+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 260
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    And I believe you mean they should head towards the Antarctic.
    Nope. I meant what I said. The arctic. Your link is 11 months old. Maybe you should be more abreast with what has happened in the past year.

  2. #22
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,664
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    We can all just adapt!
    Yes, we just need to shift everything down a bit or up a bit towards the poles! Genius! Anyone got a spade to start relocating the forests? Not sure how we are going to tackle the barrier reef. Hmmm, we might also need to relocate the populations of a few of the smaller Pacific Islands. Perhaps we should send them a memo that it's best not to come by boat.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (16-09-2013),PurpleButterfly4  (09-10-2013)

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Nope. I meant what I said. The arctic. Your link is 11 months old. Maybe you should be more abreast with what has happened in the past year.
    Being that the actual report hasn't been released with the IPCC's explanations and conclusions, I'll wait.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (16-09-2013),snowqu33n  (16-09-2013)

  6. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Being that the actual report hasn't been released with the IPCC's explanations and conclusions, I'll wait.
    The current state of arctic ice is independent of any IPCC report. The time it takes them to write the report will mean the arctic ice information will already be out of date.

    You claim to know the science pretty well. I'm sure you would have no problems in finding out what has happened in the arctic over the last 12 months. If you are waiting for the IPCC report to tell you - you will be disappointed, because it won't.

  7. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    3,030
    Thanked
    695
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I'm merely pointing out that my source (the article rather than the person) is verifiable. The IPCC leak is not. The article in The Australian is based entirely on the DM article (which is based on leaked documents that don't seem available to anyone but them).

    I'm not arguing over climate change, I'm pointing out bad journalism.

    Although to be fair, none of those articles are denying that man-made climate change exists. They're merely pointing out that it's not happening at the predicated rate. We're in a slow cooker rather than a frying pan. Hurrah!

    Thank you for the WSJ link.

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    You are quoting John Cook (a commentator on the article). I was quoting David Rose (the author of the article). Is your source better?

    US article?
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...485712464.html
    Last edited by snowqu33n; 16-09-2013 at 20:24.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to snowqu33n For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (16-09-2013),Busy-Bee  (16-09-2013),HappyBovinexx  (16-09-2013),Kirst33  (16-09-2013)

  9. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    You do realize the thickness of the ice matters right?

    Just like that NASA link provided some explanations as to why Antarctica has more ice, I am sure that the IPCC report and subsequent reports by other scientists will also provide explanations. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that?

    I don't claim to know the science, I claim to believe a majority of the world's scientists...

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (16-09-2013),Clementine Grace  (17-09-2013)

  11. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wikidwitch View Post
    I'm merely pointing out that my source (the article rather than the person) is verifiable. The IPCC leak is not. The article in The Australian is based entirely on the DM article (which is based on leaked documents that don't seem available to anyone but them).

    I'm not arguing over climate change, I'm pointing out bad journalism.

    Thank you for the WSJ link.
    John Cook's comments are verifiable. As is the leaked IPCC report. It is out there.

    Apparently John Cook couldn't find the reference to 2C/decade in the 2007 report.

    Here it is:


    Since IPCC's first report in 1990, assessed projections

    have suggested global average temperature increases
    between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to
    2005. This can now be compared with observed values

    of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

  12. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    You do realize the thickness of the ice matters right?

    Just like that NASA link provided some explanations as to why Antarctica has more ice, I am sure that the IPCC report and subsequent reports by other scientists will also provide explanations.
    Yes. It is not as readily measurable though. The arctic grew by 60% in the last year. The official measurements are readily available for viewing if you have an interest. Do you believe that figure?

    Waiting for an IPCC report to respond to a current fact is ridiculous. You don't need to wait for the news in the evening to find out if it rained today.

    Sometimes a picture says a thousand words.


  13. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/bad_as...ogle.com.au%2F

    'The second claim that the Arctic sea ice is now 60 percent higher over August 2012 is technically true but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012 Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Given just how extreme it was, it’s not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year. As you can see by the graph here, the sea ice extent (which essentially represents how much area is covered by ice) was incredibly low last year and is still lower than average this year. Rose makes this seem like the ice is on a huge rebound, but it’s more like getting a D- after getting an F on a test. Sure, it’s better, but it ain’t necessarily good.'

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (16-09-2013),sockstealingpoltergeist  (16-09-2013)

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    3,030
    Thanked
    695
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    John Cook's comments are verifiable. As is the leaked IPCC report. It is out there.
    Super. If there's a link to the actual leaked report, I'd be happy to read that rather than rely on supposition and paraphrasing from these news sources. Especially the Daily Mail. [text deleted by moderator] Snack time is over and Candy Crush is calling.
    Last edited by BH-KatiesMum; 16-09-2013 at 21:14. Reason: rude

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to snowqu33n For This Useful Post:

    Kirst33  (16-09-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. E Tax - Where am I going wrong??
    By Mokeybear in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 19:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Softmats
With so many amazing reversible designs, the soft and cushioned Premium Bubba Mats are the perfect space for all the family. Not only do they look fantastic; you can also enjoy the quality and comfort for years to come.
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
Medela Australia
Our goal is to give mothers and babies the best possible support for a great and long lasting breastfeeding experience. Medela have a full range of breastpumps and breastcare products, suited to every need and lifestyle.
gotcha
X

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!