Climate change

Again, all climatologists agree that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
Two of the things that bother me with Easterbrook's conclusions: 1) he downplays the
steady increase in temp since 1500, even taking into account the Little Ice Age, and
provides no explanation
Ian, Wouldn't you say that an increase in temp begining in 1500 was most likely natural? Not a lot of cars, cow & Gore flatuence, and industrial polution 1500 to 1900.
Actually, starting in the 1500s, the rate of population growth started to increase
significantly. Without knowing for sure, I would say that the increase in fires to
keep people warm probably helped start the climb in temp due to increases in
pollutants in the air. The world population is estimated at 310 million in 1000 AD,
hitting 450 million in 1340, before the Black Plague reduced it back to about 350 million in 1400, and then reaching about 500 million in 1500 AD, and almost 1 billion by 1800 (1804 is
thought to be when 1 billion was hit).

And, as I said before, my problem is that Easterbrook doesn't even try to explain
why, but his theories really hinge upon some sort of explanation about the temp
increase starting in 1500 that might support them. To dismiss it off hand as he
does is rather self-serving and not at all scientific. And, on top of that, he doesn't
even touch on the sharp increase starting around the Industrial Revolution, for
obvious reasons.

Ian
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
It seems that this debate although very interesting is going nowhere.
Both sides will not accept the others point of view.
Interesting that the politicians that are pushing this barrow are flying all over the world in their (sorry our) jets to climate change conferences. Jet aircraft measure their fuel loads in thousands of pounds. The 747-400 for instance has a fuel capacity of 390,000.lbs of fuel.
Al Gore the guy who started this CO2 fantasy flies his private jet all over with no regard to the atmosphere and his mansion uses extravagant amounts of energy
The hypocrisy of these people is .....I was going to say is unbelievable, but sadly it is very believable.
I hope that those of you who are pushing the climate change/ carbon trading barrow in three or four years time are not on this forum moaning about the increase in taxes and the cost of fuel, food, energy,transport and housing.
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter


“Puppets and Pay-offs in Carbonia”.






The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that Malcolm Turnbull was wrong to negotiate on the Ration-N-Tax Scheme and the opposition should reject it.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the backbench were right in rejecting Penny Wong’s flawed legislation – they are reflecting the interests of the real Australia outside the urban greens and the Big Business Councils.

“Even if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing and real leaders will explain that clearly.”

He explains:

“Malcolm Turnbull says that business wants the “certainty” of the Ration-N-Tax Scheme. There can be no certainty on the amount of damage a Ration-N-Tax Scheme will do to jobs and industry. The only certainty is that it will not affect the climate. The only way to get a “certain” outcome is to reject this bill entirely.

“Those calling for “certainty” are mainly the voices of vested interests.

“For example, the “Carbon Market Expo” to be held soon on the Gold Coast boasts that ‘more than 70 businesses will have exhibits’. They include carbon bankers, brokers, accountants, auditors, asset managers, investment managers, consultants, controllers, certifiers, verifiers and registries; emissions trading, carbon offsets and carbon rewards groups; forest service and green fleet firms; recruitment, R&D and PR advisers; infrastructure and engineering contractors; University academics and of course all the well travelled bureaucrats from the federal, state and local “climate smart” departments.

“Similar lobbies service the alternative energy and carbon sequestration “businesses”.

“Despite their totally mercenary aims, these people paint visions of “Carbonia”. This is a mystic land where only green carbon is permitted to exist, where nymphs and gnomes skip through sylvan forests of indigenous vegetation, where gentle breezes and warm showers are never disturbed by snow storms or heat waves, where floods, droughts and bushfires are unknown, and where a planned economic depression has ensured there are no nasty farms, factories, mines or motor engines.

“None of these green “businesses” could exist without taxes on real industries using carbon fuels - food, travel, electricity, steel, cement, chemicals and manufactured goods. Increased costs for consumers of these essentials are certain. Is this the “certainty” the Liberals are promoting?

“Let’s turn a spotlight onto the puppets in Parliament.

“The Labor Party dances to the fiddles and flutes of the green fairies, and their expected pay-off is election preference deals. The Liberals dance to the big bass drums of business who seek “exemptions”.

“Who cares that farmers are leaving the land in droves, fishermen are leaving the sea and factories are migrating to China?

“Senator Wong’s Ration-N-Tax Scheme must be rejected.”

Viv Forbes
MS 23, Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia
Phone 0754 640 533
www.carbon-sense.com

Viv Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.
 
I just have to chime in about the so called hypocrisy concerning people like Al Gore flying around in jets. Let's be real people - you must be missing the point. How is Al Gore suppose to travel great distances in his compressed time schedule without flying in a jet? That's the whole point - he has no reasonable alternative. Certainly the average Joe doesn't. Please Pete - enlighten us to other reasonable forms of travel that these people could be using.
 
Scott - although I am not knocking what you seem to be saying with your links, I do have to add that global warming does not and never has meant that every single spot on the globe is rising in temperature from here on out. Also, the absence of a high temperature record in the past 11 years when we are looking at centuries worth of trend is hardly a blip on the graph. Let's be rational here.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I just have to chime in about the so called hypocrisy concerning people like Al Gore flying around in jets. Let's be real people - you must be missing the point. How is Al Gore suppose to travel great distances in his compressed time schedule without flying in a jet? That's the whole point - he has no reasonable alternative. Certainly the average Joe doesn't. Please Pete - enlighten us to other reasonable forms of travel that these people could be using.
How about teleconferencing? the technology is there to do it world wide without leaving the office.
Also I understand that businessmen and Politicians need to fly from time to time, but don't preach to me about my light bulbs and V8's while doing it and a lot of it I classify as unnecessary junkets.
 
Right on Pete. Al Gore was recently in Melbounre (I actually protested. First time in my life). What was he doing here? Preaching to people about climate change (he doesn't talk anymore because he doesn'tt ake questions). the reviews in the paper of his speech were luke warm (no pun intended) with nearly every one mentioning that it was the same stuff (same jokes even) from the last time he visited. Seriously this guy must never have heard of teleconferencing. What a statement it would have been if he accepted his Nobel Peace prize (another worthy Democrat award winner) by not flying over to get it. He coulde asily have recorded a video message explaining how he was taking the opprotunity to set an example of how people can reduce their Co2 fottprint. BUT NO, he has to fly thier to get it. I have ZERO respect for that guy.
 
Good point Pete - teleconferencing is a good alternative, but not all the time. Sometimes appearing in person makes a huge impact.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Yet another bit of climate change/ "The sky is falling" hysteria.


DRASTIC measures to save our coastline are being considered amid warnings almost 250,000 buildings are vulnerable to rising sea levels, floods and erosion.
A massive overhaul in local planning laws, insurance and managing tourist numbers has been recommended in a new Federal Government report that has warned of a perilous future for its coastline.
The 18-month inquiry – Managing Our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate – pointed to research showing Queensland faced the biggest dilemma.
"Queensland's highly developed and populated coastal communities, such as the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, will be particularly affected by the predicted increase of sea levels and floods," the report said.
"With almost 250,000 vulnerable coastal buildings, Queensland is at the highest risk from all Australian states from projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion."
Because 80 per cent of the national population live in coastal areas, the report is another weapon in the Government's fight for tough climate change mitigation and support for its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
And in a move that could severely undermine or financially impact on households and businesses, the report acknowledged problems with insurance in some coastal areas.
"(The Government should direct the Productivity Commission to inquire on) possible responses to a withdrawal of insurance for certain risks or regions, noting the increased burden this could place on government and taxpayers."
The report comes as the Queensland Government raised concerns about the ability for some councils to plan for and adapt to climate change.
The report by the House of Representatives called for the Federal Government to undertake an assessment of coastal infrastructure vulnerability and consider a "Government instrument that prohibits continued occupation of the land or future building development on the property due to sea hazard".
The committee members implied national laws should be considered, which could potentially take some power away from councils.
They said there was a "need for national leadership to promote sustainable use of Australia's coastal zone".
It said an intergovernmental agreement should be established to define the roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local governments involved in coastal management, and it should be overseen by a Coastal Zone Ministerial Council.

Counterpoint.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
 
Last edited:
Beware of the treaty on climate change in Denmark this December...What we all really need is United Nations control of our National policies, economy and the international enforcement of penalties for those nations that do not comply.
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that the groups or individuals pushing the global warming hoax are politicians looking to gain more power and scientists that are looking for big bucks in the form of grants from governments. Of course, there are con artists such as Al Gore who are looking to profit from the scam. The burr under their saddles are the scientists and clear thinkers who won't be quiet.

Check out this little study which is one of many:
2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction
Moberg, A., et al. 2005
2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2005-019.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

ABSTRACT:
A number of reconstructions of millennial-scale climate variability have been carried out in order to understand patterns of natural climate variability, on decade to century timescales, and the role of anthropogenic forcing. These reconstructions have mainly used tree-ring data and other data sets of annual to decadal resolution. Lake and ocean sediments have a lower time resolution, but provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data. Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data. Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model. According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.

GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Northern Hemisphere
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1 - 1979 AD
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Ah yes... yet ANOTHER government tactic to ensure the population remains unnecessarily alarmed, overly-concerned, distracted from the real issues, but most critically -- to the government -- easily malleable and relatively powerless. we need to see these cynical climate "reports" for what they are -- panic-mongering by dictatorial governments for their own vested interests.
 
Just a few points:

1) Plants use CO2 to create oxygen during the day, but consume oxygen and create CO2 at
night. People also falsely believe that increases in CO2 in the air will lead to better plant
growth, though studies show that the opposite actually occurs.

Ian
That is true, but the amount of Oxygen that gets absorbed and CO2 emitted during the night is miniscule compared to the amount of co2 absorbed/Oxygen released during the day. They produce as much as 10 times the amount of oxygen during the day as they absorb during the night.

Also that is wrong about plants not liking a higher consecration of co2.

“The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a univesally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.”

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide on Plant Growth
 
Top