Father, thank you for your detailed reply. I'd be happy to debate the science but I really don't have time. Of course you'll think that's a cop out because I have nothing to support my arguments with but the reality is that the amount of time it would likely take to debate this with you without either of us even slightly convincing the other, makes that prospect pretty unappealing. Like you, I've spent a lot of time looking into the research and I have to say that it must be very different research than the stuff you're looking at. I'd love to think that AGW is a myth and nothing would make me happier than having you say "I told you so" in 20 years time, but that prospect seems increasingly improbable.
wrena. Whilst I do believe it is a bit of a cop out after entering a discussion with apprarent 'authority', but then not follow through on your comments, I understand that it is time consuming.
Before you depart this discussion then, can you at least concede that your comments regarding Lord Monckton were not accurate and that he has not 'misrepresented'? If you are standing by those comments, then you really owe it to all that you provide at least one example of such a misrepresentation. Otherwise, it will be regarded as a false allegation.
Some fresh examples of how this is now the world's biggest religion.
Straight out of the UN chat-fest and carbon-emitting party at Durban this week:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011.../eng/crp38.pdfRights of mother earth
74. Ensure respect for the intrinsic laws of nature.
75. The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature, and that their will be no commodification of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose.
Sounds very scientific.
And how about this group?
This is politics and religion - definitely not science based.Preamble
We, the peoples and nations of Earth:
considering that we are all part of Mother Earth, an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with a common destiny;
gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth is the source of life, nourishment and learning and provides everything we need to live well;
recognizing that the capitalist system and all forms of depredation, exploitation, abuse and contamination have caused great destruction, degradation and disruption of Mother Earth, putting life as we know it today at risk through phenomena such as climate change;
It is a concern that the UN are now just like this too. And these un-elected individuals are now planning to be taking 1.6trillion out of the world-wide (Western nations) economies every year!
And how many to the starving children of Africa? Not a cent.47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;
How many lives could be saved with that money NOW? A problem that does exist which can be fixed.
Nope, much better for this money to go towards attempting to change the climate to fix a problem that may not even exist.
Now, let's all pray to "Mother Earth" before the world comes to an end
Good on Canada.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226220558752CANADA'S environment minister says the country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
I pray (not to Mother Earth mind you), that Australia will follow suit with this decision. But unfortauntely, I can't see Greg Combet and his religious mates abandoning what they hold so dear.
But I hope that other countries follow Canada's lead on this.
I've just added this link for those who are unable to trust the 'hate media'.
Last edited by Father; 13-12-2011 at 09:09. Reason: added a fairfax link for the Left
As you can expect, it does take some time to go through 5000 emails. Especially when only volunteers are involved. It is disappointing that there are no official investigations into the corrupt dealings of these scientists.
Here is a collection of 250 'noteworthy' emails that one of these volunteers has collated.
Might be useful for anyone who wants a quick snapshot of what sort of stuff these emails contain.
Brief run-down: very few people (all of them A1-grade fruit-loops) dispute that climate change is happening. There is very clear evidence that the world has experienced climate change for billions of years, some of it very severe (e.g. lizards living at the poles, or almost the entire globe frozen into a ball of ice).
Most climatologists agree that there is a current warming trend, although the evidence for that has been hard to pin down.
The controversy surrounds whether the current warming trend is anthropogenic or not (i.e., whether it's entirely natural, or being caused or exacerbated by human activity).
There is an (IMO) excellent thread on this and similar issues here:
Eight Warning Signs of Junk Science
As you've probably gathered, I'm not impressed by the arguments of those in favour of climate change being anthropogenic. A major part of that is that the models being used are extremely coarse, omit many natural phenomena, and have no predictive capability.
Thinking in the long term, though, whether or not climate change is anthropogenic doesn't matter.
Unless we manage to wipe ourselves out with one of the genuine undisputed environmental disasters (overfishing, pollution, overpopulation, over-farming, warfare, etc. etc.) we will have to deal with devastating climate change that's perfectly natural, as it's happened many times in the past.
Thus, again IMO, we should be worrying more about how to develop climate engineering systems, instead of fretting about cutting our production of CO2. Especially considering there is zero chance that any of the developing nations will do so, making any effort on Australia's part symbolic at best.
For the greens, the introduction of this technology should be a godsend. I hope that this gets some MSM coverage, as they seem to be very quiet about this. I'm sure they wouldn't be so silent if there was a new study about polar bears!
It would be interesting to hear the responses (especially from our beloved Prime Minister), as it may well remove further funding for useless schemes such as bird-killing windmills inefficient solar panels. Maybe she could scrap the carbon (dioxide tax) early before it creates too much damage???
The other problem that this would generate would be to determine exactly what concentration of atmospheric CO2 that we actually want?
The current levels being about 390ppm, I would suggest that we at least increase it a little further before we start extracting CO2. We don't want the plants to die afterall, do we?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im..._harmonics.pdf Here is a new paper that was published just a couple of day ago. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but page 14 tells quite a good story. There is an interesting graph that shows the IPCC's projections for temperature increase compared to the author's (Nicola Scafetta PhD). It shows that the IPCC's projections are already wrong after just 5 years, whilst his are looking very close. It would mean that we would only get an increase of between 0.3-1.2 degrees C by 2100. This is in stark contrast to the IPCC's 1.0-3.6 degrees C - which is looking more and more likely to be a massive overstatement. Interesting times in the science community!
Last edited by Father; 10-01-2012 at 14:26. Reason: added the link - whoops.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!