MH_Bomber wrote:The skeptic's ego astounds me. You don't understand it and yet you are prepared to poo poo thousands of scientists that have studied this exact subject matter for decades that have had their work peer reviewed.You would rather take the word of some of the ilk of Piers Akerman or Andrew Bolt over these people.
The only lobby group that gains from creating doubt over the science of climate change are the big polluters like petro chemical multi nationals and coal miner concerns. Hang on, I know, you'll trot out skeptic parrot phrase number 10. Scientists like CSIRO climate scientists are doing this big scare campaign to justify their outrageous income -Yeah right. ] (*,)
Entire think tanks like the IPA have been set up to back the big polluters. Please direct you skeptical inclinations towards mobs like this and people that spout quotes from mobs like this.
=D>
Gotta love the hysterical doomsayers. Armegeddon is a comin' all thanks to the nasty man made carbon emission. LOL!
I can make the sea rise, heat up the earth, cool it down again, grow the ice caps, create hurricanes, tsunamis, bizarre storm cells, and any other weather phenomenon just by emitting carbon.
Of course non of these events occurred before man made carbon. Such a big influence it is....
Convince me MH. But don't quote the script from The Day After Tomorrow.
Convince you? You don't believe in "The Science". You seem incapable (unwilling) of grasping the most basic concepts when they contradict what you "know". In fact on most occasions you are unwilling to even look at contradictory evidence.
I've seen more open minded creationists.
Yes Mr Sismis, you've proven lots of things with your science.
I much rather listen to the views of NIPCC than the IPCC. But you can go ahead and present politically biased science as fact. It doesn't bother me what you do.
So Ben are you saying 95% of Scientists are wrong and the other 5% and the Bolt's of this World are right? Probably get hit by a bolt of lightening for even thinking this, but I hope you and the latter are correct, but sadly my friend, you are not.
"IN A FOUR DEGREE WARMER AUSTRALIA, temperate Dubbo would ‘migrate’ to the equivalent latitude of the desert town of Hermannsburg, Sydney would be the new Rockhampton, while Darwin and Cairns would be like no place yet on earth.
“We have come here to think about the unthinkable,” the introductory speaker proclaimed and so the seminar / come book launch began.
I had been hoping for a glass or two of wine and traditional nibbles to buffer and soften the blow of this event; for the chance to mingle with the ‘likeminded’ and the ‘sexiness’ of sociability. After all, the prospect of the world achieving four degrees of warming by the beginning of next century was devastating to contemplate. A traditional wake was called for.
I steeled myself for a depressing two hours of predictions, slides, graphs, statistics and stomach churning summaries, delivered by seven of the thirty distinguished scientists and experts who had contributed to the book. Its unequivocal message was captured by the title: Four degrees of Global Warming. Australia in a Hot World."
I haven't presented anything as fact, as I've repeatedly said my view is based on the vast majority of research and the weight of scientific opinion.
I had not heard of the NIPCC so i had a quick look at their site. They also seem to believe in a human influence on climate change, (they dispute the magnitude and cite potential benefits). But it's a bit one sided to state the contrary view is politically biased without revealing that the NIPCC is funded by fossil fuel interests.
Sismis wrote:I haven't presented anything as fact, as I've repeatedly said my view is based on the vast majority of research and the weight of scientific opinion.
I had not heard of the NIPCC so i had a quick look at their site. They also seem to believe in a human influence on climate change, (they dispute the magnitude and cite potential benefits). But it's a bit one sided to state the contrary view is politically biased without revealing that the NIPCC is funded by fossil fuel interests.
Funded by fossil fuel interests? Any evidence of this? There's no doubt about government funded IPCC. Maybe you're suggesting the NIPCC could be bribed by fossil fuel interests? That could be the case. But difficult to expose.
Ask the IPA, George Pell, Media and Big Business who run the country now.....and who they represent.......and to whom Phoney takes his orders and the Poodle takes it up the couta.
And they laugh at the working class people who voted for them. "Suckers" they will laughing over their Moet.
While they do go to great lengths to hide their funding sources, "the Heartland", (the conservative "thinktank" behind the NIPCC)has been proven to receive funding from both Exxon and the Koch brothers.
But ignoring the potential effect of fossil fuel funding, you found an interesting choice to avoid political bias...
Sismis wrote:While they do go to great lengths to hide their funding sources, "the Heartland", (the conservative "thinktank" behind the NIPCC)has been proven to receive funding from both Exxon and the Koch brothers.
But ignoring the potential effect of fossil fuel funding, you found an interesting choice to avoid political bias...
So, in effect, two worlds collide. How amusing. Two opposing agendas using scientists to drive their interests. But only government paid scientists are to be believed I suppose...
As the world spins and orbits the sun which generally controls our weather and climate, we shall keep on debating CO2 (which is less than 1% of our atmosphere) has the biggest influence over our climate.
Tony Abbott looks to be appeasing big business at the expense of the rest of us.
...............................................
It's too early to tell just whose interests the Abbott government is seeking to advance. Maybe it doesn't yet know itself. But I get a bit twitchy when I hear politicians running the line that what's good for General Motors is good for America.
I worry when I hear allegations that Australia bugged the cabinet room of a friendly nation not in the national interest but in the interest of a particular Australian company. Then that one of the politicians at the time has since become an adviser to the company.
And I confess to being concerned about what deal the Trade Minister, Andrew Robb, is doing in our name at the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in Singapore this week.......................
To this end, the length of copyright would be extended beyond the 70 years to which it has already been extended and copyright infringement would be made a criminal offence. It would be made easier for pharmaceutical companies to artificially extend the life of their patents and frustrate the activities of others wishing to produce generic versions.
It's clear this would greatly benefit America's big entertainment, software and drug companies. What's equally clear is that it has no economic justification, being simple ''rent-seeking'' - government intervention in markets to enhance the profits of particular companies. Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox would be a prime beneficiary.
Sismis wrote:While they do go to great lengths to hide their funding sources, "the Heartland", (the conservative "thinktank" behind the NIPCC)has been proven to receive funding from both Exxon and the Koch brothers.
But ignoring the potential effect of fossil fuel funding, you found an interesting choice to avoid political bias...
So, in effect, two worlds collide. How amusing. Two opposing agendas using scientists to drive their interests. But only government paid scientists are to be believed I suppose...
As the world spins and orbits the sun which generally controls our weather and climate, we shall keep on debating CO2 (which is less than 1% of our atmosphere) has the biggest influence over our climate.
Ozone is less than 1 ppm I guess we don't need to worry about that either....
Sismis wrote:While they do go to great lengths to hide their funding sources, "the Heartland", (the conservative "thinktank" behind the NIPCC)has been proven to receive funding from both Exxon and the Koch brothers.
But ignoring the potential effect of fossil fuel funding, you found an interesting choice to avoid political bias...
So, in effect, two worlds collide. How amusing. Two opposing agendas using scientists to drive their interests. But only government paid scientists are to be believed I suppose...
As the world spins and orbits the sun which generally controls our weather and climate, we shall keep on debating CO2 (which is less than 1% of our atmosphere) has the biggest influence over our climate.
Ozone is less than 1 ppm I guess we don't need to worry about that either....
Well it won't create typhoons, cyclones, ice caps to melt, ice caps to re-freeze, dinosaurs to die, the Titanic to sink, the Hindenburg to burn, Noah to build his Ark, the whales to beach themselves, and any apocalyptic event you can think of....
And of course, we need more ozone, not less of it.
Sismis wrote:While they do go to great lengths to hide their funding sources, "the Heartland", (the conservative "thinktank" behind the NIPCC)has been proven to receive funding from both Exxon and the Koch brothers.
But ignoring the potential effect of fossil fuel funding, you found an interesting choice to avoid political bias...
So, in effect, two worlds collide. How amusing. Two opposing agendas using scientists to drive their interests. But only government paid scientists are to be believed I suppose...
As the world spins and orbits the sun which generally controls our weather and climate, we shall keep on debating CO2 (which is less than 1% of our atmosphere) has the biggest influence over our climate.
Ozone is less than 1 ppm I guess we don't need to worry about that either....
Well it won't create typhoons, cyclones, ice caps to melt, ice caps to re-freeze, dinosaurs to die, the Titanic to sink, the Hindenburg to burn, Noah to build his Ark, the whales to beach themselves, and any apocalyptic event you can think of....
And of course, we need more ozone, not less of it.
No, it's reduction threatened to irradiate the planet with UVB rays. Actually your boys at Heartland don't believe in manmade ozone depletion either... Through their collaboration with Phillip Morris they also do not believe second hand smoke causes cancer.
The following are theories accepted almost universally, even Heartland don't dispute them.
A tilt of the earth of around 23 degrees is responsible for a delta in average temp of over ten degrees in Melbourne between the hottest and coldest months.
An Ozone layer of > 0.0001% blocks the majority of UVB radiation.
CO2 at less than ~0.35% absorbs and releases infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is a form of heat energy.
I don't think anyone has claimed CO2 is the biggest influence on our climate but it's concentration at ~0.35% is not insignificant.
Sismis wrote:While they do go to great lengths to hide their funding sources, "the Heartland", (the conservative "thinktank" behind the NIPCC)has been proven to receive funding from both Exxon and the Koch brothers.
But ignoring the potential effect of fossil fuel funding, you found an interesting choice to avoid political bias...
So, in effect, two worlds collide. How amusing. Two opposing agendas using scientists to drive their interests. But only government paid scientists are to be believed I suppose...
As the world spins and orbits the sun which generally controls our weather and climate, we shall keep on debating CO2 (which is less than 1% of our atmosphere) has the biggest influence over our climate.
Ozone is less than 1 ppm I guess we don't need to worry about that either....
Well it won't create typhoons, cyclones, ice caps to melt, ice caps to re-freeze, dinosaurs to die, the Titanic to sink, the Hindenburg to burn, Noah to build his Ark, the whales to beach themselves, and any apocalyptic event you can think of....
And of course, we need more ozone, not less of it.
No, it's reduction threatened to irradiate the planet with UVB rays. Actually your boys at Heartland don't believe in manmade ozone depletion either... Through their collaboration with Phillip Morris they also do not believe second hand smoke causes cancer.
The following are theories accepted almost universally, even Heartland don't dispute them.
A tilt of the earth of around 23 degrees is responsible for a delta in average temp of over ten degrees in Melbourne between the hottest and coldest months.
An Ozone layer of > 0.0001% blocks the majority of UVB radiation.
CO2 at less than ~0.35% absorbs and releases infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is a form of heat energy.
I don't think anyone has claimed CO2 is the biggest influence on our climate but it's concentration at ~0.35% is not insignificant.
Yer.
Perhaps focus on methane, nitrous oxide, CFC's, sulfur hexafluride, HFC's and PFC's to reduce the greenhouse effect. Plants need CO2 to survive. Kill more cows I say!
BERT re: Peta Credlin. Its not me whose saying she's running the government - its half the Abbott Ministers. Between her Abbott, Hockey, Morrison, Hunt they have made a complete hash of the first 100 days.
Getting a lot of negative press, but I think the government was spot on in making GM fess up about their plans for Australia. It was INEVITABLE and the government has saved hundreds of millions of dollars in doing so.
Holden has had a long term exit strategy in Australia, they refused to alter their manufacturing to meet to shift in consumer habits and funnily enough they lost money.
It is always tough to lose your job, but with the four years notice they now have, it should be a lot easier to manage the transition.
MH_Bomber wrote:BERT re: Peta Credlin. Its not me whose saying she's running the government - its half the Abbott Ministers. Between her Abbott, Hockey, Morrison, Hunt they have made a complete hash of the first 100 days.
How can she run the government if Abbott has a problem with women as you claimed?
boncer34 wrote:How's he f****** the car industry MH?
The proof of pudding is in the eating.
When you aren't willing to invest in the long term future of the car industry and you want to pull 1/2 an odd billion out the Detroit decision makers weren't willing to stay in Australian. When the Warren Truss and Joe Hockey get up in parliament and dare GMH to leave, it really is a case of be careful of what you ask for because you just might get it.
I reckon the Industry Minister has been very badly betrayed by the rest of cabinet. He seemed to be the only one in there fighting to keep Holden here. Kim Carr (the ex Labor Minister), who is collectively respected, puts the blame squarely on the ideologues running the government agenda.
Peta Credlin is running the government agenda despite Abbott's misogyny. Have you been reading Andrew Bolt again BERT ?
boncer34 wrote:How's he f****** the car industry MH?
The proof of pudding is in the eating.
When you aren't willing to invest in the long term future of the car industry and you want to pull 1/2 an odd billion out the Detroit decision makers weren't willing to stay in Australian. When the Warren Truss and Joe Hockey get up in parliament and dare GMH to leave, it really is a case of be careful of what you ask for because you just might get it.
I reckon the Industry Minister has been very badly betrayed by the rest of cabinet. He seemed to be the only one in there fighting to keep Holden here. Kim Carr (the ex Labor Minister), who is collectively respected, puts the blame squarely on the ideologues running the government agenda.
Peta Credlin is running the government agenda despite Abbott's misogyny. Have you been reading Andrew Bolt again BERT ?
Holden was leaving MH. Whether it be Liberal, Labour or the Palmer Uniter Party in charge it doesn't matter. The car industry in Australia has been a dying breed for a very very long time and nobody was shocked by the announcement.
If you were then you had your head in the sand.
So yes blame this on Abbott all you want, but yesterdays announcement was coming a very long time ago.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just deluded.
boncer34 wrote:How's he f****** the car industry MH?
The proof of pudding is in the eating.
When you aren't willing to invest in the long term future of the car industry and you want to pull 1/2 an odd billion out the Detroit decision makers weren't willing to stay in Australian. When the Warren Truss and Joe Hockey get up in parliament and dare GMH to leave, it really is a case of be careful of what you ask for because you just might get it.
I reckon the Industry Minister has been very badly betrayed by the rest of cabinet. He seemed to be the only one in there fighting to keep Holden here. Kim Carr (the ex Labor Minister), who is collectively respected, puts the blame squarely on the ideologues running the government agenda.
Peta Credlin is running the government agenda despite Abbott's misogyny. Have you been reading Andrew Bolt again BERT ?
Way to avoid the question so I'll ask it again
How can she run the government if Abbott has a problem with women as you claimed?
=D>
