OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

[Trevor Wilson]

yaputya wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984nl5FuhmU3@mid.individual.net...

snip
**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime.
More than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature
of the planet would rise,

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
snip
Just had a look at your cite Trevor, Arrhenius was brilliant - no
doubt - he also thought global warming
would be a good thing, not a bad thing !!!

**Correct. You need to understand where Arrhenius lived to appreciate why
thought that more CO2 was a good idea. Unfortunately, the information
Arrheius had to work with was scant and he was clearly unaware of many of
the ramifications of a warming planet.

Arrhenius thought the

natural increase in CO2 caused by the
increased human influence would avert an ice age and a potential mass
starvation due to lack of food-

**Indeed. He thought exactly that. Fortunately we now have a lot more
information about the ramifications of a warming planet and realise that
Arrheius' OPINIONS on what may or may not be good for the planet were
unscientific speculation.

something that clever man thought would be much worse than any warming
trend. You can grow plants
in a greenhouse but not in freezer, something that has been
overlooked.

**Huh? Direct me to where the climatologists have been claiming that the
planet is cooling. What YOU seem to be overlooking is that it is going to be
very difficult to grow crops under sea water. Long before that becomes a
problem, however, there will be massive shifts in where crops can be
successfully grown.

And that is one of the points that is being glossed over these days -
given that the earth is warming (for
whatever reason)), isn't it a huge risk not to spend most of the
available money on adapting to the trend
to ensure the survival of our species by focussing on food production
instead of wasting it on
futile attempts to reverse what may be inevitable climate change?

**Short answer: No.

Long answer: How do you suggest we deal with the expected 75 Metres of sea
level rise and the consequent destruction of arable and inhabited land?
Bangladesh, for instance, will lose huge amounts of valuable land, placing
many millions of people searching for a place to live. Australia, perhaps?

(This is already happening, of course. The smart money is going to
research projects around the
world that are developing food crops that will thrive in the expected
warmer conditions.)

**I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it is vital. However,
mitigation of the problem is a far better course of action.

We are going to run out of fossil fuels when all the oil, coal and
gas is extracted, so the atmospheric
CO2 from humans cannot increase forever.

**No one said it would. It COULD reach toxic levels though. There is enough
carbon on the planet to poison all the humans (after burning). That said,
you seem to miss the looming problem. Commonly referred to as the 'tipping
point'. It is estimated that when atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach
500ppm, that there will be nothing we can do stop runaway warming of 6
degrees C or more. At this point, the methane will be released from the
permafrost regions (which is starting to occur now), thus causing a dramatic
increase in the warming. Outgassing of CO2 from the oceans will add to the
effect. No one has figured how to prevent the runaway, once it starts.
Forget about crops. The massive sea level rise will finish off much of our
society. The cost will be incalculable.

There is a natural brake on

how long us feeble humans
can influence atmospheric CO2.

**Is there? What would that "brake" be? Please describe the action and cite
your science in your proof.

And if global warming continues for

centuries after we have stopped
burning fossil fuels because some other factor takes over, we will
have wasted our time and effort in
pandering to contemporary political pressures, eh?

**That much you have right. After most of the people have been wiped from
this planet, anthropogenic CO2 emissions will fall. In a few tens of
thousands of years (or a few hundred thousand years), then the planet may
return to the state that it resembles today. Of course, our civilisation
will have been destroyed in the process.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

F Murtz wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:09 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have
told us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of
science

** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now.

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy
may dispute what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will
be pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades
of his research was a waste of time.



It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

** No science involved in either.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is
pointless? Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?



But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the
driver.

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are
correct and the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the
talk-back radio hosts are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are
rising to levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to
our climate. * A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and
talk-back radio hosts, with all their climate expertise, claim that
the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.



So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform
experiments,

**Are you certain about that?

** How absurd.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.



have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime.
More than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature
of the planet would rise,

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already
familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier



What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious
nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a
good starting point:

www.ipcc.ch



A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust
even if your life depended on it.

**Really? Got some proof of that?



are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

**Nup. Just the science and logic.



Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think
they're honest?



How about the climategate "scientists" caught with their pants down
fabricating data ??

**Really? Cite which data was fabricated.




You're dreaming.



BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that
has been observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2,
then what is it?

** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement
error, statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and
go the other way in the future.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature
in more than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor
recent. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/i...



THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide
disaster from Global Cooling !!!

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from
religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and
journalists.
THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate
more CO2 to fix it !!!!!

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing
less warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on
warming has been known for quite some time. If more pollution is
emitted, then the worst effects of the warming trend may be able to
be mitigated for awhile. Of course, when the skies
clear...............



The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are
frightening.

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just
religious fools.



That isnt a very scientific observation

**Yes, it is. The overwhelming amonut of scientific evidence
supports the notion of AGW. Anyone who denies the overwhelming bulk
of science can only be regarded as an idiot, or a religious
ignoramous. Given that some of the most outspoken people happne to
be Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, George Pell and Monckton, it is only
reasonable to assume that the Catholic Church has some kind of
interest in promulgating a mistrust of good science. Given the
history of the Catholics, this should surprise no one.




You are making a basic mistake in deriding these individuals none of
whom have credentials in these subject and do not claim to.

**Incorrect. ALL those individuals have the same access to information from
climatologists that I do. Their ignorance stems from the fact that they
choose to ignore what the climatologists say and believe what some religious
nutter, or talk-back radio host says about AGW.

Either the climatologists are correct about the climate, or the talk-back
radio hosts are. I know who I am putting my money on.

They are

getting their material from others who are working in these fields,

**No, they're not. The people who work in climatology tells us that AGW is a
major problem. Those who work in radio, religion or geology claim otherwise.
Of course, none of those people has any real experience in climatology.

I

don't know who they are or their credentials.
The only sin is their repeating the material you disagree with which
is automatically wrong by your thinking.

**Nope. They are wrong, according to the climatologists.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bom-chief-lashes-pell-over-climate-stance-20110222-1b324.html


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:
no one <krawczuk@adam.com.au> wrote:
you retarded or what , its the NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES TAHT WE
SEE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..
...
LOL. Can you prove that negative?
**No point arguing with this one Kym. It's either a 9 year old kid,
or a brain damaged adult. Either way, there's not enough
intelligence to waste your time with.

Ah, well. I was trying for entertainment value.

**I guess. With an opponent that is so clearly deranged (or very young), I
don't see any value in bothering.

When I was growing up out in the stix of SA the olds taught us
kids the "bait the travelling salesman" game.

The object of the game was never entirely clear but the rules were
definitely time-varying. Some easy points were usually scored
by getting the guy to admit something they claimed as "free"
was not free.

I remember some happy times watching some guy get the treatment.
Mum and Dad (both veteran cops) would start off slow, but as the pace
increased and the questions became tricky the guy would usually
contradicted himself a few times before the errors were underlined to
him a few times. Even if the shade temp wasn't into triple digits he
would be sweating to explain why black was white and white was black
in order to close the sale. Not they anyone was going to buy the
over-priced brushes anyway.

In this case I was hoping the guy was either going to claim CO2
was not a greenhouse gas, or that no-one was burning anything, or
maybe that CO2 knows the different between being added to the atm
by Man or natural processes.

**Fair enough. Good with it. It appears to be too stupid to appreciate being
caught in a contradiction. At least the other opponents have some
intelligence. It's just that they choose not to use it in this matter.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
...

To share a small joke. I just read a headline roughly along
the lines of "The US may be sweltering, but it's nowhere near
the record for heatwaves".

About 1/2 the US has seen a week or 2 with daily max into triple
digits. Fairly unusual.

But optimism knowing no bounds, the writer of the article
pointed out there was nothing to worry about because the
2 wks was nowhere near the record -- 154 consecutive days
with max over 100 F.

Of course that's in Death Valley.

The joke part?

We're comparing population centres in the US with Death Valley
and congratulating ourselves it ain't as hot as that, now, are we?

**It is truly sad. I complain about Australians, but, for Americans, this
issue is simply not even on the radar (well, most of them).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Alan wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.

Isn't that what was said to the people that claimed the Earth was
round and those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the
universe.

**Er, nope. The SCIENTISTS stated that the Earth was round(ish) and that the
Earth was not at the centre of the universe. The religious nutters claimed
otherwise. Not unlike the situation we have today. The scientists
(climatologists) have patiently supplied their data which demonstrates that
AGW is occuring. The relgious fruitloops (Abbott, Pell, Minchin, Monckton,
et al) claim they are wrong.

How many times have our illustrious scientists told us something that
was "absoloutely correct" only to have the claim proved wrong later?

**That's you cliam. You tell us. Whilst you are at it, tell us how many
times the religious fruitcakes have been correct, vs. the scientists.

And usually not just one scientist but hundreds and thousands of them.

**And there are BILLIONS of religious nutters on this planet. Guess what?
The religious nutters are wrong and the scientists are right.

Climate change is absolutely true - it happens every day and
everywhere.

**That's the weather, you idiot.

AWG on the other hand is not proven to be true, except by

the people that want to make money out of it.

**Prove it. In your proof, you may care to note who pays Monckton (Gina
Rhinehart), Alan Jones (Gina Rhinehart), Plimer (Gina Rhinehart and the
fossil fuel industry), et al. Who do you think earns the most money?

Alan Jones, Monckton and Plimer, or this guy?

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

And the UN is the

biggest proponent of AWG to keep us all scared!

**Prove it. Submit your science that proves the IPCC is incorrect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Alan wrote:

On 14 Jul 2011 09:32:15 GMT, kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

Alan <noone@128.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.
Isn't that what was said to the people that claimed the Earth was
round and those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the
universe.
...

You are confused about which ones are the scientists.

The scientists are the ones that go out and measure things that
confirm or not an initial hypothesis.


I'm not confused about which ones are scientists - some of the so
called scientists are!

**You are seriously deluded and very, very confused. The religious nutters
claimed that the Earth was flat and that it was at the centre of the
universe. It took scientists to prove otherwise. NO different to the
situation we have today. Monckton, Abbott, Minchin and Pell are all
religious fruitcakes that claim the scientists are wrong. You keep putting
your faith in the religious nutters and see how far you get in an argument.

The majority of scientists do NOT "go out and measure things that
confirm or not an initial hypothesis" but accept what they are
"taught" about a whole range of things - just like the rest of us.
Very few scientists will actually check that all these things are true
by doing their own confirmation experiments for any hypotheses.

**Clearly, you have zero idea of any real scientists. I suggest you contact
a few and ask questions. Stop talking to your religious instructors. They
know fuck all about science. As do you.

True, they may read "papers" and consider them "good science" but the
majority will never repeat those experiments to confirm the results
for themselves.

**Utter and complete bullshit.

And this is true in many day to day activities of us

"normal" people where we learn something in school, university, etc.
and use that as the basis for our future expansion of that subject.
Sometimes using this approach comes unstuck when an anomaly is found
and then "exceptions to the rule" are created to mask the problem.

The trouble with proving AGW is that they haven't actually "proved"
that the Earth will be 2 degrees (or whatever) hotter in 100 years
time.

**How can they? No one can. The predictions are based on what has occured in
the past 100 years. The planet has warmed, due to the influence of higher
CO2 emissions. The data gathered suggests that a MINIMUM 2 degree C rise is
highly likely (95% confidence).

They are just claiming that by extrapolating graphs of what has

happened in the recent past.

**Duh.

It's like me saying that if I accelerate

my car linearly from 0 to 100kph in 10 mins that I will be driving at
200kph in 20 mins or 600kph in 60 mins.

**No. It is nothing like that. That is YOUR strawman. YOu built it, you burn
it down.

Perfectly reasonable if I

draw a graph of speed against time and then extrapolate from the 10
min point onwards. The only trouble is that when I reach the 10 min
mark I may start linearly breaking and slow the car to a dead stop at
the 20 min mark - then where does my future speed hypothsis stand?

**Think on this:

If the fire brigade came knocking on your door and told you that there was a
95% probability that your house would burn down (within 1 year), due to a
set of specific circumstances, would you:

A) Cancel your household fire insurance?
B) Renew your household fire insurance?
C) Deal with as many of the specific circumstances that you could?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Buzz^|]

There is a natural brake on
how long us feeble humans
can influence atmospheric CO2.

**Is there? What would that "brake" be? Please describe the action and cite
your science in your proof.

And if global warming continues for
centuries after we have stopped
burning fossil fuels because some other factor takes over, we will
have wasted our time and effort in
pandering to contemporary political pressures, eh?

**That much you have right. After most of the people have been wiped from
this planet, anthropogenic CO2 emissions will fall. In a few tens of
thousands of years (or a few hundred thousand years), then the planet may
return to the state that it resembles today. Of course, our civilisation
will have been destroyed in the process.

END OF PROBLEM.

I personally can't see a problem with that at all. The cycle of life and
all that. This whole global warming scam will just blow over, it's just
a grab for your dollar, like a worldwide Nigerian scam.

The only real threat is to humans and a few other species will get
sucked down as well, there's always plenty left. To doom sayers like
yourself you need to look at the real problem with the planet, there are
simply too many people living well beyond the means of the planet to
cope. The real way to "SAVE" the planet is to restrict population
growth, "by any means". There is no other real solution. 1 child per
woman for the next 10 generations should do it.

Have you ever tried or have you ever known people to live carbon
neutral? I know many that do. That does not mean only produce ?t of
carbon a day, it means only producing as much as you personally
recapture. Thanks to modern trends the number of people living like this
is diminishing each year. You won't ever go to living like this, so
don't preach about how paying an extra few dollars in tax will stop it.

Paying an extra 10% for everything won't fix anything, don't pretend it
will. In the long run you need to cut consumption of all goods by 90%,
bet you wouldn't stand for that at all. The modern consumer world can
not continue indefinitely, you can't keep digging up raw materials,
transport it around the world, only to throw them away after 1 use. How
can that continue forever?

Wake up and smell the roses, enjoy what we have here and now, and screw
anyone coming too late to the table to get the good prawns. Eventually
the sun will expand and consume this planet anyway.


--
Brad Leyden
6° 43.5816' S 146° 59.3097' E WGS84
To mail spam is really hot but please
reply to thread so all may benefit
(or laugh at my mistakes)