ozopenletter.com

Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Diversity => Environment => Topic started by: Poddy on July 28, 2015, 10:58:59 PM

Title: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on July 28, 2015, 10:58:59 PM

http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com/

Comments anyone?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on August 03, 2015, 01:47:49 PM
Welcome to Global Warming.
For the first time since I have been in this area, around 20 years, I was greeted with this.

Please create more CO2

(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4161_03_08_15_1_41_50.jpeg)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: janeababe on August 03, 2015, 04:03:05 PM
Looks absolutely beautiful Poddy.

We had snow a few weeks back. We sometimes get snow here (Central West NSW), but we had BIG SNOW fall twice in 8 days.....
It was beautiful.
Taken from my loungeroom window, my front garden.   :)

(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4163_03_08_15_3_59_16.jpeg)
(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4163_03_08_15_3_57_58.jpeg)
(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4163_03_08_15_3_58_31.jpeg)
The last pic, it was blowing and blowing....

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on August 03, 2015, 04:11:16 PM
It's all this Global Warming they keep yapping about that is the cause
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: joz on August 03, 2015, 08:29:41 PM
yeah.. it showed right up to QLD too. that's never happened before?! please don't be alarmed
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on August 03, 2015, 09:49:24 PM
The Ice Age is coming, The Ice Age is coming, The Ice Age is coming
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: janeababe on August 04, 2015, 05:12:12 PM
yeah.. it showed right up to QLD too. that's never happened before?! please don't be alarmed

AHHHHHHHHHH  HHAAAAAAA!!!!   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I now know who you are...    WOOHOO....  finally. LOL

... and you're right, we have always been friends. 
 :-* :-*
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: joz on August 04, 2015, 05:24:06 PM
Shorten, another typo  ::), that must have gave me away :tanti:


shyte gets filtered huh? blimey moses
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: joz on August 04, 2015, 05:27:04 PM
or was it the crack about denialists  ???  ;D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 07, 2015, 05:05:02 PM
 Snow in odd places and shortly after 2pm on monday, Melbourne hit 32.8 degrees, making it the hottest maximum temperature at this time of year since records began
But it didn't end there. The temperature in the city went on to peak at 34.4 degrees just after 4.30pm, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

unseasonable heat and snow .. more to look forward to as well . Climate seems to be changing ?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on October 07, 2015, 05:12:09 PM
Snow in odd places and shortly after 2pm on monday, Melbourne hit 32.8 degrees, making it the hottest maximum temperature at this time of year since records began
But it didn't end there. The temperature in the city went on to peak at 34.4 degrees just after 4.30pm, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

unseasonable heat and snow .. more to look forward to as well . Climate seems to be changing ?

I think that climate change is definitely accelerating and I think it's due to human activity on the planet.

Deniers like to laugh at the global warming theory, but I don't think the extreme temperatures and freak weather conditions are necessarily attributable to the temperature of the globe.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 07, 2015, 05:19:22 PM
 there is little doubt left . i try and avoid the terms denier and alarmist as they are used for the purposes of political agenda (one that involves shifting as much coal as possible before it reaches it's use-by date (which was around 1970 )  :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 07, 2015, 05:40:34 PM
But FL the climate has ALWAYS changed and it always will.

By the way do you REALLY think a tax will alter the weather??
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 07, 2015, 06:23:22 PM
 Hi poddy , ''a tax wont change the weather '' is probably on the face of it a true statement . But if you look at the problem from a strategic point of view and ask "will a tax change behavior ?" and the answer ''yes'' is more than likely correct also.
Direct action involves gifting power producers tax , the government pays them to lower emissions and the money comes from our pockets .Call me a  leftie but i really think they should pay to pollute as we do under the current arrangements . 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 07, 2015, 06:42:00 PM
FL historic and conclusive evidence has shown that a tax on a commodity has little or no effect on its use, example, in my living memory the tax on tobacco and booze has skyrocketed by a factor or 20 times. Did it modify its usage, Nup.
Petroleum is another candidate

Carbon credits trading was/is a scheme devised to sell what? OH that is right NOTHING, good trick if you can get the gullible to swallow it
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Punchy on October 07, 2015, 06:55:30 PM
I agree with poddy, the climate has always changed. I believe we are having an effect on it, but I'm not convinced its as catastrophic an effect as people would like us to believe. And I don't think a tax on businesses will stop them polluting, they'll just jack up the price of the end product so we pay for it and keep on doing what they're doing.

A couple of things I'd like to see happen is less mass produced throwaway stuff that ends up in landfill (phones, tvs, computers, toys etc) they should make things to last like they used to. But I doubt we'll ever see that again, we're conditioned to want the newest and the best now :( I also wish they'd stop bulldozing forests, that can never be a good thing.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 07, 2015, 07:06:16 PM
 Thing is that you pay the tax anyway. Direct action pays polluters taxpayer dollars . It is a carbon tax except we pay it . I prefer the idea of polluters paying all politics aside. I didn't receive any reductions after the repeal of the CT, nor the $550 i was promised.
The CT repeal is a net loss for australian households when you consider the money now comes out of general revenue (loss) and prices haven't gone down.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 07, 2015, 07:16:08 PM
The emphasis on the changes in the climate is limited to a tiny slice in the history of the planet. If a much larger slice is examined it will be seen that there have been catastrophic  changes in the climate without mankind having any influence on those changes.
The myriad of factors that control the climate system are complex and variable, there is no computer model that takes all those factors into account. For instance the largest by far greenhouse gas is water vapour the proportion of which is 98% of all greenhouse gasses but that is somehow left out of the computer model, because it does not suit the agenda of creating a non existant threat that we have to be saved from by parting with our cash and liberties
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 07, 2015, 07:19:25 PM
 I'll agree to disagree .  :) 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Punchy on October 07, 2015, 07:23:15 PM
The emphasis on the changes in the climate is limited to a tiny slice in the history of the planet

Exactly! The hottest/coldest/wettest day ever recorded doesn't mean much when we've only been recording for a little over a century.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on October 08, 2015, 09:14:34 AM
Looks absolutely beautiful Poddy.

We had snow a few weeks back. We sometimes get snow here (Central West NSW), but we had BIG SNOW fall twice in 8 days.....
It was beautiful.
Taken from my loungeroom window, my front garden.   :)

(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4163_03_08_15_3_59_16.jpeg)
(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4163_03_08_15_3_57_58.jpeg)
(http://ozopenletter.com/gallery/4163_03_08_15_3_58_31.jpeg)
The last pic, it was blowing and blowing....

is that around Orange?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on October 08, 2015, 09:19:01 AM
The worst of the newest polluting items is: wet wipes and coffee pods. It's massive and uncontrollable, the damage it is doing is huge. Wet wipes don't disintegrate and pods take year and years to degrade and millions of them are being used every day.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on October 08, 2015, 09:21:20 AM
The worst of the newest polluting items is: wet wipes and coffee pods. It's massive and uncontrollable, the damage it is doing is huge. Wet wipes don't disintegrate and pods take year and years to degrade and millions of them are being used every day.

It's astonishing the amount of waste  and pollution we're creating.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 08, 2015, 09:42:24 AM
The worst of the newest polluting items is: wet wipes and coffee pods. It's massive and uncontrollable, the damage it is doing is huge. Wet wipes don't disintegrate and pods take year and years to degrade and millions of them are being used every day.

It's astonishing the amount of waste  and pollution we're creating.

and that's just the stuff we can see
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on October 08, 2015, 10:07:59 AM
and it's escalating.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on October 08, 2015, 10:36:27 AM
Well, it's not warming up in this neck of the woods. I'm still wearing my winter PJs and have to sleep wearing socks!
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on October 08, 2015, 10:43:53 AM
Here in Sydney it's cooled down a lot too in the low 20s today.

As compared to a Tuesday was up to 35.

It's not so much about the globe can't be warming because the weather's colder, it's about the temperature extremes in short spaces of time.

OMG now wer'e talking about the weather :-[  ;D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on October 08, 2015, 11:06:01 AM


OMG now wer'e talking about the weather :-[  ;D

Now we'll be accused of being a stringer.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on October 09, 2015, 09:23:20 AM
The weather gets hyped every day, records quoted and pictures of a lone tree fallen. Frankly I'm sick of it.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 09, 2015, 01:20:05 PM
The whole issue was the brainchild of financiers and  government bodies to sell a nonexistent commodity to the gullible using fear tactics.
That ploy has been used constantly, it is a tried and true method, the mafia have been using it for centuries. 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 09, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
 Poddy in light of your post i wonder if you can explain why big energy conglomerates fund bodies that deny climate change ? There seems to be something wrong there. Especially in light of virtual scientific consensus on the matter . The only holdouts are those payed by entities like the koch brothers to do so.
I think a con is being attempted as you say .. the only problem is you have it in reverse  :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on October 09, 2015, 05:58:31 PM
The great global warming religion :-<
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 09, 2015, 06:04:47 PM
I would really like to see some concrete evidence that people who do not swallow the global warming scan are being paid to be skeptical

The IPCC have been exposed as cooking the book on many occasions.
And if you are referring to the 97% concensus then I suggest that you research where that figure came from. 97% concensus on ANITHING is unheard of.
The whole deal is a monumental con fed to the general gullible populace by the money movers trading in mega dollars worth of an intangible commodity called carbon credits.

By the way why was the title Global Warming changed to Climate Change? Oh that's right the globe is not warming and the climate is forever changing and has done since time immemorial.




Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 09, 2015, 06:08:31 PM
Furthermore since the globe is not warming, what do you attribute the Climate Change to?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 09, 2015, 06:20:24 PM
The great global warming religion :-<

  i'm not the slightest bit religious . 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 09, 2015, 06:27:03 PM
Then how do you explain the masses of gullible people putting their faith, on mere say-so, into an intangible myth without and concrete evidence?

If it looks like a religion, acts like a religion, walks like a religion, then surely it is a religion :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 09, 2015, 06:30:30 PM
Furthermore since the globe is not warming, what do you attribute the Climate Change to?

 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade ever recorded.  If you cherry-pick the charts by only publishing the last 15 years it doesn't look too dire , if you use the full chart then the trend is clear.
I'ts a pity this issue was engineered by some to be a political one, that creates a situation whereby people will stick with ''the team'' rather than examining the issue as an individual.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on October 09, 2015, 06:36:51 PM
Then how do you explain the masses of gullible people putting their faith, on mere say-so, into an intangible myth without and concrete evidence?

If it looks like a religion, acts like a religion, walks like a religion, then surely it is a religion :)

where did this happen ? it's not what i hear and see poddy.
 best i exit the thread , you guys are entitled to the views you hold as am i .
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: rabbitearbandicoot on October 09, 2015, 08:17:37 PM
Then how do you explain the masses of gullible people putting their faith, on mere say-so, into an intangible myth without and concrete evidence?

If it looks like a religion, acts like a religion, walks like a religion, then surely it is a religion :)

where did this happen ? it's not what i hear and see poddy.
 best i exit the thread , you guys are entitled to the views you hold as am i .

just why I haven't commented on this.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on October 09, 2015, 08:26:43 PM
Then how do you explain the masses of gullible people putting their faith, on mere say-so, into an intangible myth without and concrete evidence?

If it looks like a religion, acts like a religion, walks like a religion, then surely it is a religion :)

Podds Podds Podds. How does religion come into this? People see what industry is doing to the environment. They want to live in an environment that won't harm them or the system that provides their means of survival. They don't want to see it destroyed by rampant profiteering.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on October 10, 2015, 09:41:27 AM
There's nothing we can do to change the weather pattern of a whole planet. Man is not going to do it and nothing else I can see is going to do it but we can tidy up our planet but it won't affect the climate one jot.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 10, 2015, 06:10:32 PM

Podds Podds Podds. How does religion come into this? People see what industry is doing to the environment. They want to live in an environment that won't harm them or the system that provides their means of survival. They don't want to see it destroyed by rampant profiteering.

A very fine upstanding sentiment Icy, However it is up to the individual combat the spiraling pollution of our planet.
Humanity as a whole has to resist and sever the symbiotic relationship with manufacturers. Humanity has to get some smarts and cur through the bullcrap that is thrown at it constantly.
Here is a tiny example of the problem.
The constant changing face if say the iPhone. the latest model is much the same as the previous model and the model before it
It makes telephone calls and runs apps and the other features that are available, so what has changed it make it essential to get the new model.
quite a simple answer really, peer pressure and the swallowing  of the hype that it will make you happy and put you amongst the elite. The past models become landfill. this system is depleting the planet of resources and causing pollution.

Now apply that system to just about anything and THAT is the problem.

By the way it does not raise the temperature if the planet.

So the simple answer is become more aware and less gullible.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on October 10, 2015, 06:54:17 PM
Here is an interesting talk given by the Noble Laureate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 09, 2015, 02:05:29 PM
''

    How do I feel about some person like that doing the usual encyclical? It’s what put me off broadcasting them as I used to.

    Now all of the people who are deniers have been on the programs that my colleagues and I put out. We did so because most of us frankly like and enjoy contrarian views. We like a variety of opinion.

    But then you find – as I did – that the people you are inviting in to give their contrarian views are always saying the same bloody thing. You can actually mouth the paragraphs. Here it comes again … just as if they were politicians rather than people considering science.

    The people I put on the radio [now] have just written papers, they have published considered books. In other words, you are doing what you hope is serving the public by getting fresh ideas out to them to consider. But the people you are describing – those deniers – I have not noted saying anything new in bloody years.

    Here it comes again. Favourite phrases are ... CO2 is a colourless harmless gas ... it’s good for growing plants ... and on and on it goes. It’s shameless.

    If on the other hand we had really solid science that made you think twice about the standard climate concerns then on [to the radio] it goes, as it does.

    But it just so happens that a lot of the science, like evolutionary theory, coheres from a zillion points of view because it’s good science that’s describing what is really there. So you will not get stuff that’s off with the pixies or where green turns into red.

    When I see them going on again I think, how can people take it seriously?''
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/nov/09/why-legendary-science-broadcaster-robyn-williams-wont-broadcast-shameless-climate-science-deniers-any-more
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: FriendofaFriend on November 09, 2015, 03:32:29 PM
Here is an interesting talk given by the Noble Laureate



NOBEL he might be, but NOBLE he is not.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on November 09, 2015, 04:09:16 PM

Podds Podds Podds. How does religion come into this? People see what industry is doing to the environment. They want to live in an environment that won't harm them or the system that provides their means of survival. They don't want to see it destroyed by rampant profiteering.

Poddy, general humanity simply has no defence against Corporate greed and Media manipulation.

A very fine upstanding sentiment Icy, However it is up to the individual combat the spiraling pollution of our planet.
Humanity as a whole has to resist and sever the symbiotic relationship with manufacturers. Humanity has to get some smarts and cur through the bullcrap that is thrown at it constantly.
Here is a tiny example of the problem.
The constant changing face if say the iPhone. the latest model is much the same as the previous model and the model before it
It makes telephone calls and runs apps and the other features that are available, so what has changed it make it essential to get the new model.
quite a simple answer really, peer pressure and the swallowing  of the hype that it will make you happy and put you amongst the elite. The past models become landfill. this system is depleting the planet of resources and causing pollution.

Now apply that system to just about anything and THAT is the problem.

By the way it does not raise the temperature if the planet.

So the simple answer is become more aware and less gullible.

Poddy, general humanity simply has no defence against Corporate corruption and Media manipulation. Not to mention the dumbing down of our education system.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 09, 2015, 05:05:24 PM
Frownie, you are attributing was too much credibility to a radio science PRESENTER yes I was a fan of Robin Williams and Sir David Attenbrour  both but their Primary role was to present an interesting show. Science fact on the whole is pretty boring unless you are a scientist in that particular field.

For Robin to make a prediction of 100 metre sea level change in one century is grandstanding bull crap at best.
Anyone with even one grain of logic should be able to see that for that to happen there would have to, 100/(9/8)*the surface area of all the oceans in the world metres, of land locked ice above sea level and for all of that to melt in one century.
For that to happen in that time period the temperature would have to instantly rise above 0 degrees c and stay that way until all that ice melted. All in one century.

Icy, individuals do have a defence that, and that is don't be sucked into the advertising bull crap and become more aware. yes education is being dumbed down to a point where if anyone shows potential they are prevented from exploring that potential.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on November 09, 2015, 05:16:04 PM
Global Warming => Titanic's revenge on the iceberg.

I was watching a documentary on the Tower of London last night and they made mention of how it was a lot colder when people were incarcerated there and how the change in climate was/had effected the mechanics of the London Bridge and damaging the historical artifacts in the tower.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 09, 2015, 05:44:43 PM
Oh dear Cheers, be cautious lest you be drawn into the Global Warming bull crap.

Non quantitative comments that mean bugger all are constantly being seeded into everyday commentary to make the scam more palatable.

Think back, was there a quantitative value put on the temperature difference? was there an explanation of how the bridge mechanics were affected?  I bet not

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 09, 2015, 06:17:44 PM
   "he claims sea levels are rising, tim flannerry  lives on the river '' ''hypocrite'' and so on . selective editing in or out of material or ''cherrypicking'' is how the head in the sand tale is crafted,  such as leaving out the fact that yes, there is a river in front of his home.. at quite a distance uphill !! :)
you see the creek is at the bottom of the valley and he lives on the hill.

 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
No comment on Robins claim Frownie?

Do you attribute any credibility to his claim?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on November 09, 2015, 06:29:10 PM
Oh dear Cheers, be cautious lest you be drawn into the Global Warming bull crap.

Non quantitative comments that mean bugger all are constantly being seeded into everyday commentary to make the scam more palatable.

Think back, was there a quantitative value put on the temperature difference? was there an explanation of how the bridge mechanics were affected?  I bet not

There actually was - about the bridge. They went into a lot of detail about the bridge. the tower, it was more in relation to restoration of the artefacts and discussions on provisions given to prisoners, but the dude who was detailing the workings of the bridge and the alterations that needed to be made in the weights system and how the environment was effecting the mechanics for current operation was really detailed. They went through everything that was involved in raising the bridge in the past and now currently and condensation produced etc oh and the moat, something about inhabitants of the moat back in Henry VIII day couldn't survive now,

They also said that Queen Elizabeth I (before she was queen), Guy Fawkes and some really important Yanky dude were imprisoned in the tower LOL
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 09, 2015, 06:32:19 PM
No comment on Robins claim Frownie?

Do you attribute any credibility to his claim?

well i don't think it's so much a claim as an observation made over time .
and i've noticed much the same pattern as he has .
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 09, 2015, 06:44:59 PM
100 metrea??? you think that it is even possible?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 09, 2015, 06:57:03 PM
I see some on here have drunk mightily of the kool ade.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 12, 2015, 05:03:27 PM
Step 1 - state government grants land owner permission to clear
Step 2 - federal government pays land owner not to clear

Net carbon abatement = zero
Cost to taxpayer = $13.50 per tonne of  carbon emissions that never existed  :D

here's the Abbott/hunt/turnbull carbon tax
''The Turnbull government has bought another 45m tonnes of carbon abatement for $557m – meaning it has spent almost half the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund to buy less than half the greenhouse reductions needed to meet its 2020 target.

At its first auction, held in April, the government bought 47m tonnes of abatement for $660m – an average price of $13.50 a tonne.

A proportion of the greenhouse reductions bought will be delivered after 2020, the date by which the government has promised to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions by 5% compared with 2000 levels.
Greg Hunt hasn't a lot to show for $660m spent on reducing greenhouse emissions

Chloe Munro, the chair of the Clean Energy Regulator (CER), which runs the auctions, said she was “pleased with the high level of participation and competitive bidding which has allowed us to source significant abatement at a lower average price than the first auction”.

She said the CER had awarded 129 carbon abatement contracts, ranging from one to 10 years in length, including industrial and mining projects for the first time.

Questions have been raised about whether all the emission reductions bought were “additional” – in other words that they would not have happened without the government money. Think tanks have pointed out that the fund can achieve only a tiny proportion of Australia’s promised longer term greenhouse gas reductions.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 12, 2015, 05:35:55 PM
Now you can all see what started and continues to fuel the "Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Diversity" bull crap.

Trading in a non existant commodity, and all the gullible sheepies just lap it up
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 12, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
 i think you best tell the government that , because with their carbon tax it costs more to abate (sorta) what you describe as nothing . I describe it as something , as do most . the only real argument now is how to pay for it (nothing)
put it this way , you pay more for what you describe as nothing (and i as 'something')
under the hunt ''plan '' (smirk) than under the former govts genuine plan .  :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 12, 2015, 06:24:18 PM
Regardless of the colour of government, "Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Diversity" is a monumental con, a scam of the highest order designed to deprive people of some of their funds to save them from a non existent fraudulent unseen and unproven threat.
All governments create these sham scams of threat, it is their stock in trade, without these created threats to save us from they could not justify their existence and would not exist.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 12, 2015, 06:44:37 PM
Regardless of the colour of government, "Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Diversity" is a monumental con, a scam of the highest order designed to deprive people of some of their funds to save them from a non existent fraudulent unseen and unproven threat.
All governments create these sham scams of threat, it is their stock in trade, without these created threats to save us from they could not justify their existence and would not exist.


well that is a view you are entitled to. answer me this , when paying for a ''con'' would you rather pay more or less for it ? a less intrusive, fairer ''con'' as it were   :)

 alternatively , seeing as you are paying for the ''con'' (like it or not) along with everyone else , ours being a democratic society (well nominally anyway) and the public erring on the side of doing ''something'' (as proven by the abbott/turnbull govt pretending to do ''something''.. ''something'' being a policy they wouldn't bother with if they hadn't polled the electorate)
Would it be best if the public actually got what they wanted ? considering the cost is still there ?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 12, 2015, 08:13:26 PM
There is no fair "con" all cons are a deceptive and underhanded means of stripping people of funds. Cons exist because most people are gullible and will accept with relish any thing that is fed to them in the cause of what they are told to be good for them.
Instead of applying investigative logic to what they have been led to believe they just swallow it in its entirety.
"Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Diversity" is a monumental con, people should try to extract their head from the orifice they have it firmly wedged in, wipe whatever is clogging their eyes and look around themselves.
Unions have capitalised on the threat of misfortune for many decades as have all governing bodies, insurance companies and the list is never ending.
lack of clear critical thinking in the populace is just as much to blame as the bullcrap organisations who instill this attitude into gullible people.
The deliberate lack of education and the herding of the consuming sheepies into the coral ready for fleecing is appalling, the sheepies are partly responsible for their plight. The worst part is that the non sheepies get swept along with them.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 12, 2015, 08:21:49 PM
 I'm already aware of your views , you didn't answer the question . A carbon tax is paid , which is better the cheaper (for consumers and taxpayers) or the more expensive model (paying polluters to pollute)
A simple ''cheaper model'' or the current more expensive less productive model ? It's obvious you think them both ''cons'' but  which is your choice ?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 12, 2015, 08:31:50 PM
Neither, if the population didn't fall for the bullcrap there would be no tax on something that does not exist.

Each of the governing bodies applies its own particular brand of scam. Overall under conservative governments there is less waste of tax dollars on handouts in one form or another,
Socialist governments are more likely to pander to unions and have the 'gimme' ethos firmly ingrained in their ideology.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 14, 2015, 12:48:26 PM
 so an opinion on everything but the actual question asked. the material i linked to makes a mockery of that claim ''Overall under conservative governments there is less waste of tax dollars ''
 what tosh . take off the blinkers .. some good rust -converter products out there  :D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 16, 2015, 09:09:45 AM
There is an article that purports that the Paris killings was to derail the "Global Warming" conference.  Can these "Global Warming"  lunatics get any worse.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 16, 2015, 09:11:24 AM
I'm already aware of your views , you didn't answer the question . A carbon tax is paid , which is better the cheaper (for consumers and taxpayers) or the more expensive model (paying polluters to pollute)
A simple ''cheaper model'' or the current more expensive less productive model ? It's obvious you think them both ''cons'' but  which is your choice ?

I'm afraid your rhetoric is from the Labor party handbook. Have you got a direct line to the gret verballer Plibbersuck?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 16, 2015, 10:50:39 AM
 are you always a moron   :) or do you save it for here ?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on November 16, 2015, 01:18:08 PM
Australians have long ago payed and played
Their part in reducing carbon emissions when
Everyone had a back yard incinerator which
Is now illegal.If there was to be a carbon tax
Businesses that have excessive emissions
Should pay for it.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on November 16, 2015, 02:18:30 PM
Everyone is stuck in the CO2 track.
There has been no conclusive evidence that CO2 causes global warming or climate change (which has changed ever since the earth was formed)

Do you see how easy it is to sow a seed of falsity and people latch on to it as if were an edict from a god.

Time to WAKE UP!!! people
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: annoyamouse on November 16, 2015, 03:23:44 PM
are you always a moron   :) or do you save it for here ?

The first one. ;D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on November 16, 2015, 03:44:10 PM
By answering mouse, it apoears that question
Was directed at you lol
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on November 16, 2015, 04:00:18 PM
In which case both options would apply  ;D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 16, 2015, 04:40:24 PM
In which case both options would apply  ;D

Yes that she is, but there's really no need to advertise it because we all know it.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on November 17, 2015, 07:40:04 AM
The thing that gets me about all this is - they are talking about global warming. Not universal warming etc. The Earth is such a small tiny spot in space with so many external influences, that I'm not convinced that it is man's fault that the "globe" is warming up. (I do believe that we do have global warming, but don't believe that man is the major cause if at all.)

Maybe I'm wrong, (I don't care enough to google/research beyond what I read here), but has anyone taken the temperature of outer space? Has it heated up? Maybe we're closer to the sun now, maybe there are more stars closer to us now. Has anyone ever measured or considered this stuff? I'm sure i learned that the temperature fluctuated on Saturn resulting in effects on the gas in the rings.

Dunno, but we are just so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I find it hard to believe that man is the major cause and that anything we can do will make a difference because of the effects on Earth of the rest of the universe.

I agree that we are somewhat responsible, as just our increased population numbers means we give off/produce more heat, and then there are all the processes we do through movement and work that create more heat energy, but in the context of the entire universe???
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 17, 2015, 09:35:08 AM
The thing that gets me about all this is - they are talking about global warming. Not universal warming etc. The Earth is such a small tiny spot in space with so many external influences, that I'm not convinced that it is man's fault that the "globe" is warming up. (I do believe that we do have global warming, but don't believe that man is the major cause if at all.)

Maybe I'm wrong, (I don't care enough to google/research beyond what I read here), but has anyone taken the temperature of outer space? Has it heated up? Maybe we're closer to the sun now, maybe there are more stars closer to us now. Has anyone ever measured or considered this stuff? I'm sure i learned that the temperature fluctuated on Saturn resulting in effects on the gas in the rings.

Dunno, but we are just so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I find it hard to believe that man is the major cause and that anything we can do will make a difference because of the effects on Earth of the rest of the universe.

I agree that we are somewhat responsible, as just our increased population numbers means we give off/produce more heat, and then there are all the processes we do through movement and work that create more heat energy, but in the context of the entire universe???

Good opinion Cheers. We are not able to change the temperature of a planet no matter how hard the warmists try to say we do it's all a con masterminded by that bloated failure who has made billions out of it.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 17, 2015, 09:42:32 AM
 we have already changed the temperature . it's there in black and white .
 it may be difficult to understand for some  :) but that's no reason to dismiss it out of hand .
 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on November 17, 2015, 09:45:25 AM
Agree with Frownland here.

We have changed the climate through deforestation, changing the course of waterways and leveling areas.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 17, 2015, 09:47:56 AM
 you forgot carbon emissions . industrial revolution , coal everywhere .. the time and increased CO2 levels match up perfectly . there's no question .
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on November 17, 2015, 09:56:47 AM
Our carbon emissions are negligible to those of the "developing" countries. To which we seem to have no qualms about letting them come in to dig up OUR coal, to burn in THEIR countries creating much wider planetary carbon emissions than Australia would ever aspire to.
Letting them destroy our Farmers in the process.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on November 17, 2015, 10:05:17 AM
with absolutely no empirical evidence or research to back up my opinion, I do believe the world is getting warmer. Just the fact that I remember a time when I had to wear a jumper at least sometimes during winter and for the last two years. I remember needing socks to sleep in so my feet didn't get cold and of course my flannie pyjamas.

And as I said before it does make sense to me that the planet would be warmer than 100 years ago.

If I put 2 people in a room, they give off x amount of heat. If I put 100 people in a room, we give off heaps more and the room gets hot and stuffy. From memory, the population has increased from 4 million to 23 million in the last hundred years or so.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 17, 2015, 10:10:12 AM
 and fossil fuel use is through the roof . it's all there ,  it takes is a diversion away from so -called ''news'' outlets . there are reams of evidence.. proof .
 all it takes is the will to read , not hard.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 17, 2015, 10:50:20 AM
and fossil fuel use is through the roof . it's all there ,  it takes is a diversion away from so -called ''news'' outlets . there are reams of evidence.. proof .
 all it takes is the will to read , not hard.

Most if not all of the so called "evidence" is rent seekers trying to fleece countries with alternative power sources. They don't care a fig about the millions who have no power all they care about is themselves.

Even if the planet warmend by 1 percent that can only benefit the world and Obama trying to make a legacy from his failed presidency and Mr Potato head looking for a policy.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on November 17, 2015, 10:54:34 AM
How has Obama failed at presidency? He got elected for the maximum three terms! Our politicians can't manage to stay in their positions for longer than 2 years lately.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 17, 2015, 11:01:57 AM
How has Obama failed at presidency? He got elected for the maximum three terms! Our politicians can't manage to stay in their positions for longer than 2 years lately.

Sorry Cheers but there's only 2 terms for a presidency. I watch a lot of American news and current affairs and Obama poison to the majority of Americans.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Cheers on November 17, 2015, 11:05:15 AM
well, he has managed to stay there since 2009, so he's still doing far better than any of ours have done recently.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on November 17, 2015, 11:48:55 AM
How has Obama failed at presidency? He got elected for the maximum three terms! Our politicians can't manage to stay in their positions for longer than 2 years lately.

that doesn't mean he was of any benefit to his country or the world in general
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: annoyamouse on November 17, 2015, 12:56:50 PM
Yes, it does.

Remember your support for Tony Abbott thread over yonder?  LOL
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on November 17, 2015, 05:25:07 PM
Al Gore will go down as a bloated rent seeker basking in th millions he gulled out of the followers.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on November 19, 2015, 11:08:47 AM
  al gore is one person and the film is dated now. ordinary people know and gore is at least a contributor unlike his dinosaur detractors who contribute nothing but more methane .
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Mango4me on January 09, 2016, 03:06:44 PM
and fossil fuel use is through the roof . it's all there ,  it takes is a diversion away from so -called ''news'' outlets . there are reams of evidence.. proof .
 all it takes is the will to read , not hard.

Most if not all of the so called "evidence" is rent seekers trying to fleece countries with alternative power sources. They don't care a fig about the millions who have no power all they care about is themselves.

Even if the planet warmend by 1 percent that can only benefit the world and Obama trying to make a legacy from his failed presidency and Mr Potato head looking for a policy.

Even if the planet warmend by 1 percent that can only benefit the world

Is that a joke?   If that happens, it will cause the deaths of millions of inhabitants.   Some benefit.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 09, 2016, 04:15:00 PM

Even if the planet warmend by 1 percent that can only benefit the world

Is that a joke?   If that happens, it will cause the deaths of millions of inhabitants.   Some benefit.

Upon what do you base that assumption?

There are daily, hourly, and even in the space of 1 minute changes of more than 1 degree without adverse effects.
And even right now there are places in the world that have a seasonal temperature variation of not 1 but 80 degrees, in one particular place where that occurs, off the top of my head, there is a population of 12 million.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Mango4me on January 09, 2016, 04:26:50 PM
My assumption is that because there are thousands of deaths reported whenever there are extreme heatwaves, that number will multiply even with one degree added on.   Not to mention crop failures and diminishing of world water.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 09, 2016, 04:51:23 PM
Are you saying that a rise of one degree is extreme?
You quote thousands of deaths due to EXTREME temperature rise. Extreme anything had adverse effects.
The addition of one degree to the maximum does not hold water either since not all heatwaves are of an identical magnitude and neither can the number of deaths be directly related to the level of temperature in degrees.

Diminishing water? The amount of water can not be diminished by any natural force on this earth. Under certain circumstances if can be transformed into another state such as ice or vapour. but those 2 states occur at 0 degrees and 100 degrees not at 1 degree.

 
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 09, 2016, 07:28:51 PM
 1 degree is an average ?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 09, 2016, 08:20:53 PM
What about lightning fires.
Before white man inhabited areas,
Millions of acres of scrubland could have been
Burning out of control for huge periods
Of time and only extinguished by rain.
This would account for a massive  amount
Of  carbon emissions perhaps even equal to  the population
Of australia today.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 09, 2016, 08:39:01 PM
The Global Warming Scam has a lot to answer for, it has demonised carbon and CO2 and that has been seared indelibly into the minds oh uninformed people and will always remain as the villain, even though there is no villain.
Believe it or not, all life on  Earth is a carbon based life form. Life on earth depends on carbon and CO2 for its very existence.


Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 09, 2016, 09:19:58 PM
It was probably started by a sorry
Group of politicians trying to counteract
Their overspending.
Looking for something new to
Impose a tax on.
Finding that everything had been
Taxed besides the air that we breathe.
Taxed the air and called it carbon tax
Because no one would fall for an air tax
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 09, 2016, 10:29:34 PM
There are still some  things that have not bee taxed. Just think how much a nookie tax could raise, putting a meter on it could pose some challenges though  8)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 09, 2016, 10:36:26 PM
I can imagine the slogans to sell the idea "Buck a F..." "Decrease the Debt, Go To Bed" " You can boost the economy by laying down" etc.etc.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: iapetus_rocks on January 10, 2016, 01:21:41 AM
Surely there's no one left who can credibly deny that our human race is causing such a degradation of the environment as to be positively life-threatening?


Humanity has altered the make-up of the Earth so much that it has entered a new epoch called the Anthropocene, according to scientists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/anthropocene-humanity-has-changed-the-earth-so-much-that-it-has-entered-a-new-epoch-scientists-a6802066.html


We'd all like to believe it isn't so; to remain snug and warm inside our cocoon of denialism, sucking on the teat of short-term profitability in our climate-controlled offices and living rooms and shopping malls;

But don't go outside to see the real world as it really is. . .  don't want to shatter our dreams of how we'd like it to be and have, therefore to replace them with  the imperative Necessity of obligation  to do something about it; to fix our negligent mistakes, and to do so rather urgently.

There's a saying (especially popular in the medical profession) "Think globally; act locally".

What's happening in your particular locale lately?

Seas rising much? Temperature hotter than your grand dad remembers? Droughts? or alternating floods and bush fires aplenty? How's the quality of your air supply? Can you even see through the chemical smog haze to that distant shore where birds sing and animals gambol in that (becoming) paradise lost?


Our human activity has changed the environment (our environment) for the worse and has done so within our very own living memory; there is no credible process by which this fact may be denied, despite all of the wishful thinking which would have it be otherwise.


The motives of the denialists are  . . . either they timidly cannot bring themselves to admit of the horror of their/our situation . . . or . . . they have some grubby dollars to make for themselves in the short term by maintaining their position.










Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Laxadanto on January 10, 2016, 08:38:07 AM
Surveys show that a mere 95-97% of scientists who have published peer reviewed papers on Climate change believe it is, indeed, occurring and is due to human activity. You don't really think this handful of ill-informed professionals know more than Poddy, do you?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on January 10, 2016, 09:48:53 AM
I agree with Laxo and Rocks on this one.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 10, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
For every action there  is an equal and opposite
Reaction.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on January 10, 2016, 10:09:13 AM
I agree with you too, Chicka  :D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 10, 2016, 10:39:39 AM
I'd like to take credit for that profound statement
But should probably give it to Newton.
Although this happens indefinitely on a small scale
And can be applied to anything.
Ants dig a hole the earth is displaced.
Rabbits dig enough holes and the warren collapses
Over time.
What effect would humans have on the structure of the
Earth removing a mill. Barrels of oil a day over  an extended period of time.
And what coukd they possibly use as a replacement that
Would compact equal to millions of years of formation.
Fir all we know, oil, gas etc may be responsible in
Part for the earths heating and cooling system
As an insulation between layers.
Who knows what the long term effect of this may
be.Is this responsible somehow for obvious adverse
Weather changes that are happening around the world.
Including tsunamis, earthquakes, sink holes and
Volcanic eruptions.sink holes
Lets call it el nino and the ignorant masses will be none the
Wiser
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 10, 2016, 05:38:15 PM
Surveys show that a mere 95-97% of scientists who have published peer reviewed papers on Climate change believe it is, indeed, occurring and is due to human activity. You don't really think this handful of ill-informed professionals know more than Poddy, do you?

Lax you are focusing on the mythical 95-97% which is a reoccurring figure that keep popping up. Have you ever researched just where that figure came from?
Everyone puts so much faith in "peer review" the operative word in that little chestnut is the word "peer"
Peer meaning equal.

By that standard if a group of people believed that the moon was made of green cheese and they wrote a 'Paper' on it and had it reviewed by their peers, you know the ones that also believed that the moon was a cheesy delectable. Would that alter the composition of the moon? all the moonies  may even have 100% consensus of peer reviewed papers yet the moon would defy their papers and remain the composition that it has always been

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 10, 2016, 05:57:39 PM
Everyone thought the moon was flat.
Now that it has been proven beyond a doubt
No one could possibly believe it's flat
Only when the catastrophic effects of man's
Wholesale destruction can be seen and experienced
By all will it be proven to be true.
Then it will be too late to do anything about it.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 10, 2016, 06:25:00 PM
There is no denying that the event of man has had an impact on the environment, so did the dinosaurs. The environment is in a constant state of flux and it would be very audacious of man to believe that he could destroy the earth. The earth is not a product of man but rather the reverse man is a product of the earth and as a product, man does not own the earth. In all imaginable circumstanced the earth will endure in one form or another.

Man has altered HIS environment to suit man. If that altered environment can no longer sustain man in the numbers and manner that man would like then either the manner or the numbers will be modified and an equilibrium will be reached, not by man but by the environment.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 10, 2016, 06:27:40 PM
Just ask the dinosaurs  ;D
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 10, 2016, 06:29:04 PM
''Everyone puts so much faith in "peer review" the operative word in that little chestnut is the word "peer"
Peer meaning equal.''

 In this instance (as in all scientific fields) the peers are fellow climate scientists .
papers written on the topic (summaries of the data) have a peer agreement of 97% ..
 this means of every 100 qualified people in the field 97 agree. the 3 % that differ are the cranks and those PAID to digress at the request of big energy/oil producers looking to protect the profits of these polluting industries regardless of facts or empirical evidence . These people are obviously without ethics or alternatively completely bonkers. In any case they are the stragglers, .. the industry prostitutes.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 10, 2016, 06:37:27 PM
Frownie I really would like to see where you plucked the 97% from. But I wont hold my breath while you do that I have asked many believers in the mythical 97% and none has been able to the source of the mythical figure.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Laxadanto on January 10, 2016, 06:49:11 PM
Oops. Seems I was wrong - it's more like 99%

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-video/

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong

Bear in mind though, he did only review more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014.
I'm sure Poddy's research has been much more thorough.

Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on January 11, 2016, 08:03:38 AM
97% is rubbish most of them were rent seekers and other bods who have no credentials.

It's funny how the old lied just keep surfacing.

I don't have a problem if there is "Global Warming" I'm just sick of the politics and the criminal fringe dwellers crying out for first world money when they have done nothing to clean up their own mess.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 12:00:51 PM
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
Joseph Bast And
Roy Spencer
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 11, 2016, 12:15:13 PM
 roy spencer ?    ;D  ''siggie reported by realists'' loved him . MM made short work of him and her   however . all the idiot siggie could write was ''giggle''  i suggest you go that route  :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 12:16:18 PM
And a bit more "Light reading" on the oft quoted mythical 97% consensus.  Enjoy

Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
Anthony Watts / September 3, 2013
UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.   
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”
Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”
Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.
“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”
###
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 12:19:10 PM
Frownie you might like to actually open your mind and do some reading and so that you can draw your own conclusions
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 11, 2016, 12:41:37 PM
IMO the results that scientists bring to the table
Is determined by where the funds are coming from
For example.re smoking
If the cigarette companies are paying scientists
To research effect, their effort would be to disprove
Harmful effects of smoking.
If the government was funding then the opposite
Would apply.
If Japanes govt.were funding the effects of whaling
On the environment, there would be a very different
Outcome by scientists employed by Greenpeace.
If the cause of pollution from vehicles were funded by
Car manufacturers, or oil companies, this too
Would be guaranteed to have a different outcome
If funded by environmentalists.
As the biggest percentage of scientists would be
Funded by governments, I'm guessing, the biggest percentage
Of consensus qould be in favour of a government agenda.
If you could figure out over all what that agenda is
There you would have the answer to the Topic
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 11, 2016, 12:47:35 PM
''IMO the results that scientists bring to the table
Is determined by where the funds are coming from
For example.re smoking
If the cigarette companies are paying scientists
To research effect, their effort would be to disprove
Harmful effects of smoking.''

The same people who fund the tripe poddy peddles also fund tobacco's fight against measures like plain packaging .  these two toxic legal industries employ the same media arm. :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 11, 2016, 12:47:56 PM
Unless of course you have a scientist who isnt
Funded by anyone  and just wants to get to truth.

As oposed to a scientist who isn't funded by anyone
And wants his name in the history books.

The former would be the 1% out of character and
With a different outcome but is most likely to be
More accurate.

I hope that makes sense to someone .
In conclusion, you cant really believe what scientists
Are telling you about the environment.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 12:56:48 PM

The same people who fund the tripe poddy peddles also fund tobacco's fight against measures like plain packaging .  these two toxic legal industries employ the same media arm. :)

Would you like to demonstrate that frownie or are you just regurgitating the same old baseless diatribe according to you leftie mantra?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on January 11, 2016, 12:57:53 PM
a scientist like that would be very quickly shouted down and his findings discredited if they went against the certain company interests.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 11, 2016, 02:05:41 PM
''Would you like to demonstrate that frownie or are you just regurgitating the same old baseless diatribe according to you leftie mantra?''

 the line ''leftie mantra'' is in fact what discredits you most apart from the dismal carp you C and P here. This issue isn't political it's about survival . as long as you only look at the ''approved reading'' of the side you have chosen you will always be ignorant. I've looked at the spencer (etc) arguments and put them aside .. you haven't looked outside the cocoon you feel safe in and will remain clueless as a result. even a cursory look at what is going on around you should trigger some sort of reaction .. a desire to revisit the material at least ? but no .. still stuck in Koch bros land . sad really , but proof stubborn stupidity can override reality  :)
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 11, 2016, 02:16:35 PM
Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 and 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation about climate science, now prominently acknowledges on their website that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.”

But appearances can be deceiving.

For one, BP still channels funds through its political action committee to climate science-denying US policymakers such as senator James Inhofe, chair of the senate’s environment and public works committee. While such direct contributions to politicians are a matter of public record, companies continue to sow climate doubt and influence climate policy in ways that are far more opaque.

For instance, recently released documents show that ExxonMobil gave more than $75,000 between 2008 and 2010 to secretly support the work of Willie Soon, a contrarian climate researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, well after the company announced it would halt such funding. Soon’s research has sought to downplay the human influence on global warming.

This follows revelations that Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the US, spent $400,000 between 2006 and 2015 to fund Soon, supporting his research, Congressional testimony, and other “deliverables” while specifying that its funding be disclosed only with express company permission.

Robert Gehri, the Southern Company employee who authorised this funding was one of a dozen industry representatives who, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, created a $6m campaign in 1998 that misled the public about climate science. Among other strategies, he oversaw the covert funding of “independent” scientists.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Frownie, I note that you have once again side stepped the question and offered nothing as where the 97% consensus was derived from.

Your claim that it is a matter of "survival" yet you offer no explanation as to what the threat to survival is, all that you offer is that it is real but not what the threat is. the facts remain that there has been no significant rise in temperature in the last two decade or so. You have stated that the climate is changing but you offer no definitive degree of what and how it is changing. The climate has always changed and will continue to change due to many variable factors that can never be all included in any computer model. In fact the computer models that exist have been proven to have been fudged. The events predicted by those models and predictions made by the so called climate scientists have not eventuated. yet you firmly hold on to the stuff that you have been led to believe.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 02:44:10 PM
Have a good look at you cast of players in the farce
Tell me that there are no vested interests there


Peter C Frumhoff is the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University and the author with Erik M Conway of Merchants of Doubt, which is the subject of a new documentary, and The Collapse of Western Civilisation.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 11, 2016, 02:44:22 PM
''The events predicted by those models and predictions made by the so called climate scientists have not eventuated. yet you firmly hold on to the stuff that you have been led to believe.''

 http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial.302183828.pdf
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 11, 2016, 03:09:46 PM
What has the opinion of 2 sociologist have to do with the issue? Are you going to say that they don't have a vested interest?
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 11, 2016, 03:14:20 PM
Google the effects possible climate change is having
On the polar icecaps.
Since monitering by satellite only for the last
Twenty years, the northern hemisphere caps are
Melting a rate of 9% every decade.
Mire in the last 20 than is thought to have happened
In the last 20, 000 years.
These play an integral part in the earths cooling
System.
There is believed to be 7000 feet of ice in antarctica.
Over an expanse of millions of square feet.
There is enough ice there, if was to melt,  to raise
The level of the worlds oceans 200 feet.
A 2 degree drop in world temperature contributed to the
Last ice age.
So a one degree raise, seemingly insignificant,
Has already impacted  Ocean levels have raised
Over the last 20 years 11+ mm.
This is very disturbing evidence of climate change,
Whether or not man has caused the change is
Debatable, but the effects of mankind  on the world
And its resources, has to impact sooner or later.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 11, 2016, 03:22:27 PM
What has the opinion of 2 sociologist have to do with the issue? Are you going to say that they don't have a vested interest?

 If you read the article you'd know it isn't about the science itself , the article relates to the corruption of the process and the activities involved.  :)
I'ts one of many sources .
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: chickaboom on January 11, 2016, 03:30:20 PM
Google the effect to lichen by pollution and
Temperature rise.
This is the staple  of reindeer in the northern
hemisphere.
Slight changes in the earths overall temp has
A domino effect on all living organisms and
Certain organisms are indicators to change.
Like  a canary in a coal mine.
This also includes water organisms such as
Frogs.which are at the core of their ecosystem
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Laxadanto on January 11, 2016, 04:44:24 PM
97% is rubbish most of them were rent seekers and other bods who have no credentials.

It's funny how the old lied just keep surfacing.

I don't have a problem if there is "Global Warming" I'm just sick of the politics and the criminal fringe dwellers crying out for first world money when they have done nothing to clean up their own mess.
[/quote

Powell's survey covered  more than  24000 reviews of published papers. Can you enlighten us as to  which of those 24000+ reviewers were 'rent seekers' and provide evidence to support this? You don't have to name them all - just a dozen would do.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Mango4me on January 11, 2016, 05:01:46 PM
It is just an excuse to use the term "rent seekers", last year's oft quoted description of almost anybody. 

I was hoping that the new year would bring another fave.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on January 12, 2016, 10:29:46 AM
Rent seekers is the only description that fits. Sorry if your don't like it.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on January 12, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
"Global Warming" seems to be the topic of choice of leftists, they believe they own it and use it politically all the time.

Why it has been made into a political football, ask Kevin Rudd who lived and died on it, it destroyed him and ultimately destroyed the Labor party.

Take the politics out of it, take the rent seekers out of and just get on with what our country is doing to mitigate any Global Warming.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Laxadanto on January 12, 2016, 06:16:11 PM
Rent seekers is the only description that fits. Sorry if your don't like it.

It only fits if you can prove that's what they are, and so far you haven't shown us any evidence to back up your claim.
 It may be that the number of those with a vested interest in accepting man made climate change is as great as or greater than those with a vested interest in rejecting it; but, given the  percentages, even if the 'rent seeking' accepters outnumbered the  deniers by a factor of 2, 5, or even 10 to 1 they would still represent a very tiny percentage of climate scientists.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Poddy on January 12, 2016, 06:27:54 PM
Politics aside, the "97% of scientists" and the people who are responsible for concocting that number and those who are responsible for etching that fictitious figure into the unaware and ill informed populace have a lot to answer for.
As do the gullible public who eagerly swallow anything that is fed to them.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Laxadanto on January 12, 2016, 07:08:27 PM
Politics aside, the "97% of scientists" and the people who are responsible for concocting that number and those who are responsible for etching that fictitious figure into the unaware and ill informed populace have a lot to answer for.
As do the gullible public who eagerly swallow anything that is fed to them.

Then go for it Poddy. Enlighten us. We await with baited breath  your analytical dissection of Powell's survey and your well researched evidence as to why he is wrong and you are right.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: lightningdance on January 12, 2016, 11:08:36 PM
Offs, lifes too short to trawl through this subject again and again and again. Move on and just be grateful our country is doing something.
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: iapetus_rocks on January 13, 2016, 01:30:14 AM
Who needs scientists ?

It's an obvious observation that if a person pours rubbish into their own back yard, then that back yard is not going to be so enjoyable to walk around in.

Even if there is no proof that Industry pollutes our environment, we should still take care to minimize any potential risk of pollution.

It's too late to do this after the fact.


Think globally; act locally.


People who act to make private money by degrading the public environment are approaching the level of war criminals.

and as far as I am concerned, they should be apprehended by the outraged and oppressed public and taught some hard lessons.

their actions are violent towards us. they destroy our landscape and they pollute our air and our water supply.

and we put up with it. meekly. why? and for how much longer?








Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Icyfroth on January 13, 2016, 09:22:03 AM
agree with above
Title: Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
Post by: Frownland on January 14, 2016, 04:43:47 PM
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

 :) sucked in cobbers