Touche' Bitch !
You may need to put on your glasses Chris, I wrote that I heard that comment on the news.
All my love,
S
You may need to put on your glasses Chris, I wrote that I heard that comment on the news.
All my love,
S
A different point of view?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Now now kiddies, no need to get personal. High signal to noise ratio is good remember....
By the way, I remember a scene from the movie Superman where Lex Luther planned to detonate a couple of nuclear warheads on the US West coast after having bought a heap of worthless desert land on the other side of the targeted faultline - just so that he could end up with prized beachfront realestate.... Maybe Lex is at it again with global warming???
By the way, I remember a scene from the movie Superman where Lex Luther planned to detonate a couple of nuclear warheads on the US West coast after having bought a heap of worthless desert land on the other side of the targeted faultline - just so that he could end up with prized beachfront realestate.... Maybe Lex is at it again with global warming???
And now....
The other side.........
Very worth watching......
The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com
The other side.........
Very worth watching......
The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com
AAHHHHHH.....!!!!
A breath of fresh air !!!
epper: epper: epper:
I wish that was on TV in the states.
S
A breath of fresh air !!!
epper: epper: epper: I wish that was on TV in the states.
S
If you are looking for words to convince yourself that you are right then you will find them. I read a small portion of the arguments on that web site and in seconds found two major points that were in error.
Lets just take these two points (there were many more incidentally but I refuse to hold your hand any longer) ...
1)
"scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this"
This is a well known but old argument and it was found to be faulty a while ago. Go to this web site if you want to know how...
Key claim against global warming evaporates - LiveScience - MSNBC.com
2)
"the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison"
Naturally produced CO2 is recycled CO2. In other words, the process takes the CO2 out of the air and puts it back again. There is no net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Human input on the other hand is NEW CO2, or at best it is CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere many many millions of years ago.
Now just admit that you are trying to prove a political point and that you have no idea of the science then move on. I expect you won't though. I expect that I will instead get a barrage of abuse.
Lets just take these two points (there were many more incidentally but I refuse to hold your hand any longer) ...
1)
"scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this"
This is a well known but old argument and it was found to be faulty a while ago. Go to this web site if you want to know how...
Key claim against global warming evaporates - LiveScience - MSNBC.com
2)
"the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison"
Naturally produced CO2 is recycled CO2. In other words, the process takes the CO2 out of the air and puts it back again. There is no net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Human input on the other hand is NEW CO2, or at best it is CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere many many millions of years ago.
Now just admit that you are trying to prove a political point and that you have no idea of the science then move on. I expect you won't though. I expect that I will instead get a barrage of abuse.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
How about a couple of valium and a nice little nap?
Pass the pop corn .
Pass the pop corn
.David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Maybe they should be handing out free Prozac in Pete's bar this year
(Why is prozac prescribed?
Fluoxetine (Prozac) is used to treat bothersome thoughts that won't go away and the need to perform certain actions over and over.......)
(Why is prozac prescribed?
Fluoxetine (Prozac) is used to treat bothersome thoughts that won't go away and the need to perform certain actions over and over.......)
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
David Morton said:
I think you could buy anything medicinal or herbal in Pete's bar!!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Hey Scott, I hope you dont own a Honda.
Mixed pace in pre-season testing for Honda
The 2007 Formula One season gets underway with the curtain-raising Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne next weekend.
Following the launch of the Honda Racing F1 Team's pioneering environmental initiative, the Australian Grand Prix will see the Honda RA107 take to the track in its new 'earth' livery for the first time. In support of the campaign to raise environmental awareness, the team's race drivers Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello will be visiting the Albert Park Primary School at the start of the race weekend to join the schoolchildren in an energy-saving programme.
Mixed pace in pre-season testing for Honda
The 2007 Formula One season gets underway with the curtain-raising Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne next weekend.
Following the launch of the Honda Racing F1 Team's pioneering environmental initiative, the Australian Grand Prix will see the Honda RA107 take to the track in its new 'earth' livery for the first time. In support of the campaign to raise environmental awareness, the team's race drivers Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello will be visiting the Albert Park Primary School at the start of the race weekend to join the schoolchildren in an energy-saving programme.
Attachments
Last edited:
No Honda's Pete !!!!!!!!!
Maybe a 510.
If I hit the lottery, a BBC/Hewland powered RCR T70 Spyder.
Cheers,
Scott
Maybe a 510.
If I hit the lottery, a BBC/Hewland powered RCR T70 Spyder.
Cheers,
Scott
Satan, forget the 510, that's a hiding to hell.
I like the sound of that BB/Hewland T70 though. Save your money and make that a reality!
Have a great day.
I like the sound of that BB/Hewland T70 though. Save your money and make that a reality!
Have a great day.
Russ,
I like your advice. Do you think you could convince the wife ?
Likewise on the day !
Regards,
Scott
I like your advice. Do you think you could convince the wife ?
Likewise on the day !
Regards,
Scott
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
jac mac said:
The Aussie map is Downunder the chassis
Keith, thank you for the link to the channel 4 piece one global warming. It is nice to get info and links to sources that can let people with some degree of intelligence make up their mines after hearing two opposing sides discuss the data. It sounded to me like global warming as explained by Mr. Gore is more politics than sceince. Unfortunately I think Scott and Chris might bleed to death before we have a definitive answer!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Neal
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks for the link Keith. Intersting info. First he invented the internet, now global warming. There is a movement here in the US that addresses green impact on a state by state basis. Our govenor actually said that we could/should reduce our CO emissions by 50% in a 5 year period. Perhaps if we only take every other breath. Green is good but the ecoterrorist approach of shock and awe needs to be tempered with real information.
Pete, that's a winner!
Pete, that's a winner!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I heard this bloke being interviewd on local radio, I thought he made a lot of sense so looked up his web site. Here is an exctract.
Mr. Al Gore’s film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, has received a lot of publicity lately. In the film, Mr. Gore makes the assertion that climate change has become one of the moral issues of our time. Is he right?
Nature does not recognize morality, and the lion certainly feels no remorse for the gazelle. Yet in that uniquely human way, a human onlooker of a lion pack killing a gazelle intutively hopes for a speedy, and hence merciful, end for the antelope. Many books and great thinkers have examined why, but in the present context the issue is that Nature herself is morally neutral. In that sense, climate change is not a moral issue, any more than the occurrence of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami was Rather, the moral issues lie with us humans, and the ways in which we prepare for and cope with such disasters; especially, perhaps, on how we help the victims.
So did Mr. Gore mean to say that it is our moral duty to care for the victims of climate change, and help them reconstitute their livelihoods? Not really, though he would probably agree with you and I that we should do that. No, the moral issue that Mr. Gore perceives is that of humans having a duty to help prevent what he perceives as dangerous climate change.
The key issue then becomes what does Mr. Gore actually mean by the term “climate change”. To most scientists, and expressly so for those working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “climate change” means exactly what it says, and carries no implications of causation. But to millions of educated citizens who make up the electorates of modern western nations, the phrase has come to have a much more restrictive meaning; citizens, environmental lobby groups and the media all remorselessly use the phrase “climate change” to mean “human-caused climate change”. And an exactly parallel ambiguity exists for use of the phrase “global warming”, which is read by the public to mean “human-caused global warming”.
But in fact both global warming and climate change are natural phenomena. We live on a dynamic planet, and the average global temperature is always getting either hotter or colder; stasis for long periods being very unusual. As well, though, humans have a manifest effect on local climate through building cities and clearing native vegetation. Therefore most scientists believe that, summed all over globe, these local impacts must add up to a human global effect on climate. As a logical proposition that is pretty unassailable. But if the question is rephrased somewhat. as “do man’s activities have a measurable effect on global climate?” then matters are not so simple, for the answer is “no”.
It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation. Accordingly, the IPCCs alarmist case regarding dangerous human climate change rests not on empirical data, but on unvalidated computer models, failed greenhouse theory and anecdotal accounts of climate changes, such as glaciers melting, that may well be of wholly or largely natural origin.
Which leads us right back to morality. For if it cannot be established that there is a measurable human global effect on climate, let alone a dangerous one, then why should humans feel any moral imperative to try to “stop climate change”? One might as well try to stop the clouds scudding across the sky.
Yet Mr. Gore did get hold of the right word, it’s just that he then unerringly grasped the wrong end of the stick that it describes. For the real morality of climate change is not concerned with trying to prevent it - which is unnecessary, futile and expensive in roughly equal proportions - but rather lies with dealing with the all too human failings that alarmist global warming hysteria has brought out into the open.
The moral issues concerned with climate change alarmism are numerous. They include the role of the individual scientist who deliberately puts an alarmist spin on his or her results, in order to maximize the change of receiving further funding; or the parallel behaviour by the managers of research centres or groups whose funding depends upon there being a global warming problem. They include the spectacle of high-sounding environmental NGOs - in pursuit of membership subscriptions and political power - ignoring and distorting science results that do not suit their marketing agenda. They include the behaviour of prestigious science academies that have, unbelievably, tried to suppress rather than foster scientific debate on climate change. They include the bureaucrats in government greenhouse agencies who are more interested in career advancement than with making known the fact that greenhouse theory has been tested, and failed. They include the alternative energy companies who shamelessly tout their solar, windpower or other wares as a moral good, whereas in fact these means of generating power are expensive and (for windpower) environmentally damaging, and entirely unable to compete in an open market without government regulation that imposes added costs on defenceless citizens. They include the tactic of vicious and libellous personal attacks made on independent scientists who try to present a balanced view on the climate change issue - the so-called climate sceptics. They include the remorseless and shameless promulgation of environmental alarm stories by the press, in pursuit of greater daily sales success. And, finally, they include the actions of politicians who seek political advantage from cynical exploitation of the public’s fear of global warming, such as Christine Stewart, a former Canadian Environment Minister, who was quoted in 1998 in the Calgary Herald as saying that: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits … climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world”.
To step - as many climate alarmists thus do - onto the slippery slope of “the ends justifies the means” is to embark upon the moral decline now represented in the global warming debate. Mr. Gore, it seems, was right - global warming has become a moral issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Bob Carter is an experienced research geologist at James Cook University, Townsville, and a founder member of the Australian Environmental Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The morality of climate change
Professor Bob Carter
James Cook University, Townsville. Email: [email protected]
Mr. Al Gore’s film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, has received a lot of publicity lately. In the film, Mr. Gore makes the assertion that climate change has become one of the moral issues of our time. Is he right?
Nature does not recognize morality, and the lion certainly feels no remorse for the gazelle. Yet in that uniquely human way, a human onlooker of a lion pack killing a gazelle intutively hopes for a speedy, and hence merciful, end for the antelope. Many books and great thinkers have examined why, but in the present context the issue is that Nature herself is morally neutral. In that sense, climate change is not a moral issue, any more than the occurrence of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami was Rather, the moral issues lie with us humans, and the ways in which we prepare for and cope with such disasters; especially, perhaps, on how we help the victims.
So did Mr. Gore mean to say that it is our moral duty to care for the victims of climate change, and help them reconstitute their livelihoods? Not really, though he would probably agree with you and I that we should do that. No, the moral issue that Mr. Gore perceives is that of humans having a duty to help prevent what he perceives as dangerous climate change.
The key issue then becomes what does Mr. Gore actually mean by the term “climate change”. To most scientists, and expressly so for those working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “climate change” means exactly what it says, and carries no implications of causation. But to millions of educated citizens who make up the electorates of modern western nations, the phrase has come to have a much more restrictive meaning; citizens, environmental lobby groups and the media all remorselessly use the phrase “climate change” to mean “human-caused climate change”. And an exactly parallel ambiguity exists for use of the phrase “global warming”, which is read by the public to mean “human-caused global warming”.
But in fact both global warming and climate change are natural phenomena. We live on a dynamic planet, and the average global temperature is always getting either hotter or colder; stasis for long periods being very unusual. As well, though, humans have a manifest effect on local climate through building cities and clearing native vegetation. Therefore most scientists believe that, summed all over globe, these local impacts must add up to a human global effect on climate. As a logical proposition that is pretty unassailable. But if the question is rephrased somewhat. as “do man’s activities have a measurable effect on global climate?” then matters are not so simple, for the answer is “no”.
It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation. Accordingly, the IPCCs alarmist case regarding dangerous human climate change rests not on empirical data, but on unvalidated computer models, failed greenhouse theory and anecdotal accounts of climate changes, such as glaciers melting, that may well be of wholly or largely natural origin.
Which leads us right back to morality. For if it cannot be established that there is a measurable human global effect on climate, let alone a dangerous one, then why should humans feel any moral imperative to try to “stop climate change”? One might as well try to stop the clouds scudding across the sky.
Yet Mr. Gore did get hold of the right word, it’s just that he then unerringly grasped the wrong end of the stick that it describes. For the real morality of climate change is not concerned with trying to prevent it - which is unnecessary, futile and expensive in roughly equal proportions - but rather lies with dealing with the all too human failings that alarmist global warming hysteria has brought out into the open.
The moral issues concerned with climate change alarmism are numerous. They include the role of the individual scientist who deliberately puts an alarmist spin on his or her results, in order to maximize the change of receiving further funding; or the parallel behaviour by the managers of research centres or groups whose funding depends upon there being a global warming problem. They include the spectacle of high-sounding environmental NGOs - in pursuit of membership subscriptions and political power - ignoring and distorting science results that do not suit their marketing agenda. They include the behaviour of prestigious science academies that have, unbelievably, tried to suppress rather than foster scientific debate on climate change. They include the bureaucrats in government greenhouse agencies who are more interested in career advancement than with making known the fact that greenhouse theory has been tested, and failed. They include the alternative energy companies who shamelessly tout their solar, windpower or other wares as a moral good, whereas in fact these means of generating power are expensive and (for windpower) environmentally damaging, and entirely unable to compete in an open market without government regulation that imposes added costs on defenceless citizens. They include the tactic of vicious and libellous personal attacks made on independent scientists who try to present a balanced view on the climate change issue - the so-called climate sceptics. They include the remorseless and shameless promulgation of environmental alarm stories by the press, in pursuit of greater daily sales success. And, finally, they include the actions of politicians who seek political advantage from cynical exploitation of the public’s fear of global warming, such as Christine Stewart, a former Canadian Environment Minister, who was quoted in 1998 in the Calgary Herald as saying that: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits … climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world”.
To step - as many climate alarmists thus do - onto the slippery slope of “the ends justifies the means” is to embark upon the moral decline now represented in the global warming debate. Mr. Gore, it seems, was right - global warming has become a moral issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Bob Carter is an experienced research geologist at James Cook University, Townsville, and a founder member of the Australian Environmental Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a link to all Bob Carter’s scientific publications. None of them seem to relate to the causes of climate change (or for that matter, sociopolitical studies). Not totally unexpected given that he is a geologist and not a climatologist.
But more importantly you will also notice that he has been involved in many studies to do with ocean drilling so in all likelihood, he is or has been on the payroll of oil companies at some stage.
Publications
But more importantly you will also notice that he has been involved in many studies to do with ocean drilling so in all likelihood, he is or has been on the payroll of oil companies at some stage.
Publications
Last edited:
