allen character.

    woodbe.

  30. #1330
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Is more detail required?

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    So, another three pages and the basic question isn't being answered.

    Why is that?
    A lawyer might object and say "Asked and answered your honour?" I think everyone is fairly happy to agree that humans have added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since industrialisation. We can argue like good scientists about exactly how much and according to which cycles. Keep in mind, we are not adding anything to the whole system, just moving it around as nature has always done. Greenies hate it when I call human's activities natural.

    But what are we, unnatural.

    More likely a bunch of hairless apes with a superiority complex.


    If you want more detail, the even the real climate link below can assist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Part 1, irrefutably yes, this science is settled! Ball park let’s call it 280ppm to 380ppm for simplicity. Here’s why:





    Part 2, if you are implying by your words “THE reason” indicating singular responsibility, that the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels is solely responsible for 100% of this increase, in the absence of all other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences, then the answer is obviously no. But if you more likely were trying to suggest that burning fossil fuels has contributed to this rise, along with other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic effects, in a chaotic system of interactions including extra-terrestrial forces, then the answer is yes. Here’s why:



    Interestingly, you will not find the words “moral challenge, denier, sceptic, catastrophic, dangerous, Armageddon, save the world or polar bears”. Sadly, real science is considered very boring to the majority of people, hence the need for it to be "sexed up" if you want to push an agenda in the absence of facts. You will however find more evidence that carbon dioxide actually encourages growth in the biosphere.

    But again, as I said from the beginning, please assess all of this in the context of this information.


    This little blue ball is getting on in years, and has been through a lot.




    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Part 1: CO2 has risen from ~280ppm to ~380ppm.

    Part 2: Isotope analysis indicates most all of the rise is due to human activity. See RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

  31. #1331
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You can RUDD, but you can't hide.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    [/left]
    [/left]

    I was enjoying not having to hear about Mr Rudd for the last few pages.

    If you keep this up, I'll have to ignore you as well as that Allen character.

    woodbe.
    Apologies if the truth upsets your sensibilities, but I am just quoting the real world. If the real world is upsetting, you may want to hibernate away from all information.

    The inglorious PM is now being seriously questioned from many quarters (including the high school kids he thought he could hide behind).

    This clown is trying to tax me for breathing out fresh air, and he tried to cast me as some sort of child killing fiend for pointing out his assumptions were flawed.

    If what I am posting is inaccurate, please advise me and I will recant immediately. If you can't handle the truth, then maybe ignorance (ignoring) could be your salvation.

    I would ignore the clown if I could, but this is like asking the British in WW2 not to mention Hitler, or the Sunni's in Baghdad in Desert Storm not to mention Bush.

    Pretty hard to combat the enemy when political correctness and sensibilities start dictating tactics. I think I've been fairly polite to most members, except for the occasional outburst when censorship policies start to infiltrate.

    But in a nutshell:



    You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 14th Feb 2010 at 05:03 PM. Reason: Funnier.

  32. #1332
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Not at all. I'm just pointing out that there has been an over riding anti-PM flavour from you. You argue well on GW but the anti-Rudd flavour does you no service, and suggests a prior bias.

    And no, I didn't vote for him, and I'm not defending him on the basis of my own political opinion.

    this is like asking the British in WW2 not to mention Hitler, or the Sunni's in Baghdad in Desert Storm not to mention Bush.
    These events are in a completely different league to the discussion of AGW and an ETS that if I remember correctly was an election issue.

    We need to keep our feet on the ground I think.

    woodbe.

  33. #1333
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More manipulation.

    Another Smoking Gun from Australia? How GISS adjusts temperature records in two adjacent sites

    Despite its assurances, GISS has adjusted the temperature records of two sites at Mackay to reverse a cooling trend in one and increase a warming trend in another. This study presents evidence that this is not supportable and is in fact an instance of manipulation of data.

    A good read, but in a nutshell, they turn this:


    Into this:


    And this data feeds into the warming myth!

    No smoking gun, but hey, surely it's getting harder to "ignore" the truth?

  34. #1334
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Lies, damn lies and statistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Apologies for simplification (all made up), but hopefully the gist gets through.

    Let’s assume two random temperature measurements in one place over Time 1 and Time 2:

    Time 1 = Max 35
    Time 2 = Max 30

    Planet is cooling.

    But IPCC uses Max + Min / 2, so:

    Time 1 = Max 35 + Min 5 = 40/2 = 20
    Time 2 = Max 30 + Min 20 = 50/2 = 25

    Planet is warming.

    But IN REALITY, this happened, and the data looked like this:

    Time 1
    0000 - 20
    0200 - 15
    0400 - 5
    0600 - 15
    0800 - 20
    1000 - 30
    1200 - 35
    1400 - 35
    1600 - 35
    1800 - 25
    2000 - 20
    2200 - 20
    Avg - 23

    Time 2
    0000 - 20
    0200 - 20
    0400 - 20
    0600 - 22
    0800 - 22
    1000 - 24
    1200 - 30
    1400 - 26
    1600 - 24
    1800 - 22
    2000 - 22
    2200 - 20
    Avg - 23

    Planet is stable.

    These are just three of methods of calculation of possibly infinite methods of measuring temperature at just one location. If three different scientists get three different outcomes from exactly the same data set, none of them are frauds. They are using different assumptions. What is fraudulent is if an individual or individuals try to claim that their assumptions are the best or only one to use! Whether this is in Bernie’s Sales Brochures or IPCC Sales Brochures is no different.


    This stuff can be found here.

    But for those requiring a more cogent and detailed summary:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE[/ame]

  35. #1335
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .



    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    So, another three pages and the basic question isn't being answered.

    Why is that?
    Covered already.





    .

    .

    .

  36. #1336
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I've already submitted a guilty plea.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Not at all. I'm just pointing out that there has been an over riding anti-PM flavour from you. You argue well on GW but the anti-Rudd flavour does you no service, and suggests a prior bias.

    And no, I didn't vote for him, and I'm not defending him on the basis of my own political opinion.



    These events are in a completely different league to the discussion of AGW and an ETS that if I remember correctly was an election issue.

    We need to keep our feet on the ground I think.

    woodbe.
    This campaign is intentional and well documented my friend.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post


    In summary, my position is that AGW Theory is a perfectly valid theory that has yet to be proved or disproved scientifically. I have also asserted regularly that many scientists working in this area have breached or overlooked fundamental scientific practices to further various individual agenda’s that sometimes overlap, such as careers, funding, ideology and even altruism. This has led to a groundswell of popular support for the theory, that is yet to be proven.


    I seriously do not personally care about anything in the preceding paragraph, other than intellectual curiosity. But when some muppet uses the above as an excuse to tax me for fresh air because he can’t balance a budget, then alludes that I am some kind of oil burning serial killer of children futures, then we are going to toe to toe gentleman. It is personal and it is anti-Rudd.





    And perhaps you could also email the PM and advise him to keep his feet on the ground. I already have, and was dutifully "ignored". Because you see, I just quote what he says, and highlight what he does (or does not do). The fact that this information seems so confronting speaks of the PM, not of my highlighting it, such as:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Perhaps the Prime Muppet (PM) didn’t consider his lack of reply as rude as he considers me to be a globally powerful force hell bent on killing children and destroying the future of humanity!!!

    Here is the PM describing me (a skeptic) at his Lowy Institute speech on 9 November 2009 (don’t laugh Rod, you’re top of his list).

    “The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.


    They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.


    It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics in all their colours - some more sophisticated than others.
    It is to destroy the CPRS at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad, and our children's fate - and our grandchildren's fate - will lie entirely with them.


    The legion of climate change skeptics are active across the world, and they happily play with our children's future.


    Instead they offer maximum fear, the universal conservative stock in trade.


    And by doing so, these do-nothing climate change skeptics are prepared to destroy our children's future.


    And that is what they want, because they are driven by a narrowly defined self interest of the present and are utterly contemptuous towards our children's interest in the future.


    This brigade of do-nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.


    Our children.


    And our grandchildren.


    They are betting our future, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and they are doing so based on their own personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices.

    You are betting our children's future and the future of our grandchildren.”

    Whew, better warn the in-laws not to bring the kids and grandkids around, I sound dangerous!

    (Full rant linked below)
    Feet? Ground?

    But seriously, if he immediately suspended all AGW Theory related policies and ordered a full unlimited royal commission into the science behind the IPCC claims, with no policies implemented until the theory was validated, then on this policy he would get my vote, because then it would be better for the country than Abbott's and the Liberal's current policy. The Greens are a joke, and no prospect of a pro-Australia policy coming out of there any time soon.

  37. #1337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Not at all. I'm just pointing out that there has been an over riding anti-PM flavour from you.
    Natch. We get an over riding global warming flavour from Rudd.
    .
    .

  38. #1338
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allen James View Post
    .




    Covered already.





    .

    .

    .
    Sorry I missed it - what was YOUR answer?
    I just love sheepies!

  39. #1339
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    A lawyer might object and say "Asked and answered your honour?" I think everyone is fairly happy to agree that humans have added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since industrialisation. We can argue like good scientists about exactly how much and according to which cycles. Keep in mind, we are not adding anything to the whole system, just moving it around as nature has always done. Greenies hate it when I call human's activities natural.

    But what are we, unnatural.

    More likely a bunch of hairless apes with a superiority complex.


    If you want more detail, the even the real climate link below can assist.
    Id already acknowledged and thanked you. Wondering what the others have to say. Thanks!
    I just love sheepies!

  40. #1340
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But seriously, if he immediately suspended all AGW Theory related policies and ordered a full unlimited royal commission into the science behind the IPCC claims, with no policies implemented until the theory was validated, then on this policy he would get my vote, because then it would be better for the country than Abbott's and the Liberal's current policy. The Greens are a joke, and no prospect of a pro-Australia policy coming out of there any time soon.
    I know it's only your opinion and all, but do you honestly believe a Royal Commission would either come out with an acceptable result (to anyone) and do it in any sort of useful timeframe?

    Even Mr Abbott wouldn't do that, he has already demonstrated that he knows it would be electoral suicide, so you're running out of useful places to put your vote I guess.

    woodbe.

  41. #1341
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    snip multiple webpages
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    . . .for Mr James benifit all links available for your perusual.
    I have Google if I need webpages, and I see no reason to spend time reading anything recommended by you.
    .
    If you have some evidence concerning your beliefs you may do some work on your own. Extract the said evidence and post it here.

    If links were arguments, then here's mine:
    .

    The New York Public Library
    .
    http://www.nypl.org/
    .
    Get back to us when you finish reading it.
    .

    .

  42. #1342
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    We can argue like good scientists about exactly how much and according to which cycles.
    "Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this."

    There is no scientific argument on this, just about all the extra CO2 is from human activity.

  43. #1343
    1K Club Member autogenous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA.
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    280 to nearly 380

    2 Billion to 6 billion. Everybody stop exhaling. Dam those people


    https://www.instagram.com/perth_bricklayer_wa

  44. #1344
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by autogenous View Post
    280 to nearly 380

    2 Billion to 6 billion. Everybody stop exhaling. Dam those people
    Maybe your post was intended to be tongue in cheek, but just to point out, the extra CO2 isn't due to increased population - unless the extra people are breathing fossil deposits.

    The isotope analysis shows the increase in CO2 is from a fossil origin - i.e. burning fossil fuels.

    Just thought you'd like to know.

  45. #1345
    1K Club Member autogenous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA.
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    My Mrs reckons I have isotopes come out the rear...

    It blows me away the government allows lime sand mining by digging up sea grass in the hundreds of square kilometres which absorbs the ocean carbon. If they were really serious, really serious, that's why they're full of fossil isotopes...

    Ok, its been proven positive in emissions but gladly not the exaggerated amount of about 5 times to start a new derivatives market..

    Do isotopes include black Friday bush fires?
    https://www.instagram.com/perth_bricklayer_wa

  46. #1346
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    This was posted in the SMH comments this morning.

    Sums it up pretty well I think.
    "We won't change without pain."
    How true that is. Now justify the need for change with an open and tranparent scientific process that allows anyone who want to have a look to examine the data and methodologies used to support the CO2 causing catastrophic climate change hypothesis.
    This is after all what genuine skeptics want to see. It does not take much research to discover that the scientists in charge of the data have taken outrageous steps to ensure their work remains unscrutinised.
    Rather than abusing skeptics for not swallowing propaganda, how about allaying their fears with some good old fashioned transparency?

    Dave | Sydney - February 11, 2010, 8:24AM
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  47. #1347
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    ummmmm..........aahhhhhh....................Rod never posted a link.

    You do realise, Rod, you run the risk of not only being labelled a plagiarizer.................but a possible law suit due to copyright infringement.................


    I got this advice from someone else................now, do I have to link this back to his/her post?...................
    I have been trying to catch up here, so no, I am not aware, except for seeing your endless comments on the issue.

    I am sure we will all forgive you for not posting a link. We all conduct our debate in our own way, readers I am sure are smart enough to judge the value of comments, from the presentation and content.

    Cheers rod
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  48. #1348
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    So in the absence of dissent we are in agreement that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    Well done everyone .

    Now for the next one;

    What is the equal and opposite reaction that we will experience because of it?

    Will it be good, will it be bad? What will change to accommodate it?

    Way you go

    Now - No bloody graphs, no bloody links to anything - what do YOU think, in your own words, from your own brain, based on what YOU have read or seen or even a hunch.
    I just love sheepies!

  49. #1349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .


    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    FINISHED............................

    Yelling “Finished” accomplishes about as much as chanting “fixed”.
    .
    .
    Boy, your hard to please

    Boy, my hard to please what? You didn’t finish the sentence.
    .
    .
    ....................don't post a link.....................and you whinge..............posts a link and you whinge.

    I was quite clear. When you cut and paste someone else’s text you should always provide a reference or link, and you might also make sure it is accurate and worth posting. Otherwise you will be a ‘poor plagiarizer’ at best. I have not asked you for your standalone links. If I want to look at WebPages I have billions to peruse without your assistance.
    .
    As far as your recommended links are concerned, why would I look at them? A guy walks up and stands outside your house for a few weeks, hurling sneers and insults at you, and then throws a book at your house and yells, “Read that!”
    .
    Would I read it?
    .
    By contrast someone I respect offers me a book (or link), perhaps I will look at it. If you don’t know this then it’s about time you learned. In the meantime, if you wish to put forward arguments, do so. It involves some work because you need to find the information and present it, along with a reference or link. Or you may compose your own original ideas. This is how debate differs from bar room malarkey. If I wanted bar room malarkey I can find it down the road in any bar.
    .
    .
    You must be a riot to live with............................Australia's liveliest social activities club in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane Australia's liveliest social activities club in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane Get back to me when you got one.............................

    It sounds like you are here to meet people and socialize. This particular thread is about global warming; not about your social life.
    .
    .
    PS - If you wish to reduce your carbon footprint, use less periods.
    .
    .
    .

  50. #1350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default


    .


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    ummmmm..........aahhhhhh....................Rod never posted a link.
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    You do realise, Rod, you run the risk of not only being labelled a plagiarizer.................but a possible law suit due to copyright infringement.................


    I got this advice from someone else................now, do I have to link this back to his/her post?...................

    Rod named the source. You named no source, gave no link, and the information you posted was full of errors. Big difference.



    .
    .



Page 27 of 377 FirstFirst ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 77 127 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •