Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
This is actually in the comments of that you tube video:
"Stuart in the black has been imbibing the capitalist kool-aid. I wonder how he'll feel when his children are living in a world with no coral reefs, un-breathable air and war as the most stable industry.
It's probably best if humans go extinct before we go to space and turn the rest of the universe into a toxic waste dump as we have done to this planet."
I don't think this person is kidding!
"Stuart in the black has been imbibing the capitalist kool-aid. I wonder how he'll feel when his children are living in a world with no coral reefs, un-breathable air and war as the most stable industry.
It's probably best if humans go extinct before we go to space and turn the rest of the universe into a toxic waste dump as we have done to this planet."
I don't think this person is kidding!
The best way to raise money is through fear. Whether it be with religion, or Al Gore's moronic drivel. "The polar ice cap will be completely melted in 5 years". Yeah right!
I find it funny that the same scientist who claim that they know what is going on (on either side of the issue)can't predict the weather with any degree of certainty, the exact path of hurricanes (they are getting better) or predict drought conditions in the future. The science fails them on this issue as well. That is because scientists look at events that have happened and find some scientific explanation with regards to either physics,climate or weather. Could it be that their limited view of the future is direct result of their being human, thus the prone to error.While we are getting better at general concepts, the minute details escape us. The earth has been around awhile and has gone through numerous changes since its formation, especially the climate. One has to wonder if our species really matters as to the changes going on around us and if we can affect a change of what may be "normal progression".
Garry
Garry
Al and Garry,
Whether you believe in climate change or not. Your gov and mine are, as well as many others. Here a little reading for you. You may like Alaska a little more.
Dave
www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009737607
Whether you believe in climate change or not. Your gov and mine are, as well as many others. Here a little reading for you. You may like Alaska a little more.
Dave
www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009737607
Dave, I believe in climate change, in 1974 headlines in the Los Angeles Times were warning of a new Ice Age. I don't believe that man or animal farts are making a profound difference in our weather. Although, from the size of Al Gore, he may be making a flatuence difference! I think that just like the church that preaches "Thou shalt not kill" and has been exterminating people like the Aztec and Incas for pillage, that the governments agenda is only to tax business and pass it along to us. The dollar is the deciding factor, not a love of the earth. I doubt that Polosi could give a rats ass about polution as she flys across the US on a taxpayer plane.
This is quite interesting!
Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com
Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Very capitalistic and entrepreneurial for a socialist tree hugger!
Follow the money!
Follow the money!
Sure is! "Do as I say" I would sure like to be worth 50 times as much as I was 9 years ago! I think Billy Mays was taken by mistake, it was supposed to be Gore!
Anybody notice the amount spent on lobbying for "climate change"? When $$$ with a B is involved, who cares about 'truth' or facts?
Gore is a genius! Like some money grubbing evangelist, you start with some 'noble' cause, propagandize it to a crisis situation, snow the gullible crusaders, then sit back and watch the $$$ roll in. The only difference here is that with charitable "donations", you have a choice. Is this a great country or what?
Scariest part is this is supposedly the best system in the world. How bad is it elsewhere?
Gore is a genius! Like some money grubbing evangelist, you start with some 'noble' cause, propagandize it to a crisis situation, snow the gullible crusaders, then sit back and watch the $$$ roll in. The only difference here is that with charitable "donations", you have a choice. Is this a great country or what?
Scariest part is this is supposedly the best system in the world. How bad is it elsewhere?
Gore is selling a hyped up bill of goods for his own enrichment, he doesn't give a damn where this country is going due to his BS. He's a whore!
Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions?
Senator Steve Fielding recently undertook a well-publicised fact-seeking trip to a climate change conference in Washington.
Listening to the papers presented, the Senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses that they provided directly contradicted the reasons that the Australian government has been giving as the justification for their emissions trading legislation.
At the Washington meeting, Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist, Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is much overestimated by current computer climate models, and then remark tellingly: “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own - quite removed from science”. Indeed.
And another scientist, astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, commented that “A ‘magical’ CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist”. Think about that for a moment with respect to our government’s current climate policy.
Quite reasonably, therefore, on his return to Canberra Senator Fielding asked Climate Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.
Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions actually are driving dangerous global warming, to help him and the public at large better assess whether cutting emissions will actually be a cost-effective environmental measure.
After all, the passed-down cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is of the order of $4,000 per family per year for a carbon dioxide tax level of $30 per tonne. And the estimated “benefit” of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.
It was our privilege to have attended the meeting between Senators Wong and Fielding at which these three questions were discussed between ourselves and the Minister’s scientific advisors, Chief Scientist Penny Wong and Director of ANU climate research centre Will Steffen.
The three simple questions that were posed were:
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
As independent scientists, we found that the Minister’s advisors were unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer these questions.
We were told with respect to the first question that it needed rephrasing, because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact that much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean. Que? What is it about “carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased” that the Minister’s science advisors don’t understand?
The second question “was the late 20th century phase of warming unusual in rate or magnitude” was effectively dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past are not relevant to policy that is concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to Professor Plimer.
And regarding the third question, and the matter of the accuracy of the IPCC’s computer models, we were assured that the models are improving all the time, and that better models still are in the pipeline. So the Minister’s advisors appeared to concede that the climate models that have guided preparation of the current ETS legislation are inadequate, but don’t you worry about that because the new, better models will get it right next time.
Scientific legerdemain, and an apparent inability to discuss the important climate change issue in simple terms that the public can understand, are not adequate responses to the crisp questions that Senator Fielding posed to the Minister and has yet to receive clear answers to.
It was reported in the Business Age last July that the Ministry of Climate Change’s Green Paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained seven scientific errors and oversimplifications in the first sentence of its opening section.
Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the balance of the scientific advice Minister Wong is receiving is quite simply inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society’s energy usage that is intended to be driven by the government’s emissions trading legislation.
All Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate Empress’s clothes have gone. Together with the Family First Senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Minister Wong’s advisors may yet provide.
Senator Steve Fielding recently undertook a well-publicised fact-seeking trip to a climate change conference in Washington.
Listening to the papers presented, the Senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses that they provided directly contradicted the reasons that the Australian government has been giving as the justification for their emissions trading legislation.
At the Washington meeting, Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist, Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is much overestimated by current computer climate models, and then remark tellingly: “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own - quite removed from science”. Indeed.
And another scientist, astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, commented that “A ‘magical’ CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist”. Think about that for a moment with respect to our government’s current climate policy.
Quite reasonably, therefore, on his return to Canberra Senator Fielding asked Climate Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.
Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions actually are driving dangerous global warming, to help him and the public at large better assess whether cutting emissions will actually be a cost-effective environmental measure.
After all, the passed-down cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is of the order of $4,000 per family per year for a carbon dioxide tax level of $30 per tonne. And the estimated “benefit” of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.
It was our privilege to have attended the meeting between Senators Wong and Fielding at which these three questions were discussed between ourselves and the Minister’s scientific advisors, Chief Scientist Penny Wong and Director of ANU climate research centre Will Steffen.
The three simple questions that were posed were:
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
As independent scientists, we found that the Minister’s advisors were unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer these questions.
We were told with respect to the first question that it needed rephrasing, because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact that much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean. Que? What is it about “carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased” that the Minister’s science advisors don’t understand?
The second question “was the late 20th century phase of warming unusual in rate or magnitude” was effectively dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past are not relevant to policy that is concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to Professor Plimer.
And regarding the third question, and the matter of the accuracy of the IPCC’s computer models, we were assured that the models are improving all the time, and that better models still are in the pipeline. So the Minister’s advisors appeared to concede that the climate models that have guided preparation of the current ETS legislation are inadequate, but don’t you worry about that because the new, better models will get it right next time.
Scientific legerdemain, and an apparent inability to discuss the important climate change issue in simple terms that the public can understand, are not adequate responses to the crisp questions that Senator Fielding posed to the Minister and has yet to receive clear answers to.
It was reported in the Business Age last July that the Ministry of Climate Change’s Green Paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained seven scientific errors and oversimplifications in the first sentence of its opening section.
Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the balance of the scientific advice Minister Wong is receiving is quite simply inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society’s energy usage that is intended to be driven by the government’s emissions trading legislation.
All Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate Empress’s clothes have gone. Together with the Family First Senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Minister Wong’s advisors may yet provide.
OK, this cannot go unanswered. When we start quoting Senetor Steve Fielding, then I know that we are clutching at straws. The fact is that the questions that the Senetor had asked, had been answered, so I don't know where you got the impression that there were no answers.
I won't bore everyone again by trying to point out every error in this post but I will select one point as an example.
QUESTION:
"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase"
ANSWER:
Senetor Fielding was very selective in his figures when he made the comment about cooling temperatures. The fact is that he picked the year 1998 as his starting point because there was a peak in the fluctuating average temperatures that year. If you do that, then it can appear that nothing substantial has happened since. Conversely, if I was to pick a trough as my starting point then it will look like there was a huge rise. He deliberately ignored the big picture so that he would not see the steady rise.
Furthermore, if you also look at the figures closely since 1998 you will notice that the next five highest average temperatures ever recorded have ocured since that peak. I will repeat that. The next FIVE HIGHEST average temperatures EVER RECORDED have happened since then. So to put it plainly, for the whole time that we have been recording temperatures the six highest on record have ocured since 1998!
Senetor Fielding has been discredited in nearly everything he has claimed. If you want to hold someone up as a hero for the anti-global-warming argument, then I think you could do better than Fielding.
I won't bore everyone again by trying to point out every error in this post but I will select one point as an example.
QUESTION:
"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase"
ANSWER:
Senetor Fielding was very selective in his figures when he made the comment about cooling temperatures. The fact is that he picked the year 1998 as his starting point because there was a peak in the fluctuating average temperatures that year. If you do that, then it can appear that nothing substantial has happened since. Conversely, if I was to pick a trough as my starting point then it will look like there was a huge rise. He deliberately ignored the big picture so that he would not see the steady rise.
Furthermore, if you also look at the figures closely since 1998 you will notice that the next five highest average temperatures ever recorded have ocured since that peak. I will repeat that. The next FIVE HIGHEST average temperatures EVER RECORDED have happened since then. So to put it plainly, for the whole time that we have been recording temperatures the six highest on record have ocured since 1998!
Senetor Fielding has been discredited in nearly everything he has claimed. If you want to hold someone up as a hero for the anti-global-warming argument, then I think you could do better than Fielding.
I was quoting the leading atmospheric physicist, Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, Fielding was a byproduct.
OK, so we might disagree over the methods used by some of the climate change evangelists, and, the state of affairs with regard to the associated economics and self interest of various parties involved.
The fact remains however that we're polluting the heck out of this planet (air, water, terra) and have been doing so for quite some time. Already the effect of this pollution is very apparent and causing problems for human health and the longevity of all living things. Take a look at a dead river that once had a vibrant salmon run or look at the acid rain corrosion on Europe's oldest architecture, or just walk around Beijing or any Chinese industrial city and you'll be impressed with the need to make a change.
The fact remains however that we're polluting the heck out of this planet (air, water, terra) and have been doing so for quite some time. Already the effect of this pollution is very apparent and causing problems for human health and the longevity of all living things. Take a look at a dead river that once had a vibrant salmon run or look at the acid rain corrosion on Europe's oldest architecture, or just walk around Beijing or any Chinese industrial city and you'll be impressed with the need to make a change.
Hi Cliff
I don't think anyone is denying the need to make cleaner fuels, less pollution etc. When I was up and about protesting Al Gore her ein Melbourne I was asked by one of the radio stations that very question. Absolutely we should be doing something to clean up our act. Just don't tell us it is about man heating up the globe with Co2 - it just seems like a a bunch of crap. I doubt anyone here is arguing against cleaner energy.
Jack
I don't think anyone is denying the need to make cleaner fuels, less pollution etc. When I was up and about protesting Al Gore her ein Melbourne I was asked by one of the radio stations that very question. Absolutely we should be doing something to clean up our act. Just don't tell us it is about man heating up the globe with Co2 - it just seems like a a bunch of crap. I doubt anyone here is arguing against cleaner energy.
Jack
Cliff,Jack,
The earth is changing. The post I did earler on the Artic was to show how territory and borders will affect us. The polar ice mass has been reduced by 30% in the last 5 years alone. It maybe none existant in our own lifetime. The eco-system is a delicate one. The main concern will be increased shipping due to the Northwest Passage being open all year. The main concern there is that our Russian friends will develop the areas for oil. There tanker fleet is not compiled with the most modern double walled tankers. We all have to work together and change the way we do things.
Dave
The earth is changing. The post I did earler on the Artic was to show how territory and borders will affect us. The polar ice mass has been reduced by 30% in the last 5 years alone. It maybe none existant in our own lifetime. The eco-system is a delicate one. The main concern will be increased shipping due to the Northwest Passage being open all year. The main concern there is that our Russian friends will develop the areas for oil. There tanker fleet is not compiled with the most modern double walled tankers. We all have to work together and change the way we do things.
Dave
What no one has convinced me of is that this climate change is really based upon CO2 or is it something else. There is direct evidence that the glaciers are melting at an alarming rate and the Polar Ice Cap is as well. And yes, we have enormous pollution problems,especially in China. The question that I have about the current "climate models" based on CO2 levels is that the origional premise this measurement is the single source to base these theories upon may not be the whole story.
Since we have been recording climate change for such a short period with respect to the earths formation, how accurate is the analysis? Anyone can postulate a theory and support that theory with statistical data that appears to prove the theory to be true. However, real understanding of problems come from exstensive testing and trial and error. The combined knowledge of climate science is as tiny as our own understanding of our universe and subject to new discoveries all of the time.
As I pointed out in my last post, the observational perspective often affects the outcome of experiments and leads to false conclusions.
Some of you will say we must 'DO SOMETHING!" to head off this problem and in our own arrogance we might make a problem worse. I don't have to give you examples, as you can see for yourself this trend in the headlines of today and the recent history of the world.
Let's all agree that something is going on, but this global cap and trade for carbon emmisions is political (can anyone say money?) and proof that this will change the climate is premature at best. In the past the earth has had more extreme levels of CO2 than is present today. While that may bode ill for the human race, it led to the development of new species of plants and animals that evolved into what we are today. So to all of you who claim to "see" the future based upon a narrow observational window, I say take a chill pill and do your homework.
I'll stop my rant now and let others lend their voices to this opinion.
Garry:shy:
Since we have been recording climate change for such a short period with respect to the earths formation, how accurate is the analysis? Anyone can postulate a theory and support that theory with statistical data that appears to prove the theory to be true. However, real understanding of problems come from exstensive testing and trial and error. The combined knowledge of climate science is as tiny as our own understanding of our universe and subject to new discoveries all of the time.
As I pointed out in my last post, the observational perspective often affects the outcome of experiments and leads to false conclusions.
Some of you will say we must 'DO SOMETHING!" to head off this problem and in our own arrogance we might make a problem worse. I don't have to give you examples, as you can see for yourself this trend in the headlines of today and the recent history of the world.
Let's all agree that something is going on, but this global cap and trade for carbon emmisions is political (can anyone say money?) and proof that this will change the climate is premature at best. In the past the earth has had more extreme levels of CO2 than is present today. While that may bode ill for the human race, it led to the development of new species of plants and animals that evolved into what we are today. So to all of you who claim to "see" the future based upon a narrow observational window, I say take a chill pill and do your homework.
I'll stop my rant now and let others lend their voices to this opinion.
Garry:shy:
I agree with Gary, our weather data over 200 years is less than miniscule to even begin to draw thoeries from. Here's an "in our lifetime" example. The temperature in Phoenix Arizona is over 100 F everyday except for a short time in the winter and it is generally a desert. However, I've seen pictures of corn growing there in the early 1900's. Our heavy fossil fuel usage wasn't until fairly lately so the climate change there was not due to us. Another problem is that the global warming theory cannot be disproved. When it is mentioned that record low temps are being recorded, the gw advocates say see, that's due to global warming. They then say that all the data supports the thoery, which is BS.
